Donations for the month of October


We have received a total of $45 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,526
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,695
Posts51,474
Members930
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,526
Tom 3,546
chestnutmare 2,920
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,771
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 21
Pilgrim 13
Susan 4
Johan 2
John_C 2
grit 1
Recent Posts
Looking for information
by Relztrah. Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:36 PM
Very Interesting Eschatological Discussion
by Tom. Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:50 PM
Agree or Disagree and Why?
by Tom. Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:09 PM
Ever heard of Michael Heiser
by Tom. Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:02 PM
ADHD
by Tom. Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:47 AM
Quoting Scripture a Comfort?
by Tom. Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:53 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12
Re: Double predestination [Re: Pilgrim] #29595
Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:44 AM
Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:44 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,546
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,546
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
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

Re: Double predestination [Re: Peter] #29596
Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:41 PM
Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:41 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


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 Godís 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.

Last edited by speratus; Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:44 PM.
Re: Double predestination #29597
Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:27 PM
Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
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 Lutherís 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 devilís 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.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Double predestination #29598
Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:50 PM
Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,546
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,546
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
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 donít mind that you donít agree with Calvinists, but it isnít very Christian to misrepresent people.

In case you didnít 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

Re: Double predestination [Re: Tom] #29599
Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:38 AM
Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:38 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


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 donít mind that you donít agree with Calvinists, but it isnít 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".

Re: Double predestination #29600
Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:48 AM
Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:48 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
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 piŤce de rťsistance on the doctrine of God's eternal predestination is also on The Highway here: Calvin's Calvinism, translated by Henry Cole.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Double predestination [Re: knoxandcalvin] #29601
Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:24 PM
Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 421
South Dakota
li0scc0 Offline
Addict
li0scc0  Offline
Addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 421
South Dakota
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


Grace is not common.
Re: Double predestination #29602
Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:05 PM
Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:05 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
.
W
William Offline
Addict
William  Offline
Addict
W
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 710
.
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)

Re: Double predestination #29603
Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:37 PM
Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:37 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,546
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,546
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
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

Last edited by Tom; Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:45 PM.
Re: Double predestination [Re: Pilgrim] #29604
Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:36 AM
Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:36 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


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?".

Re: Double predestination [Re: William] #29605
Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:07 AM
Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:07 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


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.

Re: Double predestination [Re: Tom] #29606
Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:24 AM
Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:24 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


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?

Last edited by speratus; Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:31 AM.
Re: Double predestination #29607
Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:39 AM
Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:39 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,526
NH, USA
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,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Double predestination #29608
Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:16 PM
Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
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 makingówhich 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, ďIn 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.Ē 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]

Re: Double predestination #29609
Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 PM
Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
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="" />


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Meta4), 28 guests, and 107 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SnydersSoapbox, Susan, reformedbygrace, ReformedDisciple, Micki Bowman
930 Registered Users
Shout Box
October
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
828,475 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.057s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 3.0021 MB (Peak: 3.3103 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-10-23 01:44:37 UTC