Notes on God’s Two Wills

Last night, I finally had a chance to read John Piper’s article entitled “Are There Two Wills in God?” which Susan pointed out to me almost a week ago. This work from 1995 focuses on the theological subject of election as its subtitle [Divine Election and God's Desire for All to Be Saved] suggests.

In my shallow first reading, I found the idea of hierarchy or rank order of God’s wills (to fearlessly coin a phrase) to be most beneficial, although I am not sure whether such a reading is an accurate portrayal of Pastor Piper’s thoughts. At any rate, this insight allowed me to construct a preliminary framework to think more clearly about the nature of unconditional election which remains the most challenging doctrine (at least for me) among the five points of Calvinism.

In the opening paragraph, Pastor Piper provides a clear statement about his purpose for which I am thankful.

My aim here 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.

As a reference, 1 Timothy 2:1-6 says:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

The last section, headlined “Does It Makes Sense?”, was most pertinent to some issues that have been perplexing me lately. The section begins with this statement about the nature of God and sin.

The first thing to affirm in view of all these texts is that God does not sin. “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Isaiah 6:3). “God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). In ordering all things, including sinful acts, God is not sinning. … [the remainder truncated]

My initial reaction was that this affirmation makes much sense and I agree with it. On further reflection, I thought that this affirmation may even be axiomatic.

[R]eflecting directly on 1 Timothy 2:4 where Paul says that God wills all persons to be saved. What are we to say of the fact that God wills something that in fact does not happen. There are two possibilities as far as I can see. One is that there is a power in the universe greater than God’s which is frustrating him by overruling what he wills. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian affirms this.

The other possibility is that God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. This is the solution that I as a Calvinist affirm along with Arminians. In other words both Calvinists and Arminians affirm two wills in God when they ponder deeply over 1 Timothy 2:4. Both can say that God wills for all to be saved. But then when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all. [emphasis added]

As I read the bolded portion of the paragraph, the idea of hierarchy or rank order of God’s wills came to my mind. Perhaps I thought of this because of my academic training as an economist. I am the first one to admit that it is most likely too simplistic to talk about God’s preference relation or utility function. Nevertheless, this idea helped me see the issue of divine election in a new and more coherent light. 

The difference between Calvinists and Arminians lies not in whether there are two wills in God, but in what they say this higher commitment is. What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29). [emphasis added]

This passage provided to me a much clearer explanation about the long-standing debate between Arminians and Calvinists. From my current basic level of understanding, I think that it makes a lot of sense that the supremacy of THE LORD is higher in the hierarchy of God’s preference than human self-determination, but I suspect that there is much to study and contemplate about this issue.

Let me close this entry with a prayer.

Grant me the key of knowledge to open my heart and feel your nature. Grant me the zealous passion to open my minds without becoming rigid and self-righteous. And, above all, grant me the steadfast courage to obey and submit to your righteous and merciful will.