The Importance of Confessing One Will in God

The inspired creedal imperative, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” is not merely an appeal to ethical monism—meaning that we Christians are to worship the one true God alone. The oneness of God in Deuteronomy 6:4 speaks to the metaphysical reality that separates or distinguishes Him from idols and the false gods of the nations: His simplicity. The Second London Confession of Faith elucidates this notion of God’s simplicity by writing, “The Lord our God is but one… without body, parts, or passions.” However, before we can understand what it means for God to be one or simple, we must first understand what it means to be a creature.

Creatures are composed of what we are (i.e., an essence) and that we are (i.e., our existence). However, the dilemma is that creatures cannot be the cause of their existence, for no essence can precede and be the cause of its existence (e.g., Lily did not bring herself into existence). Consequently, the cause of creaturely existence must be found outside the domain of creation, and its existence must not be caused—it must be the fount of existence. If one were to turn to philosophical demonstration to discover such a cause, one could postulate the existence of an uncaused transcending cause of all things whose existence is of itself (i.e., self-subsisting being). But of more sure footing for the believer, Scripture reveals that this simple or non-composed Creator, whose existence is from Himself and not another, is the One whom Exodus 3:14 calls “I AM WHO I AM.” Or, as illustrated in the burning bush, it is I AM whose fire or existence does not depend on another but whose life burns from Himself.

Turning our attention to God’s will, its relevancy when considering His oneness lies in preserving monotheism. To highlight this concern, we must consider what establishes the ability to will. Put into question form: “What provides a person with the power to will compared to an inanimate creature like a rock?” The simple answer is its nature. A creature’s nature determines what powers it can exercise. For instance, a bird’s nature gives rise to the possibility of flying, unlike a human’s nature. Similarly, a creature possesses the ability to will if its nature provides the capacity of said power.

When considering the philosophical and historical articulation of the will, it has typically been distinguished between the sensible (or lower) appetite and the intellectual (or higher) appetite. The sensible will desires goods based on sensory perception (sight, hearing, taste, touch, etc.). For example, it is good for the nature of an animal to eat; thus, when said good is presented to it via the senses, the will is aroused and motivates the animal to pursue it.

In contrast, although man possesses these same sensible desires of the will as some other creatures, he also exercises dominion over these sensible desires by a higher power of the soul that distinguishes him from the rest of creation: reason. In other words, although all things are created in the likeness of God—because effects in some way reflect their cause—Scripture asserts that man is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27), and what makes man in God’s image is his power or capacity to reason (i.e., the intellect). Consequently, for man, it is the intellect that guides the will. One could even say that every person has the power to will because every person possesses the power of intellect, which is able to perceive things as good in themselves, and, in turn, the will is drawn out to possess and rest in those goods.

Scripture asserts that man is created in the image and likeness of God, and what makes man in God’s image is his power or capacity to reason.

Furthermore, the intellect can distinguish between lesser and higher goods and choose the higher, although it may cause harm or difficulty. The preeminent example of man deferring the lower will’s desire for a greater good was our Lord when He cried out in the garden of Gethsemane, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done” (Verse reference). For our Lord, it was a good to preserve life, but it was a greater good to obey the will of His Father.

Correspondingly, because God is an intellectual Being, this entails that He, too, possesses a will. In simpler terms, it is the nature of divinity to will. However, this does not entail that God wills as man does: that some outside good moves His will. If this were so, God would be susceptible to passions and mutability as man, thus consigning Him to the order of creaturely being as its chief Being. Moreover, neither can we say that God’s will is a property of divinity, as it is a property that a person exercises; instead, following the maxim that “all that is in God is God,” so, too, is God’s will one with His essence.

At this juncture, we arrive at a difficulty after contrasting God’s will with the creature’s will. Specifically, how do we reconcile God’s one will with the three divine persons? Or we could ask: “Does experience not testify that each person has their own will; hence, should not each divine person also?” To answer, we must first consider how each human person possesses their own will because each is an individuated instance of humanity: human nature, not personhood, gives rise to the power to will. However, this metaphysical sequence breaks down for the divine persons because each divine person is not a separate individuated instance of divinity. Instead, “A divine person is nothing but the divine essence . . . subsisting in an especial manner.”[1] In other words, the Father is the principle or fount of divinity as the unbegotten One; the Son’s divinity is from the Father as His begotten Word; and the Spirit’s divinity is from the Father and Son as Love proceeding. Therefore, because each person possesses the entirety of the divine essence according to their particular manner of subsistence, each divine person also possesses the one will of God.

If one were to deny that each divine person possesses the one divine will according to their particular manner of subsistence by positing multiple wills in God (i.e., one will for each divine person), then what one would run the risk of is seriously undermining their commitment to monotheism. The reason is that, as shown above, the ability to will is rooted in nature. Hence, if there are multiple wills in God, this would metaphysically entail that there must be multiple natures. Consequently, if there are multiple natures because there are multiple wills, the best one could then conceive the Trinity as is a society of “Gods” in unison or bound by some overarching principle. However, Christians do not believe the Lord to be one in unison of wills as a society of divine persons. Instead, we confess God to be one in Being and will, with each divine person possessing the one divine nature and will according to their particular manner of subsistence.

In conclusion, the consideration of the one will of God is a notion that safeguards Christians from practically inferring polytheism. Moreover, it is the one will of God that we can find our rest in because God is not like man that He should change His mind. In other words, because God’s will is one with His essence, this entails that the very divine will that chose us, that redeemed us by sending God the Son to die for sinners such as us, and that promises to present us before Himself as holy and blameless in glory, is a will that cannot change. Therefore, with this blessed assurance that God’s will for our salvation lies in His immutable nature, we can confidently strive on our journey to Zion above to follow our Lord’s words and example, “Not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42).

[1] John Owen, Communion with the Triune God (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009), 2:407.

Two revolutions in the last part of the 18th century and the first part of the 19th century created anxiety for the elites in Great Britain. The French Revolution across the channel ended the monarchy, the King and Queen’s lives, the role of the church, and order. The Industrial Revolution transformed British society from agrarian to urban which produced arduous working conditions and slums for homes. The British elites feared that in response to these conditions a movement inspired by the French Revolution would ignite a third violent British Revolution.

To pour water on the tender that awaited a match, the elites turned to teaching morals. The church would be the center of instructing the citizens on how to be obedient. Yet the church needed a dedicated time to instruct those laborers, who worked long hours including some on Sunday. Hence, many elites adopted the Sabbatarian cause. By their example and through legislation, the leaders of the nation encouraged citizens to go to church to tame man’s vilest passions and avoid a French Revolution on British soil.

Despite being born in a time of renewed Sabbatarian zeal for national purposes, Charles Spurgeon’s adherence to the Sabbath had deeper roots. He did not fear a third revolution, but he feared God’s Word. He was a Sabbatarian by theological conviction who agreed with the Second London Confession of Faith (1689) which taught that Sunday was to be observed as a Christian Sabbath. How did he justify this belief?

First, he considered the Sabbath to be a creation ordinance. Spurgeon argued, “And yet the Sabbath had not been instituted according to the law, which proves that its foundation lay deeper and earlier than the promulgation of the Ten Commandments; it is bound up with the essential arrangement of time since creation.”[1] Thus, he believed the Sabbath to be for all people, and it was not abolished with the Old Covenant.

Jesus’ example did not abolish the Sabbath, but it gave Christians an accurate portrayal of Sabbath observance.

Second, he believed the observance of the Sabbath changed from the seventh day of the week to the first day due to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Spurgeon wrote, “The first day of the week commemorates the resurrection of Christ, and following apostolical example, we have made the first day of the week to be our Sabbath.”[2] If Jesus had not risen from the dead, then Christians would have no hope of eternal life. The unsealed empty tomb sealed a believer’s redemption. Spurgeon affirmed this point. “We gather together on the first rather than upon the seventh day of the week, because redemption is even a greater work than creation, and more worthy of commemoration, and because the rest which followed creation is far outdone by that which ensues upon the completion of redemption.”[3]

Third, Jesus did not abolish the Sabbath but interpreted it rightly when he rebuked the Pharisees. Spurgeon taught that Jesus,

took care to do some of his grandest miracles upon the sabbath-day; and though this excited great wrath against him, as though he were a law-breaker, yet he did it on purpose that they might see that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.… The sum of our Lord’s teaching was that works of necessity, works of mercy, and works of piety are lawful on the Sabbath.[4]

Spurgeon, therefore, did not view the Christian Sabbath as a day of inactivity. Rather, a person should rest from his normal labors to labor for the Lord. Through works of piety, individuals should attend Church services to worship God, set aside time in the home for prayer and reading, and serve in Sunday schools, street evangelism, and visitation. By works of mercy, Christians serve as nurses, doctors, and care for sick children. For works of necessity, believers cook meals, walk to church, are employed as soldiers, firefighters, and policemen. For Spurgeon, Jesus’ example did not abolish the Sabbath, but it gave Christians an accurate portrayal of Sabbath observance.

Consequently, due to Spurgeon’s Sabbath convictions, he would preach for sinners to repent of their Sabbath breaking. To his hearers, he proclaimed, “Weary sinner, hellish sinner, thou who are the devil’s castaway, reprobate, profligate, harlot, robber, thief, adulterer, fornicator, drunkard, swearer, Sabbath-breaker—list!”[5] He grouped Sabbath breakers with the worst of the worst in Victorian society. For Spurgeon, Sabbath breaking broke the fourth commandment in the same manner as adultery broke the sixth commandment.

To that end, Spurgeon advocated for a third revolution though spiritual and not political. He desired to see sinners saved and to joyfully obey God’s commandments out of gratitude. Arthur Morgan is one example of a man whom the Holy Spirit regenerated. In an interview for church membership, an elder at Metropolitan Tabernacle recorded Morgan’s testimony.

He feels now what a precious Saviour Jesus is. He loves him with all his heart and wishes to live only for and with him. He now feels a constant desire to love Jesus more and more. Prayer and the reading of the Scriptures and the Sabbath is his delight now whereas once he cared for none of these things.[6]

[1] Spurgeon, MTP, 39:526.

[2] Spurgeon, MTP, 19:205.

[3] Spurgeon, MTP, 26:194.

[4] Spurgeon, MTP, 28:278-279.

[5] Spurgeon, NPSP, 1:40.

[6] Hannah Wyncoll, Wonders of Grace: Original Testimonies of Converts During Spurgeon’s Early Years, 35.

I have submitted the following resolution to the 2023 Resolutions Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention for adoption at the annual meeting scheduled for June 13-14 in New Orleans, Louisiana. My hope is that the committee will recommend it to the convention and give the messengers an opportunity to vote on it. From their beginning in 1845, Southern Baptists have been clear about the nature, qualifications, and function of the office of Bishop/Elder/Pastor. All three designations are used for the same office. It is only in recent years that Southern Baptists have begun to speak on this issue equivocally. Though some contemporary Southern Baptists may be unclear on what a pastor is, our heritage is free from such uncertainty. May this resolution provide the messengers gathered in New Orleans the opportunity to reaffirm that heritage and speak with clarity on this unambiguous New Testament teaching. 

2023 SBC Resolution on the Office of Bishop/Elder/Pastor

Tom Ascol

Whereas, The Baptist Faith and Message that was adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1925 was identified in its preamble as the “New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of present needs”; and

Whereas, The revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 1963 was led by a committee who declared that it “sought to build upon the structure of the 1925 Statement” while “in no case [seeking to] delete from or to add to the basic contents of the 1925 Statement”; and

Whereas, The committee that revised the Baptist Faith and Message that was adopted in 2000 stated in its preamble that it “respects and celebrates the heritage of the Baptist Faith and Message, and affirms the decision of the Convention in 1925 to adopt the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, ‘revised at certain points and with some additional articles growing out of certain needs . . . .’ and further affirmed their “respect the important contributions of the 1925 and 1963 editions of the Baptist Faith and Message”; and

Whereas, Article XIII of the New Hampshire Confession states that in a gospel church the “only scriptural officers are Bishops, or Pastors, and Deacons”; and 

Whereas, Article VI of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message states that a church’s “Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons”; and

Whereas, The same article (VI) in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message substitutes the word “pastors” for the words “bishops, or elders” in the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message, so that it says that a church’s “Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons”; and

Whereas, The same article (VI) in the revision of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message retains the exact language found in the 1963 version when it states that a church’s “scriptural officers are pastors and deacons”; and

Whereas, The New Testament uses all three titles that the Baptist Faith and Message has used to describe the one office of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7), elder (πρεσβύτερος, presbuteros; Acts 14:23, 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17, 19), and pastor (ποιμήν, poimēn; Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:1-5), thus demonstrating that from its first expression in 1925 through its revisions in 1963 and 2000, the Baptist Faith and Message has affirmed that, along with deacon, the only other office in a New Testament church is that of bishop/elder/pastor; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the messengers from Southern Baptist churches convening in the annual meeting in New Orleans on June 13-14, 2023 affirm that the only officers of a local church that the New Testament recognizes is that of deacon and of bishop/elder/pastor; and be it further

Resolved, That Southern Baptist churches be encouraged to remember our biblical heritage and teach that these are the only two officers appointed by Christ to serve along with all the members of a New Testament church and to insist on all the biblical qualifications that the New Testament requires of all those who would hold either office of bishop/elder/pastor or deacon.