The Highway

Double predestination

Posted By: knoxandcalvin

Double predestination - Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:07 PM

Double predestination sound logical.
What you think?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:40 PM

Quote
knoxandcalvin said:
Double predestination sound logical.
What you think?

That all depends on how you define the word "double"? Theologically, there are two opposing views, "Positive" and "Negative". Supralapsarians hold to a "positive" double predestination and Infra/Sublapsarians hold to a "negative" double predestination. For an excellent explanation on these terms and how they are expressed by the two sides, read this article by R.C. Sproul, Sr. here: Double Predestination. bigglasses
In His grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:43 AM

Where does the decree to ransom only the elect and let the reprobates pay for their sins fall within the Infra/Sublapsarian debate? Is it a logical consequence under both systems of the decision to elect some and pass by others?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:59 PM

You need to understand the ORDER of the "Decree(s)" as set forth historically in Systematics. The Supra system does not hold to any "passing by" of the reprobate but rather holds to a "positive" double predestination, i.e., in regard to salvation, both elect and reprobate were predestined to their respective ends before God even determined to create them and without any regard to the Fall.

Read these:

Development of the Doctrine of Predestination - Herman Bavinck

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism - Herman Bavinck
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:21 PM

I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? "Supralapsarian"? "Infralapsarian"? Is a new believer or even a "seeker" (that being someone who has heard the gospel and is actively looking for more answers and a better understanding and are seemingly on their way to "making a decision") going to understand any of this? Beyond that, wouldn't seeing words like that turn them away from the true gospel and rather lead them to follow some false or even a less true gospel simply because they won't feel obligated to be a theology scholar but, rather, a follower of Christ? And isn't being a follower of Christ what matters anyway?

Like I said, I believe in this doctrine, and I am not questioning it. But do we need the big, "ugly" theological words to talk about it? Why can't we explain the various sides of this debate (or any other theological debate for that matter) in terms the regular person can understand? I am sorry to stray from the topic a bit, but all the big words just seem frivolous.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:01 PM

Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? "Supralapsarian"? "Infralapsarian"? Is a new believer or even a "seeker" (that being someone who has heard the gospel and is actively looking for more answers and a better understanding and are seemingly on their way to "making a decision") going to understand any of this? Beyond that, wouldn't seeing words like that turn them away from the true gospel and rather lead them to follow some false or even a less true gospel simply because they won't feel obligated to be a theology scholar but, rather, a follower of Christ? And isn't being a follower of Christ what matters anyway?

Like I said, I believe in this doctrine, and I am not questioning it. But do we need the big, "ugly" theological words to talk about it? Why can't we explain the various sides of this debate (or any other theological debate for that matter) in terms the regular person can understand? I am sorry to stray from the topic a bit, but all the big words just seem frivolous.

Having shortcut ways to explaining doctrines is necessary to communicate. Can you imagine that every time Scripture desired to use the term "law" that it would have to explain the whole book of Deuteronomy "again", or .... ! Theological terms help us communicate more concisely and effectively.

Now as far as a person coming to Christ, I have never had one ask me concerning what happened in the "very beginning" concerning predestination. We don't teach babies to drive cars (though some would probably do a better job driving ..... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" /> ) and in a similar vein we do not teach those coming to Christ every jot and every tittle of Scripture before they come to Christ. There is such a thing as growth in one's faith! However, if in the providence of God the topic arose I would explain it. The Holy Spirit knows what He is doing and is very effective in giving us and others the understanding of truth.

Your question "again" reveals that you have been influenced too much by McLaren and the emerging church--which constantly attacks the doctrine of the Church. Of course, they replace it with their own, for seemingly stating one has no doctrine is in and of itself a doctrine. However, McLaren and company do have doctrines: not believing in an eternal Hell, not believing in the inspiration of Scripture, et. al. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> The emerging Church today tries to impress individuals with this rationalism:

Quote
I am a pilot, but I have never studied flying for they use big terms like, "Accelerometer," "Aerostat," and "Landing." Let's take off together shall we?

I am a heart surgeon, but I have never studied medicine because the terms are to ugly. Let me operate on you?

I am a Christian, but I don't study doctrine for it has big ugly terms in it. Let me lead you today?

Understanding doctrine and doctrinal terms comes from studying it. A person not willing to study that which he is claiming to be true reveals much about that person.

Listen to scripture:

Quote
Proverbs 4:2 For I give you good doctrine; Forsake ye not my law.

Matthew 15:9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.

Ephesians 4:14 that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;

1 Timothy 1:3 As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine,

1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,

1 Timothy 4:6 If thou put the brethren in mind of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast followed

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;

Titus 1:9 holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.

Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine:

Titus 2:7 in all things showing thyself an ensample of good works; in thy doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:46 PM

Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? . . .

[Linked Image] Why are you denigrating the discussion of theology on a THEOLOGY FORUM? And what do such discussions have to do with the irrelevant topic of bringing the Gospel to unbelievers? Start a new thread if you are wanting to discuss your concerns, e.g., what should be the content of the Gospel, etc.

What is relevant and one of the purposes of this Board is summed up nicely by the writer of Hebrews <------- is that too big of a word to use? giggle

Quote
Hebrews 5:11-14 (ASV) "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil."

Anyone desirous of wanting to bring the Good News to sinners had better be skilled in the Scriptures. (2Tim 2:15) And further, that person had better be 100% positive that what he/she is speaking about is the true Gospel and not some dumbed down version that is nothing more than "another gospel". (Gal 1:7, 9)

In His grace,
Posted By: gotribe

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:30 PM

Kalled to Preach, words mean things. They really do. And theological words mean things that are of eternal value and importance.

You certainly wouldn't expect a new employee in a plastics factory, or a soldier in boot camp, or heart surgeons, or a tax accountant not to use the meaningful words of their trades when talking about their work and explaining it to others, would you?

Well, the work of every Christian is the gospel, both to understand it ourselves and to communicate it to others. Using the correct, time honored, agreed-upon-through-creeds-and-confessions theological terms and definitions is not only useful it is desirable because through the use of those precise terms, you end up sharing the gospel precisely and giving the person you are sharing with the "word tools" need to not only talk about the gospel but think about it, too.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:04 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
You need to understand the ORDER of the "Decree(s)" as set forth historically in Systematics. The Supra system does not hold to any "passing by" of the reprobate but rather holds to a "positive" double predestination, i.e., in regard to salvation, both elect and reprobate were predestined to their respective ends before God even determined to create them and without any regard to the Fall.

Read these:

Development of the Doctrine of Predestination - Herman Bavinck

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism - Herman Bavinck


From the articles, I take it that all Reformed Creeds explicitly reject Supralapsarianism? Yet, the dominant Infralapsarian party is content to welcome the Supralapsarians whom I suppose take formal exception to the Infralapsarian articles of the Creeds? This seems odd to me. If these doctrines are adiaphora, why are they even included in the Reformed Creeds?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:17 PM

Quote
speratus said:
From the articles, I take it that all Reformed Creeds explicitly reject Supralapsarianism? Yet, the dominant Infralapsarian party is content to welcome the Supralapsarians whom I suppose take formal exception to the Infralapsarian articles of the Creeds? This seems odd to me. If these doctrines are adiaphora, why are they even included in the Reformed Creeds?

1) Your first assumption is incorrect. Most of the Reformed Confessions do not explicitly reject Supralapsarianism. FYI, the body of men which made up the Westminster Assembly who voted on the WCF, WSC and WLC, consisted of those who held to both views although the supras were a minority. Remember now, Confessions were never meant to be a full-blown Systematic Theology, but rather a summary of the basic truths of the Christian faith. Thus you will not find a definitive statement in regard to the logical order of the decree(s). The Canons of Dordt even hint at Supralapsarianism, more so that the WCF.

2)Nowhere will you find a Calvinist consign this issue to the realm of Adiaphora. It's simply one of those doctrines which is "deduced" and thus open to disagreement. Both sides are in full agreement as to the "telos" of God's foreordination and the subjects included. Indeed, there are definite ramifications for both views when pushed, e.g., it is not uncommon for those who held to Supralapsarianism to fall into hyper-Calvinism. Fortunately, this is not the case with all but only some.

In His grace,
Posted By: William

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:23 AM

Question is open to anyone.

Would it be correct to say that regardless of the negative or positive views both the Infra and Supra positions agree that Election and Reprobation proceed out of God’s eternal good pleasure and agree that anything else is Arminianism.




Reprobation <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:57 AM

Quote
William said:
Would it be correct to say that regardless of the negative or positive views both the Infra and Supra positions agree that Election and Reprobation proceed out of God’s eternal good pleasure and agree that anything else is Arminianism.

Speaking for myself.... I would say your conclusion is 100% correct. However, I would be quick to add that this election and reprobation which originates in God's good pleasure was incontrovertibly UNCONDITIONAL, i.e., it was based solely upon God's good pleasure for reasons solely found within Himself and not due to anything which has to do with the individuals themselves. There are some Arminians who would affirm a "predestination", which when scrutinized amounts to "postdestination" and is based upon "prescience", i.e., a decree after the fact; that fact being the exercising of faith by the yet uncreated person. rolleyes2

In His grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:41 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Nowhere will you find a Calvinist consign this issue to the realm of Adiaphora. It's simply one of those doctrines which is "deduced" and thus open to disagreement. Both sides are in full agreement as to the "telos" of God's foreordination and the subjects included. Indeed, there are definite ramifications for both views when pushed, e.g., it is not uncommon for those who held to Supralapsarianism to fall into hyper-Calvinism. Fortunately, this is not the case with all but only some.


How can any teaching that must be deduced from scripture through a process of human reasoning be anything more than a pious opinion? Doesn't scripture alone establish church doctrine not scripture plus human reason? Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:20 PM

Quote
speratus said:
How can any teaching that must be deduced from scripture through a process of human reasoning be anything more than a pious opinion? Doesn't scripture alone establish church doctrine not scripture plus human reason? Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?

Well my "alien" friend [Linked Image] I don't know how "you" derive biblical doctrine apart from "human reason", but the rest of us mortals have been consigned to use our brains by our Creator for that task. Double Predestination is a doctrine which can be deduced from the Scriptures with confidence of its verity, albeit the exact details of the "order of the decrees" is admittedly speculative and thus the differences expressed by the supras and infras. I think Bavinck has taken the right approach in his articles. Obviously, the doctrine of "Predestination" proper is offensive to the unregenerate mind as history shows including such individuals who lived during the time of Paul. (cf. Rom 9:14f)

In His grace,
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 AM

Quote
speratus amazingly said:
How can any teaching that must be deduced from scripture through a process of human reasoning be anything more than a pious opinion? Doesn't scripture alone establish church doctrine not scripture plus human reason? Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?


Speratus have you ever read Luther's response to the Diet of Worms? Let me quote you a specific portion.
Quote
If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his country. I stand here and can say no more. God help me.


Even Luther recognized that reason must be imployed when discerning correct doctrine. So how can you a Lutheran deny its use?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:44 AM

Pilgrim

Thanks for the article, Sproul is one of my favorites for helping me understand doctrine better.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:41 PM

Quote
Boanerges said:

Speratus have you ever read Luther's response to the Diet of Worms? Let me quote you a specific portion.
Quote
If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his country. I stand here and can say no more. God help me.


Even Luther recognized that reason must be imployed when discerning correct doctrine. So how can you a Lutheran deny its use?


Luther also said "Reason is the devil's whore." As a Lutheran, I am bound to scripture alone (Formula of Concord, Rule and Norm) not scripture plus reason.

Since the fall, man's mental powers are corrupted. Only when man is regenerate and to the extent the Holy Spirit illuminates him does he begin to understand the scriptures. But this understanding does not come through man's inherited defective reason.

The Supra/Infralapsarian debates are simply rationalizing attempts to rescue a failed "double predestination" doctrine which only hyper-Calvinists can accept. The rest of the Calvinists refuse to take "double predestination" to its logical and unscriptural conclusion.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:27 PM

Quote
Luther also said "Reason is the devil's whore." As a Lutheran, I am bound to scripture alone (Formula of Concord, Rule and Norm) not scripture plus reason.

Speratus, if you believe in no reason then why post this reasoning post, which gives the reason for your lack of reason and is void of Scripture alone? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" /> Luther was not opposed to reason, he was opposed to reason alone, that was not subordinate to the Scripture Alone ..... . When Cardinal Cajetan first demanded Luther’s recantation of the Ninety-Five Theses, Luther appealed to scripture and right reason. The 95 Thesis even state, "Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture..." (oh my goodness, reason is even mentioned before the Scripture, bad Luther, bad Luther [Linked Image]). To Luther, reason can be an aid to faith in that it helps to clarify and organize, but it is always second-order discourse. It is, following St. Anselm, fides quarenes intellectum (faith seeking understanding) and never the reverse. Reason is the devil’s whore precisely because it asks the wrong questions and looks in the wrong direction for answers if not subordinated to faith and God's Word.

Why don't you put your britches back on and read Luther in context.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination - Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:50 AM

Speratus said:
Quote
The Supra/Infralapsarian debates are simply rationalizing attempts to rescue a failed "double predestination" doctrine which only hyper-Calvinists can accept. The rest of the Calvinists refuse to take "double predestination" to its logical and unscriptural conclusion.



<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />
Speratus, if you truly understood the doctrine of "double predestination" you would understand that it is NOT a doctrine held by only hyper-Calvinists. In fact it is a doctrine that is held by the majority of Calvinists and down through history.
Here are a few Reformed confessions that affirm the positive-negative schema.
The Reformed Confession: 1536
French Confession of Faith: 1559
The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561
The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566
The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643
Of course what I am talking about is not the "positive- positive" side, but the "positive-negative" side of the issue. I am not sure if you a deliberately misrepresenting Calvinists, or just ignorant of these matters. I don’t mind that you don’t agree with Calvinists, but it isn’t very Christian to misrepresent people.

In case you didn’t read the article that Pilgrim gave the link to by RC Sproul, I will post it again for you.
http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

I highly recommend that you read this article, but if you choose not to, here is something from the article to consider.
Please notice the quotes from Luther.

Quote
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."2 Luther continued:
When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2
Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.


Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:38 AM

Tom writes,

Quote
Speratus, if you truly understood the doctrine of "double predestination" you would understand that it is NOT a doctrine held by only hyper-Calvinists. In fact it is a doctrine that is held by the majority of Calvinists and down through history.
Here are a few Reformed confessions that affirm the positive-negative schema.
The Reformed Confession: 1536
French Confession of Faith: 1559
The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561
The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566
The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643
Of course what I am talking about is not the "positive- positive" side, but the "positive-negative" side of the issue. I am not sure if you a deliberately misrepresenting Calvinists, or just ignorant of these matters. I don’t mind that you don’t agree with Calvinists, but it isn’t very Christian to misrepresent people.


I don't wish to misrepresent Calvinism. Please correct me where I am in error. I recognize that a symmetrical double predestination is a distortion of historic Calvinism.

However, does not historic Calvinism include a decree of election and a decree of reprobation? How can the decree of reprobation not be the cause of the result no matter in what order God sets events in motion? This what I meant by Supra/Infralapsarianism rescuing a failed doctrine.

Tom continues,

Quote
I highly recommend that you read this article, but if you choose not to, here is something from the article to consider.
Please notice the quotes from Luther.


Yes, I read the article before I commented. And I agree with the points Sproul is making with his Luther citations. However, it does not follow from those citations that Luther is advocating for a decree of reprobation in his "Bondage of the Will".
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:48 PM

Quote
speratus said:
However, does not historic Calvinism include a decree of election and a decree of reprobation? How can the decree of reprobation not be the cause of the result no matter in what order God sets events in motion? This what I meant by Supra/Infralapsarianism rescuing a failed doctrine.

So, is your problem with the Bible's teaching concerning predestination the doctrine of Unconditional Election, Reprobation or both? Actually, it's very simple really. If (since) God is the Sovereign LORD and He has foreordained all things according to His immutable will then it stands that NOTHING whatsoever comes into being or occurs which He has not decreed in eternity. Therefore, the end of all men has been eternally decreed by God; to glory or damnation, aka: Election or Reprobation.

Now, are you wanting to reject the doctrine of Predestination, Unconditional Election and Reprobation and substitute what? Certainly you do not side with the semi-Pelagians and Arminians and hold that man's decision, whether allegedly foreseen or actual is the ultimate determining cause of their salvation, do you?

Here is a thorough exposition of: Reprobation Asserted by John Bunyan.

And the pièce de résistance on the doctrine of God's eternal predestination is also on The Highway here: Calvin's Calvinism, translated by Henry Cole.

In His grace,
Posted By: li0scc0

Re: Double predestination - Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:24 PM

It all comes down to whose sins were atoned for on the cross (atonement, objectively justified, etc.). Was it the world (all mankind)? Or was it those who will come to faith (the elect)?

If it was the world then double predestination is wrong.
If it was only the elect then double predestination is correct.

Steve
Posted By: William

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:05 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?


Sproul, Luther, logical consequence, a failed "double predestination"? What can be more clearer than Romans 9:20-21?

[color:"0000FF"]20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one [color:"FF0000"]vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour[/color]?[/color]

Man (the creature)
Clay (same lump)
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:37 AM

Speratus said:
Quote
However, does not historic Calvinism include a decree of election and a decree of reprobation? How can the decree of reprobation not be the cause of the result no matter in what order God sets events in motion? This what I meant by Supra/Infralapsarianism rescuing a failed doctrine.


As Pilgrim said in his response:
Quote
Actually, it's very simple really. If (since) God is the Sovereign LORD and He has foreordained all things according to His immutable will then it stands that NOTHING whatsoever comes into being or occurs which He has not decreed in eternity. Therefore, the end of all men has been eternally decreed by God; to glory or damnation, aka: Election or Reprobation.


If God chooses to save some and leave others in their sin, I ask you, how can double predestination not be true?
If God chooses to leave some in their sin, it is still a choice made by God. The result of course, for those whom God leaves in their sin, is that they are predestined to damnation.
This is not rocket science.

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:36 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
So, is your problem with the Bible's teaching concerning predestination the doctrine of Unconditional Election, Reprobation or both?


There is no biblical doctrine of Reprobation only a human doctrine of Reprobation built on man's reason. Even your champion of Reprobation can only argue indirectly through reason (i.e., "By rest here, must needs be understood those not elect, because set one in opposition to the other; and if not elect, what then but reprobate?".
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:07 AM

Quote
William said:
Quote
speratus said:
Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?


Sproul, Luther, logical consequence, a failed "double predestination"? What can be more clearer than Romans 9:20-21?

[color:"0000FF"]20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one [color:"FF0000"]vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour[/color]?[/color]

Man (the creature)
Clay (same lump)


Where is it written that God makes the vessel dishonourable? By itself, this passage does not prove election or reprobation but merely foreknowledge. Verse 23 proves election by God but verse 22 does not reprobation by God since the passsage does not say who fits the vessels of wrath to destruction.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:24 AM

Quote
Tom said:
If God chooses to save some and leave others in their sin, I ask you, how can double predestination not be true?
If God chooses to leave some in their sin, it is still a choice made by God. The result of course, for those whom God leaves in their sin, is that they are predestined to damnation.
This is not rocket science.

Tom


Once you start down the path of human reason you must continue it to its logical conclusion. If God chooses to leave men in their sins, is He not the cause of their damnation?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:39 PM

Quote
speratus said:
There is no biblical doctrine of Reprobation only a human doctrine of Reprobation built on man's reason. Even your champion of Reprobation can only argue indirectly through reason (i.e., "By rest here, must needs be understood those not elect, because set one in opposition to the other; and if not elect, what then but reprobate?".

speratus,

How long will you kick against the goads? Your rebuttals are definitely becoming more and more illogical, never mind anti-biblical. Once more and then I'm through with any further discussion of this topic with you:

IF you agree that God has foreordained ALL THINGS according to His sovereign will (Is 43:9, 10; cf. Psa 135:6; Prov 21:30; Dan 4:35; Rom 9:11ff; 11:33-36; et al), then of necessity, not fallible human reason, since the end of men is a "thing", then God has incontrovertibly decreed it. You stand against Scripture, the testimony of the Church, and yes, even sound reason which God requires men to use and with which we have come to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and every other doctrine of the Christian faith. Deal with it.

BTW, I have no champion but Christ.


Romans 9:9-13 (ASV) "For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac -- for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


So, before these two individuals were born, God had loved Jacob and thus elected him to salvation. And contrariwise God hated Esau and thus _______ him to eternal damnation. Now, you go ahead and fill in the blank. You don't like the word "reprobate[d]"? fine.. give me a better one. But the undeniable fact is that God's predestination includes both love toward and hatred of individuals; aka: salvation and damnation. Unless God has determined the end of those who are destined to hell, as well as those destined to glory, then you are left with a god Who is not the God Who has revealed Himself in Scripture as the SOVEREIGN LORD, but the "reasonable" god of man's imagination.

In His sovereign grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:16 PM

Quote
Speratus says to William,

Where is it written that God makes the vessel dishonourable? By itself, this passage does not prove election or reprobation but merely foreknowledge. Verse 23 proves election by God but verse 22 does not reprobation by God since the passsage does not say who fits the vessels of wrath to destruction.

Speratus, this is kind of hard to miss, but I will highlight it for you none-the-less;

Quote
Rom 9:20-21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

God has predestined some, but not all to election. Clearly this verse says God makes some unto honor and others unto dishonour. The question is how does He do the making—which I will get to below.

You CLAIM that God ONLY has foreknowledge (which is Arminian to the core). Think about what this means? If God has foreknowledge and does not stop a person from being reprobate what is this? If God takes no positive action to elect what is this? Is this not Reprobation?

Your problem in understanding this is seen in your statement to Tom below and because of your misunderstanding of Adam and his sin (which has been discussed before). What did you say to Tom?

Quote
Speratus said to Tom,

Once you start down the path of human reason you must continue it to its logical conclusion. If God chooses to leave men in their sins, is He not the cause of their damnation?

You think we are saying that God decrees election and reprobation in the same way, but that is not Reformed Theology. God does not actively decree man to sin, as Adam (the covenant head of the entire human race) already accomplished this on his own, et. al. As Sproul states, “In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.” God works regeneration monergistically but never sin, because He does not need to because sin and the sin nature already have a set course.

Though illustrations are imperfect maybe this will help:

Two men are hanging from a volcanic cliff. They are both desperate and cannot help themselves. Unless I reach my hand out and help them, they will plunder to their deaths. Both men though are guilty of the murder and rape of my wife and the molestation of my daughter. Neither is worthy of my assistance. However, I reach down and only save one of the men.

EACH made a decision to sin. BOTH deserved death. However, because of things within me (not them) I choose to save one and not the other. I made a choice for each man. I made one man live and made another die.

(this illustration is very limited and should not be stretched to far.... as it fails to cover many other issues in predestination, such as God making this decision before the actual events, etc... ). For a more complete illustration, read that thing some people call "a Bible" (Rom 9). [Linked Image]
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:28 PM

Quote
speratus said:

Where is it written that God makes the vessel dishonourable? By itself, this passage does not prove election or reprobation but merely foreknowledge. Verse 23 proves election by God but verse 22 does not reprobation by God since the passsage does not say who fits the vessels of wrath to destruction.


Oh right, Speratus, just like we don't know who prepares the vessels of mercy beforehand for glory! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:36 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
So, before these two individuals were born, God had loved Jacob and thus elected him to salvation. And contrariwise God hated Esau and thus _______ him to eternal damnation. Now, you go ahead and fill in the blank. You don't like the word "reprobate[d]"? fine.. give me a better one. But the undeniable fact is that God's predestination includes both love toward and hatred of individuals; aka: salvation and damnation. Unless God has determined the end of those who are destined to hell, as well as those destined to glory, then you are left with a god Who is not the God Who has revealed Himself in Scripture as the SOVEREIGN LORD, but the "reasonable" god of man's imagination.

In His sovereign grace,


Are you saying nothing more than Esau is necessarily damnable according to that which God in His impeccable goodness, perfect justice, and the immutability of His hatred ordained before the foundation of the world? Or, are you assigning to God a purpose to cause Esau to be damnable? If yes, that is my objection to word "reprobation."
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:04 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
You CLAIM that God ONLY has foreknowledge (which is Arminian to the core).


No, I said the referenced versed did not prove predestination. Other verses do prove that God ordains all events.

Quote
J Edward continues
Think about what this means? If God has foreknowledge and does not stop a person from being reprobate what is this? If God takes no positive action to elect what is this? Is this not Reprobation?


No, reprobation would be God causing a person to be damnable.

Quote
J EdwardsYour problem in understanding this is seen in your statement to Tom below and because of your misunderstanding of Adam and his sin (which has been discussed before). What did you say to Tom?

Quote
Speratus said to Tom,

Once you start down the path of human reason you must continue it to its logical conclusion. If God chooses to leave men in their sins, is He not the cause of their damnation?

You think we are saying that God decrees election and reprobation in the same way, but that is not Reformed Theology. God does not actively decree man to sin, as Adam (the covenant head of the entire human race) already accomplished this on his own, et. al. As Sproul states, “In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives.” God works regeneration monergistically but never sin, because He does not need to because sin and the sin nature already have a set course.


I understand the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. I am saying Calvinism is illogical. God could easily save everyone. God doesn't simply pass by. He chooses to pass by.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:07 PM

Quote
speratus said:
Are you saying nothing more than Esau is necessarily damnable according to that which God in His impeccable goodness, perfect justice, and the immutability of His hatred ordained before the foundation of the world? Or, are you assigning to God a purpose to cause Esau to be damnable? If yes, that is my objection to word "reprobation."

I'm saying what I have already written, which was basically nothing more than a paraphrase of what SPIRIT of GOD wrote in Romans 9. Before they were born, God determined to love the sinner Jacob, who was under condemnation by virtue of his being a member of the human race and elected him to salvation. And, likewise, Esau, being a sinner and thus under the just condemnation of God, he also being a member of the human race, God determined to withhold His mercy and consign him to hell, aka: reprobation/preterition.

You can play your silly evasive games all you like but it cannot blot out the indisputable truth of Scripture concerning God's sovereignty in ALL THINGS. You can deceive yourself if you like, which you obvious have by consciously avoiding the myriad biblical passages which teach these things, which is nothing more than the fruit of sin-plagued "reasoning", which hates the truth and substitutes it with a lie. Again.... God loved Jacob and thus elected him to salvation in Christ. God hated Esau and thus _________ him to damnation. Fill in the blank. But whatever word you choose, it will always result in the same thing... i.e., God determined to not save Esau and thus consigned him to a just damnation.


"All God's people, sooner or later, are brought to this point — to see that God has a 'people,' 'a peculiar people,' a people separate from the world, a people whom He has 'formed for Himself, that they should show forth His praise.' Election sooner or later, is riveted in the hearts of God's people. And a man, that lives and dies against this blessed doctrine, lives and dies in his sins; and if he dies in that enmity, he will be damned in that enmity." - J. C. Philpot.

"The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will!" - Jonathan Edwards


In His sovereign grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:47 PM

Quote
Spearatus says,

God could easily save everyone. God doesn't simply pass by. He chooses to pass by.

And when God chooses to pass by what do YOU call this?


I will not address the rest of your post at this time as, <p align="center">
[Linked Image]</p>
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:31 PM

Well Paul didn't have any problem with it. Romans 9:18-21, are you going to make the same accusation about him?

Tom
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 PM

Speratus

Your refusing to fill in the blanks tells me that you are afraid of the answers, to which you know deep down are true.
In a way, I can understand where you are coming from. It caused me a lot of anguish trying to find loop holes out of this, but in the end I realized that I needed to submit to what I knew to be true.
Looking back over that time, I now realize that my real problem was that I was looking at the matter through my own eyes, instead of my sovereign Lord's eyes.
When I realized this, it was like a light went on.

Tom
Posted By: William

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:29 PM

OK I tried, however your reply makes me quite sad. I am greatful though for your posts and the posts the others have made. Here is something I thought was quite good and even beautiful if thought upon. Sorry about the cut and paste.


Quote
. . . when preaching on election and reprobation, we must not place them dualistically over against each other. They are not on the same level. They are not corresponding halves of the same thing, but together they form a unity. Reprobation should always be presented as subordinate to election, as serving the latter according to God's counsel. From this it follows that reprobation should not be preached with a certain delight in the doctrine. He who is forever preaching reprobation shows not only that he is harsh and cruel, but also that he has not understood the work of the Lord God. God's love remains the central thought. He has chosen in His eternal love; and, for the sake of this love, He has also reprobated. Thus all God's work becomes a beautiful organic unity. In this way He is and remains God, and He alone. Thus, at the conclusion of all this, we exclaim in adoration with the apostle, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; for of him and through him and to him are all things! To him be glory forever!"

The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel
Herman Hoeksema
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:42 AM

Quote
Tom said:
Well Paul didn't have any problem with it. Romans 9:18-21, are you going to make the same accusation about him?

Tom


Paul, unlike Calvinists, carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of devil and of man, who made himself a vessel of dishonor at the instigation of the devil. Thus, the devil and man are the cause of men being fitted for destruction not an unbiblical decree of reprobation.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:02 AM

Quote
Paul, unlike Calvinists, carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of devil and of man, who made himself a vessel of dishonor at the instigation of the devil. Thus, the devil and man are the cause of men being fitted for destruction not an unbiblical decree of reprobation.

Paul, unlike an Arminian, wrote the Scripture which empathically states, “hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Rom 9:21). Speratus says man is to be credited with reprobation (man is now making eternal decrees before he is born... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />), however what sayeth the Scripture; "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy" (Rom 9:16). Does John agree? John says, "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Speratus, “who art thou that repliest against God?” (Rom 9:20). Speratus now attributes the work of God to Satan! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Speratus do you know the difference between an eternal decree and works (of men, of angels)? Please show me some verses of angels making eternal decrees?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:37 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Paul, unlike Calvinists, carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of devil and of man, who made himself a vessel of dishonor at the instigation of the devil. Thus, the devil and man are the cause of men being fitted for destruction not an unbiblical decree of reprobation.

Your scathing accusations are not welcome here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

Again, since you have professed to hold that ALL THINGS have been foreordained by God, yet you state that men fit themselves for destruction, contrary to Paul's inspired statements in Romans 9:21, 22 and Peter also in 1Peter 2:7, 8, it begs the question: "WHEN did/does God decree the end of the wicked to destruction?". Calvinists are in agreement with the Scriptures and hold that God's decree(s) are from eternity, which of necessity includes God's foreordination/predestination of reprobation for the wicked. Do you hold to a form of "Open Theism" whereby God sits in the heavens in ignorance about those whom He has not elected to salvation? Truly, if God has not elected an individual, what other end is there awaiting him/her?

Again, this is all soooooooo simple. If there is one opening for a job and there are two applicants contending for the position and the boss chooses one, then he has of necessity also chosen to reject the other. Even a child can comprehend such things. But truly, only a child of God can and will accept God's indisputable sovereignty and right to save whom He will and to damn whom He will. "Salvation is of the Lord." (Jonah 2:9)

In His grace,
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:10 AM

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazyeyes.gif" alt="" /> Where pray tell, does Paul say that?

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:14 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Paul, unlike Calvinists, carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of devil and of man, who made himself a vessel of dishonor at the instigation of the devil. Thus, the devil and man are the cause of men being fitted for destruction not an unbiblical decree of reprobation.

Paul, unlike an Arminian, wrote the Scripture which empathically states, “hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” (Rom 9:21). Speratus says man is to be credited with reprobation (man is now making eternal decrees before he is born... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />), however what sayeth the Scripture; "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy" (Rom 9:16). Does John agree? John says, "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Speratus, “who art thou that repliest against God?” (Rom 9:20). Speratus now attributes the work of God to Satan! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Speratus do you know the difference between an eternal decree and works (of men, of angels)? Please show me some verses of angels making eternal decrees?


Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:32 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
speratus said:
Paul, unlike Calvinists, carefully distinguishes between the work of God, who alone prepares vessels of honor, and the work of devil and of man, who made himself a vessel of dishonor at the instigation of the devil. Thus, the devil and man are the cause of men being fitted for destruction not an unbiblical decree of reprobation.

Your scathing accusations are not welcome here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />


I will refrain from accusations against Calvinists.

Quote
Pilgrim continues
Again, since you have professed to hold that ALL THINGS have been foreordained by God, yet you state that men fit themselves for destruction, contrary to Paul's inspired statements in Romans 9:21, 22 and Peter also in 1Peter 2:7, 8, it begs the question: "WHEN did/does God decree the end of the wicked to destruction?". Calvinists are in agreement with the Scriptures and hold that God's decree(s) are from eternity, which of necessity includes God's foreordination/predestination of reprobation for the wicked. Do you hold to a form of "Open Theism" whereby God sits in the heavens in ignorance about those whom He has not elected to salvation? Truly, if God has not elected an individual, what other end is there awaiting him/her?

Again, this is all soooooooo simple. If there is one opening for a job and there are two applicants contending for the position and the boss chooses one, then he has of necessity also chosen to reject the other. Even a child can comprehend such things. But truly, only a child of God can and will accept God's indisputable sovereignty and right to save whom He will and to damn whom He will. "Salvation is of the Lord." (Jonah 2:9)

In His grace,


God foreordains all events. God could just as easily save all as some. The blood of Christ is of infinite merit.

Can we therefore conclude that God's purpose in permitting events which appear evil to us is to cause the damnation of the reprobate? No, God's purpose is to cause the salvation of the elect. Thus, the salvation of the elect is taken out of their own hands and placed in the hands of Almigthy God whose purpose can not fail. On the other hand, God does not purpose the damnation of any (choose to pass by). The damned are justly condemned by their own sin.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:35 PM

Quote
Tom said:
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazyeyes.gif" alt="" /> Where pray tell, does Paul say that?

Tom


Romans 5:12-19
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:45 PM

Quote
Speratus syas

Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor.

These verses are not isolated. What of Esau (Rom 9:11, 13)? Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God! Proverbs 16:4 states,“The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” and Peter concurs, saying "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:8) and again, "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption" (2 Peter 2:12). Jude sums up this decree of reprobation saying, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). All these men were made from the same lump, and thus, if as you say the reprobabte had a "will" in what happened to themsleves, then so would the elect, but this does away with (1) election, (2) the sovereignty of God, (3) salvation by grace alone,... i.e. the whole Gospel.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:45 PM

Quote


God foreordains all events. God could just as easily save all as some. The blood of Christ is of infinite merit.

Can we therefore conclude that God's purpose in permitting events which appear evil to us is to cause the damnation of the reprobate? No, God's purpose is to cause the salvation of the elect. Thus, the salvation of the elect is taken out of their own hands and placed in the hands of Almigthy God whose purpose can not fail. On the other hand, God does not purpose the damnation of any (choose to pass by). The damned are justly condemned by their own sin.



Everything stems from the purpose of God. Augustine started this "passing by" of which Sproul adheres to also. This is done to take God off the hook for the damnation of individuals.

The problem arises when one concludes, as an ifra does, that God views man as fallen the decrees. This cannot be. God is not bound by anything in man. Sin is not in His mind when the purpose fo God is set forth in eternity. The key is in the phrase "The same lump". Now is this lump fallen or is it not? Scripture confirms that it is not fallen. FOr if it was, then sin would be the cause of reprobation. God will not purpose anything based on what is found in man. I believe this is where the infras error. They call it unconditional, but then view sin as the condition of reprobation. It cannot be both ways. Both election and reprobation find their cause in the free triune God. And neither is believing the reason for election, nor unbelief the reason for repobation. God remains free from all external actions of men when purposing His decree. God is Sovereign in both election and reprobation. IF sin were the cause for reprobation, then all would be reprobated because all have sinned.. THis by no means makes God the cause of sin in individuals. Because the elect also sin. Reprobation MUST be distinguished between condemnation. Men are condemned justly for their sin, men are reprobated is a sovereign act of God.

One MUST remeber God elected/reprobated without viewing men as created or sinful. Reprobation is more than just a passing by of fallen men. IT is a positive determination ordained from eternity only for the Glory of God.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:58 PM

Joe k,

Hopefully, you have read through all the posts of this thread and you noticed the links to at least 3 articles on this subject. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Bavinck rightly finds these objections to the Supralapsarian position:

Quote
1. Supra is correct when it maintains that God's glory is the final goal of all God's works, but the manner in which that goal will be realized is not thereby given; it is incorrect to say that in the eternal perdition of the reprobate God reveals his justice only and that in the eternal salvation of the elect he reveals his mercy exclusively.

2. According to supra the decree of predestination has for its object possible men and a possible Redeemer; but just how are we to conceive of a decree concerning possible men whose actual future existence has not even been determined? 3. Supra makes the damnation of the reprobate the object of the divine will IN THE SAME SENSE as the salvation of the elect. This position is not sustained by Scripture. (from the author's article: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism)

However, in regard to the topic of THIS thread, both the Supra and Infra views affirm that God did decree the reprobation of men and justly condemns them to eternal damnation.

In His grace,
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:28 PM

Pilgrim:

HB does a decent job on the subject, but fails in one instance. He like all infras, do not make the distinction between reprobation and condemnation. God most certainly does have the end in mind,the salvation of the elect in Christ, vs the just damnation of the reprobate dying in infallible unbelief. Scripture most certainly speaks upon this sequence.

1) Election of the people
2) the means of salvation through Christ
3)the purpose=His glory.

I do not understand HB's objections. And could be a mere talking past each other.

His use of possible men/possible redeemer make littel sense as if the council of God were a mere figmnet and not infallibly derterminate. Anyway, that is my take on HB not willing to digress this thread.

The point of my post was to verify that people who claim that reprobation is not active, make sin/ fallen man the cause of reprobation. Just as Messias is not the cause for Election, sin is not the cause for reprobation.

“Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them, (John 12:39,40);

There is no such thing as conditional election nor conditional reprobation.

So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

I would never break fellowship over this, and believe the supra camp comes close to making God the "author of sin" in some writings of men, but because a few people ruin the truth, does not make it less true.

William Twisse has one of the best writings on the subject. Even though the WCF is basically infra, WT, the chairman, was most assuredly supra.

http://members.aol.com/Graceordained/twisse.html

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/beza.html

http://geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/supralap.html
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:32 PM

Quote
speratus said:

Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.


Why would Paul make this teleological defense if God did not reprobate some? He's been arguing exactly that God has reprobated some, leaving them in their sins: Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh. Whereas He has elected some to save from their sins: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. In response to the indignant man who cries out, "Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" Paul makes clear that it is God's prerogative to do as He pleases, preparing some vessels for destruction and some for glory, all with the purpose of showing forth His own glory. This argument makes no sense if it is a mere hypothetical, especially since Paul goes on to show how this is a fulfillment of prophecy!
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:22 PM

Quote
Joe k said:
So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

Joe,

What I can agree with is that the term "passes by" can be easily misconstrued to mean something "passive", i.e., a non-action on the part of God. However, the euphemistic use of the term doesn't negate the actual view held by Infra's. No doubt you already are privy to what I'm about to explain, but I'm doing so for the benefit of those who do not know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The Infralapsarian position holds to a "positive-negative" predestination. That is, in regard to the elect and salvation, God "positively", i.e., actively intervenes in their lives and actually creates a new disposition which infallibly unites with Christ by faith securing their justification and final glorification. In short, God actively "changes" the elect so that they are reconciled to God through Christ. On the other hand, in regard to the reprobate who will be ultimately damned, God also decrees who those individuals are and their ultimate end. However, in their case, the decree is "negative", i.e., God does not "change" anything in the reprobate in order to make them "fit for destruction". The reprobate are by nature "fit for destruction" and thus God is not "active (aka: positively active) in their case. Thus the term "pass by" has been used specifically to distinguish between the active intervention of God, by His Spirit (regeneration, conversation, sanctification) of the elect and the non-active intervention of God in the damnation of the reprobate.

It is true, that God is indeed "active" in regard to the reprobate, but it is to be found in His providence and not in their just condemnation. In short, God uses the reprobate for the benefit of the elect and even the world in general (common grace) by restraining the outworking of their depravity and for His own glory. But God does not take a good or "neutral" (an impossibility) individual and make them evil and then decree them reprobate.

BTW, Herman Bavinck does not embrace Infralapsarianism. He holds to a tenuous position somewhere in between, which I tend to do also. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:38 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Joe k said:
So when one objects, or ends up in the sproul, HB, "passing by" camp, one has not learned rightly that God is not passive in anything. Including the reprobation/condemnation of men.

Joe,

What I can agree with is that the term "passes by" can be easily misconstrued to mean something "passive", i.e., a non-action on the part of God. However, the euphemistic use of the term doesn't negate the actual view held by Infra's. No doubt you already are privy to what I'm about to explain, but I'm doing so for the benefit of those who do not know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The Infralapsarian position holds to a "positive-negative" predestination. That is, in regard to the elect and salvation, God "positively", i.e., actively intervenes in their lives and actually creates a new disposition which infallibly unites with Christ by faith securing their justification and final glorification. In short, God actively "changes" the elect so that they are reconciled to God through Christ. On the other hand, in regard to the reprobate who will be ultimately damned, God also decrees who those individuals are and their ultimate end. However, in their case, the decree is "negative", i.e., God does not "change" anything in the reprobate in order to make them "fit for destruction". The reprobate are by nature "fit for destruction" and thus God is not "active (aka: positively active) in their case. Thus the term "pass by" has been used specifically to distinguish between the active intervention of God, by His Spirit (regeneration, conversation, sanctification) of the elect and the non-active intervention of God in the damnation of the reprobate.

It is true, that God is indeed "active" in regard to the reprobate, but it is to be found in His providence and not in their just condemnation. In short, God uses the reprobate for the benefit of the elect and even the world in general (common grace) by restraining the outworking of their depravity and for His own glory. But God does not take a good or "neutral" (an impossibility) individual and make them evil and then decree them reprobate.



In His grace,


WE must keep in mind that the decree of reprobation does not make one fallen. But God most certainly has the end in view, their just condemnation while forming out of the same lump. God did not just create, then decide who to elect or reprobate. Both Election/reprobation have cause, means,result.

COnfusion aruses when one equates reprobation/election with conduct. Election does not result in lack of sin, and reprobation does not result in more sin. That is why it is only because it seemed good in His sight. God purposely created out of the same lump with salvation for the elect and damnation for the reprobate. But as I mentioned earlier, reprobation is according to His sovereignty, condemnation is His just righteoussness. God actively witholds forgiveness, repentance,faith from the reprobate.

The reason the infra thinking fails is becuase once man is fallen, what would God have to d to make them more fallen? It is circular reasoning. That is why the decree took place without the fall/sin in the picture. How can one reprobate a fallen creature? There is no need to. But this makes man responsible for his reprobation. By God actively, positively/negatively decreeing reprobation prior to the fall, Man is thereby left in his sin, and condemned justly for it. AS proverbs 16:4 states.

Prov 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,Even the wicked for the day of evil"

Thanks pilgrim for the dialogue.

The reprobate are not created unredeemable as some may suggest, they are created for a purpose, and not covered by the Atonement.

It appears the fellow here has a hard time, with a hard concept. AS soon as man says "I dont understand... or Why would God..." We must concede right then and there.
Posted By: gnarley

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:10 AM

The alternative flower is "he loves me, he loves me not, etc
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:57 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Speratus syas

Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor.

These verses are not isolated. What of Esau (Rom 9:11, 13)? Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God! Proverbs 16:4 states,“The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” and Peter concurs, saying "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:8) and again, "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption" (2 Peter 2:12). Jude sums up this decree of reprobation saying, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). All these men were made from the same lump, and thus, if as you say the reprobabte had a "will" in what happened to themsleves, then so would the elect, but this does away with (1) election, (2) the sovereignty of God, (3) salvation by grace alone,... i.e. the whole Gospel.


1. Romans 9:10-13 refers to events post-fall. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed in the womb to sinful Esau but it is to Jacob by faith in the coming Savior.
2, Prov. 16:4 says God made all things according to His plan. It does not say God caused the wickedness of any thing. God pronounces His creation "very good" in Gen. 1:31. The wicked remain under His government for the day of evil.
3. In 1 Peter 2:8, we see God foreordained their disobedience but the verse does not say God caused their sin of stumbling at the word.
4. 2 Peter 2:12 does not say that God caused the corruption of the false teachers wherein they were beasts to be taken and destroyed.
5. No one has argued against the foreordination of events described in Jude 4.
6. Fallen men from the same lump have no free will to do good or to do evil. Thus, (1) election, (2) the sovereignty of God, (3) salvation by grace alone are preserved.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:41 PM

Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
speratus said:

Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.


Why would Paul make this teleological defense if God did not reprobate some? He's been arguing exactly that God has reprobated some, leaving them in their sins: Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh. Whereas He has elected some to save from their sins: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. In response to the indignant man who cries out, "Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" Paul makes clear that it is God's prerogative to do as He pleases, preparing some vessels for destruction and some for glory, all with the purpose of showing forth His own glory. This argument makes no sense if it is a mere hypothetical, especially since Paul goes on to show how this is a fulfillment of prophecy!


I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:53 PM

Quote
speratus said:

I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor.


"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21).

Looks to me like Paul is saying that God makes another vessel for dishonor.

Quote
Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor.


I don't disagree that Adam sinned and, as a result, all men are condemned. Yet this condemnation was imposed by God Himself. It's not as though the condemnation is some bare natural consequence.

Quote
In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


What do you make of God hardening Pharaoh's heart? For this God most certainly did, and not unjustly since Pharaoh was a sinner deserving only condemnation. Furthermore, it has already been shown to you multiple times that God does make vessels of dishonor. The only way to deny that is to ignore what the text says.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:56 PM

Quote
6. Fallen men from the same lump have no free will to do good or to do evil.


Do fallen men have any will to do evil? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:06 PM

Quote
speratus said:
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
speratus said:

Again, you are going beyond the scriptures to construct a doctrine that does not exist. Romans 9:21 says God has the authority from one lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. Isolated from other verses, there is nothing here that says that God makes a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor. Romans 9:21 is not a proof text for predestination of election or reprobation. Your other reference texts are proof texts for election not reprobation.


Why would Paul make this teleological defense if God did not reprobate some? He's been arguing exactly that God has reprobated some, leaving them in their sins: Ishmael, Esau, and Pharaoh. Whereas He has elected some to save from their sins: Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. In response to the indignant man who cries out, "Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?" Paul makes clear that it is God's prerogative to do as He pleases, preparing some vessels for destruction and some for glory, all with the purpose of showing forth His own glory. This argument makes no sense if it is a mere hypothetical, especially since Paul goes on to show how this is a fulfillment of prophecy!


I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


Speratus, are we reading the same verse? It is the whole of Romans 9. Not one verse in isolation. You are confused about what reprobation actually means, and it is common. One thing it does not mean is that God makes people EVIL or Sinners. Just look at those elected, Moses was a muderer, Noah was a drunk, Abraham a polygamist, David an adulterer and murderer, etc etc etc. The irony is compare these people to those in MAtt 7 whom the Lord condemns as He never KNEW them. These people appeared "good". You must stop thinking that those who espouse an active, postitive action by God to reprobate, does not at all mean he created them with some extreme evil. But He does create them with their damnation in view. Hence their continued unbelief, continued disobedience, continued sin that is not redeemed by the blood of Christ. Plus I keep harping on this point, Reprobation is His Sovereignty, Condemnation is His justice. Just like Election is His Sovereignty and Salvation in His Mercy.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:13 PM

This is one of THE BEST articles on the Supra Position. Found here on this site: I will no longer discuss this issue, when GH far outweighs my understanding and abilities.


Click here to read the article: http://www.the-highway.com/Election_Kersten.html
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Posting long articles here - Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:21 PM

PLEASE do not copy/paste long articles, especially when they can be found on another website to which you can simply supply a link. Server space a commodity and bandwidth is costly and those still using dialup often suffer from longer page loading times when such long messages are posted. If there is no current link to an article you would like for others to read, you can then add the article as an attachment.

So, if you have a link to the article by Kersten, please supply it and I will remove the contents of it from your post above.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:21 PM

Quote
speratus said:
I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


So in one case the Potter is God and the devil is also the potter? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/broke.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:03 PM

Quote
CovenantInBlood said:
Quote
speratus said:

I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor.


"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21).
Looks to me like Paul is saying that God makes another vessel for dishonor.



I have never seen that verse translated "vessel of honor" and "vessel of dishonor." There is no indication in that verse, taken in isolation, how the vessel made by God becomes honorable or dishonorable.

Quote
CovenantInBlood opinesI don't disagree that Adam sinned and, as a result, all men are condemned. Yet this condemnation was imposed by God Himself. It's not as though the condemnation is some bare natural consequence.


Who caused Adam's fall? If the devil and Adam and not God, how is that reprobation?

Quote
CovenantInBlood opinesI don't disagree
What do you make of God hardening Pharaoh's heart? For this God most certainly did, and not unjustly since Pharaoh was a sinner deserving only condemnation.


Luther explains how this "hardening" of Pharoah does not create fresh evil:

Quote
Bondage of the Will
LET no one think, therefore, that God, where He is said to harden, or to work evil in us (for to harden is to do evil), so does the evil as though He created evil in us anew, in the same way as a malignant liquor-seller, being himself bad, would pour poison into, or mix it up in, a vessel that was not bad, where the vessel itself did nothing but receive, or passively accomplish the purpose of the malignity of the poison-mixer. For when people hear it said by us, that God works in us both good and evil, and that we from mere necessity passively submit to the working of God, they seem to imagine, that a man who is good, or not evil himself, is passive while God works evil in him: not rightly considering that God, is far from being inactive in all His creatures, and never suffers any one of them to keep holiday.
But whoever wishes to understand these things let him think thus:—that God works evil in us, that is, by us, not from the fault of God, but from the fault of evil in us:—that is, as we are evil by nature, God, who is truly good, carrying us along by His own action, according to the nature of His Omnipotence, cannot do otherwise than do evil by us, as instruments, though He Himself be good; though by His wisdom, He overrules that evil well, to His own glory and to our salvation.
Thus God, finding the will of Satan evil, not creating it so, but leaving it while Satan sinningly commits the evil, carries it along by His working, and moves it which way He will; though that will ceases not to be evil by this motion of God.


Quote
CovenantInBlood queries
Do fallen men have any will to do evil?


Their will is in bondage to sin. There is no free will to do evil.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:43 PM

Quote
Joe k said:
Quote
speratus said:

I agree that Paul's argument is not merely hypothetical; however, Paul does not say God made any vessels of dishonor. Adam, at the instigation of the devil, made himself and all his seed vessels of dishonor. In the preceding verses, Paul says nothing about God creating fresh evil in Ishmael, Esau, or Pharaoh. In the following verses, Paul speaks about God making vessels of honor not vessels of dishonor.


Speratus, are we reading the same verse? It is the whole of Romans 9. Not one verse in isolation. You are confused about what reprobation actually means, and it is common. One thing it does not mean is that God makes people EVIL or Sinners. Just look at those elected, Moses was a muderer, Noah was a drunk, Abraham a polygamist, David an adulterer and murderer, etc etc etc. The irony is compare these people to those in MAtt 7 whom the Lord condemns as He never KNEW them. These people appeared "good". You must stop thinking that those who espouse an active, postitive action by God to reprobate, does not at all mean he created them with some extreme evil. But He does create them with their damnation in view. Hence their continued unbelief, continued disobedience, continued sin that is not redeemed by the blood of Christ. Plus I keep harping on this point, Reprobation is His Sovereignty, Condemnation is His justice. Just like Election is His Sovereignty and Salvation in His Mercy.


The whole of Romans 9 teaches justification by faith alone. Parts of Romans 9 teach election. Nothing in Romans 9 teaches reprobation being defined as God making a person a vessel of dishonor.

I agree that God created Adam knowing He would damn him and his seed. However, His purpose was the salvation of the elect.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:00 PM

Quote
speratus said:
I have never seen that verse translated "vessel of honor" and "vessel of dishonor." There is no indication in that verse, taken in isolation, how the vessel made by God becomes honorable or dishonorable.

For your benefit, I'm including Romans 1:21 as it appears in the KJV with Strong's Greek (interlinear):

Quote
Romans 9:21 (KJVSL) <e> Hath <echo> not <ou> the potter <kerameus> power <exousia> over the clay <pelos>, of <ek> the same <autos> lump <phurama> to <hos> <men> make <poieo> one vessel <skeuos> unto <eis> honour <tima>, and <de> another <hos> unto <eis> dishonour <atimia>?

You will notice that the Greek word used by Paul for "honour" is "tima" (tee-may) and the word he uses for "dishonour" is "atimia" (at-ee-mee'-ah), which is of the same root as the one he uses for "honour". The vowel "a" in atimia in Greek signifies a negative quality, thus the translation "DIS[no]honour", is 100% correct. Notice also that the verb "make" [Grk: poieo, refers to BOTH honour and dishonour. Thus it is incontrovertible, that God "makes" of the same lump (mankind) some to honour and some to dishonour. And finally, since you readily admit that the reference to God making some to "honour" is to election, then of necessity, it must logically follow that those who are made unto "dishonour" refers to the reprobate. To deny the obvious meaning of this text requires that you commit linguistic and grammatical suicide.

Quote
Quote
CovenantInBlood queries
Do fallen men have any will to do evil?


Their will is in bondage to sin. There is no free will to do evil.

As might be expected, this is OFF TOPIC. And, this silly notion of yours has already been discussed and soundly refuted by both Scripture and sound reason. If fallen men are not free to sin, then of necessity the sin by a compulsion which is decidedly against their own will and thus they cannot be held accountable for whatever sins they commit.

In His grace,
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:11 PM

Quote
speratus said:

The whole of Romans 9 teaches justification by faith alone. Parts of Romans 9 teach election. Nothing in Romans 9 teaches reprobation being defined as God making a person a vessel of dishonor.

There is no justification mentioned in Romans 9

I agree that God created Adam knowing He would damn him and his seed. However, His purpose was the salvation of the elect.


There is a purpose in all of what God does speratus. Look at verse 11 and 12.

11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God's elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call--she was told, "The older shall serve the younger."
13
As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau."
Before they were even born.



Here is your answer, a verse that is overlooked:

22
What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?

MADE FOR DESTRUCTION. They were MADE for this purpose
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:34 AM

Quote
The Supra/Infralapsarian debates are simply rationalizing attempts to rescue a failed "double predestination" doctrine which only hyper-Calvinists can accept. The rest of the Calvinists refuse to take "double predestination" to its logical and unscriptural conclusion.


Well call the sheriff and slap your grandma because Luther taught double predestination also. Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination

Boy that hyper-Calvinist Luther what in the world are we going to do with him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: William

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:14 AM

<marquee direction="left">[color:"FF0000"]<font size="6">THE REJECTION OF DIVINE PREDESTINATION IS ARMINIAN AND NOT REFORMED</font>[/color]</marquee>

OF DIVINE PREDESTINATION
REJECTION OF ERRORS
PARAGRAPH VIII


Who teach: That God, simply by virtue of His righteous will, did not decide either to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation, or to pass anyone by in the communication of grace which is necessary for faith and conversion. For this is firmly decreed: "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth" (Rom. 9:18). And also this: "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" Matt. 13:11. Likewise: "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed goodin Thy sight" Matt. 11:25,26.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:18 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
For your benefit, I'm including Romans 1:21 as it appears in the KJV with Strong's Greek (interlinear):

Quote
Romans 9:21 (KJVSL) <e> Hath <echo> not <ou> the potter <kerameus> power <exousia> over the clay <pelos>, of <ek> the same <autos> lump <phurama> to <hos> <men> make <poieo> one vessel <skeuos> unto <eis> honour <tima>, and <de> another <hos> unto <eis> dishonour <atimia>?

You will notice that the Greek word used by Paul for "honour" is "tima" (tee-may) and the word he uses for "dishonour" is "atimia" (at-ee-mee'-ah), which is of the same root as the one he uses for "honour". The vowel "a" in atimia in Greek signifies a negative quality, thus the translation "DIS[no]honour", is 100% correct. Notice also that the verb "make" [Grk: poieo, refers to BOTH honour and dishonour. Thus it is incontrovertible, that God "makes" of the same lump (mankind) some to honour and some to dishonour. And finally, since you readily admit that the reference to God making some to "honour" is to election, then of necessity, it must logically follow that those who are made unto "dishonour" refers to the reprobate. To deny the obvious meaning of this text requires that you commit linguistic and grammatical suicide.


Thanks for confirming the preposition is "to" not "of". In every post, I have denied that the verse refers to "election" or "reprobation".
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:50 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Thanks for confirming the preposition is "to" not "of". In every post, I have denied that the verse refers to "election" or "reprobation".

HUH? Another attempt to avoid the obvious? You can deny that the verse refers to election and/or reprobation all you like. But in doing so, you stand in opposition to the inspired Word of God for the entire chapter displays the indisputable sovereignty of God in the salvation and damnation of mankind. Personally, I don't see how the Holy Spirit could have written it any clearer when He wrote:

Quote
Romans 9:11 (ASV) for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,"

Once again, you have succeeded in amazing me that you claim to be a Lutheran but deny one of the very fundamental doctrines which Luther himself not only taught but personally reveled in and upon which he was assured of his own salvation. rolleyes2

The Bible clearly teaches: God's Indisputable Sovereignty.

In His grace,
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:04 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Quote
CovenantInBlood said:

"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21).
Looks to me like Paul is saying that God makes another vessel for dishonor.


I have never seen that verse translated "vessel of honor" and "vessel of dishonor." There is no indication in that verse, taken in isolation, how the vessel made by God becomes honorable or dishonorable.


Um, yes, there is every indication that God makes these vessels, some for honor and some for dishonor. There's no other way to read that text unless you import foreign ideas into it.

Quote
Quote
CovenantInBlood opinesI don't disagree that Adam sinned and, as a result, all men are condemned. Yet this condemnation was imposed by God Himself. It's not as though the condemnation is some bare natural consequence.


Who caused Adam's fall? If the devil and Adam and not God, how is that reprobation?


Huh? What I'm saying is that God imposed the penalty. So all men are condemned in Adam, not because of natural law, but because of God's justice.

Quote
Luther explains how this "hardening" of Pharoah does not create fresh evil


I agree with Luther. I've said nothing about "fresh evil." But the important thing to remember is that God doesn't harden hearts of good or neutral people, but only the hearts of evil people, who by their own will desire hardened hearts. So at once God is just in hardening them and they are accountable for their hardening.

Quote
Quote
CovenantInBlood queries
Do fallen men have any will to do evil?


Their will is in bondage to sin. There is no free will to do evil.


Right, they have a fallen will by which they choose to do evil, without God coercing or forcing them.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:48 AM

Quote
Joe k said:

There is a purpose in all of what God does speratus. Look at verse 11 and 12.

11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God's elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call--she was told, "The older shall serve the younger."
13
As it is written: "I loved Jacob but hated Esau."
Before they were even born.


At the time of Esau's conception, God hated Esau. Although he had not as yet committed any personal sins, the inherited wickedness of Adam was imputed to him. Where's the reprobation?

Quote
speratus said:
Here is your answer, a verse that is overlooked:

22
What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?

MADE FOR DESTRUCTION. They were MADE for this purpose


Every translation I've seen uses "fitted" or "prepared". What translation are you using?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:23 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Every translation I've seen uses "fitted" or "prepared". What translation are you using?

So much to learn and so little time, especially for one like yourself who is unteachable:

Quote
katartizo kat-ar-tid'-zo

A derivative of 739 [artios ar'-tee-os; fresh, i.e. (by implication) complete:--perfect.]; to complete thoroughly, i.e. repair (literally or figuratively) or adjust:--fit, frame, mend, <span style="background-color:yellow">(make)</span> perfect(-ly join together), prepare, restore.

Thus "make" is a legitimate interpretation for katartizo and which fits perfectly with the overall intent of the passage which refers back to God's having <span style="background-color:yellow">made</span> out of the same lump some "to dishonour" (v. 21) and here in v. 22 "to destruction". Regardless of which word you choose to use here, they all amount to the same thing, i.e., the purpose of God, His immutable will, was that there was a group of mankind which He has determined to save (elect) and some to condemn (reprobate).

Quote
2 Peter 3:15-16 (ASV) "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

In His grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:35 AM

Quote
Boanerges said:
Quote
The Supra/Infralapsarian debates are simply rationalizing attempts to rescue a failed "double predestination" doctrine which only hyper-Calvinists can accept. The rest of the Calvinists refuse to take "double predestination" to its logical and unscriptural conclusion.


Well call the sheriff and slap your grandma because Luther taught double predestination also. Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination


Can you provide a citation from "Bondage of the Will" that proves Luther taught double predestination?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:13 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Can you provide a citation from "Bondage of the Will" that proves Luther taught double predestination?

From The Bondage of the Will p. 176
It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:21 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:

Quote
katartizo kat-ar-tid'-zo

A derivative of 739 [artios ar'-tee-os; fresh, i.e. (by implication) complete:--perfect.]; to complete thoroughly, i.e. repair (literally or figuratively) or adjust:--fit, frame, mend, <span style="background-color:yellow">(make)</span> perfect(-ly join together), prepare, restore.



Thanks, for confirming Joe K's poor translation. The sense is to take something and make it suitable, in this case, to destruction.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:30 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Thanks, for confirming Joe K's poor translation. The sense is to take something and make it suitable, in this case, to destruction.

You really need some professional help! rolleyes2 I was confirming Joe k's accuracy of translation! Methinks one of Luther's terse quotes is apropos here:

"No stone, nor steel, nor diamond is so hard as the impenitent heart of man."
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:54 AM

Quote
Johnnie_Burgess said:
Quote
speratus said:
Can you provide a citation from "Bondage of the Will" that proves Luther taught double predestination?

From The Bondage of the Will p. 176
It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish.


Let's examine that passage in context:

Quote
The God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus-"I WOULDand THOU WOULDST NOT!" The God Incarnate,-I say, was sent for this purpose-that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." And again, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." (11.) It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things.
Nor do I suppose that any one will cavillingly deny, that that will which here saith, "How often would I!" was displayed to the Jews, even before God became Incarnate; seeing that, they are accused of having slain the prophets, before Christ, and having thus resisted His will. For it is well known among Christians, that all things were done by the prophets in the name of Christ to come, who was promised that He should become Incarnate: so that, whatever has been offered unto men by the ministers of the word from the foundation of the world, may be rightly called, the Will of Christ.


The God Incarnate being sent for the "purpose-that He might desire, speak, do suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation" is inconsistent with double predestination which assumes that salvic grace is not truly offered to the reprobate. Luther tells us not to inquire why, having offered grace to all, God "leaves and reprobates some" (which is exactly what the doctrine of reprobation does), but "to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things."
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:17 PM

Quote
speratus said:

At the time of Esau's conception, God hated Esau. Although he had not as yet committed any personal sins, the inherited wickedness of Adam was imputed to him. Where's the reprobation?

Quote
speratus said;
Here is your answer, a verse that is overlooked:

22
What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?

MADE FOR DESTRUCTION. They were MADE for this purpose

Every translation I've seen uses "fitted" or "prepared". What translation are you using?

Pilgrim: Patience brother patience. Speretus is asking questions that have plagued this teaching forever. Since the translation makes no difference, I will not address that part of your response.

AS far as your understanding of Esau, I am attempting to understand. Are you saying For the 9 months in the womb is what equals "before being born?" You are seperating the beginning from the end sperry, God being eternal, starts with the end in mind, then fashions His pots according to His own purpose. You are also confusing acts of sin with reprobation. This cannot be done. May I ask what you understand reprobation to mean? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write both phrases: Loved Jacob, HAted Esau. Now, if election to salvation was only in mind, he could have left out the hating of Esau. Then I will agree there could be room for a non active reprobating on Gods part. OF just creating out of the same lump those for salvation, and just "passing by" or "leaving the rest in their sins. BUt unless we take Jehus knife to the writ, it has to stay there. Each sperm egg creating is fitted for a purpose. I know of no potter that just makes a vessel, then decides what do do with it after he is done. No, they always have the end in mind. The clay is not put on the wheel, and with eyes closed, the potter just starts to mold it, then hours later looks and says "Hey I made an ashtray". No, While haveing the unformed lump, He knows what he is going to create before the first touch of his hand. All hinges on the fact that God purposed them not to be redeemed by Christ. They are not given to Christ. They are not enlightened savingly by the Spirit. They are not created "inferior" by nature, it is the same lump. Not one lump for elect, and another for reprobate. Paul states all man from the same blood I think somewhere in Acts. They are not created "more evil" or infused with some "frsh evil" (whatever that means) They are not created with some unreedemable sin nature. They are all equal as far as nature. But one is fitted for sal;vation, the other is fitted for destruction
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:24 PM

Well if you read the article you would have seen this quotation from the Bondage of Will.
Quote
"Here, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things." Bondage of Will page 176


There you have it. Luther taught that God reprobated some and saved others. Obviously a hyper-Calvinist as you defined it.
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:28 PM

Quote
The God Incarnate being sent for the "purpose-that He might desire, speak, do suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation" is inconsistent with double predestination which assumes that salvic grace is not truly offered to the reprobate. Luther tells us not to inquire why, having offered grace to all, God "leaves and reprobates some" (which is exactly what the doctrine of reprobation does), but "to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things."


So then you are in agreement Luther taught divine reprobation. And since he does teach that then he is a hyper-Calvinist.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:16 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Once again, you have succeeded in amazing me that you claim to be a Lutheran but deny one of the very fundamental doctrines which Luther himself not only taught but personally reveled in and upon which he was assured of his own salvation. rolleyes2

The Bible clearly teaches: God's Indisputable Sovereignty.

In His grace,


Pilgrim, the problem could be is that the Lutheran church has changed its views since Luther has died in 1546. jawdrop
Melanchthon a student of Erasmus did not fully agree with Luther's view on predestination.
Posted By: li0scc0

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:01 PM

Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:22 PM

Quote
li0scc0 said:
Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.


Then what is it please. What is sperry;s definition of reprobation!!!!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:37 AM

Quote
Joe k said:

AS far as your understanding of Esau, I am attempting to understand. Are you saying For the 9 months in the womb is what equals "before being born?" You are seperating the beginning from the end sperry, God being eternal, starts with the end in mind, then fashions His pots according to His own purpose. You are also confusing acts of sin with reprobation. This cannot be done. May I ask what you understand reprobation to mean? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write both phrases: Loved Jacob, HAted Esau. Now, if election to salvation was only in mind, he could have left out the hating of Esau.


Romans 9:10 specifies a specific time "when Rebecca also had conceived" that God hated Esau. This is understandable. All men since the fall are conceived in sin. It is also understandable that God loved Jacob. The rigtheousness of Christ was imputed to him by faith in the coming saviour. Do these verses really prove reprobation in the sense that God caused Jacob to be an object of hate? Could not God, at some time after his conception, call Esau into faith in Christ? Does the fact that he is hated at one specific point in time mean that he will always be hated?

Quote
Joe K continuesThen I will agree there could be room for a non active reprobating on Gods part. OF just creating out of the same lump those for salvation, and just "passing by" or "leaving the rest in their sins. BUt unless we take Jehus knife to the writ, it has to stay there. Each sperm egg creating is fitted for a purpose. I know of no potter that just makes a vessel, then decides what do do with it after he is done. No, they always have the end in mind. The clay is not put on the wheel, and with eyes closed, the potter just starts to mold it, then hours later looks and says "Hey I made an ashtray". No, While haveing the unformed lump, He knows what he is going to create before the first touch of his hand. All hinges on the fact that God purposed them not to be redeemed by Christ. They are not given to Christ. They are not enlightened savingly by the Spirit. They are not created "inferior" by nature, it is the same lump. Not one lump for elect, and another for reprobate. Paul states all man from the same blood I think somewhere in Acts. They are not created "more evil" or infused with some "frsh evil" (whatever that means) They are not created with some unreedemable sin nature. They are all equal as far as nature. But one is fitted for sal;vation, the other is fitted for destruction


Infralapsianism makes no sense to me. Obviously, God could not simply pass by. He must choose to pass by. Supralapsianism, while logical, does not agree with scripture regarding God's purpose toward those He damns.

All men inherit the curse of Adam. Even the elect are vessels of wrath until they are made vessels of honor by God. So, it is improper to speak of the elect as always being vessels of honor. Adam was made a vessel of honor by God and became a vessel of dishonor by Satan and himself. In none of this do I see an intention by God to make vessels of dishonor. We should look for a greater purpose here.
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:03 AM

Quote

Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.


The point Steve is that Luther speaks of reprobation in the same way that Calvin speaks of it. Whether Speratus recognizes that or not means nothing. The point is that Luther taught double predestination.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:58 AM

Quote
Boanerges said:
Quote

Just because one uses the word reprobation does not mean that he is assigning the same meaning to the word. Whether people here agree with him or not I think Speratus is very clear as to his definition of reprobation.


The point Steve is that Luther speaks of reprobation in the same way that Calvin speaks of it. Whether Speratus recognizes that or not means nothing. The point is that Luther taught double predestination.


Section 66 was footnoted by Calvinist translator, Henry Cole, because he recognized Luther was teaching against the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation:

Quote
Here Luther's explanation of Matthew 23 is to be read with discretion. Although God and Christ have two distinct wills, their wills are not contrary to one another. An accurate exposition of this passage can be found in Calvin's Commentaries, found below.—


Cole then quotes extensively from Calvin to prove that Luther is wrong in his understanding of Matt. 23:37. But the Formula of Concord agrees with Luther (i.e., The God Incarnate "was sent for this purpose—that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation"):

Quote
Formula, SD, Free Will
But if a man will not hear preaching nor read God's Word, but despises the Word and congregation of God, and thus dies and perishes in his sins, he neither can comfort himself with God's eternal election nor obtain His mercy; for Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name and are occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst.
58] But when such a person despises the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and will not hear, no injustice is done to him if the Holy Ghost does not enlighten him, but allows him to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and to perish; for regarding this matter it is written: How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; and ye would not! Matt. 23, 37.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:56 PM

Quote
speratus said:
Quote
Joe k said:

AS far as your understanding of Esau, I am attempting to understand. Are you saying For the 9 months in the womb is what equals "before being born?" You are seperating the beginning from the end sperry, God being eternal, starts with the end in mind, then fashions His pots according to His own purpose. You are also confusing acts of sin with reprobation. This cannot be done. May I ask what you understand reprobation to mean? The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write both phrases: Loved Jacob, HAted Esau. Now, if election to salvation was only in mind, he could have left out the hating of Esau.


Romans 9:10 specifies a specific time "when Rebecca also had conceived" that God hated Esau. This is understandable. All men since the fall are conceived in sin. It is also understandable that God loved Jacob. The rigtheousness of Christ was imputed to him by faith in the coming saviour. Do these verses really prove reprobation in the sense that God caused Jacob to be an object of hate? Could not God, at some time after his conception, call Esau into faith in Christ? Does the fact that he is hated at one specific point in time mean that he will always be hated?

Quote
Joe K continuesThen I will agree there could be room for a non active reprobating on Gods part. OF just creating out of the same lump those for salvation, and just "passing by" or "leaving the rest in their sins. BUt unless we take Jehus knife to the writ, it has to stay there. Each sperm egg creating is fitted for a purpose. I know of no potter that just makes a vessel, then decides what do do with it after he is done. No, they always have the end in mind. The clay is not put on the wheel, and with eyes closed, the potter just starts to mold it, then hours later looks and says "Hey I made an ashtray". No, While haveing the unformed lump, He knows what he is going to create before the first touch of his hand. All hinges on the fact that God purposed them not to be redeemed by Christ. They are not given to Christ. They are not enlightened savingly by the Spirit. They are not created "inferior" by nature, it is the same lump. Not one lump for elect, and another for reprobate. Paul states all man from the same blood I think somewhere in Acts. They are not created "more evil" or infused with some "frsh evil" (whatever that means) They are not created with some unreedemable sin nature. They are all equal as far as nature. But one is fitted for sal;vation, the other is fitted for destruction


Infralapsianism makes no sense to me. Obviously, God could not simply pass by. He must choose to pass by. Supralapsianism, while logical, does not agree with scripture regarding God's purpose toward those He damns.

All men inherit the curse of Adam. Even the elect are vessels of wrath until they are made vessels of honor by God. So, it is improper to speak of the elect as always being vessels of honor. Adam was made a vessel of honor by God and became a vessel of dishonor by Satan and himself. In none of this do I see an intention by God to make vessels of dishonor. We should look for a greater purpose here.



What purpose would you like to look for Sperry? Do you have a mutible God? One who hates with an ever;asting hatred, then loves with an everlasting love? If everything is created by God, then how can satan create one to be a vessel of dishonor? Nowhere does scripture hint at this.

Can a sheep become a goat or a goat become a sheep? NO!!!!
Posted By: J_Edwards

Double predestination and Romans 11 - Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:52 PM

Speratus, I still have a hard time with Luthernism’s predestination. If you claim single predestination as opposed to double predestination then what do you do with Romans 11:

Quote
I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel: Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened: according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always.

Here even Luther states, "that [God] Himself is the author of the reprobation of the others, just as He Himself drove Israel into the Babylonian exile in their time." Thus, at best Luther (and Lutherans) seem very confused over this issue! Here is Luther’s quote:

Quote
I have kept for myself. They are called a “remnant” from the fact that they were left over, for God kept them for Himself. In this word we see a marvelous commendation for His grace and election. For God does not say: “They remained,” although this is true, to be sure, but this act of remaining was not the act of those who remained but of God who kept them, that it might be a matter not “of man’s will and exertion, but of God’s mercy” (Rom. 9:16). By the same expression indeed He indicates indirectly that He Himself is the author of the reprobation of the others, just as He Himself drove Israel into the Babylonian exile in their time. For the meaning of the expression “I have kept for Myself” is: “Although I myself drove out all of them, I kept for Myself seven thousand men.” He does not say: “When all were driven out, there remained, or when Nebuchadnezzar or the devil carried them all away, he left Me seven thousand,” but rather: “I myself kept them back, while I took the others away,” in order that it might be established firmly that “The potter has the right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use” (Rom. 9:21); again: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” (9:15).

Luther, Martin. Vol. 25, Luther's Works, Vol. 25 : Lectures on Romans. Edited by Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1972.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:52 PM

Joe K asks,

Quote
What purpose would you like to look for Sperry?


If God's purpose is for all things to work together for the good of elect, should we not expect that the reprobate have some role in accomplishing that good? So, God's foreordination would be more than simply causing people to sin or choosing to pass by so that He can damn them?

Quote
Do you have a mutible God? One who hates with an ever;asting hatred, then loves with an everlasting love? If everything is created by God, then how can satan create one to be a vessel of dishonor? Nowhere does scripture hint at this.


God is not mutable but man is. Sin, which God truly hates, is not of the essence of man. Pre-fall and post-glorification man don't have it.

Adam was made in the image of God, a vessel of honor, without sin. When Adam fell, he lost the image of God and became a vessel of dishonor. The sin of Adam was imputed to all of Adam's seed who are regarded as vessels of dishonor even before they sin. However, in believers, such as Jacob, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them and God regards them as vessels of honor and objects of love.

Satan is the father of unbelievers (John 8:42-45). However, Adam made himself and his seed vessels of dishonor (Romans 5:12). God foreordained the fall but did not cause it.
Quote
Can a sheep become a goat or a goat become a sheep? NO!!!!


Yes, Adam was a sheep who became a goat. The elect will become sheep.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:54 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Speratus, I still have a hard time with Luthernism’s predestination. If you claim single predestination as opposed to double predestination then what do you do with Romans 11:


Romans 11 does not speak of an election of damnation but only of an election of grace. The rest being blinded is not a reference to God causing evil. We discussed early in the thread that hardening does not mean God creates fresh evil.

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Here even Luther states, "that [God] Himself is the author of the reprobation of the others, just as He Himself drove Israel into the Babylonian exile in their time." Thus, at best Luther (and Lutherans) seem very confused over this issue!


In the quote, the word "indirectly" is used with respect to reprobation. That's consistent with "Bondage of the Will" and with the Formula of Concord.

Quote
Formula, SD, ElectionMoreover, even as God has ordained in His [eternal] counsel that the Holy Ghost should call, enlighten, and convert the elect through the Word, and that He will justify and save all those who by true faith receive Christ, so He also determined in His counsel that He will harden, reprobate, and condemn those who are called through the Word, if they reject the Word and resist the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious and to work in them through the Word and persevere therein. And in this manner many are called, but few are chosen.
Posted By: Wes

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:37 AM

Quote
speratus said:

Yes, Adam was a sheep who became a goat. The elect will become sheep.


I know the Bible talks about sheep and about goats but I've never read a verse which talks about a sheep becoming a goat. I've heard about fallen sheep but never about a converted goat. Can you reference a text that supports the idea that Adam was a sheep and he became a goat?

Furthermore the elect do not become sheep. They are either sheep or they are not sheep. John 10:27 tells us, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." It doesn't say those who follow Me will become My sheep. John 10:26 tells us, "you do not believe because you are not My sheep," not the other way around.

So it becomes obvious that since there are both sheep and goats God made them that way in the beginning. Interestingly enough even this example supports the idea of double predestination.


Wes
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:59 AM

Speratus does God use means to ensure His work of providence is carried out? Now, when did God devise these means? Did He foreordain them? If God does not stop these means does it not mean that in some form (by eternal decree) He is involved in reprobation.
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:33 AM

Well I've shown you my article and you've shown me yours. Now tell me again how section 66 deals with regard to reprobation? I don't think (unless I missed it somehow)that we are talking about the same quote.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:42 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Speratus does God use means to ensure His work of providence is carried out? Now, when did God devise these means? Did He foreordain them? If God does not stop these means does it not mean that in some form (by eternal decree) He is involved in reprobation.


To offer saving grace to all and to give the Holy Spirit who works saving faith when and where He pleases.
Before the worlds.
Yes
It is not will of God that any should despise preaching and the Sacraments. God hardens and reprobates those who reject the Word and resist the Holy Ghost (e.g., unworthy guests eat and drink damnation not discerning the Lord's body).
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:14 AM

Quote
Boanerges said:
Well I've shown you my article and you've shown me yours. Now tell me again how section 66 deals with regard to reprobation? I don't think (unless I missed it somehow)that we are talking about the same quote.


Please check the location of the footnote within Section 66. The Calvinists Mattson and Cole are referring to the same passage in "Bondage of the Will" but Cole and you draw opposing conclusions regarding Luther's intent concerning reprobation.

Quote
Mattson translationHere, God Incarnate says: 'I would, and thou wouldst not.' God Incarnate, I repeat, was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men, all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends many who, being abandoned or hardened by God's secret will of Majesty, do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing and offering. . . .It belongs to the same God Incarnate to weep, lament, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, though that will of Majesty purposely leaves and reprobates some to perish. Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in awe of God, Who can do, and wills to do such things.


Quote
Cole translationThe God Incarnate, then, here speaks thus—"I WOULDand THOU WOULDST NOT!" The God Incarnate,—I say, was sent for this purpose—that He might desire, speak, do, suffer, and offer unto all, all things that are necessary unto salvation, although He should offend many, who, being either left or hardened by that secret will of Majesty, should not receive Him thus desiring, speaking, doing, and offering: as John i. 5, saith, "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." And again, "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." (11.) It belongs also to this same God Incarnate, to weep, to lament, and to sigh over the perdition of the wicked, even while that will of Majesty, from purpose, leaves and reprobates some, that they might perish. Nor does it become us to inquire why He does so, but to revere that God who can do, and wills to do, such things.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:29 PM

Quote
speratus said:
Joe K asks,

Quote
What purpose would you like to look for Sperry?


If God's purpose is for all things to work together for the good of elect, should we not expect that the reprobate have some role in accomplishing that good? So, God's foreordination would be more than simply causing people to sin or choosing to pass by so that He can damn them?

Quote
Do you have a mutible God? One who hates with an ever;asting hatred, then loves with an everlasting love? If everything is created by God, then how can satan create one to be a vessel of dishonor? Nowhere does scripture hint at this.


God is not mutable but man is. Sin, which God truly hates, is not of the essence of man. Pre-fall and post-glorification man don't have it.

Adam was made in the image of God, a vessel of honor, without sin. When Adam fell, he lost the image of God and became a vessel of dishonor. The sin of Adam was imputed to all of Adam's seed who are regarded as vessels of dishonor even before they sin. However, in believers, such as Jacob, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them and God regards them as vessels of honor and objects of love.

Satan is the father of unbelievers (John 8:42-45). However, Adam made himself and his seed vessels of dishonor (Romans 5:12). God foreordained the fall but did not cause it.
Quote
Can a sheep become a goat or a goat become a sheep? NO!!!!


Yes, Adam was a sheep who became a goat. The elect will become sheep.



No, sheep are never goats, and goats never become sheep sperry. You have it backwards, God does not impute the ROC then declare the vessel as honorable, God fist loved them from eternity, this is why they receive the blood of Christ and His righteoussness.

How do the reprobate relate to the lives of the elect? This is a good question. Some like Herman Hoeksema have attempted to speak of them as a second ransom, I am not in agreement with this completely though.

I am satified that Gods purpose are first and foremost to Glorify Him. And His justice is glorified in the damnation of the elect.

Read the following please:

the reprobate are always damned to eternal hell in the way of their own sin. It is true that God determined what their final end would be -- and that He did so before they were ever born. In what other way could one possibly interpret the passages quoted earlier? But the wicked are definitely cast into the torments of hell because of their own evil acts. Never can they point their finger at God, declaring, "God has forced me to do that which was contrary to His will; the fault therefore lies with God and not with me." The wicked reprobate consciously and willingly sin, and for that sin they shall surely be cast into eternal desolation.
One of the many Scriptural passages which indicate this, is found in Luke 11:49-51, "Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

They do serve the purpose of the elect. Look at the crucifiction of Christ? This, if the only reason, is enough for me.


Acts 4:27-28, "for of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:42 PM

Quote
speratus said:
Quote
J_Edwards said:
Speratus does God use means to ensure His work of providence is carried out? Now, when did God devise these means? Did He foreordain them? If God does not stop these means does it not mean that in some form (by eternal decree) He is involved in reprobation.


To offer saving grace to all and to give the Holy Spirit who works saving faith when and where He pleases.
Before the worlds.
Yes
It is not will of God that any should despise preaching and the Sacraments. God hardens and reprobates those who reject the Word and resist the Holy Ghost (e.g., unworthy guests eat and drink damnation not discerning the Lord's body).

But, as now you concur God foreordained these means "Before the worlds." What do you call this foreordaining? Could we call this reprobation? If not, what do you call it and give references to the term?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:50 PM

Quote
Joe k said:

No, sheep are never goats, and goats never become sheep sperry. You have it backwards, God does not impute the ROC then declare the vessel as honorable, God fist loved them from eternity, this is why they receive the blood of Christ and His righteoussness.


Eternal justification?

Quote
How do the reprobate relate to the lives of the elect? This is a good question. Some like Herman Hoeksema have attempted to speak of them as a second ransom, I am not in agreement with this completely though.


God's foreknowledge controls the actions of evil men and puts a limitation on them so that they minister to the salvation of the elect.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:19 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
But, as now you concur God foreordained these means "Before the worlds." What do you call this foreordaining? Could we call this reprobation? If not, what do you call it and give references to the term?


The Word and Sacraments are means of grace not means of damnation. God does not foreordain them for the purpose of creating evil in men in order to damn them. Evil men in their faithless use of the Word and Sacraments load themselves with righteous judgment.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:18 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Quote
Joe k asked:
How do the reprobate relate to the lives of the elect? This is a good question. Some like Herman Hoeksema have attempted to speak of them as a second ransom, I am not in agreement with this completely though.


God's foreknowledge controls the actions of evil men and puts a limitation on them so that they minister to the salvation of the elect.

God's "foreknowledge" originates from His eternal foreordination. Because God foreordained all things, therefore He knows all things. Secondly, foreknowledge in the Scriptures in regard to the elect is not to be misconstrued and reduced to that which semi-Pelagians/Arminians teach, i.e., foreknowledge=prescience; bare knowledge of facts. The Bible's definition of foreknowledge of the elect is "foreloved", i.e., God set His affections upon those whom He desired to save in Christ. Thirdly, the Bible nowhere teaches that foreknowledge "controls" anything. All things are "controlled", i.e., providentially determined by God's decretive will.

Thus, God decreed that some men would be saved and that the rest would be damned. He predestinated them whom He foreknew[loved] (Rom 8:29, 30) which is election. He hated those whom He determined to consign to perdition not having foreknown[loved] them which is reprobation. The logic is inescapable. Let God be true and all men liars.

In His grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:39 AM

Quote
speratus said:
Quote
J_Edwards said:
But, as now you concur God foreordained these means "Before the worlds." What do you call this foreordaining? Could we call this reprobation? If not, what do you call it and give references to the term?


The Word and Sacraments are means of grace not means of damnation. God does not foreordain them for the purpose of creating evil in men in order to damn them. Evil men in their faithless use of the Word and Sacraments load themselves with righteous judgment.

So are you saying God never uses ANY means to accomplish His plan in the non-elect? (Exod 9:15-16; Josh 11:18-20; Prov 16:4; Isaiah 6:10; John 12:37-40; Rom 9:17). If God uses means when were these means foreordained?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:43 AM

At least you are consistent, I haven't seen you answer a question of this nature directly yet.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:20 AM

[
Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
speratus said:
Quote
J_Edwards said:
But, as now you concur God foreordained these means "Before the worlds." What do you call this foreordaining? Could we call this reprobation? If not, what do you call it and give references to the term?


The Word and Sacraments are means of grace not means of damnation. God does not foreordain them for the purpose of creating evil in men in order to damn them. Evil men in their faithless use of the Word and Sacraments load themselves with righteous judgment.

So are you saying God never uses ANY means to accomplish His plan in the non-elect? (Exod 9:15-16; Josh 11:18-20; Prov 16:4; Isaiah 6:10; John 12:37-40; Rom 9:17). If God uses means when were these means foreordained?


Your citations have the common thread of a pronouncement of judicial hardening. If people maliciously reject God's offers of salvation, He surrenders them to their evil will. He punishes them with temporal and eternal judgments. Is this rebuking of sin foreordained? Yes. Is it done for the purpose of causing the sinner to sin even more? No.

In scripture, there are two great principles of preaching, law and gospel. Every preaching that rebukes sin is law. Every preaching of the grace of God in Christ is gospel. The law is preached to impenitant sinners; the gospel is preached to sinners who are troubled because of their sins.

The preaching of the means of grace (i.e., Word and Sacraments) is a preaching of the gospel not of the law.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:24 PM

Quote
Is this rebuking of sin foreordained? Yes.

Thank you.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:42 PM



Sperry:

Did you read the article I posted from GH Kerstner? If not, immediately read it. Then come and discuss.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:42 PM

Quote


Eternal justification?


No. Eternal love

Quote


God's foreknowledge controls the actions of evil men and puts a limitation on them so that they minister to the salvation of the elect.


What does this mean? "minister to the salvaiton of the elect?'
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:22 AM

Quote
Joe k said:
Quote


Eternal justification?


No. Eternal love



Does God, on the basis of eternal love, regard the sinner as being righteous before the imputation of the righteousness of Christ by faith? If so, how is that not eternal justification?

Quote
Joe k said:
Quote

God's foreknowledge controls the actions of evil men and puts a limitation on them so that they minister to the salvation of the elect.


What does this mean? "minister to the salvaiton of the elect?'


God will not permit the wickedness of sinners to interfere with the salvation of the elect but uses their wickedness as instrumentalities of His will to save the elect.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:46 AM

Quote
If people maliciously reject God's offers of salvation, He surrenders them to their evil will. He punishes them with temporal and eternal judgments. Is this rebuking of sin foreordained? Yes. Is it done for the purpose of causing the sinner to sin even more? No.


That sure sounds like the you believe in free will to me.
With out God's intervention, all will reject Christ.

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:35 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Is this rebuking of sin foreordained? Yes.

Thank you.


Yes, the fact that judicial hardening occurs means that it must of necessity occur according God's eternal purpose. But this rebuking of sin is not done for the purpose of causing sin or causing the damnation of anyone.

An example of judicial hardening in the NT is excommunication. Christ gave the Church the binding key in John 20:22, 23; Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18. Sinners are delivered unto Satan not to cause sin or their damnation but that they may learn to blaspheme no more (1 Tim. 1:20).
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination and Romans 11 - Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:45 AM

Quote
Tom said:
Quote
If people maliciously reject God's offers of salvation, He surrenders them to their evil will. He punishes them with temporal and eternal judgments. Is this rebuking of sin foreordained? Yes. Is it done for the purpose of causing the sinner to sin even more? No.


That sure sounds like the you believe in free will to me.
With out God's intervention, all will reject Christ.

Tom


The moderator will not permit me to comment on your first statement on this thread. I agree with your second statement.
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:53 AM

Cole is in error. See how easy that was? Keep in mind Speratus even Lutherans recognize that Luther taught Double Predestination although they say he taught it inconsistently.

Quote
In view of the quotations from On the Bondage of the Will and Lectures on Romans, it would be better to say that Luther did not consistently teach double predestination.WELS Luther Double Predestination.
For my part I believe that Chemnitz errored in that regards.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:36 AM

WELS is in error. See how easy that was? No evidence has been presented that Luther taught double predestination in "Bondage of the Will." Foreordination of events should not be confused with predestination to damnation.
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:21 PM

Boy you CLC boys play rough. On the contrary I believe Mathison has established the fact that Luther taught double predestination. But as others has so succinctly put it you deny the scriptures for the sake of your Smalcald Articles which are in error.

But I have had enough playing word games with you Speratus I will leave you with this: Why are you here?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Double predestination - Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:08 AM

I am here to learn. I am not CLC. I am tough on WELS (actually the WELS Q&A guy) because a poor answer is given to a serious question.

WELS Q&A brands Luther a false, erratic, teacher. However, no serious attempt is made to show from scripture how any of his writings are in error. Instead, excuses are offered up for his presumed false doctrine (e.g., early in career, dependent on Augustine, didn't anticipte Calvin and Beza, etc.).

But there is no excuse for teaching false doctrine. If WELS Q&A believes Luther teaches a doctrine of double predestination contrary to scripture, whether consistently or inconsistently, it should explain his errors and condemn his writings (i.e., Bondage of the Will, Lecture on Romans).
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:28 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Kalled2Preach said:
I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? . . .

[Linked Image] Why are you denigrating the discussion of theology on a THEOLOGY FORUM? And what do such discussions have to do with the irrelevant topic of bringing the Gospel to unbelievers? Start a new thread if you are wanting to discuss your concerns, e.g., what should be the content of the Gospel, etc.

What is relevant and one of the purposes of this Board is summed up nicely by the writer of Hebrews <------- is that too big of a word to use? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Hebrews 5:11-14 (ASV) "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil."

Anyone desirous of wanting to bring the Good News to sinners had better be skilled in the Scriptures. (2Tim 2:15) And further, that person had better be 100% positive that what he/she is speaking about is the true Gospel and not some dumbed down version that is nothing more than "another gospel". (Gal 1:7, 9)

What is the true gospel pilgrim ?

In His grace,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:46 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
What is the true gospel pilgrim ?

See here AGAIN: A Gospel Summary

And why are you hijacking this thread with your hobby horse views?

And please, learn how to use the "quote" feature here so that we can distinguish the actual quoted text from your own comments. Also, only include that which is relevant in the quote box. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:57 PM

will you teach me how to use the quote device ? I asked you before did I not? I will comment later on the gospel summary you presented.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:08 PM

A quote box is created using the following code setup: [quote]text[/quote] The beginning tag is a: [quote] The desired text is next, The ending tag is a: [/quote] Notice the "/" trailing slash which most all closing tags must have. And no, you have never asked me about using the "quote" feature here. You can also find information about all the various UBBT Code tags in the [url=http://www.the-highway.com/forum/faq.php?Cat=0]FAQ section[/url]. Also, there is the "Advanced UBBT Code" box located to the right of the "Graemlins" box below the text box; see the last item in the right column.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:14 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
will you teach me how to use the quote device ? I asked you before did I not? I will comment later on the gospel summary you presented.

While you are learning this feature of the board, I would HIGHLY suggest you become reacquainted with the Guidelines For the Forums. Should you have ANY questions please feel free to PM me or any of the mods or admins.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:25 PM

Quote
Question is open to anyone.

Would it be correct to say that regardless of the negative or positive views both the Infra and Supra positions agree that Election and Reprobation proceed out of God’s eternal good pleasure and agree that anything else is Arminianism.



If by acknowledging that it was by Gods good pleasure that sin was created Rev 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things(including sin), and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Which view teaches that the fall of adam was according to Gods good pleasure ? Or may I ask, is it scriptural to believe that adams fall and sin entering into the world ,was according to Gods good pleasure ? I believe that sin entering into the world was decreed by God and was for his Good pleasure and for His Glory ! IMO , to believe that sin is anything other than Gods creation and For his purpose is arminian thinking !
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Thu Jun 15, 2006 7:50 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
IMO , to believe that sin is anything other than Gods creation and For his purpose is arminian thinking !

It is a far different thing to hold that "sin is . . . God's creation" than it is to hold that God decreed that sin should happen and providentially bring it to pass. God is NOT the "Author of sin"..... created beings, both angelic and human are the authors of sin and responsible for it. All the historic Reformed Confessions and Catechisms are very clear on this matter in stating that "God is not the author of sin", albeit He decreed that sin should come into the realm of the angelic host and all mankind.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:18 AM

Quote
It is a far different thing to hold that "sin is . . . God's creation" than it is to hold that God decreed that sin should happen and providentially bring it to pass.
What is the difference ?

Quote
God is NOT the "Author of sin
well lets look at the definition of author= The writer of a book, article, or other text.
One who practices writing as a profession.
One who writes or constructs an electronic document or system, such as a website.
An originator or creator, as of a theory or plan.
Author God.
This latter definition hits the nail on the head...

God is the author of sin , that is sin found it`s origin in the sovereign will of God.

Sin does not emante from within the essence and Intrinsic Being of God, however it does emanate from within His sovereign purpose and good pleasure...He created sin , He decreed the fall of adam for His purpose.

Quote
created beings, both angelic and human are the authors of sin and responsible for it.
Hold on there, thats attributing a little too much power to mere creatures don`t you think ? If what you mean is that they author sin by being its creator , thats dead wrong , God created all things , wether it be good or evil
Isa 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Job, a man with an anointed understanding said job 2: 10
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips. see also job 42: 11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

Now if what you mean is that men are morally accountable for their acts of sin, I agree. But even mens acts of sin find their origin in and by the sovereign will of God ! Aprime example is in acts 2:23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Quote
All the historic Reformed Confessions and Catechisms are very clear on this matter in stating that "God is not the author of sin", albeit He decreed that sin should come into the realm of the angelic host and all mankind.


I have read some of those creeds and confessions and a lot of them are reluctant to admit that God created Sin for His purpose and for His Glory.

here is a simple definition for create= To cause to exist; bring into being.
Posted By: Wes

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:04 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:


Sin does not emante from within the essence and Intrinsic Being of God, however it does emanate from within His sovereign purpose and good pleasure...He created sin , He decreed the fall of adam for His purpose.

I have read some of those creeds and confessions and a lot of them are reluctant to admit that God created Sin for His purpose and for His Glory.

here is a simple definition for create= To cause to exist; bring into being.


Beloved57,

Quote
C.D. Cole offers his opinion on this topic:

This is one of the most difficult questions in theology. Since God made everything good in the original creation, how did sin get started? How was a good creation thrown into rebellion against its Creator? By whom and how was sin originated? There is much we cannot know about the question. But there are some necessary inferences.

1. Sin is not eternal; it had a beginning. The Gnostics believed in two eternal principles: good and evil.

2. Sin was not created by God. God created everything good; He is not the Author of sin. Moral beings were without sin when created. Satan was created a sinless and perfect being "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Eze 28:15). God made man upright. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Ec 7:29).

3. Sin was not the necessary result of finiteness. Some claim that because God made man a finite being sin was inevitable. But if this be true, men will always be sinners for none of us will ever become infinite. Infinity belongs only to God.

4. Sin had its origin in a principle of negation, which means that it is not the result of any positive force. Moral beings were created good, but not immutably and independently good. This would have made them equal with God; it would have involved the absurdity of God creating another God. God alone is immutable and independent. There cannot be more than one God, self-existent and self-sufficient, sovereign and supreme.


If you want to read the rest of his study you can find it here.

So sin had its origin in the withholding of that grace necessary to sustain moral beings in a state of holiness. If God had not permitted sin there could have been no display of some of His most glorious attributes. Surely it is not too much to say that God permitted sin that He might overrule it "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:6).

One of our older confessions, the Belgic Confession tells us: " We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after His own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but wilfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life; having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death."

You may also benifit from reading Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck.



Wes
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:10 AM

B57 states that God is the Author of Sin. He is a liar! This is blasphemy!

While one would admit that the existence of sin in the universe is under the jurisdiction of God who is infinite in His wisdom, power, holiness, and justice, this does not make God sin’s author. One impugns the very nature of God by suggesting such. Westminster is careful to safeguard the character of God from even a suggestion of evil. Sin is referred to the freedom which is given to the agent, and of all sinful acts whatever they emphatically affirm that “the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is. nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (V. 4.)

As Boettner says in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, While one cannot entirely explain how God in His secret counsel rules/overrules the wicked acts of men, we know that whatever God does He never turns from His own perfect justice and thus He is never sin’s author. God is HOLY <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" />, not the author of sin. God permits sin, but hates it with a perfect hatred. The motive which God has in permitting sin and the motive which man has in committing it are thoroughly different. Many persons are deceived because they fail to judge righteously that God wills righteously those things which men do wickedly. The Scriptures tell us that God is perfectly righteous. Since in all of His acts upon which we are competent of passing judgment we find that He is perfectly righteous, we trust Him in those realms which have not yet been revealed to us. We can rest assured that the Judge of all the earth will do right (Gen 18:25).

The fall of Adam was not by chance, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God. However, God in no way compelled man to fall (to sin) and thus is not the author of sin. He created man perfectly. God simply withheld that undeserved constraining grace with which Adam would infallibly not have fallen. However, God was under no obligation to bestow it. Adam acted as freely as if there had been no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there had been no liberty. God’s decree does not take away man’s liberty; and in the fall Adam freely exercised the natural emotions of his will.

Edwards answers you B57: "If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency." God is, Edwards says, "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow." Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,

Quote
God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.

God does not delight in evil as evil, as an author would do. Rather he "wills that evil comes to pass . . . that good may come of it." (Gen. 50:20)

Quote
B57 bombs out with his evidence that God is the author of sin and quotes,

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

As Calvin states,

Quote
Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: Isaiah, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries, Is 45:7 (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998).


Quote
B57 additional proof that God is the Author of sin, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Job, a man with an anointed understanding said job 2: 10
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">In all this did not Job sin with his lips.</span>

How is God the author of something (i.e. sin) that Job did not even do? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> The other part of the phrase is explained above by Calvin. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote
C.D. Cole offers his opinion on this topic:

This is one of the most difficult questions in theology. Since God made everything good in the original creation, how did sin get started?


God made everthing good, in that everything served his purpose ! Sin got started , because God decreed it for His purpose, else it would not have got started.

Quote
How was a good creation thrown into rebellion against its Creator?
this was part of Gods redemptive plan , and predetermined counsel.

Quote
By whom and how was sin originated?


answer: rev 4:11Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Quote
Sin was not created by God. God created everything good
Again wrong, all things are Good from Gods eternal purpose and Good pleasure, that is one of the comforts of scriptures like rom 8 : 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

even sin in the lives of true belivers today is good, in that it keeps us focused not on ourselves but on the merits of christ. We continually are dependent upon the blood of the lamb which cleanseth us from all unrighteousness..It causes us to look away from ourselves and utter those words as paul, I have no confidence in the flesh.

Quote
Sin is not eternal; it had a beginning.
Ah you don`t say ! Everything had a beginning but God. Sin had it's begininng in God's designated time, according to His good pleasure and sovereign will.

Quote
Sin was not the necessary result of finiteness.
That is not true. Man could not have remained in that state , nor the angels , because that would have made them immutable , which means they were not subject to change and Only the Thrice Holy God is mutable. Even the heavens are mutable and they never sinned. ps 102: 25, 2625Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

26They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Now Holy writ does set forth one exception, and that is the elect angels who did not leave their first estate. They appear to be the only created beings that will remain unchanged. But they are elect, special grace, and I believe they are elected in Christ for that grand privilege !

Quote
Sin had its origin in a principle of negation, which means that it is not the result of any positive force
Oh so wrong <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> It was created by the positive force of God`s decree. True, God in his intrinsic Holy nature, committed no act of iniquity, but to relegate anything, or occurance , or activity, or action , or anyone as not to emante from His sovereign good pleasure and decree is Nigh blashemy. It is written that God hardened pharoah heart! ex 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

ex 9: 12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

1 kgs 22; 23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

To not see God`s positive decretive force behind mans sin is to ignore scripture truth...

Quote
So sin had its origin in the withholding of that grace necessary to sustain moral beings in a state of holiness. If God had not permitted sin there could have been no display of some of His most glorious attributes. Surely it is not too much to say that God permitted sin that He might overrule it "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:6).
Wow, God permitted sin only ?He decreed it,so He can demonstrate His overruling it and that for His glory. May he praised from all eternity..
Posted By: Robin

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:31 AM

Beloved57 quotes Isaiah 45:7 and Job 2:10 thusly, emphasis mine:

Quote
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Job, a man with an anointed understanding said job 2: 10
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? ... (42:11) Then came there unto him all his brethren ... and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.


Taken at face value these verse certainly do suggest that God creates evil. But the use of the word evil in the KJV (instead of the words calamity, disaster, adversity, etc) does not suggest that God created sin! God does take credit in His word for every plague, earthquake, flood, and storm; as well as for "man made" disasters like war and slavery. But that is not the same thing as God originating evil!

May God forgive you!
Posted By: Wes

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:26 PM

Beloved57,

You have a very distorted view of God and sin. From reading your reply to my post it appears that you either didn't read all of my comments and the links I attached or you failed to comprehend them.

Quote
beloved57 said:

even sin in the lives of true belivers today is good, in that it keeps us focused not on ourselves but on the merits of christ.


I'm shocked by your quote above. To say that sin in our lives is good and helps us focus on the merits of Christ is ridiculous. Sin does not give light! Sin only serves to blind us and lead us astray. Sin actually keeps us focused on ourselves. Only grace through faith allows us to see and benefit from the merits of Christ.

I'd like to suggest that you go back to my previous reply and read the link that I added shortly after I wrote it. It dicusses Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism. Neither position supports what you believe but you may find it helpful if you are able to get your mind around it.


Wes
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:18 PM

wes says[quote]I'm shocked by your quote above. To say that sin in our lives is good and helps us focus on the merits of Christ is ridiculous. [/quote] The inspired Apostle John says 1 jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. If for some wise and Holy reason God has ordained that a Saint is being harrased and overcome by sin in their life, fear not and look to thy Advocate..... Jesus Christ the righteous... Sin points me to my advocate wes :bananas:
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:28 PM

Je says
Quote
While one would admit that the existence of sin in the universe is under the jurisdiction of God who is infinite in His wisdom, power, holiness, and justice, this does not make God sin’s author.


Then how did it get in Gods universe if God did not create it ?

according to rev 4: 11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being."
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:24 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Then how did it get in Gods universe if God did not create it?

It is known as "secondary causes". In this particular case, as you have already been told by several here, the created beings, both angelic and human brought about sin, i.e., sin is rebellion against God. Sin is not a "thing" but an action and/or state of being. Thus it is utterly impossible that God could create sin for to do so it would require that He rebel against Himself.

There are myriad examples one could give of this principle of truth where God created something and from that creation something else happens, for example, God created the basic sounds that comprise music. But one cannot say that God created "Heavy Metal" or "Jazz", etc. Man, using those things which God created and the communicable attributes he is endowed with in his creation creates various forms of music.

And over ALL things, which God Himself has created or which are the result of secondary causes, the Lord God providentially controls them according to His eternal counsel.

Got it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: J_Edwards

Privation of the Good - Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:58 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Je says
Quote
While one would admit that the existence of sin in the universe is under the jurisdiction of God who is infinite in His wisdom, power, holiness, and justice, this does not make God sin’s author.


Then how did it get in Gods universe if God did not create it ?

according to rev 4: 11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being."


Augustine called it a privation of the good. As Greg Johnson states, Mani (Manichean cult) had taught that there were two eternal creator-Gods, one evil and one good—the evil God accounting for evil in the world, the good God accounting for goodness. Augustine wrote On the Nature of the Good to demonstrate that evil as a created thing does not exist. Since there is no evil thing in creation, an evil creator-God is irrational. Evil is not a thing, but a condition that good things have. God created all things good (Genesis 1), and evil is a condition they have when they have lost some of their initial goodness. Even Satan has no creative power, but is himself just a fallen creature.

Sex, for example, is a good gift of God. Adultery is the perversion of a good thing by robbing it of the good context for which it was designed. People are not evil in the sense that a human liver is a bad thing. Rather, humans are evil insofar as they have fallen from the condition in which God first designed them. Evil, then, is not a thing. Evil is a lack. Evil is a negative. Evil is a privation of the good.

This is even how human language has developed. Injustice, for example, assumes the prior existence of justice. Injustice is a lack of justice. Immorality is a privation of morality, unkindness a lack of kindness. Sin, biblically speaking, is a failure to achieve God’s standard of perfection, falling short of our design, a “missing the mark”. R.C. Sproul makes the observation well: “Our language betrays the fact that to think about and conceptualize evil, we must do it against the backdrop of the good” (Reason to Believe, 127).

Thus a philosopher like Descartes in the seventeenth century could answer the skeptics who argued that if God exists, he must be evil. Descartes agreed that there could be nothing in the effect (creation) that was not also in the cause (God), but added that evil is not a thing, but a lack. The creation’s now having less goodness does not require a reality of evil within God’s nature. It only requires that beings with free will [in the Reformed sense of the phrase] chose to seek a lesser good than the good for which they were created—a seeking of lesser goods that offends God and is therefore called evil.

Geisler states,

Quote
The theist responds that evil is not a thing or substance. Rather it is a lack or privation of a good thing that God made. Evil is a deprivation of some particular good. The essence of this position is summarized:

1. God created every substance.
2. Evil is not a substance (but a privation in a substance).
3. Therefore, God did not create evil.

Evil is not a substance but a corruption of the good substances God made. Evil is like rust to a car or rot to a tree. It is a lack in good things, but it is not a thing in itself. Evil is like a wound in an arm or moth-holes in a garment. It exists only in another but not in itself. It is important to note that a privation is not the same as mere absence. Sight is absent in a stone as well as in a blind person. But the absence of sight in the stone is not a privation. Absence of something that ought to be there. Since the stone by nature ought not to see, it is not deprived of sight, as is the blind man.

Evil, then is a privation of some good that ought to be there. It is not a mere negation. To say that evil is not a thing, but a lack in things, is not to claim that it is not real. Evil is a real lack in good things, as the blind person knows only so well. Evil is not a real substance, but it is a real privation in good substances. It is not an actual entity but a real corruption in an actual entity. …

Classical theists described things in terms of their four causes: (1) efficient; (2) final; (3) formal, and (4) material. A human being has God as the efficient cause, God’s glory and their good as final cause, a soul as formal cause and a body as the material cause. However, since evil is not a substance, it has no formal cause, and its material cause is a good substance.

Efficient Cause- Free choice [in the Reformed sense of the phrase]
Final Cause- None. Evil is the lack of order.
Formal Cause- None. Evil is the privation of form.
Material Cause- A good substance

The efficient cause of moral evil is free choice [in the Reformed sense of the phrase], not directly but indirectly. There is no purpose (final cause) of evil. It is lack of proper order to the good end. Evil has no formal cause of its own. Rather, it is the destruction of form in another. Its material cause is a good but not its own. It exists only in a good thing as the corruption of it.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:10 PM

pilgrim says
Quote
It is known as "secondary causes".
Secondary cause are created by God to serve His purpose <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> All things are created by God and for His Glory. The main purpose and goal for creation was inorder that God through Christ would be Glorified. Sin was and is Part of the outworking of that purpose. I have already stated that God's creation of evil did not emanate from within His Being of Essence , but From His Sovereign will and Good pleasue. That comprises everthing single thing. Molocues , atoms , insects , good , bad , pretty , ugly, deaf, dummb, beauty EVERYTHING !! To not grasp this simple Concept of God, is to suppose that something occured or happened outside the relm Of sovereign perogative ! Thats scarey, Thats blasphemous. To suppose that God merely permitted evil as it was contrary to His original purpose as constituting every thing Good, Makes God responding to the creature, when in fact all things in creation are responding to the perfect Sovereign predetmined Plan of God. Simply said God choose to reveal His Glory through the Redemptive Love of Christ for His elect, and Hence everthing proceeding from that purpose to that end, sin and mainly sin inclided!

R.C sproul says in a statement under foreordination to reprobation
Quote
Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it,
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

That is a blasphemous statement right there. Dont appeal to me with all these guys, please use scripture. I have read these guys before some of you have. mostly all your reference material I see you recommending out to folks, I have already read , some even many years ago..

some thing elese to ponder upon. God creates every human being right ? Wether that person is elect or reprobated, God is the creator from the womb and in the womb ! Notice what paul says about those in an unregenerated state :

eph 5:8
8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Notice that he said you were darkness , not in darkness ! God creates the reprobated.

notice what David says about Gods creation of natural child birth

ps 139
14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Well I know some of you are going to piously say, he is speaking about David or even say Christ and The virgin birth, but it does not matter, God is Sovereign in all things and with everyone, and for this purpose we exist and was created for, His Sovereign pleasure...
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:50 PM

B-57,

Quote

Dont appeal to me with all these guys, please use scripture. I have read these guys before some of you have.


So, I guess we're not supposed to read "these guys" we're only supposed to listen to the wondrous exegesis of B-57 Alone.

Why didn't you just come out and say it: "I've already forgotten more than the rest of you know!"

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:58 PM

Quote
B57 quotes R.C. Sproul saying,

R.C sproul says in a statement under foreordination to reprobation

Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it,

B57, WHERE is the term AUTHOR in Sproul’s statement? There is a difference between being the AUTHOR of something and ORDAINING something. I can ORDAIN that all heretics will be banned from this board, however, one of the other moderators in fact may be the actual AUTHOR of the banning. Now if you would have read the rest of R.C. Sproul’s article you would have discovered a very interesting paragraph or three:

Quote
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers. …

If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate's being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion. Berkouwer states the boundaries of the discussion clearly: “God's decree of reprobation, given in light of the fall, is a decree to justice, not injustice. In this view the biblical a priori that God is neither the cause nor the author of sin is safeguarded.

Though this writer favors the infralapsarian view along the lines developed by Turrettini, it is important to note that both views see election and reprobation in light of the fall and avoid the awful conclusion that God is the author of sin.

Double Predestination by R. C. Sproul

One wonders why you did not quote as Paul Harvey use to say, "The rest of the story?" Were you being purposely misleading or did you just forget? Must you use deception to make your points? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Though I am sure Pilgrim will reply to you, you state Eph 5:8 as a defense and then comment ever so briefly saying, “Notice that he said you were darkness , not in darkness ! God creates the reprobated.” But, whom is Paul speaking about; pre-fall man or post-fall man? Post-fall man of course. Man is in darkness because of sin for which he is responsible (see my post on Privation of the Good).
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:35 AM

A very good article that agree's with my position of all things being created by God , wether it be good or evil !

http://www.rmiweb.org/other/problemevil.pdf
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:04 AM

Cheung is a radical. He claims, "It is with this same mindset, and the same willing to admit error, that I insist that there is no possibility that my present apologetic method (among other things) can be defeated or refuted, either by reason or by revelation." In his Systematic Theology he explains that the imago Dei is not physical but only rational since God is not physical. May we ask him, what of Jesus? In addition, he ascribes to Scripturalism.

He is all over the net casting his net of unusual theology. For more read the articles at: Papers by Aquascum. If this is the best you have B57 <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:20 AM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Cheung is a radical. He claims, "It is with this same mindset, and the same willing to admit error, that I insist that there is no possibility that my present apologetic method (among other things) can be defeated or refuted, either by reason or by revelation." In his Systematic Theology he explains that the imago Dei is not physical but only rational since God is not physical. May we ask him, what of Jesus? In addition, he ascribes to Scripturalism.

He is all over the net casting his net of unusual theology. For more read the articles at: Papers by Aquascum. If this is the best you have B57 <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />


I don`t agree with everything cheung has written , but he`s on target with this particular article. If we read any author for that matter, be it church father or whatever, none are infalliable ! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:10 PM

Since you like “this article” so much what do you do with statements like those below that contradict your so-called beliefs (and Cheung’s at some places). You claim that God is the Author of Evil, but Cheung states “in your article”:

Quote
If God indeed determines all natural events and human affairs, then it follows that he has also DECREED [not AUTHORED] the existence of evil.

Since we derive our very concept and definition of goodness from God, to accuse him of evil would be like saying that good is evil, which is a contradiction.

Now, I nor anyone else here has enough time to go through Cheung’s article (or his Systematic) and expose all the false and questionable theology. However, you are merely appealing to a man, who has already managed to destroy his reputation among the knowledgeable theologians of our era. In addition, you appealed to Sproul before and quoted only that portion that “you thought” supported your case, however when exposed and you realized you had failed in your attempt to deceive you just walked away from the post.

Appeal to Scripture, if you can? Make a complete exegetical argument from Scripture (i.e. you must comment on the Scripture in detail and not just cut and paste it). If you can’t then you will have proven “once again” that your fanaticism is unfounded, false, and heretical.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:31 PM

Joe states
Quote
You claim that God is the Author of Evil


I repeat myself again. definition for author is=An originator or creator, as of a theory or plan.

Sin is the result of Gods original plan and purpose in christ. God decreed sin into this world, it was part of his purpose and plan. My God is not an reactionary God, all things proceed from His eternal Good pleasure. Also for the 100, 000 th time, I said that sin does not come from within the Divine essence of His Being, but from within His Sovereign prerogative and Good pleasure <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> You only highlight and harp on certain things . I said that sin does not come from within the Divine essence of His Being , but from within His Sovereign prerogative and Good pleasure

Please if you are going to represent something I say, do it honestly and with integriety <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

you say
Quote
Now, I nor anyone else here has enough time to go through Cheung’s article


please speak for yourself, you don't know how God may lead another person do you?

you say
Quote
Appeal to Scripture, if you can? Make a complete exegetical argument from Scripture (i.e. you must comment on the Scripture in detail and not just cut and paste it).


you are hilarious , Like I have not been doing that ! But I tell you what, I have no problem with that challenge, and you just make sure you do the same <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:58 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
I repeat myself again. definition for author is=An originator or creator, as of a theory or plan.

This is sheer folly! [Linked Image] When a person "authors" a book, this means that he writes something which once was not previously written. When God created the world, it did not previously exist until He willed it. Thus, by your definition, which is fabricated by you to serve your agenda and purpose, God created sin which beforehand did not exist. Thus of necessity, God is responsible and culpable for sin. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nono.gif" alt="" /> God did not originate sin. This 99.9999% of those who profess to be Christians have affirmed throughout history. The origin of sin can be accredited ONLY to that which God created, i.e., angels and humans. That He decreed that it would happen is NOT the same as Him creating/authoring it.

Do we need to hold a class for remedial English, Greek or Hebrew grammar as well as Hermeneutics 101? It is utterly inconceivable and to which the Bible testifies, that there is no evil within God. For God to be the "author", or "originator" or "creator" of sin, there must be a predisposition of evil within the divine essence, which even you have admitted doesn't exist. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:23 PM

God creating sin and God sinning are not the same thing <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:09 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
God creating sin and God sinning are not the same thing <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Can sin exist without a sinner? Since you believe God created sin prior to man even sinning then you must also believe in the pre-existence of life--prior to Adam--unless God himself is "the sinner of the entire universe." According to Plato's doctrine of anamnesis, our souls preexist our earthly birth; our true home is our place of origin among the gods. Philo, Gnostisim, and Hinduism all teach the pre-existence of souls. Is this what you believe?

Matt 3:2 Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:02 PM



Here is a great article. Joe, Pilgrim, I am not promoting Particular Baptists as a rule, but I find CC Morris spot on in this article, refuting Darryls claim

http://www.the-remnant.com/backissue6.htm


some snippets.

My observation, such as it might be, is that those who believe God is the author of sin are an extreme minority, disfavored by the overwhelming majority of Old School Baptists, regardless of the factionalism which divides them on other issues. You have not seen anything about this subject in The Remnant because it has not been brought up before, at least under my watch. You did not misunderstand me. I believe saying God is the author of sin is an ugly heresy, and I hope to continue saying it as the Lord gives me life and breath.



I have found no Bible text that told us “He causes evil” in the sense of moral evil or sin. If there is one, I ask your forgiveness, and I ask you to produce it.

Before you say Isaiah 45.7, see the Jerome Zanchius and John Gill quotes, below. If you say Amos 3.6, the same principle applies. Most commentators on these and like texts say that the evil under consideration is calamitous evil and adversity, such as wars, famines, and storms (Compare Job 1.13-19 with Job 2.10), and not moral evil. Saying “God causes calamitous evil” is a far cry from saying “God approves of and causes unrighteousness.”



You seem to equate the noun “Author” (as in “God is the author of sin,” which I do not concede) with the verb “Authorize,” which, if possible, would be worse yet:



JOHN GILL

Do not err, my beloved brethren. “For to make God the author of sin, or to charge him with being concerned in temptation to sin, is a very great error, a fundamental one, which strikes at the nature and being of God, and at the perfection of his holiness: it is a denying of him, and is one of those damnable errors and heresies, which bring upon men swift destruction; and therefore to be guarded against, rejected, and abhorred by all that profess any regard unto him, his name and glory.” (John Gill’s Commentary on James 1.16)


ELDER H. B. JONES

“We believe that God’s eternal and Holy purpose embraces all things whatsoever comes to pass, as ‘The Lord of hosts hath sworn saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed so shall it stand.’ That God has purposed that all righteousness shall come to pass by His authority and influence, and that all unrighteousness shall come to pass without His authority and influence; as is most explicitly set forth in the London Confession of Faith of the Baptist of 1689, and reaffirmed by them in the Philadelphia Confession of 1742, upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures. We do not believe that the predestination of God is the cause which moves men to action either in righteousness or unrighteousness; but that all righteous acts are the fruit of the Holy Spirit, and that all unrighteous acts are the works of the flesh under the influence of Satan. Therefore we do not believe that God is or can be either the author or approver of sin, as we have been unjustly accused.”
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:51 AM

Read this article, http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/ta/ncp.html it puts things in the perspective that I am attempting to get across.God causes everthing. Joe k, before reading this article, if you decide to read it, answer me this, Do you believe that adam sinned according to Gods purpose ? Was it Gods will, for adam to fall ? Yes or no. Did God purpose adam to sin?
Posted By: Joe k

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:57 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Read this article, http://www.asweetsavor.150m.com/ta/ncp.html it puts things in the perspective that I am attempting to get across.God causes everthing. Joe k, before reading this article, if you decide to read it, answer me this, Do you believe that adam sinned according to Gods purpose ? Was it Gods will, for adam to fall ? Yes or no. Did God purpose adam to sin?


Darryl, I am through with the dance. You MUST listen and do what you are told. Until you read the article by CC Morris and contradtict anything found there, I will nto do a thing.

BAsically what I am saying is we are all guests here, but you are not going to continue this potporri of questions without addressing one at a time. Read the article by morris. You put this sweetsavor stuff all the time. I am showing you that PB's are not in your corner. Only the ones who have gone off the deep end.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:07 AM

you said
Quote
You MUST listen and do what you are told
Please don`t speak to me in that tone ! Thats very inconsiderate, and you have no authority over anyone except maybe your wife and kids <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />

Now if you don`t want to read the article, then thats your choice. Now if want to answer my question, please do , if not so be it. Here is the questions again
Quote
Do you believe that adam sinned according to Gods purpose ? Was it Gods will, for adam to fall ? Yes or no. Did God purpose adam to sin?
in fact I would like to read anyones respond to that question/s...
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:58 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Do you believe that adam sinned according to Gods purpose ? Was it Gods will, for adam to fall ? Yes or no. Did God purpose adam to sin?

Here we are once again trying to deal with the likes of you. [Linked Image]

That question has been answered myriad times, I think by everyone who has responded to you in this thread. God has foreordained ALL THINGS, including the Fall. This is NOT the issue of contention here. What is germane is your insistence that "God is the Author of sin", which the Church and everyone here categorically denies, but you. Foreordination is not a synonym for creation. And until you understand that point, you will continue to hold to heresy of which we will not permit you to promulgate on this Board. Can you at least comprehend that much? [Linked Image]

FYI, I am not a "guest" here and I do have authority over what is allowed including your presence on this Board. [Linked Image]

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:19 AM

Pilgrim says
Quote
God has foreordained ALL THINGS, including the Fall.


Then we agree, Adams fall is a result of Gods purpose. God purposed the fall. Now do you fully understand the ramifications of that truth ?

Pilgrim says
Quote
FYI, I am not a "guest" here and I do have authority over what is allowed including your presence on this Board


I understand that pilgrim, and you have been gracious in permitting me to post even though we don`t agree.

Here is one last article that explains what I am saying, even though it may not change anyones mind, yet I shall be vindicated as to being the only person who understands this important truth the I do...

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/05/31/the-author-of-sin/
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:57 AM

Well, what we have been trying to tell you is clearly brought out in Cheung's article, which is sheer heresy. At least there is now no possible reason for anyone to be confused as to what it is exactly you believe concerning this matter of God being the "Author of sin".

To be perfectly honest, I am not going to waste my time refuting Cheung nor you on this subject since you have displayed an unteachable spirit and seem adamant in opposing the doctrine of the historic Christian Church, which men far more knowledgeable of Scripture than Cheung or you have ably defended. But I would point out one obvious error, which also demonstrates Cheung's fallacious hermeneutic, i.e., his rendering of the Scriptures in order to promote his heresy.

Quote
Cheung writes:
And Paul does not say, "But God is not the author of sin," but instead he says, "God has the right to make one person righteous and another person evil, to save one and damn another. Of course no one can resist his will! But who are you to talk back?" [re: Rom 9:19-21]

Even a grammar school student can read that passage and conclude that Cheung's interpretation of it is wrong. The text does NOT say that God "makes one person evil". God has never created anything evil and He certainly has never and never will nor can He create anything, including a man, "evil". It would be 1) a categorical contradiction and violation of His own nature, and 2) such a man who was created "evil" would not be responsible nor accountable for any sin he committed. The text is dealing with the subjects of "Predestination" and "Election"; God's dealing with members of the human race who are seen as fallen. Out of the mass of Adam's race, God has the prerogative to choose some to eternal life and to consign the rest to damnation. That is the teaching of the passage and NOT that God "creates" ex nihilo human beings as being either good or evil.

Now that you have made your position crystal clear, again I am going to warn you that if you persist in promoting this blasphemous heresy, you will be removed from this Board. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Double predestination - Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:01 AM

From the poem Vastness, Alfred Lord Tennyson

Quote

Lies upon this side, Lies upon that side
Truthless violence mourned by the wise
Thousands of voices drowning His own
In a popular torrent of lies upon lies


Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: doulos

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:40 PM

Here's what did it for me.
Quote
from R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. Rom 9:20-24 (NASB)

This is a heavy answer to the question. I must confess that I struggle with it. My struggle, however is not over whether the passage teaches double predestination. It clearly does that. My struggle is with the fact that this text supplies ammunition for the advocates of equal ultimacy. It sounds like God is actively making people sinners. But that is not required by the text. He does make vessles of wrath and vessels of honor from the same lump of clay. But if we look closely at the text we will see that the clay with which the potter works is "fallen clay. One batch of clay receives mercy in order to become vessels of honor. That mercy presupposes a clay that is already guily. Likewise God must "endure" the vessels of wrath.

Again the accent in this passage is on God's sovereign purpose and not upon man's free and good choices.


Mercy is the issue, not the SIN. Thats a whole 'nuther topic. In predestination some get mercy, some don't, none deserve it. See? Very simple.

I'm not sure why I am bothering to do this, b57, since this appears to be a one-way enterprise in your world. I suggest you start a blog and turn the comments off if you'd like to just spew your own ignorance onto the web.
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:38 PM

doulos,

Quote

Likewise God must "endure" the vessels of wrath.


This is the truth that b57 refuses to believe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />

Our sovereign God is no more guilty of creating evil or sin than Jesus was at Calvary. This is even though Jesus could have freely avoided the evil and sin of His own murder by calling legions of angels to His rescue.

b57 insists on Scripture to "prove", so here is a verse directed at the evil being in heavenly places who started this inexplicable, inexcusable and unfathomable rebellion in the first place.

Quote

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. (Eze 28:15)


Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:59 PM

you say
Quote
Can sin exist without a sinner? Since you believe God created sin prior to man even sinning then you must also believe in the pre-existence of life--prior to Adam


Yes I do believe in sin before adam sinned, else where did the serpent come from ?

[qoute]unless God himself is "the sinner of the entire universe.[/quote]

You said that I did not !

je says
Quote
According to Plato's doctrine of anamnesis, our souls preexist our earthly birth; our true home is our place of origin among the gods. Philo, Gnostisim, and Hinduism all teach the pre-existence of souls.


I don`t know what plato wrote, I don`t read that stuff !

je says
Quote
Is this what you believe?


No I don`t believe that, you are inferring that and you are being very dishonest <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" />

and again God created everything , thats not what I say, but what scripture says:



Is 46: 10

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

rev 4: 11

"You are worthy, O Lord our God,
to receive glory and honor and power.
For you created everything,
and it is for your pleasure that they exist and were created

I really like this translation :
You are worthy, our Lord and God!
You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power.
You are worthy because you created all things.
They were created and they exist.
That is the way you planned it."

Our Lord and God, [h]

You are worthy to receive

glory and honor and power,

because You have created all things,

and because of Your will

they exist and were created

"Our Lord and our God, it is right for You to have the shining-greatness and the honor and the power. You made all things. They were made and have life because You wanted it that way."


Worthy are You, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and dominion, for You created all things; by Your will they were [brought into being] and were created.(A)

The word of God speaks on its own , you either belive it or you don`t.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:06 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
The word of God speaks on its own , you either belive it or you don`t.

The issue isn't one of "believing" but in "interpreting" the Word of God. Again, the difference between you and everyone else, including the historic Christian Church is one of "exegesis" vs. "eisogesis". And thus you err and that most grievously.

In His grace,
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:24 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
beloved57 said:
The word of God speaks on its own , you either belive it or you don`t.

The issue isn't one of "believing" but in "interpreting" the Word of God. Again, the difference between you and everyone else, including the historic Christian Church is one of "exegesis" vs. "eisogesis". And thus you err and that most grievously.

In His grace,


There is only one way to interpret that God created all things, and thats ,He created every thing, There is no such thing as God`s permissive will, that is a myth <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> Anything and everything that exsist finds it`s origin in God's active determined , sovereign immutable will.
Posted By: doulos

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:42 PM

The temptation was of the Devil, but the Sin was Adam's doing and the blame is his and his children, I.e., everyone. You can't blame it on God b57--its all your fault.
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:42 PM

Quote
B57,

Yes I do believe in sin before adam sinned, else where did the serpent come from ?

So you affirm then sin cannot exist without a sinner and that the first sinner was Satan? Was he created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"? Please provide biblical evidence.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:01 PM

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
B57,

Yes I do believe in sin before adam sinned, else where did the serpent come from ?

So you affirm then sin cannot exist without a sinner and that the first sinner was Satan? Was he created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"?


The premise was, do I believe that there was sin before adam sinned ? Yes I do.

[qoute] Was he created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"? [/qoute] I don`t know, but thats not the issue. The issue is that God created everything and everyone including sin , and including satan for His purpose and pleasure. God does not have to be evil, to create evil !

isa 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I know the context , don`t bore me with that , you should not limit the word evil there to just calamity, just as you don`t limit light to just light, or limit darkness to just darkness. or peace to just civil peace <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

evil in that verse is the heb word RAH = 1) bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant



b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)


f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions


7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:07 PM

Quote
doulos said:
The temptation was of the Devil, but the Sin was Adam's doing and the blame is his and his children, I.e., everyone. You can't blame it on God b57--its all your fault.


Did God want adam to yield to satan ? yes or no ?
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:31 PM

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?

And before you protest that you've never beat your wife and what has that to do with the topic I would like to point out that your question has been answered multiple times. You in your blindness unable to understand the word of God still insist on an absurdity and so I have answered like for like.( Proverbs 26:5)

But B57 its not too late, repent believe the true gospel and come into a true knowledge of the faith. For if you don't you will be found in your sins having believed on a false gospel.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:36 PM

The issue is not how God created sin , But that he did create it for His purpose and His pleasure !
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:51 PM

Quote
beloved57 said:
Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
B57,

Yes I do believe in sin before adam sinned, else where did the serpent come from ?

So you affirm then sin cannot exist without a sinner and that the first sinner was Satan? Was he created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"?


The premise was, do I believe that there was sin before adam sinned ? Yes I do.

[qoute] Was he created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"? [/qoute] I don`t know, but thats not the issue. The issue is that God created everything and everyone including sin , and including satan for His purpose and pleasure. God does not have to be evil, to create evil !

isa 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I know the context , don`t bore me with that , you should not limit the word evil there to just calamity, just as you don`t limit light to just light, or limit darkness to just darkness. or peace to just civil peace <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

evil in that verse is the heb word RAH = 1) bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant



b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)


f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions


7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).

B57 there is no need for you to describe yourself. We already know your situation.

Now please answer my question--if you can?

Sin cannot exist without a sinner. You state that the first sinner was Satan? Was Satan created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"? PLEASE answer the question(s).
Posted By: Peter

Re: Double predestination - Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:51 PM

No B57 the issue is that you have been repeatedly shown that you are at odds with the historic Christian faith and you have been called to account multiple times by not only the faithful brethren who understand such things as God's providence and the fall of Man but also by the various moderators of this discussion forum.

Your stubborness and unteachable spirit has been pointed out to you time and again. But lest it be said that you've never know what the historic church has taught regarding sin:
Westminister Confession Chapter 5
5:4 The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (2Sa_16:10; 2Sa_24:1; 1Ki_22:22, 1Ki_22:23; 1Ch_10:4, 1Ch_10:13, 1Ch_10:14; 1Ch_21:1; Act_2:23; Act_4:27, Act_4:28; Rom_11:32-34); and that not by a bare permission (Act_14:16), but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding (2Ki_19:29; Psa_76:10), and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends (Gen_1:20; Isa_10:6, Isa_10:7, Isa_10:12); [color:"FF0000"]yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither, is nor can be, the author or approver of sin[/color] (Psa_50:21; Jam_1:13, Jam_1:14, Jam_1:17; 1Jo_2:16).

and
London Confession of Baptist Faith Chapter Five
IV. The Almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men;[11] and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth,[12] in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends;[13] [color:"00FF00"]yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.[14][/color]

As I said repentence is the first step.
11. Rom. 11:32-34; II Sam. 24:1; I Chr. 21:1
12. II Kings 19:28; Psa. 76:10
13. Gen. 1:20; Isa. 10:6-7, 12
14. Psa. 50:21; I John 2:16
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:10 AM

you say :

Quote
Likewise God must "endure" the vessels of wrath.


this comes from rom 9 where we find in vs 21 these words :

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump toto make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

The word make here is defined :1) to make

a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.

b) to be the authors of, the cause

c) to make ready, to prepare


d) to produce, bear, shoot forth

e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self

f) to make a thing out of something

g) to (make i.e.) render one anything

1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that

2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything

h) to put one forth, to lead him out

i) to make one do something

1) cause one to

j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)

2) to do

a) to act rightly, do well

1) to carry out, to execute

b) to do a thing unto one

1) to do to one

c) with designation of time: to pass, spend

d) to celebrate, keep

1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover

e) to perform: to a promise

Don`t try to say that paul is talking about fallen mankind, he is not. he uses the word clay. Pelos

which is :1) clay, which potters uses

2) mud (wet clay)

Check everywhere the word is used in the N. T and it never means fallen humanity, that is a forced interpretation. Paul is merely making the point that God has the right to make a person the way He wants to.

doulos says:
Quote
You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. (Eze 28:15)


First, he says you were perfect in your ways, not that you were perfect as in sinless <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

second, since you harp on context, who was speaking ? and who was being spoken to ?

Third, if you say it is satan to whom he is speaking before he fell, then what does it mean iniquity was found in him, not that he committed iniquity, but it was found in him..Iniquity was in him all the time, but it manifest it self...
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:59 AM

Methinks there is madness in your method. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:17 AM

They thought the same thing about Paul and the other people of God..
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:34 AM

If you carefully read my reply, I have already answered you bash.
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:52 AM

b says
Quote
repent believe the true gospel and come into a true knowledge of the faith


Do you know the true gospel? What is it I pray thee? Maybe I am one of Gods elect, and He may use you to tell me the Gospel! What is it? Please explain it bow
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:41 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
If you carefully read my reply, I have already answered you bash.


You HAVE NOT answered the questions below. PLEASE answer the question(s). Why are you avoiding the answer? Are you scared that you have been caught in your heresy?

Sin cannot exist without a sinner. You state that the first sinner was Satan. Was Satan created prior to God creating sin "in your way of thinking"?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:50 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:
They thought the same thing about Paul and the other people of God..

Hmmmmm, now you add arrogance to the long list of things which are unbecoming to your profession. You are hardly one to be compared to the Apostle Paul nor any others I have ever read or known who were of the people of God. Perhaps comparing yourself to Arius or Marcion would have been more accurate. [Linked Image]
Posted By: beloved57

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:51 AM

It seems as though you can`t read, please don`t ask me that question again, I have already answered it, in an above post. What am I to be scared of, I have clearly set forth my position...
Posted By: J_Edwards

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:56 AM

I can only assume then you are scared to make a straight answer because you realize that your heresy has been exposed for the 100th or so time. Goodbye B57, [Linked Image]
Posted By: Wes

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:11 AM

Quote
beloved57 said:

The issue is not how God created sin , But that he did create it for His purpose and His pleasure!


Beloved57,

Just put it this way in your mind. Evil is not a created thing. Evil is not a substance. Evil is not an entity. Evil is not a being. Evil is not a force. Evil is not some floating spirit. Evil is a lack of moral perfection. God created absolute perfection. Wherever a lack of that exists, sin exists. And that cannot exist in the nature of God or in anything that God makes. Evil comes into existence when God's creatures fall short of the standard of moral perfection.

Now, let's take it a step futher. God did not create evil. He did not author evil. He did not make evil. But listen carefully, very important: God did decree to use evil as a part of his eternal plan, okay? He will not be culpable for it. He did not bring it into existence. That would be impossible because God is good, all good and only good. Therefore, whatever comes out of Him is all good and only good. God can, therefore, produce only good. And what is evil but the absence of that good, which is a choice made by the reasonings based upon the information revealed to his creatures? But, God was not caught off guard. In fact, God decreed that evil would be part of his plan. He is not the creator of evil, and He is not the cause of evil. He did not bring evil into existence in a cosmic sense, and he did not and does not bring evil into existence in a personal sense. He is not the cause of sin, nor is he the cause of sins in the lives of people. But he does use it for his purposes. And that's why in Isaiah 45:7 -- just write this down; you may run across it. It says God creates "calamity." Some older translations say He "creates evil." That is a really poor translation, and not true. God does create "calamity." And if you read the context of Isaiah 45:7, it is clear that judgment is the issue. God does not create evil, but God does bring judgment on evil, creating therefore the calamity by which evil is judged. Now, listen carefully: Scripture written by God always assigns the guilt and responsibility for all sin to creatures; never to God. Never to God.

The above two paragraphs are a small portion of a sermon preached by John MacArthur entitled The Origin of Evil. The preaching of God's Word is a means of grace. May this message be used of God to shed light on your path today.


God did not create sin! bash


Wes
Posted By: Adopted

Re: Double predestination - Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:36 AM

Dearly beloved57,

Ignorance is not a crime, so I guess you're free to go.

I do have one last comment. B-52, if you do not know that evil and sin fester and erupt from the creature Alone you will never know or appreciate what unmerited Grace truly is.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24
© 2017 The Highway