Regarding recent discussions on the BS of Calvinism, a friend directed me to a sermon by matt chandler on the two wills of God. The premise of the sermon was viewing Calvinism in the light of several scriptures in which the bible says that its the will of God that no one should perish. Chandler started out reading a few scriptures that he called the Armenian Pillars. 1Timothy 2:3-4, 2Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23. If you dont know them look them up. They all speak of gods will that all would be saved. He comments that if those who believe in free will dont use those verses, they will use more just like them. Then he goes into how there were certian things in the bible that seemed to confuse him. Like how David committed murder and adultery, and was forgiven, yet a man and woman in acts sold some property and gave 80% to the church, and saved some for themselves and were struck dead for it. Chandler found that inconsistent that David was forgiven, while the husband and wife were killed for giving a huge sum of money to the early church.. Im assuming he is talking about Ananias and Sapphira. I have never seen any text that says what the exact amout they gave and held back was, my bible certainly doesnt say. Interesting to me that he doesnt mention that Ananias and Sapphira had pledged ALL the money from the sale of the land to the church, then conspired to keep a portion of it. Perhaps this passage speaks more to me about greed than it does about inconsistencies of God. The bible says that man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart. It also says that David was a man after gods own heart. While we dont know is the condition of the heart of Ananias and Sapphira, we do know Davids, and see how he was forgiven.
He also notes that God is active in things that we dont want to say hes active in. Then reads some scriptures that illustrate Gods dual wills. He starts off with verses that mention God using people to kill Christ (Acts 2:22-23, Acts 4:27-28) and Quotes another verse, Isaiah 53:4-10, saying that God actually took pleasure in killing Jesus. He was referring to verse 10 that says “For it Pleased the Lord to bruise him…” I think its quite a jump to go from it pleasing God, and God taking pleasure in it. I am pleased by my military service, but it would be wrong to assume that i took pleasure in it. Did God have a hand in causing the death of Jesus? Of course, he was the sacrifice. Im not sure why anyone would be shocked by that. Jesus could have called down a host of angels as well. But he didnt. Are we to assume he enjoyed his own murder or that he is somehow guilty of suicide by centurion?
He then goes to talk about the how god hardened hearts. First, pharoahs heart. He says free will believers point out that god hardened his heart after He allowed pharoah to say no a few times. He even concedes that point, which makes me wonder why he even brought it up, except to say that we cant say it about his next examples. He talks about Joshua and the many people he fought, and how joshua sent a peace offering and they refused because God hardened their hearts. Now the bible doesnt say why he hardened those hearts. Its seems very presumptive to me to assume the circumstances under which God chose to do so. He gives more examples, im not sure why, because believers of free will dont seem to question that God has hardened hearts.
Then he addresses Gods right to restrain evil, and his will not to. He talks about abraham, sarah, and abemilech. And how god wouldnt allow abemilech to sin. I have always understood that the reason God was going to destroy abimelech was because of His covenant with abraham. If any harm or violation was to befall sarah, God was bound by covenant to destroy Abimelech. Besides, what about all the times he didnt do that? What about David, who actually sinned? What about Joseph, who had to RUN from pottifers wife, then suffered the consequence of her lies? He talks about Eli pleading for his sons, and how God refused his plea because his sons were evil. Somehow, these dont really seem to argue the free will point. Not to me. All these show is that God does what he wants, and its not the same usually, but the circumstances arent the same in all the instances either.
Then he says something is happening, either something in the universe is more powerful than god and usurping his will that all be saved, or God has two wills, and that the will that supercedes his will that none should perish and all should be saved is his glory. Huh? So God strikes people dead, while giving forgiveness to others, intercedes to keep some from sinning, refuses to save elis wicked sons even though eli pleads for their life, hardens old testament hearts, does all these things that Chandler gave as examples of things that “we dont want to say Hes involved in”, and somehow this adds up to either there is something greater than God usurping his power, or God has two wills? He also takes this opportunity to tell free will believers what they believe. I love it when people who dont believe as i do tell me what i believe, dont you. He tells us that we believe that what is more powerful than God in the universe is the choice he gives us to choose, but it isnt a knock on god because he gave us that choice and therefore limited his own power. Sorry, but i dont believe God has limited any power by giving us that choice. Gods power isnt challenged if i do or do not choose him. I believe that god is glorified when his creation chooses him. Then he says God has two wills, and its like Chandlers relationship with his daughter. He doesnt will to hurt his daughter, spank her etc. But there are times hes had to smack her, because more than he doesnt want to hurt her, there is a greater will that knows that joy comes thru obedience “or better than that, you can get killed if you run out into the street, that youre going to the hospital if you pull the iron down on top of yourself” So even though there is a will not to make his daughter cry, there is an even greater will that knows sometimes he will have to. Now this is the EXACT moment Candler loses me. That is an incongruous example. Because to make that example line up with calvinism, Chandler would have to say “i dont want to spank my daughter, but sometimes i have to teach her” Then he would have to cause her to do wrong. He would have to tell her,” hey honey, run out into the street as fast as you can”, then spank her for doing what he caused her to do. He would have to say, “hey babe, pull on the power cord to that iron”, then punish her for doing so. I think his congregation would be horrified to find this out, and rightly so. As examples of this greater will, he quotes any scripture where someone did something, and god was glorified thru it. Great. God is glorified. Did anyone not know that? Everything from here on seemed like a regurgitated argument for Calvinism.
I just dont buy it. If God says it isnt his will that any would perish, then chooses the people who will perish and spend eternity in torment without any hope or redemption, that doesnt make him two willed, it makes him two faced. If God chooses who will serve him, then forces them into his service, where exactly is he glorified in that? Chandler also states in reference to the verse about jacob i loved and esau i hated even from the womb, and people say that doesnt sound very fair, that we must be assuming that our salvation is fair. If we make statement that god is unfair in some going to hell, we have then said our salvation is fair. Uh no. First i dont know any free will person that says its unfair for some to go to hell, or that their salvation is fair. What were saying is for God to offer that salvation…no, FORCE that salvation on some, and with hold it from others isnt consistent with God saying its his will that none perish. He also makes a directive not to create a theology about God to make you feel better about him. I think hes totally off the argument now, because i dont think thats what free will believers have done. In any case, isnt that what Chandler himself has done. He starts off talking about all these inconsistencies and how he didnt understand it, then he came to believe in calvinism because that made it all make sense. I mean later on he seems to try to make his congregation feel better about the election of their children by saying he believes God is in the habit of saving the children of those who fear him. Oh really? What about chandlers own example of Eli, who begged for God to spare his sons?
Perhaps the best way for Chandler to explain these “inconsistencies” would be to read Psalm 115:3, which he has in this very sermons study guide. “For our God is in the heavens. He does whatever he pleases.” Maybe that would be more productive than trying to limit God to the logic and consistencies of mere humans. I was also annoyed that chandler never addressed why all the scriptures that say Gods will is that all are saved are invalid, or dont count. Why didnt God ever say, in scripture, that his will is to see himself glorified? Why do we read plain as day that his will is that none perish, but we have to deduce this second, “greater” will through speculation and subtext? Why is this unwritten will automatically ”greater”? Does God say anywhere that this is the case? Do we have any business prioritizing Gods will? Why does chandler use all these arguments that have nothing to do with free will, as arguments against free will? None of this makes sense to me.
