The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Does God have two wills?

Your faith gets you in the kingdom of God but you must stay rooted and grounded in the faith and not be moved away from the truth of the gospel or you can lose your salvation.

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Romans 8:33
33 Who shall bring a charge against **God’s elect? **

1 Thess 1:4
4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.

Titus 1:1
Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, **according to the faith of God’s elect **and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness.

Eph 1:4-5
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

Hi Craig, welcome.
Interesting. You don’t Go to Bethlehem Baptist, do you? Just wondering because I use to go there and John piper wrote this same concept of the two wills of God, a very interesting way to defend calvinism, though I found it unconvincing. it sort of makes God’ s mind contradictory.

Yes. Pretty serious requirement, isn’t it? Doesn’t sound like the free gift he spoke of in other places.

Doesn’t have much to do with losing salvation, though. Do you have a verse confirming the action of LOSS of your SALVATION?

This says nothing on who is the elect; this speaks only about the power of the elect. Paul repeatedly addresses himself to churches of saints. Further, he’s highly critical of every little mistake they do. He warns that if they do not deliver, they’ll lose their inheritance. Why do you automatically assume you’re one of the elect and pin all those advantages onto yourself?

Are you aware of Paul partaking in adultery or slander or lies or anything after his conversion? Did Paul not consistently express love and humility? Do you approach Paul? Do I approach Paul? I definitely don’t.

Are you kidding me? All of these verses are addressed to believers about believers. I have had enough of this nonsense. Good night.

Jacob was chosen by God before he was born, not when he put his faith in Christ. He was chosen because God wanted Jacob, not because Jacob wanted God. The will of God was the decisive factor, not the will of Jacob. All this shows, quite decisively, that salvation is by grace alone. God will save all those whom he chooses to save, and (thanks be to God!) Christ came to save the world.

Hi Michael, Thanks for the welcome.
No, I don’t go to Bethlehem Baptist, but John Piper is certainly extremely highly regarded from where I come from, and so this could explain the popularity of the concept.
I can understand it to a certain extent, but at this stage, I am thinking that UR is a better explanation. With UR, although there are things happening now that God is displeased with, He will ultimately achieve His desire. With my church’s teaching His desire seems to be forever thwarted or frustrated, and this doesn’t match up as well with the overall picture of God that I see in the bible.

God’s will was that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

This is not an individual election but the election of the body of Christ. This is the plan of redemption of man not individuals. salvation is by grace through faith. God does not choose to save anyone but He made provision for the world to be saved. :wink:

You poor Arminians get in such a tangle when you insist on elevating man’s will above God’s.

Jesus said, “You have not chosen me. I have chosen you.” “All that the Father gives me will come to me.” “My sheep know my voice.”

When it came to a battle of wills, when push came to shove, who won: God or Pharaoh? God or Jonah? God or Israel? God or the Devil himself?

When God called Saul/Paul, when did He give him the opportunity to make his decision for Christ and invite him into his heart as Lord and personal savior? Nope. God simply told Saul where to go and what to do. End of discussion. How remiss of God! How uncouth. Fancy treading on Saul’s toes.

Jesus was referring to their calling as being Apostles not choosing them for salvation. God made the provision for salvation for anyone who wants to partake of it by faith. He is not a respecter of persons. :smiley:

Talbott’s set of three inconsistent propositions has been discussed many times on this forum:
1 God desires everyone to be saved
2 God has the power to achieve His desire
3 Many people will not be saved
It is often stated that Calvinists deny #1. Arminians deny #2. Universalists deny #3.
The “Calvinists” I am relating to would say that they are not really denying #1, so they believe all three are true. They achieve this through the doctrine of the two wills stated above.
Thank you everyone for all your comments. From your comments so far, some problems I could discuss with them include:
It makes God’s mind contradictory
It leaves God unable to achieve His desires, thwarted in His plans
The problem of evil persists
Risky to have children
God only has one desire, and no conflicting desires are stronger than this
God is love, and difficult to see how showing eternal wrath is consistent with this
God’s reconciliation extends to every person, not just some

Does anyone else have any more comments before I discuss this more with my friends?
Thank you.

No time to discuss main point at the moment, as about to rush out of the door, but

Bird: I’m really enjoying having you here. I like the way your trying to honestly reason things out and not just accept the status quo.

Revival: Bird is new here and in the intros, expressed being an agnostic who is deciding about Christianity. So, do you maybe want to extend some grace to them and not get too exasperated?

You’re exactly right, sister. Will do. :wink:

This part especially gets me. When I was an evangelical, I was really struggling with this idea (I’m a woman who wants 11 kids). I remember confronting some Christian on the subject, and he told me something akin to “it’s not my problem”. :confused:

Thank you.

So who are the verses I have given you are addressed to?

If they’re addressed to believers, then why? According to you, the believers are already the elect, just by believing.

If to nonbelievers, why? They’re already damned to eternal torture for not believing, and they won’t believe Paul, anyway.

Paul didn’t chose anything. He literally had line shine down to him and a voice speak to him. Paul consistently stated that his belief is not his own.

So, it seems God can definitely choose. So either God refuses to do so for others for some other reason, or the Calvinists are right.

Craig,
You might find this article interesting in terms of better understanding that Calvinist reasoning: calvinistcorner.com/god-desires-all-saved I think the author does a good job of articulating that viewpoint. I find the reasoning convoluted, and I guess the author realizes that as well since he closes with, “God is not simplistic. He has a divine plan that we must truly seek to fathom if we are to rightly understand His word.”

Basically the argument is that God’s desires are not always achieved, ie: God desires people to be righteous, but they choose to sin, etc. So while God does not cause people to sin or tempt them, He “makes room” in His plan for man’s sin, and “hardens” people, and hides the truth from people by speaking in parables, so that He can use the sinfulness of men to achieve His purposes. So while the “desire” of God for the individual to be righteous may be thwarted, it all fits into His purpose. The overarching plan of God which will not be thwarted is the salvation of the elect and the demonstration of His character (in all it’s aspects) and His glory.

So the question to discuss, I guess, is what really is the plan of God? Is it only the salvation of an elect, or does it go beyond that? Is it really God’s desire to save all, or is that just an idle “wish” that is subservient to His real plan? I would argue that it is the salvation of an elect in this age, and the salvation of all in the coming ages.

I think one of the (several) flaws in the author’s argument – that God’s desires are not always met – is a failure to distinguish between what God desires us to do, and what God desires Himself to do. He argues that man does not always carry out God’s desire. And my answer is that God always does what He desires. Within a Calvinist framework, salvation is the providence of God. Christ died to save the elect – those who God desires to save – and He will achieve His purpose. God’s desire for all people to be saved is a goal that lies within God’s domain of action, not man’s, because salvation is of God, not of the will of man.

The author is treating this passage (I Tim 2:4) as if it said, “God desired that everyone would not choose sin.” (but they did, so He’s going to avail himself of this opportunity to demonstrate His justice and wrath – and He wanted them to and planned for them to – but He didn’t force them to.) Or perhaps as: “God wishes they didn’t have to go to Hell” (but they do have to for the greater purposes of the demonstration of the horribleness of sin and the righteous anger of God against sinners.)

So, as I said above, I’d think the primary question would be to determine the plan of God according to the scriptures.

Sonia

Thanks very much Sonia for the link. It does clearly present the viewpoint that I am comparing with UR.
Your analysis of the issue and the key question involved is very helpful. Some good food for me to chew on.
I can see how it does allow them to hold together Talbott’s three propositions.
I can see that what God desires (allows, permits, decrees, has ordained) in one sense, at the present time, can be different to what he desires (has commanded us, wants us to be like and do) in another sense. In UR, it seems that ultimately these two desires (or wills) will be one - God has ultimately planned to achieve all that He desires. In contrast, in Calvinism, these two desires will always conflict.
So, as you say, the questions are
What is God’s plan? Is it possible for God’s plan to actually ultimately fulfill all his desires? Is it possible for all His desires - for all to be saved AND His desire to show His character - His wrath, justice, power, and glory - to all be fulfilled? Do these desires need to be contradictory so that some desires of God can never be fulfilled? What does the bible really say?

Hi Craig…
Have not read this thread thoroughly but wonder if this might offer some additional ideas…

It’s an essay I shared titled “On the Legitimacy of Ascribing certain Evils to God”

[On The Legitimacy of Ascribing Certain Evils to God)

Interesting discussion follows…

Blessings and Happy New Year!

Bobx3

Here’s a different take on it all from the God’s Kingdom Ministry web site gods-kingdom-ministries.org/ … pter11.cfm

Sonia,
good points. It seems like Calvinists simply don’t shoot straight. Under this reformed rubric, it seems God does desire people to sin - in a decreeing sense. I didn’t see this in the author’s article. His denial that God makes people sin only makes his position incoherent.

I feel a good calvinist will say God does make people sin. He not only decrees it, he actually is the one who HARDENS them so that they disobey his commands. What Calvinists don’t like to admit is that if God did not harden them, they would obey - something that does not bode well with total depravity. They act as if “leaving them to their sin” is the answer for ECT.

Here’s a thought: If God does not harden, Calvinists seem to argue that the default position of humans is to reject God (via total depravity). But why would that be? If God didn’t harden the pharoah, then he would have obeyed. And if the Pharoah obeyes, then guess what??? He’s actually softening him. Calvinists are quick (and eloquent) at pointing out the fact that for one not to be hardened is to be softened - that is those whom he does does not soften he actually hardens. They simply don’t like to see it the other way around.

I haven’t read all the comments in this feed, I just thought I’d comment to the original question and share a link to how I currently view “the two wills of God”. For quite some time I denied that God could possibly have two wills as it didn’t make any sense to me. How could God desire one thing but decree another? However, through some study and meditation I have come to a new understanding of this issue…

The verse that tipped that scales for me to spend more time thinking about this was Romans 11:32:
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.”

God shuts up all in disobedience? He shuts us up in disobedience to/against what… His commands? He binds us to disobey what He desires of us?

My thoughts on this are found here:
aaronkreider.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/two-wills-in-god/

Total Victory, Jeff A, Auggybendoggy and Aaron K,
Thanks very much for all the great material you have provided in these last four replies. There is a lot to think over! You are all helping me to appreciate some of the complexities of the issues involved as I think and pray about the way forward.
I really liked your illustration Aaron concerning the pain of pregnancy and the joy of birth.
Thanks everyone.