105 Comments
  1. See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone… 1 Thes.5:15

    If God used Paul to convey this idea and has also said in Matthew 5, “44… Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven…” it would seem uncharacteristic of Him to indiscriminately select some, before the foundation of the world, for everlasting life and most for everlasting destruction based upon the idea that we are all deserving of punishment – this would be “rendering evil for evil.”

  2. Greg,

    I don’t think you can avoid that even as an Arminian. You still have to answer why God created those he knew before the foundation of the world would choose to go to Hell. God’s choice to create them actually damns some and saves others. Would this not also be “rendering evil for evil” according to your definition?

  3. Nathaniel,

    I disagree. In my example, which I believe is biblical, God creates man knowing that he will rebel against Him, yet, because of His love for him, He offers everyone the opportunity to repent and believe on His Son for salvation.

    While I was still a sinner Christ died for me. Thus, rendering good to me when I deserved otherwise. God does not take pleasure in the deaths of those that are wicked. He rather desires that they repent (Ez.18:23).

  4. Nathaniel,

    You may have answered this in your other posts but can you confirm “why God created those he knew before the foundation of the world would choose to go to Hell.” Thanks.

  5. Greg,

    I do not think you addressed the objection though. God knows who will never choose him, and he creates them anyways. He knows that no matter how much he loves that person, or even if he died for him, that that person would never choose him. If he knows this, why does God create him?

    My answer would be to think of Job. God, though he brought evil against Job, is still just. The creation cannot bring a charge against the Creator. He is in heaven and does as he pleases.

  6. Ben,

    If God knows everything, that means he cannot learn. If he cannot learn, then he must know before the foundation of the world (forever really) who will choose him.

  7. “My answer would be to think of Job. God, though he brought evil against Job, is still just. ”

    God brought evil?

  8. Ben,

    Job 2:3: “And the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.””

    Job 42:11: “Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.”

  9. Dr. Brown,

    I’m not sure what you mean by manipulating the results in advance. Paul uses a different term, “he who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” I do not really have problem with it. God’s plea for sinners to choose life reveals his prescriptive will while his decretive will remains hidden.

    It seems to me that I could say the same thing to an Arminian. God’s prescriptive will is for sinners to choose life and his decretive will is for people to have freewill. God knows everything including the actions of his creatures, so God’s plan to create certain people at certain times can be seen as “manipulating the results.” He knows who will choose him, and who will not even before he creates them. God’s plea for sinners to choose life comes with the knowledge of who will choose life and who will not, and God’s creation of those people sets their “fate” since God will not interfere with the free actions of his creatures.

  10. “God’s plea for sinners to choose life reveals his prescriptive will while his decretive will remains hidden.”

    I believe the two-wills of God theory is scripturally very problematic for Calvinists and I encourage you to consider the troubling implications of this position.

    I believe the scriptures reveal a God that is entirely opposite of the two-willed God of Calvinism.

    There is no shadow of turning with God. He is not double-minded and thus unstable. A house divided is like sinking-sand, yet God is the Rock of our salvation.

    An earlier post (Robert) suggested that “if the two-wills of God theory were true, God would be like a dishonest politician who says one thing in public while plotting a different solution privately.” Respectfully, I don’t believe that this is the character of God. He is noble, admirable, and truthful in all of His ways.

  11. “I do not think you addressed the objection though. God knows who will never choose him, and he creates them anyways.”

    Nathaniel,

    I understand what you are saying. However, I believe that my original argument still harmonizes much better with the idea that although God knows our eventual decision to either accept or reject Him, He still lovingly offers each one of us repentance, rather than the position of “Men have committed evil against Me. Thus, I’m going to extend mercy to a small percentage while appointing the large remainder for eternal suffering (rendering evil for evil).”

  12. the point was made above, but I think it deserves to be reiterated- God, in all his omniscience, knew that Lucifer would tempt Adam and Eve, that Adam and Eve would fall, that all the world would plunge into suffering…

    Why in the world did he do it?

    If an architect knows his plans for construction are going to end with the death of half the occupants– isn’t that criminal?

  13. “If an architect knows his plans for construction are going to end with the death of half the occupants– isn’t that criminal?”

    Yes. If an architect only offers an escape plan to a select few, while making the escape plan completely unavailable to the majority, indeed, this would be criminal.

  14. “There is no shadow of turning with God. He is not double-minded and thus unstable. A house divided is like sinking-sand, yet God is the Rock of our salvation.”

    You’re right. There is no shadow of turning with God. He does not change, and he is not double-minded. He does precisely what he wants to do. And because of that, he cannot fail to save those he desires to save.

    “An earlier post (Robert) suggested that “if the two-wills of God theory were true, God would be like a dishonest politician who says one thing in public while plotting a different solution privately.” Respectfully, I don’t believe that this is the character of God. He is noble, admirable, and truthful in all of His ways.”

    Yes, I’ve read Robert’s comments about the two-wills theory. Obviously, I do not agree. Let me just point out that you cannot get away from two-wills. Arminians hold to the two-wills of God too. God prescriptively desires the salvation of all men, but decretively ordains freewill (in the Libertarian sense of course). Even though God could save everyone, he does not. Why? Because it would violate his decretive will. Arminians have a different problem. The death of Christ fails to achieve its ends, namely that he bought salvation for all men. All the work of God and all the intercession of Christ is frustrated by the will of man.

    Secondly, Robert’s comment shows a misunderstanding of the two-wills of God (as understood by Calvinists). That fact is no one wants to be saved on their own. Everybody is rebellious and hates God. The only way to be saved is to repent and believe, yet no one has that ability a part from a sovereign act of God. It’s not disingenuous for God to command repentance and save some. It would be just for God to command repentance and save none – which would be the case without election. The fact that he saves any at all is mercy.

  15. “It’s not disingenuous for God to command repentance and save some.”

    What if I had a son that was a quadriplegic and I told him to thoroughly clean the kitchen knowing that he has a total inability to perform my command? What if I tell the same child, “If you fail to clean the kitchen, I’m going to severely punish you and cause you great pain and agony.”

    It would be obvious to most people that this parent would be both unjust and cruel.

    Thankfully, God is not unjust and cruel. God is love and His atonement is universally available to those who choose to trust in Christ Jesus.

  16. “What if I had a son that was a quadriplegic and I told him to thoroughly clean the kitchen knowing that he has a total inability to perform my command? What if I tell the same child, “If you fail to clean the kitchen, I’m going to severely punish you and cause you great pain and agony.””

    You misunderstand total depravity. We cannot come because we will not come. It is not a physical disability, but a moral disability. So we deserve justice and punishment, but God gives his elect mercy.

  17. If total depravity is a ‘moral disability’ it completely parallels a physical one.

    And if we are born incapable of living up to the standards of heaven, we deserve pity, not judgment. Calvinist or Arminian or otherwise.

    Either side really does have to contend with the fact that God, in his foreknowledge set up a system where most people don’t even have an OPTION to believe. To cast these people into an eternal hell is completely unjust. Calvinist or Arminian or otherwise.

  18. No one in the Old Testament was regenerate yet there are many examples of people hearing from God, responding to God, and seeking Him.

    These were all dead in sins & trespasses.

  19. Nathaniel,

    By manipulating things, I mean that according to strict Calvinism, God set up a system in which He would create and predestine people to damnation, forming them in such a way that they would be incapable of believing or repenting, then giving them no opportunity or possibility either to repent or believe, then damning them for their guilt, the very guilt for which He designed them and against which they had no possible choice. Surely that is not the consistent testimony of Scripture.

    You would argue, of course, that the end results are the same according to the Calvinist or Arminian view, but end results are not the only issue. God’s justice and fairness and integrity and mercy are at issue, and if He created a world knowing that many or most would not inherit eternal life, yet gave all the opportunity to inherit eternal life, all of us, looking back, can acknowledge His justice and fairness.

    Furthermore, to answer David’s fair questions, we all must look into eternity to understand that God did what He did for morally justifiable reasons, even if they are not fully apparent to us at this point — but whatever He did or will do is consistent with His character as revealed in Scripture, and here I find Calvinism sadly lacking.

    Lastly, in terms of your reading of Eph. 1:11, the text does not say that God causes everything to happen as it happens, or that He predestines it to be such, but rather that he “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” So, in all things, He is at work to accomplish His ultimate plan and will for His people, even if many things that happen — as attested to from Genesis to Revelation — happen contrary to His will and desire.

  20. Greg,

    The issue of the OT saints is a difficult one. Their salvation is unlike ours in the sense that it was forward looking. They did not know Christ, but they knew of the promised Redeemer. That being said, I do not think the inference can be drawn that since they lived before Pentecost they believed without the aid of God. There are simply too many Scriptures that indicate that the natural man cannot apprehend Spiritual things and that we must be born again in order to have saving faith. Furthermore, although this is not true for all the saints, the OT makes a point to say that the Spirit was with a person (Samson, David, etc.) In the NT the Holy Spirit is said to be with John the Baptist from the womb. While it’s not Pentecost, the Spirit worked in lives of the OT saints to grant them saving faith in a similar way that he works in us today.

    In sum, though the saints of the OT had a forward looking salvation, they could not believe without the Holy Spirit granting them the ability to believe. It seems unreasonable to believe that once Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended we needed to be regenerated to believe, but the OT saints, who lived before Christ, did not need the Spirit’s enabling to believe.

  21. Dr. Brown,

    Thanks for the response.

    “You would argue, of course, that the end results are the same according to the Calvinist or Arminian view, but end results are not the only issue. God’s justice and fairness and integrity and mercy are at issue, and if He created a world knowing that many or most would not inherit eternal life, yet gave all the opportunity to inherit eternal life, all of us, looking back, can acknowledge His justice and fairness.”

    I don’t think God’s fairness is in question in Calvinism. I don’t think God has to offer eternal life to anyone, and the fact that we are saved is not because of what’s fair but because of his mercy. In fact, I think God acts in such a way to display the fullness of his attributes, this includes the condemnation of the reprobate to display his justice (or fairness) and the ordaining to eternal life of the elect to display his mercy and everlasting love. This in no way does this compromise God’s character. He is precisely who he says he is.

    “Lastly, in terms of your reading of Eph. 1:11, the text does not say that God causes everything to happen as it happens, or that He predestines it to be such, but rather that he “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” So, in all things, He is at work to accomplish His ultimate plan and will for His people, even if many things that happen — as attested to from Genesis to Revelation — happen contrary to His will and desire.”

    How does God work all things according to the counsel of his will if he cannot interfere with the free actions of his creatures? Why does God let evil happen if he does not in some way will it to happen? The question is does God see evil alike to opportunity cost – his plan ends with good outweighing the evil, or does he ordain evil because there is no such thing as gratuitous evil – it exists because he purposes to bring good out of it? I think the latter is what is attested to in Scripture.

  22. I don’t know what to suggest.

    I feel like I can only trust that he has been misrepresented.

    He saw this all from the beginning, whatever your personal belief on predestination– and for some mysterious reason felt the end results were worth the untold misery. I guess I have to believe it was worth it too. But I take issue with those who would send a soul born in sin, bred in sin, imprisoned in a world of sin- to hell for not believing something.

    Rather, let them be annihilated. No finite sin is worth infinite punishment.

    And if I were a judge, I would certainly condemn someone to die if the evidence warranted it, but I would be just as criminal as the convicted if I doused them with gasoline and set them on fire.

  23. “That being said, I do not think the inference can be drawn that since they lived before Pentecost they believed without the aid of God.”

    Nathaniel,

    I never said that they, or anyone else, could believe without help from God.

    Like the OT saints, we have also been aided by God in order to trust in His Son for salvation. In both accounts, however, neither party was regenerated prior to faith in God.

    I don’t equate aiding with regeneration.

    John 7:38-39
    “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

  24. david,

    “Rather, let them be annihilated. No finite sin is worth infinite punishment. ”

    What was the purpose of the death of Christ (including suffering the wrath of God and abandonment by the Father)? Was the payment infinite or finite? Was his death necessary?

  25. Greg,

    That verse you quoted does not indicate the time of regeneration and faith. It just says that those who are regenerated have faith.

    Also, those who did believe on him at that time were pre-Pentecost. The same principle applies to them as that of the OT saints.

  26. Nathaniel,

    You wrote: “I don’t think God’s fairness is in question in Calvinism. I don’t think God has to offer eternal life to anyone, and the fact that we are saved is not because of what’s fair but because of his mercy.” Of course it’s in question, which is why many people reject Calvinism, based on the revelation of God’s nature found in the Word. If God ordained the fall and then created objects of wrath — in Calvin’s words, “doomed from the womb,” can’t you see how this an issue of fairness?

    You ask, “How does God work all things according to the counsel of his will if he cannot interfere with the free actions of his creatures? Why does God let evil happen if he does not in some way will it to happen? The question is does God see evil alike to opportunity cost – his plan ends with good outweighing the evil, or does he ordain evil because there is no such thing as gratuitous evil – it exists because he purposes to bring good out of it? I think the latter is what is attested to in Scripture.”

    First, God is infinitely wise and powerful and can accomplish His will whether He interferes or not. I do, however, believe that He does interfere in certain matters, but certainly not in the fundamental matters of eternal life and death.

    Second, since God repeatedly distances Himself from evil in the Word and constantly makes clear His abhorrence and grief and anger over it, it is ludicrous to say that He wills it. Certainly, the overall testimony of Scripture is against this concept.

  27. Is God irrational? Is he able to choose? Is he a force immutable, unchangeable?

    If he has a mind and is able to think, then the death of Christ was unnecessary. I don’t need to punish someone to forgive them. Neither does God, unless he’s merely a sort of cosmic ’cause and effect;’ is he an ‘it’ or a bloodthirsty thing that can only be appeased by death?

    And I wouldn’t classify Jesus’ punishment as infinite. It was terrible. Unthinkable. But in the end, it ended. It was therefore not infinite, no matter how horrible.

    So, in the end, I don’t know why Christ died. I know he did it for me. Because he loved me. But I don’t know why the Father would be so wrathful as to need it, or why he would establish a world knowing that his son would have to be ‘slain before the foundation of the world.’

  28. And doctor brown, doesn’t God use a lying spirit in the old testament to goad ahab into battle? Isn’t this God initiating something wicked to obtain his purposes? How far has he distanced himself from evil to have a lying spirit in his council?

  29. David,

    Not at all. Ahab set his heart on evil and refused to believe the true prophetic word that had been sent to him. He was simply punished for his consistent sin and given over to his own desires.

    This is similar to Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

  30. Dr. Brown.

    Nathaniel highlighted God bringing evil to Job with the passage:

    Job 42:11: “Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.”

    Is this proper to conclude based on this passage God bringing evil to Job. It sounds contradictory to God’s characteristics. I understand God brings chastisment and judgement on those who were unrepentant. But it sounds contradictory for God to bring evil to Job.

    On another note, I could see how people can possible use this passage to support God brings sickness to innocent people which I dont not agree with. God is a healer which is contradictory to His character when someone says God made me sick.

  31. Michael Brown, please explain Paul’s language when he says,

    “…why then does God punish me if I cannot resist His will? Nay, but who are you, o man, to answer back to God?”

    He says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and said “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” + that he HAS chosen some objects unto wrath very very very plainly.

    God is not unfair, just beyond human understanding. He cannot be charged with any such thing because He is holy and good and righteous… just because there is a “bend” in the river doesn’t it dead-ends… but isn’t it a terrifying thing that we are God’s “toys”?

  32. Daniel

    Dr Brown has already answered this on the previous posts on this topic. You may have to look through the other days unless Dr Brown is willing and able to respond to your question.

  33. “Make the hearts of these people calloused; make their ears deaf and their eyes blind! Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.”

    But God also commissioned Isaiah to PREVENT the possibility of his people’s repentance. This was also ‘punishment’ for hardheartedness, just like ahab. In one God uses a ‘lying spirit’ in the other he uses a prophet.

    And if I get someone to lie for me to someone, aren’t I also guilty of the lie?

  34. I came across this quote by Arminian scholar I. Howard Marshall regarding the two wills of God:

    “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 Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe. ”

    Any thoughts?

  35. Nathaniel and Ben KC,

    I have not been following the posts here recently because of time constraints and yes, most of the issues were addressed in the previous threads after James White was on the air.

    As for Job 42, ra`ah here means “disaster” or, “terrible thing,” but not evil. For more on this, see my Jeremiah commentary on Jer 1:14, or simply check the major lexicons and theological dictionaries.

  36. Non-Calvinists make some strong points against theological determinists/Calvinists who claim that God preselects every human person’s individual eternal destiny in eternity as part of a total plan. One of the problems is that it makes God a very hateful person. To damn most of the human race before they are born, ensure their every action so that it is impossible for them to be saved, and then to eternally punish them for doing the very actions that God ensured they would do, is extremely cruel and hateful behavior. Some Calvinists try to respond by saying that people going to hell is equally a problem for non-Calvinists as well. What is ignored is that there is a big and insurmountable difference between completely controlling and causing someone to do something like a robot or puppet (which is true in theological determinism) and creating people who have and make genuine choices who can choose both to do the right thing as well as the wrong thing (which is true in non-Calvinism).

    It must be kept in mind that to the theological determinist, since they believe everything that occurs is the predetermined will of God. And since they deny the reality of us having and making choices (i.e. technically referred to as libertarian free will). God literally creates every person to be exactly what they end up being. In this system if you are a believer, that is exactly what God created you to be. If you are an unbeliever that is exactly what God created you to be. If you are a serial killer that is exactly what God created you to be, etc. etc. etc. etc. Note carefully that in this system God in fact creates people to be exactly what they end up as (with no exceptions).

    Contrast this with what the non-Calvinist believes about non-believers. We do not believe that God creates people to be unbelievers. Instead we believe that God creates people with the capacity to both choose to believe and choose not to believe. We further believe that God desires for all to be saved and makes efforts for all to be saved (including providing an atonement through Christ for all; sending the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, judgement, etc. etc.). So we believe that if someone ends up in hell, that person must have had some opportunities to be saved, which they repeatedly and for their whole lifetime kept rejecting. This means not that God made them into a nonbeliever but that they did so by their continuous and repeated choices. Or put another way, they made themselves into unbelievers, they never repented during their whole lifetimes and so they end up eternally separated from God by their own doing.

    One other thing, when dealing with another person’s position it is not fair or reasonable to inject your own presuppositions into their view and then argue against their view with presuppositions which you injected into their view which really are not part of their view.

    Now I present these things so that we can see how an argument that Nathaniel the theological determinist brings up breaks down.

    Nathaniel wrote:

    “I don’t think you can avoid that even as an Arminian. You still have to answer why God created those he knew before the foundation of the world would choose to go to Hell. God’s choice to create them actually damns some and saves others.”
    God may create hell bound human persons in Calvinism, but this is not true in non-Calvinism. Recall that we believe God creates us with a capacity to both choose to believe or choose to reject God and the gospel. And since we reject exhaustive determinism, when a person rejects they do so freely, they were not set up to do so by God (as is true in Calvinism).

    Greg responded correctly to Nathaniel when he wrote:

    “I disagree. In my example, which I believe is biblical, God creates man knowing that he will rebel against Him, yet, because of His love for him, He offers everyone the opportunity to repent and believe on His Son for salvation.”

    Nathaniel does not believe Greg’s words to be correct:

    “I do not think you addressed the objection though. God knows who will never choose him, and he creates them anyways.”

    We don’t believe that God creates unbelievers. They choose to be unbelievers when they repeatedly reject God for a lifetime.

    Note Nathaniel’s words: “he creates them anyway.” No, this is Nathaniel trying to slip in his presupposition (i.e. that God predetermines everyone’s destiny so God makes creates people to be believers or unbelievers). But that is not our view. Nathaniel is trying to slip in his presupposition into our thinking and then arguing out thinking because it will end up seeming like his thinking (i.e. that God creates people to be unbelievers). As a friend of mine once colorfully put it: you are putting your manure in my glass of water and then trying to point out the problems with my water!” And people expect us to drink our glass of water after they have polluted it with their false ideas? 🙂

    Nathaniel continues:

    “He knows that no matter how much he loves that person, or even if he died for him, that that person would never choose him. If he knows this, why does God create him?”

    Couple things here. If God creates us according to his own sovereign will to be capable of our own choices, which would include both good and bad choices, and if we then make bad choices, who is responsible for our sinful choices? God or us?

    If God desired for people capable of genuinely choosing to worship and love Him above everything and everyone else, then those people would have to be capable of prioritizing things (i.e. choosing God over all others) and making the choice they prioritized (choosing to worship the true God over all other things). That would mean that the capacity to worship God and love would only be possible if people had free will as ordinarily understood.

    There is another problem with the claim that God should simply prevent unbelievers from ever existing (thus preventing them from ever ending up in hell): since even one sin is sufficient to separate a person from God for eternity, this appeal would mean that no one could be capable of ever making a bad choice/sinning. People would have to be created incapable of sin. That way no one could sin and no one could possibly end up in hell. The problem with this is we know for a fact that God did in fact create man with the capacity to sin because Adam sinned. So we can theorize all that we want about what God **should have done** to prevent even the possibility of someone ever going to hell, but our theorizing is just that, theorizing, when we know that in fact Adam was capable of and did in fact choose to sin. So the person demanding that God create a world where no one could possibly sin (it is interesting that I have heard this claim from atheists arguing against Christianity and from Calvinists trying to argue for Calvinism by claiming that the non-Calvinist has the same problem with hell that the Calvinist does)is really asking for God to create human persons incapable of making freely made choices. God in His sovereignty did not create humans that were incapable of sin. God also decided to create humans with the ability to procreate and produce other human beings. If you are going to eliminate all sinners so that no one can go to hell, then God could not have allowed our parents (who did sin) to live and procreate us. But if they didn’t exist, then we wouldn’t exist. It is apparent from scripture that God’s plan for humans was not to create persons incapable of sin. Rather God created persons capable of both good and bad choices, knowing they would sin and knowing they would need an atonement for their sin. So instead of creating a world incapable of sin: God created a world where there would be sin and yet everyone could still end up in relationship with God through the atonement that God provided.

    Now people may not like the way things are, the Creation that God actually made. But the real issue between the Calvinist/theological determinist and the non-Calvinist is whether or not God makes hell bound sinners (he decides that an individual will end up in hell, he then ensures that this takes place through controlling and predetermining all circumstances) or does He make persons capable of both freely choosing to accept him and freely choosing to reject him for a lifetime (he decides individuals can only be saved through His plan of salvation which is made for all persons, he decides that he will create persons who are capable of freely choosing to accept or reject Him). If I force you to be something that is one thing, if I allow you to make your own choices resulting in something, those are two very different things.

    Robert

  37. I took some time to comment on the false Calvinistic two wills theory in another thread here. No Calvinist dealt with any of my points (and I made several points against the theory). And now Nathaniel writes:

    “Yes, I’ve read Robert’s comments about the two-wills theory. Obviously, I do not agree.”

    It needs to be noted that Nathaniel does not deal with any of my multiple points against the theory.

    “Let me just point out that you cannot get away from two-wills. Arminians hold to the two-wills of God too.”

    Non-Calvinists do not hold to two wills, one will which is the total plan of God for all of history, a plan made in eternity and then carried out in time (what Calvinists call the secret and sovereign will of God). The non-Calvinist believes that God is sovereign (meaning that He does as He pleases in any and all situations). The non-Calvinist believes that God gives commands that are both obeyed and disobeyed. But non-Calvinists do not believe in exhaustive predetermination of all events. So to claim that “Arminians hold to the two-wills of God too” meaning that we hold to a total plan that is never violated (the secret will) and commands in scripture that are (the prescriptive will), is just false.

    “God prescriptively desires the salvation of all men, but decretively ordains freewill (in the Libertarian sense of course).”

    If you say that God decrees certain events before they occur (e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus) then everybody who takes the bible seriously believes that. If you believe that God desires the salvation of all men, you are simply acknowledging what God explicitly states in the bible. But to state these two things is not even close to affirming a secret will of God that predetermines every event and a revealed/prescriptive will of God in scripture.

    “Even though God could save everyone, he does not. Why? Because it would violate his decretive will.”

    If God sets up a way of salvation in which people must freely choose to trust Him alone for salvation, a way in which God provides an atonement but applies the atonement only to those who trust Him alone for salvation, then this way of salvation also involves people freely choosing to trust Him. When Nathaniel speaks of how God **could** save everyone, he is assuming a theological determinism in which God alone is acting in the process of salvation. He is speaking as if it only depended upon what God wills. But that is not the way of salvation that God Himself set up. He set it up so that it would involve both His own will and actions and the will of others. If He set it up that way then salvation is not a unilateral act on the part of God. Nathaniel is simply begging the question here, assuming his monergism to be true and then asking why God doesn’t save all while presuming his own monergistic view. It’s like he is speaking French (monergism) and the language God is using is English (synergism).

    “Arminians have a different problem. The death of Christ fails to achieve its ends, namely that he bought salvation for all men. All the work of God and all the intercession of Christ is frustrated by the will of man.”

    Nathaniel why do you misrepresent the Arminian view here?

    Surely you understand it. And I understand that you choose to reject it in favor of a false system of theology. But what you say here is not at all accurate. The death of Christ definitely fulfilled “its ends”. God’s plan of salvation through the atonement of Christ involves two aspects: (1) the provision of the atonement which is for all, and (2) the application of the atonement which is only for those who believe. When Jesus died on the cross he completely achieved (1) that’s why He could and did say: “It is finished.”. He desired to provide an atonement for the world, and He did. The cross is sufficient for all. But the provision of the atonement is only part of the picture, the atonement also must be applied to an individual (it is only efficient for those who believe). And scripture makes it clear that it is applied to those who trust the Lord for their salvation. Now note God’s plan of salvation the one, which he sovereignly came up with, is by its very nature “synergistic” (i.e. it involves not just the will of God but also the will of man).

    Now you can do all sorts of semantic contortions (or argue that faith is itself a world as many Calvinists do to avoid synergism), to evade this simple fact, but the bible is absolutely clear that salvation is through faith (and faith is not something that God does, faith does not occur when God possesses our bodies and then has faith through us, faith is not something that God forces us to have, no faith is an action that we do in response to the work of the Spirit in us).

    When a person rejects God and His plan of salvation, it is not that God has failed, it is that the person has sinned and continued to sin without repentance. If God decided to design a way of salvation where he would do certain things (provide the atoning sacrifice in Christ, provide the Holy Spirit who would reveal Christ and people’s sinfulness, and the gospel to sinners, etc. etc. etc.) and man would do other things (faith, repentance, obey God’s commands, follow the leading of the Spirit daily, etc.) how is God failing if he does everything he intends to do and promises to do? If in a marriage one spouse is completely faithful and does everything right and does everything they are supposed to do, and yet the other spouse chooses to depart, chooses to divorce, is the first spouse a “failure”? Who is responsible for the disintegration of the relationship? In the relationship who was faithful and who failed? In the OT God was always faithful to Israel and yet Israel sometimes was unfaithful to God, who was failing, God or Israel?

    “Secondly, Robert’s comment shows a misunderstanding of the two-wills of God (as understood by Calvinists).”

    Actually I understand the two will theory very well, which is why I reject it. And again I remind everyone, I made multiple points against the theory, NONE OF THEM WERE DEALT WITH. Calvinists often make this claim: if a non-Calvinist challenges their false theories they respond: “well he just does not understand it”. Actually we understand it just fine, and because we know what the bible says and know God’s character, we know the Calvinistic system to be false and that it contradicts scripture. If a system maligns and improperly presents the character of God and outright contradicts scripture, then it is false.

    Robert

  38. I have read Piper’s paper on the false two wills theory and in the midst of the paper he quotes Marshall to try to argue that Arminians **also** hold to the two wills theory. But it was misleading and false when Piper did it. Marshall does not believe that God has a total plan which predetermines every event (the secret will: which never gets violated)) and another will expressed in scripture (the prescriptive will: which often gets violated). Having read the Piper paper and knowing the mistake that Piper makes, it is odd to see the same error being made by Nathaniel who tries to present it as just an innocent observation that he made. Note how Nathaniel presents it:

    “I came across this quote by Arminian scholar I. Howard Marshall regarding the two wills of God: [followed by citation of Marshall]”.

    Did Nathaniel come across this quote in his daily devotionals?

    While he just happened to be reading Marshall?

    No, I would bet anything that he got it from the Piper’s two wills paper and is now parroting it as his own innocent observation (I can even show where Piper talks about it in his two wills paper).

    Here is what Piper quotes from Marshall:

    “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 Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe. ”

    I also know where Marshall wrote those words and the context for those words. Here is the words of Marshall that immediately precede the words that Piper quotes. Marshall is discussing 1 Timothy 2:4 and various attempts to evade the plain meaning of the text. In a subsection titled: “The Force of Thelo Should Not be Weakened” Marshall writes:

    “Some scholars have drawn attention to the use of the verb thelo in 1 Timothy 2:4 and have argued that this verb is weaker than the verb boulomai and that it may simply express “the Biblical notion that God does not take pleasure in the death of a sinnier (Ezek. 18:23).” These two conclusions do not stand up to scrutiny, as the following three arguments indicate.”

    His first argument is the words that Piper then quotes in his two wills paper. But note that Marshall was not even discussing any two wills theory in this section. He was making three arguments against those who try to lessen the impact of 1 Tim. 2:4. For Piper to take Marshall’s words from that context and try to use them to support Piper’s false two wills theory is a gross example of proof texting (just as cultists will grab a text from the bible to support their view ignoring its context, just taking it to support their view, Piper is proof texting from Marshall to support Piper’s false two wills theory).

    Nathaniel then adds after quoting the exact words that Piper quotes from Marshall and writes:

    “Any thoughts?”

    And later adds:

    “Really, all I want is a response. For the record, I agree with Marshall.”

    Alright if I explain what Marshall means and simultaneously show that Nathaniel is proof texting from some words of Marshall to try to support his false two wills theory: will Nathaniel then stop trying to pull this trick on unsuspecting non-Calvinists?

    So let’s look at Marshall’s words and explain what he is talking about. First of all, he is not talking about some exhaustive total plan of God/the “secret will of God” that predetermines all events (he cannot be talking about THAT because he does not believe THAT, he’s an Arminian remember? 🙂 ).

    Second, what is the real issue that he is dealing with in these words? Well he is discussing the fact that the bible clearly presents that God desires the salvation of all people according to 1 Tim. 2:4. Marshall then immediately adds that this does not mean that all people will in fact be saved (“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”).

    Third, Marshall then makes an explicit distinction:

    “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.”

    Now this is important: is Marshall talking about the Calvinist’s two will theory as held by Piper, et. al.?

    Is he distinguishing between the secret and prescriptive will here?

    Note what is being distinguished here: (1) “what God would like to see happen”; and (2) “what he actually does will to happen”. If Marshall were referring to the false two will theory of Calvinist then (1) would have to refer to the prescriptive will and (2) would have to refer to the secret will.

    Doesn’t the secret will refer to “what God would like to see happen”?

    According to the Calvinist the secret will is exhaustive covering every detail of history and it is exactly what God “would like to see happen” (and which in fact will happen exactly as God would like it to happen). But (2) also fits what the Calvinist believes by the secret will (“what he actually does will to happen”). In the false two will theory, exactly what happens in history (with no exceptions) **is** “what God would like to see happen” and “what he actually does will to happen.” So Marshall cannot be talking about the two will theory and making this distinction, because both points that he makes would apply to the secret will (a will that predetermines every event and something that Marshall does not believe in). So Marshall is not talking about the two wills theory of Calvinists, he is not agreeing with it, and it is a bit disingenuous of Calvinists to be quoting him as if he supports the Calvinist two will theory.

    So again what is Marshall really talking about? I believe he is making a distinction that I and most non-calvinists make between sovereign acts of God which will occur, cannot be prevented or stopped or hindered because God is acting unilaterally and what He wills to do, He does. And God’s will when other wills are involved. Where only God’s will and action alone are involved (i.e. unilateral personal actions by God), those things will actually happen For example when God created the universe it was a unilateral action by God not dependent upon anything or anyone else, it was based in his sovereignty, and happened completely un-hindered, un-preventable. Scripture sometimes refers to these kinds of unilateral personal actions by God and refers to them with phrases such as God doing as he pleases and no one stopping his hand, etc. Anyone who takes the bible seriously will agree that the bible presents God’s will in this sense. But this is not at all claiming that God predetermined everything as part of a total plan made in eternity (i.e. the secret will of Calvinists). And it is true that this “will” of God is never violated. Consider what would be necessary for this to occur: God would do a unilateral action and someone else would prevent or hinder or stop God from doing what he wants to do! That is not possible, the person would have to be more powerful than God to prevent God from doing a unilateral action.

    Then there is God’s “will” ***when other wills are involved***. He may desire for people to do or not do something and tell them to do it or not do it: but now since another will is involved, God’s desire may or may not be fulfilled depending upon what people actually choose to do. This is Marshall’s (1) “what God would like to see happen”. God would like to see every believer always obey God’s commands through the power of the Holy Spirit. But this does not always happen. Believers have a will and may choose to disobey God on occasion. When they do so, it is not that God’s will was overpowered by their will or that God is no longer sovereign. Rather, the way things are set up by God Himself (i.e. He created human persons with a mind and a will, created them to be capable of doing their own actions, of choosing to do this or that), more than just God’s will and actions are involved.

    On the other hand, when God miraculously parted the Red Sea for the Israelites, that was a unilateral action by God, an action that could not be stopped or prevented. God was doing as He pleased in that situation performing a miracle that was not dependent upon any other will, only His own will was involved, and no power in the universe was going to stop that from happening.

    If we understand these things we can understand why in the bible there are some things that are going to happen (e.g. the second coming of Christ, the physical resurrection of all people to face judgment), **dependent upon God alone**, and which will happen and this will of God can never be violated. On the other hand, when other wills are involved, then what God desires does not always occur.

    Another great example that Dr. Brown is very knowledgeable about is Israel in the OT. He could probably provide example after example from the history of Israel on this (and I am sure that his new commentary on Jeremiah will be full of lots and lots of examples of this). The election of Israel as a nation by God was a unilateral action of God completely independent of the will or efforts of man (cf. Romans 9:16). That will of God could not be hindered or stopped or prevented and He did as He pleases. On the other hand, God commanded them through the Law to do and not do certain things. These events involved wills other than God and so this will of God often was hindered or stopped or prevented and was definitely violated by the Israelites.

    Marshall is making this same distinction and it was sad to see Piper try to hijack his words in support of the false Calvinistic two wills theory. It is also sad seeing Nathaniel attempt to do the same thing with Marshall’s words by parroting Piper and presenting it as if Nathaniel just happened to be reading Marshall one day . . . .

    Robert

  39. Robert,

    “Non-Calvinists make some strong points against theological determinists/Calvinists who claim that God preselects every human person’s individual eternal destiny in eternity as part of a total plan. ”

    First, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop referring to Calvinism as theological determinism. They are not the same. Calvinists are Compatiblists. Whether or not you disagree with the position is not the point, it is a bit of an ad hominid to call us theological determinsts. Calling me, “Nathaniel the theological determinist,” is a bit belittling whether you meant it or not. Perhaps, if you want to clarify my position (instead of slipping in your own presuppositions about Calvinism) you could say, “Nathaniel the Calvinist” or more preferably “Nathaniel who espouses the Calvinistic position.”

    “One of the problems is that it makes God a very hateful person. To damn most of the human race before they are born, ensure their every action so that it is impossible for them to be saved, and then to eternally punish them for doing the very actions that God ensured they would do, is extremely cruel and hateful behavior.”

    According to a human being, perhaps it would seem cruel and hateful, but Paul responds by saying that God has right to what he wants with his creation as potter has right over his clay. So I respond by saying God can do what he wants with his creation, and still remains morally perfect. God is the author of history, and just as we would not charge Shakespeare with the murder of Duncan, we would not charge God with the sin of his creation. Even if he does ordain that evil, the culpability of that evil lies on the one who commits it.

    “It must be kept in mind that to the theological determinist, since they believe everything that occurs is the predetermined will of God. And since they deny the reality of us having and making choices (i.e. technically referred to as libertarian free will). God literally creates every person to be exactly what they end up being…Contrast this with what the non-Calvinist believes about non-believers. We do not believe that God creates people to be unbelievers. Instead we believe that God creates people with the capacity to both choose to believe and choose not to believe.”

    Problem avoided again. My point remains the same. God’s ordaining free will does not absolve God of responsibility. Even if God could say, “I didn’t know that my creation would commit that sin,” God is still in some responsible. According to your standards, it would seem that God is also morally culpable.

    “One other thing, when dealing with another person’s position it is not fair or reasonable to inject your own presuppositions into their view and then argue against their view with presuppositions which you injected into their view which really are not part of their view.”

    First, you cannot avoid this. You (not you, Robert but you, anyone) always insert your presuppositions into everything you do including interpreting another person’s arguments. You cannot feign a “presuppositionless presentation.” We try our best to present the other person’s view to the best of our ability. That being said, you are wrong in your accusation against my argument. Here’s what you said, “Note Nathaniel’s words: “he creates them anyway.” No, this is Nathaniel trying to slip in his presupposition (i.e. that God predetermines everyone’s destiny so God makes creates people to be believers or unbelievers).”

    No, I am just showing the logical outworking of a simple foreknowledge view (plus Libertarian freewill) of God. In fact, I actually do not see how I’ve “slipped” my presupposition in. Here’s the argument:

    God knows everything
    God knows the free actions of man perfectly
    The free actions of some men will result in unbelief
    God creates men
    Therefore God is responsible for creating men whom he knew he could save despite his best efforts and would end up damning them to hell

    How am I inserting my presupposition that God ordains everything? Notice I did not say that God ordained the actions of those men. All I said is he knew the actions of those men and that creating them makes him in some way responsible. That’s it.

    I would even say that if God did NOT know the future perfectly, he would STILL be responsible in some way. The question for the Arminian is how is God’s responsibility different in Arminianism as opposed to Calvinism? He may be LESS responsible in some sense, but he is still responsible. We Calvinists would say that God ordains evil because he has a good purpose for that evil. Furthermore, there is no such thing as gratuitous evil, but the evil that exists is used to glorify God and show the fullness of his attributes.

    Question for the Arminian:

    – How much responsibility must God have in order to become morally culpable? –

    “If God desired for people capable of genuinely choosing to worship and love Him above everything and everyone else, then those people would have to be capable of prioritizing things (i.e. choosing God over all others) and making the choice they prioritized (choosing to worship the true God over all other things). That would mean that the capacity to worship God and love would only be possible if people had free will as ordinarily understood.”

    How much freewill will we have in heaven?

    “But the real issue between the Calvinist/theological determinist and the non-Calvinist is whether or not God makes hell bound sinners (he decides that an individual will end up in hell, he then ensures that this takes place through controlling and predetermining all circumstances) or does He make persons capable of both freely choosing to accept him and freely choosing to reject him for a lifetime (he decides individuals can only be saved through His plan of salvation which is made for all persons, he decides that he will create persons who are capable of freely choosing to accept or reject Him).”

    The problem I have with this view is that God actually fails in his purpose to save. Christ’s atonement fails to atone for some of those it intends to atone, and God’s best efforts are thwarted by unbelief. I do not believe this is what Scripture teaches. The picture of God that Scripture is a God who saves and justifies those he desires to save and justify, a God who accomplishes his purposes exactly how he plans, and a God who reveals his everlasting love and mercy to an undeserving chosen and delays punishment on a deserving chosen (this is what I would call a glorious understatement). The God of Scripture is powerful, merciful, love, holy, wrath, etc., etc. And all his attributes – his glory- are on display within the pages of history which unfolds exactly as he intends.

    Ultimately, you misrepresent Calvinism – as if Calvinism is only about sending sinners to hell. Calvinism is this: God saves sinners who were otherwise incapable of saving themselves. He justifies the undeserving. He then sanctifies that poor (yet rich) soul, and brings him into glory. This is the plan of God for salvation as presented in Scripture. Without the sovereignty of God, without election, there is no salvation. And it was my despair over my sin that caused me to rejoice over God’s sovereignty in my salvation.

  40. Robert,

    I am fully aware that Marshall does not hold to the same two wills that Calvinists do. I was just pointing out that there is no way to get around the fact that God has two wills. Prescriptively he wills for men to be saved and decretively he wills for them to choose to be saved. Different from Calvinism? Yes. Still two wills. And let me add that if God actually willed that all men would be saved, he could save them. I do not think that it’s because some how freewill preserves our “humaness.” If that were true, we could sin again in heaven.

  41. “…You cited Turretin on the “two wills of God” theory that many Calvinists hold. James White repeatedly in the discussion with Dr. Brown made reference to this theory as well. It needs to be noted that you Calvinists speak of it as if it is a fact. And not only do you **assume** it to be true, you allow it to control your interpretation of scripture. But I don’t buy this distinction at all. There are multiple problems with the two wills theory. Here are some of them.

    First, it is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL principle. The bible does not state the two will theory anywhere. It is not derived from exegesis of biblical texts. It was invented and developed by Calvinist theologians as a method to harmonize biblical texts with their erroneous system of theology.”

    What is meant by extra-biblical? Does this mean that the phrase “two wills of God” is nowhere to be found or does he mean actually mean “non-Biblical” meaning the two-will view is not supported by Scripture? If he means the former, the Trinity as well as several other doctrines must be rejected as well. However, if he means the latter, then we would need proof exegetically and systematically this cannot be. I have never heard anyone supply a good objection to the two-will theory. In fact, the two will theory is necessary, not only for the Calvinist but for all Christians. I’ve said this many times over, the two wills are different for the Arminian, but they are there.

    “Second, the distinction sanctions and affirms an incredible amount of contradictions. God says one thing (the prescriptive will, what He expresses in scripture) in the one will, which is directly contradicted by the secret or sovereign will. The sovereign will is supposedly (I say supposedly since the bible does not say that God has a total plan, this is assumed by Calvinists who believe in exhaustive predeterminism of all events) God’s exhaustive total plan that encompasses every event of history. God conceives of this total plan in eternity, he then ensures that it occurs via his “sovereignty” (which is then defined as God exhaustively determining every event by directly, completely and continuously controlling everything). Note that this calvinistic interpretive principle consists of assumption piled upon assumption.

    So where is the contradiction?

    The contradiction is between what God says in the bible and what He really plans and desires in the sovereign will. He says don’t commit murder. And yet if he predetermines and predecides every action that every human person does, then every murder that actually occurs in history is exactly what God wanted, exactly what God decided would be part of his total plan. Or take abortion. Conservative Christians interpret the bible to be saying that it is wrong (so according to his prescriptive will abortion is murder and is wrong). But if God predetermines and predecides every action that every human person does, then every abortion that actually occurs in history is exactly what God wanted, exactly what God decided would be part of his plan. And we could multiply the examples but the point is clear: he says one thing in his Word but contradicts what he says in his sovereign/secret will.”

    Yet, according to the Arminian, God’s utmost desire is for everyone to be saved except for the fact that he wants everyone to “freely” choose him. Which is it? Freewill or universal salvation? Is libertarian freewill necessary for Salvation? No, it is not. Can God act and ensure our choice? Yes, he can. Does he? No, not according to Arminianism.

    God does not want someone to murder someone else, he has the power to stop the murder, yet he does not. Why? Because he does not want to disturb the free will of creatures. This seems “duplicitous.” God wants everyone to be saved, yet more precious to him is not the man’s salvation but their free choice.

    “Third with the prescriptive/sovereign will distinction in mind, it leads to “interpretations” of scripture where the proper and intended meaning of the text is eliminated, minimized or thrown out. God says in his Word that He desires the salvation of all. The Calvinist comes alone and says that while that may be true in his prescriptive will, in his sovereign will, the will that determines what really happens, God desires the salvation of only a preselected few. With the two will principle the theological determinist can then harmonize “difficult” or problematic passages with his errant theological system.”

    I’ve seen many Arminians do the same thing for sovereignty passages such as Romans 9 and John 6. There are problem texts, and we are always trying to harmonize the clearer passages with the less clear passages. It’s a principle in Protestant hermeneutics. I do not believe that it is minimizing the meaning by taking an apparent contradiction and explaining the two texts. We are trying to find the proper meaning of the text in the context of the whole Scripture.

    “Fourth, it is similar to the way a Jehovah’s Witness interprets the bible(note carefully I did not say nor am I implying that Calvinists are cultists, they affirm orthodox doctrine such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, justification through faith, etc.). They start with the teachings of the Watchtower as their controlling presupposition and grid. They have these teachings in mind **BEFORE** they get to a biblical text. The biblical text is then made to harmonize with this pre-understanding. So the biblical texts never end up contradicting the teachings of the Watchtower and amazingly all line up with exactly what the Watchtower teaches!”

    As if we do not all carry presuppositions to the text. I would like to see anyone try to eliminate from their mind any presuppositions so that they may enter some hermeneutical nirvana in which they could fully begin to interpret the Scriptures with full accuracy (sorry for the directness, I’m just trying to beat this point home). Of course, we come to the text with assumptions, the question is does the text support these assumptions? We are constantly being evaluated by the text which changes our presuppositions as we go.

    “Fifth, you find no evidence of this two will theory in the early centuries of the church. This suggests both that it is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE and that it was invented by theological determinists.”

    Many positions of the early church were wrong. Shall we return to the false doctrines of early church as well? We are trying clarify truth and error as we go along. We have the Holy Spirit to guide us on this issue. Does this objection imply that the early church was correct in all its doctrine? Shall we reject a formalized position of the Trinity or accept the allegorization of Scripture? How about baptismal regeneration?

    “Sixth, if God really says one thing in his Word and does another in his secret will, this may lead to real lack of trust in what the bible says. This is because the bible really does not represent the “bottom line,” concerning reality, rather the secret will is the “bottom line”. God’s truest desires, what He really wants to happen, are seen in and expressed in the secret will, not the bible.”

    “The secret things belong to the LORD.” If we are given principles to live by, we ought to live by them. “Who has known the mind of the LORD?” Can believers know the SECRET plans God? We must live by faith that God knows what he is doing, we must according to the commands he has given us, and we must trust that he will keep us through the troubles that we experience. This objection refuses to recognize the Biblical evidence.

    “Seventh, some determinists will claim that the secret will is known to God alone or beyond our understanding, etc. etc. This is not accurate. If everything that occurs in reality is part of the secret will, then we need only look at reality, look at what actually occurs to see the sovereign will being carried out. Look at any past event, that is exactly what God desired to occur. Look at any present reality, that is exactly what God desires to occur. We may not know the future but we can know the secret will in terms of all realities that involve the past or the present. Now this is troublesome when we consider some of the things that God therefore desired to occur. Every evil or sin that has occurred or is occurring in its every detail is exactly what God wants to occur as it is all part of his sovereign will/secret will/total plan.”

    Ah, so if I could see reality as it is, I can know God’s plan? Can you tell me why the tsunami in Indonesia happened? Can you tell me why the earthquake in Haiti happened or 9/11? Obviously, we do not know why God allows certain events to occur. Again, we cannot know the secret plans of God – this is Scriptural is it not?

    “Eighth and particularly troubling for non-Calvinists is what the two will theory says or implies about God’s character. A person who says one thing and does another is considered a hypocrite. A person who says he desires one thing but really desires another cannot be trusted and may even hide malicious plans and actions behind expressed words (cf. like a dishonest politician who says one thing publicly but in private holds a very different view). A person who claims to be good, righteous, merciful, to have good character (again when speaking publicly) and yet privately is the opposite and desires the opposite has an evil and untrustworthy character.”

    No, this is a misunderstanding of the two-wills theory. God will grant (and has granted) forgiveness to all who repent. God will restore (and has restored) all who turn from evil. There’s no duplicity there, no scheming politician, no “untrustworthy” God. The fact that we have repented shows us that God has sovereignly acted to bring us to the point repentance and has forgiven us of our sin. We can trust that God is faithful in all that he has promised even if we do not know his secret plans.

  42. Sorry in advance for the length. It’s the main reason why I did not post my objections. I didn’t think it was necessary for the point I was making at the time, but since it was asked for, I supplied it.

  43. Robert and Nathaniel,

    Thanks for taking so much time to post your thoughts here. Much appreciated.

    I can only jump in for one minute to comment on the very end of Nathaniel’s last, long post. You wrote, “We can trust that God is faithful in all that he has promised even if we do not know his secret plans.”

    Of course we can trust that He is faithful. My problem, as always, is that so much is made of His alleged secret plans, whereas the Word of God, which is the revelation He gave us, speaks so clearly about His public plans, which are in harmony with His inmost nature.

    That being said, I’ll continue to enjoy reading the interaction here as time permits.

  44. Also, this will be my last post. This is really sucking my time away.

    I was trying represent the position that I think is represented in Scripture in a way that honors God. The more I know God, the more deeply I am humbled by him – at least this my hope and prayer. In no way is knowledge a monopoly for a few people, but a gift from God to his people. As is such, humility is a necessary hermeneutic and quality that I know that I lack but hope and pray for earnestly. So I’m sorry if I’ve come across as being arrogant or degrading in any way. That was not my intention, but I understand it is possible (probable even) in a debate like this to come across that way.

    May God bless you all and thank you for the discussion. Thank you Dr. Brown for providing this avenue of discussion. God bless you and your ministry!

  45. “The fact that we have repented shows us that God has sovereignly acted to bring us to the point repentance and has forgiven us of our sin.”

    What do you say to those that did not repent.

Comments are closed.