The Will of God
The Scholastic Reformer explains
what the will of God entails and how it works.
The
Will of God
by Dr. Francis Turretin
“The
will of God necessarily follows his understanding.” Page 218 v1
“He
is the ultimate end and the highest good which he cannot but will and
love, not only as to specifications (that he can will and love nothing
contrary), but also as to exercise (that he never ceases from willing
and loving himself), for he cannot nill his own glory or deny
himself.” Page 219 v1
“The
will of God is one and most simple.” Page 220 v1
“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 permits himself; the latter what he
wills that we should do…the former cannot be resisted and is always
fulfilled (Rom. 9:19)…the latter is often violated by men (Mt.
23:27)” Page 220 v1
“The
will of decree may be that which determines the events of things, but
the will of precept that which prescribes man his duty.
Therefore God can (without contradiction) will as to precept what
he does not will as to decree inasmuch as he wills to prescribe
something to man, but does not will to effect it (as he willed Pharaoh
to release the people, but yet nilled their actual release.) Page 221 v1
“Although
the will eurestias belong also the promises of giving salvation to
believers (which are proposed with the Gospel precept), it does not
follow that it ought to connote any condition, decree or volition
(properly so called) concerning the giving of salvation to all.
For such a decree cannot consist with the decree of reprobation,
or with the wisdom of God, to which it is repugnant to will anything
under an impossible condition (and which God, who alone can give it, has
himself decreed to withhold for the creature.)”
Page 222 v1
“The
will of purpose is the will of event and execution.” Page 223 v1
“Although
God may be said to will the salvation of all by the will of sign and to
nill it by the beneplacit will, yet there is not contradiction here.
Besides the fact that the universal proposition is to be
understood not so much of the singulars of the genera as of the genera
of the singulars, the former will relates to the mere approbation of God
and the command of duty, while the latter is concerned with its
futurition and fulfillment…the former denotes what is pleasing to God
and what he has determined to enjoin upon man for the obtainment of
salvation, but the latter what God has decreed to do.” Page 224 v1
“The
fourth distinction of the will is into the secret and revealed.
The former is commonly applied to the decretive will, which for
the most part lies concealed in God; but the latter to the preceptive
will, which is revealed and manifested in the law and the gospel.”
Page 225 v1
“Although
God is the best, it is not necessary that he should exercise a good will
to all for salvation by an antecedent will because the exercise of his
goodness depends upon his most wise will (which pities whom it will and
whom it wills hardens). Nor
if he wills to pour out his goodness on the creature by the blessing of
creation or providence, ought he to exercise good will to it unto
salvation.” Page 225 v1
“Whether
the will may be distinguished into antecedent and consequent? We deny.
This distinction is in many ways injurious to God: 1) because it
attributes to him contrary wills (viz., that God wills the salvation of
all and wills the salvation of only some); that from eternity he
seriously willed the salvation of Judas and yet, at the same time and in
the same moment, knew that Judas never would believe; and that he did
not will to give faith to Judas by which he might infallibly have been
converted; yea, would even permit him to remain in his unbelief and to
perish…God…is never without the appropriate means to accomplish what
he intends.” Page 227 v1
“This
distinction cannot have place in God without ascribing to him not only
folly and importance (by making him intend seriously and desire with
natural affection that which is not performed and cannot be performed
through man because he himself does not will it); but also mutability
because there can be no place for the consequent will until the
antecedent is first rescinded. For
how could God at the same time, by the same act of will, will to save
all men and to damn the greater part of them?” Page 227 v1
“It
is repugnant to the gospel which constantly teaches that God wills to
save not all simply, but only the elect and believers in Christ and that
the means of salvation are not offered or conferred upon all, but only
upon some. In fine, it
overthrows the eternal election of God because it leaves
it uncertain, founded not upon the good pleasure of God
(eudokias) of God, but upon the human will (than which nothing is more
uncertain and changeable). It
makes it such as that no execution can answer to it (i.e., makes it void
and inefficacious.).” Page 227-228 v1
“Can
there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of
pitying the whole human race in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator
to each and all, and of calling them all to saving participation of his
benefits? WE DENY.” Page
395 v1
“They
[Arminians] lay universal grace or affection of mercy of God towards the
whole human race” with an intention to save them. Page 395 v1
“Further,
it must not be concealed that the Reformed theologian themselves do not
here think alike in all things. There
are some who (although agreeing with us in the center of the Pelagian
controversy concerning election wholly gratuitous an the particular
decree about giving faith to these and not to those [as also concerning
efficacious and irresistible calling] and who differ on this subject
from the Arminians) by a certain pious design (as it seems) of promoting
ecclesiastical peace and from a desire of disputing more strongly with
the Remonstrants (although with less happy success) have adopted certain
hypothesis of their, extending more widely the periphery of grace and
defending the universality of mercy, redemption and calling, while they
maintain that God (impelled by his philanthropy [philanthropia] and
mercy to the human race) decreed from eternity to send his Son into the
world, who having made satisfaction for sin, might acquire by that
method remission of sins and eternal salvation for all, if they would
embrace him through faith and not refuse to become partaker of so great
salvation). Thus they hold
that God in a certain manner willed that all men might equally might be
saved, provided they would believe,
but they add that God influenced no more by His common
philanthropy (philanthropia) than by a certain special kind of love and
mercy, elected some from the totality of men (upon whom he would bestow
faith with this intention – that he might lead them most certainly to
salvation; so that no more did he will to save them provided they would
believe, but determined to bring them to faith in order that they might
be saved). And for this
reason they maintain that to
decrees are here to be principally considered: the one general
(concerning the saving of believers through Christ by which God
determined to have mercy upon all and everyone and to give Christ as
mediator to all and to call all to salvation); the other special (by
which he decreed to call effectually some certain persons and bestow
upon them faith in preference to others).
As to the former, they agree with Remonstrants; as to the latter
they differ from them (cf. Amyrald, “Doctinae de
gratia universali…defensio,” in Dissertationes Theologcae
Quatuor [1645] and Testard, Erenikon [1633]).” Page 395-396 v1
|
