Does God Want Sinners to Comply with His Law and His Gospel?
Posted by deangonzales on June 11, 2009
I recently posted a brief exposition of Deuteronomy 5:29, which 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 folk, however, don’t think the idea of a well-meant offer is biblical. They agree that God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. But they don’t believe that God desires those whom he obligates (i.e., all men) to comply. In other words, they object to the idea that divine commands or precepts can be understood in any sense as God’s desires or wishes. Below I’d like to provide a string of citations from Reformed and Puritan authors who do in fact construe God’s preceptive will in terms of “desire” or “wish.”
John Calvin (1509-1564):
What I have said of the precepts, abundantly suffices to confound your blasphemies. For though God gives no pretended commands, but seriously declares what he wishes and approves [Latin: vult et probat.]; yet it is in one way, that he wills the obedience of his elect whom he efficaciously bends to compliance; and in another that of the reprobate whom he warns by the external word, but does not see good to draw to himself. Contumacy and depravity are equally natural to all, so that none is ready and willing to assume the yoke (emphasis added). John Calvin, Secret Providence, trans., by James Lillie, Article 7, John Calvin’s reply.
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583):
There are four classes of things concerning which men give commandment. These are, first, divine precepts, which God desires, that men should propose unto themselves for their observance, not, however, in their own name, but by the authority of God himself, as being the ministers and messengers, and not the authors of these precepts (emphasis added). Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans., G. W. Willard (Phillipsburg NJ: P&R, 1994), 519-520.
Amandus Polandus (1561-1610):
“It is called voluntas signi, because it signifies what is pleasing to God, what belongs to our duty, what He wishes to be done or omitted by us, etc.” These “signa voluntatis, from which it is known what God wills”, are “precept, prohibition, permission, counsel, and the fulfilment of predictions” (emphasis added). Cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 85.
Abrahamus Heidanus (1597-1678):
Strictly speaking there is but a single will of God called beneplaciti, whereby God determines by Himself what He wills to do in and concerning the creature. The second is but the sign and indication by which He shows what He wishes creatures to do. But He does not wish them to make His beneplacitum universal; but only the things which He reveals to them, Dt. 29. 29 (emphasis added). Cited in Heirnich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 87.
François Turretini (1623-1687):
It is one thing to will reprobates to come (i.e., to command them to come and to desire it); another to will they should not come (i.e., to nill the giving them the power to come). God can in calling them will the former and yet not the latter without any contrariety because the former respects only the will of precept, while the latter respects the will of decree…. The invitation to the wedding proposed in the parable (Mt. 22:1-14) teaches that the king wills (i.e., commands and desires) the invited to come and that this is their duty; but not that the king intends or has decreed that they should really come. (emphasis added). Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1994) 2:507-509.
John Owen (1616-1683)
It appeareth, then, that the secret and revealed will of God are diverse in sundry respects, but chiefly in regard of their acts and their objects. First, In regard of their acts, the secret will of God is his eternal decree and determination concerning any thing to be done in its appointed time; his revealed will is an act whereby he declareth himself to love or approve any thing, whether ever it be done or no. Secondly, They are diverse in regard of their objects. The object of God’s purpose and decree is that which is good in any kind, with reference to its actual existence, for it must infallibly be performed; but the object of his revealed will is that only which is morally good (I speak of it inasmuch as it approveth or commandeth), agreeing to the law and the gospel, and that considered only inasmuch as it is good; for whether it be ever actually performed or no is accidental to the object of God’s revealed will (emphasis added). John Owen, Display of Arminianism, in The Works of John Owen (reprint, Banner of Truth, 1967), 10:46-47.
Hermann Venema (1697-1787):
God wishes his laws to be obeyed, and therefore wishes also his creatures to be incited in every way to the keeping of them. This purpose is greatly served by the prospect of rewards. But justice loves and demands these rewards. Hermann Venema, Institutes of Theology, trans., by Alex W. Brown, (Andover: W.F. Draper Brothers, 1853), 172.
William Cunningham (1805-1861):
Many of the events that take place,–such as the sinful actions of men,–are opposed to, or inconsistent with, His will as revealed in His law, which is an undoubted indication of what He wished or desired that men should do. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Banner of Truth, 1994), 2:452.
John L. Dagg (1794–1884):
Closely allied to the last signification, and perhaps included in it, is that use of the term will, in which it denotes command, requirement. When the person, whose desire or pleasure it is that an action should be performed by another, has authority over that other, the desire expressed assumes the character of precept. The expressed will of a suppliant, is petition; the expressed will of a ruler, is command. What we know that it is the pleasure of God we should do, it is our duty to do, and his pleasure made known to us becomes a law (emphasis added). John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order, (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 100.
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921):
The term “expressed or signified will” owes its origin to the fact that this will “expresses” or “signifies” what is pleasing to God and is our duty. It is made known to us by means of the five “signs” or “marks”: “precept, prohibition, counsel, permission, and operation.” (emphasis added). The Doctrine of God, trans. William Hendricksen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), 237.
Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)
We certainly have a right to say that the love which God originally bears toward man as created in His image survives in the form of compassion under the reign of sin. This being so, when the sinner comes in contact with the gospel of grace, it is natural for God to desire that he should accept its offer and be saved. We must even assume that over against the sin of rejection of the gospel this love continues to assert itself, in that it evokes from the divine heart sincere sorrow over man’s unbelief. But this universal love should be always so conceived as to leave room for the fact that God, for sovereign reasons, has not chosen to bestow upon its objects that higher love which not merely desires, but purposes and works out the salvation of some. It may be difficult to realize from any analogy in our own consciousness how the former can exist without giving rise to the latter; yet we are clearly led to believe that such is the case in God. A logical impossibility certainly is not involved, and our utter ignorance regarding the motives which determine the election of grace should restrain us from forming the rash judgment that, psychologically speaking, the existence of such a love in God for the sinner and the decree of preterition with reference to that same sinner are mutually exclusive. For, let it be remembered, we are confronted with the undeniable fact that this universal love of God, however defined, does not induce Him to send the gospel of salvation to all who are its objects. If the withholding of the gospel is consistent with its truthfulness, then a fortiori the withholding of efficacious grace must be. That there are good reasons for the former is true: but undoubtedly God has also His wise and holy reasons for the latter. The Scriptures do not assert that election and preterition are arbitrary decrees to the mind of God. All they insist upon is that the motives underlying them are inscrutable to us, and have nothing whatever to do with the worthiness or unworthiness of man (emphasis added). Geerhardus Vos, “The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980; 2001), 443–444.
John M. Frame (1939- ):
The decretive will is sometimes called “the will of God’s good pleasure” (beneplacitum). This is somewhat misleading, because Scripture speaks of God’s “pleasure” in both decretive and preceptive senses: for example, decretive in Psalm 51:18 and Isaiah 46:10, and preceptive in Psalms 5:4 and 103:21. Some have also called the decretive will God’s hidden or secret will, but that too is misleading, since God reveales some of his decrees through his Word.
For that reason, I hestitate also to call the preceptive will the revealed will (signum, “signified will”), though that language has often been used for this concept. Preceptive is also somewhat misleading, for it does not always have to do with literal precepts (God’s laws, commandments). Sometimes God’s preceptive will refers not to precepts, but to states of affairs that God sees as desireable, but which he chooses not to bring about (as in Ezek. 18:23; 2 Peter 3:9). The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 531.
Some of the citations above I pulled from the page “God Desires Compliance to his Will and Commands as Standard Reformed Doctrine,” on Calvin and Calvinism, which is a helpful historical theology resource. The reader may also want to consult the page “God begging” on Theological Meditations, where numerous citations from Reformed and Puritan writers depicting God himself pleading with sinners to receive the gospel.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
54 Responses to “Does God Want Sinners to Comply with His Law and His Gospel?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Thank you. Excellent and very helpful quotes. They show the balance that helps us to comprehend as best as we can this great doctrine. Unless one understands the absolute sovereignty of God, this is a question that would not even arise in one’s mind.
BTW, this very subject became the topic of discussion in our Twenty-Something’s” Bible Study last night. It was a profitable discussion then and it was pleasant to see this posted this morning.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Bob,
You’re on the opposite side of the fence from James White on this. How do you account for this apparent disconnect between classical or moderate Calvinism with “modern” Calvinism (which appears to embrace high Calvinism as if it was the orthodox position)?
RM
June 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thanks, Steve. You’re right about the fact that it’s our belief in God’s absolute sovereignty that prompts us to raise such questions. May the Lord bless your ministry.
Bob G.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Ron,
I’m not aware of Dr. White’s precise position vis-a-vis the things I’ve recently posted. I have read his post on “Squeamish Calvinists.” I suspect (and hope) that Dr. White in reality would have high regard for men like John Murray and others who affirmed the well-meant offer for what they perceived to be biblical reasons. Though I was somewhat disappointed with Dr. White’s article, I have great respect for his ministry overall and rejoice in the good he’s accomplished for the kingdom. i certainly want to maintain a friendly demeanor towards him even if we disagree on this issue.
In my reading of historical theology (which is by no means exhaustive), it seems that “low,” “moderate,” and “high” aspects of Calvinism have been around since Calvin himself. For example, I think Calvin himself went overboard on the subject of divine emotivity and impassibility (see my essay, “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”?) Not surprisingly, high Calvinists like to cite Calvin’s anthropopathic interpretation of the optative in Deuteronomy 5:29 to deny that God has a preceptive desire for the saving good of the reprobate. On the other hand, Calvin saw some gesture of divine love towards all of fallen humanity in John 3:16, which fits better with low or moderate Calvinism. He also, as the quote I provided demonstrates, could speak at times of God’s command in terms of his preceptive desire.
One thing we all need to remember is that none of the great Reformed or Puritan giants were infallible or perfectly consistent. They made mistakes. Sometimes they matured in their thinking and said things later in life that didn’t quite correspond with things they had said earlier. Perhaps in a few cases, they may have said things later in life that were less accurate than what they had said earlier. Isn’t it also the case with us as well. There are some sermons I preached years ago that I couldn’t preach today without some modification and adjustment.
For this reason, I certainly don’t think it’s fair for high Calvinists to claim their position as THE orthodox Reformed position. On the other hand, I wouldn’t make the claim that all the Reformers or Puritans completely or consistently supported a low or moderate Calvinism. Hence, the stream of Reformed and Puritan doctrine is probably broader than some would wish. One thing they all agreed upon, however, was the principle of sola Scriptura. They sought to give the Bible pride of place in all disputations over doctrine and practice. This is what I most love about them.
Blessings!
Bob Gonzales
June 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Hey Bob,
If we take the term “high” Calvinism as used by men like Dabney and others, including Curt Daniel if I recall correctly, it refers to what I would call Banner of Truth Calvinists, who are evangelical and fully support the doctrine of the Well-Meant Offer. High Calvinists would be men like Manton, Owen, Ridgeley, Turretin, AA Hodge, Warfield and so forth. All affirmed the free and well-meant offer.
I want to stress, I am not using “Banner of Truth Calvinist” as an insult, but from respect. I wish more were Banner of Truth Calvinists.
What the Puritanboard call “high” Calvinism is really hyper-calvinism.
As Phil Johnson said, to deny the well-meant offer is hyper-Calvinism. I would say most of the so-called high Calvinists on the Puritanboard are actually hyper-calvinist.
So then, High and Moderate Calvinsts stand together on the free and well-meant offer of the Gospel, against hyper-calvinism.
Thanks,
David
June 12th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Ron,
If I may say something toward your questions, I am not sure how you are using the labels “classical,” “moderate” and “high” Calvinism. As I view these categories historically, I think all within these groups affirm that God desires the salvation of all men in His revealed will. I consider Turretin, Dagg, Cunningham, Bavink and Frame to be high Calvinists, but not that all of them are of the supralapsarian variety.
One of the problems with contemporary or “modern” Calvinism is that many are not sufficiently studying what these past Calvinists have said on such things as the will of God, or on the atonement. They’re not aware of the diversity of opinions, so, with respect to the atonement as an example, they don’t understand what John L. Dagg is saying here:
Modern Calvinists automatically equate “particular redemption” with Owen’s position [limited imputation of sin to Christ], and they know of no such thing as a “particular redemptionist” who believes that Christ “atoned for the sins of all men” [an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ]. Anyone advocating that position is just automatically thrown in the Amyraldian basket. It’s a massive and pervasive historical blindspot. Calvinistic diversity on the point is largely unheard of or presented in present-day literature. Dr. Richard Muller has begun to try to correct the inaccurate historical categories, so he has recently begun to talk of non-Amyraldian univeral redemptionists [or "hypothetical universalists"]. Because of the confusion, modern day Owenists cannot begin to process how Jonathan Edwards, a particularist of sorts, could say the following:
High Calvinists like Turretin [who believe that there is a limited imputation of sin to Christ] and moderate Calvinists like Stephen Charnock, John Howe and Jonathan Edwards [who believe that Christ was punished for the sins of all men] can all affirm that there is a sense, in the revealed will, that God seeks or desires the salvation of all men. Historically, it was only the hyper-Calvinists who denied that point, and thus went on to also deny that God is giving a good-will offer Christ to any of the non-elect.
As Iain Murray, a high Calvinist, writes:
Tony
June 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
David and Tony,
Could you men provide a list of tenants under the headings (1) “High Calvinism” (2) “Moderate Calvinism” and (3) “Low Calvinism” that would help readers (including myself) understand the differences between these designations? I’m not an expert in historical theology so I’m probably imprecise in my understanding of the differences.
Thanks,
Bob Gonzales
June 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Dr. Gonzales,
This is what I have in mind by the labels above. They are more or less the way Dr. Curt Daniel uses them in his The History and Theology of Calvinism [bottom of the page], as well as in his doctoral dissertation on Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.
HYPER-CALVINISM = Strict Particularist Supralapsarian Calvinism that denies either 1) the universal love of God or 2) common grace or 2) the well-meant gospel offer or 3) duty-faith, or all the above. Some [not all] of these may even believe in equivalentism, such that Christ suffered just so much for so many sins.
HIGH CALVINISM = Strict Particularist Calvinism that is either supralapsarianism (not all supras are hyper) or infralapsarian. There are higher highs (supras) and lower highs (infras). They believe there is a universal love of God, common grace, free/good-will offers and duty-faith. They hold to the sufficiency of Christ’s death in the sense that it’s of infinite intrinsic value (a bare sufficiency), but not in the sense that he bore the guilt for the sins of all mankind (which is called an ordained or extrinsic sufficiency). They believe that Christ was punished for the guilt of the elect alone as their sins were alone imputed to Christ, but most of these reject equivalentism. The majority of them also believe that common grace flows to all because of Christ’s satisfaction.
CLASSIC OR MODERATE CALVINISM = Non-strict Calvinism that may or may not hold a form of ordered decretalism/lapsarianism (if so they would be infralapsarian). They say that Christ suffered sufficiently for all (unlimited imputation/ordained sufficiency), but especially for the elect (limited special intent and special effectual application). Basically, they are dualists. They usually see a connection betwen Christ’s death and common grace as well.
LOW CALVINISM = Those who profess to hold the other four points, but say that Christ died for all without making careful qualifications. It seems that they teach that Christ intended to die EQUALLY for all. I tend to put self-described “three-pointers” in this group as well, but they are difficult to categorize.
For more on this, you may wish to check this chart that I made. It lists some of the representatives. I discussed this chart in a radio interview with Gene Cook in Nov. of 2008.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Tony,
Thanks for posting this. I have a few questions about some particulars later. For now, I was wondering whether anyone tried to compile something like a taxonomy that places the various Reformed and Puritan theologians and pastors under one or more of the categories above?
Bob G.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Incidentally, there are also high Calvinsts that rejected ordered decretalism (whether supra or infra). Herman Bavinck is an example (see Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, ed. by John Bolt and trans. by John Vriend [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], 2:388-392). I should have accounted for that fact above. R. L. Dabney also rejected lapsarian speculation, but I would place him in the moderate category.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I don’t think any such taxonomy exists, or at least that I know of. Since David and I are intensely examining the primary sources of Reformed and Puritan authors (mostly by the electronic copies now available by Google, EEBO, etc.), we could probably locate most of the well-known men in one of the categories above, if you’re curious about one in particular. David is primarily examing the early Reformers, and I have spent most of my time reading the Puritans. I will even be searching through the 1689 divines eventually, if they are available on EEBO.
For a small taxonomy, check my chart on the bottom of the second page.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
The logic of this discussion at times escapes me, perhaps because I am not sufficiently trained in this mode of reasoning. It seems to me obvious that GOD’s will is not and never could be – as it proves to be continually with double-minded humans – opposed to His knowledge of what is most pure and holy and desirable. Whatever our Beloved has chosen to do, because He has seen that such a course will accomplish the most perfect end, He is wholly bent upon it. He does not, in other words, long for what He knows to be less perfect, less glorious. He does not desire less glory for Himself, less purity and holiness from the culminating work of His hands. It is only a human being who could at first put his hand to the plow and aim toward the light of the kingdom and then glance back over his shoulder with longing toward something far less majestic. There is no internal conflict within GOD over what He must desire. Rather…
“. . .he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.” (Job 23:13)
His will and desires are perfectly consistent with His knowledge and with each other. It is written that whatever He desires, He does and, therefore, He does whatever He desires. His actions, in that case, define what He desires… and do not leave room for conflicted yearnings that hardly see the light of day save in enigmatic utterances which some take to necessitate the interpretations they affix to them.
Or shall we play the game of open theists and assume that every longing or regret expressed by GOD is consonant with human longing and regret in such a way that we can say perhaps the LORD changes His mind?
We read those places where GOD expresses deep pathos regarding the sins of men, sorrowful and profound utterances over the spiritual insanity of this world, and we conclude that He must yearn for things to be different than they are. He must be expressing the “desirableness” of other circumstances. But what in all this encourages such presumption when other interpretations are possible?
We read of GOD “pleading” through us with those who have rejected Him (and He does) and assume this is equivalent to our term “begging,” even though this misses not only Paul’s whole point in II Corinthians but his entire method of “pleading” in His own ministry, which looked nothing like our “begging” precisely because it was driven predominantly by reason and argument, even refutation and instruction, and not by largely emotional appeals (which is a distinction of begging “on one’s knees”). It certainly fails to understand the “pleading” or “entreating” which a King has in mind.
I do understand where much of this apparent confusion begins and why it persists, perhaps even in the work of otherwise brilliant thinkers. Nevertheless, it continues to strike me as a bit contrived in order to conform the Scriptural teaching on deeply personal relationship and communion with our own experiences of this that we presently cherish. Perhaps they should be transformed into something even higher?
June 15th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Please, forgive me, but one last thing… Why do so many suppose that whatever GOD commands must reflect (from one interpretation of those commands) what He “desires”? Of course, I do agree that what GOD commands is connected to and implies the desires behind those commands. Nevertheless, I do not think that the implication is so straightforward and obvious.
For instance, as far as I am aware, most Reformed thinkers would say that GOD commands perfection and a complete embrace of His law. That entails not merely outward comformity but inward adoration and devotion (for the former is impossible without the latter). It requires precisely the sort of heart or nature that no human being has. It is, as Paul explains so eloquently, completely impossible because the law brings only wrath and enmity, strife and rebellion. In other words, it would seem absurd to suggest that GOD’s commandment that we keep His laws expresses some desire on His part that we actually do what He knows is impossible.
Usually Reformed thinkers speak of the requirements of the law as having been given for a much deeper reason and purpose: specifically for the purpose of conviction and the unmasking of our prideful self-sufficiency in the illuminating contrast with His breathtaking and utterly humiliating grandeur. There is, in other words, no desire in our precious LORD, in commanding that we keep His law, that we actually might do so. His desire is instead much more far-reaching and profound and much less self-frustrating.
Longing for man to keep the law (especially without His grace to do so) is as futile as Lucifer hoping he might actually be able to “make himself like the Most High”… and it is futile for the same reasons.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Benjamin,
I appreciate your humility in admitting that your finite mind may not have the capacity to fully comprehend God’s ways. I too confess that God’s ways are inscrutable (Rom. 11:33). That doesn’t mean, of course, that we cannot understand anything about God. God has revealed things about himself in Holy Scripture that are suited to our understanding. Let me try to help you.
You presently think that the Scriptures constrain us to believe that the only desires that may be predicated of God are desires that God in eternal decrees and in history actuates. You base your understanding on passages like Job 23:13, which reads,
You’re apparently citing from the English Standard Version. The original simply reads, “His soul desires, he does.” Of course, the sense is much the same. In any case, you would have done better to cite verses like Pss. 115:3 or 135:6. These verses specifically use the modifier kol-esher, meaning “whichever” or “whatever” or “all that.”
From passages like these, you draw the following conclusion: His will and desires are perfectly consistent with His knowledge and with each other. It is written that whatever He desires, He does and, therefore, He does whatever He desires. His actions, in that case, define what He desires… and do not leave room for conflicted yearnings that hardly see the light of day save in enigmatic utterances which some take to necessitate the interpretations they affix to them.
Your first premise is simply not true and needs to be adjusted in the light of the whole counsel of God. Moreover, your conclusions are wrong, not only on account of a faulty premise but also because you posit the conclusions in the kind of language that biases the reader to reject them without warrant. Let me demonstrate:
(1) You believe the grammar and syntax of such passages Job 23:13, Psalm 115:3, and Psalm 135:6 constrain the reader to the conclusion that actuated desires envisioned must every kind and instance of desire that might be predicated of the subject. This conclusion is faulty for two reasons:
(a) The scope of the desires envisioned is circumscribed by the context. In the context of the passages above, it is abundantly clear that the Scripture writers have God’s decretive desires, not his preceptive desires in view. Hence, the reader may conclude from these verses that whatever God decrees, he will actuate. However, the reader should not conclude that God’s decretive desires are his only desires.
(b) Nearly identical grammar and syntax is predicated of a human king. Concerning Solomon’s work on the temple, the Scripture writer asserts,
No sound interpreter would conclude from this verse that the only desires Solomon ever entertained were desires that he actuated. On the contrary, the scope of those desires Solomon actuated is limited by the context. Whatever Solomon determined to accomplish with respect to his building projects, he accomplished.
So the mere grammar and syntax–object ["whatever"] + subject ["he"] + verb ["desires"] + subject ["he"] + verb ["does"] fails to yield the conclusion you wish to draw. The scope of the kol-esher [or kol], i.e., “whatever,” or “all,” is circumscribed by the context.
(c) The Scripture predicates desires of God for ideal states of affair (considered in themselves and apart from God’s larger objective for the totality of human history) that are not actuated. God desired genuine the conversion and consequent blessing of the Israelite generation (Deut. 5:29) but freely chose not to actuate that desire. God did not desire the death of hard-hearted Israelites in captivity (Ezek. 33:11) many of whom he allowed to perish in their sin. God commanded Saul to exterminate completely the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:3). Saul failed to carry out that command and, according to the prophet Samuel, thereby violated God’s preceptive desire for Saul (1 Sam. 15:22). Other passages speak of God’s preceptive will in terms of “desire” or “delight” (Ps. 51:6, 16-17; 147:10-11; Ezek. 18:32; Hos. 6:6; etc.). And, as I demonstrated above, many Reformed theologians followed Scripture in describing God’s preceptive will not merely in terms of commands and prohibitions but also in terms of “desires” and “wishes.”
(2) You refer to passages that predicate non-decretive, non-actuated desires as “enigmatic utterances.” There is, however, nothing in these passages that is obscure except, perhaps, the obscurity introduced by certain interpreters who try to make them say something they don’t say because of the interpreters predisposition and bias against the concept of preceptive desires. Since, however, I have demonstrated that there’s no exegetical or theological reason to reject non-decretive, non-actuated desires in God, then there’s no need to evade the plain teaching of these supposed “enigmatic utterances.”
(3) I don’t “play the game of Open Theists” because I affirm God’s absolute sovereignty and omniscience, which they deny. God never alters the eternal plan that he decreed before the foundation of the world. God may, however, change his portended or signified plan of action (e.g., destroying Nineveh) when that signified plan of action is contingent on a human response (e.g., the repentance of the Ninevites). Of course, God’s change of plans with respect to Nineveh was part of his unchanging plan from eternity (contra Open Theism).
(4) Once again, you employ language designed to bias the reader towards your position and away from another when you assume that for God to desire earnestly that sinners comply with his law demands and gospel terms he must be “on his knees” like a beggar. First, the Bible unequivocally portrays God as desiring the salvation of sinners (Deut. 5:29; Ezek. 33:11; Luke 13:34; John 5:34; 2 Pet. 3:9) and as imploring them to be reconciled through his appointed messengers (2 Cor. 5:20). God doesn’t have to get off his throne to do this. Sincerity and earnestness do not require the relinquishing of one’s dignity or throne rights, except in the imagination of some Calvinists who are prejudiced against the biblical data. Second, then the Puritan or Reformed divines sometimes depict God as “begging” for the sinners conversion, they are using an analogy. Analogies are designed to a point or certain points of correspondence but not all points of correspondence. The point of correspondence between a beggar and divine entreaty is simply that of sincerity and urgency.
(5) That God can remain transcendently sovereign and immutable while also being immanently present and responsive to the world, even emotively, I’ve demonstrated elsewhere on the basis of Scripture’s teaching (see “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”?)
(6) In your second post above, you seem to imply that human inability seems to preclude genuine divine desire: “Longing for man to keep the law (especially without His grace to do so) is as futile as Lucifer hoping he might actually be able to “make himself like the Most High”… and it is futile for the same reasons.” My answer: Just as human inability does not negate human responsibility, so too human inability does not negate the validity of God’s commands or the genuineness of God’s desire for compliance with those commands.
In closing, Ben, let me exhort you, like I’ve done others who have interacted with me on this subject, build your premises on a sound analysis of all the Scripture data, then draw conclusions that are warranted by such premises. If we fail to do this, we distort the picture of God Scripture itself portrays.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Gonzales
June 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Precious brother, I appreciate your willingness to interact with me on this subject and I realize that I am probably not the best advocate or instrument to attempt to correct you or others in regard to this controversial topic. Nevertheless, I would also like to receive instruction where I have confused the matter, so I sought to converse here.
Please, allow me to address those portions of your response which I think reveal we have already begun to misunderstand one another. My reference to open theism (like your reference to analogies) is not meant to parallel your reasoning at every point. Obviously I did not assume that you believe GOD changes His mind or that He sees the future only in contingent terms or else I would not have asked whether we must now follow certain lines of reasoning and embrace these conclusions. I had a more important point in mind…
The open theist interprets Scriptural passages wherein GOD reveals a concern over the choices, often rebellious choices, of others. From this, they conclude that He was giving vent to His own frustrations, His own confusion or His own yearnings. They ignore — or rather they submerge — more straightforward passages wherein GOD declares He is not like a man that He should change His mind or repent and the open theists make these passages hermeneutically subject to those they prefer which inevitably leads them into logical nonsense. This is one of the most common objections to their abuse of Scripture and it is an objection they basically handle in a way similar to your handling of mine.
Does this make you an open theist? No more than believing with Roman Catholics in the resurrection of Jesus Christ makes me a Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, if one objects to the method chosen by open theists when interpreting Scripture, one cannot resort to that same method elsewhere… and I think you have. Of course, my opinions remain merely that till I have established them with better arguments, but I want to be clear about my intentions.
Instead of accepting the apparently universal language of Psalm 135 or 115 or Job 23, you insist that contextual considerations force us to limit this reference to “whatever” GOD desires to merely a “decretive” class of desires in Him. What is your reason for doing this? It seems, from what you wrote, merely the question begging assumption that passages outside the immediate context of these verses (the very passages in question) demonstrate that we cannot take “whatever He desires” to mean “whatever He desires” in general but rather these must mean “whatever He desires” ultimately. In other words, passages in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, for instance, which hardly “unequivocally” describe the desires of GOD are made the standard and definitive context by which straightforward and rather unequivocal language elsewhere is to be understood. That is precisely what open theists do. More technical descriptions are compelled to serve more poetic or narrative or anthorpomorphic expressions.
Ironically, after attempting to create a confusion around the “whatever” of the Psalms and of Job (“whatever” in the NET) where none really exists, you then compared it with the reference to Solomon’s having accomplished all he desired to do. I have no problem with examining context as this is always most important in determing meaning, even if we often have to go beyond the immediate context as you did. You ignored, however, that the phrase in Job is that “whatever [His soul] desires” or whatever GOD desires in His inmost being, “that He does,” which hardly suggests that there is a conflict within Him between what He does and what He really longs for.
Even your parallel regarding Solomon proves to be of little help to you and you were forced to leave behind the strict parallel to make your point. I will explain…
Solomon’s accomplishment of his desires, as you have pointed out, must be understood in terms of the nature and scope of those desires which give them content and meaning. You began your quotation with “. . .and,” which was nestled in the midst of a verse about Solomon’s building projects. Of course, these “desires” were all accomplished, without conflict, because they were desires specifically for the building of the temple. The scope of the passages in the Psalms and in Job, however, have no such restriction. They are intended, rather, as expressions of GOD’s complete freedom and sovereignty in general.
“Yes, I know the Lord is great, and our Lord is superior to all gods. He does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the ocean depths.” (Psalm 135:5-6)
Now, you insist that GOD also has desires that are not accomplished, which He “does not do,” so to speak. These desires are in conflict with what he actually sought to accomplish so that, in the end, we are required to make certain absurd suggestions about Him, such as:
1. GOD desires to save all of mankind and does not desire to save all of mankind.
2. GOD desires the repentance of Israel and does not desire the repentance of Israel.
Even worse, given that it is GOD Himself who must grant them this repentance and a new heart, He is apparently pining after a destiny He must fashion Himself. Your suggested interpretation, for instance, of Deuteronomy 5 could seemingly be consistently read, “Oh that [I would give them] a mind as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!”
Without even the slightest facetiousness on my part, I sincerely cannot see how your interpretation avoids this implication, given that you would agree (I presume) that only GOD could give them such a mind. If He was actually voicing a desire that they have such a mind and not merely, for instance, reflecting upon the real and obvious wretched state of these people and the future they are rushing toward, then we are left with a LORD who simply wishes that He would do something.
In every case, the desires are in conflict because they are desires basically which cover the same object (His ultimate purpose in regard to people’s lives)… and the parallel simply doesn’t persist in the example of Solomon.
To put it this way, there are no desires of Solomon’s regarding the temple which went unfulfilled. There is no hint of a desire that conflicted with what he accomplished. Though the desires in question are clearly in regard to the temple alone, they were truly ALL accomplished. His every whim in regard to the temple was fulfilled. But where Solomon’s purposes were fulfilled with a purity of devotion even Kierkegaard would be proud of, GOD seems less fortunate… and the parallel there ends.
Not all of GOD’s desires are what He does after all. You can, if you like, try to separate certain desires into “decretive” and “perceptive” categories, but these categories do not represent different kinds of desires. They represent merely the difference that some desires have gone fulfilled and others have not. In that sense, these categories make nonsense of the references from the Psalms and Job precisely because these passages are making the point that none of GOD’s desires (regarding the purpose of anything, particularly the outcome of this world) are frustrated or unfulfilled and this is a mark of His unified divinity.
Thus, the parallel between the references in the Psalms and Job and the reference to Solomon is that in each case, purpose or scope needs to express the kinds of desires intended by the author. I agree. Solomon’s desires in regard to the temple were all fulfilled. Thus also GOD’s desires in regard to the outcome of all things are all fulfilled. Arguing that all GOD’s decretive desires are fulfilled misses the whole point of your own parallel which establishes meaning according to the object pursued by such desires precisely because “decretive” and “perceptive” have the same object and are different only in that one category is “actuated,” as you say, and the other is not.
Therefore, if I say, “I want to purchase a new Bible” and yet I remain conflicted because I would also rather continue using my old Bible and not purchase a new one, it could hardly be said of me that “all my desires were fullfilled” in ANY context.
My argument has been that GOD chose to accomplish certain ends because He believed these to be absolutely the best and most glorious to Himself and therefore most beautiful and pleasing. Anything which accomplishes less than this would be less pleasing. The question before us is…
1. Whether GOD longs for what is less glorious and perfect
2. Whether He desires other than His choices reveal
3. Whether He acts in ways opposed to His chief end
I assume, if you will allow it, that whatever GOD did not choose, He refrained from choosing because it would not accomplish His ultimate end. These desires, therefore, which He did not choose would be, in some sense, an expression of longing for what would only compromise His ultimate aim in creating the world. Therefore, an expression of longing for what would only compromise His ultimate purpose is an act which, however slight, opposes His ultimate purpose.
If my ultimate aim is to remain on a diet, an expression of genuine longing to feast in a bakery shop of delights, however slight, obviously opposes my ultimate aim. It reveals that I am not fully dedicated to what is best. It is the case, then, that an expression on GOD’s part for a real desire to have what is contrary to His ultimate purpose is both an act opposing His ultimate purpose and a revelation that He is not wholly devoted to what is best and most glorious.
I would therefore interpret our LORD’s use of certain expressions (those you’ve cited) very differently than you have. I would interpret them instead as part of the accomplishment of His chief design, not as revelations of a deep-seated conflict within Him between what He knows is best and most glorious and what He wants but cannot have that is not most glorious. GOD does not, in other words, let slip anything which is not calculated to accomplish exactly what He most wants. He does not need to confide in man His inmost longings for what He cannot have. He does not sigh aloud distractedly, expressing groans of disatisfaction about the way history is playing out.
When, therefore, we read His declarations about the sorry state of things, when He exclaims, “Why will you die?” as He expresses the irrationality of the choices of Abraham’s children according to the flesh, these hardly lead us inexorably to the conclusion that GOD has deep needs or hopes that aren’t being fulfilled… and it is only people with an inadequate view of His nature that suppose He is like this.
I have no idea how you make sense of the description of Him in Job 35:
“Gaze at the heavens and see; consider the clouds, which are higher than you! If you sin, how does it affect God? If your transgressions are many, what does it do to him? If you are righteous, what do you give to God, or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness affects only a person like yourself, and your righteousness only other people.” (Job 35:5-7, NET)
Finally, my use of the phrase, “begging on one’s knees” was not a simple piece of rhetoric intended to wrongly bias others. I took it, in fact, from the link you provided from Mr. Byrne’s site wherein he mentions Phil Johnson’s objection to Francis Chan’s rhetoric. The word “begging” usually gives this impression to most people today who hear it and it is hardly appropriate as I believe you already agreed.
I respect and wholeheartedly embrace your insistence that GOD’s sincere and urgent message to us is what is intended by Paul in that passage. Excellent. Yet, we often take His expressions and run with them in terms of our own assumed definitions, thus, there are those who insist that GOD “begs” sinners to repent when, oddly, elsewhere He commands all people everywhere to repent, which would seem again conflicted till we realize that “begging” is not His attitude. How can it be when He is not submitting for our approval the requirement that we change?
You cannot beg for what is owed and required… We are obligated to repent in every sense imagineable.
I do not (thus far) think much of this position you are advocating but that does not mean that I do not think much of you, brother. Please read me in that light…
June 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I did not, by the way, intend to ignore any of your points, Mr. Gonzales. I merely felt I had gone on long enough. I will address certain others at another time…
June 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
My brother, please, excuse my persistence but I have thought of perhaps a clearer way to express a most important aspect of the objection I have to your interpretation of the Psalms and Job passages.
You separate GOD’s desires into “decretive” and “perceptive,” which I believe simply expresses the difference between those desires that GOD chooses to fulfill and those that are not fulfilled (or “actuated,” as you say). Where the Scripture declares that “whatever [GOD] desires, He does,” you limit this to his “decretive” will and desires. In other words, you limit this to the desires that fit into the category of those that are chosen to be actuated. Thus, you make Job and the Psalms to say, essentially:
“Whatever He chooses to actuate, He actuates.”
By implication, of course, a number of desires GOD has are never actuated, namely all those desires that aren’t actuated (those that are “preceptive”). However, this makes the passages in question, rather than bold declarations of the superiority of our GOD, merely trivial announcements that would be true of every creature that consciously wills anything.
If one follows Jonathan Edwards that all creatures are morally responsible who act according to their strongest desire, then it follows that one could say (in your sense) of any such creature, “Whatever he desires, he does” precisely because it is always true that whatever he chooses to actuate is what he actuates, regardless of how many other competing desires he might have. This means simply that we have a moral will.
It is hardly evidence of our greatness and divinity…
June 16th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Ben,
Thanks for your courtesy. Present demands won’t permit me to respond to all your comments above. But I’ll briefly respond to two remarks you make, which I hope will clarify my position and keep us from talking past one another:
Ben said:
If my ultimate aim is to remain on a diet, an expression of genuine longing to feast in a bakery shop of delights, however slight, obviously opposes my ultimate aim. It reveals that I am not fully dedicated to what is best. It is the case, then, that an expression on GOD’s part for a real desire to have what is contrary to His ultimate purpose is both an act opposing His ultimate purpose and a revelation that He is not wholly devoted to what is best and most glorious.
Bob answers:
Ben, I’m going to apply your logic to another real life example: If Jesus’ ultimate aim is to accomplish redemption on the cross, an expression of longing to avoid drinking the cup of God’s wrath, however slight, obviously opposes his ultimate aim. It reveals that He is not fully dedicated to what is best. It is the case, then that an expression on GOD’s part for a real desire to have what is contrary to His ultimate purpose is both an act opposing His ultimate purpose and a revelation that He is not wholly devoted to what is best and most glorious. Now, does the case of Jesus really support the conclusion?
Ben writes:
Where the Scripture declares that “whatever [GOD] desires, He does,” you limit this to his “decretive” will and desires…. By implication, of course, a number of desires GOD has are never actuated, namely all those desires that aren’t actuated (those that are “preceptive”). However, this makes the passages in question, rather than bold declarations of the superiority of our GOD, merely trivial announcements that would be true of every creature that consciously wills anything.
Bob replies:
Ben, this is absurd. Creatures do not have it in their power to actuate anything they desire. God does have it in his power to actuate anything he desires. And those desires he determines to bring into being, he most certainly does. That’s the teaching of Pss. 115:3; 135:6; Job 23:13. So there is a great gulf fixed between the sovereign Creator and finite creature. But the Bible plainly teaches that God considers certain states of affairs intrinsically desirable, which states of affairs he does not bring to pass in order to pursue higher objectives. This follows the analogy of Christ whose desire to avoid drinking the cup was not sinful but who chose (of his own initiative) to deny that legitimate desire in order to fulfill a greater objective. The mere fact that Christ had apparently competing desires does not make him schizophrenic or frustrated. Rather, the fact that he forgoes a lesser desire in order to fulfill a greater desire underscores his virtue and dignity. Analogously, God loses no virtue or majesty because he, in his wisdom, chooses not to actuate every conceivable state of affairs that might intrinsically be accounted by him “very good” (i.e., a world without sin) in order to pursue an even greater goal (i.e., a fallen world redeemed). This I believe is evidence of God’s greatness and divinity.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
June 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Brother, thank you for taking the time to respond to me. Your arguments are understandable and I appreciate the point you are trying to make with me… but, supposing I have understood you, there seems to be a slight alteration in your position. If not, then we have not altogether been in disagreement. If so, then I want to point this out so that you won’t be misunderstood by others.
First, your example of Christ is intriguing for the reason that I do not accept (and others historically have objected to this as well) the more common interpretation of that moment in the garden, which I take to be woefully contradictory with other passages and teachings of His, particularly in John. This usual interpretation contradicts Christ’s teaching on prayer, the teaching of Hebrews in regard to Christ’s prayers and His passion, Christ’s statements in other places in regard to His attitude toward His destined crucifixion and the importance, even the necessity, of it, etc. Obviously, Scripture does not contradict itself.
I think, however, that it would be most profitable for me to simply cite a reference here which you or others might find helpful to peruse which explores the subject better than I could here. The thesis written by Kazuaki Kato entitled, “A Study of Christ’s Prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane” (available at TREN) makes an excellent case in favor of a very different and much more consistent interpretation of that powerful moment you referred to… but it is also one which would not agree with your use of it here in this argument. Once again, then, you have made use of a controversial interpretation of one text to support the controversial interpretation of another and that merely begs the question. I really think that the resignation interpretation of that prayer is full of difficulties which leave it incoherent at a number of points.
Regarding your second point, aside from the assertions that your interpretation is the plain teaching of Scripture, you seem to diminish the force of your original argument when you say:
“God loses no virtue or majesty because he, in his wisdom, chooses not to actuate every conceivable state of affairs that might intrinsically be accounted by him ‘very good’. . .”
Now, I have not objected to the idea that GOD sees certain states of affairs in terms of varying degrees of value. I understand that He does and that He might even comment upon their nature in this regard. But that is very different from suggesting that He actually wants or longs for or desires any of these states of affairs to be actual or that He is sorrowful that they could not have been actual. This seemed to be your original argument, that He desired these other possible worlds even if only in a lesser degree than He desired the present one.
Of course, it would be less than honest to suggest that GOD’s declaration that His creation was “very good” did not comprehend within that statement the purpose for which it was created, which it fit perfectly. In fact, it must have, given that at the same time GOD declared that it was “not good” that the man should be alone. If we are interpreting this description of “not good” to be a basic declaration on our LORD’s part of the intrinsic state of the value of what He had made, then we would be forced to conclude that GOD had created a morally impoverished work. On the other hand, if “not good” and “very good” are phrases which comprehend the fitness of such a creation to fulfill their purposes, then they make perfect sense.
In that case, whether or not GOD considers a particular state of affairs “very good” has everything to do with its capacity to fulfill the most glorious purpose. Thus, His own opinion of such a work is defined in terms of its fitness to accomplish the supreme purpose for which He acted in the first place. So, once again, He does not deem a work “very good” which does not fit His overall purpose and certainly does not desire a world that would not accomplish what He has set out to accomplish.
How can He make so much in Scripture out of wickedly turning one’s eye toward the supreme delight and later looking back at a very different prize with longing (which would make one completely unfit to be His disciple) if we have so many supposed examples where He indulges in this kind of compromise?
It is one thing to say, “it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born” and quite another to say, “I wish Judas had never been born.” The former is observed to be true by our LORD all the time… the latter is nowhere His attitude. And I can affirm the former without presupposing the inconsistencies of the latter.
Either, then, you have softened your original statements regarding the longings or desires of GOD into something more like a rational observation on the qualities of certain states of affairs which are not of themselves desirable to Him… or perhaps you have mistyped.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Ah… I apologize. I do not wish to neglect an important point of yours. You assert that it is absurd to observe that to make Job’s statement merely a description that whatever GOD desires most to do, He does turns out to be parallel to Edwards’ observation that whatever any rational creature desires most to do, he also does. It is absurd, you say, because no creature can, of his (or its) own power, accomplish or actuate anything he desires.
Apparently, according to you, neither does GOD because He has contradictory desires and even GOD cannot actuate a logical contradiction. He cannot, for instance, save and not save the whole world, nor would He wish to (as this is not a “wish” in any semantically meaningful sense). Therefore, it can hardly be the point of Job and the Psalms that creatures cannot actuate anything they desire but that GOD can.
Nor are these authors of Scripture really making the metaphysical point that GOD’s activity wells up from within Himself in contrast to creatures who do actuate certain states of affairs (their own sin, for instance) by His sustaining power and permission alone. As with Solomon, the language of Scripture does give credit to men for fulfilling their own wishes and the image of a king indulging himself at times becomes an analogy for the King of Kings.
These authors, in context, are drawing this more important analogy common in other Scriptural passages that, like a king — indeed, as the truly Sovereign LORD — the Most High gets whatever He wants, down to the smallest detail, and that He fulfills all His desires in the face of our frustrated wishes which must be frustrated when they compete with the desires of the Holy One. We should all, therefore, cease striving against Him for it is futile and simply an absurd struggle against the inevitable fulfillment of what is good and just. All His desires are precious and must be accomplished.
When I submit and pray “according to His will,” therefore, it is not an unfulfilled “preceptive” will but His eternal decisions and decrees that I must pray in accordance to for it is these that will be accomplished. It is His eternal decree that is described in Scripture as “His will,” undivided, one and harmonious. It is this eternal decree that gives me hope and steadies my soul, not a whisper after other pastures which fades away without leaving any mark upon the course of history.
If you are right and GOD is “not willing that any” human being should perish, then this desire is clearly frustrated every few seconds of every day of my life (as often as people die around the world). How hopeful does that leave me, then, when Peter tells me that GOD is “not willing that any” of His elect should perish either? Well, it wasn’t a very comforting promise to those in hell…
June 17th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Ben said:
First, your example of Christ is intriguing for the reason that I do not accept (and others historically have objected to this as well) the more common interpretation of that moment in the garden, which I take to be woefully contradictory with other passages and teachings of His, particularly in John.
Bob replies:
Please identify the commentators who differ with the “common interpretation.” Also, summarize the contrary view. Thank you.
Ben said:
GOD’s declaration that His creation was “very good” did not comprehend within that statement the purpose for which it was created, which it fit perfectly. In fact, it must have, given that at the same time GOD declared that it was “not good” that the man should be alone. If we are interpreting this description of “not good” to be a basic declaration on our LORD’s part of the intrinsic state of the value of what He had made, then we would be forced to conclude that GOD had created a morally impoverished work.
Bob replies:
First, I have no problem with interpreting “very good” or “good” as meaning “well-suited for the purpose for which it was created.” Second, Genesis 2, as most evangelical Hebrew scholars acknowledge, is a recapitulation of day 6. Hence, the “very good” of 1:31 actually follows in time the “not good” of 2:10. Third, God’s expressed will for the world before the fall was that Adam and Eve not sin, that they fill and subdue the earth for the glory of God. It was for this goal that God pronounced the things he had made “very good.” Fourth, the point of Genesis 6:5-7 is to show that what God made “very good,” man had turned “very bad.” That is, man had violated God’s expressed intentions for humankind and the world and, as a result, had to be judged. This, however, is very different from saying fallen man frustrated God’s decretive plan (a proposition I do not hold).
Ben writes:
When I submit and pray “according to His will,” therefore, it is not an unfulfilled “preceptive” will but His eternal decisions and decrees that I must pray in accordance to for it is these that will be accomplished. It is His eternal decree that is described in Scripture as “His will,” undivided, one and harmonious.
Bob replies:
If you’re alluding to Matthew 6:10, where we’re enjoined to pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then I disagree with you. The will of God in focus there is God’s preceptive will. God desires us to pray that all moral creatures would conform to the kind of attitudes and behavior he desires because of its intrinsic moral virtue. Indeed, because of his very holy, good, and just nature, God of necessity must desire what is intrinsically virtuous and what is in conformity with his revealed will.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
June 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
You have been most gracious to continue with me, Mr. Gonzales, and are proving the sincerity of your complimentary close. I hope that I haven’t wasted your time.
As far as I can see, the only statements in your latest rejoinder that I have any disagreement with are as follows:
Third, God’s expressed will for the world before the fall was that Adam and Eve not sin, that they fill and subdue the earth for the glory of God. It was for this goal that God pronounced the things he had made “very good.” Fourth, the point of Genesis 6:5-7 is to show that what God made “very good,” man had turned “very bad.” That is, man had violated God’s expressed intentions for humankind and the world and, as a result, had to be judged.
There are also brief references to what is of “intrinsic moral virtue” and “what is intrinsically virtuous.”
As to the first, I appreciate that very good translations of Scripture often refer to GOD’s “will” in terms that you would describe as “preceptive.” GOD’s “will” in such contexts is identified with His commandments. It is common, as I’m confident you already know, for the equivocal nature of much of English usage to become a point of contention in more scholarly dialogues.
One important example might be the ambiguous nature of “cannot” and “unable” (along with their various derivatives) in the debate over “free will” (itself ambiguous). There are, of course, at least two different but important meanings of “cannot” and “unable” which certain Christian thinkers and pastors have outlined and separated for the purpose of communicating just what is at stake in saying, for instance, that the natural man “cannot” understand the things of the Spirit or that no man “can” come to Christ unless the Father who sent Him draws such a person.
I think too many Calvinist commentators and pastors (who perhaps have not learned enough of their philosophy from Edwards) make precisely this error and miscommunicate to a group of people who disagree with them and believe that the primary problem with man is metaphysical or epistemological. Talking about what man “cannot” do or know in the wrong sense only exacerbates this error.
At any rate, I think something of the same thing occurs in the use of “will” in many of these passages. Words like “desire” and “will” often give the impression that the one willing or desiring must take some sort of “pleasure” in what he or she is seeking. Thus, many object to the idea that GOD might have “willed” or “desired” the death of the wicked because He has said expressly that He takes no “pleasure” in their deaths. But, of course, one can say that GOD wills or desires the deaths of the wicked for some other purpose beyond them while at the same time He takes no pleasure in those deaths. For those who make such an objection, images like the one in Revelation wherein people are tormented “in the presence of the Lamb” where the smoke of their torment rises up forever have to be hard to swallow.
It is not difficult, however, to see that GOD does not always “will” or “desire” (in the stricter sense of having chosen or set himself to accomplishing) whatever He commands or He expresses about the future. An instance that comes to mind is the prophecy of Jonah to Ninevah which contained no hope of redemption. Yet, when we listen to the conversation which GOD has with Jonah at the end of the prophetic book, it is clear that GOD never intended to destroy the city. The same is true of the prophecy in regard to the death of Hezekiah which was postponed though no such possibility was contained in the original statement. In fact, it seemed quite certain Hezekiah would die at the appointed time. And, of course, David – knowing the heart of his precious LORD – appealed to GOD for the life of his child though GOD had given no promise of repeal. In that case, His “will” certainly was to take the child to Himself.
GOD’s commandments and declarations are not necessarily, as David knew well, statements of His “will” because they are calculated to achieve a certain purpose. Hezekiah and Jonah were humbled, Ninevah perhaps would never have repented under a different message, and David was given a powerful testimony of the curse of sin upon a family and the limitations even of a king who enjoys GOD’s favor. None of GOD’s proclamations was for the purpose of expressing His true desires about what He knew He had determined to bring to pass.
The same is true when we find that Christ came not only to make the blind to see but to make those who “see” to become blind and to be condemned. As He said in John 15:
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’”
His ministry was also a ministry of condemnation, “for the rise and fall” of many in Israel. Matthew 11:20-26 offers a powerful teaching in that regard and, in light of such cases, we realize that even the Gospel must be understood as having a dual purpose, both for the salvation of the elect and the greater glory of GOD in the condemnation of the non-elect as they encounter the Gospel and spit upon it.
What GOD wills or intends, therefore, is not always obvious on the surface. Just because He invites others into the riches of His presence, to taste of His Son in faith, does not mean that He desires them to actually do this. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, He desires that they should be condemned justly in the face of their stubborn and hateful resistance to Him and their inevitable rejection of His Son. It is fallacious, therefore, to attribute to His general invitation a desire for the salvation of all people, especially when it is clear He often provides such an invitation or proof of His majesty for the purpose of condemning them and withholds these things where He knows they would have concluded in the salvation of a people who were never otherwise saved historically.
It is dreadfully wrong to put upon Him a motive He never embraced to Himself and which, in fact, all His activity denies. As Job’s friends learned, GOD hates it when we say of Him what is not right (Job 42:7-9). Whichever one of us is wrong about Him must repent of this. I hope that you hear this in the terms of brotherly affection that I intend it…
June 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
In regard to “intrinsic moral value,” I wonder whether it wouldn’t be better to be more rigorous in expression. “Intrinsic” value suggests original value, a value “in-oneself.” Original value does not come from outside oneself and this implies an uncreated nature (everything about which is obviously derivative, not intrinsic). I do not believe that “intrinsic” value exists outside of GOD Himself. We have, at best, derivative value which was given from Him and arises from His original value.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
This post is for all those who would interpret passages like Deuteronomy 5, Ezekiel 33 and the like in terms of a “preceptive” set of desires on GOD’s part that go unfulfilled.
There are several possible interpretations of expressions like these that should each be explored before one can rightly insist that Deuteronomy 5 and Ezekiel 33 “unequivocally” mean whatever you believe that they do mean. I shall list a few of them here:
1. GOD may have used the expression to accomplish some purpose or intent that is contrary to His stated “desire” (for instance, His statement to Moses that He was going to destroy the Israelites and reconstitute a people out of the lineage of Moses when, clearly, He had no such intention but wanted to provoke Moses instead – Num. 14:11-23). GOD’s numerous statements about what He will do which He does not ultimately do cannot be taken straightforwardly as though they existed without conditions, even if they are stated without conditions.
2. GOD may have used the expression to describe the true state of someone or some moment without revealing His own feelings about it at the same time. As I have already pointed out, it is possible to say, “It would be better if Judas were never born” without meaning at the same time, “I wish Judas had never been born.” This kind of expression can even take a truly powerful emotional form precisely because this alone would accurately or persuasively communicate with a particular culture His knowledge of the person or moment in question.
3. GOD may have used the expression to provoke fear or sadness or some other emotion which would be important to His purpose, but which is not (as in option #1) entirely contrary to His apparent design. His overt questions and His feigning of ignorance (which even Christ did to test Philip – John 6:5-6) cannot be taken as straightforward statements of ignorance, of course. Their purpose is obliquely related to what is actually uttered aloud. It would be silly, however, to suggest that GOD “unequivocally” expresses His ignorance, for instance, when He asks where Adam and Eve were hiding after their fall or what they had done.
4. And, of course, GOD may have used the expression to lament or show grief or give voice to His actual feelings in reaction to what has taken place. He may truly regret having made man, for instance, or lament that Israel would not turn from its ways.
It is my belief, however, that these statements reveal less about what GOD truly feels or knows than they do about what He wishes us to feel and to know. Like so much about Him, even His expressions are meant to serve. They are for our sake. Before we can say that a passage “unequivocally” expresses option #4, we should eliminate the others as possibilities.
I shall end with this example: the controversial statement of Jeremiah 3:6-7.
“The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: ‘Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, “After she has done all this she will return to me,” but she did not return. . .’”
Now, if I were to use your reasoning, Mr. Gonzales, I should say with open theists that GOD “unequivocally” explains to us that He expected something to occur which did not occur. Let us admit that this is the straightforward way to interpret this passage. But the passage is rife with relational language and metaphor and expresses the wretched nature of Israel’s abandonment of GOD who remains welcoming, waiting for her return, willing once again to embrace her.
What is the purpose of this passage? Could there be some other purpose in it than simply to express that GOD was surprised to find out that the future was not what He expected it to be? Can a more powerful cultural icon of a husband so devoted that he waits with hopeful anticipation for the return of his unfaithful betrothed, even after so often being humiliated by her, be the parallel that GOD is trying to strike so that we might understand from a common enough experience that GOD is so much better than us that we appear absolutely shameful and cruel in comparison to Him just as this hateful wife does?
There are reasons why GOD might describe Himself or make some utterance which gives off an impression of Himself and His inner turmoil that might have much more to do with His sacrificial love, making us realize something about who we are and the nature of the times in which we live. He wakes us up by His profound reactions or else condemns us for being so stony-hearted and dull to respond.
It is not enough, therefore, simply to point to the language of certain passages and say, “See how clear this is as an expression of GOD’s longing? What else could it mean?”
June 17th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Ben,
You’re losing me. It would be more helpful if you were more concise and numbered your points. I’ll number mine and, if you choose to response, you can identify which point your addressing so that we can avoid losing the argument amidst the density of too much verbiage.
(1) Above I pointed out how Christ desired the Father to remove the cup of divine wrath but instead chose to drink the cup in order to accomplish a higher objective and gratify a greater desire. Christ’s pursuit of the one desire precluded the gratification of the other desire. Christ was neither sinful nor schizophrenic. And even though he knew that his highest aim must be the ultimate glory of God and fulfillment of the work of redemption, it was not wrong or illogical for him to desire another state of affairs that was intrinsically (in-and-of-itself) virtuous (when considered in isolation from the greater objectives of redemptive history).
Your responded, First, your example of Christ is intriguing for the reason that I do not accept (and others historically have objected to this as well) the more common interpretation of that moment in the garden, which I take to be woefully contradictory with other passages and teachings of His, particularly in John. I then requested, Please identify the commentators who differ with the “common interpretation.” Also, summarize the contrary view. Thank you. But as far as I can tell, you never replied to my request.
(2) You spent a good deal of time discussing the fact that individual lexemes may have different nuances (e.g., “unable,” “cannot,” etc.). I am well aware of this. But when, for example, the Scriptures describe a divine commandment in terms of God desiring compliance, as in the case of 1 Samuel 15:3, 22, how do you propose we define the Hebrew term translated “desire,” which is chaphetz? The reputable lexicographers affix the sense of “delight” or “pleasure” (HALOT; BDB; TWOT). Accordingly, we’re told that God delights or takes pleasure in obedience more than sacrifice. And the word is directed to Saul who’s just violated God’s commandment and excused his obedience by pointing to the sacrifices he’s secured for the Lord. The only sensible conclusion Saul or any other bystander could reach after hearing Samuel’s prophetic word was that God preceptive desired Saul’s obedience though God did not decretively desire Saul’s obedience. As I pointed out above, other passages speak of God’s preceptive will in terms of “desire” or “delight” (Ps. 51:6, 16-17; 147:10-11; Ezek. 18:32; Hos. 6:6; etc.)
(3) You try to avoid the desiderative force of the term chaphetz or the optative construction by positing several other interpretations above. Let’s examine them:
(a) First, you suggest, GOD’s numerous statements about what He will do which He does not ultimately do cannot be taken straightforwardly as though they existed without conditions, even if they are stated without conditions.
Very well, neither Deuteronomy 5:29 nor Ezekiel 33:11 state what God wants or what God is going to do without conditions. God desires Israel to fear him that it might go well with them. Note that his desire is not unconditional. That is, God’s desire for their good is predicated on their proper response. Similarly, God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Apparently, he desires their good. But this is not unconditional. They must repent. So God doesn’t desire the good of fallen men apart from their compliance with the terms of his law and gospel. Yet, it is also clear that God–at the level of precept–desires that they comply with His terms. As I’ve argued repeatedly, God view a state of affairs in isolation from the entirety of history and evaluate as intrinsically agreeable to his moral nature and, therefore, desirable.
(b) Second, you suggest, GOD may have used the expression to describe the true state of someone or some moment without revealing His own feelings about it at the same time. As I have already pointed out, it is possible to say, “It would be better if Judas were never born” without meaning at the same time, “I wish Judas had never been born.”
It’s true that Christ doesn’t actually say, “I wish Judas had never been born.” I don’t recall arguing that above. But God does express an ardent wish that the Israelites would genuine fear him so that it might go well with them. God also indicates that he would find it more pleasing that the wicked repent and live than that they remain obstinate and perish. Certainly, in these texts God is implying something about the people concerning whom he speaks. But he’s doing more. He’s revealing his preceptive desire.
(c) Third, you suggest, GOD may have used the expression to provoke fear or sadness or some other emotion which would be important to His purpose, but which is not (as in option #1) entirely contrary to His apparent design.
That God wanted Israel to repent and prosper and that they refused should have provoked great fear or sadness in the people (or later readers). But this fear or sadness is dependent on a somewhat straightforward reading of the text. For instance, if God says, “O that Israel would always fear me that it might go well with them,” and you were there to instruct the original hearers not to take God seriously, that is, God really doesn’t want them to repent and prosper, then I can’t see how they’d be convicted of their sin or provoked to repentance. What makes these texts such powerful motivators is the revelation of God’s heart behind them.
(d) Fourth, you’re kind enough to suggest the more straightforward reading but then reject this reading and assert, These statements reveal less about what GOD truly feels or knows than they do about what He wishes us to feel and to know. Like so much about Him, even His expressions are meant to serve. They are for our sake. Of course they’re for out sake.
No one disputes this. What is disputed is whether passages that predicate attributes to God can mean anything to us when totally evacuated of their meaning. If something about God is designed to motivate a certain behavior but then I learn that what is said of God is really not in any sense true, the motivation loses its force.
(4) You appeal to Jeremiah 3:6-7 where God describes himself as expecting Israel to behave in a certain way only to be disappointed. Of course, I believe in God’s omniscience. Hence, our commitment to God’s transcendence precludes us from predicating genuine ignorance to God. Nevertheless, God is speaking in the passage from the standpoint of his covenantal immanence. He has entered time and space in order to establish a relationship with his people. God provided Israel, his bride, with everything a wife could wish for. The light of nature would suggest that such goodness lavished by a husband on his wife should be reciprocated. But it was not. While at the level of God’s transcendent omniscience, he did not expect Israel to reciprocate his love because he had not decreed such a response. However, at the level of God’s immanent covenantal presence, he did reveal and demonstrate his love in tangible ways and expected via his preceptive will their reciprocation–”you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5).
(5) So despite your alternative readings and counter-arguments, I remain convinced that the Bible ascribes to God goodwill towards the non-elect and a genuine desire for their salvation as a thing intrinsically good in itself and when viewed in isolation from God’s overall goal and meta-intention for the world.
Cordially yours,
Bob Gonzales
June 18th, 2009 at 3:36 am
It would be more helpful if you were more concise and numbered your points.
That is a good idea. I sympathize and will try to make my responses less cumbersome.
(1) I referred to your view of Christ’s garden prayer as the “more common” view because I believe that it is more widespread than my own interpretation. Nevertheless, though I am glad that you would accept Christ in whatever way He presents Himself and insist that He is unquestionably consistent (after all, what is consistency outside of the Way?), I do not think we have to go as far as Tertullian in this case and call what is black, white. The prayer as it is often interpreted is just not coherent as an interpretation in the light of so much that Christ said of Himself, of prayer and His passion and approaching death alongside what Scripture elsewhere has to say of these things. However, rather than focus our attentions at length upon this (as it was not central to your over-arching point), I simply referred you to a thesis that you could retrieve at your leisure from TREN. I apologize as I would provide the link but when I pull up the document at the website the address in the bar is generic and cutting and pasting that would not lead you to the document itself. Just search for “Gethsemane” in the title and it’s the only one that pops up.
Given that the document is roughly 90 pages of exegesis, quotations, arguments and responses to objections, I do not believe I could possibly do it justice in a summary here and would not wish to bias you against it by a poor showing on my part.
(2a) Regarding your second helpful discussion…
how do you propose we define the Hebrew term translated “desire,” which is chaphetz? The reputable lexicographers affix the sense of “delight” or “pleasure” (HALOT; BDB; TWOT). Accordingly, we’re told that God delights or takes pleasure in obedience more than sacrifice. And the word is directed to Saul who’s just violated God’s commandment and excused his obedience by pointing to the sacrifices he’s secured for the Lord. The only sensible conclusion Saul or any other bystander could reach after hearing Samuel’s prophetic word was that God preceptive desired Saul’s obedience though God did not decretively desire Saul’s obedience.
Perhaps I am not as “sensible” as they, yet I can agree with you that “delight” or “pleasure” is a perfectly fine choice to express the Hebrew term without drawing your conclusion. In fact, were I to draw your conclusion, it would lead to implications I think we cannot embrace. For example…
You seem to assume that “pleasure” and longing or deep desire are consonant with one another. That is to say, where something is described as a thing in which our LORD takes “pleasure,” it leads us inexorably to the conclusion that He longs for it or wishes it were actual. On the other hand, where He does not take “pleasure” in something (the death of the wicked, for instance), then He does not wish this were actual.
This should lead us to the conclusion, then, that GOD does not want anyone to perish at all, which would be the obvious corollary to the notion that He longs for all of humanity to be saved. Yet, given that whatever GOD desires is what He does (even decretively), we are left with the obvious conclusion that GOD does want those who perish to perish precisely because He actively sought their destruction which reflects His desire.
We are left then with a contradiction that GOD does not want the reprobate to perish and yet He does want them to perish. Of course, there is a way to avoid a contradiction at this point by either adopting both of these at different times or in different senses (per the qualifications of the Law of Non-contradiction). Different times won’t work because it implies that GOD changes His mind, thus you attempt to resolve this by suggesting different senses.
GOD desires the reprobate to die “decretively,” you explain, but not “preceptively.” Unfortunately, these categories don’t describe different kinds of desire or different senses of “desire.” “Preceptive” and “decretive” are not the difference between “imaginary” and “real” desires nor are they distinctly different kinds of “desiring.” They merely describe the same kinds of desires as either put into affect (acted upon) or not. They remain basically the same class of desires and therefore remain contradictory.
We can, of course, simply resolve the contradiction by avoiding the presumption that “pleasure” equals or must imply “longing” or that references to the value of something are equivalent to wishing for them. That is the hedonist error. That is why I used the analogy of saying, “It would have been better if Judas had not been born” does not mean the speaker wishes this were so. I realize you never made this analogy yourself, but I believe that it is a close approximation of the sense of Deuteronomy 5:29 wherein GOD gives voice to the tragedy of sinful blindness in Israel.
We all know that suffering can produce, in those who love GOD, a refinement of character and a strong hope as well as a spiritual discipline and vision unequal to anything we knew before. We might say to ourselves, “If only I had not been such a fool, I would not have suffered so much as I did” without having even the smallest desire that things had truly turned out differently. We might even be very glad that we suffered and would look upon the suffering in light of what it gained. If we were even more mature, perhaps, we would look at the suffering in light of what GOD had wanted and that would be enough.
In either case, it is not only perfectly reasonable for me to say that GOD’s lack of pleasure in the death of the wicked does not lead me to believe He wishes everyone were saved, it would seem to be the only reasonable thing for me to conclude.
(2b) Another consideration is the fact that GOD does not merely offer a passive permission to the evils of men, but is in fact very actively involved in their manifestation. Joseph’s brothers come to mind, pharaoh’s hardening and there is the lamentation of Isaiah, in chapter 63, verse 17:
“Why, Lord, do you make us stray from your ways, and make our minds stubborn so that we do not obey you?” (NET)
There are numerous other passages which I am sure you are familiar with so I needn’t press the point. I am merely pointing out that if GOD does not desire the wicked to remain wicked, He is curiously persistent about making certain they do.
(3a) Having covered so much above, I’ll skip down a bit. I think your next major point is summarized well in the following manner:
That God wanted Israel to repent and prosper and that they refused should have provoked great fear or sadness in the people (or later readers). But this fear or sadness is dependent on a somewhat straightforward reading of the text. . . . What makes these texts such powerful motivators is the revelation of God’s heart behind them.
I can see your point and, though often true, I think you utterly neglect the very penetrating revelations into the heart of GOD’s methods and motives we are given in the story of Jonah. There, although I agree that the Ninevites believed in the sincerity of GOD’s desire for their death (3:5), still they hoped that His message was in fact not altogether an unequivocal “revelation of God’s heart behind” the doom-filled words. It was this that encouraged them to seek whether might be merciful, stating, “Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.” They thought this possible even though the “obvious” meaning of GOD’s words was that they would most certainly perish.
Did GOD relent from His desires or did He rather use a merely apparent expression of His desires as the impetus that produced change in an entire city? Obviously He never intended to destroy these people as He reasoned with Jonah that such a thing was not His way (4:11). Do we have any more right than the Ninevites to presume that GOD’s express intentions are equivalent to His true wishes, especially when He reveals that they never were?
Therefore, as Jonah reveals, though it may be true that a belief in the sincerity of GOD’s expression is vital to the intended work in the hearts of the original audience, it hardly follows that this requires us to presume that all the while a real sincerity synonymous with the express intentions existed in GOD Himself.
(3b) An important point to remember is that there are statements of GOD’s intentions pertaining to the condemnation of the wicked which contradict what one might have gathered from other apparent statements of longing for the same group of people. For example…
In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ stands before Jerusalem and echoes OT figures and descriptions of GOD holding out His hands all day long to a wayward people who would not have Him tenderly guide their children. Yet, in other contexts, rather than hoping for the salvation of everyone in Jerusalem that He can attain, He is intent on bringing a number of these Israelites into condemnation by His actions (John 15:22-25), all for the sake of fulfilling the Word against them. Thus, even in the midst of His general declaration of longing for them all, He has all the time in mind a project of condemnation for many of them.
(4) You objected that:
What is disputed is whether passages that predicate attributes to God can mean anything to us when totally evacuated of their meaning. If something about God is designed to motivate a certain behavior but then I learn that what is said of God is really not in any sense true, the motivation loses its force.
To give something a new or different meaning is hardly the same as evacuating it of all meaning and to learn that His motives are more nuanced than we at first imagined is to realize that we need a more mature outlook. I do not believe that GOD’s statement to Ninevah, for instance, was “not in any sense true.” Were it possible, had Ninevah not responded to Jonah’s message with repentance, they would have all undoubtedly been destroyed.
However, it is virtually meaningless to speak this way precisely because their repentance was orchestrated from beginning to end by GOD Himself. It could not have been other than it was. This is precisely where your view is strange to me. GOD orchestrates the evil of the lost. He orchestrates the repentance and faith of those who believe. What meaning could there be, therefore, in His lamenting the fact that certain people are not saved? This was not only orchestrated by Him but will only be different than it is by His own decree and activity. Is He lamenting that He had to ordain and fashion a reprobate people? Is He lamenting His eternal decrees? It would seem you believe He does.
You also believe that GOD pronounces upon some “intrinsic” worth of certain states of affairs in isolation of their relationship to a specific goal, as though anything beyond GOD possesses anything like “intrinsic” value. Everything, however, has value only in terms of its relationship to GOD. The Scriptures tell us that, intrinsically, we are all collectively worth nothing, even less than nothing (Isaiah 40:17). Everything we have or are of any value was granted to us from above, thus there is no room for boasting as though value is somehow intrinsic to us. Thus, anyone who thinks he is something when he is really nothing is foolish. Our value comes from our disposition toward what is of intrinsic value.
If you were correct on this one point, I think we should be compelled to your view that GOD laments His own eternal decisions precisely because a contradictory reality is all one could hope for. There would be a number of “ends-in-themselves” (intrinsic values) that conflict and which all demand logically to be sought but which it is impossible to pursue at the same time.
You cannot serve both GOD and Man, for you will love the one and hate the other.
The same is true of states of affairs that are valuable in terms of their relationship to the acocmplishment of GOD’s purpose to glorify Himself. Do you really imagine that there is anything meaningful about suggesting that GOD sees a moment in isolation from its broader context and is able to pronounce upon its value “intrinsically,” quite apart from its relationship to everything else He is doing or which has been already established?
There are certainly varying levels of value in those things GOD did not choose to actuate, but even their value is entirely wrapped up within the context of their various histories. There is no such thing as meaning outside this context for creatures or for contingent events. That is why Joseph explains that what separates the moral status of the same act performed by his brothers and by GOD must be ascribed solely to what was “meant” by both parties. His brothers “meant” the act for evil and GOD “meant it” for good. This context gives the act its meaning and its value. There is no other criteria, therefore, Paul can say that whether we eat or drink or whatever we do all that we are takes its moral identity and meaning from whether we glorify GOD or not. That isn’t intrinsic…
(5) On the subject of Jeremiah 3, now I must say that you may have lost me. You seem to be suggesting that GOD now has actually two kinds of knowledge or expectation about the future, one according to His decretive will and the other according to His preceptive will. On the other hand, it seems you may simply have equivocated between two different senses of “expected.” When I say, for instance, that I “expect” my children to obey me, I do not mean that I really anticipate that they will always obey me (which is the other sense of “expected”). In regard to GOD’s “preceptive” will, you seem to be using this kind of “expectation.” Yet, Jeremiah 3 has no such “expectation” in view. GOD did not say simply that He “expected” Israel to return to Him but that He thought Israel would return to Him.
I don’t know what this might have to do with our LORD “entering time and space,” especially given that GOD was immanent at the dawn of Creation and has never ceased to be. Whatever your intentions, they seem to miss my point entirely. In fact, they only strengthen it given that you seemed to find it necessary to offer a technical exposition on the implications of GOD’s supposed “transcendent omniscience” and His “immanent covenantal presence” just to explain why He uses the language that He does in Jeremiah 3. You certainly don’t simply embrace the “obvious” meaning of the language and thus illustrate exactly my point, that the “obvious” meaning is not necessarily the best.
(6) In order to avoid misunderstanding…
a. I believe — especially given that I understand Biblical love as primarily active rather than emotive — that GOD loves both the elect and the non-elect, though perhaps in different ways.
b. I believe that there is a sense in which we must understand His expressions of lamentation or apparent longing as revealing something important about GOD’s own feelings, though not necessarily or even usually in a straightforward manner. They certainly cannot be narrowed merely to their surface meaning so forcefully that we must conform clearer descriptions of GOD’s ways in the Psalms and Job to our interpretations of these more poetic expressions… to the point of an incoherent picture of our GOD.
c. I believe that you have misconstrued these passages to further a picture of GOD that proves imbalanced at best. Note that you never mention that GOD desires the death of the reprobate as a thing “good in itself,” even though this is precisely what He preferred to choose and describes in equivalent terms of value (see Ezekiel 14:21-23). Our LORD even tells Ezekiel that in viewing the death of a wicked people, he will be consoled by it. Does that mean it is good to be consoled by their death? Is GOD consoled by it?
Note also that each time the condemned are mention, you insist that GOD also desired them to live. Yet, you never insist that where GOD has chosen to bring certain people to Himself in joyous union that, at the same time, He harbors wishes that they could have been damned instead. Yet this would, of course, follow if you fairly recognized that the death of the wicked is in fact a thing “good in itself,” at least as you use that phrase. If it is, then He must desire “in isolation,” as you say, the death and punishment of all humanity as He would certainly recognize the great (though lesser) value in their destruction.
Something tells me, however, that this is not a place to which you would allow your logic to travel. You seem to see the death of the wicked as a thing merely to be tolerated, swallowed or born with gritted teeth. They appear to be in your view something akin to the collateral damage of GOD’s pursuit for His glory. I am quite sure that Scripture does not describe them this way.
d. I also believe that you are a precious Christian brother, one I would embrace at any time and that our discussions have been purely within the realm of two royal children in the household of the Most High struggling to humbly and more faithfully attend to the ways of our Father.
In that sense, thank you my brother for your patience with me and for the very helpful dialogue as it has proved to be for me thus far. Please forgive me for the length of this post and I perfectly understand if it takes you some time to respond. I am rather bad I think at balancing concision with thoroughness. I shall try to work on it.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
You read my mind when I was going through the article and the comments when you said…
This is precisely where your view is strange to me. GOD orchestrates the evil of the lost. He orchestrates the repentance and faith of those who believe. What meaning could there be, therefore, in His lamenting the fact that certain people are not saved? This was not only orchestrated by Him but will only be different than it is by His own decree and activity. Is He lamenting that He had to ordain and fashion a reprobate people? Is He lamenting His eternal decrees?
Amen
Plus Ben, when you brought up the obvious…
Whatever your intentions, they seem to miss my point entirely. In fact, they only strengthen it given that you seemed to find it necessary to offer a technical exposition on the implications of GOD’s supposed “transcendent omniscience” and His “immanent covenantal presence” just to explain why He uses the language that He does in Jeremiah 3. You certainly don’t simply embrace the “obvious” meaning of the language and thus illustrate exactly my point, that the “obvious” meaning is not necessarily the best.
That was my exact thoughts also.
Bob made a great many reformed points, but Ben made better Biblical sense. I understand Bob’s hermeneutical reasoning, but I think Ben’s Biblical understanding more than answered the points Bob brought up.
Excellent debate you two.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Puritan writes:
This is precisely where your view is strange to me. GOD orchestrates the evil of the lost. He orchestrates the repentance and faith of those who believe. What meaning could there be, therefore, in His lamenting the fact that certain people are not saved? This was not only orchestrated by Him but will only be different than it is by His own decree and activity. Is He lamenting that He had to ordain and fashion a reprobate people? Is He lamenting His eternal decrees?
Puritan, in light of what you’ve said and Benjamin’s earlier comments, I would like you and Benjamin to respond to John Calvin’s commentary on Lamentations 3:33
Calvin infers from Lamentations 3:33 that God (1) “takes no delight in the evils or miseries of men”; (2) he quickly qualifies that this is an anthropopathism; (3) but then he assures us that even such accommodating language still reveals “that he delights not in the miseries of men” and that “that God derives no pleasure from the miseries of men”; (4) indeed, Calvin asserts that God “wishes all to be innocent, and thus to have a reason for acquitting them; but yet he willingly condemns the guilty, because this is his duty.”
Please explain how these comments of Calvin fit cohere to a rejection of any kind of preceptive desire in God? Thanks.
Bob Gonzales
June 19th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
For me to write now would be rude to Ben. He has been the one to do all the homework and has been the diligent one. I believe Bob, that you should be answering His points. I am a late comer here and was only reading both of your writings. Please! Don’t let me detour you from answering his already excellent points that need to be address with only a quote from Calvin. Please answer his points first.
Please continue this unless you think it is over and Ben’s points are true!
Thank you. This has been an excellent debate between you two and I just wanted to keep it that way.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Well, brother, I am slightly confused as to why Calvin now enters the fray at this point. I hope that you haven’t interpreted me as thrusting you outside the camp of Reformed or Calvinistic thinkers on this topic as I truly believe there are good men in that camp on both sides of this controversy. Perhaps your point was simply to add the weight of Calvin’s reputation to your side of things or perhaps you wished just to see how I would interact with him…
Alright, but I must first say that quotations from such men, for whom I think we both have the deepest respect, have obviously not prevailed much with your heart on the subject of paedobaptism wherein there is at least as much agreement in their writings as on an issue like the one we’re discussing. I have already seen that you are not in danger of relinquishing your Baptist convictions anytime soon in the face of their united conviction in favor of a very different view. Rather, you respectfully decline to agree with the Puritans and with most of the Reformers on this point.
Nevertheless, I can say that I followed Calvin in the text with a full heart until he took the less-than-logical leap of concluding, from the fact that GOD does not condemn others to perdition “from the heart” (meaning that He does not do this with relish or pleasure), that we must assume that He actually “wishes all to be innocent, and thus to have a reason for acquitting them.” Unfortunately, that does not in the least follow from his initial premises.
There is a cultural attitude in certain places in the Near East in which it is rude to offer compliments on anything belonging to one’s neighbor because, in doing so, there is an immediate supposition that you secretly desire to possess that object. It is even very bad taste to directly compliment their children.
Of course, it is silly to imagine that such a conclusion follows from a simple compliment. Let us say, for example, that I remarked one day in your company upon the obvious value of a superlative set of diamonds. It does not follow from my recognition of their great value and even of their exquisite beauty that I must long to possess them.
If I melt down a magnificent golden artifact for the sake of selling off portions of it to feed poor families, even if I do this “not from my heart” and would not ordinary ever do such a thing, it does not follow at all that I had the slightest wish that I could have kept the artifact instead of feeding the children.
I may instead be angry with poverty or with those who are most responsible for the awful condition of the people under my care and blame them for the fact that such things happen, that artifacts have to be destroyed, but it does not follow at all that I suffer from a conflicted desire not to destroy the artifact. In fact, for the sake of such a beautiful purpose, I would gladly melt down thousands like it and feel not the faintest wish to turn back.
The difference between our positions seems to be this. We both agree that GOD expresses real and profound emotions. We both agree that He gives a well-meant offer of salvation to the world. We both agree that he does not cause affliction and suffering to reign in some sort of sick joy in the agony of others. But where I must part ways with you is at the point where you make the leap of concluding that, because of all this, GOD must really want the salvation of those whom He damns justly and He feels such remorse at damning them that He wishes He could have them alive to Himself instead.
If you simply didn’t take that leap, you would not fall into paradoxes or, as I believe, straightforward contradictions that betray something has gone wrong in your reasoning somewhere. You would be able to fairly handle passages that don’t seem to reconcile with your view at all… passages where He seeks the death of the wicked with zealous abandon, where the lost are in agony and the smoke of their torment goes up in the presence of the Lamb forever (Revelation 14:9-11), where He describes His desire to splatter the blood of the wicked upon His garments like a man trampling grapes in a wine-press, “For the day of vengeance was in my heart” (Isaiah 63:1-6).
There are places where GOD seems to burn implacably against sinners, where others are “hated” or “condemned” before they are born (Romans 9:13, 22-23; II Peter 2:3; Jude 1:4), where the death of the unfaithful is not even allowed to be mourned by those godly ones who loved them most (i.e., the death of Aaron’s sons, Leviticus 10:3-7, and Ezekiel’s wife, Ezekiel 21:15-17). GOD is even described just as “severe” as He is kind in Romans 11 and His law, as you know, was intensely severe. You hardly need a list of all those who were not welcome in His midst for what most of us would struggle in our hearts to see as more than trivial faults (such as injured testicles).
Come now, brother, I think you already know that there is an awesome “severity” to GOD, as Paul describes it, for He offers to some, solely for their future condemnation, the simple means that He knows they will refuse to believe to their doom just as He recalls openly in their faces that He decided not to grant to another people the same means which He knew would have saved them (Matthew 11:20-26)… and then Jesus concludes that this was an expression of His “gracious will” (v. 26). Jesus’ answer to the question of the suffering of others is not lamentation and sighing but, “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:2-5). The picture we get of our Jesus, the Returning Vindicator, in the book of Revelation is hardly one that matches the image of Him you prefer to employ. The statement of Elihu (Job 35) that our sins and our righteousness do nothing to Him or for Him and they are, rather, for our neighbors and others that live around us who are affected by us…
…do these not somehow get left out of your insistence that He only decrees the destruction of most of humanity out of a hesitant and regretful sense of “duty”? Does GOD not call this a lie even as He says that, when He destroys the same people (Israel in exile) that you claim He wishes so fervently to see alive and flourishing, He tells Ezekiel that these people are so despicable that their destruction shall “console” the righteous? Does that consolation in their deaths sound like a woeful duty carried out with the deepest regret?
I think we would both agree that we must not stretch our necks too far in either direction on this issue, brother, so I encourage you not to make the mistake of so many others and pretend with them that the Scriptures are basically the “story of redemption” because they had no place for reprobation in their theology. Nor is it safe to teach that Christ came simply “to seek and save that which was lost” and did not also come to serve willingly as an instrument of the condemnation of many. Where is there room for David who said, “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?” (Psalm 139:21)
I think this is what so many are concerned about… this seemingly one-dimensional LORD who barely evidences a real hatred for sin and for the sinful. Some of us simply don’t want to treat our Father as though He is beautiful in many ways but His whole purpose for those in hell should be hushed up, turned away from in embarrassment and mentioned only with a blush and a tear. At times, you seem to describe Him as though that is in fact how He feels about the question Himself.
If that were Calvin’s attitude, then I would respond to him as I must, asking him how he dares to treat so shamefully a most lustrous and holy part of our Father… the part which, as we must confess, He exercises more than any other for did He not reveal that the greater part of humanity shall pass through the wide gate at His discretion?
If paradoxes pile up and large portions of Scripture appear out of place, if reason is tempered by mystery and logical leaps become a part of our exegetical equipment, if GOD is required to turn to us only a shadowy profile and the Old Testament becomes in many places simply uncomfortable to our sensibilities, then I think the price we have to pay to embrace what you refer to as the more “plausible” reading is simply too high.
As Van Til has in many places pointed out, things like “plausibility” or “persuasiveness” are more a biographical statement about a reader than they are indications of a characteristic of an argument or a text. What we find more “plausible” is a subjective impression wrapped up in our prior assumptions or preferences. The far better question is what, apart from our sense of it, has really been demonstrated and what we have truly thus far proven.
Have you really proven that GOD’s language requires us to say that He longs for the salvation of all or have you merely insisted that this is more “plausible” in your sight? Did Calvin prove this or did he, as in the case of baptism, simply insist brashly upon his own interpretation?
I pray that the LORD prepares you for His most holy service in all humility, removing the shoes of your heart before stepping onto the sacred soil of His Word, and that we are all blessed in the light of His work in you.
June 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Benjamin,
I’ve been somewhat distracted the latter part of this week with pastoral and other seminary responsibilities. So I haven’t been able to provide a fuller response to your posts above. Even the response I make now will be partial.
(1) Regarding the Calvin citation
(a) I pasted the Calvin citation in response to passing comment you made and Puritan seconded, namely, the seeming absurdity that God could, on the one hand, desire the destruction of the wicked (which he has decreed) and, on the other hand, not desire it.
(b) Calvin’s comments seem to indicate him as holding something close to “competing desires.” That is, God, at one level will destroy the wicked because his justice demands it (i.e., it will be his “duty”). But at another level, God seems to prefer not to destroy the wicked but to show mercy. As Luther might have put it, God’s destruction of the wicked is his “strange work” while his demonstration of mercy is his “proper work.”
(c) Actually, I was hoping that you would have noted the section of Calvin’s commentary I purposely excluded. What he gives with the right hand he, it seems to me, tries to take back with his left hand. For after affirming in various ways that God “takes no delight” and “derives no pleasure” in the miseries of men and that he “wishes all to be innocent, and thus to have a reason for acquitting them,” Calvin feels forced to conclude with a delimitation:
Though Calvin at first seemed to apply this text to sinners in general, he now limits the application to “the faithful,” that is, “God’s children.” I’m not sure why Calvin does this. I suspect, though, that it might have something to do with his commitment to the doctrine of reprobation.
(d) I’m not sure the doctrine of reprobation rescues Calvin’s seeming inconsistency. For if it’s true that God only desires and wishes what he decrees and if he had in fact decreed not only the eternal punishments of the wicked but even the temporal punishments of the faithful, then he must have one and the same feeling about them both, i.e., pleasure and delight. So it would seem to me, but perhaps I am mistaken.
(2) Are God’s feelings only one-dimensional?
(a) You cite, for example, Psalm 139:21 where the Psalmist exclaims, “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?” Some commentators have felt the need to apologize for David’s hate-speech. I myself feel no need to apologize. David’s love for God and zeal for God’s glory necessitates that he feel displeasure in those who oppose God. God’s enemies must be the enemies of the righteous. Yet, David also loved his enemies. In exchange for evil, he treated them good. As he puts it,
So at one level David hated his enemies. At another level David loved his enemies. Indeed, he says so: “They encircle me with words of hate, and attack me without cause. In return for my love they accuse me, but I give myself to prayer” (Psalm 109:3-4). In this way, David models what our Lord enjoined when he commanded us to “love our enemies” (Matt. 5:43-44) so that we might be whole and complete even as our Father in heaven (Matt. 5:45, 48).
So, shall we hate our enemies (Psalm 139:21? Or shall we love our enemies (Psalm 35:13-14; 109:3-4; Matt. 5:43-48)? As students of Scripture, I think we are obliged to answer “yes” to both questions. How then do we avoid a seeming contradiction? How can one hate and love the same object simultaneously, seeing that hatred is in some sense the opposite of love?
(b) We could, I suppose, define one as affectional and the other as purely volitional. It seems beyond doubt that David felt abhorrence towards those who hated his God (and justly so). Indeed, when we, the righteous, someday wash our feet in the blood of the wicked (Psalm 58:10-11) and sing “Hallelujahs” in response to the eternal condemnation and punishment of the reprobate (Rev. 19:1-5), we will do so with emotions fully engaged.
What about love towards our enemies? Shall we restrict it to a mere deed, bereft of any benevolent intent of goodwill? Shall we describe it merely as an outward demonstration of good deeds towards our enemies without an inkling of hope that said good deeds might soften their heart and convert their souls? Shall we perform virtuous acts on their behalf, remaining indifferent to their good and only zealous for their destruction? True, in showing kindness to our enemies, we “heap coals of fire on his head” (Prov. 25:22), that is, increase their punishment. But is this the only motivation for doing good to our enemies? When Paul preached the gospel to crowds, many of whom he suspected would not believe, did he only console himself in the thought of dealing their destruction?
(c) I incline toward the view that Jesus’ command that we love our enemies in imitation of our heavenly Father included more than an injunction to show kindness without any feelings of pity or goodwill. Note again David’s expression of love for his enemies:
Certainly, David’s fasting and prayers and mourning were not merely outward. Surely he was not interceding for their destruction. Wasn’t he rather desiring their good (predicated, of course, on their repentance)? Similarly, when Jesus tells us to bless those who curse us, pray for them, and do good to them, doesn’t he expect that we should feel some compassion, knowing that we were once children of wrath even as they (Eph. 2:3)?
(d) It seems, then, that one may have mixed feelings towards the same object. That is, it appears that the affectional evaluations and responses of the heart are more complex. They are, so to speak, multidimensional.
(e) Let’s apply this to the apostle Paul. Paul found himself with conflicting desires. “My desire is to depart and to be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary for [the Philippian believers'] account” (Phil. 1:23b-24). Here are two mutually exclusive states of affairs that Paul desired. Paul felt something of a conflict: “Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two” (1:22b-23a). Certainly, Paul’s competing desires do not constitute him as schizophrenic. And neither of these desires was intrinsically evil. Moreover, as I suspect you would argue, Paul, being well aware of God’s decretive will and ultimate aim for maximum glorification realized that only one of these two desires could ultimately contribute to this end. Indeed, one suspects that Paul had an inclination which of the two would best serve God’s ultimate purpose: “Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith” (1:25). Nevertheless, Paul does not immediately repent that he had even entertained the desire of immediately being with Christ. Nor do we have any indication that he later repented of feeling and expressing such a desire that God had not decreed.
(f) I’d like to think it’s possible to have multiple desires, some of which may, at times, “compete” or “conflict” with each other. Note that I didn’t say “contradict.” One may love his enemy at one level and hate his enemy at another level. One may desire to be with Christ immediately at one level and desire to remain on in earthly service at another level. The difference between the two is not so simply as relegating one to the affections and the other to the volition. I think there is an affectional quality to both. The difference, I contend, is how one views each object and its relationship or non-relationship to the ultimate end for which God created and is guiding the world.
(g) For example, viewed as an end in itself or as isolated from the overall fabric of history, Paul’s desire to depart and be with Christ was an intrinsically good objective and, therefore, a legitimate object of Paul’s desire. However, viewed vis-à-vis God’s overall plan for the world Paul’s desire to depart and be with Christ immediately was not the greater good. Hence, Paul had to “deprive” himself of one desire in order to fulfill another desire. It’s not as if the one was bad and the other was good; the one wise, the other unwise.
(h) Similarly, when Jesus desired not to drink the cup of God’s wrath, he was viewing that objective as a thing in itself, as isolated from the fabric of God’s overall plan of history. In itself, it is an intrinsically good thing for an innocent man who had heretofore known nothing but God’s smile to desire that said smile not be removed. Indeed, it was the right thing when considered in itself. As Hugh Martin remarks,
On the other hand, we know that Jesus had another desire. His food and drink was to do the will of God and accomplish the work for which he was sent (John 4:34). Indeed, it was the accomplishment of God’s will and plan of redemption in which Jesus took great delight (Psa. 40:7-8). Accordingly, when Jesus restored his desire to avoid God’s wrath to the fabric of God’s overall plan for history—a redemption that includes reprobation and judgment—Jesus could detest the very objective that he viewed as desirable when considered by itself. When Satan directly (Matt. 4:1-11) or indirectly through Peter (Matt. 16:22) suggested that Jesus side-step the cross, Jesus could with indignation declare, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matt. 16:23). Of course, you have discounted this interpretation of Christ’s Gethsemane prayer by alluding to a thesis that refutes it. But until I know what alternative interpretation of Christ’s prayer is available and whether it is even viable, I shall continue to view this as one more example of multidimensional desires that are neither an indication of schizophrenia nor of contradiction.
(i) All of the above examples demonstrate that the issue of desirable ends is more complicated than some might like. It is, in my view, multidimensional. True, the above examples are humans. But since man is the imago Dei, the visible replica of God, should we be surprised if we find something of these multidimensional, “competing” desires predicated of God?
(j) I don’t deny the reality of God’s wrath against the wicked. Nor do I evacuate such wrath of all affectional quality, relegating it to a mere indifferent reflex of the divine volition as do some. Instead, I affirm that God really hates those who hate him, that is, he feels displacency towards them. And it is appropriate for God’s children to imitate their Father in this respect (Psalm 139:21).
(k) But at the same time, I feel constrained by the Scriptures to affirm God’s love for his enemies. This may be inferred from Christ’s injunction to his disciples to do the same in imitation of their heavenly Father (Matt. 5:43-48). But one need not ground it upon a mere inference. For we are told explicitly,
(l) Some Calvinists, I know, would try to delimit the term “world” to “the world of the elect” or “sinners of all ethic groups and social strata.” But the apostle John commonly uses the term to refer simply to “fallen humanity as a whole.” For instance, he asserts, “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19; cf. John 1:10; 3:19; 7:7; 8:23; 12:31; 14:30; 15:18, 19; 16:11, 21; 17:9, 14; etc.). As a result, I’m constrained to interpret this text not as God’s special love for the elect but as God’s general benevolent love (which is both shown and felt) and salvific stance towards all of fallen humanity. Moreover, this love is revealed via the sacrifice of God’s Son to the revealed (not decretive) intent that men might be induced to trust in Christ and receive eternal life.
(m) Similarly, Paul writes to those who by every appearance give evidence of being reprobate because of the hardness of their heart:
Note carefully: Paul affirms the doctrine of reprobation and portrays it as just and right. At the Day of Judgment, we can be sure that Paul will say “amen” as the very recipients of his admonition are plunged into the lake of fire for their impenitence. Nevertheless, Paul still admonishes them with the intention not merely to increase the severity of their judgment but with the desire that they might see God’s delay in judgment as a sign of God’s own kindness and be induced to repentance. Nay! It’s not just that Paul has a redemptive intention in preaching to these hard-hearted and self-righteous sinners. Paul actually claims that God has an intention in showing the reprobate kindness. And that intention is multidimensional. At one level, God certainly shows the reprobate kindness in order to exonerate his justice at the last day and to increase the punishment of those who reject the light. But at another level, God shows the reprobate kindness with the intention of leading the reprobate to repentance!
(n) Do I believe God is schizophrenic? No! Do I believe God desires A and doesn’t desire A in the same sense? No! God forbid that I should impute any real contradiction to the Godhead! But do I believe that God may have, like the images he has created, something analogous to “competing desires”? Yes. Consider the words of Hosea:
(o) Of course, I acknowledge that God’s emotivity is not univocal with human emotivity. Accordingly, the picture of a divided heart in God must not be reduced to the finite or sinful characteristics of a divided heart in fallen human beings. God is not fickle or sentimental or indecisive or impotent or confused. He remains in perfect control and his decretive plan is unchanged. Nevertheless, I submit to you that this text reveals something analogous to the competing desires we find in the hearts of the upright. On the one hand, there are texts that speak of God’s desire for the judicial blinding and penal punishment of the wicked (Isaiah 63:1-6; Matt. 11:20-26; Rom. 9:20-21; Rev. 14:9-11). I embrace the teaching of these texts with both hands! On the other hand, there are texts that speak of God’s desire for genuine devotion from fallen men as well as their consequent escape from punishment and experience of blessing, even though God knows he had not decreed it so (Deut. 5:29; Psalm 81:13, 14; Ezek. 33:11; Luke 13:34; Rom. 2:4). These too I embrace!
(p) Indeed, I see God’s goodwill and desire for all men indiscriminately revealed in both Jesus and Paul in their demeanor towards groups of people, which they have reason to believe include non-elect. Paul’s earnest and ardent desire for his countrymen, many of whom had rejected and were continuing to reject the gospel, was that they might be saved (Rom. 9:1-5). It is worthy of note that Paul expresses this indiscriminate desire for the salvation of the Jews as a preface to his discussion of God’s decree to harden many of them.
(q) Similarly, Jesus could, on the one hand, thank his Father that He had hidden the light of the gospel from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25). Yet, on the other hand, Jesus could preach the gospel to this same crowd, many of whom he would describe as children of the devil, and declare without equivocation, “I say these things so that you may be saved” (John 5:34b). Was he only looking upon the elect in the crowd when he made that statement? Or was he simply offering pardon without any personal interest whether his hearers accepted his offer? I find both of these alternatives unnatural readings. It seems more likely to me that Jesus was capable of feeling and expressing genuine goodwill towards his enemies, even desiring their repentance and consequent salvation while simultaneously, at another level and from a different perspective, taking delight in God’s hardening of their heart and blinding of their eyes to the end that they might be justly damned.
(3) Embracing the whole counsel of God
(a) Benjamin, you urged me above “not to make the mistake of so many others and pretend with them that the Scriptures are basically the ‘story of redemption’ because they had no place for reprobation in their theology.”
(b) I hope you see that I don’t make that mistake. I affirm the doctrine of reprobation and believe that the lake of fire will serve not merely as an eternal display of God’s justice but also as an eternal display of God’s zealous love—love for his glory and love for his people!
(c) I would urge you not to avoid the mistake of oversimplifying the story of redemption. I agree that on the surface the juxtaposed propositions “God desires the wicked to perish” and “God doesn’t desire the wicked to perish” have the semblance of a logical contradiction. This is why I’m willing to employ the term paradox. The Arminian’s solution to this apparent problem is to evacuate God’s decretive desire of any meaning or to redefine it so that it’s contingent on a libertarian view of free will. Some Calvinists, but not all, propose the opposite. They suggest that we evacuate God’s preceptive desire of meaning or to redefine it so that says something to us but nothing about God. In my humble opinion, both of these alternatives are unnecessary. They are both looking at what on the surface appears to be a contradiction that needs to be fixed. But a more careful perusal of the biblical data in light of the whole counsel of God reveals, I think, no real problem at all.
(d) The Scriptures seem to teach that God can know historical contingencies that he has not in fact decreed. When David inquires of the Lord whether the men of Keilah will deliver him to Saul, the Lord replies, “They will surrender you” (1 Sam. 23:12). Of course, God did not decree the betrayal. Yet, he has the ability to predict infallibly what would happen under certain conditions. Of course, I don’t cite this example to support Molinism, that is, a libertarian view of “middle knowledge.” I do accept what might be called a compatilist view of “middle knowledge.” That is, God is able to “imagine” a state of affairs that he never decreed.
(c) If God can conceive of states of affairs that he never decreed, then I do not find it inconsistent with his perfections or revelation that he could also feel approbation or disapprobation towards such states of affairs when isolated from the fabric of his overall purpose for history. Hence, considered in-and-of-itself, the obedience of Adam and Eve, which God didn’t actually decree, can still be described as something conforming to God’s moral nature and as, therefore, pleasing in his sight. Conversely, the repentance and sparing of the lost sinners, whom God doesn’t decree to repent and receive salvation, can still be construed as something that conforms to God’s revealed will (which reflects his character) and as, therefore, desirable to God when that state of affairs is contemplated by itself, apart from God’s meta-purpose for the world.
(d) Looking at the other side of the coin, when God views Adam’s disobedience within the fabric of his meta-narrative glory-plan, he can approve Augustine’s famous dictum, “Felix culpa!” When, on the other hand, God views Adam’s disobedience and rebellion disconnected from the fabric of his meta-narrative glory-plan, as a thing in itself, He, I believe, was not happy but sad. Indeed, he expresses profound sorry and heart-felt pain later in the narrative when he contemplates (as a thing in itself) the proliferation of evil and misery on the earth (Gen. 6:6). But, on the other hand, I have no hesitation to say that when that avalanche of human hubris is woven into the fabric of God’s meta-narrative glory-plan it meets God’s approval and provides the heart of God with satisfaction (Psalm 115:3).
(f) My explanation above is expressed more precisely and fully by two other theologians who stand in the Reformed tradition and who have been vocal opponents to Open Theism and Arminianism. See John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (P&R, 2001) and Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Crossway, 2001); God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith (Crossway, 2004).
(4) In conclusion
(a) I still fail to see how my positing both a preceptive desire and also a decretive desire, which two desires do not always intersect, necessarily entails a logical contradiction or is unfaithful to the teaching of God’s word. I grant that mental, emotional, and volitional states predicated of God are analogous and not univocal with those states in humans. Consequently, we must allow for discorrespondence as well as correspondence. When you read that God “does whatever he desires” (Psalm 115:3), you, I suspect, find some correspondence between what is predicated of God as “desire” and what is predicated of humans as “desire.” Simply put, God’s does what he wants to do. When I read that God “delights in obedience more than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22), I’m inclined to find some level of correspondence between God’s desire and human desire. In other words, I think God, at one level and viewed from a certain perspective, wanted Saul to obey even though God, at another level and viewed from a different perspective, did not decretively desire Saul to obey. Both of us want to avoid positing a logical contradiction. Both of us revere God’s word and desire to remove, metaphorically speaking, the sandals of our autonomous reasoning when handling the Scriptures. Yet we posit different “solutions” to this apparent “dissonance” in God’s word (For more about “dissonance to the glory of God,” click here).
(b) Before I close out this reply, I want to affirm my deep appreciation for your commitment to the authority and coherence of God’s word, your keen reasoning ability, and your charitable demeanor. I also want to express my sincere disposition to remain teachable and to ascertain where I’m making mistakes either exegetical or logical. It is obvious to me that you, being a teacher in logic, have a superior grasp than I in the intricacies of abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning. My training, on the other hand, has been mainly confined to biblical exegesis and biblical theology. I’ve had no formal training in logic, only two classes in philosophy, and have read a few books on epistemology and apologetics. Perhaps, and I say this sincerely, you could recommend to me a book or two that, in your mind, presents a biblically balanced view of logic and reasoning. Your allusion to the exchange between Gordon Clark and George Mavrodes peeked my interest. But I suspect that they might be out of my league. In any case, feel free to recommend any books to me, as I have taken the liberty to recommend (above) reading to you.
(c) Once again, thanks for the enjoyable exchange. I know I wasn’t able to respond to each one of your points above. But I am out of time and must prepare for the Lord’s Day tomorrow. Please feel free to highlight whatever I missed and I’ll try to address it when I return from vacation on Thursday of next week.
Your servant and brother in Christ,
Bob Gonzales
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
With warmest thanks, I ask for your patience, precious brother. You’ve put a lot of time into this and I want my response to be both most suitable and the best use of your time. I’m in the process of editing for the sake of brevity and will post within the next couple of days.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Before I enter into further discourse on those places where we differ, I would like very much to reiterate where I think we agree, as I imagine this will prove most edifying to each other and to any who have been patiently reading this exchange. Here are 15 theses we affirm together:
1. We agree that GOD feels and expresses emotion.
2. We also agree that He has desires, though without any connotation of “need” or “lack”
3. We both believe that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
4. We are united in realizing that the LORD and the saints in glory rejoice in His vengeance against the wicked.
5. Furthermore, we agree that He loves every human being and offers them, in some form or fashion, a “well-meant” invitation of salvation.
6. We would both say, I believe, that GOD’s grace pours forth upon both the just and the unjust.
7. We agree that John 3:16 is referring to all of humanity.
8. We are both strong advocates of the teaching that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and that it contains no real contradictions.
9. We also both appreciate that the Scriptural teaching can, at times, appear contradictory to those who lack understanding.
10. Neither of us, I think, is willing to accept apparent contradictions simply as they are for we both see that an apparent contradiction that remains unsolved is evidence that our understanding of an issue is essentially imbalanced or distorted.
11. We agree that “will” is, on some level, an appropriate word for GOD’s commands, even when they are not carried out by us.
12. We also stand united, I believe, on the teaching that His eternal decrees represent, practically speaking, His most important desires, in the straightforward sense of that term, because they most prevail upon His heart in guiding His decisions.
13. We would also jointly say that all of GOD’s activity is ultimately for the purpose of achieving the most glory for Himself and that the world He created and the history He continues to fashion is aimed squarely at the accomplishment of this end.
14. We both believe that the eternal punishment of those who steadfastly hate the LORD is glorious to Him.
15. And, finally, we both advocate some form of compatibilism in which man is free and morally responsible so long as he is mentally and physically able to do what he really wants most to do at any given moment.
Although a touch of superficiality exists here because there are occasional differences in the way you and I define certain terms above, these differences really do appear to me most often to be rather slight. It certainly doesn’t represent the sort of superficiality that exists in, say, the ecumenical discourse of “Catholics and Evangelicals Together.”
At any rate, I hope this is useful and, if you would like to add anything, feel free.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I hope that the following points can act, as with the preceding post, as a backdrop to my main response. I do not ask that you respond to any of these just now (I have no intention of swamping you)… They are intended in the main simply to reorganize some of the previous material for reference and use it as a helpful clarifying context, especially as you asked me in your last post to highlight important points that you have not as yet adequately covered.
(a) I think we would agree that it is rather difficult to rightly comprehend the teaching of Scripture on the emotions and the love of GOD which are teachings of immense magnitude. I believe that GOD’s love is primarily defined by action rather than feeling, that loving affections without manifestation are worthless in the end if they are never coupled with active expression seeking the good of others. Love is oriented toward service. This is how Paul describes the mind of Christ in Philippians and the nature of love in I Corinthians 13. This is why the Beloved Apostle exhorts us, “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth,” which is greatly to be preferred, for it is by this that “we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him” (I John 3:18-19). Active love is at the heart of Truth and not mere “word or talk” or feelings of affection alone.
(b) In this light I interpret John 3:16 to be saying something like, “For GOD loved the world like so: that He gave His one and only Son. . .” and this parallels beautifully John’s language in his first epistle, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (I John 4:9). This is how the “GOD so loved” construction of John 3:16 ought to be understood, as an act, a manifestation of love, and not primarily as a feeling which was the impetus of the gift. When you and I discuss, therefore, the issue of GOD’s disposition toward the lost, I think we must keep firmly in our minds that love is fundamentally active, just as “hatred” seems to be.
(c) Turning now to another point, this dialogue between us has become a little scattered. I know that your genuine lack of time to pursue many of these questions has meant that some of the arguments have lain dormant without due consideration. I have offered a number of logical and Biblical objections to the view you introduced in the series of essays regarding GOD’s decretive and preceptive desires. Some of these are important for establishing context in trying to appreciate what shall soon become my main response. I ask then your patience as I briefly list the most important of these.
Logic and the Nature of GOD
1. GOD is wholly bent upon (i.e., He loves most) the object of His decrees, which by necessity is Himself and His greatest glory. This is because He is most worthy of the devotion of His own love, and His “love” is, by definition, everything GOD does or devotes Himself to. If He did not devote Himself completely to this end, then some part of Him would not love what is best and would, in fact, resist Himself.
2. If it were true that GOD were seeking something opposed to what He knows is best, His greatest glory, then He would be seeking what is evil and would not love Himself (it would also follow that the members of the GODhead do not fully love one another).
3. There is nothing of “intrinsic value” save GOD alone.
4. Yet, even if I were wrong in this, for GOD to recognize “intrinsic” value is not, of itself, adequate grounds for insisting that He desires that thing, especially if it conflicts with something else of greater value (which He decreed).
5. If it were true that GOD desired two objects which would lead to different outcomes and contradictory implications, then He would not be merely in conflict but in contradiction to Himself, for to desire one thing is to resist all else that denies it, by definition. One cannot escape the implication that to desire A (where A implies “not-B”) would mean that one does not desire B. But this is absurd if one wants B most of all. Likewise, to desire B (where this implies “not-A”), one must resist A by implication and it would be absurd, in the face of this, to desire A along with its associations of “not-B.” GOD is hardly unaware of the logical implications of His desires, thus, He does not have such self-defeating and self-frustrating leanings.
Logic and the Scriptures
1. Scripture plainly teaches that the very attitude you ascribe to GOD is sinful in us. We are not worthy to be disciples if we put our hand to the plow and look back, so to speak.
2. The Scriptures also teach that GOD does whatever His soul desires, not merely that He does whatever He has decided to do (i.e., decretively). This latter meaning would hardly be unique to GOD but would, rather, describe any morally responsible being because part of our compatibilist definition of “morally responsible” includes the notion that no being could be morally responsible who does not do whatever he or she most desired and decided for themselves to do. But the passages which speak of GOD’s activity as “whatever He desires” do not intend simply to attribute to GOD minimal moral responsibility and pretend this makes Him somehow incomparable in any way.
3. Certain Scriptural expressions regarding what gives “pleasure” to GOD or what “pleases” Him, as well as expressions which reveal what He demands or requires or praises, do not necessarily imply that He actually longs for such things. It is certainly possible for something to give pleasure or to be demanded or praised and yet not actually be desired. It is also possible to desire (for other purposes) what brings no pleasure and is never demanded nor praised (like the crucifixion of the Son). Curiously enough, we have to be careful of the context even when GOD explicitly says that He does (or does not) desire something. For instance, when He says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” does this mean that He desires mercy and never sacrifice? Does it even mean that He always prefers mercy? Or does it simply mean that, where mercy and sacrifice are pitted against one another, He desires mercy every time?
4. Given that GOD alone can regenerate the heart and renew the spirit, the salvation of every human being is solely in His hands. Therefore, if we interpret His groans of longing for the salvation of others as apparent expressions of inward yearnings in His soul, we must, by implication, treat these as yearnings as directed primarily toward His own lack of vital action. Where He urges others to, “Turn and live” (Ezekiel 18:31) or “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15) or where He sighs aloud, “Oh that they had such a mind as this always”, assuming it is a deep longing of His that they actually do this, we must assume He is even more fundamentally crying out to Himself. Underneath, He would really be saying, “Oh, that I would give them a mind as this always” and “If only I would make them turn and live” and “Why do I refuse to grant them repentance and a belief in the gospel?” I do not believe you see GOD this way, though this does seem to be the implication of your view.
5. Given that all of GOD’s activities are aimed at the accomplishment of His chief end, we must assume that even His expressions you’ve cited are also aimed at achieving this end and not expressed for the purpose of some other desire which would conflict with that design. In that sense, if our LORD has decreed the death of the reprobate, then His invitation to them to be saved, to use one example, cannot be “intended” to accomplish their salvation but rather their just condemnation. GOD certainly does not act in ways at odds with His own purpose.
Logic and Plausibility
I conclude with this: the use of plausible counter-examples based upon inductive reasoning to counter deductive arguments has important limitations. As an illustration, if I explain to a man that a single-sided coin is not a meaningful concept, it does little good for him to insist that he has a verse that backs up his idea. Of course, I’m willing to explore that with him as well (I would really like to see what he is referring to), but it will have to be as self-evident an interpretation of a Scriptural passage as it is self-evident that one-sided coins are semantically empty. And even if this occurred, our job would not be concluded. We would need to locate what was wrong with the original deductive argument or we will be left with an apparent contradiction.
I grant that, supposing your view contains an inherent contradiction, the flaw is much deeper than surface level and certainly less discernable than the meaningless nature of the claim to have located a “single-sided coin.” Assuming I am correct, your contradictions are not quite so “direct”, which is similar to the claim that GOD does not exist, the self-refuting nature of which is not immediately apparent to many. Nevertheless, I have offered a multitude of varying deductive arguments illustrating the logically conflicted nature of your main conclusion and you continue to insist, as it seems, on the grounds of certain subjectively “plausible” interpretations, that what I have found are paradoxes only. While the fact that I have offered logical objections does not of itself prove beyond question that I am correct — hopefully correct reasoning does this — still, it is obvious that what one personally takes to be more “plausible,” especially given the depravity of our hearts, is hardly to be compared with a set of deductive proofs and the “good and necessary consequences” which those proofs afford us.
I want to publicly recognize, at the same time, that it would be unfair to suggest that all you have done is pose plausible interpretations over against deductive arguments. You have tried, at times, to question the soundness of my arguments by critiquing various premises and offered possible ways in which an apparent contradiction might be avoided. I will address much of this in my coming post… but most often your method seems to gravitate toward employing controversial counter-examples, many times the very ones we are in the midst of debating.
Obviously it would be silly of me to cite John 3:16, for instance, as proof that GOD does love the whole human race when I am debating another Calvinist over whether “world” in John 3:16 refers to all of humanity.
At any rate, I am very appreciative of your time and I hope this helps to construct a proper frame around this discussion. I shall next engage your most recent response more directly. Thank you for your patience.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I have considered your meditations here at length, my brother, as I believe that your latest contribution is probably your best thus far. It seems, to me at least, more balanced and considered and carefully expressive as you weighed what has transpired between us. Although you have said you lacked time to engage this subject as you might otherwise have liked, I have gained a greater appreciation of what you had in mind wherever you were able to generously focus more of your time and efforts. I believe that you have meditated more deeply on the part of reprobation in the heart of GOD than was initially evident to me and I hope this serves to clear the air for many of those still insistent that you are somehow grossly revolutionary in your doctrinal loyalties.
I am pleased to see that we are closer now to reaching a full measure of appreciation for the context of one another’s theological perspective and hopefully much closer to enjoying an honest resolution of our differences in all brotherly affection. I have a few responses which I think you will want to consider and I offer them below in the organized fashion I believe you would prefer…
1. The Analogy of Human Inner Conflict
I have chosen an order of presentation which slightly differs from your own. The first topic I wish to take up is the question of the conflicted nature of our own desires and whether this same conflict is analogous to GOD’s manner of desiring. You described several Biblical and extra-biblical instances of human beings sorely pressed by “competing” or “conflicting” desires. Calvin was mentioned in this respect, as well as David and Paul. Coupled with the assumption that our desires, in this respect, are analogous to GOD’s desires, along with a particular reading of certain passages you argue is the most plausible, you then conclude that GOD is likewise conflicted.
This forms a part of your response to my apparent demonstration that GOD’s conflicted desires, if He truly had them, would reveal that He is not wholly devoted to what is most glorious and precious. In voicing these longings or in any way acting upon them, such as rendering a “well-meant offer” (according to your interpretation of the “preceptive” purpose behind it), He would have chosen to act in a way that opposes what is most worthy of His love. He would have sinned, in other words, because He would have opposed, however slightly, His greater glory. Your argument is meant to establish counter-examples which prove that, wherever my reasoning may have led me, I must nevertheless be in error for apparently GOD has conflicted desires after all, even if, as you acknowledge, His emotions are not “univocal” with ours.
(a) It is important to consider that there are a number of reasons why a human being might possess conflicted desires — reasons which could never apply to GOD. One such reason is the limitation of our perspective and our lack of knowledge regarding the outcome of our decisions as to which of our choices might be actually the best choice to make. Paul’s conflict, for example, over whether he would prefer to pass into the presence of Christ or to live in service to the Church was, I believe, partly clouded by the momentary ambiguity in his heart as to which of these was really best. As you said yourself in a comment to another participant elsewhere:
If this is your opinion, then it ought to be recognized first that you have already basically acceded the point on this matter. No conflict in the desires of a human being can stand as an adequate analogy to GOD’s as His could hardly be said to arise from “the ignorance of finitude” and this limitation always plays a role in our indecisiveness because it is a part of everything we think and do.
(b) Perhaps more importantly, however, you also noted in your recent response to me that Paul recognized the better desire was to remain in the world because, as he believed, it was GOD’s wisdom that his continued work refresh the saints, especially in Philippi:
According to you, then, Paul desires to live and serve rather than die and rejoice in the immediate presence of Christ precisely because he believes that his death is not what GOD has purposed for His own glory, which is a much more important consideration than anything else. It is so important in fact that Paul never again mentions the other desire but assumes perfectly through the remainder of his letter a tone of eager focus upon the chief purpose at hand. His epistle is meant to immediately engage that challenge of further building up the church at Philippi. The overarching desire of GOD completely settles the matter for him and his mind does not drift off into other conflicting hopes and wishes.
I think you would agree, in fact, that Paul only entertained the possible pleasure of seeing Christ soon because he had been languishing in prison and execution was a distinct possibility. The ambiguity of the moment was the spark for his imagination. This is very important because I agree with you that it is perfectly moral to have conflicted desires when one is not certain which of the desires is best overall, when each desire seems to aim at an equally beautiful end.
How really does one judge whether, after a lifetime of service, resting in the presence of Christ or continuing on in ministry is better? The only certain way to tell is to learn what GOD’s eternal desire is, perhaps when one sees this desire playing out in the facts of experience. But if Christ appears to you and says, “You are to be killed at midnight for my sake and for the glory of my Name,” would it be a most righteous thing to long out loud to others for a very different reality? You might be able to empathize with a brother or sister who struggled with this kind of weakness, but it is the opposite of the spirit that made the martyrs an inspirational image to so many who were experiencing persecution. In fact, such a groaning example would be more likely to dissuade others from persevering in the face of severe trial.
(c) In light of this, I think it is very important to ask a difficult question. What if Paul, after determining the eternal will of GOD, had not responded with joy (GOD loves a cheerful giver) but instead responded with groans and sighs, lamenting that he would not be allowed to die and see Christ sooner? What if, though he might not fail to obey, Paul still had a bad taste in his mouth over the command of GOD and he expressed this in his letter to Philippi, even though we are told by John that, for those who truly love the LORD, His commandments are not burdensome or grievous (I John 5:3)?
We can and should take this logic a bit further, for if conflicted desires are perfectly moral — in fact, if they are the expression of perfection in GOD Himself — then it should be just as righteous for Paul, in every instance in his ministry, whenever the Spirit moved him, to consistently complain about GOD’s commandments: “Alas, if only You would simply let me die” or “If only the Holy Spirit would let me go where I like” or “If only Christ hadn’t commissioned me as an Apostle to the Gentiles but let me live a quiet, peaceable life of unadorned faith.” This reminds me a great deal of the sort of complaining Jonah was famous for.
(d) Each such utterance would obviously be in opposition to the command and Authority of GOD. Now, Jesus taught us that whoever speaks on his own authority, as opposed to the authority of the Father, was “seeking his own glory” (John 7:18), which is a sin. If any of us, Paul included, were to pine out loud for a different life than the one we were clearly commissioned by GOD to lead, each of our audible sighs and groans would be an expression quite contrary to the authority of the Father revealed to us and, thus, would be issuances of the mouth revealing the self-serving nature of our hearts.
When the Authority of GOD has already declared the right and most perfect thing to do, any longing expressed would be opposed to His Authority and to what is best. Even if you disagree that it is sinful for someone to do this, I doubt you would describe such a person as the apotheosis of faithfulness. The most righteous response, instead, would be complete devotion to whatever the Father decided because only such a choice could be preferred on the Father’s authority.
It is, furthermore, clear enough that GOD hardly contradicts His own Authority by longing openly for something quite different than what He eternally mandated as far and away the better devotion. Again, even if you disagree that this would all prove sinful and contrary to His eternal Authority, clearly it is not most holy either… And GOD cannot have desires that are not also most holy, can He? If not, then He cannot have desires (or at least express desires) that are contrary to the authority of His eternal decree and what He knows is most perfect.
2. The Controversial Turmoil of Christ
Now, of course, you are not quite finished on this subject. You have responded that, wherever our reasoning might normally lead on the above question, Christ’s example of inner turmoil over the will of the Father in the garden of Gethsemane closes every mouth, so to speak. I cannot answer Him a word here and, of course, if your use of this moment in the life of Christ were correctly interpreted, I would agree with you. However, I think you would agree that your interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer is not, shall we say, infallible. It can be questioned and it could even be wrong, however remote this may seem.
(a) In that case, rather than using this example as a refutation of the above reasoning, it should make you question your interpretation of Christ’s prayer. Given that I do not agree with your interpretation and given that there are numerous problems with the view to which it leads — those mentioned above are but one example — and also given that I already cited a sufficiently solid reference, which is easily accessible, that explicates an important alternative interpretation of that prayer, you can no longer responsibly use this moment in the life of Christ as a self-evident axiom to continue pressing your view of GOD’s “competing” or “conflicted” desires (particularly when it was never self-evident to begin with). And unless it is “self-evident” in some sense, then it cannot refute the deductively self-evident nature of the logical objections to your point of view.
But before acquiescing, you want me to basically summarize 90 pages of quality, technical argument in an informal combox environment (with all its prevailing limitations) and I feel that it would be both irresponsible to do this and would probably prove misleading at best. But whether I offer this service or no, you can no longer simply assume your position to be obvious and unchallenged. Indeed, it was always a controversial passage and has been interpreted in a host of ways, which makes it a little presumptuous to treat it as though it were virtually beyond dispute in your favor.
Alright, I have offered even more arguments of this kind this time around, and shall continue to analyze your reasoning for dismissing these contradictions as of the kind that are merely “apparent.”
3. A Multitude of Dazzling Options
Without firmly demonstrating that Christ’s garden prayer was, in fact, a prayer of resignation in the face of conflicted desires, which is only one of a number of possible interpretations, what appears to be your most important objection to the host of logical and Biblical criticisms I’ve outlined now reaches a dead-end. Yet, there is one other possibility which you referred to in the comment I linked to above. There you suggest that perhaps more than one possible world GOD could have created would have resulted in an equally glorious outcome.
This suggestion, when I first considered it some years ago, seemed intriguing and, in this context, leads to a possible alternative we must briefly explore. Perhaps GOD’s desires for a sinless world or for a universal atonement and salvation would have led to an equally desirable and glorious outcome and, because of this, when He laments that certain people will never live with Him in everlasting, heavenly rejoicing, He is not opposing His greater glory but wishing only for an equally beautiful alternative.
(a) I believe there are a good many knotty problems with this idea, the most immediate of which is that it does not resolve the objections outlined above. Even if GOD were longing for an equally lovely end, the fact that He, in all His authority did not choose this end, would still imply that He were speaking in opposition to His own Authority.
(b) More to the point, it would seem in this case of equally valuable possible worlds or decrees, we should all remain forever as confused as Paul in his moment of wondering aloud which was “better,” to live or to die, precisely because there really wouldn’t be anything “better” about one ultimate decree over another. Even if GOD did decree that Paul live instead of die, it would have no more demand upon his affections than what GOD did not decree unless what He decreed was, in actuality, “better.” If you respond, “Well, what He decreed would be better precisely because He did decree it,” then I have to ask what the LORD’s reason for decreeing it could possibly have been? If it was a random decision, no one need follow it and, in fact, cannot if we are to be rational about it as He requires us to be. Our capacity to obey Him involves intrinsically the assumption that His ways are rational.
(c) In the face of two alternatives that are equal in perfection in every conceivable way (by “perfection,” I am referring to their capacity to fulfill the same purpose), there is no way to rationally judge between them. I doubt that you need a Biblical demonstration that GOD acts purposefully. This is, in the end, fundamental to the nature of “reason” and any “rational” choice. Rational choices are meant to accomplish some purpose and are not mere accidents, unintentional, undirected and random in nature. GOD, of course, did not spasm the cosmos into being.
Given this much at least, it follows that whatever He chooses to do, He does to accomplish a specific end. If, however, two different sets of means are equally suited in every conceivable way to accomplishing the same goal, there could be no reason to choose one over the other save by a purely arbitrary selection. Whatever GOD would choose to do in this context, we could always ask, “Why did He choose this over that?” If He could give any rational consideration at all which would make one preferable to the other, then our initial assumption that each was precisely identical in their perfections (or identically suited to the same end) would be obviously false. And, we know that He did not choose randomly or arbitrarily.
Therefore, it is obvious that GOD chose this world rather than any other to create precisely because it best fit (even if only slightly more perfectly) the goal He is inexorably working toward. In that case, a desire for any other world would be a desire for a set of means that would not reach the most glorious end.
This has been a particular study of mine for a number of years and I have a rather developed set of responses to the various objections to this which you might raise (or have raised elsewhere). I would be happy to explore the matter with you as thoroughly as you like in later comments, but I’m afraid that to pursue it exhaustively here would unnecessarily burden this comment and derail its primary focus. I shall leave it for a moment, then, and continue in hopes that you can perceive the quality of what I have said enough to see that the objection stands presently resolved…
4. Resolving a Contradiction
Now, it would appear at this point that your view of GOD’s “perceptive” desires is false (if not meaningless) and leads to error on a number of levels, yet you have offered up further counter-examples in an attempt to test the mettle of the arguments I have prepared so far. There are, as I explained above however, certain limitations to counter-examples.
(a) First among these is the subject of GOD’s treatment of His enemies, which, as you see it, appears to conflict (requiring both love and hatred) in a way similar to our main focus upon conflicting “decretive” and “preceptive” desires. This loving and hating of the enemies of the Lamb, apparently both at once, you also compare with the way in which David uses the speech of “hate” and “love” regarding his own enemies. You cite Psalm 35:13-14 as an important counter-example:
Realizing that a contradiction remains unless this love and hatred of the righteous occurs at a different time or is to be understood in different senses, you concentrate upon the latter and assert that “on one level” David hated his enemies, and on another level, he loved them. Alright, what does this mean? You offer the possibility of understanding these “levels” in terms of “affectional” versus “volitional” desires, but you then go on to reject this distinction.
Afterward, you offer the following possible way of reconciling the contradiction:
To put this another way, we must see the hatred and the love of both GOD and his people toward those who hate the LORD “as an end in itself” or “as isolated from the overall fabric of history” on the one hand, and on the other hand contemplated “vis-à-vis God’s overall plan for the world.” This seems to be the difference that resolves the contradiction for you.
(b) The immediate question is whether this is a “distinction without a difference” (i.e., only an apparent difference). Are these two different kinds of “desire” (two kinds of desiring) or are they different objects of a single kind of desire? Unfortunately there is an ambiguity in English which confuses “desiring” for the object of desire. To illustrate, it is perfectly grammatical to utter the sentence, “Christ is all my desire,” just as it is correct to say, “Christ is the only one I desire.” Dictionaries define the term in this way: both as, “An inclination to want things” and also “something that is desired.” The “wanting” and its object are therefore both called “a desire.”
Which one is necessary to distinguish in order to resolve your apparent contradiction? It would seem to be the “wanting” and not merely the object. The fact that GOD wants two different objects which would logically and practically cancel each other out suggests already that the objects are different in kind. The contradiction arises from the fact that he “wants” two different and conflicting prizes. Therefore, to resolve the contradiction, you would have to prove that His “wanting” is different in each case. Instead, you have merely pointed out a small difference in the objects themselves.
But, even there you fail to strike a serious note. In distinguishing between the objects of His desire, you remarked upon a superficial difference of perspective rather than a real and substantial difference in kind. I don’t agree that “intrinsic” value has meaning outside of GOD, as I’ve argued before. And it is certainly hard to see how something could be good-in-itself to possess and yet also evil to possess or how anything could be valuable in itself but evil to create and nurture. It would certainly have been evil for GOD to create a world that would never attain the glory this world would, yet if that lesser world were somehow “good-in-itself,” it should be good to create it.
But assuming that I am wrong in this, both “preceptive” and “decretive” desires would have an “intrinsic” value and both have a meaning in a historically situated context. In that case, they do not differ from one another in this respect. Why assume that “preceptive” desires alone have to do with the “intrinsic” value of their object when “decretive” desires also have to do with objects that have “intrinsic” value? And why assume “decretive” desires alone regard the value of an object in an overarching plan when “preceptive” desires are also situated within a logical and historical context, even if only a conceptual one, which is full of eternal implications, otherwise they would have no meaning?
Given that both are valuable “in themselves,” at least according to your view, and both take their meaning from their situation in an overall plan, they are qualitatively the same in this sense. The only difference seems to be a matter of degree: namely, that one is actuated and the other is not. On neither level, therefore, does your argument get off the ground. The contradiction remains.
(c) The reason that I quoted David referring to his hatred of those who hate the LORD was because you seemed to interpret, inconsistently, only certain passages as though they related the true, positive feelings of GOD and His people toward the lost. When one applies, however, the method you appear to use with passages like Deuteronomy 5:29 and Ezekiel 33:11 to other passages, such as Psalm 52:6 and Proverbs 1:26 (where both the righteous and Wisdom laugh at the horrible plight of evildoers), we come to a very confusing set of ideas.
Given the parallels you struck between the desires of human beings, Christ and GOD, given the images you mentioned of the righteous literally “rejoicing” in divine vengeance and bathing their feet in the blood of the wicked (from Psalm 58:10), given that there is divine and righteous laughter at the distress of the lost, as we apply the logic of what seems to be your interpretive method, we are forced to conclude that the glorified saints and GOD Himself take a good deal of pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, in the most breathtaking fury. They do after all rejoice in the bloody vengeance of the Most High, as you go on to say, “with emotions fully engaged”…
Yet we know that our Beloved LORD says expressly that He does not “take pleasure” in the death of the wicked, rather He takes pleasure in the idea that they might live. This means to you that GOD does not even desire their deaths. You insist that His desire for life is an echo of the “intrinsic” value of salvation, but if “intrinsic” value is meaningful in such a context, there would also be an “intrinsic” value to the damnation of the wicked and we are left wondering where to turn.
Now, either your method for engaging these kinds of texts is too simple or it seems we must understand “death” or “pleasure” in Ezekiel 33:11 in some other sense or we must assume GOD does not take pleasure in their deaths at one time but does at another. We might argue perhaps that it is a different aspect of the death of the evildoer that GOD does not take pleasure in while He rejoices in another, holier aspect of their destruction as their perverse sins are fitfully punished. Whatever we believe, it remains difficult to distinguish clearly between these two sides in a scene where the blood of the reprobate washes the feet of rejoicing saints. What part of the “death of the wicked” is not giving “pleasure” there?
Whatever method we choose for resolving the problem simply does not lead to your earlier conclusions. We cannot assume that when GOD does not “take pleasure” in something, it means that He expressly desires the opposite (or vice versa). Nor does it mean He does not want what He takes no pleasure in (for He hardly took pleasure in the death of His Son), as it clearly stands that wisdom and the saints “rejoice” at the sight of the destruction of wicked people.
(e) The last argument that I wish to make, which I hope fairly covers the scope of your recent rebuttal, will consider the question of GOD’s evaluation of someone or something, in your words, “isolated from the fabric of his overall purpose for history.” The question is whether this is the way GOD sees anything truly or, more pointedly, whether this is truly the way anything could exist.
I think you would agree that meaning is contextually defined. There are a number of layers of context which give meaning to expressions, to events, to things, to people, etc. Most important of all is the purpose for which we were made, especially given that rational action is oriented toward a goal and therefore the rationality and meaning of our existence is fundamentally bound up in the point of our existing. Paul makes this clear when he summarizes the value of “whatever” we do in terms of whether it glorifies the LORD (I Corinthians 10:31). GOD’s chief interest and concern is His glory, which is why so often He explains that He does everything for His Name’s sake, for how can He give His glory to another?
In that light, what sense is there in suggesting — given that GOD sees the whole scope of a thing and its relationship to everything else, whether potential or actual, in one eternal act of knowing — that GOD ever considers a thing outside the scope of its implications for His glory? How does anything even have meaning or value outside the context of its relationship to this? Isn’t the Biblical teaching precisely that a thing is good or evil, better or worse, richer or poorer, only in terms of whether it fulfills this mandate to glorify GOD? In that case, GOD does not see anything outside this context and would not, therefore, desire an object with implications for a far lesser glory.
I sincerely hope that this post finds you well, that your vacation was rejuvenating and that our Beloved has bestowed His warmest affections upon you and those you love, sharpening you for His service with the tenderness of which only He is capable. Amen.
June 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Dear Benjamin,
Thank you for your three lengthy responses. I especially appreciate the thoughtful way in which you began your rebuttal by highlighting several areas of common (orthodox) ground, which we affirm. This serves both as a rail that keeps our debate on track and also as an expression of goodwill that adorns our discussion with brotherly kindness.
Your thorough response has, I think, advanced our mutual understanding of each other’s position somewhat. Nevertheless, it seems to me that you’re not understanding me precisely in a number of places. In some or all of these cases, the fault may be that I haven’t explained myself with sufficient clarity. Hopefully, I’ll do better in my subsequent response to remove remaining ambiguities. Moreover, after perusing your carefully worded and reasoned rebuttal, I still have questions and caveats related to your position. This may be, as you suggest above, a perceptual defect on my part due to the remaining noetic effects of sin. If so, I’ll pray that the Lord will open the eyes of my heart to see the Way more clearly. And because of the grace of humility that pervades your argument above, I’m confident that neither of us are out simply to win an argument but to understand the ways and works of God more perfectly.
Regretfully, present church and seminary responsibilities preclude an immediate rejoinder. So I will have to defer my reply to you as I’ve had to defer several other replies elsewhere on the blog. Please don’t interpret the postponement as a lack of interest in discussing the subject further or a lack of appreciation for the brotherly love that motivated you to spend a good portion of your time thoughtfully interacting with my prior comments. In reality, I deeply enjoy discussing the things of God with a brother who’s both knowledgeable and also passionate for the truth. Wish I could do it more! But alas, other duties are pressing. So, DV, I’ll get back soon. Until then, may the Lord make his face to shine upon you!
Gratefully yours,
Bob Gonzales
June 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Thank you for your warm reception and your continued gracious disposition in the face of what must be a time consuming discussion. I have been impressed by your willingness to interact with someone without a name or title of any importance. It is a gesture of brotherly kindness and interest in the things of GOD and His revelation so vital to our perseverance in glorifying His name to the utmost.
I am more than happy to encourage you to take the time you need and I am perfectly willing to wait that you might have more time to focus because, like you, I want to understand your position. If you say that I have not understood you precisely in a number of places, then I believe you and want very much to rectify that. I shall continue to try as long as you are willing to explain it to me.
In the meantime, I want to say that I realize there were places in your response (especially passages you mentioned) that I probably seemed to pass by in complete silence. It was a purposeful choice on my part to conserve space and because I thought them to be, though quite important in a somewhat different context, of secondary importance here. I began, at the first, to discuss them as I wrote out a response but my comment grew much too large, so I left much of it off and hoped we might be able to cover these at a later time. Clearly this discussion touches on a number of broad topics and there’s much left to share… May our GOD orient your whole disposition toward the glory of His Son that your whole bearing might shine of His presence in the company of those who need your guidance most. Amen.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
After rereading the post and comments and it seems that all is said, I see that Ben did a great job at defending his position. Bob did well, but apologetically, Ben back his up with better explainations and logic from the scriptures. I still don’t see how Bob, you can defend your position from what the Word proclaims, esp. understanding Romans 9, in that before either were born… that the Lord made the decision to Love the one and Hate the other. No matter even if you want to go into what Hate means, it still implies what Ben is writing about, that the Lord has a specific Will, and He is carrying it out. If He had the same desire as want you are addressing, it would contradict Romans 9, with both Pharoah’s Heart being hardened so that He couldn’t or wouldn’t believe, and in Jacob and Esau situation.
Good debate to the both of you, well done.
And to Ben, thanks for the boldness of your heart in defending the Word of God.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Puritan (and Benjamin),
I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the discussion between Benjamin and myself concerning the question of whether God wants sinners (indiscriminately) to comply with his law and his gospel. I’m disappointed that you and Benjamin apparently deny this to be the case. Despite the fact that I’ve provided citations from solid Reformed theologians (I’ve added some above and can provide more) who affirm a semantic and conceptual link between a personal being imposing an obligation upon another and his desiring compliance with said obligation and despite the fact that I provide Scriptural support for the idea that God has a desiderative desire for the good of those whose good he does not necessarily decree, you both seem intent on “reinterpreting” the meaning of such passages because you cannot seem to fit the Scriptural data into your paradigm of logic.
Of course, the fact that I haven’t yet provided a lengthy rejoinder to Benjamin’s last comments may give the impression that I’ve raised “the white flag.” Actually, I’ve just been busy with pastoral and seminary related duties. Presently, I’m teaching a course on Intermediate Hebrew. So I just haven’t had the time to provide a lengthy rebuttal, and I’m uncertain whether it would do much good except to prolong the discussion.
But for the sake of those reading (and perhaps this might be helpful to Puritan and Benjamin), let me provide a brief response to the first part of Benjamin’s lengthy response, which begins in post #34, where he attempts to impose a primarily volitional meaning on divine love in order to support his overall argument. Hopefully, as the reader notes the faulty reasoning and unsound linguistics in the first part of Benjamin’s argument, he’ll be a bit more skeptical about any prima facie cogency in the subsequent parts of Benjamin’s extended argument. Of course, I acknowledge that by discrediting the first part of Benjamin’s argument, I haven’t necessarily discredited the entire argument. I believe I can do so. Nevertheless, my time is limited, and I’m not certain how much more time and effort I should invest into this discussion. In any case, here’s my attempt at providing a refutation of the first part of Benjamin’s argument concerning the nature of divine love:
“Divine Love”: affection or volition?
Benjamin writes:
(a) I think we would agree that it is rather difficult to rightly comprehend the teaching of Scripture on the emotions and the love of GOD which are teachings of immense magnitude. I believe that GOD’s love is primarily defined by action rather than feeling, that loving affections without manifestation are worthless in the end if they are never coupled with active expression seeking the good of others. Love is oriented toward service. This is how Paul describes the mind of Christ in Philippians and the nature of love in I Corinthians 13. This is why the Beloved Apostle exhorts us, “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth,” which is greatly to be preferred, for it is by this that “we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him” (I John 3:18-19). Active love is at the heart of Truth and not mere “word or talk” or feelings of affection alone.
I agree that a full-orbed understanding of “love” must include a volitional element as well as an affectional element. Benjamin’s examples, however, seem to stack the deck in favor of giving the volitional element priority over the affectional element. Indeed, he asserts that “GOD’s love is primarily defined by action rather than feeling” (emphasis added). Such a statement left unqualified can mislead.
Let me explain. An outdated and discredited linguistic theory attached inherent meaning to certain lexical roots and sought to import such “primary” meaning into nearly every context. Since Benjamin indicated elsewhere that he’s read Donald Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, I suspect he’s aware of the fact that the science of lexicography is primarily descriptive and only secondarily prescriptive. That is, one does not begin with a definition of “love” a priori and impose it in every context in which the word is used. Rather, one analyzes the way in which the lexeme “love” is used in each context, and then he describes how the word is used in that context. The semantic range of any given word may be narrow or broad. The various senses within that semantic range are determined by the context in which the lexeme is used. Accordingly, the primacy of any given sense is relative to the context in which the word is used and not to any inherent property of the lexeme itself.
For example, Benjamin offers 1 John 3:18-19 to prove his point. That text reads, “Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him.” Undeniably, action is a major component in the love John here enjoins. The immediate reference to “deed” (3:18) and the prior allusion to an act of benevolence (3:17) make that clear. Of course, to conclude that the love here enjoined is merely volitional in nature would be a hasty and patently false conclusion. A look at the larger context, in which John is expounding brotherly love, demonstrates that John has an affectional element in view as well. For instance, John contrasts the kind of love we’re to have toward our brother with Cain’s “hatred” of his brother Abel (3:11-12) as well as the world’s “hatred” towards the believer (3:13). Undeniably, the “hatred” in view has an active element. Cain murdered Abel, and the world persecutes Christians. But the active element is a consequence of something more fundamental—something inward. Hence, John says, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer” (3:15). If one attempts to distill “love” down to a mere action, then he forces the apostle into a tautology—something like, “Everyone who murders his brother is a murderer.” But that’s certainly not John’s intent. John is referring to “heart-murder,” which is not an action but a disaffection. It follows, then, that the love John enjoins in 1 John 3 is fundamentally a heart disposition of kindness and compassion which evidences itself not merely in words but deeds.
The other example Benjamin points to is 1 Corinthians 13. Is the love here really “defined by action rather than feeling,” as he seems to argue? Does “service oriented” really capture its essence? Those who’ve been predisposed to think in this direction, possibly because of conclusions based on a linguistically unsound understanding of the meaning of the Greek term agape, may be inclined to answer affirmatively. But a look at the context discredits the view that attempts to define the virtue of Christian love here envisioned as primarily intellectual or volitional.
To begin with, Paul says it’s possible to “understand all mysteries and all knowledge” and to “have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love” (13:2; emphasis added). Hence, the love he has in view is not primarily or fundamentally cognitive in nature. Secondly, Paul says it’s possible to “give away all I have, and” to “deliver up [one’s] body to be burned, but have not love” (13:3; emphasis added). So the love in view is not primarily or fundamentally an action or service oriented, as Benjamin alleges. One might, as Paul argues, engage in great acts of benevolence (i.e., giving away all one’s possessions to the poor) and render the greatest act of self-sacrifice (i.e., martyrdom), and yet be devoid of genuine Christian love. So when Paul expounds love, he, like the apostle John, is not just thinking about one’s cognitive state or volitional acts. He’s thinking about one’s heart disposition. This is confirmed by the subsequent verses where Paul describes the kind of attitudes and inward dispositions that characterize Christian love:
These inward dispositional tendencies and affections of Christian love are what constitute its essence and are what enable it, as a grace, to manifest itself in the following ways:
So I disagree with Benjamin. Biblical love is not primarily a simple choice or action or service rendered. Of course, true love will manifest itself in choices and actions and service. But true love is primarily and fundamentally a proper heart disposition/affection toward God and others. It was this that the OT prophet and Jesus had in mind when they condemned the Jews for drawing near to God with their lips while their hearts were far from him. God wants us to love him and our neighbor with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Deut. 6:5), that is, our entire being. Anything short is not true love.
That brings us to Benjamin’s treatment of John 3:16. He writes:
(b) In this light I interpret John 3:16 to be saying something like, “For GOD loved the world like so: that He gave His one and only Son. . .” and this parallels beautifully John’s language in his first epistle, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (I John 4:9). This is how the “GOD so loved” construction of John 3:16 ought to be understood, as an act, a manifestation of love, and not primarily as a feeling which was the impetus of the gift. When you and I discuss, therefore, the issue of GOD’s disposition toward the lost, I think we must keep firmly in our minds that love is fundamentally active, just as “hatred” seems to be.
Note how Benjamin once more attempts to stack the deck in favor of viewing God’s love for the world as volitional rather than affectional. It appears to me that he’s attempting desperately to empty Scriptural expressions of God’s goodwill and desire towards the non-elect of any heart-felt affection or emotively construed kindness. He agrees with me (and Calvin) that God’s love for the world in this passage includes the non-elect. But he wants us to interpret it as a choice or a deed rather than a feeling.
But as I’ve demonstrated above, one can no more divorce true love from a heart disposition without destroying the biblical concept of love than one can sever the head from the body without destroying the person. God chose to send His Son into the world and God followed through with that choice not from some arbitrary whim or indifferent and detached decree. Rather, God’s heart of compassion towards his fractured and alienated images compelled his action. And the scope of God’s heart-felt compassion is no narrower than the entirety of fallen humanity, which is the meaning of “world” in this text.
So Benjamin’s attempt to construe God’s love towards fallen sinners, some of which he has not elected, as primarily a choice or action is without biblical warrant. In fact, it is a distortion of the exegetical data. He may justify such a move on the basis of a perceived logical contradiction between (1) God’s decree to save some and (2) God’s desire that all comply with his law and gospel. I remain unpersuaded that such a contradiction exists. Consequently, I affirm with the Reformed theologians above that divine obligations imply divine desires for compliance with such obligations. Moreover, I affirm that God desires (vis-à-vis his desiderative will) that each and every sinner turn from his sin and live.
I conclude with a citation from Geerhardus Vos, which accurately captures my own reading of Scripture and which I recently added to my collection of Reformed authors above:
If I have time in the future and feel the need, I’ll be happy to address Benjamin’s other arguments. My rejection of his position does not entail any lack of respect for him as a Christian brother or appreciation for the irenic spirit he’s displayed throughout our discussion.
Sincerely,
Bob Gonzales
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Mr. Gonzales…
I have always tried to be gracious toward you, as I must, even where I was a little frustrated with you. After arriving and reading this disappointing exchange which took place in my absence a couple of days ago, shouldn’t you be ashamed of yourself, as a member of our royal family and a leader with a public teaching office? I entreat you to repent of your open foolishness here.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Benjamin,
I honestly haven’t been persuaded by your arguments. But I still respect you as a Christian brother and have appreciated your graciousness, as I indicated above. I’m not immediately aware of what I’ve done to sin against you. Of course, I am a sinner, and it’s not beyond possibility that I’ve communicated above in a way that’s un-Christlike. It wouldn’t be the first time. If so, I’m willing to be shown where I’ve sinned. At least know that it wasn’t my intent to sin against you.
Humbly yours,
Bob Gonzales
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I had hoped to give you the opportunity to simply apologize. Perhaps you had a bad week or were under too much stress. A quick explanation and retraction and we could move on… but if you really need me to explain, in general, what is wrong with your recent comment, I won’t ignore your request.
In context, a little over two months ago, our conversation took a pause. You expressed your respect for the way I had handled my side of our exchange and promised to return to it “soon” because you “deeply enjoy discussing the things of God with a brother who’s both knowledgeable and also passionate for the truth.” This passion in me was evident to you because, as you pointed out, I was clearly not seeking merely to score points or win a debate but am eager to gain and to grow as we wrestle through these questions together. That mutual attitude was what made this dialogue worthwhile. There the question has rested for over two months, and I have not once complained for the wait.
When I recently returned to see how you were getting on, I noticed some anonymous brother had decided, of no real consequence, to declare his persuasion. I appreciate his interest and he’s entitled to his opinion, but it’s too early to decide the issue and I am hoping for further discussion. Nevertheless, his opinions apparently goaded you into saying some rather foolish things. Of these, I offer a brief and general list of a few things that I have against you:
1. You thoroughly misrepresented my point of view and arguments, misquoted me, made uncharitable guesses about my motives, assumptions and beliefs, lectured me on the elementary fact that meaning is driven by context (a fact I had already discussed with you earlier) while, at the same time, you ironically ignored the context of my words. Of course, after taking condescending little jabs at me in my absence, you later appreciated my “irenic spirit.” However, this sort of thing rings a little hollow when you decide not to imitate it.
2. You tried to “poison the well” by the use of pejorative terms and by a strategy of spending most of your time addressing a truly minor issue which you hoped to refute simply and then hold up as an alleged example of my generally impoverished knowledge and reasoning. Of my three major responses to you, the first highlighted areas of agreement between us. The second paraphrased and organized into one place most of the scattered arguments and considerations that you had not yet addressed (per your request). The third was my actual main response to your lengthier contribution. What you attempted to cavalierly “refute” was subsection A of the introduction of the second main post. Yet, in the entire post there were roughly fifteen distinct points of argument for consideration.
Almost laughably, you then encouraged the reader to question the apparent (or “prima facie”) coherence of everything else I had written with a promise that you could really demolish all of my remaining arguments if you wanted, but that you probably won’t bother unless you “feel the need.” I have to wonder whether you would have treated a famous colleague that way. Skating around on the thinnest of ice while boasting about what else you might do seems to me like the sort of thing a person picks up after spending way too much time on discussion boards and chat sites.
3. Perhaps most tiring, you continually complain about a busy schedule that keeps you from responding to me though this same schedule lacks the power to keep you from a host of comments, dialogues with others, blog posts and the like elsewhere. Of course, that is your life and your decision, but I had been hopeful, given your previous graciousness and cheerfulness about our interaction, promising to return soon to a unique exchange that you deeply enjoyed. However, a dark cloud descended somewhere and you now you speak of all this as an apparent waste of time and effort, unsure whether investing anything more into it would do any good rather than needlessly drag it along further. At the end, you dismissively remark that “if” you “feel the need,” you’ll bother to respond to (and refute) my main arguments. By all means, don’t trouble yourself to do me any favors. If this is any indication of the quality of your future contributions, then I hope you never feel the need. I entirely agree with you that, in that case, your response would be a waste of our time.
I certainly feel it would be a waste of my good time to correct your recent comment further. If, however, you want to insist that you are genuinely too innocent to see what is wrong with what you’ve written or how my charges apply, I can easily delve into the specifics, but I am hoping rather to avoid lingering on this.
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Brother, even in the end if you feel that I have unjustly charged you with cheap tactics, distortions, hypocrisy or abuse, perhaps I have become one like Shimei who casts aspersions (with the rocks and the dust) upon one more righteous than myself. If that is so, then may the LORD look favorably upon you for the unfair abuse you’ve suffered at my hands.
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Benjamin,
Thanks for the explanation. I’ll offer a few comments in the hopes of clarifying my actions and preserving, perhaps, some degree of respect between us.
(1) It’s true that I’ve had time to write new blogs, make comments on those blogs, and even add comments here since our last discussion. But in addition to blogging on RBS Tabletalk, I’m a dean, professor, pastor, husband, and father. Moreover, I’ve been editing a book and writing several articles for publishing. So I do have to make decisions about which discussions I want to prolong and which I do not. I’ve decided that I don’t have a lot of time right now to pour into this discussion with you. In addition to the time it would take me to respond to your lengthy counter-argument, I’d probably only invite another counter-point from you. I’m honestly doubtful we’d see eye-to-eye. As you’re probably aware, I’ve written other posts that have touched on this same issue and engaged in lengthy discussions there too. I’ve become more and more convinced over time that there are some brothers who will not be persuaded. I guess I’m happy enough that you listed several areas of agreement in post #33. That satisfies me at this point.
(2) I don’t entirely blame you for being disappointed that I didn’t take the time to engage your entire argument and even frustrated that I now appear less sincere in my desire to continue the debate. Frankly, I am busy and, consequently, have changed my mind. I hope you agree that one may sincerely intend a course of action at one point in time but, due to circumstances that arise, decide on another course of action later. This is precisely what the apostle Paul did, and his integrity was questioned by the church in Corinthian. As a result, he had to attempt to clear himself (2 Corinthians 1:12-24). Of course, when trying to defend oneself, one runs the danger of appearing even less sincere. I’ll take that chance and hope you’ll give me the benefit of the doubt.
(3) As far as the “cheap tactics,” “distortions,” “hypocrisy,” etc., I personally feel you’re overreacting and, perhaps, oversensitive. If I misrepresented your position, feel free to identify the area of misrepresentation, and I’ll try to rectify things.
Honestly, I wasn’t thrilled about the way you dodged some of my arguments. For example, you dismissed the Christ-in-Gethsemane analogy as based on a “controversial passage.” Well, it’s certainly not controversial for most sound commentators. You point me to one obscure Masters’ thesis offered on Tren. But you refuse to summarize the argument of that thesis. If the right interpretation is that clear and cogent, is it really that difficult to summarize? Or do I really have to purchase the thesis? Honestly, I thought this was simply a maneuver on your part to avoid the inescapable conclusion that one may desire an objective yet pass by that objective in order to obtain a greater objective. Such a conclusion fits very well with my thesis but not with yours, and I can understand why it would be important for you to brush that passage aside.
(4) Finally, it’s very unlikely I’ll be dissuaded from the position that God sincerely desires from all men indiscriminately compliance with the terms of his law and gospel. My position is consistent with historic Reformed theology and, I am presently convinced, Scripture. You, on the other hand, apparently don’t agree with the Reformed theologians I’ve cited above or Scriptural arguments I’ve advanced. Perhaps further debate may prompt one of us to relent from his position. At this point, I’m doubtful. So it would seem to me that you and I, like Paul and Barnabas, might do better to part ways and get on with our gospel labors. God will reveal who was right and who was wrong in the end, and I can be content to await that Day. May we both receive large doses of mercy from his hand.
Benjamin, as far as I know my heart, I’ve not felt any ill-will toward you though we’ve disagreed on such an important topic. I hope your heart will not grow cold toward me.
In Christ,
Bob Gonzales
September 4th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Brother, I have always respected you for your labors as a man who tries in the way you believe best to prepare future leaders of the Church to do the work GOD has put before them. That is important work and you take it seriously. Of course you should give your best efforts and time to it. I had not thought poorly of you at all when it became apparent to me that you were probably not going to return to our discussion. That was fine and, truly, may Christ be praised for His love toward you. You weren’t obligated to continue.
Yet, before the confusing experience of the last few days, I must have mangled your rhetoric somewhere in my memory. I had thought that you deemed us both to be mutually passionate to get at the truth, rather than to simply win a debate, and that my main problem was just a misunderstanding of your point of view. Recently, this all changed. You chose to get it off your chest that, in reality, you’ve harbored the suspicion that I was quite dishonest as I “dodged” your excellent arguments, “brushed aside” passages so that I might “maneuver” at all costs to “avoid the inescapable conclusion” you’ve been defending. I keep trying to “impose” an alien meaning upon the Bible to “stack the deck in my favor” by a misleading “distortion of the exegetical data.”
Intriguingly, you’ve even worked out my motive for these little deceptions, as I “desperately” attempt to “empty Scriptural expressions” of their true meaning. In truth, I’m absolutely “intent on ‘reinterpreting’” the passages you repeatedly cite because I “cannot seem to fit the Scriptural data into [my] paradigm of logic”… whatever that means.
Furthermore, I’ve stubbornly ignored the expertise and authority of Reformed theologians to define questions of academic philosophy, and my methods are so clumsy that I’ve been comically forced to adopt “an outdated and discredited linguistic theory” that I had previously denounced in my earlier defense of the contextual basis of meaning. Even though I’m apparently not very good at this dodging business, I keep trying because I have to keep on my toes to avoid the knockdown example of Christ’s Gethsemane prayer.
Curiously, the gentleman named Ben Maas who also debated this topic with you didn’t feel the same need to “maneuver” away from your perspective on Gethsemane. He embraced it while still denying that it led to your “inescapable conclusion.” No doubt the explanation is simply that he is a more artful dodger than I am. And I suppose it is probably unimportant that I adopted roughly my present perspective on Christ’s controversial prayer a number of years before this argument over GOD’s desires ever entered my mind. That would mean that I didn’t contrive that interpretation to dodge your arguments after all… but only if I am really telling you the truth.
I can imagine, after all that, why you wouldn’t feel any desire to continue with me. Frankly, I am finding this nonsense tedious myself. I can’t help but feel all this is something of a game where the rules are never quite clear, where you refuse to be tied to your own requirements and you keep raising the bar when it suits you. That has all the flavor of an unfalsifiable theory.
September 5th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Brother, I know that our exchange has fizzled out and that you see little in my point of view to recommend it. I hope that you will not be too offended or indifferent to read and seriously consider one final appeal.
Let’s pause for a moment from our energetic attempts to argue the greater luster and truthfulness of our respective teachings. Whether you (or I) are finally proved right or wrong, faithful or unfaithful on this point, there is something more far reaching (and potentially damaging) in the methods we’ve chosen that I wish to speak to you about. You are a man I had always taken to be sufficiently humble to be genuinely interested in thoughtful criticism and I still believe I was not wrong to think this about you. This makes you in some measure a man of wisdom and it is a trait I would never want to see you relinquish.
Let me give you an illustration of one who did as a backdrop to my purpose here. A well-known Reformed Baptist pastor recently visited our church and preached a sermon outlining and defending, as best he could, this position which you presently endorse. He knew that it was contrary to the teachings of my pastor and to other pastors and laymen that were present. Preaching in such a context, he would naturally make the occasional reference to objections he imagined might be nestled in the hearts of his hearers. And each time he realized that his words seemed to disagree with some point of Scriptural teaching or apparently contradicted other assumptions of Reformed orthodoxy, he would return quickly to Isaiah 55 and reverently intone that GOD’s ways and thoughts are higher than our thoughts and ways, and then sprinkle the whole thing liberally with references to “mystery”… and that is where he left us.
Of course, this reference to mystery and GOD’s ways and thoughts made him invulnerable to any and all correction. A man like that cannot be touched. Just try to point out that a number of passages are in disagreement with him or that he has contradicted himself. If he cannot see his way out of it, he will cite it all as a deep “mystery” and quote a half-digested Isaiah 55. That will be his answer to every correction that he cannot put off in some other way. It isn’t that he knows and can establish that the objections are false. He just won’t allow them to be true.
Now, I think you know the pitfalls of adopting this kind of thinking… the measure of immunity and, I shudder to think, virtual infallibility it affords the person who embraces it (at least in their own mind). Some have preferred to label it an “invincible ignorance.” Whatever else it is called, the Scripture refers to the man who becomes like this, a “fool.” Because you are aware of it, in all likelihood, if you (as is true of myself) were ever to succumb to its charms and adopt this manner of reasoning yourself, it would have to prove much more subtle than in the case of the pitiable gentleman I referred to above.
And so I believe it has. If I am right, then whether your conclusions in our conversation are ultimately correct or not, you have subtly adopted a nuanced form of an unfalsifiable theory. If you will allow me, I will offer a bit more detail, which is more fair than vague and superficial suggestions, and I hope you will grant me the room to interpret you as well as I can.
1. Of course, “mysteries” and “apparent contradictions” are not things you shy away from. I believe you would say that, where you have adopted them, the context made it sensible. You are also willing to agree that apparent contradictions at least are problematic (and even meaningless) until they are resolved, but they do not immediately signify error. I agree with this in principle. However, when “mystery” or “merely apparent” begins to act as a kind of incantation in defense against objections regarding the apparently erroneous nature of our views, then they have become the main ingredients of an unfalsifiable theory. It is very weak to patch a problem with labels.
2. One of the clearest symptoms of an unfalsifiable view is a high degree of vagueness in regard to its testability. The heart, as you know, is the most deceitful thing GOD ever made. It must be tested in a way that keeps it from overruling every potential revelation of error. However, to use but one example, if the confidence we have in a certain point of view hinges upon how “persuasive” or how “likely” it strikes us to be, then the individual and his or her impressions have become the bar of their own truth. I think you would agree that such a standard will prove to be more convenient than enlightening.
If we have no clear idea what would reasonably make our perspective false (besides our intuitions or impressions), if we are unwilling to make “risky predictions” about what we would expect to find if our view were actually true and accurate, then we have blockaded ourselves from seriously testing and correcting our cherished notions.
3. Not only does a vague or personal standard of evaluation allow us to dictate in our hearts the terms of truth and legitimacy, it is an obvious sign of unfalsifiability when we reject Biblical standards of truth, such as simple logical coherence. When our ideas are challenged as contradictory and we fail to resolve the problem, claiming on our own authority that the contradiction is only “apparent” and then vainly excusing ourselves by insisting that those who criticize us are simply trapped in their own “paradigm of logic,” this is ample demonstration that whatever else it is, the standard we’ve chosen to abide by is a very private one.
4. I think referring to oneself as “very unlikely” to be dissuaded and to one’s own conclusions as “inescapable” when they are inductive and so obviously not logically necessary, is a clear sign that one has built in the heart a little tower to fortify against instruction. Could such a person who has already defined his sentiments as inescapable ever be persuaded otherwise?
5. There are other discrepancies that often appear when a person is grasping after the wind and refuses to look squarely at what he is doing. Taken separately, they perhaps do not signify very much about whether we’ve grown unteachable on some point, but together they are more helpful in revealing our hearts to us:
a. The use of derogatory labels to undermine confidence in any criticism before it is heard
b. Simple claims, explanations or lectures rather than proof or demonstration
c. Using stories or illustrations as though they were arguments by themselves
d. Repeatedly passing over significant points in silence, especially while changing the subject
e. Citing extrabiblical traditions as though they were authoritative
f. Putting off correction until the afterlife
In Conclusion…
I offer this list not because I believe you have evidenced all of these things in our exchange, but merely to ask you seriously to consider whether at least some of them, perhaps most of them, are already yours. It is not my intention to lecture you. You already know better than I that a pastor, teacher and leader cannot afford to become stubbornly resistant to correction and that one who does is referred to explicitly as a “fool” in Proverbs. If you would honestly say that nothing of what I have said belongs to you, then I hope you are right. In that case, perhaps these words can at least be instructive to other readers and to myself and we can penetrate more deeply into our own motives.
Thank you for your time…
September 5th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Benjamin,
What? Why are you persisting? Worse, why are you prolonging this discussion by means of erecting and then knocking down a straw man? Of course, you’ve done so with courtesy. But is such courtesy just a pretense? I’ll resist that temptation and assume the best. I assume you really love me and are pursuing what you believe to be in my best interests, the interests of the readers, and the glory of God.
I will implore you, however, not to draw false assumptions about how I use the term “mystery” or “paradox” in relationship to the particular issue at hand, viz., whether God desires that sinners comply with the terms of his law and his gospel. Did I invoke those “incantations” in my argument with you? Haven’t I instead argued that it’s perfectly logical for God to pass by a lesser good in order obtain a greater good? Yes, on the surface such a proposition entails a paradox when worded differently, viz., God desires the good of the reprobate and God doesn’t desire the good of the reprobate. But when the two propositions are understood in their proper sense, that is, as being related differently to God’s ultimate objective, then the contradiction becomes merely apparent and not real. And while I certainly affirm an element of mystery in the doctrines of election and reprobation, as the Bible bids me do (Deut. 29:29), I have not invoked the Barthian mystery mantra as a defense of God’s sincere desire that sinners (whether elect or non-elect) comply with the demands of his law or believe in the promises of his gospel.
Can you please show me where I used “mystery” as a defense for the primary thesis of this post? Moreover, what do you mean by labeling my view “unfalsifiable”? The Bible depicts God as a tri-unity. Can you verify that claim through any other means other than the Bible’s own witness? Did you learn the Trinity through mere empirical observation or naked deductive reasoning?
The proposition I affirm in this post is arrived at (1) by an analysis of the teachings of Scripture, (2) is logically consistent with the other parts of Scripture, and (3) is only problematic to those who, in my opinion, erect faulty premises and from those premises seek to reshape biblical propositions to fit their man-made logical paradigm.
I found your “list” of characteristics that evidence a weak position and unteachable spirit interesting. First, you censure the use of “derogatory labels” right after you labeled a man who holds the same position as mine a “pitiable gentleman.” Indeed, you later suggest I’m a “fool” because I won’t be corrected by your arguments. Second, you make “simple claims,” which form some of your major premises, without necessarily demonstrating each and every one of them to be true. Third, you opened the post above with the “pitiable gentleman” story as an illustration to make a point. Fourth, you passed over some of my arguments in the several posts above either because you didn’t think they were significant or for brevity’s sake. Fifth, you keep alluding to Mr. Kato’s thesis on Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane as if it’s some kind of authority without trying to explain the man’s argument so I can ascertain whether it coheres with the teaching of the passage. Sixth, you want me to be corrected “now,” but you don’t seem to show any signs of willingness to be corrected. Indeed, you scold me for saying it’s “very unlikely” I’ll be dissuaded from my view, yet throughout this discussion you’ve manifested that very posture.
Actually, I’m not trying to pick on you. First, Christ and the apostles sometimes used derogatory labels. Of course, they usually reserved them for false teachers. Occasionally, they might say something strong to believers to dissuade them from error or awaken them from spiritual complacency. The use of derogatory labels can certainly be abused. Have I called you a “hyper-Calvinist”? Have I referred to you as “pitiable”? You take issue with me depicting you as “attempting desperately to empty Scriptural expressions of God’s goodwill and desire towards the non-elect of any heart-felt affection or emotively construed kindness,” and you call me to repent of such slander. Yet you apparently did not read the first words of the sentence where I wrote, “It appears to me ….” I did not add those words as a matter of etiquette but as an honest admission to my readers that my analysis of Benjamin’s argument is based on my own perception–which may be fallible. Second, lots of people make simple claims, offer explanations, and give lectures every day without taking the time to provide lengthy proof or logical demonstration for every proposition that comes out of their mouth every time they speak. Just read the Bible. Sometimes the speaker assumes that his audience already agrees with a statement (wrongly or rightly) or sees it as a self-evident truth (wrongly or rightly). The mere fact that he doesn’t back up every statement he makes with an extended argument is no necessary evidence that his argument is false or that his motives are wrong. Third, Jesus used lots of stories and illustrations to make important points and to advance the truth. Fourth, one may pass over a point that he does not think “significant” though his opponent views as significant. Once again, you passed over some of the texts or Scriptural examples I used because you didn’t think they were that important to the argument or significantly cogent. I don’t fault your motives. Fifth, the purpose of citing extra-biblical traditions can help to show that one’s view is not novel or highly improbably when that extra-biblical tradition is general orthodox and representative of the opinion of more than one or two men. That was my point. I didn’t offer the many citations from Reformed exegetes to settle the debate but merely to show that if you think I’m illogical then you’re making a pretty significant statement about a lot of other Reformed theologians. Finally, I think I’m willing to be corrected in this life. My wife corrects me quite frequently, and I’ve often knelt with her in prayer asking our Father’s forgiveness for my folly. I’ve even let my children correct me. And there have been a number of times when I’ve actually corrected something I said in a post because some brother convinced me I was wrong. The fact that I said it was “very unlikely” I’d be dissuaded from the thesis under debate doesn’t of necessity indicate a stubborn, unteachable spirit. It may simply mean, as John Frame puts it, that some of our beliefs are more resistant to revision than others. Would you chide me if I told you it was “very unlikely” I’d be dissuaded from my conviction that the Bible is innerrant? That salvation is ultimately determined by God’s sovereign grace? That Christ will someday raise my body from the grave? The fact is, Benjamin, this is not the first time I’ve discussed this issue, and you’re not the first person who’s challenged me.
If it will make you happy, I took the time to read through all the posts again before writing this response. And as I waded through the many and sundry volleys between you and me, I kept asking myself, would it be worth the time and effort for me to attempt a detailed and reply to posts 34 and 35 of Benjamin, which are quite lengthy and would require a lot of my time? Would my rejoinder budge Benjamin from his position? Or is it “very unlikely” that I would dissuade Benjamin from his views? You began the discussion by advertising the disposition of one willing to be taught:
But as the discussion ensued, it became pretty clear that you entered the discussion with your mind quite made up. You do indeed view yourself as a very qualified advocate and instrument to correct me and others. And though you’ve listened to instruction, you haven’t been willing to receive it. On the contrary, my attempts to instruct you have, by your testimony above, simply frustrated you.
Should I continue this discussion? My reticence might be an indication that I judge your arguments irrefutable but just won’t admit it. Or it may be that I’ve learned from experience that though I may have many things to say, sometimes people are not able (for whatever reason) to bear them. If you’ll permit me, I’ll let God be the judge.
Well, I’ve spent about 90 minutes writing this response. It’s late, I’m tired, and I have to minister the Word twice tomorrow. So you’ll forgive me if I happened to miss something. Perhaps if I have time in the days ahead, I’ll indulge you and write a rejoinder to your two posts. If I don’t, please don’t interpret it as an act of hatred or disrespect toward you. Just trying to be a good steward of the manifold responsibilities the Lord has graciously given me.
May your Lord’s Day be blessed.
Bob Gonzales
September 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Mr. Gonzales said:
And in an earlier comment:
I didn’t know these were just empty words that you didn’t expect me to follow up seriously. I’ll try to keep that in mind.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Dear Benjamin,
Those were not empty words. I asked you to identify the specific areas where you feel I misrepresented you. I did not invite you to misrepresent my argumentation. Moreover, your extended argument that my position is illogical and inconsistent with Scripture did not get my conscience. So am I supposed to repent of an “error” you haven’t successfully demonstrated to me?
Perhaps I am blinded by my sin or my mind is not sufficient trained or astute to follow your logic. I would invite you to pray along with me that God might open my eyes to see the errors of my ways and better understand his word. Thank you for taking up a great deal of your own time attempting to bring me to a clearer understanding of God’s word. May the Lord bring all our thoughts captive to Scripture!
Your brother in Christ,
Bob Gonzales
November 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Let’s hope that now, it is over. Having reread “again” the arguements, I can safely say, let’s hope without being dragged into this, it’s over. Bob more than made his points at the beginning. They were well written and understandable.
Benjamin, your last two to three points were excellent. I couldn’t believe that there were even more depth of thought and understanding to get out of your understanding, but you did, with precision and accuracy. You enlightened me to a better understanding of the Will of God, and I want to do even more research into this. You knocked over the arguements, that definitely weren’t strawmen, with ease and truth.
Thanks to both of you for staying with this. I don’t know, maybe I will check back here in another two months and it will be brought back again. May Our Lord be Honored in the way we speak and write about each other in our debate on the Truth that only reflects His Glory. Amen
November 12th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Puritan,
Thanks for your kinds words both to me and to Benjamin. I agree with your assessment of keenness of Benjamin’s argumentative skills. He raised a number of questions I have yet to answer fully. I’m not yet convinced that affirming a divine decretive desire for the salvation only of the elect is logically incompatible with affirming a divine revealed desire for the good and salvation of all sinners in general. But Benjamin’s arguments have demonstrated that I need to do more work in making my case. I appreciate the combination of his gifted mind and his gracious spirit. Such a combination inclines me, on the one hand, simply to let him have the last word in this debate and to allow the Lord to enlighten us both at the Last Day. On the other hand, such good responses combined with a gracious demeanor prod me to muster a response in kind, one that will attempt to answer cogently his objections and exude the spirit of Christ that characterizes his responses.
My hope, God willing, is to write a separate blog that zeros in on the essence of the debate. Is the proposition that God desires the obedience and consequent welfare of those who never obey or experience said welfare consist with the proposition that God desires what he has planned, which in some cases does not include the obedience and consequent welfare of reprobates who never obey or experience the blessings contingent on said obedience. In this blog, I’ll want to deal very directly with Benjamin’s objections and demonstrate both the biblical support for and the logical consistency of my position.
Until then, I’d like to thank Benjamin for his gracious persistence and Puritan for your unwavering interest in this discussion.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob Gonzales
November 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Dr. Gonzales, it’s fascinating to me that you’re considering working on a separate blog devoted to this subject. I had been considering the same in my hope that I could put together something more conclusive. I’m not satisfied with the organization of my arguments here as they feel less structured and less thorough than I would like. There are simply too many questions left open.
I was sorry that our discussion ended as it did. Too much insistent aggression can make it appear that we are fighting to favor the wrong sort of personal agenda rather than championing our King. Perhaps at the end we were. I hope that in future our motives, though likely to always veer toward sin and pride, are at least more or less consistently aimed in the proper direction.
I am writing this to express one of the more important motives which has driven my participation in this dialogue. It occurred to me again as I read the description of your book’s central thesis on the Wipf and Stock website. I am very interested in it and I hope to get a copy soon. A portion of the description caught my eye and I’d like to quote it:
Assuming you wrote this, you go on to say that one’s overall perspective on this issue will affect one’s doctrines of sin, of justification and of sanctification. I agree of course.
I took this description to be your reading of the narrative qualities of Genesis more than perhaps the way that you would hae chosen to describe GOD’s work in history. Nevertheless, in this paragraph, the impression is left that something GOD has done or is trying to do is “threatened” several times so that His work or kingdom or plan or intentions or promises are imperiled by sin at every turn. This is the language of a cosmic struggle.
If that was your intention, then it represents the kind of portrayal I find most difficult to sympathize with. I don’t read Genesis that way and I felt throughout our conversation here that this was all the time the implication of your view on the divine will. Perhaps there really is no connection. Perhaps you answer all this in your book. But if not, then I hope that, if you do choose to create the blog you spoke of, you will favor me by keeping me in mind and trying to help me and others understand why we ought to appreciate Adonai Yahweh and His work in these terms.
May He bless your eyes to see His Truth in the fullness of glory and your heart to love what you’ve seen.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Benjamin,
If I am able to devote some time to write on the subject suggested above, that is, a defense of the logical consistency of something like a well-meant offer or God’s desire for the good of those who never experience that good with the irrefutable fact of God’s absolute decree and his delight in that decree, I hope to send a rough draft copy to some Reformed and presuppositionalist scholars I respect (like John Frame and James Anderson) and also send a copy to you and another friend, Ben Maas, who also took issue with my previous arguments. I’d like to others, especially some of my critics, the opportunity to point out weaknesses before I post, and I want to be sure I fairly represent the dissenting side.
The problem I face is that I’ve been commissioned to prepare courses on Old Testament Introduction, Biblical Theology, and Genesis. I’m also teaching Hebrew and pastoring a church. So I don’t know where I’ll find the time. Since some of the arguments require some knowledge of formal logic which I do not yet possess, I’ll need time to study and research. But in the risk of sounding “insincere,” I really am interested in the subject and would like to continue our debate, striving more diligently this time to protect our mutual respect for one another. In fact, I have grown to enjoy your fellowship and desire our friendship to deepen.
Regarding my book, I’m flattered that you’d be interested in obtaining and reading a copy. Thank you. Regarding your concern about some of the language in the book’s description, I assume your referring to the apparent incongruity of speaking of God’s plan being “threatened.” I don’t have a time to offer a lengthy apology now, but I’ll simply refer to two passages in Scripture that I hope will relieve any suspicions you may have that I’m a “closet Open Theist” or something like that.
In Romans 9:19 Paul raises the hypothetical and, for his purposes, rhetorical question, “Who can resist his will?” The biblical answer, of course, is that no one can resist the will of God. On the other hand, Stephen, in his last sermon, chided his Jewish countrymen with these words: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). So here sinners are portrayed as actually “resisting” God’s will (revealed through the prophets and apostles via the Holy Spirit. You and I know that’s any contradiction is only apparent. What Paul spoke of was God’s decreed plan. What Stephen spoke of was God’s revealed plan. God’s revealed plan began in Eden. Adam was commissioned to fill and subdue the earth. The Serpent’s treason and human conspiracy in that treason “threatened” Yahweh’s “original creational [revealed] intentions for divine and human eschatological fullness.” Similarly, the sins of the patriarchs and matriarchs to whom the promises are made ironically and chronically place the promise “in jeopardy.” So it would seem at a purely human level. But he who sits in the heavens laughs (Psa. 2). And it turns out that what man intends for evil (i.e., for the derailing of the divine vision for the earth’s subduing through the mediation of his image-son and the fullness of God’s glory), God actually intends (by decree) for good, that is, to fulfill the very aims that the Serpent and rebellious humans seek to thwart (Gen. 50:20).
So in the truest sense, just as no one can resist God’s plan or decretive will, so too it’s impossible for humans (or any other created being) to actually threaten God’s plan in any real sense. Indeed, by virtue of God’s decree, that original commission will find fruition through the Second Adam despite all the efforts of hell’s minions. This is one of the most powerful themes in Genesis–especially prominent in the protoevangel where God’s intention to bring blessing out of curse or, to use another figure, snatch victory out of the jaws of “defeat.”
Hope this helps. Please know that I eschew the Karl Barth version of Paradox if that’s what you may have concern about.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
November 16th, 2009 at 3:17 am
I have to smile at the idea of Dr. Gonzales, the “closet Open Theist” or Dr. Gonzales, the closet Christian existentialist. If I had read you that poorly, then it really would be time for me to thank you for your genuine curtesy and just bow out. I am fully persuaded that you are Christ’s man and that the division between us is no deeper than any other two people sitting in the same pew at church. In fact, I imagine it is less than most. We just decided to converse on a subject wherein we disagree but were hopeful that we could sharpen one another. Like you, I am confident that we still can.
The honor would be mine and if you send me your work in future, I would be glad to read it. I’m not anyone of importance, but I would be happy to offer you what I can. But of course your church, especially your church, and your family and your seminary classes and students are the most important. Please, take your time.
And your explanations helped very much, thank you…