Great refutation of "two-wills" theory.

The following is a simple post I copied from Dr. Michael Brown's website that was written by a gentleman named Robert. I agree with him whole-heartedly regarding his 8 points of contention with the "two wills of God" theory held by many Calvinists.

"...You cited Turretin on the “two wills of God” theory that many Calvinists hold. James White repeatedly in the discussion with Dr. Brown made reference to this theory as well. It needs to be noted that you Calvinists speak of it as if it is a fact. And not only do you **assume** it to be true, you allow it to control your interpretation of scripture. But I don’t buy this distinction at all. There are multiple problems with the two wills theory. Here are some of them.

First, it is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL principle. The bible does not state the two will theory anywhere. It is not derived from exegesis of biblical texts. It was invented and developed by Calvinist theologians as a method to harmonize biblical texts with their erroneous system of theology.

Second, the distinction sanctions and affirms an incredible amount of contradictions. God says one thing (the prescriptive will, what He expresses in scripture) in the one will, which is directly contradicted by the secret or sovereign will. The sovereign will is supposedly (I say supposedly since the bible does not say that God has a total plan, this is assumed by Calvinists who believe in exhaustive predeterminism of all events) God’s exhaustive total plan that encompasses every event of history. God conceives of this total plan in eternity, he then ensures that it occurs via his “sovereignty” (which is then defined as God exhaustively determining every event by directly, completely and continuously controlling everything). Note that this calvinistic interpretive principle consists of assumption piled upon assumption.

So where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is between what God says in the bible and what He really plans and desires in the sovereign will. He says don’t commit murder. And yet if he predetermines and predecides every action that every human person does, then every murder that actually occurs in history is exactly what God wanted, exactly what God decided would be part of his total plan. Or take abortion. Conservative Christians interpret the bible to be saying that it is wrong (so according to his prescriptive will abortion is murder and is wrong). But if God predetermines and predecides every action that every human person does, then every abortion that actually occurs in history is exactly what God wanted, exactly what God decided would be part of his plan. And we could multiply the examples but the point is clear: he says one thing in his Word but contradicts what he says in his sovereign/secret will.

Third with the prescriptive/sovereign will distinction in mind, it leads to “interpretations” of scripture where the proper and intended meaning of the text is eliminated, minimized or thrown out. God says in his Word that He desires the salvation of all. The Calvinist comes alone and says that while that may be true in his prescriptive will, in his sovereign will, the will that determines what really happens, God desires the salvation of only a preselected few. With the two will principle the theological determinist can then harmonize “difficult” or problematic passages with his errant theological system.

Fourth, it is similar to the way a Jehovah’s Witness interprets the bible(note carefully I did not say nor am I implying that Calvinists are cultists, they affirm orthodox doctrine such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, justification through faith, etc.). They start with the teachings of the Watchtower as their controlling presupposition and grid. They have these teachings in mind **BEFORE** they get to a biblical text. The biblical text is then made to harmonize with this pre-understanding. So the biblical texts never end up contradicting the teachings of the Watchtower and amazingly all line up with exactly what the Watchtower teaches!

Fifth, you find no evidence of this two will theory in the early centuries of the church. This suggests both that it is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE and that it was invented by theological determinists.

Sixth, if God really says one thing in his Word and does another in his secret will, this may lead to real lack of trust in what the bible says. This is because the bible really does not represent the “bottom line,” concerning reality, rather the secret will is the “bottom line”. God’s truest desires, what He really wants to happen, are seen in and expressed in the secret will, not the bible.

Seventh, some determinists will claim that the secret will is known to God alone or beyond our understanding, etc. etc. This is not accurate. If everything that occurs in reality is part of the secret will, then we need only look at reality, look at what actually occurs to see the sovereign will being carried out. Look at any past event, that is exactly what God desired to occur. Look at any present reality, that is exactly what God desires to occur. We may not know the future but we can know the secret will in terms of all realities that involve the past or the present. Now this is troublesome when we consider some of the things that God therefore desired to occur. Every evil or sin that has occurred or is occurring in its every detail is exactly what God wants to occur as it is all part of his sovereign will/secret will/total plan.

Eighth and particularly troubling for non-Calvinists is what the two will theory says or implies about God’s character. A person who says one thing and does another is considered a hypocrite. A person who says he desires one thing but really desires another cannot be trusted and may even hide malicious plans and actions behind expressed words (cf. like a dishonest politician who says one thing publicly but in private holds a very different view). A person who claims to be good, righteous, merciful, to have good character (again when speaking publicly) and yet privately is the opposite and desires the opposite has an evil and untrustworthy character.

Robert"

Is that a duck?

Does it look like a duck?
Does it quack like a duck?
Does it walk like a duck?

Then it must be something entirely different than a duck. Right?

Calvin would like you to believe that his doctrine is not fatalism. In fact, he says, "We don’t want to argue about words, but we do not allow the term Fate..."

However, he also states, "...the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pg.121).

If you believe that everything that takes place for each individual is fixed and determined by God then you're a fatalist.

On the other hand, the Lord told Jeremiah, "...And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination..." Jeremiah 32:35.

God did not secretly decree that the children of Israel & Judah would pass their sons and daughters through the fire to Molech. This was an abomination to Him and it NEVER entered His mind.

God is not dual souled like the double-minded man. He is the Rock of our salvation of whom there is NO shadow of turning. He is the Lord and He does not change (Malachi 3:6).