RE: THE WILL OF GOD - TWO ASPECTS?

[Nomad]

There are those who mock such a concept. So be it. The real question is of course, is it Biblical, not does it fit my current philosophical view of God and His nature. When some theologians speak of the "two wills of God" they refer to the idea of God's decretive will and His preceptive will. I believe these can be demonstrated to be thoroughly Biblical. First, let's define these two aspects.

God's decretive and preceptive wills are described by R.C. Sproul in his Essential Truths Of The Christian Faith:

"By this, (decretive will), theologians refer to the will of God by which He sovereignly ordains everything that comes to pass. Because God is sovereign and His will can never be frustrated, we can be sure that nothing happens over which He is not in control. He at least "permits" whatever happens to happen. Yet even when God permits things to happen, He chooses to permit them in that He always has the power and right to intervene and prevent the actions and events of this world. In so far as He lets things happen, He has willed them in this certain sense."

The decretive will of God can be seen in Scripture in passages such as -

Job 23:13 But he stands alone, and who can oppose him?
He does whatever he pleases.

Psa. 135:6 The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.

Pro. 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Pro. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD.

Prov. 19:21 Many are the plans in a man's heart,
but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.

Prov. 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Acts 4:27-28 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Eph. 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...

Though God's sovereign will is often hidden from us until after it comes to pass, there is one aspect of His will that is plain to us---His preceptive will. Here God reveals His will through His holy law. For example, it is the will of God that we do not steal; that we love our enemies; that we repent; that we be holy. This aspect of God's will is revealed in His Word as well as in our conscience, by which God has written His moral law upon our heart.

Dr. Sproul goes on to say, "We have the power or ability to thwart the preceptive will of God, though never the right to so so." Of course our ability to thwart God's preceptive will ultimately conforms to God's decretive will at the end of the day because God is under no obligation to allow us this power.

So what's going on here? Are we looking at a Biblical contradiction? Is God double-minded or schizophrenic? Only if you isolate each aspect of God's will and refuse to consider how they work together in fulfilling God's purpose and plan. For example, it is God's will that men do not murder other men, (preceptive will). Yet, God sent the murderous king of Assyria against Israel, (where he and his army broke many of God's law commands and precepts), to fulfill His purpose to punish the wayward nation, (decretive will). It could be said that God doesn't will in one sense what He does will in another sense. The king of Assyria fulfilled God's will and broke it at the same time---for which God declared that He would punish him.

One writer gives us a very helpful analogy from a human standpoint and experience:

"In fact seen this way we can come very close to understanding this at a human level because we also desire things at various levels in every day life. And if finite humans have ultimate and penultimate wills concerning the same object then certainly it is not beyond God to. For example, I desire to live, but my desire is greater for my wife to live so I would lay down my life for her it it came down to it." - John Hendryx

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... toric.html

[DesertScroll]

There are those who mock such a concept. So be it. The real question is of course, is it Biblical, not does it fit my current philosophical view of God and His nature. When some theologians speak of the "two wills of God" they refer to the idea of God's decretive will and His preceptive will. I believe these can be demonstrated to be thoroughly Biblical. First, let's define these two aspects.

They are, but I don't think you are understanding them correctly.

Take what you wrote towards the end of your post:

So what's going on here? Are we looking at a Biblical contradiction? Is God double-minded or schizophrenic? Only if you isolate each aspect of God's will and refuse to consider how they work together in fulfilling God's purpose and plan. For example, it is God's will that men do not murder other men, (preceptive will). Yet, God sent the murderous king of Assyria against Israel, (where he and his army broke many of God's law commands and precepts), to fulfill His purpose to punish the wayward nation, (decretive will). It could be said that God doesn't will in one sense what He does will in another sense. The king of Assyria fulfilled God's will and broke it at the same time---for which God declared that He would punish him.

Your example here isn't correct.

"it is God's will that men do not murder other men"

"God sent the murderous king of Assyria against Israel, (where he and his army broke many of God's law commands and precepts), to fulfill His purpose to punish the wayward nation, (decretive will)."

It is true that it is God's will that men do not murder other men.

It is not true that God sent Assyria to murder Israel. He sent them to punish Israel. (Good)

Assyria was punished because they punished Israel with murderous intent. (Evil)

Notice the evil part that assyria was punished for did not come from God, but from themselves.

You keep speaking of philosophical understandings versus Biblical undersatandings. God's will/actions/desires not contradicting each other isn't born from some philosophical view point and read into scripture. That point comes from scripture.

God will not deny himself (2 Tim 2:13) the good tree will always produce good fruit (Matt 7:16-18) God doesn't use evil to accomplish good (Mark 3:23-27) because evil cannot produce anything good (see Matt 7:16-18). That would be like trying to squeeze bad fruit to get good juice out of it.

Those are the Biblical principles. If you are in contradiction to those, your wrong.

Take Sproul's words which you quoted. There is a reason why he chose the words he did. He has a great gift and I can agree with everything he wrote here.

God's decretive and preceptive wills are described by R.C. Sproul in his Essential Truths Of The Christian Faith:

"By this, (decretive will), theologians refer to the will of God by which He sovereignly ordains everything that comes to pass. Because God is sovereign and His will can never be frustrated, we can be sure that nothing happens over which He is not in control. He at least "permits" whatever happens to happen. Yet even when God permits things to happen, He chooses to permit them in that He always has the power and right to intervene and prevent the actions and events of this world. In so far as He lets things happen, He has willed them in this certain sense."

Follow his words:

"nothing happens over which He is not in control"

"He at least 'permits' whatever happens to happen"

"even when God permits things to happen, He chooses to permit them"

"In so far as He lets things happen, He has willed them in this certain sense"

God is in control of all. That does not mean everything happens because God chooses everything to be that way. At the very least of the spectrum God permits things to happen (notice he is not saying everything is like this).

But when he permits things to happen God chooses to permit them. God's choice here is not about the actions that happen, but God's permitting them. God doesn't have to allow, its his choice.

In so far as God let's things happen, God has willed them, but only in this sense. Again he is being very careful not to dip down into saying the event was what God willed. God willed letting the event happen.

Like when I say God 'allows', God must choose to allow (by necessity btw). But God did not choose the event.

To bring back in the fall from the other thread. God allowed the fall, and he chose to allow it. He did not choose the fall. God's will was in choosing to allow the fall. God's will was not the fall. God did not desire the fall, he desired his allowance of it.
Its like seeing an event happen a split second before it actually occurs and saying "I permit it". Not like saying this is what I want, then the event happens. The event itself is not God's will whatsoever, only his permitting it is his will. Or simply, allowing the event to occur. And by making this choice to allow, then by necessity he had to choose that allowance.

Thanks for bring up Sproul. I had a copy on my shelf and his words would have been very useful.

Though God's sovereign will is often hidden from us until after it comes to pass, there is one aspect of His will that is plain to us---His preceptive will. Here God reveals His will through His holy law. For example, it is the will of God that we do not steal; that we love our enemies; that we repent; that we be holy. This aspect of God's will is revealed in His Word as well as in our conscience, by which God has written His moral law upon our heart.

Dr. Sproul goes on to say, "We have the power or ability to thwart the preceptive will of God, though never the right to so so." Of course our ability to thwart God's preceptive will ultimately conforms to God's decretive will at the end of the day because God is under no obligation to allow us this power.

Now I understand you agree, there are not two wills, but one will.

But that preceptive will is always going to be in exact agreement with the decretive will. These wills will not use evil to accomplish good, as that is impossible. Evil begets evil, just as what is born of the flesh is flesh. Its is always going to be good, use good, and produce good fruit.

Its why Sproul went with 'permits things to happen' and 'chooses to permit'. Because that wording allows an event to occur, without God choosing the event, but choosing his permission of the event. Otherwise he mixes the good and evil tree. And the reason why God chooses to permit evil, as I have quoted before, is Rom 9:22,23.

[Nomad]

Sorry DS. Your reasons for disagreement of late have been mostly philosophical, not theological or Biblical. I simply have no interest in philosophical speculation. I also find your reasoning and your conclusions to be quite a stretch. Here's an example:

It is not true that God sent Assyria to murder Israel. He sent them to punish Israel. (Good)

Did I say God sent Assyria to murder "Israel"? My point was clear as a bell. Do you imagine that God didn't know that sending Assyria against Israel "to punish them" would result in a whole host of sins -- including murder? Come on DS. I have no time for this nonsense.

[T. Scott Morgan]

I found this quote by Augustine in his "Enchiridion," Ch. 100, and thought it might fit well here.

"In a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to God's will [of desire] does not defeat his will [of decree]. For it would not be done did he not permit it, and of course his permission is not unwilling, but willing; nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done except that in his omnipotence he can turn evil into good"

[Nomad]

Scott,

That's a great quote. Thanks for sharing it.

A few hours after I started this thread I found something very interesting in my feed list from Dr. White's blog. His partner, TurretinFan, posted a video that touches on God's preceptive vs. His decretive will. Here's the link:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3335

[DesertScroll]

Sorry DS. Your reasons for disagreement of late have been mostly philosophical, not theological or Biblical. I simply have no interest in philosophical speculation. I also find your reasoning and your conclusions to be quite a stretch. Here's an example:

If by philosophical you mean logical conclusion from principles proclaimed as true in the Bible.

I am guilty.

But that is not philosophical speculation, that's using Biblical principles.

Since your a fan of Sproul you may want to reread his introduction to the book you quoted from.


Was Jesus' teaching about the trees true. Is it a principle that will always apply to any situation of the good and the bad? And if it is true, if your explanation contradicts this teaching, is your understanding correct?

It is not true that God sent Assyria to murder Israel. He sent them to punish Israel. (Good)

Did I say God sent Assyria to murder "Israel"? My point was clear as a bell. Do you imagine that God didn't know that sending Assyria against Israel "to punish them" would result in a whole host of sins -- including murder? Come on DS. I have no time for this nonsense.

Heh that's the whole point right there. Really take a look.

What was Assyria sent to do:
Attack Israel (punishment)

What was Assyria punished for:
Murderous intent.

Of course God knew the intent assyria would use against Israel. But God didn't send them there with the intent. The intent came from assyria themselves.

God's part righteous.
Assyria's part evil.


Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart, but rather it is its purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations. For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish, or Hamath like Arpad, or Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jeruslaem and her images just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness. For he has said, 'By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, for I have understanding; and I removed the boundries of the peoples and plundered their treasures, and like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants, and my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, and as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; and there was not one that flapped its wings or opened its beak or chirped.' " Isa 10:5-14

See any mention of God punishing Assyria for what God decreed it to do? Anywhere?

God's part of sending to punish had zero to do with assyria's part of murder. Notice the murderous intent came from within the hearts of the Assyrians. Which for one, made the righteous act of punishment evil on their part, and two, made them do things not decreed by God. They did all this with a heart of an idol.

That's called adding to the decree, not following it how God wanted. God didn't work through their evil. Their evil was added in addition to what God used to accomplish his good.

And that is what they were punished for. They were not punished for following God's decree.

God wants (A).
Assyria does (A) and adds some (B).

Assyria wasn't punished for doing (A). They were punished for doing (B).

So what you wrote here:

The king of Assyria fulfilled God's will and broke it at the same time---for which God declared that He would punish him.

Is not true.

[T. Scott Morgan]

DS, I really don't see how your argument contradicts Nomad's. The Assyrians were never a godly people. They were a very violent and evil people. Yes, when God sent the Assyrians to punish Israel, they went out of evil intent, believing themselves to be the mighty ones who brought down Israel by their own power. And it is because of this selfish, evil intent that God punished Assyria as well. However, God knew that the Assyrians would never have punished Israel in a manner of obedience. That's why He used them. The whole reason why God used the Assyrians to punish Israel is because the Assyrians themselves already had the evil desire to murder and pillage other nations. He did not place this desire in them. But He did use this evil desire as His punishment toward Israel, by allowing the Assyrians to just go their natural way (which also deserves punishment) and attack Israel just as they wanted. He used an evil people to punish His own people, and then punished the evil people He used for their evil intent, and remains blameless all along because the Assyrians were simply following the desire of their hearts, and God is under no obligation to extend the grace to them which would have refrained them from doing so.

You keep bringing up the fact that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and that God cannot deny Himself, which is certainly true. But this simply does not apply to the situation here because it is not God who has placed the evil intent into the Assyrians' hearts. He did use evil. But He is not responsible for that evil, because the evil intent is already naturally in man's heart (it can only softened by the grace of God). He simply made use of this evil intention (rather than providing the grace necessary to soften it, which He is in no way obligated to do) in order to punish Israel.

So, your statement that Assyria was punished for doing (B), but not (A), is true in a sense, but not in any sense that denies what Nomad is saying here. God didn't punish the Assyrians for the actual fact of the matter that they brought punishment upon Israel. He punished the Assyrians for the evil intent of their hearts. However, it is that very evil intent of their hearts which God used to punish Israel in the first place. The Assyrians would not have attacked Israel in the first place if they did not already have that evil desire (which is deserving of punishment). God did not speak to the Assyrians, saying, "Go punish my people." They were a pagan nation. God simply refrained from extending the grace onto them which would have been necessary to hold back their sinful desires, and in doing so, they naturally chose to attack Israel. So God did make use of their evil -- He allowed them to follow the evil desire of their hearts, and in so doing ordained that their evil would be used to punish His people. However, God also punished the Assyrians for their evil -- the very evil which was made use of in the punishment of Israel. And God was perfectly just in doing so, because the Assyrians already had this evil intent and thus they already deserved the punishment. God simply brought judgment upon two sinful nations in a single action. He punished Assyria for their evil, but in the process of doing so also made use of their evil to punish the Israelites for their sins.

[Cat Napper]

John Piper has an excellent article on this subject at Desiring God. The title is: Are There Two Wills in God? It is so worth the read.

I am not an expert on this subject, but it is fascinating to read. I have also read Sproul's comments on the subject.

[Reformed Baptist]

Does God have two wills, or does he have one will that operates on different levels like our own will does?

[Skala]

Does God have two wills, or does he have one will that operates on different levels like our own will does?

Isn't that the same thing?

As a human, I have multiple wills (i really have one will that I use differently)

I don't like doing chores. (I don't will to work)
But I do my chores. (It is my will to do my chores)

[Cat Napper]

I am by no means an expert like Nomad or Scott or many others here, but for what it is worth...(not much).

It has been said that God's attributes are all 100%. That they are all operational simultaneously. So I would think if this is true, and I believe that it is, then God's will is one will and purpose, ultimately. I think we define it as two wills to differentiate it for ourselves. What say you?

Btw, this is as deep as I get on this subject OR as off the deep end as I go.

[Reformed Baptist]

Does God have two wills, or does he have one will that operates on different levels like our own will does?

Isn't that the same thing?

As a human, I have multiple wills (i really have one will that I use differently)

I don't like doing chores. (I don't will to work)
But I do my chores. (It is my will to do my chores)

Perhaps it is a fine distinction I am making, but is there a difference between will, desire, want etc? Would we be better, in our modern precise theological language, to use the 'will of God' in reference to all that God actually fillfulls, ie the all things that are worked according to the purpose of his will. Then reserve other terms for what we call his revealed or perscriptive will? That way we loose any ambiguity, and we do not give the impresion we are talking about a god with a dual personality.

Back on GF I defended long and hard this concept that God only has one will, and I have yet to be convinced that this language is the best we can use today

[Reformed Baptist]

I am by no means an expert like Nomad or Scott or many others here, but for what it is worth...(not much).

It has been said that God's attributes are all 100%. That they are all operational simultaneously. So I would think if this is true, and I believe that it is, then God's will is one will and purpose, ultimately. I think we define it as two wills to differentiate it for ourselves. What say you?

Btw, this is as deep as I get on this subject OR as off the deep end as I go.

There is certainly some truth in that, for we are talking about one whose ways are above our ways, and we can only understand him as he has condescended to reval himself to us. Much of what we say about God is "to differentiate it for ourselves."

Welcome to the forum by the way

[Cat Napper]

Thank you, Reformed Baptist glad to be here.

[Nomad]

Saying that God has two wills probably isn't the best way to put it. Multifaceted seems like a better term.

Cat Napper,

Thanks for the kind words but now I'm having trouble getting my big head through the front door.

There had been so many new members recently that I can't remember if I welcomed you to the board... so welcome!