God's intention is always the question

"In God's holy garden, we must not want to plant trees upside down - with their roots facing the sky and their branches in the soil! To turn things upside down from the very beginning is a perversion of the whole way. Let the cause, the fountainhead, the root, remain in God, and let nothing else ever be seen in us than the resultant effect, the stream that flows from its source, and the branch with its bud and blossom. There is no election, therefore, on the basis of a foreseen faith, but there is faith as the result of an antecedent election.
And if it is now established that Christ was God, and hence as God knew whom he had chosen and who would come to saving faith as a the result of that election, then it is self-evident that our Mediator, who never desired to bring any other atonement than for those who would believe, intended the provision of the atonement solely and exclusively for his own.
That is why, when discussing whether Christ has died for all individuals or for all the elect, we can never employ the distinction between God's will and God's decree, as the Hessian and Bremen delegates advocated it at Dordt, since this distinction exclusively applies when considering our intention, but never may be given validity when there is a discussion of God's intention.
When Joseph was about to be sold by his brothers, it was God's revealed will to Judah and Reuben, 'Do not sell your brother!' Yet it was God's hidden decree that 'Joseph will be sold by his brothers.'
Accordingly, when we are talking about our activity, about what we are doing or what we intend, oh then most definitely, not only may we, but we must continually reckon with this golden maxim of evangelical wisdom: 'Blind as regards the outcome, but fully obedient to the commandment!'
On the contrary, when, as here, we are discussing not what we but what Christ intended, and not what we but what God willed, then everyone senses that it is the height of absurdity to dare to distinguish in God himself between what he wills and, nevertheless, does not will!" - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

On God's will and the Supposed Decretive, and Preceptive will of God.

"Dr. Clark holds that man's knowledge of any proposition is identical with God's knowledge of the same proposition. Any proposition has the same meaning for God as for man. The complainants deny this. As an item of interest we may mention here that during the examination of Dr. Clark by the Presbytery of Philadelphia the question was asked him: 'You would say then, that all that is revealed in the Scripture is capable of being comprehended by the mind of man?" And the answer was given by him: 'Oh yes, that is what it is given us for, to understand it.'" - Gordon Clark, The Clark-Van Til controversy.

"The opponents may at this point claim that Calvinism introduces a self-contradiction into the will of God. Is not murder contrary to the will of God? How then can God will it?
Very easily. The term will is ambiguous. The Ten Commandments are God's perceptive will. They command men to do this and to refrain from that. They state what ought to be done; but they neither state nor cause what is done. God's decretive will, however, as contrasted with his precepts, causes every event. It would be conducive to clarity if the term WILL were not applied to the precepts. Call the requirements of morality commands, precepts, or laws; and reserve the term will for the divine decree. These are two different things, and what looks like an opposition between them is not a self-contradiction. The Jews ought not to have demanded Christ's crucifixion. It was contrary to the moral law. But God had decreed Christ's death from the foundation of the world. It may seem strange at first that God would decree an immoral act, but the Bible shows that he did. This point will be discussed more fully later on; but though it may now seem strange, it should be clear at least that a clear definition of terms by which two different things are not confused under one name removes the charge of self-contradiction.
When the term will is used loosely there is also a second distinction that must be made. One may speak of the secret will of God, and one may speak of the revealed will of God. Those who saw self-contradiction in the previous case would no doubt argue similarly on this point too. The Arminian would say that God's will cannot contradict itself, and that therefore his secret will cannot contradict his revealed will. Now, the Calvinist would say that same thing; but he has a clearer notion of what contradiction is, and what the Scriptures say. It was God's secret will that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac; but it was his revealed will (for a time), his command, that he should do so. Superficially this seems like a contradiction. But it is not. The statement or command, 'Abraham, sacrifice Isaac,' does not contradict the statement, at that moment known only to God, 'I have decreed that Abraham shall not sacrifice his son.' If Arminians had a keener sense of logic, they would not be Arminians!" - Gordon H. Clark, The three R's

On God, Man, Sin, and Responsibility

 "God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. he is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard eternal to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must be particularly pointed out that God's causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is 'Ex-lex'."

"True it is that if a man, a created being, should cause or try to cause another man to sin, this attempt would be sinful. The reason is plain. The relation of one man to another is entirely different from the relation of God to any man. God is the creator; man is a creature. And the relation of a man to the law is equally different from the relation of God to the law. What holds in the one situation does not hold in the other. God has absolute and unlimited rights over all created things. Of the same lump he can make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. The clay has no claims on the potter. Among men, on the contrary, rights are limited."

"The idea that God is above law can be explained in another particular. The laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature. They are applicable only to human conditions. For example, God cannot steal, not only because whatever he does is right, but also because he owns everything; There is no one to steal from. Thus the law that defines sin envisages human conditions and has no relevance to a sovereign Creator."

Gordon H. Clark, Three R's

On God's purpose in commands on ethical beings.

"unless you also clarify that the only way He could do that and still be just is if man were not made in the Image of God, which is the reason it is sin in the first place. God is not bound by His commands per se, as I said above. However, every command has a reasoned causal chain that goes back to God’s character and desires, and these are essential to Him as primal manifestation/expression/revelation of Himself both to Himself and to conditional creatures."It is because Man is made in the image of God that they are responsible to Him. God could have commanded anything - with that said His laws are said to be just, holy, and good because God commands them. However, God is not bound by those laws. Even if man obeyed the law of God completely (scripture says in Romans 3 and 10 that it is impossible due to His depravity and fallen nature) he would still be doing that which was his job as a creature. Luke says that they would be unprofitable servants because they did what they were told and what they were responsible for. All men are responsible to God because of the fact that they are creatures of God made in the image of God. This is why I say you should not imply from this that all of God's creatures deserve salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God and not something that is to be inferred on the creature.

Gordon H. Clark says, "In Christianity . . . God is supreme, and any ideas that may be required are dependent upon what God wills to think. God is the legislator, and piety is determined by his preceptive decree." - Religion, Reason and Revelation Indeed to say that God must honor his law is to subject him to a law above him. Clark also says elsewhere "Responsiblility presupposes a superior authority that rewards and punishes. The highest authority is God. Therefore responsibility is ultimately dependent on the power and authority of God. Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God himself 'determined before to be done'? Was God just in punishing Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others? The Scriptures answer in the affirmative and explain why. Not only is God the creator of the physical universe, not only is he the governor and judge of men, he is also the moral legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between right and wrong, between justice and injustice; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct." From this I inferr that man is responsible to God because He is created in His image. One may also say that Paul says this in Romans 9 when he says that God is the potter we are the clay. The potter has supreme rights.

Two wills of God discussion.

Josh said: God is more complex than for us to limit Him to only one emotional disposition towards individuals. He can desire every human to be saved and at the same only desire to unconditionally save the elect.


Me (Kirk said): if you say God is complex then we in fact cannot know Him. Scripture does not say that God is complex but that God is one. Scripture does not say that God is unknowable, but that He is inexhaustible. This is why Scripture says that what has been revealed is for the purpose that you should follow. God has not revealed to us everything about Himself, but only that which we should know. What God knows as Creatures we to can know. The difference in our knowledge is quantitative and not qualitative. Jesus says that we worship what we know. What we know that is what we speak.


Josh: Well, the idea is not that there are two wills, but two things that He wills. One more than the other. Massive difference. One is confusing and nonsensical, the other is very relatable and understandable.



Me: God wills two things? No one disagrees with that statement. Obviously the command is based upon God's will. You have not clarified the issue. The issue is not whether or not God wills two things. The issue is whether or not God desires in the same sense the salvation of the reprobate that He does the salvation of the elect. Does he at the same time desire to save all when in fact he does not save all? I'd say you should read the Van Til/Clark Controversy which speaks on this issue. 



I (Kirk) asked him: would it not be better to say that God COMMANDS that all would repent and believe the gospel, but only WILLS that the elect should repent and believe the gospel?


Josh: My response is that the idea of a command, if it has any real significance, is that it accords with God’s desires at some level.



Me: I'd disagree. Command does not mean that God actually longs for someone to do something or not. By this you are arguing the same line of the Arminian. God is the legislator.  God as the creator of the universe is the governor of His creation. Apart from salvation-history, Adam (Creature of God) does not have the right to salvation because salvation is a prerogative right that God freely does. As a Creature of God however Adam should obey God. This does not mean however that Adam by obeying God should merit eternal life (this is only grounded in Christ alone - which is covenant language).



Josh: This is how the whole distinction between wickedness and righteousness has fundamental distinction: it is rooted in God’s very nature (i.e. what pleases Him) expressed in desires, which is the formal cause of His will. For example, God makes real commands against wickedness and evil, and those commands are rooted in His character which manifests in desires.



Me: Well God commands are different from what God wills to do. God makes a command because He is the creator. This is the responsibility of man. No one denies the fact that the commands are grounded in who God is. But, you must be careful. God is not bound to certain commands. He could have justly commanded that murder is just as righteous as not to murder. The distinction between wickedness and righteousness is found in Christ. However,  the distinction between wickedness and goodness is ground in sin. However, the distinction between the elect and reprobate is based upon God's free elective choice.





Josh: However, He may, and very often does, desire other things more than “everything” happening according to that set of desires. In the case of His moral commands, He desires that all men obey them, but more than that, at the same time, He desires His plan to unfold as He has ordained according to the counsel of His will. The chief example of this is seen in the Cross: God opposing sin at all times, but because of His grater plan, He ordained the sufferings of Christ at the hands of wicked men.



Me: God command is rooted in God's will of election and reprobation. You cannot make the two on the same level. Nor should you condition the will of election and reprobation on the command. You are using desires and commands equivocatively. However, as Calvin says the command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation so that although God commands not to murder, He however wills that a person does murder. The command based upon God's righteousness is stated to serve the doctrine of election in that sin is revealed by it and that the reprobate are destroyed because of sin.



Calvin says, "Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence



In as far as God wills a thing in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God.

 But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. The command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation.



Josh: So it is with Salvation: God desires the salvation of all men, but more than that desire, He desires the salvation of the elect, being part of His eternal plan, so that the purpose of election might stand, and so He intentionally ordains their salvation and ensures that it will happen by His Spirit, knowing, and ordaining, that without His Spirit irrevocably changing people, they will never repent and believe and so be saved.



Me: Actually salvation is rooted in the justice of God. God desires solely the salvation of the elect, if he had not then the reprobate would not be reprobate but also the elect. What the two wills fail to explain is the fact that salvation is established with the elect alone who are in Christ alone. It is not true that because God commands Christians to preach the Gospel that this administering of the Gospel is actually itself the desire. Again the reprobate by hearing the Gospel are condemned more harshly for the light which they have. Further, they even suppress the truth of God clearly revealed. If God supremely desired to save the reprobate then he would have them to be saved, but he does not. Unless of course you are wanting say that natural revelation is in fact genuine and is capable of saving without the special work of the Spirit to reveal to Him the truths.



Josh: So, it is a surface level distinction to say that the difference between the reprobate and the elect, as regards God’s disposition, is that God wills one set to repent while commanding both to repent because commands are rooted in desire and will.



Me: No the command is that all should repent and believe. The command is that all men should glorify God. But not all do so. God however, in the administration of the gospel commands all to repent, but the command is also effectual and so calls the elect unto Christ.


Josh: All people have lesser desires they will forgo for the sake of more deep and abiding desires.



Me: God's desire is perfect and not complex. Human beings whose nature is fallen are complex and may desire anything under the sun.

  

False accusations of the High and Ultra-High Calvinist who reject Common Grace

"I am not sure that calling persons 'hyper-Calvinists' means much except that you disagree with them. Does it mean that they say 'providence' instead of 'common grace'? Does it mean that they deny that God loves the non-elect? Does it mean that their version of covenant theology is different from yours?"

Calvin and the supposed two wills of God

Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence

In as far as God wills a in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God. But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory.