The PCA report on the Federal Vision twice quotes the concluding statement of Chapter III, Section VI of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.”
The second of the nine declarations in this PCA position paper also uses similar language:
“The view that an individual is ‘elect’ by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this ‘election’ includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his ‘election’ if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.”
Some have criticized the use of this language as a critique of the Federal Vision because this language lists salvific benefits without specifying whether they refer to individual or corporate salvation. Yet an examination of the Westminster Assembly’s usage of this language as a critique of Amyraldianism suggests the appropriateness of using this language in a critique of the Federal Vision.
On pages 138-144 of his book The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, B.B. Warfield discusses the history behind the inclusion of this very sentence, the last sentence in Chapter III, Section VI, in the Confession of Faith. Warfield says,
“This debate, begun Wednesday morning, October 22, [1645,] and continued at least to October 31, constitutes one of the most notable debates reported in the Minutes, and certifies us that the closing sentence of the sixth section is one of the most deliberate findings of the Assembly.”
The debate reveals that there was a small group at the Assembly whose views on the extent of the atonement had been influenced by Cameron and Amyraut. The confessional statement that “neither are any other redeemed by Christ … but the elect only” was a reference to the redemption accomplished at the cross, an affirmation of the doctrine of limited atonement and a denial of the hypothetical universal atonement affirmed by the Amyraldians.
According to the original Amyraldianism, God decreed for Christ to die for everyone without exception with a universal, hypothetical atonement conditioned on faith, and God decreed for the Holy Spirit to work faith only in the hearts of the elect. This is basically an effort to combine an Arminian view of the accomplishment of the atonement through the work of Christ with a Calvinistic view of the application of the atonement through the work of the Spirit. There are a number of problems with this approach. The Arminian view of the atonement contradicts those Scriptures which teach a definite substitutionary atonement that infallibly saves all those whom God intended it to save. This view also denies that the cross pays the price to redeem the elect from unbelief and purchases for them the gift of faith, and thus cuts the direct link between the objective accomplishment of the atonement and its effectual subjective application. The Amyraldian perspective disrupts the economic unity of the Trinity with the Father first sending Christ to accomplish the atonement for all without exception and then together with the Son sending the Holy Spirit to apply that atonement only to the elect.
According to Warfield, the Amyraldian view represented at the Assembly was a modified version in which Christ died for the elect with an effectual, saving atonement and for the non-elect with a hypothetical atonement conditioned on faith. This modified view results in Christ’s dying in different senses for different people: in a definite saving atonement for the elect and in an indefinite hypothetical and conditional sense for the non-elect. Their position that Christ died in a hypothetical sense for the non-elect conditioned on faith together with their acceptance of the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity and their teaching that the Holy Spirit regenerates and thus works faith in the hearts of only the elect has the same practical outcome as the regular Calvinistic teaching that God passes by the non-elect and has ordained them to dishonor and wrath for their sin (WCF 3.7).
The only apparent motivation for this confusing doctrinal complexity is the notion that one must have an atonement that is not only infinite in value but also in some sense decretively intended for all without exception in order to justify the free offer of the gospel. What this effort is really doing is improperly mixing the decretive and the preceptive aspects of God’s will. In His decrees, God has unconditionally foreordained for His own glory whatsoever comes to pass. In His revealed will, God offers promises which He will fulfill when specified conditions are met. When one views the atonement from the perspective of God’s decrees, one sees a definite atonement which will save everyone whom God has decreed for it to save. When one views the atonement from the perspective of God’s revealed will, one sees an atonement of infinite saving value which God freely, genuinely and sincerely offers indiscriminately through the gospel message. These two views of the atonement are complimentary and not contradictory. God sincerely desires obedience to His revealed will and is sincerely grieved by disobedience to His revealed will, including the gospel command and offer. Yet God’s greatest obligation is to the greatest good, which is His own glory, and this is what He has consistently decreed.
Again, a few Westminster Divines held to this modified Amyraldianism, and this resulted in an extended debate when the Westminster Assembly was working on the confession of faith. Warfield says the following regarding the debate on the concluding statement of Chapter III, Section VI of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“The result of the debate was a refusal to modify the Calvinistic statement in this direction — or perhaps we should say the definitive rejection of the Amyraldian views and the adoption of language which was precisely framed to exclude them.”
So according to Warfield, the following confessional statement “was precisely framed to exclude” the modified Amyraldianism:
“Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.”
If the language of this statement was appropriate for excluding the view that Christ provided for all the non-elect a hypothetical salvation conditioned on a faith which they will never exercise, then this language is also appropriate for excluding the view that Christ provided for some non-elect a corporate salvation conditioned on a perseverance which they will never exercise. The criticism that this confessional language is not relevant to any Federal Vision teaching because it does not use the appropriate qualifiers would also make this language irrelevant to modified Amyraldianism, the very doctrine which, according to Warfield, it was framed to exclude. Such criticism must be misguided because it proves too much.
In the earlier days of the Federal Vision, some proponents made statements which seemed to define the corporate salvation experienced by everyone in the visible church as the common product of an undifferentiated, homogeneous grace in which the elect persevere and the non-elect do not. This is analogous to the original Amyraldian position. In one, there is a hypothetical redemption for all without exception conditioned on faith; in the other, there is a corporate salvation for all in the visible church head for head conditioned on perseverance.
Later some Federal Vision proponents made clear that the differing outcomes (perseverance for the elect and non-perseverance for the non-elect) must indicate differences in the corporate salvation experienced by the elect and the non-elect in the visible church. This more refined view is analogous to the modified Amyraldianism discussed above. One teaches a definite atonement for the elect; the other teaches a corporate salvation with the seeds of perseverance in it for the elect in the visible church. One teaches a hypothetical atonement for the non-elect conditioned on a faith which the non-elect will never exercise; the other teaches a corporate salvation without the seeds of perseverance for the non-elect in the visible church conditioned on a perseverance which the non-elect will never exercise. In contrast to these Federal Vision and Amyraldian views, the confession teaches that “neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” According to the confession, both the elect and the non-elect in the visible church may experience the outward privileges of the church and the common operations of the Spirit.
I’ve never quite understood how the “infinite saving value” of the atonement argument adequately answers the objection raised by the “free offer” of the gospel. There’s no doubt that the Son of God is “infinitely” valuable due to His divine nature. There’s also no doubt that in itself His atoning death was “infinitely” valuable and fully capable of saving every person who has ever lived had God determined to do so.
But this is only a hypothetical “infinite” sufficiency when it comes to the actual accomplishment of the atonement. The fact still remains that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ; He only “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24). Therefore, the atonement is not actually “infinitely” sufficient to save the non-elect if they would believe the “free offer” of the gospel, because Christ did not actually bear their sins or suffer the penalty of death in their stead. It seems much more biblical to simply say that Christ’s death was “infinitely” sufficient to save all those for whom it was intended and accomplished — that is, the elect.
“By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Heb 10:10, 14)
By: Roger Mann on August 18, 2008
at 11:57 am
Thank you for your comments, Roger.
One thing I respect about Calvinism is its recognition of the creaturely limitations upon our understanding. I believe God can tie every loose end of doctrine, and He has revealed to us in Scripture many of the “knots” He uses. God has, however, not revealed every such knot to us, and some of these unrevealed knots are beyond our comprehension. I believe that some of the knots which God uses in tying up what are, from our perspective, loose ends in the relationship between God’s decretive will and God’s preceptive will, are beyond our comprehension. This limits our ability to understand in exhaustive detail the relationship between a definite atonement and the free offer of the gospel. We distort revealed truth when we begin tying our own little comprehensible knots as substitutes for those which God hasn’t revealed because they are beyond our comprehension. We are tempted to do that because we want a neat doctrinal package with no apparent loose ends. When we do that, human reason ceases to be the servant of divine revelation and exalts itself as coregent or king.
Regarding your comments on the value of the atonement, I would recommend reading page 331 of volume two of Historical Theology by William Cunningham. If the elect consisted of one sinner, the same infinitely valuable atoning work would be necessary to save him. And if God had elected all of humanity, the same infinitely valuable atonement would be sufficient to save them all. The number of people God has sovereignly chosen to save through the atonement is not the measure of either the degree of the Savior’s suffering or the intrinsic value of the atonement. On the cross, Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” I believe the cry would have been the same if God had legally imputed to Him the sin of one sinner or the sin of all humanity.
Grover
By: Grover Gunn on August 18, 2008
at 5:45 pm
Thank you for your reply, Grover. You wrote:
I’m not sure how this applies to the points I raised. If Scripture clearly reveals that only the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, and that Christ only redeemed the elect when He died as their substitute on the cross, then it follows by “good and necessary consequence” that the free offer of the gospel cannot be grounded upon the “infinite” value of Christ’s death.
In other words, the fact that Christ was hypothetically capable of redeeming an “infinite” number of people is next to meaningless when we consider the biblical fact that He actually redeemed only a “finite” number of people — the elect. Redemption is an accomplished fact of history, and Christ did not redeem the non-elect. Therefore, the free offer of the gospel cannot be grounded upon the “infinite” value of Christ’s death, for Christ did not die for an “infinite” number of people. It must be grounded upon something else, such as God’s command to indiscriminately preach the gospel to all men throughout the world.
If anything seems to “distort revealed truth,” it is the notion that the free offer of the gospel is in some way based upon the “infinite” value of Christ’s death.
Roger
By: Roger Mann on August 19, 2008
at 1:12 pm
Again, thanks, Roger, for the comment.
I agree with the statement of the Synod of Dordt: “This death of God’s Son is … of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” This infinite value is based on the hypostatic union between the human nature which suffered and the divine Person of the Son of God, who has an infinite majesty. Also, the punishment due each sinner is an infinite divine wrath. The unredeemed will suffer for their sins forever and never end their punishment through a finished payment. Thus the infinitely valuable atoning work of Jesus is necessary to save one sinner and yet also sufficient to save all humanity. In this view, the atonement has a limited design (to save the elect) and an unlimited intrinsic value.
Some Calvinists do disagree with Dordt and believe that the intrinsic value of the atonement is finite. In this view, Christ suffered enough to pay for the sins of the elect but not enough to pay for one additional sin. If more sins had been imputed to Him, then He would have had to suffer more in order to pay for them; if less, then less. In this view, the atonement has a limited design and a limited intrinsic value as well.
I agree with you that the free offer is rooted in God’s command to preach the gospel universally. I also believe that the free offer involves God’s desire for obedience to His preceptive or revealed will. John Murray said the following in his article “The Free Offer of the Gospel,” found on pages 113-132 of Volume 4 of his collected writings:
John Murray also said the following in the article “The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel” in the first volume of his collected writings:
In hyper-Calvinism, God desires the salvation of only the elect in any sense. In Arminianism, God desires the salvation of all men equally. In Amyraldianism, God sent Jesus to die for all men equally but enables only the elect to believe. I view all of these as illegitimate efforts to get rid of some degree of the mystery which Dr. Murray mentions above. I believe that Jesus’ atonement is a ransom price more than valuable enough to redeem all humanity. I believe that Jesus died as a penal substitute only for the elect and died to redeem only the elect. I can say to the lost, “God commands you to trust in Christ for salvation and desires that you do so.” I can’t say indiscriminately to the lost, “Jesus died in your place as your legal substitute.”
By: Grover Gunn on August 19, 2008
at 10:57 pm
Grover, with all due respect, you are simply not addressing the specific points that I have raised, and thus we are going back and forth here needlessly. For example, you wrote:
I’ve already acknowledged that Christ’s death was “infinitely valuable” in itself (i.e., considered apart from God’s purpose), so I’m not sure how this relates to anything I’ve written so far. The point in question is whether the unlimited intrinsic value of Christ’s death actually “atoned” for the sins of the non-elect and “redeemed” them from the curse of the law? The only Biblical and Confessional answer is that it did not — Christ’s sacrificial death on Calvary only “atoned” for the sins of the elect and “redeemed” them from the curse of the law. Why? Because only the sins of the elect were “imputed” to Christ. Christ’s death cannot be sufficient to save those whose sins He did not “bear” and whose penalty He did not “pay” (since it’s already an accomplished fact of history), regardless of how intrinsically valuable it was. Thus, the free offer of the gospel cannot be grounded upon the “infinite” value of Christ’s death, as if it could somehow save the non-elect if they would only believe.
That is certainly not my position. As I explained above, my position is that Christ’s death cannot be sufficient to save those whose sins He did not “bear” and whose penalty He did not “pay” (since the atonement is already an accomplished fact of history) regardless of how intrinsically valuable it was. However, out of curiosity, who are these Calvinists that teach a “limited intrinsic value” for Christ’s death? I’ve never heard that position espoused myself.
Here’s the crux of the problem. The “ransom price” that was actually paid by Christ’s atoning death is equal to the number of people that He actually “redeemed.” The fact that He could have paid a “ransom price” for all humanity is beside the point. He only paid a “ransom price” that “redeemed” the elect. By way of analogy, if I “redeem” 10 slaves in order to set them free, it makes no difference that I was wealthy enough to pay the “ransom price” to set 10,000 slaves free. The fact is that I only “purchased” or “redeemed” or paid the “ransom price” to set 10 slaves free.
I can see how you can say to the lost, “God commands you to trust in Christ for salvation and will hold you accountable if you disobey.” But I don’t see how you can say that God “desires” you to do so. God’s “desire” is always related to His decretive will in Scripture, and He quite often “desires” the exact opposite of what He commands:
God repeatedly commanded Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, yet Scripture plainly records the Lord saying, “But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go” (Ex 4:21). God’s “desire” was to harden Pharaoh’s heart in order to cause him to disobey His command. Why? “‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:17-18).
While Chorazin and Bethsaida were commanded to repent and believe that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus rebuked them for their unbelief by saying, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight” (Matt 11:25-26). God commanded them to repent, yet it was His “desire” to blind them to the truth and cause them to disobey His command.
Again, referring to those Jews who refused to comply with God’s command to repent and believe, Jesus said, “He [God] has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them” (Jn 12:40).
To say that God “desired” for these people to “trust in Christ for salvation” blatantly contradicts Scripture. Therefore, the most we can tell a lost soul is that God “commands” you to repent and believe on Christ for salvation, and that He will hold you “accountable” with eternal punishment in Hell if you refuse to do so. But we have no warrant to tell him that God “desires” him to believe, for he very well may be one of those non-elect people whom God “desires” (Rom 9:18) to harden in unbelief.
By: Roger Mann on August 20, 2008
at 12:51 pm
I don’t have the book with me here, but I believe William Cunningham refers to the finite value view on that page I mentioned in his work earlier. I first encountered this view a few decades ago when reading an excellent book by Tom Nettles on the history of Calvinism among Baptists. If I remember correctly, he was referring to the theology of John Gill.
As to the sense in which God desires obedience to the gospel, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I would recommend the articles on the free offer by John Murray which I mentioned previously, especially the one in volume 4. He deals with this question extensively.
The following is in the Canons of Dordt:
I also highly recommend the book Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching by Iain H. Murray. I will close with a few quotations from it:
By: Grover Gunn on August 20, 2008
at 4:06 pm
I am at home now and can give you the quotation from William Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:131:
By: Grover Gunn on August 20, 2008
at 7:35 pm
Hi Grover,
Thank you for your latest response and for the additional information. I’ll have to look into John Gill’s position more carefully when I can find the time. But I’ve read quite a bit of his work and don’t recall anything resembling this position being advocated by him. I also believe that those who accuse him of being a “hyper Calvinist” are simply incorrect or disingenuous at best. I simply don’t see it (even though I do disagree with him on a number of issues, most particularly his baptist position on baptism).
If you don’t mind, I would like to comment a little further on a few of the points you have raised. However, I won’t be able to get to it for a couple of days, as I will be working overtime. I’m content to simply agree to disagree, but I would like to explain the reasons why I disagree a little further. Take care.
In Christ,
Roger
By: Roger Mann on August 20, 2008
at 10:19 pm
I appreciate the thoughtful interaction, Roger.
I certainly agree with you that God is sovereign. Regarding the free offer, I am referring to a desire rooted in God’s preceptive will, not in His decretive will. The relevant questions are, Are the non-elect responsible to obey the gospel command? Does God in any sense desire their obedience? Is God in any sense grieved by their disobedience?
Both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism are based on the philosophical assumption that there can be no moral responsibility where there is no moral ability. The Arminian argues that since all men are responsible to obey the gospel, all men have the moral ability to do so. The hyper-Calvinist argues that since God does not in sovereign grace grant the non-elect the moral ability to obey the gospel command, then the non-elect must not be responsible to do so. Therefore, the gospel command is not intended for the non-elect, and therefore God does not desire their obedience to it in any sense. Calvinism as I understand it teaches that all who hear the gospel are responsible to obey it through faith; that God always in some sense desires obedience to his revealed will, even when that is not what He has decreed to happen; that gospel disobedience is always the sinner’s failure for which he and not God is responsible; and that we can’t intellectually tie up all the loose ends in terms of our limited creaturely understanding without distorting some aspect of God’s revelation.
I found an article on the Internet which mentions John Gill and the finite value view. See http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1027.htm
By: Grover Gunn on August 21, 2008
at 7:29 am
I agree with this passage. But it doesn’t even remotely suggest that God has some sort of an unfulfilled “desire” that the non-elect comply with His command. It simply states that “God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should [or ought to] come to him [as a matter of duty or obligation].” There’s no doubt that the “preceptive will” reveals what is pleasing or delightful to God, or that repentance and faith are things pleasing to God. But Scripture does not teach that the precept indicates a “delight,” “pleasure,” “wish,” “desire” or any other volitional quality within God to the actual repentance of every man. That notion destroys the simplicity of God’s will. The unity of God’s will is found in the fact that the preceptive will reveals that God delights in the salvation of repentant sinners, while God’s decretive will has sovereignly determined which sinners will be granted repentance. Between the delight of God’s precept and the will of His decree there is a most perfect and consummate harmony.
Moreover, as I’ve previously pointed out, any suggestion that God “desires” the non-elect to comply with His commands (i.e., the “preceptive will”) is flatly contradicted by numerous passages of Scripture (e.g., Ex. 4:21; Matt. 11:25-26; Jn. 12:40; Rom. 9:17-18; 11:8). How can any rational person conclude that God “wants” or “desires” the non-elect to obey His command to repent and believe, when Scripture plainly declares the following?
“God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.” (Rom. 11:8)
“And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thes. 2:11-12)
God’s “desire” in these passages is quite clearly that the non-elect disobey His commands (i.e., the “preceptive will”). This is the irrefutable teaching of Scripture. Calvin Himself points this out:
Calvin then goes on to explain whether God’s “preceptive will” is at odds with or contradicts His “decretive will” — as if He “desires” that the non-elect obey His commands, while at the same time He “desires” that they disobey His commands:
Thus Calvin clearly refutes the idea of a duplicity of wills in God as a basis for doctrine. God does not have a “double will” or “in himself will opposites.” There is and can be no contradiction within the will of God, or between God’s will of delight and His decree. God’s decree, after all, is God willing His “eternal good pleasure” or delight.
The preceptive will can be called God’s will only in a metaphorical sense. The preceptive will is not God within Himself (ad-infra) “willing” as a rule for His own actions, but what God “wills” to reveal outside Himself (ad-extra) as the rule for the creature’s actions. There is a clear difference between the two. The preceptive will terminates outside God’s essence as that which He actively wills to require of man, while the decretive will abides within Himself as His living will in regard to His own actions.
All that can rightly be deduced from God’s preceptive will is that God is pleased to command faith and repentance to sinners as the only way of salvation. The preceptive will is that which God has given as the duty of man, not His own purpose. The will of decree, having to do with what God Himself will do as sovereign Creator and Saviour can never be resisted, whereas the will of precept, having to do with God’s moral requirements as the duty of man, can be and often is resisted by sinful man. Whether God Himself wills an action of man in fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the command can not be determined from the preceptive will itself. The preceptive will tells us only what it pleases God to propose as man’s duty.
The pleasure of God can be, but is not necessarily in the personal fulfillment of the preceptive will. When God’s preceptive will is called His “delight,” Scripture means nothing more than the mere complacency by which God approves anything as just and holy and delights in it (and besides, wills to prescribe it to the creature as His most just duty). Hence it does not properly include any decree of volition in God, but implies only the agreement of the thing with the nature of God (according to which He cannot but love what is agreeable to His holiness).
The delight of God, therefore, is in the precept as a thing “pleasing” in itself. In this sense God is said to “delight in it.” The action of the creature that conforms to the precept is incidental to God’s delight in the precept itself. God’s active delight in the person fulfilling the precept is coincident, and wholly dependent upon God by His Spirit regenerating and working in the sinner both to will and to do of His good pleasure. It is thus coincident only when God’s decree determines that God by irresistible grace makes it so. In other words, God works faith and repentance graciously and irresistibly in the heart of the elect sinner according to the decree of election, so that the purpose of God and the fulfilling of the precept meet in the grace of Christ Jesus, by which grace, faith and repentance are alone made possible. It is in this sense that God is said to delight in the actions of men that conform to His preceptive will. Therefore, this delight of God in precept and person can never be apart from the mediation and imputed righteousness of Christ through faith. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6).
Yes, they are “responsible” to obey the gospel command, for God “requires” their obedience and will hold them “accountable” when they do not obey — even when He personally sends them “strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” (2 Thes. 2:11), and has “blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them” (Jn. 12:40). Our “responsibility” is rooted in God’s determination to hold us “accountable” for disobeying His commands, not our “ability” to obey His commands — and certainly not God’s “desire” that we obey His commands, as the above scriptures clearly demonstrate.
No, for if He “desired” their obedience, He would grant them repentance and faith and cause them to obey. For the sovereign Lord “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). “He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom. 9:18).
I don’t believe so, for Scripture reveals that God “hates” (Psalm 5:5; 11:5; Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13) the non-elect for their wickedness, even though He is the very One who causes their disobedience in accordance with His sovereign will and good-pleasure to do so:
“‘If one man sins against another, God will judge him. But if a man sins against the Lord, who will intercede for him?’ Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them.” (1 Sam. 2:25)
“I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight” (Matt 11:25-26).
God commanded them to repent, yet it was His “desire” to blind them to the truth and cause them to disobey His command — for this way was “well-pleasing” in His sight!
In closing, I’d like to revisit a few things I wrote earlier, regarding the unlimited intrinsic value of Christ’s death and the free offer of the gospel, for I do not believe you have answered them as of yet. I wrote:
You also wrote, “I believe that Jesus’ atonement is a ransom price more than valuable enough to redeem all humanity.” My response was:
If you would please address these specific points, I would very much appreciate it.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I felt that an extended explanation was called for at this point, else we continue to talk past one another. Thank you once again for your willingness to discuss these matters with me.
In Christ,
Roger
By: Roger Mann on August 22, 2008
at 1:13 pm
Thank you, Roger.
The Canons of Dordt statement that God is pleased that those who are called should come refers to pleasure in obedience to the command and not merely to pleasure in the command itself.
The following is from Calvin’s commentary on Matthew 23:37:
Here is an article by John Piper defending this view of the free offer:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/
Here is an article by Robert Dabney arguing for the same: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/mercy.htm
Here is a quotation from Dabney’s article:
May God bless!
Grover
By: Grover Gunn on August 22, 2008
at 11:33 pm
Yes, I explained precisely that point in my answer. I wrote:
Thus I never insinuated that God does not take pleasure “in obedience to the command.” It most certainly “pleases” the Lord when His elect people exercise their God-given faith unto salvation by obeying His command to believe (His preceptive will). What I deny (and you have failed to address) is that God has some sort of an unfulfilled “desire” that the non-elect obey His command. I even cited numerous scriptures that explicitly teach that it is God’s “desire” for the non-elect to disobey His commands, which you appear to have simply ignored.
Again, the preceptive will only tells us what the Lord has been pleased to propose as man’s duty. It merely tells us “that those who are called should [or ought to] come to him [as a matter of duty or obligation].” It tells us nothing about what God Himself actually “desires” to be accomplished in the life of any particular person. Whether God Himself wills an action of man in fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the command cannot be determined from the preceptive will itself. The preceptive will merely tells us what the Lord has been pleased to propose as man’s duty.
Regarding Calvin’s quote on Matthew 23:37, I fail to see how this passage contradicts anything I’ve written (or the section of the Institutes that I’ve cited). Indeed, Calvin is clearly making the very same distinction that I have been making — that the “will” of God spoken of here is God’s “preceptive will,” that which He has been pleased to propose as man’s duty, what we “should” or ought to do. For instance, he writes:
So far, Calvin is simply explaining God’s “preceptive will,” that which He has been pleased to propose as man’s duty, what we “should” or ought to do. This is in complete harmony with what I have been saying. He then goes on to say:
Again, this is in complete harmony with what I have been saying. It is God’s preceptive will (what we “should” or ought to do) that is being described here, not God’s decretive will (His “desire” for what will be fulfilled in the life of any particular person). As I mentioned before, whether God Himself wills an action of man in fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the command cannot be determined from the preceptive will itself. The preceptive will merely tells us what the Lord has been pleased to propose as man’s duty. Calvin concludes by saying:
Once again, this is in complete harmony with what I have been saying. Calvin makes it quite clear that the free offer of the gospel [God’s preceptive will] is published to all men, so “that all who do not come [the non-elect] may be inexcusable,” not because God has some sort of unfulfilled “desire” that they actually obey the command and come to Him.
Sorry, but only the Arminian god has unfulfilled “desires” within his being, not the one true sovereign God of Scripture — Who “does according to His will [whatsoever He “desires”] in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth” (Dan. 4:35). Calvin was absolutely correct when he said that “it is absurd to suppose the existence of two wills in God [that are in opposition to one another].” Indeed, the notion that there are two contrary “wills” or “desires” within the being of God [that God “desires” and does not “desire” the salvation of the non-elect at one and the same time] is “absurd.”
You quote Dabney as saying:
According to Calvin they are published by God in the preaching of the gospel, so “that all who do not come [the non-elect] may be inexcusable,” not because God has some sort of unfulfilled “desire” that they actually obey the command and come to Him.
Moreover, Dabney is clearly wrong here, for the simple fact that God uses the publication of the gospel for the purpose of “hardening” and “blinding” the non-elect to its truth, as I’ve demonstrated many times now. After all, when Scripture says that God sends the non-elect “strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned” (2 Thes. 2:11-12), and has “blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts” (Jn. 12:40), is that “evidence of a true compassion” in God for the non-elect (as Dabney boldly asserts)? Or is it more in line with the position that Calvin and I have been maintaining? The question hardly needs to be answered.
In Christ,
Roger
By: Roger Mann on August 23, 2008
at 12:12 pm
I think we agree on this principle that we can go only so far in our efforts to understand the will of God. I think we disagree on exactly where to draw the line between the comprehensible and the incomprehensible. We step over the line the moment our deduction from one revealed truth compromises or contradicts another revealed truth. I think you have stepped over the line in some of your deductions, and you think I haven’t gone far enough in refusing to make those deductions. We both believe in God’s sovereign decretive will. We both believe in God’s preceptive will of command. I believe God in some sense (but not in a decretive sense) desires obedience to His commands even when He has decreed otherwise. I believe this not based on some philosophical deduction but because of certain verses in the Bible. You believe that God desires obedience in such cases in no sense and interpret these verses accordingly.
Whenever I sin, I believe God is grieved with my disobedience in some sense even though my disobedience was the outworking of God’s decretive will. When God commanded me not to steal, and then I stole in disobedience to God’s command, I believe there was a sense in which God desired me not to steal. This is not God’s willing two contradictory things in the same sense because one is rooted in the decretive aspect of God’s will and the other is rooted in the preceptive aspect of God’s will. Do you really disagree with that?
I am at the point where I have nothing more to say except what I have already said.
Thank you for the discussion.
May God bless!
Grover
By: Grover Gunn on August 23, 2008
at 3:37 pm
Yes, and I would assert that your deduction that God “desires” the non-elect to obey His preceptive will is invalid (it doesn’t “necessarily” follow), and it blatantly contradicts the numerous passages of Scripture which teach that God “desires” the non-elect to disobey His preceptive will by “blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts” to the truth of the gospel. As I mentioned before, if God truly wanted or “desired” the non-elect to be saved, He would have chosen them for salvation, imputed their sins to Christ, and caused them to obey His preceptive will by believing the gospel message. He did not do so. Therefore, He does not “desire” their salvation.
Yes, I “really disagree with that,” as does Calvin and most of the other early Reformed theologians. Once you posit a “desire” to the preceptive will, you make it an unfulfilled volitional aspect of God’s will within Himself (ad infra) that is blatantly contradictory to His decretive will within Himself (ad infra). You can’t have two contradictory “desires” within God’s being without destroying the simplicity of His will and making Him schizophrenic.
As I mentioned earlier, the preceptive will can be called God’s will only in a metaphorical sense. The preceptive will is not God within Himself (ad-infra) “willing” as a rule for His own actions, but what God “wills” to reveal outside Himself (ad-extra) as the rule for the creature’s actions. There is a clear difference between the two. The preceptive will terminates outside God’s essence as that which He actively wills to require of man, while the decretive will abides within Himself as His living will in regard to His own actions.
In the analogy you gave of yourself stealing, God “desired” for you to steal (since that is what He providentially caused you to do), even though He “commanded” you not to steal. God’s “command” not to steal is what He has “willed” to reveal outside Himself (ad extra) as the rule for your actions, not what He “desired” or “willed” within Himself (ad infra) for you to actually do. This is the only view that harmonizes the biblical evidence and maintains the simplicity of God’s will.
Thank you once again for the discussion. It has been very interesting. May God continue to bless you and your family!
In Christ,
Roger
By: Roger Mann on August 23, 2008
at 7:58 pm
Tonight I found on the Internet a translation of the Formula Consensus Helvetica provided by R. Scott Clark and used by permission of the translator.
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/helveticformula.php
Canon XIX deals with the “external call,” and I believe this statement is relevant to the free offer of the gospel.
Since the Formula Consensus Helvetica was written by Francis Turretin, I decided to see what I can find in his Institutes. Turretin deals with Amyraldianism in the fourth topic, seventeenth question (1.395 ff). I think the paragraph most relevant to the free offer is Topic 4, Question 17, Paragraph VIII. on page 1.397.
By: Grover Gunn on August 25, 2008
at 10:14 pm
I found some other relevant quotations from Turretin’s Institutes on the Internet:
http://members.aol.com/rsiworship/will1.html
By: Grover Gunn on August 26, 2008
at 10:58 am
Earlier I wrote:
Once you posit a “desire” to the preceptive will, you make it an unfulfilled volitional aspect of God’s will within Himself (ad infra) that is blatantly contradictory to His decretive will within Himself (ad infra). You can’t have two contradictory “desires” within God’s being without destroying the simplicity of His will and making Him schizophrenic.
I believe Turretin makes essentially this same point in the following quote [words in brackets are mine]:
By: Roger Mann on August 26, 2008
at 12:10 pm
Thank you, Roger. If you will read the last paragraph in the Turretin quotations, you will see the use of the word “desire” to refer to the preceptive will or the will of command. This seems to be the word which has divided us. I have said that it is not contradictory for God to will preceptively with one sort of desire what he has not willed decretively with a different sort of desire.
See Samuel Rutherford at the same URL where he refers to “a vehemency and a serious and unfeigned ardency of desire that we do what is our duty.” He then makes clear, as I have tried to, that he was not referring to any decretive will for the salvation of the non-elect. Follow the links at the bottom of the page, and see the second quotation from John Flavel (“His sorrows and mourning upon the account of the obstinacy and unbelief of sinners, speaks the vehemency of his desire after union with them”), the second quotation from Jonathan Edwards (“There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection.”), Robert Murray M’Cheyne (“The whole Bible shows that Christ is quite willing and anxious that all sinners should come to him.”), J.I. Packer (“And God in the gospel expresses a bona fide wish that all may hear, and that all who hear may believe and be saved.”).
By: Grover Gunn on August 26, 2008
at 2:07 pm
Yes, I noticed that. All I can conclude is that the Latin word translated as “desire” here doesn’t necessarily connote an unfulfilled “volition” in God (such as wanting, wishing, desiring, or longing for does), or else Turretin was simply being inconsistent here and contradicting other things he wrote. For it clearly doesn’t agree with the below statements by Turretin regarding God’s preceptive will or euarestia:
Therefore, I agree with what Turretin says in the above statements, and disagree with the quote you have pointed to — that is, if it means that God possesses an unfulfilled “volition” such as wanting, wishing, desiring, or longing for something to happen that is contrary to His decree. God’s will is simple and immutable; He doesn’t have unfulfilled and conflicting “desires” within His being; God is not schizophrenic.
Sorry, but the contradiction is not avoided by saying that God desires preceptively “with one sort of desire” what He has not willed decretively “with a different sort of desire.” For once you posit a volition such as “desire” in the preceptive will, you have God wanting or desiring the non-elect to “obey” and “disobey” His commands at the very same time. It results in two opposing “desires” within God’s being (ad infra), thus destroying the simplicity or unity of God’s will. It doesn’t result in God “desiring” something in two different senses; it results in God “desiring” two opposite things — that the non-elect “obey” and “disobey” His commands at the very same time — which is about as contradictory as it gets.
In reality, since God’s will is one and simple, the preceptive will merely reveals what God has been pleased to “command” as our duty (what we ought to do), while the decretive will determines what God actually “desires” that we do — whether we “obey” or “disobey” His commands. That’s why the preceptive will can only be called God’s “will” in a metaphorical sense. His true “will” or what He actually “desires” to happen is manifested in His sovereign decree and providential control of all things.
By: Roger Mann on August 27, 2008
at 9:30 am
Some of the other quotations referred to ardent desires and wishes.
Everything we know about God is to some degree metaphorical because it is a revelation of the eternal in terms of creaturely analogies designed by God when He created the cosmos to reflect His glory. God is knowable but incomprehensible.
God’s will is simple as God experiences it. Yet we in our finitude can understand God’s will only in terms of God’s revelation to us which involves a prescriptive aspect and a decretive aspect. We have to accept in faith that this apparent division in God’s will as revealed to finite creatures is based on a reality in God’s simple, non-composite nature which would be apparent to us if we could rise above our creaturely finitude. The best discussion I have read on this is in Richard Muller’s volume on the divine attributes and essence in his series on Reformed scholasticism.
http://www.amazon.com/Post-Reformation-Reformed-Dogmatics-Development-Orthodoxy/dp/0801026180/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219870674&sr=1-18
When someone experiences an apparent tragedy in this life, I tell them two things. First, what happened was God’s sovereign plan, and in terms of the big picture, God has a reason and purpose infintely greater than any pain we can experience. Second, if we focus narrowly on the evil involved in the tragedy, then God’s grief regarding that evil is infinitely beyond anything we can feel. I don’t believe the Bible requires me to say instead that God doesn’t share their sorrow and doesn’t emphathize with their pain because that would presuppose an unfulfilled desire in God. That would be a misleading pastoral theology rooted in a mixing of the implications of God’s decretive will with the implications of God’s prescriptive will.
By: Grover Gunn on August 27, 2008
at 3:26 pm
My two-cents and only because I think the same error underlying the heresy of the FV is repeated, even in somewhat less damning form, in the WMO.
First, you confuse hyper-Murrayianism with hyper-Calvinism. I’m happy to say that I don’t follow Murray on this point. OTOH, you have not shown, at least not in what I’ve read above, that a rejection of the WMO is to somehow beyond Calvin or historic per-Vantillian Calvinism. The epithet “hyper-Calvinist” being applied to opposition to the incoherence of the WMO, your proverbial biblical “knot,” is pure abusive ad hominiem. Besides, Roger demonstrates quite clearly above from the Institutes that both you and Murray are the “hyper-Calvinists” in your adherence to the WMO.
Second, Murray was wrong. God nowhere expresses an “ardent desire for the fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed.” On this point, and as Reymond points out, Murray’s exegesis of critical passages (which, interestingly, was in response to the Clark controversy) imputes irrationality to God. Besides, and more to the point, you along with Murray make the age old logical blunder of inferring something in the indicative (i.e., God’s desire for the salvation of all) from something written in the imperative (God’s command for the promiscuous publishing of His Gospel and the associated command that all who hear believe) which cannot be done. This was a categorical error that Luther seized upon in his response to Erasmus in Bondage. Luther wrote:
Even grammarians and schoolboys at street corners know that nothing is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by verbs in the indicative. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a simple imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning . . . ? (159).
So, please tell me Pastor Gunn, why shouldn’t Luther’s condemnation be applied to theologians and PCA pastors who make the same logical blunder when attempting to infer a sincere and unfulfilled desire on the part of God for the salvation of all from the universal command that all believe?
By: Sean Gerety on August 27, 2008
at 7:13 pm
An ad hominem argument is an attack directed at a person rather than discussing the issue at hand. At least, that is how I use the term.
It is unusual for someone opposed to the free offer to accuse a Calvinist who believes in the free offer of being a hyper-Calvinist. What is more common is for someone opposed to the free offer to accuse him of being an Arminian. Of course, I don’t agree with either accusation.
I get the impression that you and I disagree on the relationship of the eternal to the finite. If that is the case, then we can do no other than to disagree on these secondary issues.
The following is from Muller’s four volume work on seventeenth century Reformed Scholasticism:
I agree with this seventeenth century Reformed approach and thus am open to theological mystery. I don’t regard God as irrational but regard my understanding of God as limited.
By: Grover Gunn on August 27, 2008
at 8:39 pm
Yes, and I would assert that their statements are equally contradictory on this point. But that how does that answer my argument that God cannot have a “double will” or opposing “desires” due to the simplicity and immutability of His will? Better yet, how does it answer the irrefragable logic of John Owen:
Which of these two “options” set forth by Owen are you willing to own? Or are you actually content with maintaining the incoherent and illogical position espoused by the Remonstrants?
Everything that God has revealed in His word is comprehensible — meaning that we are fully capable of understanding the concepts proposed in Scripture. If our “theology” produces blatant contradictions, then we need to reexamine our exegesis and premises, for we have surely made a mistake.
There’s nothing “incomprehensible” here. God’s will is one and simple — He does not have a double will or opposing desires. The “preceptive will” is what God has commanded we ought to do as our duty, while the decretive will is what God “desires” we actually do through His sovereign providential control — whether to “obey” or “disobey” His commands. There’s nothing beyond our “creaturely finitude” here that we are incapable of understanding. Of course, to say that God “desires” that we “obey” and “disobey” His commands at the same time cannot be “comprehended,” but that’s because it is a blatant contradiction created by poor exegesis and invalid reasoning, not because Scripture teaches it.
I’d like to make a few more observations about what you have said, but it will probably be a few days before I can find the time to respond. But I promise to get back to you.
By: Roger Mann on August 27, 2008
at 10:26 pm
I believe God desires obedience to his revealed will in a sense which does not contradict his sovereign decretive will. You believe that any such desire necessarily contradicts God’s decretive will. As long as we have this root disagreement, we will keep going around in circles in our discussions. Your quotations are good, but they mostly deal with truths about God’s decretive will and don’t touch our disagreement. Thank you for the interaction, but I think enough has been said. I am ending this thread.
By: Grover Gunn on August 28, 2008
at 1:56 am