The well-meant offer and the two will theory

[wildboar]

I came across a book review of Dave Hunt's book, "What Love Is This?" The review is done by David Engelsma and I thought some of his comments were interesting in light of the recent discussion on this forum about the idea of God having two wills. The full article can be found at http://www.prca.org/current/Journal/...WhatLoveIsThis It is from the Nov. 2002 issue of the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal.

Fourth, one of Hunt's most devastating arguments against Calvinism is the concessions that some of the leading Calvinist theologians themselves make to Arminian universalism and free will in their defense of the well-meant offer of the gospel. Correctly, Hunt identifies a loving desire of God for the salvation of all without exception as a hallmark of the Arminian theology he opposes to Calvinism. Hunt finds this desire of God in I Timothy 2:4: "who will have all men to be saved." Hunt then notes that John Piper, reputedly a defender of Calvinism, both concedes Arminianism's fundamental tenet and is guilty of sheer contradiction in his handling of this significant passage.


In trying to handle this passage Piper contradicts himself. He confesses that Paul is saying that "God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent and that he has compassion on all people." Admitting that this sounds like "double talk," he sets out to show that there are "'two wills' in God . . . that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass."


About this teaching of two wills, Hunt judges, rightly: "This is double talk" (p. 273).

Hunt does not let Piper and his two wills of God off the hook with this condemnation. He comes back to Piper's doctrine a few pages later. Piper has written that he "affirm(s) with John 3:16 and I Timothy 2:4 that God loves the world with a deep compassion that desires the salvation of all men. Yet I also affirm that God has chosen from before the foundation of the world whom he will save from sin." Hunt calls this idea, namely, "that God has two wills which contradict one another, yet are not in conflict," "an ingenious but unbiblical and irrational solution." In fact, writes Hunt, this idea of two wills is an "unblushing contradiction." Hunt exposes the folly of this popular attempt by professing Calvinists to hold both the well-meant offer and Calvinist particularism:


Let us get this straight: Piper's God desires the salvation of all men; in His sovereign imposition of Irresistible Grace he could save all, but doesn't because it is His "secret will" not to do so. Here we have the clearest contradiction possible. How can the Calvinist escape? Ah, Piper has found an ingenious way to affirm that God loves and really desires to save even those whom He has predestined to damnation from eternity past: God has two wills which, though they contradict each other, are really in secret agreement. Are we going mad? (p. 296).


In support of the fundamental Arminian doctrine of God's loving desire to save all without exception, Hunt, with every Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Roman Catholic, and Arminian in the long history of the heresy of conditional salvation, appeals to II Peter 3:9: "not willing that any should perish." In fact, he appeals to it again and again. Against the Calvinist objection that the text, which directs God's longsuffering "to usward," does not teach a desire on the part of God to save all men, Hunt triumphantly quotes the Presbyterian John Murray from Murray's defense of the well-meant offer, The Free Offer of the Gospel:


John Murray, former Westminster Seminary professor, whom Cornelius Van Til called "a great exegete of the Word of God," declared, "God does not wish that any men should perish. His wish is rather that all should enter upon life eternal by coming to repentance. The language in this part of the verse is so absolute that it is highly unnatural to envisage Peter as meaning merely that God does not wish that any believers should perish (p. 278).


With its teachings of a resistible (saving) grace of God in the gospel for all and a loving desire of God to save all, the well-meant offer makes a defense of Calvinism against the Arminian onslaught impossible, renders Calvinism absurd to the judgment of its foes, and concedes the truth of Arminianism in the basic articles.

The gospel propounded by Dave Hunt leaves as many in hell as does the Calvinist gospel Hunt detests. Hunt's gospel, however, adds one to the number of those who will be everlastingly miserable: God. Hunt's god is forever grieved to his heart that many whom he loved (and loves), for whom Christ died, and whom he desired (and desires) to save, perish. What god is this? Hunt's accurate representation of the god of Arminianism.

[Brandan Kraft]

That was a great article Charles. I thoroughly enjoyed it and agreed with it.

Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

Tremendous insights, WB. Amen and amen!

I have been following Hunt for a number of years and I'm glad that some are finally serious about pointing out his numerous heresies. His book 'Occult Invasion' is very good on a whole host of issues. But he damns the doctrines of sovereign grace every chance he gets and condemns all who do not espouse the heresy of dispensationalism.

Strangely, he told the truth about the Y2K lie in advance, while Calvinists like D. James Kennedy promoted the lie to the fullest extent. That is a sobering thought for those of us who work in the software industry!

I'm also glad that you introduced the subject of the questionable 'orthodoxy' of Cornelius Van Til. Most who call themselves Calvinists want to avoid that one like they would avoid touching a ceramic kiln at full firing temperature!

[Brandan Kraft]

I may not agree with Van Til's theology line by line, but I think his and bahnsen's work on apologetics is quite remarkable.

[wildboar]

I really haven't studied VanTil's apologetics. I've become somewhat irritated with some who I have read in the past who seem to think they can convert everyone just by doing apologetics successfully, so I'm become overly-antiapologetics.

I do have to say that at least VanTil was at least honest about where he got his theology from though. There was a letter written to the Standard Bearer that talks of the person's conversation with VanTil and shows why VanTil's theology differs.
I'll just quote a portion of it. The full letter can be found here: http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/...#DoingTheology

During the summer of 1973 my family and I spent a month in the northeastern part of Philadelphia preaching for a group of interested people there, as did several other of our ministers. We became acquainted with several students from Westminster Seminary, two of whom arranged a meeting for us with Dr. Cornelius VanTil. He was semi-retired at the time, and mentioned the great respect he had for Herman Hoeksema. In the olden days he visited First Church to hear Hoeksema preach every opportunity he had, and at the present time he was reading Behold, He Cometh to his invalid wife. Naturally, Dr. VanTil also spoke of the differences he had with Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches on the nature of God's grace. After discussing this a bit, I asked the professor, "Dr. VanTil, isn't it true that every time the Scriptures use the word grace they do so in the redemptive sense?" I expected him to respond in the negative, and perhaps trot out a supposed example of common grace from the Bible. But his answer to the question was "Yes, but we have so much more than the Bible. We have history and what we see round about us." Doing theology on the corner of Monroe and Division, indeed!

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by wildboar
I really haven't studied VanTil's apologetics. I've become somewhat irritated with some who I have read in the past who seem to think they can convert everyone just by doing apologetics successfully, so I'm become overly-antiapologetics.

I hear you there. It is irritating to talk to over zealous Christians who suppose their apologetic method is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The thing I like about Van Til was he taught me how to use logic and reason with Scripture to tear down the sinner's world view, point out to him he's wearing sin colored glasses, and show him how depraved he is. I think Van Til's message was, yes, we should make a defense of the faith; yes, we should "out smart" the unconverted; and we can depend completely the gospel message (not necessarily a "well meant" offer) coupled with God's sovereign will to turn him - not our "method". I think Van Til (along with Clark) made great strides into the world of modernism and post modernism

[Robert R. Higby]

Herman Hoeksema's book The Clark/Van Til Controversy enumerates the radical differences in the theological method espoused by each of the two men.

It also documents the controversy in the 40's where the Van Til supporters attempted to get Dr. Clark fired from the Philadelphia presbytery. The 'witch hunt' has continued in a measure even to this day.

[Brandan Kraft]

Clark and Van Til were worlds apart, but after reviewing the controversy, I think it was a terribly unfortunate event. I have ordered that book by Herman Hoeksema and am looking forward to it. In the process (I got carried away in a shopping spree), I ordered two copies of Pink's Book, the Sovereignty of God, Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology Book, Gill's Doctrine of Divinity in hard cover, and A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger! That should keep me busy for a long time!

I read through Pink's book, "The Sovereignty of God" in two days this week, and after reading it again, I have to say it is probably the best introductory book on the subject that I've read. It's better than Sproul's "Chosen by God" and better than Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination!" Thanks for the book recommendation Bob!

Brandan

P.S. - this is so far off topic, but I've included a link to an interesting perspective on the Clark/Van Til controversy. http://www.chattablogs.com/quintus/archives/005039.html

[Brandan Kraft]

From http://capo.org/premise/99/jan/p990107.html

In the debate between the Clark and Van Til parties, the major point of difference between the two parties centered on the constituent elements of knowledge and the resultant difference between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge. This is the concept of analogy in different clothing. Clark affirmed that there are two elements in knowledge, the object and the mode. These two elements are the same whether in relation to God or man. For Clark, the object of the knowledge, say the proposition 2 x 2 = 4, is the same for man as it is for God. There is identity. Where God and man differ in their knowledge, according to Clark, is in their mode of knowledge. For God, the mode is intuitive and for man it is discursive. God knows all propositions and their relations and implications at once whereas man discovers them one at a time and never learns them completely.

Van Til and his party, on the other hand, argued for a qualitative distinction between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge which is consistent with his metaphysics of the Creator/creature distinction. On this reckoning, there are three rather than just two elements of knowledge. The two parties agreed for the most part on the first two elements already mentioned (the object and the mode) to which Van Til and compatriots added a third element, namely content. Now for Clark, the identity of the object in God’s and man’s knowledge implied an identity of content. If we say that Christ died for sinners, does that proposition mean one thing for God and another for man? Clark obviously took that to be what Van Til was asserting. Was he correct in that assumption? Not exactly. It didn’t help, of course, for the Complaint to say that God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge "do not coincide at any single point."

[Robert R. Higby]

I don't think the 'plain meaning' of the difference is complicated, even though many would propose it to be.

All sides agree on the fact of 'mystery,' that is, there is an infinity of knowledge that God possesses which is non-revelatory. Our knowledge in comparison to God's is a speck of sand on the beach.

The difference is not in the arena of the unrevealed, but the revealed. Where and when God has revealed truth to mankind in revelation, does he think like those who accept his revelation think? Or do we 'see as through a dark glass' even on matters that the Lord has made known? The paradox theologians (Van Til camp) would state that the mind of God is incomprehensible even in the area of revealed truth. In other words, we only comprehend a flexible and sickly aspect of the truth that God is really trying to teach us--probably more error than truth--even after serious meditation, prayer, study, and comparing scripture with scripture.

I stand with the practical and most straightforward interpretation of what God has revealed. When he takes a stand and makes it known through revelation, he thinks as we are commanded to think.

[Brandan Kraft]

Bob, I just got my copy of the book by H. Hoeksema (Clark / Van Til controversy). I'm only on the first couple chapters... It's pretty fascinating, and I've lost a lot of respect for Van Til after reading it. I would definitely fall within the dichotomous clark camp concerning the God's knowledge vs. Man's knowledge. One thing I never considered before were the practical implications of dichotomous or trichotomous view of man. I can see now how a wrong view of the makeup of man can really lead one down the path of all sorts of doctrinal errors.

[wildboar]

BT:

I had made some statements before about some problems I had with Clark's Christology. I couldn't remember which thread I did this under. Anyhow, my biggest beef is with his book "The Incarnation" which he did not finish before his death. In the last chapter of the book (starting on pg. 75) Clark goes into some strange rantings about how Chalcedon was uttering nonsense and had no idea what they were talking about. He then goes on to take the Nestorian position but claims it is not Nestorian. He even says that Nestorious didn't know what he meant by person.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Robert R. Higby]

I did not know about the issues with the 'Incarnation' book, which I do not have. I am aware of some of the issues with the book on the Trinity. As I read and re-read it, it seems to lack a clear and concise definition of what he is really proposing about 'substances' vs. 'persons.' Very unlike earlier writings. I find some of his books to be very brilliant and well-written. His logical and theological method is superb.

Some have attributed strange later teachings to dementia. I can't say.

My greatest disagreement with his system of dogma (other than the typical Presbyterian sectarianism) is on his doctrine of anthropology: he ended up defending the traducian origin of the human soul. To me, that is one of the most illogical teachings in Christian dogma and I can explain why I believe such. But that is my mind as opposed to his.

One thing we should learn for sure from this: no one teacher, however brilliant and knowledgeable of the Bible, can give us all right doctrine. Each individual soul has to study to show himself approved unto God. Often truth comes from many different teachers.

[wildboar]

One thing we should learn for sure from this: no one teacher, however brilliant and knowledgeable of the Bible, can give us all right doctrine. Each individual soul has to study to show himself approved unto God. Often truth comes from many different teachers.

I'll certainly agree with you there. I was recently having a discussion with someone about the doctrine of common grace. They kept referring me to the article by Berkhof that's on the internet and I explained to them that I have read the article several times and that just because Berkhof says something doesn't make it true. They seemed to find it difficult to accept that Berkhof could be wrong and told me of their great respect for him and even eventually said that Berkhof was their idol. Most are not so blunt, but many do follow men as idols.

I know at my own church there are a few very elderly people who have stopped coming to church and think it is just as good to listen to tapes of Herman Hoeksema at home. They react very negatively to anyone who might think he is wrong on any doctrine.

Due to our sinful nature all men are prone to error. Serious theological error however usually infects the whole system which is why I don't usually feel the need to pick up a copy of the Watchtower to see if there is any truth I can glean.

In recent years Christology has become increasingly important to me, at times I believe it is even more important than the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God so it often drives me away from reading Clark seeing how mangled his Christology became and how arrogant he was about it. I certainly agree with most of the main ideas he developed, it's just where he got with those ideas that I have a problem with. I do read things from the Trinity foundation from time to time, but John Robbins' Christology is even more screwed up than Clark's in some ways.

I have become increasingly saddened by what seem to be very educated and for the most part very orthodox individuals who are so quick to attack the creeds without first having a real understanding of them. Clark attacked Chalcedon, Reymond attacked Nicea, and Loucks attacked the Apostle's Creed. None of them seemed to really understand the purpose of the Creed which they were attacking and all their main objections seemed to be misunderstandings of what the creed said and why they said it.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Robert R. Higby]

WB:
Although I might be able to agree with the general concept you are expressing, I would have to have at least a brief summary of what you are criticizing before I could comment on it.

Clark attacked Chalcedon
Well, certainly. What? Why? etc. I certainly don't think he challenged that Jesus is God, so the issues need definition.

Reymond attacked Nicea
Again, regarding what? I would have to go back and study it. I certainly don't agree with Nicea on water regeneration, which it definitely teaches. I believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins" (Holy Spirit baptism generating faith) but this is not what the Nicene teachers meant by baptism.

Loucks attacked the Apostle's Creed
Because it is weak on sola fide. J. N. D. Kelley has shown that every one of the 'church fathers' was weak on the atonement and none are unashamed proponents of justification by faith alone.

[wildboar]

BT:

Clark attacked Chalcedon because he claimed they had no idea what the terms they were using meant. He doesn't discuss the various arguments over which terms to use, he simply states in his book "The Incarnation" that they had no idea what they were talking about. He then adopts the Nestorian position but claims that Nestorious didn't really know what he was talking about either. It seemed that Clark seemed that he thought he was the only one who had any understanding of the incarnation.

Reymond attacked Nicea because of the statement about the second person being the only-begotten Son prior to the incarnation. He misquotes Calvin to support his views and I really don't understand how he gets around verses like John 3:16 which say that God sent His only-begotten Son. How can the only-begotten Son be sent if He didn't exist?

Loucks misses the point of the Apostle's Creed. Every Creed was written to address particular errors at the time. It would be just as silly for me to condemn Chalcedon because they didn't condemn dispensationalism.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Originally posted by wildboar
I know at my own church there are a few very elderly people who have stopped coming to church and think it is just as good to listen to tapes of Herman Hoeksema at home. They react very negatively to anyone who might think he is wrong on any doctrine.

Due to our sinful nature all men are prone to error. Serious theological error however usually infects the whole system which is why I don't usually feel the need to pick up a copy of the Watchtower to see if there is any truth I can glean.

there does seem to be some sort of natural human tendency to follow men. i see this as the main reason for the Roman Catholic hermeneutic of being dependent on others (the fathers, the priest, the pope, etc.) for your understanding of Scripture and doctrine. people tend to elevate people they don't know to almost 'god' status. from people i've talked to, it seems to be because they understand themselves and that they don't trust themselves. so instead they trust another individual who they don't know because frankly, i think it's because they don't know their idiosyncracies, their faults, their sins, their struggles, their insecurities, etc.

but i must admit, that there are some bible teachers that i favor and would trust almost anything they have to say. i'm trying to evaluate why and i don't really know. i guess i just like stuff that they have to say and the more i read, the more i agree, the more i trust... but i definitely think a healthy understanding that we're all human (and therefore sinful and prone to error...even our favorite bible teachers) is a good antitode to this inordinate appreciation for men.

[Brandan Kraft]

I wonder why do people think you're a hyper-calvinist because you don't think God sincerely desires the reprobate to "accept" God's "well-meant" offer to "all mankind"?

I mean, if God truly "wanted" the reprobate to "accept" the offer, well they would, wouldn't they?

Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree with you, Brandan. God's will as desire is perfectly consistent with his will as decree.

Disciple, my only comment on your last post is that truth is multi-dimensional. The fact that a teacher expresses very eloquent and biblical interpretations on one aspect of God's revelation has no bearing on whether the same teacher is right on other aspects. The doctrine of every-believer priesthood is essential--precisely because of this very fact. Time and time again, I have heard expositors give very biblical and inspiring expositions on one aspect of the gospel only to emphatically deny other aspects.

Responses to WB:
Clark attacked Chalcedon because he claimed they had no idea what the terms they were using meant. He doesn't discuss the various arguments over which terms to use, he simply states in his book "The Incarnation" that they had no idea what they were talking about.

OK, I'll take your word for it, even though I have not read this for myself. If I did I might have a somewhat different view of what Clark was saying.

He then adopts the Nestorian position but claims that Nestorious didn't really know what he was talking about either. It seemed that Clark seemed that he thought he was the only one who had any understanding of the incarnation.

These are serious charges. I will have to investigate them for myself before responding.

Reymond attacked Nicea because of the statement about the second person being the only-begotten Son prior to the incarnation. He misquotes Calvin to support his views and I really don't understand how he gets around verses like John 3:16 which say that God sent His only-begotten Son. How can the only-begotten Son be sent if He didn't exist?

These are extra-biblical considerations in my view. Christ is the eternal Word of God. The person who is the only-begotten Son (in the incarnation, now, and for eternal ages in the future) was sent by God to redeem mankind. He was certainly the begotten Son in the purposes of God from eternity. However, Nicea speculated about God's self-existence. This goes beyond revelation. Christ is certainly Son in relation to the created universe. We have no basis for saying that he is Son in the realm of God's self-existence apart from all relation to the created order. That is purely speculative.

Loucks misses the point of the Apostle's Creed. Every Creed was written to address particular errors at the time. It would be just as silly for me to condemn Chalcedon because they didn't condemn dispensationalism.

I strongly disagree. We simply do not know when the Apostle's Creed was originally written or exacly which errors it was intended to refute. The problem is simply that the creed is inadequate in defending the two most important doctrines of the eternal gospel revealed to Paul: election and imputation.

[Robert R. Higby]

I personally have no trouble with the proposition that Christ is both Son and Word from ages past, including before the Incarnation. However, there is a difference between 'ages past' and what theologians often term 'eternity past.' I realize that 'eternity past' is indeed scriptural language. However, in my estimation, the expression should not be used to support the notion that time and space are self-perpetuating and un-created.

There was a first moment, when God created time. Before that there were no moments. There was a time when the space occupied by the universe was created. Before that there was no space. God transcends all of it. The second person of the Trinity is certainly Word and Son in relation to all things created; indeed, he is the divine person who created it all. However, that is the extent of what revelation tells us. The mystery of God's self-existence, which transcends time and space, is something not revealed. We cannot even say that God was 'outside of' or 'above' these things 'before time,' since those expressions imply the existence of space and time which are themselves created entities.

To speak of Sonship within God's self existence is speculative, because it attempts to know God where he is indeed un-knowable. When we speak of the divine attributes of immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.; these all refer to God in his relationship with things created. Not to what he is transcendent of those things.