Comments on: God Makes a Wish: That Each and Every Sinner Might Be Saved! http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/ The official blog of Reformed Baptist Seminary Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:00:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Dr. James Willingham http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-2/#comment-6126 Dr. James Willingham Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:57:53 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-6126 Dear Sir: My ordaining pastor knew theology backward and forward. He was a supralapsarian on the basis of the order of the decrees. He considered that from his training in theology as justification for his terminology of himself as supralapsarian and hyper-calvinist. As to his preaching he simply followed the scripture which does express a desire for the salvation of sinners without placing any limitations. The preaching of "thus saith the Lord" might makes us dreadfully inconsistent with our selves, but he who is consistent with himself is consistent with a fool. The depth of the word of God written is like the clear flowing mountain stream that a friend of mine of Catawba Indian descent was fishing in one day. He decided to cross and, seeing the grains of and rolling along the bottom he figured it was only 2-3 feet deep. It was 18-20 feet and he nearly drowned. The Book being inspired by the omniscient God reflects that depth of intellectualism which would be commensurate thereto. Consistency is the bugaboo of little minds. What we really need is to see the most intense evangelistic appeals in the paradoxical truths of Scripture instead of explaining them away. Besides the two-sidedness of biblical truths are what make for the tension in our two-halved brains which enables us to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic representatives of Christ. I always laugh when I think it was a hyper-calvinist who founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy, when he was pastor of the FBC of Hialeah, Fla. We are, I think, hope, pray, drawing nigh to the event of a third great awakening. I have been praying for such for some 37 years - it will be this Spring. God often uses even Arminians asd well as those who are Calvnists, and both parties also present us with the anomalies of Reprobates of the worst kind which is not surprising in view of Judas. Our Lord used the truth of reprobation as a soul winning doctrine in his words to the woman of Canaan in Mt.15:21-28 couched in that little word, "dogs." What we need is for an awakening that wns the whole earth for a 1001s generations in order to have the numbers that might approximate those implied in the seed of Abraham being as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sand by the seashore as well as the redeemed in heaven being a number no man could number. Hyper-calvinism or supralapsarianism in its most intense evangelisitc forms could be the route to that end, if we could tolerate its liberal and humble ways - like the Pilgrims who were willing to be stepping stones for others to advance the cause of Christ and their pastor, John Robinson, who took part in the synod of Dordt and thought "Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God's word." And then there were those Puritans like Poole who were willing to acknowledge that even women, specially called and gifted, could preach the Gospel and teach men. And out of this Calvinism in the Calvinist Republics (George Bancroft's term) comes the greatest nation on earth and the one with the most freedom. Uh, do you really know your sovereign Grce theology? I speak only in humor , not rancor, as I have learned by thinking about this for 52 years that I know a whole lot less than I think I do. The implications of it are absolutely staggering. Here is the freedom, the joy, the power to win the whole earth, and that by the utmost gratefuly sacrifices. Dear Sir: My ordaining pastor knew theology backward and forward. He was a supralapsarian on the basis of the order of the decrees. He considered that from his training in theology as justification for his terminology of himself as supralapsarian and hyper-calvinist. As to his preaching he simply followed the scripture which does express a desire for the salvation of sinners without placing any limitations. The preaching of “thus saith the Lord” might makes us dreadfully inconsistent with our selves, but he who is consistent with himself is consistent with a fool. The depth of the word of God written is like the clear flowing mountain stream that a friend of mine of Catawba Indian descent was fishing in one day. He decided to cross and, seeing the grains of and rolling along the bottom he figured it was only 2-3 feet deep. It was 18-20 feet and he nearly drowned. The Book being inspired by the omniscient God reflects that depth of intellectualism which would be commensurate thereto. Consistency is the bugaboo of little minds. What we really need is to see the most intense evangelistic appeals in the paradoxical truths of Scripture instead of explaining them away. Besides the two-sidedness of biblical truths are what make for the tension in our two-halved brains which enables us to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic representatives of Christ. I always laugh when I think it was a hyper-calvinist who founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy, when he was pastor of the FBC of Hialeah, Fla. We are, I think, hope, pray, drawing nigh to the event of a third great awakening. I have been praying for such for some 37 years – it will be this Spring. God often uses even Arminians asd well as those who are Calvnists, and both parties also present us with the anomalies of Reprobates of the worst kind which is not surprising in view of Judas. Our Lord used the truth of reprobation as a soul winning doctrine in his words to the woman of Canaan in Mt.15:21-28 couched in that little word, “dogs.” What we need is for an awakening that wns the whole earth for a 1001s generations in order to have the numbers that might approximate those implied in the seed of Abraham being as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sand by the seashore as well as the redeemed in heaven being a number no man could number. Hyper-calvinism or supralapsarianism in its most intense evangelisitc forms could be the route to that end, if we could tolerate its liberal and humble ways – like the Pilgrims who were willing to be stepping stones for others to advance the cause of Christ and their pastor, John Robinson, who took part in the synod of Dordt and thought “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word.” And then there were those Puritans like Poole who were willing to acknowledge that even women, specially called and gifted, could preach the Gospel and teach men. And out of this Calvinism in the Calvinist Republics (George Bancroft’s term) comes the greatest nation on earth and the one with the most freedom. Uh, do you really know your sovereign Grce theology? I speak only in humor , not rancor, as I have learned by thinking about this for 52 years that I know a whole lot less than I think I do. The implications of it are absolutely staggering. Here is the freedom, the joy, the power to win the whole earth, and that by the utmost gratefuly sacrifices.

]]> By: Benjamin http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-2/#comment-2979 Benjamin Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:25:16 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2979 Dear brother... when you wrote, "<i>Thankfully, though, God can and often does overrule the erroneous thinking and practice of his children,</i>" I was overwhelmed with a hearty amen. Thankfully, He does not abandon us to our cherished evils and our folly. I have recently been studying an excellent book on clarity of expression and style. It is my sincere hope that, by the time you feel you can resume <a href="http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/06/does-god-want-sinners-to-comply-with-his-law-and-his-gospel/#comment-2620" rel="nofollow">our discussion of this subject</a>, I will be much more able to clearly address your undiminished confidence in this doctrine and will not unduly tax any reader in the process. Let us praise our glorious Father for this simple mercy. Dear brother… when you wrote, “Thankfully, though, God can and often does overrule the erroneous thinking and practice of his children,” I was overwhelmed with a hearty amen. Thankfully, He does not abandon us to our cherished evils and our folly.

I have recently been studying an excellent book on clarity of expression and style. It is my sincere hope that, by the time you feel you can resume our discussion of this subject, I will be much more able to clearly address your undiminished confidence in this doctrine and will not unduly tax any reader in the process. Let us praise our glorious Father for this simple mercy.

]]> By: deangonzales http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-2/#comment-2976 deangonzales Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:35:53 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2976 Dr. Willingham, Thanks for relating the anecdotal information about your mentor. When you say he called himself a "hyper-Calvinist," what do you mean? You apparently don't mean that he was a scrooge-like person who had no personal desire to see sinners saved and who refused to call sinners indiscriminately to repentance and faith. I'm happy to hear he did these things. Did he also tell the sinners to whom he preached that God did not desire that they perish but that they repent and receive His Son so that they might have life? Of did he deny that point and, therefore, call himself a "hyper-Calvinist"? If so, there are some who've responded to this post who would agree with your mentor's position but who would also refuse the label "hyper-Calvinist." Moreover, the fact that your mentor was a godly man, called sinners to repentance, and saw revival doesn't necessarily prove that his denial of God's revealed desire for the salvation of all men indiscriminately is right (assuming that was his position). I know of some Christian leaders in history who have held the Arminian position and who were godly men, called sinners to repentance, and experienced revival under the ministry. These facts do not, of course, justify their erroneous positions. The bottom line is whether the Bible teaches that God reveals a desire for the good and salvation of all men indiscriminately, including those whom he does not decree to be saved. I believe the Bible does (Deut. 5:29; Isaiah 45:22; Ezek. 33:11; Luke 13:34; John 3:16; 5:34). And I believe the healthiest position for any individual or church to adopt is that which is taught in Scripture. Thankfully, though, God can and often does overrule the erroneous thinking and practice of his children. Your servant, Bob Gonzales Dr. Willingham,

Thanks for relating the anecdotal information about your mentor. When you say he called himself a “hyper-Calvinist,” what do you mean? You apparently don’t mean that he was a scrooge-like person who had no personal desire to see sinners saved and who refused to call sinners indiscriminately to repentance and faith. I’m happy to hear he did these things. Did he also tell the sinners to whom he preached that God did not desire that they perish but that they repent and receive His Son so that they might have life? Of did he deny that point and, therefore, call himself a “hyper-Calvinist”? If so, there are some who’ve responded to this post who would agree with your mentor’s position but who would also refuse the label “hyper-Calvinist.” Moreover, the fact that your mentor was a godly man, called sinners to repentance, and saw revival doesn’t necessarily prove that his denial of God’s revealed desire for the salvation of all men indiscriminately is right (assuming that was his position). I know of some Christian leaders in history who have held the Arminian position and who were godly men, called sinners to repentance, and experienced revival under the ministry. These facts do not, of course, justify their erroneous positions.

The bottom line is whether the Bible teaches that God reveals a desire for the good and salvation of all men indiscriminately, including those whom he does not decree to be saved. I believe the Bible does (Deut. 5:29; Isaiah 45:22; Ezek. 33:11; Luke 13:34; John 3:16; 5:34). And I believe the healthiest position for any individual or church to adopt is that which is taught in Scripture. Thankfully, though, God can and often does overrule the erroneous thinking and practice of his children.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-2/#comment-2971 Dr. James Willingham Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:31:26 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2971 Dear Sir: My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell (Ph.D., Bob Jones U), was a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist (his words from the pulpit and person to person. He was evangelistic. He once pleaded with a member of my family to come to Christ until tears ran down the cheeks of that relative. Dr. Campbell was also the founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy (Cf.Who's Who in Religion. 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). He pastored mny churches during his life time, including the FBC of Hialeigh, Fl. D. R.G. Lee (Dr. C. once served as associate to Dr. Lee at Bellevue in Memphis, Tn) put it in his will that Dr. Campbell must preach his funeral. While he had five preachers, Dr. Campbell use to laugh and say, "The only one that was legal was me." Dr. Campbell once preached a revival in a rural church n Ga. and had 100 conversions. He had many young men surrender to the ministry under his influence. I consider it quite a privilege and an especially blessing to have had that supralapsarian, hpyer-calvinist as a friend an mentor. He was always gracious, winsome, attractive, and godly in his conduct and relations with others. Two of his well-known evangelistic sermons were on the The Great Supper and "Why Sit Ye Here Till Ye Die." Seems that not all hyper-calvinists are alike. And he did know his theology. As one who did 6 yrs.of research in church history and theology, I can tesity to his brilliant grasp of theological issues. Hymmm! Dear Sir: My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell (Ph.D., Bob Jones U), was a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist (his words from the pulpit and person to person. He was evangelistic. He once pleaded with a member of my family to come to Christ until tears ran down the cheeks of that relative. Dr. Campbell was also the founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy (Cf.Who’s Who in Religion. 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, 1977). He pastored mny churches during his life time, including the FBC of Hialeigh, Fl. D. R.G. Lee (Dr. C. once served as associate to Dr. Lee at Bellevue in Memphis, Tn) put it in his will that Dr. Campbell must preach his funeral. While he had five preachers, Dr. Campbell use to laugh and say, “The only one that was legal was me.” Dr. Campbell once preached a revival in a rural church n Ga. and had 100 conversions. He had many young men surrender to the ministry under his influence. I consider it quite a privilege and an especially blessing to have had that supralapsarian, hpyer-calvinist as a friend an mentor. He was always gracious, winsome, attractive, and godly in his conduct and relations with others. Two of his well-known evangelistic sermons were on the The Great Supper and “Why Sit Ye Here Till Ye Die.” Seems that not all hyper-calvinists are alike. And he did know his theology. As one who did 6 yrs.of research in church history and theology, I can tesity to his brilliant grasp of theological issues. Hymmm!

]]> By: David http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-2/#comment-2392 David Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:49:31 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2392 Hey Ben, Belated reply from me. I just want to cap off a three points, one a clarification, one a comment, one a thought experiment from Calvin. 1) Clarification, by indefinite I dont use that word to denote non-specific, but without limitation. This is one of the dictionary meanings of any better dictionary. To say God does not desire the death of <b>a</b> sinner is without limitation, not without specificity. 2) You say: "Regarding Ezek., you conceded that the man is “indefinite,” hence the verses are not referring to any specific person in history. The verse is therefore merely speaking of God’s recognition of repentance as intrinsically good and death as intrinsically bad. And yes, repentance and death do involve actual people — but that doesn’t somehow entail that the Lord must be speaking of His desire for actual reprobates in history not to be destroyed! In other words, it is not my position to say that God is speaking of death and repentance only as “abstract principles” irrespective of humans. I fully understand that death and repentance, as used in the passage, both entail the death and repentance of people. <b>Yet this does not oblige me in the least to say that actual historical people are the objects of God’s desire</b>, for, again, that results in a contradiction (pushing us again to that primary topic in (2))." [bold mine.] David: Now here is where blunt David wants to kick in, which I am trying to resist. I gotta say that does not make sense to me. The text at hand speaks to actual historical people. I know we have been over this, but I see no reason why this passage does not refernce actual historical people. 3) I am working my way through Calvin's Sermons on Genesis. I came across this tonight: "It would seem, at first sight, that what is said here might be without apparent reason. It is true God always knows why he commands or forbids men to do what pleases or displeases him, but we are not always informed of it." Calvin, Sermons on Genesis, Sermon 10, Gen 2:15-17, p., 164. What he says is correct. You would agree that what God commands he desires, at least in principle.Positive prescriptions indicate what pleased God So conversely, what God positive postscriptions indicate what displeases God. However, under your schema, how could God ever condemn a transgressor? apart from bare law. I mean, under your schema, God can never be said to displeased with the transgression. If I tweak your words a little: Yet this does not oblige me in the least to say that actual historical people are the objects of God’s <i>displeasure</i>." Right now I cant see why this would not have to follow. God was not actually displeased with the historical person Saul because of his transgression of God's postscription, which postscription, according to Calvin, indicates what <i>displeases</i> God. Thanks for your time, David Hey Ben,

Belated reply from me.

I just want to cap off a three points, one a clarification, one a comment, one a thought experiment from Calvin.

1) Clarification, by indefinite I dont use that word to denote non-specific, but without limitation. This is one of the dictionary meanings of any better dictionary. To say God does not desire the death of a sinner is without limitation, not without specificity.

2) You say: “Regarding Ezek., you conceded that the man is “indefinite,” hence the verses are not referring to any specific person in history. The verse is therefore merely speaking of God’s recognition of repentance as intrinsically good and death as intrinsically bad. And yes, repentance and death do involve actual people — but that doesn’t somehow entail that the Lord must be speaking of His desire for actual reprobates in history not to be destroyed!

In other words, it is not my position to say that God is speaking of death and repentance only as “abstract principles” irrespective of humans. I fully understand that death and repentance, as used in the passage, both entail the death and repentance of people. Yet this does not oblige me in the least to say that actual historical people are the objects of God’s desire, for, again, that results in a contradiction (pushing us again to that primary topic in (2)).” [bold mine.]

David: Now here is where blunt David wants to kick in, which I am trying to resist. I gotta say that does not make sense to me. The text at hand speaks to actual historical people. I know we have been over this, but I see no reason why this passage does not refernce actual historical people.

3) I am working my way through Calvin’s Sermons on Genesis. I came across this tonight:

“It would seem, at first sight, that what is said here might be without apparent reason. It is true God always knows why he commands or forbids men to do what pleases or displeases him, but we are not always informed of it.” Calvin, Sermons on Genesis, Sermon 10, Gen 2:15-17, p., 164.

What he says is correct. You would agree that what God commands he desires, at least in principle.Positive prescriptions indicate what pleased God So conversely, what God positive postscriptions indicate what displeases God.

However, under your schema, how could God ever condemn a transgressor? apart from bare law. I mean, under your schema, God can never be said to displeased with the transgression. If I tweak your words a little: Yet this does not oblige me in the least to say that actual historical people are the objects of God’s displeasure.”

Right now I cant see why this would not have to follow. God was not actually displeased with the historical person Saul because of his transgression of God’s postscription, which postscription, according to Calvin, indicates what displeases God.

Thanks for your time,
David

]]> By: Does God Want Sinners to Comply with His Law and His Gospel? | RBS Tabletalk http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-1/#comment-2390 Does God Want Sinners to Comply with His Law and His Gospel? | RBS Tabletalk Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:23:04 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2390 [...] depicts God expressing a wish for the good of sinners who in fact never experienced that good (“God Makes a Wish”). The study indirectly supports the doctrine of the well-meant offer of the gospel. Some Reformed [...] [...] depicts God expressing a wish for the good of sinners who in fact never experienced that good (“God Makes a Wish”). The study indirectly supports the doctrine of the well-meant offer of the gospel. Some Reformed [...]

]]> By: John Saunders http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-1/#comment-2368 John Saunders Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:41:51 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2368 I found this discussion very interesting and have mused a little over some of these issues in the past. I will make a brief comment about Mr Gonzales' statement. "(3) To take matters one step further, I’m hesitant to conceive of creation itself as inherently necessary to God’s maximum glory. The Bible portrays God as independent, self-sufficient, and eternal. He existed before the world and had no need of this world in order to be happy or glorious (see Acts 17:24-25; Job. 22:2). Therefore, God was not constrained to make the world by some lack in his glorious nature. He was not craving for something he lacked." I would agree that God did not lack something in His glorious nature. But if maximising God's glory does not include the ultimate expression of His love then I would disagree. If God desired to express Himself in a way (upon creatures bearing His image) that could not have been expressed in any other way than through this fallen world it would seem His glory is maximised. I mean that in all of God's eternal perfection and glory no creature could ever have known God's love, grace, forgiveness, mercy, kindness or benevolence like a fallen and broken human being. It is only through the Incarnation we can see God's love fully expressed. I think this is true not only in earth's history but eternally. In Him John Saunders I found this discussion very interesting and have mused a little over some of these issues in the past.

I will make a brief comment about Mr Gonzales’ statement.

“(3) To take matters one step further, I’m hesitant to conceive of creation itself as inherently necessary to God’s maximum glory. The Bible portrays God as independent, self-sufficient, and eternal. He existed before the world and had no need of this world in order to be happy or glorious (see Acts 17:24-25; Job. 22:2). Therefore, God was not constrained to make the world by some lack in his glorious nature. He was not craving for something he lacked.”

I would agree that God did not lack something in His glorious nature. But if maximising God’s glory does not include the ultimate expression of His love then I would disagree.

If God desired to express Himself in a way (upon creatures bearing His image) that could not have been expressed in any other way than through this fallen world it would seem His glory is maximised.

I mean that in all of God’s eternal perfection and glory no creature could ever have known God’s love, grace, forgiveness, mercy, kindness or benevolence like a fallen and broken human being. It is only through the Incarnation we can see God’s love fully expressed. I think this is true not only in earth’s history but eternally.

In Him
John Saunders

]]> By: deangonzales http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-1/#comment-2364 deangonzales Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:20:34 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2364 Dear Bookman, Thanks for your comments. I appreciated a number of your remarks but wasn't completely sure what to think about others. Perhaps I'll need to ask some questions to make sure I understand the main point you're seeking to make. However, as I indicated to Ben (above), I've just about used up all my blog time for this week. So I'll have to put it off for a while. Thanks for your patience. Your servant, Bob Gonzales Dear Bookman,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciated a number of your remarks but wasn’t completely sure what to think about others. Perhaps I’ll need to ask some questions to make sure I understand the main point you’re seeking to make. However, as I indicated to Ben (above), I’ve just about used up all my blog time for this week. So I’ll have to put it off for a while. Thanks for your patience.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

]]> By: deangonzales http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-1/#comment-2363 deangonzales Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:15:01 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2363 Ben, Somehow I knew you couldn't resist.:-) Unfortunately, I've used up nearly all my blog time for this week. Moreover, I need some time to carefully reflect on your arguments, do some reading, and formulate a reply. I have some initial thoughts that might help advance our discussion a step further. But I need more time to think them through. Thanks for your patience! Your servant, Bob Gonzales Ben,

Somehow I knew you couldn’t resist.:-) Unfortunately, I’ve used up nearly all my blog time for this week. Moreover, I need some time to carefully reflect on your arguments, do some reading, and formulate a reply. I have some initial thoughts that might help advance our discussion a step further. But I need more time to think them through. Thanks for your patience!

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

]]> By: Ben Maas http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/05/god-makes-a-wish-that-each-and-every-sinner-might-be-saved/comment-page-1/#comment-2361 Ben Maas Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:32:18 +0000 http://blog.rbseminary.org/?p=1146#comment-2361 Dr. Gonzales, I couldn't restrain myself; I'm going to reply to your recent post. I hope, however, that mine can be relatively shorter (emphasis on "relatively") due to your excellent articulation of the issues. <b>Regarding "Some Reservations"</b> (1) If those passages prove that the display of God's glory is His ultimate purpose in everything that He does, and if God is omnipotent, then I believe it follows that God will do everything in His power to display His glory, and therefore it will be displayed maximally. For if there exists a world which displayed His glory more than this one, it would imply either (a) that the display of His glory is not His primary objective or (b) that God is not powerful enough to fulfill His objectives. Seeing as both (a) and (b) are false, it follows that the disjunction [(a) v (b)] is false as well, which means that the antecedent -- "there exists a world which displayed His glory more than this one" -- is false by <i>modus tollens</i>. And that of course implies that this universe, this mosaic of Providence, is in fact the greatest possible world. (2) When I refer to the "greatest possible world," I am not speaking of some segment of history (pre- or postlapsarian, for instance), but of the <i>entirety</i> of history, including the prelapsarian world. (3) The fact that something occurs out of necessity is not necessarily (:)) disparaging to God's sovereignty. For instance, if God decrees that an event X will occur, then it is necessarily true that X will occur. Therefore, it is important that we distinguish between <i>consequential</i> and <i>absolute</i> necessities; the former are necessities which occur as a consequence of something else (e.g. God's decree), whereas the latter are necessities "in themselves." Now, if this world is the greatest possible world, would that mean that everything that occurs is an absolute necessity? Obviously, all that occurs occurs by the decree of God -- so the events of Providence are all consequential necessities. We must therefore speak more of God's decrees rather than the actual events on Earth to get to the root of the problem. When I say that this world is the greatest possible world, does it follow that I am saying that God is "forced" to decree certain things? Are His decrees absolute necessities? I say no. All His decrees logically flow from His desire to be glorified, and therefore (per the definition of compatibilist freedom) He is always acting freely. He is always acting in accordance with His desires, and therefore He is always acting freely. (If you believe libertarian freedom applies to God, I would have to vehemently disagree but that should be saved for another time. I can email you a paper for my philosophy of religion class regarding free will if you'd like. It attempts to disprove libertarian freedom, and in my opinion it would preclude libertarian freedom in God as well as in humans.) <b>Regarding "Dissonance"</b> (3) It may be that you misunderstand exactly what I mean by "glorification desire." I apologize if I was unclear. A glorification desire is not merely "everything God has planned and actuates in history" as you said at the beginning of the "Dissonance" section; it is a <i>desire</i> that only those events actuated in history occur. It is a desire that only this world occur. For instance, if I were to desire that the Magic beat the Cavs 4-2 in the Eastern Conference Finals (which happened), I would have a glorification desire. If I were to desire that the Cavs beat the Magic (which did not happen), then I would have a non-glorification desire. As a result, it is still consistent for me to say that God ordains others to have non-glorification desires and that these non-glorification desires glorify God, contrary to this that you said: <blockquote>Ben is incorrect, in my view, to label Christ’s (or Paul’s) non-actuated desires as “non-glorification desires” since the desires themselves (though non-actuated) bring glory to God.</blockquote> Hopefully you can see that while the non-glorification desires do in fact bring glory to God (since they occur in the course of Providence), it does not follow that they are nonetheless non-glorification desires per the definition I just gave above. [By the way, I don't see non-glorification desires (and therefore dissonance) as intrinsically bad in the least. You may have implied that I did when you later said that "Jesus did not merely passively experience a discordant note of desire, but He actively plucked the chord of that discordant note in God’s ear in the cry of prayer" -- as if His active "dissonance" was destructive of my position. If you did not imply that, then forget this entire bracketed section.] (5) As for your argument against dissonance, you seemed only to say that you see no reason why there shouldn't be dissonance in God, and then you drew out how dissonance in other settings (e.g. a symphony) is good. This was similar to my argument that I used for the more nuanced view of impassibility (in the Twelve Theses): I said that so long as Scripture expressed God as emotive without giving us a reason to suppose He can't be emotive, we should stick with the plain interpretation. Likewise, you seem to say that so long as Scripture does not provide a reason against dissonance in God, it should belong to the Archetype as well. But, as you noted in passing throughout your post, the reasons for dissonance seem to belong only to humans. You said that Jesus's desire to have the cup pass from Him was perhaps "due to the normal and non-sinful human desire to avoid pain as well as the ethical desire as a sinless human being to avoid God’s punishment." You went on to say that Jesus's non-glorification desire was not due to finitude (with which I agree). However, I ask you this: if non-glorification desires seem to depend on the desires to avoid pain or to avoid punishment, or on non-omniscience (as with Paul), then how can non-glorification desires be present in God? This cannot be a deductive argument, but I believe that <i>if it can be inductively established that reasons for non-glorification desires are reasons that cannot be held by God, then it is proper to conclude that God can have no non-glorification desires.</i> And that is my argument against any type of dissonance in the Godhead. So far, I have found that all reasons for non-glorification desires are reasons God cannot hold. <b>Regarding the Conclusion</b> I remember reading that exact passage from Piper in his <i>Desiring God</i>, if I recall correctly; I'm pretty sure it was in a footnote and gave me great joy when I was trying to think how God could desire righteousness and decree sin without contradicting Himself. That book got me into Reformed theology and turned me into a low Calvinist until I later became a high Calvinist. Anyway, no offense to Piper or to you, but I don't view Piper's contrary opinion of too great importance -- not because he is a deficient theologian (not at all!), but mainly because the fact that God acts for the purpose of His own glory in general does not logically oblige me to accept low Calvinism. In other words, the issue of God's displaying His glory seems a bit too tangential to the divide between Low and High Calvinism. I think that's all I have left to say. I wish you the best, Dr. Gonzales. Sincerely in Christ, Ben Dr. Gonzales,

I couldn’t restrain myself; I’m going to reply to your recent post. I hope, however, that mine can be relatively shorter (emphasis on “relatively”) due to your excellent articulation of the issues.

Regarding “Some Reservations”

(1) If those passages prove that the display of God’s glory is His ultimate purpose in everything that He does, and if God is omnipotent, then I believe it follows that God will do everything in His power to display His glory, and therefore it will be displayed maximally. For if there exists a world which displayed His glory more than this one, it would imply either (a) that the display of His glory is not His primary objective or (b) that God is not powerful enough to fulfill His objectives. Seeing as both (a) and (b) are false, it follows that the disjunction [(a) v (b)] is false as well, which means that the antecedent — “there exists a world which displayed His glory more than this one” — is false by modus tollens. And that of course implies that this universe, this mosaic of Providence, is in fact the greatest possible world.

(2) When I refer to the “greatest possible world,” I am not speaking of some segment of history (pre- or postlapsarian, for instance), but of the entirety of history, including the prelapsarian world.

(3) The fact that something occurs out of necessity is not necessarily (:)) disparaging to God’s sovereignty. For instance, if God decrees that an event X will occur, then it is necessarily true that X will occur. Therefore, it is important that we distinguish between consequential and absolute necessities; the former are necessities which occur as a consequence of something else (e.g. God’s decree), whereas the latter are necessities “in themselves.”

Now, if this world is the greatest possible world, would that mean that everything that occurs is an absolute necessity? Obviously, all that occurs occurs by the decree of God — so the events of Providence are all consequential necessities. We must therefore speak more of God’s decrees rather than the actual events on Earth to get to the root of the problem. When I say that this world is the greatest possible world, does it follow that I am saying that God is “forced” to decree certain things? Are His decrees absolute necessities? I say no. All His decrees logically flow from His desire to be glorified, and therefore (per the definition of compatibilist freedom) He is always acting freely. He is always acting in accordance with His desires, and therefore He is always acting freely. (If you believe libertarian freedom applies to God, I would have to vehemently disagree but that should be saved for another time. I can email you a paper for my philosophy of religion class regarding free will if you’d like. It attempts to disprove libertarian freedom, and in my opinion it would preclude libertarian freedom in God as well as in humans.)

Regarding “Dissonance”

(3) It may be that you misunderstand exactly what I mean by “glorification desire.” I apologize if I was unclear. A glorification desire is not merely “everything God has planned and actuates in history” as you said at the beginning of the “Dissonance” section; it is a desire that only those events actuated in history occur. It is a desire that only this world occur. For instance, if I were to desire that the Magic beat the Cavs 4-2 in the Eastern Conference Finals (which happened), I would have a glorification desire. If I were to desire that the Cavs beat the Magic (which did not happen), then I would have a non-glorification desire.

As a result, it is still consistent for me to say that God ordains others to have non-glorification desires and that these non-glorification desires glorify God, contrary to this that you said:

Ben is incorrect, in my view, to label Christ’s (or Paul’s) non-actuated desires as “non-glorification desires” since the desires themselves (though non-actuated) bring glory to God.

Hopefully you can see that while the non-glorification desires do in fact bring glory to God (since they occur in the course of Providence), it does not follow that they are nonetheless non-glorification desires per the definition I just gave above. [By the way, I don't see non-glorification desires (and therefore dissonance) as intrinsically bad in the least. You may have implied that I did when you later said that "Jesus did not merely passively experience a discordant note of desire, but He actively plucked the chord of that discordant note in God’s ear in the cry of prayer" -- as if His active "dissonance" was destructive of my position. If you did not imply that, then forget this entire bracketed section.]

(5) As for your argument against dissonance, you seemed only to say that you see no reason why there shouldn’t be dissonance in God, and then you drew out how dissonance in other settings (e.g. a symphony) is good. This was similar to my argument that I used for the more nuanced view of impassibility (in the Twelve Theses): I said that so long as Scripture expressed God as emotive without giving us a reason to suppose He can’t be emotive, we should stick with the plain interpretation. Likewise, you seem to say that so long as Scripture does not provide a reason against dissonance in God, it should belong to the Archetype as well.

But, as you noted in passing throughout your post, the reasons for dissonance seem to belong only to humans. You said that Jesus’s desire to have the cup pass from Him was perhaps “due to the normal and non-sinful human desire to avoid pain as well as the ethical desire as a sinless human being to avoid God’s punishment.” You went on to say that Jesus’s non-glorification desire was not due to finitude (with which I agree).

However, I ask you this: if non-glorification desires seem to depend on the desires to avoid pain or to avoid punishment, or on non-omniscience (as with Paul), then how can non-glorification desires be present in God? This cannot be a deductive argument, but I believe that if it can be inductively established that reasons for non-glorification desires are reasons that cannot be held by God, then it is proper to conclude that God can have no non-glorification desires. And that is my argument against any type of dissonance in the Godhead. So far, I have found that all reasons for non-glorification desires are reasons God cannot hold.

Regarding the Conclusion

I remember reading that exact passage from Piper in his Desiring God, if I recall correctly; I’m pretty sure it was in a footnote and gave me great joy when I was trying to think how God could desire righteousness and decree sin without contradicting Himself. That book got me into Reformed theology and turned me into a low Calvinist until I later became a high Calvinist. Anyway, no offense to Piper or to you, but I don’t view Piper’s contrary opinion of too great importance — not because he is a deficient theologian (not at all!), but mainly because the fact that God acts for the purpose of His own glory in general does not logically oblige me to accept low Calvinism. In other words, the issue of God’s displaying His glory seems a bit too tangential to the divide between Low and High Calvinism.

I think that’s all I have left to say. I wish you the best, Dr. Gonzales.

Sincerely in Christ,
Ben

]]>