Mark Chambers Challenges John Piper’s “Two Wills In God.”

Every so often I will post articles on ironink written by friends. This article is written by Mark Chambers. Mark is a member of the Church I serve and is a very close friend. He is also one of the sharper theological minds that you will come across in or out of the Reformed pulpit. In the article below Mark exposes Dr. John Piper’s inadequate thinking of John Piper’s “two wills in God” theory. It is a theory that has been advanced by other Reformed men besides John Piper and so it is important to consider the reasoning here.

Like all articles I post from other folks, my posting isn’t a blanket endorsement on every point or phrase but it is a insistence that what the author is saying, on the whole, needs to be heard.

I first encountered this article by Piper seven years ago in a book titled “The Grace of God-The Bondage of the Will”. It is a collection of writings from various Calvinists edited by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware and published as a response to the book edited by Clark Pinnock titled “The Grace of God and the Will of Man”. That Schreiner and Ware are Baptists goes a long way in explaining why the confused muddle headedness of Piper’s article was included.

“On to the Two Wills of God

My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for “all persons to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”

Several things here.

1. There is no doubt that God shows compassion to all men. The sun rises on the righteous and unrighteous alike. But this doesn’t translate to an earnest desire for their salvation when in fact God has no intention, and never had any intention of saving the reprobate.

2. The possibility for one who is not elect to accept a free offer of the Gospel does not exist and cannot exist, for God has determined from eternity who will and will not accept.

3. It remains then to be asked exactly what is meant when it is suggested that God “wills for all persons to be saved”? If He willed that all persons be saved then all persons would be saved. Piper equivocates on the word will, suggesting that there are two wills when in fact he means something entirely different when speaking of the two. Will is determinative of action. God wills to save and consequently those whom He wills to save are saved. But in what sense then can it be said that God “wills” the salvation of the reprobate? An exercise of the divine will results in the accomplishment of the thing willed and the reprobate are not saved. Does Piper imagine that the reprobate would still be reprobate if God did not will it?

“1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 might be called the Arminian pillar texts concerning the universal saving will of God………….Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk.”

Here Piper introduces a point that is both irrelevant and inane. Positive reprobation does not require divine enjoyment or rejoicing in the death of the wicked nor does it mean that He lacks compassion. It is one thing to reprobate and will the destruction of the wicked (to make some vessels for dishonor) and another thing altogether to say that this entails some emotional pleasure for God. Non sequitur—it simply does not follow. Is God not glorified in the reprobation of the non elect?

“Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least “two wills” in God, or two ways of willing.”

Actually what it implies is a confused mind equivocating on the word will. Is God as confused as Piper? God wills, Piper suggests, that the non elect unbeliever accept the “sincere offer”, while also willing their reprobation, the very thing that makes that acceptance impossible. But to suggest that there are two ways of willing requires one to redefine the word will for one of those instances. The result for Piper is that God wills what does not come to pass. Worse. He wills the very thing that He has determined (by His will), cannot come to pass. God wills what he does not will. Piper ought to spend some time reviewing the Law of Contradiction.

“It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass.”

It implies that God is confused, decreeing one thing but wanting something else. Piper’s suggestion divorces God’s will from His decree. He decrees one state of affairs, but wills another. This is absurd. Are there conflicting interests in the divine mind? Can God decree a state of affairs without willing it? Does he bring to pass things against his own will? Can God deny Himself? If we approach the word will unequivocally then the only thing God wills is that which comes to pass, i.e. in this instance, the salvation of the elect and the destruction of those whom He reprobates. God works all things after the counsel of his will. How in the world can Piper suggest that God wills what does not come to pass?

“This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.”

All of these are attempts to relieve the equivocation and resolve the imagined paradox between particularism and hypothetical universalism. The preceptive will, moral will, will of command et al are not volition. His will is expressed not by what is commanded, but by what is accomplished. God commands all men everywhere to repent, but he does not will that they do. God’s will is found only in God’s decree.

“Clark Pinnock refers disapprovingly to “the exceedingly paradoxical notion of two divine wills regarding salvation.” In Pinnock’s more recent volume (A Case for Arminianism) Randall Basinger argues that, “if God has decreed all events, then it must be that things cannot and should not be any different from what they are.” In other words he rejects the notion that God could decree that a thing be one way and yet teach that we should act to make it another way. He says that it is too hard “to coherently conceive of a God in which this distinction really exists”

Basinger and Pinnock are absolutely right. Open thiests are heretics, but they are logically consistent heretics. Basinger rightly notes that the decree of an omniscient God requires that things be exactly as they are. A consistent Calvinist has no problem with this. A logically consistent Arminian rejects traditional Arminianism for open theism. But Piper is left with no argument that he can offer against them.

“Fritz Guy argues that the revelation of God in Christ has brought about a “paradigm shift” in the way we should think about the love of God — namely as “more fundamental than, and prior to, justice and power.” This shift, he says, makes it possible to think about the “will of God” as “delighting more than deciding.” God’s will is not his sovereign purpose which he infallibly establishes, but rather “the desire of the lover for the beloved.” The will of God is his general intention and longing, not his effective purpose. Dr. Guy goes so far as to say, “Apart from a predestinarian presupposition, it becomes apparent that God’s ‘will’ is always (sic) to be understood in terms of intention and desire as opposed to efficacious, sovereign purpose.”

Open theists are heretics of the first degree. But what does Piper offer instead? Fritz Guy suggests that God does not always ‘get’ what he wants. But Piper is worse. He suggests that God wants one thing and does another! His is desire is contrary to his decree. I’m not sure which is worse, the finite impotency of the open theist or divine confusion.

“These criticisms are not new. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, “The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another.”

Edwards is right on the button with this. The issue is not one of two wills but of law (precept) and decree. And he is clear that the two are not contradictory. Why? Because they look to different things. The law is a standard; a demand. It is not volition but an expression of command. God has not willed that his precepts be obeyed, but He did will to command.

“To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.”

Unbelievable. God wishes? Does He also toss lucky pennies in the fountain while making his wish? Here is a perfect example of equivocation and why Piper is confused. God’s will is indeed expressed in what is accomplished; he wills the salvation of the elect and the elect are saved. It is the doing, the accomplishing that expresses volition. Piper sounds Arminian. Saying that God willing does not imply the accomplishment of what is willed is just astounding. More incredible he says that God does what he does not want to do and wills what he also does not will. Even the Arminian argument makes more sense than this. At least the Arminian has a sound reason for saying that God doesn’t get what He genuinely wills i.e. the libertarian will of the creature. Here Piper posits a confused God who wills contradictory propositions. And what of the astounding statement that God’s wish [wish?] that all would be saved does not guarantee that all will respond? After all, it is God Himself who calls and enables the elect. One wonders exactly what Piper is thinking?

“The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.”

Whom God knows will believe? Just how does Piper think God knows such things? It’s hard to believe a 5 pointer could write this. How can a 5 pointer say “provided they believe” when he himself has made it clear that those who will believe were determined before the foundation of the world? One can utter the hypothetical and say “well if they did believe they would be saved” but it can also be said with equal veracity that if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow morning it will be a dark day. It is true, but also inane. And exactly what is “potential scope”? There is no such thing, at least as Piper would have us think. The potential in the work of Christ, or in anything that God does, is identical to what is accomplished. There is no potentiality in God, no maybes, no ifs, only actuality and full realization. He does what He intends. Potential is the figment of a temporal imagination. Piper is committing an error of category here in what I believe to be a feeble attempt at protecting the infinite value of the cross. But value and application are categorically distinct.

“In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall’s point that “we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.””

Would like to see happen? Piper is daft. The whole problem is that in Piper’s argument will is defined in several different ways—the most common one being desire. But one cannot do that. He clearly recognizes the difference between decree and command but calls them both “will” and then fails to see the confusion caused by such an equivocation. He needs to correct his language. Additionally it is utterly absurd to suggest that God wills one thing but would rather have something else. Frankly I’d be afraid to say such a thing.

“The most compelling example of God’s willing for sin to come to pass while at the same time disapproving the sin is his willing the death of his perfect, divine Son. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas was a morally evil act inspired immediately by Satan (Luke 22:3). Yet in Acts 2:23 Luke says, “This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God.” The betrayal was sin, and it involved the instrumentality of Satan; but it was part of God’s ordained plan. That is, there is a sense in which God willed the delivering up of his Son, even though the act was sin.”

SOME SENSE IN WHICH HE WILLED IT? Decreeing the death of Christ and abhorring the evil in it does not constitute a duplicitous will. The will is reflected only in the decree. Finally how can any 5 point Calvinist say that there is “a sense” in which God willed the death of His Son “even though” the act was sin? I’m flabbergasted. GOD WILLED THE DEATH OF HIS SON PERIOD. He was delivered up ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITE PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO WORKS ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL. There is a sense in which He did it all right. It was exactly what He intended and that from eternity. Piper appears to be afraid to say that GOD IS THE ULTIMATE CAUSE OF ALL THINGS. If it happens it happens by decree. The only logically sound alternative is the finite god of open theism.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Kinist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture . Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

33 thoughts on “Mark Chambers Challenges John Piper’s “Two Wills In God.””

  1. As always, I’m impressed by Mark’s argument and completely agree. I absolutely despise the phrase, “If God wanted to, He could have…(fill in the blank)”, which I find to be yet another way around the Sovereignty of God though that is the very thing one claims to be defending with such rhetoric. Dualistic minds imagine the absurd and attempt to explain it all away with one magic word: paradox. Perhaps if God wanted to, He could have resolved the paradox, but apparently He didn’t, though He could have which may just be because He desired to but didn’t will to. Right. Pfft.

  2. I am fairly confused by this article — the whole point of Piper’s argument is to make sense of 1 Timothy 2:4 in the light of the clear evidence of election in many other passages. The author completely ignores the passage, even outright denying it: “But this doesn’t translate to an earnest desire for their salvation…”

    Well, that is what the verse says. That God desires all men to be saved. Piper’s argument reconciles the passage with election, Chambers seems to simply dismiss the 1 Timothy passage. I would much rather take careful thinking (even if it seems stretched) to a rejection of Scripture.

    1. I Timothy 2:3 it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

      II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

      Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…

      If God is not willing that any should perish (any understood to be all men without exception) (II Peter 3:9) then how is it possible that he works all things after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11?) For if he does work all things after the counsel of his will, and some men perish, then it is obvious that he willed that those who perish would indeed perish. After all, those perishing people are not perishing apart from God’s design if the Scripture is true that God works all things after the counsel of his will.

      If God desires all men to be saved (i.e. all men without exception) (I Tim. 2:3) and yet all men are not saved, then how is it that he works all things after the counsel of his will? For if he does work all things after the counsel of his will, and all men are not saved, then it is obvious that he willed that those who are not saved should not be saved.

      Arminians, like Dave Hunt in his book “What Love is This?” either has not considered the contradiction inherent in his affirmations, or is content to imagine that God and his Word are self contradictory. But there is no contradiction. One need only note to whom the epistle or Peter is written and understand that the Timothy passage is dealing with distinctions, not the absence of exceptions

      In the Timothy passage the passage follows the Titus pattern. Paul has said that prayers are to be made for all men. He then goes on to restrict that meaning to ‘Kings and those in authority.’ As Paul narrows the definition of ‘all’ down it is evident that he desires prayer for all classes or types of people. Without such a restriction some Arminian or Lutheran literalist might have prayed for dead people since the word ‘all’ was not restricted by the word ‘living.’ In this context Paul says God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. The context requires us to see the word ‘all’ as being restricted in the second instance just as it was in the first instance. God desires all categories of men to be saved just as he desired the believers to pray for all categories of men.

      Secondly, to take this passage the way Arminians/Lutherans take it is to prove too much. If God desires all men to be saved then all men will be saved since God sits in heaven above and does whatever he pleases. Or do Arminians / Lutherans teach that God sits in heaven above doing whatever he pleases except when man informs God to, ‘buzz off’ when he desires to save him?

      Concerning the Peter passage Peter writes that the Lord is longsuffering towards ‘US’. Who is the ‘US’ that Peter refers to? Obviously it is the covenant believing community. So when Peter immediately then says that “The Lord is not willing that any should perish,” it is obvious that the reference remains the believing community. God is not willing that any of His elect should perish. Hence,

      John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

  3. I would much rather take careful thinking (even if it seems stretched) to a rejection of Scripture.

    Then you might try exercising some of that thinking yourself. It is sad testimony to the intellectual condition of the church when answers are sought in the acceptance of paradox rather than proper exegesis. Pipers reasoning is not stretched. It is a textbook demonstration of logical ineptitude.

    1. If God is eternal–and he is
    and
    2. If God is omniscient–and he is
    and
    3. If God is immutable–and he is
    Then it is not possible for anything to occur or to have occurred other than that which has been settled eternally in the divine mind. Therefore resolution of the apparent contradiction of 1Tim 2:3 and 2Peter 3:9 must be sought in the object referenced (the identity of the “all”) rather than in the hopelessly confused logic of John Piper.

  4. Therefore resolution of the apparent contradiction of 1Tim 2:3 and 2Peter 3:9 must be sought in the object referenced (the identity of the “all”) rather than in the hopelessly confused logic of John Piper.

    I could not disagree more. “All men” is a straightforward term, “desires” (or “wills” or “would have”, as it is variously translated) is much more nuanced.

    Lamentations 3:33 is a perfect example of Piper’s argument — “He does not afflict willingly” — we see God doing something, but not “willingly” (or “from the heart”). How much more clear could that be? There is a type of will (or desire) in God, which is not what occurs.

    1. Jeremy wrote,

      “There is a type of will (or desire) in God, which is not what occurs.”

      Hence we must concluded that God is frustrated. This is Arminian type thinking. God wants something. God can’t get the something He wants. God is frustrated.

      Do we really want to conclude that the sovereign God is frustrated since he has desires He finds stymied? How can God be sovereign if He can be frustrated?

      Calvin on God’s Desire in Lamentations 3:33

      33. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.

      The usage of anthropopathism

      This is another confirmation of the same truth, that God takes no delight in the evils or miseries of men. It is indeed a strong mode of speaking which the Prophet adopts, but very suitable. God, we know, puts on, as it were, our form or manner, for he cannot be comprehended in his inconceivable glory by human minds. Hence it is that he transfers to himself what properly can only apply to men. God surely never acts unwillingly nor feignedly: how then is that suitable which Jeremiah declares, — that God does not afflict from his heart?

      But God, as already said, does here assume the character of man;

      for though he afflicts us with sorrow as he pleases, yet true it is that he delights not in the miseries of men; for if a father desires to benefit his own children, and deals kindly with them, what ought we to think of our heavenly Father?

      “Ye,” says Christ, “who are evil, know how to do good to your children,” (Matthew 7:11;)

      what then are we to expect from the very fountain of goodness? As, then, parents are not willingly angry with their children, nor handle them roughly, there is no doubt but that God never punishes men except when he is constrained. There is, as I have said, an impropriety in the expression, but it is enough to know, that God derives no pleasure from the miseries of men, as profane men say, who utter such blasphemies as these, that we are like balls with which God plays, and that we are exposed to many evils, because God wishes to have as it were, a pleasant and delectable spectacle in looking on the innumerable afflictions, and at length on the death of men.

      That such thoughts, then, might not tempt us to unbelief, the Prophet here puts a check on us, and declares that God does not afflict from his heart, that is, willingly, as though he delighted in the evils of men, as a judge, who, when he ascends his throne and condemns the guilty to death, does not do this from his heart, because he 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. So also God, when he adopts severity towards men, he indeed does so willingly, because he is the judge of the world; but he does not do so from the heart, because he wishes all to be innocent — for far away from him is all fierceness and cruelty; and as he regards men with paternal love, so also he would have them to be saved, were they not as it were by force to drive him to rigor. And this feeling he also expresses in Isaiah,
      “Ah! I will take consolation from mine adversaries.”

      (Isaiah 1:24.)
      He calls them adversaries who so often provoked him by their obstinacy; yet he was led unwillingly to punish their sins, and hence he employed a particle expressive of grief, and exclaimed Ah! as a father who wishes his son to be innocent, and yet is compelled to be severe with him.
      But however true this doctrine may be, taken generally, there is yet no doubt but that the Prophet here addresses only the faithful; and doubtless this privilege peculiarly belongs to God’s children, as it has been shown before.

    2. I’m afraid you suffer from exegetical tunnel vision and don’t see very well Jeremy. Take a look at the whole passage.

      Lam 3:31-33 For the Lord will not cast off forever. For though He causes grief, He will have pity according to His many kindnesses. For He does not afflict from His heart, nor does He grieve the sons of man,

      Now if we end the thought there we are left with the logical buffoonery that accuses God of confusion. Why? Because he works all things after the counsel of his will. He declares the end from the beginning and does all his pleasure. You can’t have it both ways Jeremy. But note the comma at the end of verse 33 (the verse you use but don’t even quote to the end!) indicating that the thought being expressed is not over but to be continued. Indeed 34-36 provide us with the completed thought. He does not afflict from the heart in order to

      “crush all the prisoners of earth under His feet, to turn aside the justice of a man before the face of the Most High, to wrong a man in his cause. This, the Lord does not see.”

      You see Jeremy the Lord most certainly afflicts from the heart and he most certainly grieves the sons of men but he does not do so in order to “crush”, “turn aside” or “wrong.” I’m afraid you get no points Jeremy.

      1. Given the tone you’ve adopted, I think I’ll bow out here, I doubt this is constructive.

        But let me add that there is no comma at the end of verse 33 in any translation I can find. If that honestly is the crux of your argument that the verse does not mean what it says, I’d be interested to know what translation you are using.

      2. Verses 34-36 form a separate sentence. So I suppose you are left with either thinking the sentence ending in verse 33 does in fact constitute “logical buffoonery”, or else acknowledging that Scripture speaks of God’s will (or desire) in two different ways.

      3. Wow Mark! What a puffed up, condescending, Theological superiority attitude you display. It is nasty and I hate it. Who would ever want to listen to any theological argument you make with your attacking and rude remarks to others as you prescribe their faults and exegetical tunnel vision and display you superiority. Love Wins… John Piper is a HUMBLE ..Man of God! I follow that man over someone if your attitude any day! I see you love to argue and elevate yourself by putting down others. I am in process of gaining a Calvinistic theology as the Truth and glory of God but Clavinists like you sure make it a hard and unjoyful experience. Sorry for the words but in tearing others down and being so lofty…Love is always our ultimate reality.

      4. Wow all that Theological training to learn how to be a jerk to others…money well spent. At least you can impress the world with your big words, lofty ideas, and puffed up mannerisms. Never knew who you were until I found this article but I know I’ll never buy a book or seek theological insight from Mark Chambers…..totally disgusted with how you sarcastically and piously elevate yourself above others…even elder saints like Piper. Spend some time in Children’s ministry rediscovering the LOVE of Jesus… Then try to I influence others. I guess since you’re a “chosen one” it doesn’t matter how you treat others though?

      5. 1.) Psst … RR … Mark didn’t spend any money for Seminary Training. It probably explains why he thinks so clearly.

        2.) How does your being a Jerk to Mark fix your perception that Mark is being a jerk?

        3.) Piper’s own words convey the reality that Piper is no “Elder Saint.” Oh sure … he may get some things right but his views on retreatism from the culture, or how naughty owning weapons are, or his defiance against God to bring children to the baptismal font all indicate that there is a good deal of wolf in that Piper Sheep clothing costume.

        4.) I suspect I wouldn’t give two plug nickels for your understanding of “the LUV of Jesus.”

        5.) Finally, read some of the debates from the Reformation and learn what real intensity is. Man up … me boy. There are rocky times ahead.

  5. Jeremy…

    The word being translated “desire” such as in the NKJV is the word ‘thelō’ which according to Strong’s is defined as:

    1) to will, have in mind, intend

    a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose

    b) to desire, to wish

    c) to love

    1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing

    d) to take delight in, have pleasure

    Interestingly, the same word is used twice here: Romans 9:18 “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.”

    Here is a complete list: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2309&t=KJV

    To suggest that God has a desire that is distinct from His will is to suggest that God is of two minds. The word translated desire is also translated will so that the KJV renders it as will instead of desire. The point is that there is no difference in the meaning so that if one speaks about the desire of God, He is at the same time speaking of the will of God.

    The passage in question, as with all other passages, must be read in context and not torn away from and singled out from the text. Look at the first verse and notice the phrase “all men” followed by the categories that would likewise apply to verse 4. God desires (God wills) that all kinds of men be saved. These men are otherwise known as the elect out of every kindred, tongue, people and nation (Rev. 5:9). The all indicates all kinds which coincides with the rest of Scripture.

  6. Lamentations is speaking about the grace of God toward sinners even such men who should not complain against His judgment which is always just and for His good purpose. If God is not willing to grieve men, why does He do so as it says in the verse prior to the one you quoted, Jeremy? Does God do that which He is not willing to do? Does He operate out of arbitrary passions and against His own will? Does He in operating against His will operate against Himself? Is God divided? Is God double minded? Is God like you?

    1. If God is not willing to grieve men, why does He do so as it says in the verse prior to the one you quoted, Jeremy? Does God do that which He is not willing to do?

      … yes, that is the entire point. He afflicts the sons of men, but not willingly. That is where the idea of two senses of will comes from, passages like this that clearly speak to that.

      We all have examples of this from our own lives. I could say that I do not spank my son willingly. That doesn’t mean I don’t do it, it just means that in one sense, I will something else, but I value something more highly than that will. God does not will to afflict the sons of man, but He is willing to do so because He values His own glory more highly. God wills that all men be saved, but He is willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known, because He values His own glory more highly.

  7. It’s the LITV. The verse means exactly what it says. It doesn’t mean what you try and make mean. But then a person who doesn’t think logically has no reason to think that God would do so. You, like far too many in the church today, hold tightly to that magic box called mystery. When faced with problematic passages (and this isn’t at all problematic unless one is pre-committed to an idiot and illogical god), rather than seek an intelligent resolution they label it mysterious and pop it into the magic box. Out of sight, out of mind. The magic box makes all problems–real or imagined–disappear.

  8. God does not will to but is willing to do so?? This is what comes of men trying to bring God down to their level of double mindedness. Does God will that all men be saved, but is not willing to save them? Come on, Jeremy, THINK.

  9. I think that we certainly must distinguish between God’s preceptive will and His decretive will, but we shouldn’t pretend to the ability to comprehend perfectly how the two can be logically reconciled. So, on the one hand, yes, we can affirm that the will of precept is not the will of decree, and that God can will one thing one way (e.g., preceptively) and yet not will the same thing in another way (e.g., decretally) . But on the other hand, I think it’s dangerous to think that God’s preceptive will is a “bare precept,” as though He commands the reprobate to obey, but all the while, what He really desires is only that they would disobey. Hopefully, the absurdity of such a position is obvious.

    1. Similarly consider the absurdity of someone who believes that God is sovereign and so gets all He desires and yet desires something he does not get.

  10. (I accidentally posted the above before I was finished commenting.)

    The point I wanted to make is that from the vantage point of our creaturely ectypal knowledge of God and his will, we have to make theological distinctions based on the biblical evidence without pretending to exhaustive comprehension, or else we will be vulnerable to a rationalistic error either on one side (Arminianism) or the other (Hyper-Calvinism). For the gospel to truly be good news, it has to be an offer of salvation to all sinners as sinners, not merely to the elect (who of course can’t know they’re elect until they accept the offer). I believe this is standard Reformed theology. (BTW, I’m not particularly a defender of Piper.)

    1. “I had the incomparable privilege of being a student of Professors Murray and Stonehouse. With tears in my heart, I nevertheless confidently assert that they erred profoundly in ‘The Free Offer of the Gospel’ and died before they seem to have realized their error which, because of their justifiably high reputations for Reformed excellence generally, still does incalculable damage to the cause of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of His gospel.

      “It is absolutely essential to the nature of the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent that whatever His sovereign majesty desires or intends most certainly—without conceivability of failure in one iota thereof—must come to pass! Solid Deo Gloria! Amen and amen forevermore! God can never, ever desire or intend ANYTHING that does not come to pass, or He is not the living, happy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but an eternally miserable being weeping tears of frustration that He was unable to prevent hell and can never end it thus destroying Himself and heaven in the process”.

      John Gerstner

      I would not agree that the so called “free offer of the Gospel” is standard Reformed theology but would humbly suggest instead that it is errant standard Reformed theology.

    2. I think that we certainly must distinguish between God’s preceptive will and His decretive will, but we shouldn’t pretend to the ability to comprehend perfectly how the two can be logically reconciled.

      Precept and decree are two distinct categories. Not only are they categorically distinct, addressing entirely different things, they are not in competition with or in opposition to each other. Therefore no logical reconciliation is required. Your problem David is the same one exhibited by Piper and that is the fallacy of equivocation. Precept–command–law, is not volition. It is a matter of volition only in that God willed to command and there it must end. Thinking that the purpose(s), or intent of the command (for example to elicit obedience) may be inferred from the command itself is a non-sequitur. An indicative cannot be inferred from an imperative. Decree on the other hand is determinative. What is decreed is exactly what happens and therefore accurately represents what God has willed. Command and decree sit quite comfortably together.

      So, on the one hand, yes, we can affirm that the will of precept is not the will of decree, and that God can will one thing one way (e.g., preceptively) and yet not will the same thing in another way (e.g., decretally) .

      Why don’t you define volition for ‘us’ so ‘we’ all know exactly what you mean by it? “Will of precept” is an incoherent phrase. It is meaningless gibberish.

      But on the other hand, I think it’s dangerous to think that God’s preceptive will is a “bare precept,” as though He commands the reprobate to obey, but all the while, what He really desires is only that they would disobey. Hopefully, the absurdity of such a position is obvious.

      The absurdity of your position is obvious as it rails against the very nature of God. Timeless, Simple, Omniscient, Impassible and yet, according to you, volitionally conflicted doing one thing while wishing he could do it another way. Making some vessels for dishonor for reasons we don’t and can’t know, yet we [read you] do know he wishes that end could be arrived at some other way. Poor God. He has created vessels beforehand for destruction but he didn’t really want to. But still he is pretty smart so after considering all his options he has chosen what he believes to be the best way to achieve his desired ends. Thank goodness he got it all worked out!!

      The point I wanted to make is that from the vantage point of our creaturely ectypal knowledge of God and his will, we have to make theological distinctions based on the biblical evidence without pretending to exhaustive comprehension, or else we will be vulnerable to a rationalistic error either on one side (Arminianism) or the other (Hyper-Calvinism).

      Balderdash. What we are talking about is God’s Word to mankind, not knowledge that is a copy from an original, an imitation or reproduction of something in the world of external reality as distinguished from its eternal and ideal archetype. God’s has spoken to man and only a fool would imagine him incapable of communicating his truth to creatures that he himself created. There is no one here that would “pretend to exhaustive comprehension” of God himself. But no Christian in their right mind would suggest that his Word is less than perspicuous. Don’t project your inabilities on everyone else David. Your problem is not everyone’s problem.

      For the gospel to truly be good news, it has to be an offer of salvation to all sinners as sinners, not merely to the elect (who of course can’t know they’re elect until they accept the offer).

      The Gospel is not an offer. God “commands” all men everywhere to repent. To the elect that is the aroma of life and to the reprobate it is the stench of death and it is God who determined who is who before the foundation of the world.

      I believe this is standard Reformed theology.

      Which is, quite frankly, evidence of your ignorance. Look David you haven’t offered anything but an opinion. You have offered no argument, only pontifications.

  11. That so called “free offer of the gospel” is a command to repent and believe. All men are commanded by God to repent of their wickedness and turn to obey the One, True and Living God. It is not a “free offer of the gospel” that is in view, but a command from the Most High to bend the knee.

  12. Some folks don’t know when to quit. David R. sent the following to Bret which I post in its entirety before commenting.

    Mark,

    Precept–command–law, is not volition. It is a matter of volition only in that God willed to command and there it must end. Thinking that the purpose(s), or intent of the command (for example to elicit obedience) may be inferred from the command itself is a non-sequitur.

    Sorry, my friend, your understanding of these things is not that of traditional Reformed theology.

    Reformed theology does not posit that there is nothing volitional behind God’s revealed will (precept).

    For example, see the following from the Puritan John Howe:

    Our shallow reason indeed is apt to suggest in these matters, Why is not that prevented that is so displeasing? And it would be said with equal reason in reference to all sins permitted to be in the world, Why was it not prevented? And what is to be said to this? Shall it be said that sin doth not displease God? that he hath no will against sin? It is not repugnant to his will? Yes; it is to his revealed will, to his law. But is that an untrue revelation? His law is not his will itself, but the signum, the discovery of his will. Now, is it an insignificant sign? a sign that signifies nothing? or to which there belong no correspondent significatum? nothing that is signified by it? Is that which is signified (for sure no one will say it signifies nothing) his real will, yea or no? who can deny it? That will, then, (and a most calm, sedate, impassionate will it must be understood to be,) sin, and consequently the consequent miseries of his creatures, are repugnant unto. And what will is that? Tis not a peremptory will concerning the event, for the event falls out otherwise; which were, upon that supposition, impossible; for who hath resisted his will?

    I had said: “So, on the one hand, yes, we can affirm that the will of precept is not the will of decree, and that God can will one thing one way (e.g., preceptively) and yet not will the same thing in another way (e.g., decretally).”

    To which you responded:

    Why don’t you define volition for ‘us’ so ‘we’ all know exactly what you mean by it? “Will of precept” is an incoherent phrase. It is meaningless gibberish.

    Again, “will of precept” and “perceptive will” is just standard Reformed theology. For example, see the following from Turretin:

    May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.

    I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).

    II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).

    You said:

    The absurdity of your position is obvious as it rails against the very nature of God. Timeless, Simple, Omniscient, Impassible and yet, according to you, volitionally conflicted doing one thing while wishing he could do it another way. Making some vessels for dishonor for reasons we don’t and can’t know, yet we [read you] do know he wishes that end could be arrived at some other way. Poor God. He has created vessels beforehand for destruction but he didn’t really want to.

    That’s a caricature of what I (echoing classic Reformed theology) have been saying, filtered through your rationalistic lens (to mix metaphors). The fact that our finite minds cannot comprehend how God can reveal His will for the obedience and salvation of sinners qua sinners, yet also eternally decree that some of those sinners will be reprobated does not mean that He is volitionally conflicted.

    God’s has spoken to man and only a fool would imagine him incapable of communicating his truth to creatures that he himself created. There is no one here that would “pretend to exhaustive comprehension” of God himself. But no Christian in their right mind would suggest that his Word is less than perspicuous. Don’t project your inabilities on everyone else David. Your problem is not everyone’s problem.

    I never said God’s word isn’t perspicuous. Nor did I anywhere reference the incomprehensibility of God. What I suggested is that there are things revealed in Scripture that, though we can comprehend them, we cannot fully comprehend how they can be. For example: the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and God’s secret and revealed will.

    Which is, quite frankly, evidence of your ignorance. Look David you haven’t offered anything but an opinion. You have offered no argument, only pontifications.

    I never claimed to be arguing anything. I’ve simply been echoing standard Calvinism, over against your standard hyper-Calvinism.o

    And so ends Davids effort. The following is my response.

    Sorry, my friend, your understanding of these things is not that of traditional Reformed theology.

    No? Well we shall see.

    Reformed theology does not posit that there is nothing volitional behind God’s revealed will (precept).

    Neither did I. I said that God willed to make the command. Or, as Turretin (and Edwards) would say it, “willed as to the proposition”.

    For example, see the following from the Puritan John Howe:

    Our shallow reason indeed is apt to suggest in these matters, Why is not that prevented that is so displeasing? And it would be said with equal reason in reference to all sins permitted to be in the world, Why was it not prevented? And what is to be said to this? Shall it be said that sin doth not displease God? that he hath no will against sin? It is not repugnant to his will? Yes; it is to his revealed will, to his law. But is that an untrue revelation? His law is not his will itself, but the signum, the discovery of his will. Now, is it an insignificant sign? a sign that signifies nothing? or to which there belong no correspondent significatum? nothing that is signified by it? Is that which is signified (for sure no one will say it signifies nothing) his real will, yea or no? who can deny it? That will, then, (and a most calm, sedate, impassionate will it must be understood to be,) sin, and consequently the consequent miseries of his creatures, are repugnant unto. And what will is that? Tis not a peremptory will concerning the event, for the event falls out otherwise; which were, upon that supposition, impossible; for who hath resisted his will?

    David imagines that quoting someone makes his point by assuming the individual means what David thinks he means. He offers the above quote imagining that Howe offers proof for David’s position. My contention is and has been that Piper equivocates on the word will and alluding to the verses in Timothy and Peter he suggests that God does, in some sense, desire the salvation of all men. But the above quote does nothing to support David or Piper. All the above states is that sin is contrary to God’s “revealed will” which Howe then clarifies identifying it as God’s law. And then what does Howe tell us? Well he tells us that the law is not a “peremptory will” for the actions of men fall out otherwise and no one can resist God’s will. Does God desire that all men obey? Of course not for he has decreed otherwise. It is granted that the word preceptive will is common to Reformed language but it means law or command—never volition.

    Again, “will of precept” and “perceptive will” is just standard Reformed theology. For example, see the following from Turretin:

    “May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.

    I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).

    II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).”

    The above is such a delightful faux pas on the part of David that I can hardly contain myself. Turretin begins by drawing the distinction between decree and precept as all knowledgeable Reformed theologians do, and then in article I. continues saying that the will of God is “one” [that is one David—one will] and most simple [do you remember me referencing simplicity David?] by which he comprehends all things by a SINGLE and most simple act.

    In article II he is yet more specific in delineating the distinction between decree and command. The former is the rule of God’s external acts [what he does] and the latter what we should do. There is nothing there indicating that God desires men to obey the command. David’s conclusion is a fallacious non sequitur. One cannot infer an indicative from an imperative. David assumes that because God commands men to do something that He “wants” them to do it when it is clear that what he wants is for some to disobey for that is what occurs. Turretin himself says that God’s will cannot be resisted.

    But that isn’t the whole of it. Oh no, David, for some reason truncated Turretin. He failed to include the rest of what Turretin had to say on the matter!

    IV. “Although the precept falls also under the decree as to proposition [exactly what I mean when I say God wills to make the command)] still it does not fall as to execution. Thus they may be properly distinguished from each other so as the will of decree may be that which determines the event of things, but the will of precept that which prescribes to man his duty. [command and decree—Turretin isn’t confused, why is David?] Therefore God can without contradiction [because the two are categorically distinct] will as to precept [command men to do something] what he does not will as to decree [true volition] inasmuch as he wills to prescribe something to man [command him] but does not will to effect it.”

    He wills to prescribe but does not will to effect. That is exactly my point. Thank you Francis for making it for me. David seems to miss the fact that the modifiers ‘preceptive and decretive’ give the word will entirely different meanings. Most, like Turretin, are careful to show that preceptive will is more properly expressed as command which couldn’t be more clear than it is the section above that David chose to omit.

    I asked David to define volition for me. Did he do it? No he just quoted Howe and Turretin (whom he conveniently cut short) thinking they agreed with him because they use certain words.

    But let’s look at another Reformed theologian. This is taken from a polemic against Amyraldiansim and is most pertinent because Amyraldians (like Lutherans) are hypothetical universalists who view the universal passages from Timothy and Peter as Piper does.

    “How is it possible to contend that God gave his Son to die for all men, alike and equally; and at the same time to declare that when he gave his Son to die, he already fully intended that his death should not avail for all men alike and equally, but only for some which he would select (which….because he is God and there is no subsequence of time in his decrees, he had already selected) to be it’s beneficiaries? As much as God is God, it is impossible to contend that God intends the gift of his Son for all men alike and equally and at the same time intends that it shall not actually save all but only a select body which he himself provides for it. The schematization of the order of the decrees presented by the Amyraldians, in a word, necessarily implies a chronological relation of precedence and subsequence among the decrees, the assumption of which abolishes God. ~ BB Warfield

    Well is David going to suggest that Warfield does not represent the Reformed position? Maybe, so why don’t we let Jonathan Edwards put an end to his silliness. For those who want to wade through pages of size 4 font, all of the following quotes are taken from Edwards dissertation on the divine decrees and can be found in Volume 2 of his “Works” beginning on page 525 and terminating on 543.

    1. Whether God has decreed al things that ever came to pass or not, all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is he either willing they should be or he is not willing that they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them. [Does Edwards sound, with his either or language, that he thinks God could want to come to pass what he doesn’t will?]

    2. Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, of, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and law of God. [Once again we see the care taken to distinguish between command and decree. And it is interesting that he mentions the Arminian because the Arminian believes that God wants all men to be saved.]

    6. […..] If it will universally hold, that none can have absolute, perfect, infinite, and all possible happiness, at the same time that anything is otherwise than he desires at that time it should be; so thus if it be true that he has not absolute, perfect, infinite, and all possible happiness now, who has not now all that he wills to have now; then God, if anything is now otherwise than he wills to have it now, is not now absolutely, perfectly and infinitely happy. If God is infinitely happy now then everything is now as God would have it to be now; [and] if everything then [also] those things that are contrary to his commands.

    Again let it be considered, whether it be not certainly true, that everyone that can with infinite ease have a thing done and yet will not have it done, wills it not; that is, whether or no he that wills not to have a thing done, properly wills not to have a thing done. [ouch David]

    9. None will say that God himself does what he does not will to do. [therefore by rigorous logical necessity it may be said that God does not will to do what he does not do]

    This isn’t looking very good for David. And it gets worse.

    14. Maxim 1. There is no such thing truly as any pain, or grief or trouble in God.
    Maxim 2. Hence it follows that there is no such thing as any real disappointment in God or his being really crossed in [i.e. not getting] his will, or things going contrary to his will; because according the notion of will to have one’s will is agreeable and pleasing; for it is the notion of being pleased or suited to have things as we will them be; and so, on the other hand to have things contrary to one’s will, is disagreeable, troublesome, or uncomfortable. “Job 23:13 He is one mind and who can turn Him? And what his soul desireth, that he doth.” [What was it Piper said about desiring what is not effected?]

    What do you say David. Who is Reformed, Piper or Edwards?

    (14 cont.) In the first place, I lay this down, which I suppose none will deny, that as to God’s own actions, God decrees them or purposes them beforehand. For non will be so absurd as to say that God acts without intentions, [though there are those that are saying that God intends without acting] or without designing to act, or that he forbears to act, without intending to forbear. 2ndly, that whatsoever God intends or purposes, he intends and purposes from all eternity and that there are no new purposes or intentions in God. For if God sometimes begins to intend what he did not intend before, then two things will follow. God is not omniscient and God is not immutable

    15. It can be made evident by reason that nothing can come to pass but what it is the will and pleasure of God should come to pass. This may be argued from the infinite happiness of God. For every being had rather things should go according to his will, than not; because if he had not rather, then it is not his will. It is a contradiction to say he wills it and yet does not choose it or had not rather it should be so than not.

    And finally:

    16. The command and prohibitions of God are only signification of our duty and of his nature. It is acknowledged that sin is, in itself considered infinitely contrary to God’s nature; but it does not follow [there is that non sequitur David] but that it may be the pleasure of God to permit it for the sake of the good that he will bring out of it.

    OK enough is enough. THAT is Reformed theology. Words have meaning and John Piper (and David) need to learn what that meaning is.

  13. David R reaches for Edwards

    In the like manner, when he comes down from his infinite perfection, though not in the manner of being, but in the manner of manifestation, and accomodates himself to our nature and manner, in the manner of expression, it is equally natural and proper that he should express himself as though he desired the conversion and salvation of reprobates, and lamented their obstinacy and misery.

    Mark tries once again to help poor David.

    In the like manner, when he comes down from his infinite perfection, though NOT in the manner of being, but in the manner of MANIFESTATION, and accomodates himself to OUR nature and manner, in the manner of expression, it is equally natural and proper that he should express himself AS THOUGH he desired the conversion and salvation of reprobates, and lamented their obstinacy and misery.

    David will not get it. David is also R2K.

    Poor David.

    Poor church.

  14. Wow Mark! What a puffed up, condescending, Theological superiority attitude you display.

    I love it when you talk dirty to me

    It is nasty and I hate it.

    Of course you do, as would any effeminate, Evangelical pietist. Or are you actually a woman?

    Who would ever want to listen to any theological argument you make with your attacking and rude remarks to others as you prescribe their faults and exegetical tunnel vision and display you superiority.

    Those who might have a modicum of testosterone running through their veins? By the way I don’t ‘prescribe’ faults though I do occasionally offer prescriptions for the alleviation of such faults.

    Love Wins

    Does it? Do you mean that in a Rob Bell kind of way?

    … John Piper is a HUMBLE ..Man of God!

    John Piper is, in my not always so humble opinion, an effeminate, heretic whose weak kneed, compromising theology is a perfect representation of what infects the modern church. And I’m not talking just about the logical ineptitude demonstrated in the Two Wills article. He is soft on homosexuality; his alienism(view on race) is sympathetic with humanistic cultural Marxism; he is anti-Theonomic and anti-nomian as evidenced by (among other things) his recent rejection of the responsibility of the pulpit to speak to political issues. All of those are the all too typical earmarks of men who commit high treason by rejecting the cultural mandate given to the people of God. John Piper’s theology is a destructive impediment to the cause of Christ and the large audience he garners requires that it be exposed. You don’t massage cancers, you cut them out. The time for mealy mouthed, sugar coated, sissified Evangelical talk is over.

    I follow that man over someone if your attitude any day!

    You’d follow? Who are you? As long as we’re on the subject of arrogance what makes you think your opinion is of any importance?

    I see you love to argue and elevate yourself by putting down others.

    Why are you laboring under the assumption that an argument took place? I commented on an asinine piece of writing that was a pathetic display of (ostensible) logic and theology. Why don’t you try engaging that article saying something meaningful in support of it rather than getting your panties all knotted up?

    I am in process of gaining a Calvinistic theology as the Truth and glory of God.

    Well then you might try reading those of the historic Reformed faith. If you don’t like what I said about Piper you’re definitely not going to handle men like Calvin and Luther.

    but Clavinists like you sure make it a hard and unjoyful experience.

    ROTFLOL. Man up.

    Sorry for the words but in tearing others down and being so lofty…Love is always our ultimate reality.

    Sorry? Oh yes, of course you’re sorry. That’s the characteristic of the modern Evangelical isn’t it? They’re always sorry for something. Well they ARE a sorry lot, there is no doubt about that. “Love is our ultimate reality” sounds more like something coming from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or a chapter of the LGBT, than from the Bible. Love does and says what is required in spite of the risk of offense which is almost guaranteed in this day of the effeminate male. Love is a requirement. I agree. I just don’t think you know what it is.

  15. Wow all that Theological training to learn how to be a jerk to others

    Au Contraire. When I meet with the type of effeminate, limp wristed, abject stupidity I see in men such as yourself it rolls off the pen quite naturally. Why don’t you fix yourself a nice vanilla latte to sip whilst ironing the knots out of your silk panties? Then buy yourself a flower.

    Have a nice day.

  16. Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *