In offering brief responses to Questions for Calvinists, today we examine the issue of God’s will. The question posed is this:
If God’s hidden will sometimes conflicts with his revealed will, how can you trust what he says?
Non-Calvinists and Arminians often contend with the Calvinists who insist that God has “two wills” – His hidden will and His revealed will – arguing essentially that this turns God into a schizophrenic deity whose promises are undermined and whose Word becomes uncertain. Of course, the Calvinistic position is no different than what Luther taught in The Bondage of the Will regarding the matter. It seems that many Christians become confused when speaking about “God’s will.” This, I believe, is because they utilize the term with a uniform meaning. When Scripture addresses God’s will, however, it speaks about it in three different ways.
God’s Decretive Will
First, Scripture affirms God’s decretive will. This is equivalent to God’s sovereignty, or hidden will. The Baptist Confession (1689) states the doctrine this way:
God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
An example of this is found in Proverbs 21:1, which declares, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever he will.” Divine sovereignty neither negates the responsibility of the king (“nor is violence offered to the will of the creature”), nor is God’s purpose thwarted. As the Apostle Paul puts it, God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). While God is not the author of sin, nothing comes to pass without His permission. The prophet Isaiah wrote, “For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?” God, through the prophet, also declared, “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” (Isaiah 46:9-11) The prophet Habakkuk struggled with, yet submitted to, this aspect of divine sovereignty when God declared He was raising the Chaldeans against His people to chastise them and would then hold the Chaldeans responsible and judge them for their acts. God is always in charge, and human beings are always responsible.
God’s Preceptive Will
While God’s decretive will is often hidden from us until after it comes to pass, His preceptive will has been revealed clearly to us. The Lord’s precepts, or commands, are revealed to us through His written word, particularly His law. It is God’s preceptive will that no one murder or steal, that we love our enemies, that we repent of our sins and trust Christ alone for salvation, etc. This aspect of God’s will is revealed not only in Scripture, but is also impressed upon each conscience (e.g., Romans 1). Individuals never have the right, though they have the power, to violate God’s preceptive will. No one is able to say rightly, “I did this because God made me do it,” though many attempt to excuse their sin this very way.
God accomplishes His decretive will infallibly even while His perceptive will is violated. The ultimate example of this is the death of the Lord Jesus. Was it God’s will that Jesus Christ be murdered? Yes. And no. It was part of His decretive will (“God gave His only begotten Son”), but not part of His perceptive will (“Thou shalt not murder”). Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate accomplished God’s decretive will, yet they did so of their own free will and will be held responsible for their choices. This is exactly what we see in Acts 2 in the Apostle Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost that Jesus Christ was “delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, [whom] you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death” (Acts 2:23). They were responsible for the murder of Christ, which was a violation of God’s preceptive will, yet God accomplished His decretive will through their wickedness.
God’s Will of Disposition / Two Wills of God
The Scripture also speaks of God’s will in reference to His disposition. This has to do with God’s attitude. He declares, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11). God desires sincerely that people would turn away from their sin and turn to Him through Christ.
This brings us to the matter of the “Two Wills of God Doctrine” in particular. This doctrine is related specifically to the affirmation of Holy Scripture that God “desires for all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) while simultaneously holding that God has unconditionally elected an innumerable amount of individuals to salvation. Some (i.e., Clark Pinnock, Fritz Guy) contend this belief is illogical, asserting a form of divine schizophrenia rather than sound biblical exegesis. In spite of such criticism, the distinction must stand because this is what is revealed in Scripture. Even I. Howard Marshall, featured in Pinnock’s The Grace of God, the Will of Man: The Case for Arminianism, confesses in his essay, “Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles”:
“To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will. The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Jesus Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of the Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.”
As noted previously, God willed both that Jesus Christ should be put to death (decretive will) and that no one should murder (preceptive will). It was prophesied through Isaiah that the Christ would be “stricken, smitten by God….It was the will of the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief” (Isaiah 53:4, 10). While God is not the author of sin, He ordained that sinful acts – the betrayal by Judas Iscariot, who was possessed by Satan himself, the animosity of Herod, the political expediency of Pontius Pilate, and the mob shouting for the blood of Jesus Christ – would result in the crucifixion of Christ Jesus. The disciples recognized this as they prayed (Acts 4:27-28):
“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place.”
So, was it God’s will for Judas Iscariot to betray His Son? Yes (decretive will) and no (preceptive will). This is not unlike what we see in the Revelation. We know that it is God’s will that all obey Him (preceptive will), yet in relation to the ten kings who work with the beast in rebellion against God, Scripture declares the Lord put “it into their hearts to carry out His purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled” (Revelation 20:17). Is it God’s plan for people to rebel against Him? Yes (decretive will) and no (preceptive will). The same might be said of Pharaoh, whose heart God hardened. It was God’s (preceptive) will that Pharaoh should let His people go, yet it was also His (decretive) will to harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let His people go (Exodus 4:21; 8:1). Was God then, the author of sin? No, the sin belonged fully to Pharaoh (Exodus 10:17). After the Exodus, God willed for people to treat the Israelites with kindness and respect, yet when Israel reached Heshbon, King Sihon refused to grant them safe passage (Deuteronomy 2:26-27). The ultimate reason was that God “hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might give him” into the hand of Moses (Deuteronomy 2:30). Again, we see Scripture speaking of God’s will in more than one way.
This brings us more directly to the doctrine of election. I’ve heard it stated from several pulpits that the reason the Lord Jesus spoke in parables was to make His message understandable to ordinary people. The Lord declares, however, that He spoke in parables “so that they may…not perceive, and may…not understand” (Mark 4:11-12). God hid something He revealed to others. The disciples had “been given the secret of the kingdom of God,” but for those “outside,” they were spoken to in parables “lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mark 4:11-12). So, is it God’s will for those outside to be forgiven or not? Yes and no. God commands and desires all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30; 1 Timothy 2:4), yet He has predestined only His people to salvation (Romans 9:6-23; Ephesians 1:3-12). No one remains lost because they have not been chosen. People face judgment because of their own willful rebellion against God and their refusal to repent of their wickedness (Colossians 3:6), and for their own list of evil deeds (Revelation 20:12-13).
Conclusion
There are no contradictions in Holy Scripture, but there is a great deal of mystery – which makes many uncomfortable because they think they have the ability to explain everything in the Bible. If the Apostle Peter admitted portions of Scripture are difficult to fully comprehend (2 Peter 3:16), we should not presume complexity is absent in regard to the things God has revealed. Our task, as Christians, is to be faithful to that revelation and affirm all that is written. We may believe everything that God has promised to us because He is “faithful and true,” and He never breaks a single promise (Joshua 21:45; 2 Corinthians 1:20). This God, who alone is absolutely sovereign, truly wise, and altogether good, may be trusted fully because He has the ability and determination to cause “all things to work together for our good” (Romans 8:28).
Ron Hale
February 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Dr. Galyon,
You mention that … The Baptist Confession (1689) states the doctrine this way:
“God hath decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.”
If this is a Calvinistic Confession … it does not line up with the very words of John Calvin in his Institutes:
“God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” [iii,xxii, sec.7, 1063.
Or ...
"....some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death." [iii, ssi, sec.5, 1030-1031]
Dr. Calvin is saying that men are created for … life or damnation …determined by why you were created by God is the first place.
Dr. James Galyon
February 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Ron:
First, the Baptist Confession of 1689 (also known as the Second London Confession) is, indeed, a Calvinistic confession. On this particular point, it is identical to that statement found in the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian).
Second, as I’ve pointed out previously, Calvin was a double predestinarian (from his interpretation of Romans 9). However, his statements neither make God the author of sin, nor do they negate human responsibility. How do you believe his statements differ from the Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession?
Third, how do you interpret Habakkuk? How can the Lord declare He is Himself raising up the Chaldeans for the punishment of Judah, and then will turn around and punish them for their wickedness?
J.C. Thibodaux
February 11, 2011 at 10:51 am
@No one is able to say rightly, “I did this because God made me do it”
Well, if God irrevocably decreed our sin, then in such a case it seems that God would be, “making us do it” by His decree. Are you suggesting that God’s decrees are passive, or amount to only the act being permitted?
@No one remains lost because they have not been chosen.
I can’t quite understand that statement. Assuming that a person being chosen implies that they’re not eternally lost, then logically, if,
chosen_by_God -> ~eternally_lost
then its inverse is also necessarily true,
~chosen_by_God -> eternally_lost
@God desires sincerely that people would turn away from their sin and turn to Him through Christ.
Given the Calvinistic view of the atonement, I don’t think the “two [contradictory] wills” theory can hold up here: It’s only because Christ died for us that He offers us reconciliation with God (Colossians 1:20-22). If Christ didn’t die for the some person, then He can offer no reconciliation with God for that person. Are you saying that God wants the non-elect to turn to Him through someone who can’t reconcile them to Himself?
Dr. James Galyon
February 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm
No, God did not make us sin. We sin because we chose to do so. He permits it, He allows it, He even uses it, but He doesn’t cause it — He is not the author of sin. Some of God’s decrees are passive in the sense that He permits something, but not in the sense that He ever ceases to be sovereign or “lose control”.
The death of Jesus Christ is sufficient for the entire world, and efficient only for the elect. All are offered forgiveness/salvation/reconciliation — ALL. There is no lack of sufficiency in the atonement. There is no lack of sufficiency in the work of Christ Jesus. If people do not repent of their sins and turn to Christ, it is not due to the fact that His work lacks anything or failed to do something for them. The fault is their own willful rebellion and refusal to repent.
J.C. Thibodaux
February 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm
@We sin because we chose to do so.
…
Some of God’s decrees are passive in the sense that He permits something
To be clear, let’s take the scenario of a Christian sinning, are you implying that God didn’t immutably decree that he sin, but rather permitted it to go either way so that it was within his (the believer’s) power to choose not to sin?
@There is no lack of sufficiency in the work of Christ Jesus.
I wasn’t suggesting lack of sufficiency, but applicability. If Christ’s death is sufficient for everyone but not applicable to save some individual, then Christ cannot reconcile that individual to God, can He?
Dr. James Galyon
February 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm
God’s decreeing a matter and permitting a matter are equal. If an individual sins, it is that person’s responsibility, not God’s fault.
It is possible for Christ Jesus to reconcile any sinner to God. The fault rests with unrepentant individuals, who refuse to turn to God through Christ, not with God.
J.C. Thibodaux
February 17, 2011 at 9:10 am
@If an individual sins, it is that person’s responsibility, not God’s fault.
If you’ll bear with my clarification, I wasn’t referring to who’s held responsible: I was asking if a saint falls into sin, did God allow him power to choose between sinning and escaping, or is sinning the only thing he had power to choose in that scenario?
@It is possible for Christ Jesus to reconcile any sinner to God.
Wow…that answer was unexpected. This next question isn’t meant to be a trick, but I honestly can’t understand the reasoning: If Christ can make reconciliation between God and any sinner, and Christ didn’t die for all sinners [in any salvific sense], can Christ then make reconciliation between God and the sinners that He didn’t die for?
Dr. James Galyon
February 17, 2011 at 7:55 pm
- Believers have the ability to choose between sinning or not in each scenario.
- The death of Christ Jesus is sufficient to reconcile any sinner to God. The reason an unbelieving individual isn’t reconciled has to do with that particular person’s unbelief and continuing rejection of God through Christ.
J.C. Thibodaux
February 18, 2011 at 10:49 am
@Believers have the ability to choose between sinning or not in each scenario.
I wholly concur.
I think I follow you on the issue of Christ’s death. In your estimation, would it be accurate to say then, since,
1.) Christ reconciles sinners to God by His death (Romans 5:10)
2.) There’s no sinner that Christ can’t reconcile to God by His death
Therefore, all sinners are made reconcilable to God by Christ’s death?
Dr. James Galyon
February 18, 2011 at 8:06 pm
J. C. Ryle put it this way:
“Christ is…a Saviour for all mankind….He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind…What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam….I hold as strongly as anyone, that Christ’s death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us. I dare not say that no atonement has been made, in any sense, except for the elect. I believe it is possible to be more systematic than the Bible in our statements….I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man…I repudiate the idea of universal salvation as a dangerous heresy and utterly contrary to Scripture. But the lost will not prove to be lost because Christ did nothing for them. He bore their sins, He carried their transgressions, He provided payment; but they would not put in their claim to any interest in it…The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers.”
J.C. Thibodaux
February 21, 2011 at 9:12 am
Good quote by Ryle. Is his commentary you cited is expressive of what you believe as well?
Dr. James Galyon
February 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Joshua:
The quote comes from his ‘Expository Thoughts on the Gospels’. In essence, I agree with Ryle. I’m sure you know he was an outspoken Calvinist and contemporary of Spurgeon. Ryle has received scathing criticism from hyper-Calvinists for his comments, but then, so have other Reformed folks (e.g., Spurgeon, Sproul, Warfield, etc.).
J.C. Thibodaux
February 22, 2011 at 7:20 am
He’d probably receive criticism from more than just them: according to Reformed historian Dr. Nick Needham, Ryle was a 4-pointer (pp. 6, last paragraph). Hence I was a bit taken aback when you quoted him on the atonement.
Dr. James Galyon
February 22, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Some claim that Ryle was an Amyraldian, but I think such an argument is wrong. In my estimation, he was a “Five-Pointer” who held to the Lambeth Articles. In discussing John 1:29, he declared: “Christ is an ALMIGHTY Savior, and a Savior for all mankind. He ‘takes away the sin of the world.’ He did not die for the Jews only, but for the Gentile as well as the Jew. He did not suffer for a few people only, but for all mankind. The payment that He made on the cross was more than enough to make satisfaction for the debts of all. The blood that He shed was precious enough to wash away the sins of all. His atonement on the cross was sufficient for all mankind, though efficient only to those who believe. The sin that He took up and bore on the cross was the sin of the whole world.” (emphasis mine) His language is that of Lambeth, which echoes Dordt.
J.C. Thibodaux
February 23, 2011 at 11:55 am
Hmmm…while I’m certainly no expert on Ryle, his statement you quoted does appear to lean pretty strongly towards universal/provisional atonement:
“But the lost will not prove to be lost because Christ did nothing for them. He bore their sins, He carried their transgressions, He provided payment; but they would not put in their claim to any interest in it….”
When he speaks of the “lost” here, context dictates that he’s referring to those who are permanently lost (i.e. they’ll ultimately prove to be lost, who till the end do “not put in their claim to any interest”) -obviously a reference to the reprobates. Yet Ryle still contends Christ carried their transgressions and provided payment for them as well. That doesn’t seem compatible with the idea of Christ dying for the sins of the elect to the exclusion of all non-elect.
Your own statements seem to lead to that conclusion as well. You indicated that Christ can reconcile any sinner to God, which I wholeheartedly agree with. But since Christ reconciles men by His death, then the benefits of His death must be applicable to whoever He can reconcile. If the set of people He can reconcile to God by His death is “all sinners without exception,” then it seems the applicability of His death must also be “all sinners without exception,” which again appears to fly in the face of Christ not dying for the transgressions of all sinners. Am I misunderstanding your stance?
Dr. James Galyon
February 23, 2011 at 8:35 pm
The Canons of Dordt, under the Second Heading, declare in Article 6: “However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.” Under the Third Heading, Article 9, the Canons state: “The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel….” I believe that these statements line up with Ryle’s, namely, that “the lost will not prove to be lost because Christ did nothing for them,” but they will be forever lost because “they would not put in their claim to any interest in it.” I do believe that God can reconcile any sinner to God. It is possible for the benefits of Christ’s death to be applied to any sinner, yet they are applied only to those who believe (the elect). Sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect — the phrase originated from the declarations at Dordt.
J.C. Thibodaux
February 24, 2011 at 10:58 am
@Sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect
Dordt put forth the stance to defend against criticism that their view belittled Christ’s atonement (i.e. that it’s “too little” for the whole world). Notice they do not say that His death is applicable to all. Something can be sufficient for everyone (as this refers to its quality/quantity) but not applicable to everyone (that referring to who can benefit from it, which has nothing to do with how sufficient it is).
@I do believe that God can reconcile any sinner to God. It is possible for the benefits of Christ’s death to be applied to any sinner, yet they are applied only to those who believe (the elect).
What you’re describing is unlimited atonement. Limited atonement goes a step further in that it teaches Christ’s death is only applicable to the elect (i.e. Christ died for the elect only, no one else). Both systems hold to sufficiency for all, efficiency only for those who believe.
The key difference, and what the limited/unlimited atonement issue boils down to is the question, “For whom did Christ die?” Unlimited answers “all,” limited answers “some.” But if the latter is true, then its ramification is inescapable. Namely, Christ can only reconcile those He died for: if He died for only some, to the exclusion of others, then He can reconcile only some, to the exclusion of others.