Hey East Lansing — Chambers On Piper’s Two Wills In God

Mark Chambers is a good friend. He is one of the few guys that I’ve met who I don’t have to roll my eyes every time he open his mouth. We don’t always agree but we do so often enough that I always pay attention when he speaks.

Below he offers his insights on Piper.

When it comes to two wills in God what we have is a God that decrees one state of affairs while leaving men culpable when they disobey since He has made His revealed will known by way of command and precept.

Piper’s problem is a hopeless confusion expressed in his equivocation of the word will. He consistently conflates want, desire, intent, precept and command with will. God’s command is not his revealed will. God’s command is exactly that, His command. God commands one thing and decrees events that are fully contrary to the command. There is no contradiction there since the ability to obey is not a constituent aspect of the command. God commands all men everywhere to repent. Is this His revealed will? Or course not since all men everywhere do not repent. He cannot will that all men repent while also willing that only some men repent. This gets us tangled up in the absurd “some sense” language of Piper.

Piper says:

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.

No they can’t and clearly Piper is daft. God’s will is always effected; he wills to save the elect and does so. It is doing that expresses volition. Piper sounds like an Arminian. For a Calvinist to say that God’s willing does not imply the accomplishment of what is willed is just astounding. And worse he says that God does what he does not want and wills what he 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 free will of the creature. Here Piper posits a God who wills contradictory propositions.

Piper again:

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.

Potential scope? 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 the thing accomplished. There is no potentiality in God. The will of God is fully actualized. He does what He intends. Potential is the figment of a temporal imagination.

Piper who is obviously out of his mind and writing cross eyed says:

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? I can’t take this. 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. How can any 5 point Calvinist say that there is “a sense” in which God willed the death of His Son? 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 something happens it happens by divine decree. The only logically sound alternative is the finite god of open theism. I’d like to say that this is because Piper is a Baptist but stuff like this I’m sure has John Gill rolling over in his grave.

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 Familialist 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. View all posts by jetbrane