Divine Precepts, like Divine Decrees, Imply Divine Desires
Certain critics of the Well Meant Offer criticize it for stating that
God desires the repentance of men in general. They assert that there
is no sense in which God desires repentance except in the elect.
But such criticism fails to take into account the very implications of
divine precepts or commands. Implicit within the concept of a 'precept'
or 'command' is will, desire, delight or pleasure. This is inherent in
its definition. The person giving a command is implicitly expressing
his will or desire regarding what he wants the recipient of the command
to do. He is stating what he is pleased with. Specifically with regards
to divine precepts, God is revealing what he desires man to do. His
precepts targeted at all humanity, like the duties of evangelical faith
and obedience to the Ten Commandments, are nothing less than statements
of what he desires in man. 'Revealed will' without 'will' (or desire) is
not 'revealed will'. Divine decrees imply divine desires as well.
God decrees that which he desires to occur. He decrees nothing but
that which his holy will desires. 'Decretive will' then without 'will'
(or desire) is not 'decretive will' either.
The Necessity of Non-Contradiction
Certain proponents of the Well Meant Offer suggest that there is a contradiction between the divine desire for repentance of man in general and the divine desire that only the elect repent, at least insofar as man can comprehend. Such proponents generally recognize that there can be no contradiction in God, since contradiction is ultimately impossible and God is a God of order. But such proponents indicate that in terms of human logic and understanding the two propositions are indeed contradictory.
Such an assertion fails to grasp the necessity of non-contradiction, for man as well as for God. Where there is contradiction in human comprehension, there can be NO understanding at all. For example, if I tell my son to go get a ball and not to go get a ball, and say nothing more, then I have truly said nothing. My son is left wondering what I want. Similarly, if someone asserts that 'God desires all humans to repent' and 'God does not desire all humans to repent', without explaining to some degree the different senses of the term 'desire', then one has truly said nothing. We are left wondering what God desires if all we have are two contradictory statements about his desire. Contradiction, even if it be asserted that it is confined to human understanding on a matter, provides NO information whatsoever. Indeed, it is one of the great hallmarks of Biblical Christianity that it is not self-contradictory, and the principle of non-contradiction is a vital tool of Christian theology and apologetics.
It is true that humans may not and do not comprehend all the depths
of divine truth. And so with respect to the issue of divine precepts
versus divine decrees man cannot fully understand them. Nor does
he fully understand the nature of divine desires, whether in terms of God's
revealed will or his decretive will. But man must have enough understanding
to distinguish them to some degree, or else it must be admitted man knows
nothing about divine desires, whether decretive or preceptive.
Distinguishing the Various Senses of the Divine Will
The common error of many proponents and critics in the Well Meant Offer debate centers around a failure to recognize the various senses of the divine will. There is a different sense in which God delights in or desires repentance and obedience in man in general versus his desire that only the elect repent and obey. One may delight in or desire something in the abstract that one does not delight in or desire with respect to other factors, conditions or circumstances. For example, one may desire to have a Rolls Royce automobile, but it would not be desirable if one lived in the country where a pickup truck is more useful. Under such circumstances, it would not be contradictory for the person to say "I desire a Rolls Royce" yet "I do not desire to have a Rolls Royce." The distinction between God's will in his commands versus in his decrees is a distinction in the nature of the object referred to. In a command the object referred to in the will is an abstraction (ie, something considered apart from a particular instance). But in a divine decree the objects referred to in the will are particular instances. When one delights in something in the abstract one does not necessarily delight in it in every particular instance. Midas delighted in gold, but he realized he did not delight in it in every particular instance. It is not contradictory to delight in something in the abstract but not to delight in it in every particular instance. I like gold, but I do not want my children to turn into gold. The story of Midas plays upon this very important distinction.
In the divine economy, everything God does must be perfectly just and perfectly glorious. Therefore, God will save no sinner that Christ did not atone for. But God determined in his wisdom only to atone for the elect. Indeed, he only desires to atone for the sins of the elect. He also desires to reveal his glory by saving only certain fallen men (i.e., the elect). So the divine will in the abstract is distinct from the divine will with respect to these other factors and conditions. God in the abstract delights in or desires repentance and obedience in man in general. But given the condition that no man can repent and obey unless God has atoned for his sins, and God does not desire to atone for the sins of all men, therefore with respect to these other factors God does not desire but the elect to repent and obey. This is neither contradictory nor incredibly mysterious, but something man himself experiences in everyday life. And in scripture we find numerous examples of God being pleased with something under certain conditions but not under other conditions. And we find God being pleased with something in the abstract that he is not under certain conditions. For example, we read how God is pleased with Israel, yet we read elsewhere how God was displeased with Israel when they sinned. The divine will in the abstract is distinct from the divine will with respect to these other factors and conditions and in particular instances.
Francis Turretin described this distinction well when he wrote: "God
delights in the conversion and eternal life of the sinner, AS A THING PLEASING
IN ITSELF, and congruous with His own infinitely compassionate nature,
rather than in his perdition; and therefore demands from man, as an act
due from him, to turn if he would live. But although He does not will,
in the sense of delighting in, the death of the sinner, He at the same
time wills, in the sense of decreeing, the death of the sinner for the
display of His justice. Even as an upright magistrate, though he does not
delight in and desire the death of the criminal, yet determines to inflict
the just penalty of the law." (Institutes of Theology IV ch xvii/33)