Sproul - God's Will of Disposition

[TylerRay]

Is Sproul correct to state that God has a "will of disposition," apart from his decretive and preceptive will? Are Sproul's comments consonant with Divine Simplicity?

[video=youtube;uR4y6_teHS0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR4y6_teHS0[/video]

 

[MW]

"Disposition" in itself indicates something that is not active but responsive. The way it is explained in the video clip "disposition" is purely passive and helpless in the face of realities beyond the control of the "disposed." God is likened to a judge who is bound by an external law and righteousness, who is subject to conflicting situations in which he is unable to fulfil his "disposition," and thereby brought to grief. This is not consonant with divine sovereignty or simplicity. It is also contrary to some of the basic commitments of the gospel, which reveals that God's love is demonstrated in sending His Son to satisfy law and justice and thereby save His people from their sin.

 

[earl40]

"Disposition" in itself indicates something that is not active but responsive. The way it is explained in the video clip "disposition" is purely passive and helpless in the face of realities beyond the control of the "disposed." God is likened to a judge who is bound by an external law and righteousness, who is subject to conflicting situations in which he is unable to fulfil his "disposition," and thereby brought to grief. This is not consonant with divine sovereignty or simplicity. It is also contrary to some of the basic commitments of the gospel, which reveals that God's love is demonstrated in sending His Son to satisfy law and justice and thereby save His people from their sin.

Oh how I wish RC would visit this board now and then to read your thoughts in this area. Personally I know many in the USA and around the world look to RC as some kind of final word or pope on all things reformed, and though I enjoy his work a lot I have seen this incorrect belief about Our Lord's simplicity and will permeate much of his teaching which in turn does the same for his unshakeable followers. I wish to express how much I enjoy him and his goal to teach beyond what we get on Sunday morning is admiral, though his "ministry" is lacking much official ecclesiological accountability. I say this that know he is a pastor in good standing who is practicing "out of bounds".

 

[MW]

Dr. Sproul had Dr. Gerstner for a teacher; he already knows these things. He expresses himself better in his work on the Westminster Confession, chap. 2, where he states that God is a law unto Himself and has no struggles within his own character. Regrettably he also affirms emotions in God, but the confessional teaching and his own understanding of it negate his affirmation of divine emotion.

 

[timfost]

Is Sproul correct to state that God has a "will of disposition," apart from his decretive and preceptive will? Are Sproul's comments consonant with Divine Simplicity?

I think we're on the wrong track if we advocate multiple wills in God. Even the decretive/preceptive distinction doesn't advocate two wills as Calvin really admits (Institutes 1.18.3, 3.24.17).

However, theologians make a habit of speaking about the components of the manifold expressions of the will of God. This sometimes gives the impression that God had a plurality of wills.

If RC is simply speaking about the manifold expression of God's will (singular), I don't think there is much of an issue. If he is advocating plurality in God's will, then there is an issue. The video doesn't make that clear so I think charity is warranted.

For those advocating such a disposition in God, this has been described as an aspect of His revealed/preceptive will.

Murray:

The word "desire" has come to be used in the debate, not because it is necessarily the most accurate or felicitous word but because it serves to set forth quite sharply a certain implication of the full and free offer of the gospel to all. This implication is that in the free offer there is expressed not simply the bare preceptive will of God but the disposition of lovingkindness on the part of God pointing to the salvation to be gained through compliance with the overtures of gospel grace. In other words, the gospel is not simply an offer or invitation but also implies that God delights that those to whom the offer comes would enjoy what is offered in all its fullness. And the word "desire" has been used in order to express the thought epitomized in Ezekiel 33:11, which is to the effect that God has pleasure that the wicked turn from his evil way and live. It might as well have been said, "It pleases God that the wicked repent and be saved."

Again, the expression "God desires," in the formula that crystallizes the crux of the question, is intended to notify not at all the "seeming" attitude of God but a real attitude, a real disposition of lovingkindness inherent in the free offer to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given.

http://www.opc.org/GA/free_offer.html

 

[earl40]

Dr. Sproul had Dr. Gerstner for a teacher; he already knows these things. He expresses himself better in his work on the Westminster Confession, chap. 2, where he states that God is a law unto Himself and has no struggles within his own character. Regrettably he also affirms emotions in God, but the confessional teaching and his own understanding of it negate his affirmation of divine emotion.

So if RC affirms, and teaches in this clip, God has emotions contra to what our confessions teach how does this negate his affirmation? Is it simply a matter him of holding two polar opposite beliefs which we ought not to do and is simply him not recognizing such? I would assume when RC teaches on the impassibility of Our Lord from the confessions he would teach God does not have emotions contra to the clip in this thread.

 

[MW]

So if RC affirms, and teaches in this clip, God has emotions contra to what our confessions teach how does this negate his affirmation? Is it simply a matter him of holding two polar opposite beliefs which we ought not to do and is simply him not recognizing such? I would assume when RC teaches on the impassibility of Our Lord from the confessions he would teach God does not have emotions contra to the clip in this thread.

He explains "without passions" to mean without human passions and then affirms divine emotions as different to human emotions. It is basically the view popularised by J I Packer's Knowing God. When I spoke of negating his affirmation I did not mean that he does this himself but that in principle one could not hold to a belief that God is a law unto Himself and unchangeable while still maintaining divine emotion. The very idea of e-motion is to be moved from another and supposes external constraints. The reformed theologians of the past explained these as belonging to the divine and voluntary condescension to deal with man in accord with the terms of the covenant, but numerous theologians today who call themselves "reformed" will affirm that these are proper and intrinsic to God's nature.

 

[earl40]

So if RC affirms, and teaches in this clip, God has emotions contra to what our confessions teach how does this negate his affirmation? Is it simply a matter him of holding two polar opposite beliefs which we ought not to do and is simply him not recognizing such? I would assume when RC teaches on the impassibility of Our Lord from the confessions he would teach God does not have emotions contra to the clip in this thread.

He explains "without passions" to mean without human passions and then affirms divine emotions as different to human emotions. It is basically the view popularised by J I Packer's Knowing God. When I spoke of negating his affirmation I did not mean that he does this himself but that in principle one could not hold to a belief that God is a law unto Himself and unchangeable while still maintaining divine emotion. The very idea of e-motion is to be moved from another and supposes external constraints. The reformed theologians of the past explained these as belonging to the divine and voluntary condescension to deal with man in accord with the terms of the covenant, but numerous theologians today who call themselves "reformed" will affirm that these are proper and intrinsic to God's nature.

Thank you. What I also heard, and believe, that God does not even change His being based on Himself which rules out any sense of an emotion in Himself. It is a joyous thing to have a steadfast God who condescended Himself to our weakness and left us not looking for Him which dwells in incomprehensible light.

 

[Toasty]

So if RC affirms, and teaches in this clip, God has emotions contra to what our confessions teach how does this negate his affirmation? Is it simply a matter him of holding two polar opposite beliefs which we ought not to do and is simply him not recognizing such? I would assume when RC teaches on the impassibility of Our Lord from the confessions he would teach God does not have emotions contra to the clip in this thread.

He explains "without passions" to mean without human passions and then affirms divine emotions as different to human emotions. It is basically the view popularised by J I Packer's Knowing God. When I spoke of negating his affirmation I did not mean that he does this himself but that in principle one could not hold to a belief that God is a law unto Himself and unchangeable while still maintaining divine emotion. The very idea of e-motion is to be moved from another and supposes external constraints. The reformed theologians of the past explained these as belonging to the divine and voluntary condescension to deal with man in accord with the terms of the covenant, but numerous theologians today who call themselves "reformed" will affirm that these are proper and intrinsic to God's nature.

Does he teach that divine emotions are neither passive nor reactive in nature?

 

[MW]

Does he teach that divine emotions are neither passive nor reactive in nature?

The reader could gather this from his explanation of other confessional statements. In the section dealing with "without passions" it is not made clear, and he goes so far as to say "not that he has no cares" (1:37).

Part of the problem, as I perceive it, is that human language is filled with emotive terms which become a part of describing personal action, and theologians "feel" constrained to use these terms so as not to give the impression that God is impersonal. The consequence is that God is described as being two different things -- what He is in relation to the creature and what He is IN SE, in Himself; and from this develops numerous contradictions so that they take away with one hand what they give with the other.

 

[earl40]

The consequence is that God is described as being two different things -- what He is in relation to the creature and what He is IN SE, in Himself; and from this develops numerous contradictions so that they take away with one hand what they give with the other.

This bad consequence would not arise if a reformed view of the two natures of Jesus was held and taught In my most humble opinion.

 

[MW]

The consequence is that God is described as being two different things -- what He is in relation to the creature and what He is IN SE, in Himself; and from this develops numerous contradictions so that they take away with one hand what they give with the other.

This bad consequence would not arise if a reformed view of the two natures of Jesus was held and taught In my most humble opinion.

Good point. We feel for people and desire to make God known as personally present in their day to day conflicts. The sympathy of Christ as Mediator effectively introduces this personal aspect without compromising His majesty.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I suppose, if really pressed, Sproul would probably agree that it's a form of anthropopathetic language to speak of God as having emotions but I agree that it's not helpful.

We can stick with the language of Scripture to know that, as far as we can understand God, certain things grieve Him or cause Him delight. At the same time, however, we're to remember that His ways are not our ways.

It seems to me that one of the most needful things for Christians to remember is that God is the Creator. I think we need to hammer that point home for it is a fundamental truth of the Gospel and the kindness of God that He condescends to us by way of Covenant and the Mediator is Christ. When we bring God down in such a way as to make Him "folksy" or altogether like us then, in some sense, it seems like we're saying: "Well God is so much like you that you really don't need any kind of Covenant (or Mediator) to really know Him. Just think about Him like this and you know Him because you know what it's like to have emotions and feelings too. God is like that."

What I've noticed is that there is a certain apologetical "felt need" by some that, unless man can justify God on their own terms, that He's not worthy of our worship. Things are totally on their head when we do this.

 

[earl40]

I suppose, if really pressed, Sproul would probably agree that it's a form of anthropopathetic language to speak of God as having emotions but I agree that it's not helpful.

We can stick with the language of Scripture to know that, as far as we can understand God, certain things grieve Him or cause Him delight. At the same time, however, we're to remember that His ways are not our ways.

It seems to me that one of the most needful things for Christians to remember is that God is the Creator. I think we need to hammer that point home for it is a fundamental truth of the Gospel and the kindness of God that He condescends to us by way of Covenant and the Mediator is Christ. When we bring God down in such a way as to make Him "folksy" or altogether like us then, in some sense, it seems like we're saying: "Well God is so much like you that you really don't need any kind of Covenant (or Mediator) to really know Him. Just think about Him like this and you know Him because you know what it's like to have emotions and feelings too. God is like that."

What I've noticed is that there is a certain apologetical "felt need" by some that, unless man can justify God on their own terms, that He's not worthy of our worship. Things are totally on their head when we do this.

Not to belabor the point but I would like to bring it home and contend to simply say God does not have any emotions, or passions, within the divine essence. This is where apophatic or negative theology comes in. For to use an analogy only shows how we are to think of God "as if" the divine nature has emotions, which also holds to God's immutability. The contention of the divine essence as being passionless is a positive affirmation and unfortunately met with great emotional rage (yes I say rage) from most Christians.

I would also like to add this is exactly why Jesus came in the flesh and in this flesh He empathizes with us and paid the penalty for our sin.