The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved?

What question was that? Am I a Supralapsarian? Yes, I am. But since when is Supralapsarianism a heresy? The fact is Arminianism is a heresy, not Supralapsarianism.

The Canons of Dort do not condemn supralapsarianism. They condemn Arminianism:)

While it is true that the Westminster Confession leans toward infralapsarianism, it is also true that the WCF allows for supralapsarianism, particularly in the chapter on God's decrees.

I'm always amused when Baptists accuse Calvinists of being "hyper" Calvinists. That's because such accusations are usually a smoke screen for semi-Arminianism.

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4 KJV)

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6 KJV)

Charlie

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/calvin_predestination.html


John Calvin:

"For our salvation is then sure to us, when we find the cause of it in the breast of God. Thus, when we lay hold of life in Christ, made manifest to our faith, the same faith being still our leader and guide, our sight is permitted to penetrate much farther, and to see from what source

30 CALVIN'S CALVINISM.

that life proceeded. Our confidence of salvation is rooted in Christ, and rests on the promises of the Gospel. But it is no weak prop to our confidence, when we are brought to believe in Christ, to hear that all was originally given to us of God, and that we were as much ordained to faith in Christ before the foundation of the world, as we were chosen to the inheritance of eternal life in Christ."

The idea that the cause of the fall is not revealed in Scripture is an outright lie:

Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.1 This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.2

See also: WLC 21 | WSC 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3.

2 Rom. 11:32.

The cause of the fall is God's decree. The Confession affirms that God purposed the fall.

Chapter 3: Of God's Eternal Decree

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:1 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,2 nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.3

See also: WLC 12 | WSC 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18.

2 James 1:13,17; 1 John 1:5.

3 Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33.

God ordained the fall and that is inescapable. Logic requires it since God is omnipotent. To say that the fall just happened apart from God's control and we don't know how it happened is simply pure Arminianism.

God is not the author of sin but He is the cause of sin. That is what the Bible teaches:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV)

Now 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. (1 Kings 22:23 KJV)

I am the author of what I have written here. But God is the cause of my being here and having the ability to say this in the first place. Thus, God is the ultimate cause behind all that happens. He could have cut me off so that I could not say anything else. Whatever comes to pass is ordained of God.

12. What are the decrees of God?

Answer: God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will,1 whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time,2 especially concerning angels and men.

See also: WCF 3.1 | WSC 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Rom. 9:14,15,18.

2 Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9:22,23; Ps. 33:11.

13. What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?

Answer: God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory;1 and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof:2 and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, [whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favour as he pleaseth,] hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.3

See also: WCF 3.3-4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Tim. 5:21

2 Eph. 1:4-6; 2 Thess. 2:13,14.

3 Rom. 9:17,18,21,22; Matt. 11:25,26; 2 Tim. 2:20; Jude 4; 1 Pet 2:8.

14. How doth God execute his decrees?

Answer: God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will.1

Untypically of me, I have included your entire post to illustrate how confused you are and apparently, because of your blindness caused by your "hobby horse" getting in the way, incapable of responding to what people actually write, of which this reply of yours is paradigmatic.

1. I maintain that man is "free" to choose that which is most important to him at any given moment, ACCORDING TO HIS NATURE. Again, I would refer you to a) Scripture and b) the following references: The Bondage of the Will by Luther, The Freedom of the Will by J. Edwards, and Human Nature in its Four-Fold State by T. Boston.

2. In my response to you I made it VERY CLEAR and specifically wrote that "God decreed the fall of Adam". Yet you choose to ignore my statement regarding the ultimate cause of the Fall and go off on one of your typical tirades, totally ignoring what I wrote. Consequently, what you wrote in your reply is irrelevant and thus moot.

3. Once again, affirming that ALL things have been foreordained by God, including the Fall and all its details without exception, Scripture does NOT reveal HOW Adam or Eve chose to disobey God. We know, i.e., 99.9% of those who adhere to biblical, confessional Calvinism, that man's choices are limited according to one's nature. The natural, fallen man only chooses those things which are sinful because of the corruption of his nature. The will has no 'power' of its own and only does that which flows from the influence of the intellect and affections. Thus, because the totally depraved sinner hates God and all that is holy, just and good, he only but freely chooses that which is evil. Contrariwise, the spiritual, regenerate man having been spiritually resurrected has a new nature, the predisposition of which is for God and all that is good. However, a remnant of the old nature remains and consequently, the regenerate man can and does sin.

But, in the case of Adam and Eve, their nature was not sinful, nor was there even the slightest inclination toward sin within them. They were created "very good" and thus their predisposition was totally toward God. That being fact and accepted by 99.9% of biblical, confessional Calvinists, the question of HOW could a person who is totally inclined toward God choose that which is contrary to his nature? The attempt to answer the question by pointing out the outside temptation of Satan fails to satisfy, for again, Adam, and Eve's, total being; intellect, affections and will were only toward God and all that is good. Thus, no outside influence would be able to change that nature. Only God is capable of changing one's nature; e.g., Original Sin where the sin nature was given as penalty for disobedience, and regeneration which is given to the elect due to God's eternal electing love. Thus, to the finite mind which has not been informed, the answer is indiscernible (Deut 29:29). The problem of the origin of sin, which is in regard to Satan's rebellion/disobedience, is even more perplexing and unanswerable because there was no outside influence involved. Yes, God ordained the fall of Satan and those other angels. And yes, God ordained the fall of man. But HOW these actually occurred given the nature of the individuals involved is not revealed and neither you nor Gordon Clark has the answer. Logic is NOT the infallible source of truth. God's inspired written Word is truth (Jh 17:17). And where God has chosen not to reveal certain things, which doubtless is infinite, wisdom and humility submits and silence is embraced... not prideful speculation.

May I suggest you also consider a change of attitude in your participation on this Board?

It is you who is ignoring the Westminster Confession. The chapter on "Free Will" specifically DENIES free will. Furthermore, Luther says that even prior to the fall Adam did not have libertarian free will between two equal choices. Although man became a slave to sin after the fall, he did not have free will even before the fall. That's because whatsoever comes to pass is ordained of God. Adam, being a moral agent, chose to become a sinner and he did so of his own choice. Adam is the author of his own sin. However, that does not imply libertarian free will. The only Being who has "free" will is God. That is because God alone is unaffected by anything outside of the Tri-Personality of the divine nature. God is immutable and completely independent of His creation.

Furthermore, the idea that God loves the reprobate is clearly unscriptural. "Many" are called but "few" are chosen. Those who do not believe are "condemned already." And it should be pointed out that not one of the elect will be lost. If the reprobate are condemned already--because they were decreed to reprobation (Romans 9:13) and because they refuse to believe (John 3:18), it follows that the outcome is predetermined. (1 Peter 2:8). So if Christ died for those already in hell, how do you call that love? Common grace teaches that Christ "in some sense" died for all mankind. (See Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology). That would mean that Christ died for some other reason other than simply propitiating God's wrath against His elect.

If whatsoever comes to pass IS God's will, THEN it follows that God hates the reprobate and that is the reason they will be in hell forever. God does whatsoever He pleases and what God does is always right--even when He predetermines the reprobate to hell before the foundation of the world:

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8 KJV)
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (Ephesians 1:11 KJV)

I might add that I am not the one who began this discussion. The word "tirade" as used by you is not a logical argument but rather it is nothing more than the method of propaganda meant to distract from your lack of a logical and rational response.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels1 are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.2

See also: WLC 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:41.

2 Rom. 9:22,23; Eph. 1:5,6; Prov. 16:4.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.1

See also: WLC 13

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter IX - "Of Free Will"

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]

I rest my case.

I should add that my contention for monergistic sanctification is not one that produces no results in thinking and behavior. The point is that IF we make ANY progress in the Christian life it is SOLELY the result of sovereign grace:


"As so often in the epistles, here too Paul completely rules out all human claims to merit. Salvation is a free gift. It originates entirely from God and not at all from the will or actions of man. If indeed the Christian voluntarily corrects his conduct and advances in sanctification, it is because God gives him the ability and the will. True enough, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but we do so because God works in us both to will and to do, and this divine working depends solely on God's good pleasure." -- Gordon H. Clark. (Philippians 2:12-13)


Commentaries on Paul's Epistles: Ephesians. (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 1985), page 27. [Cf. Ephesians 1:6 KJV].


http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2013/05/gordon-h-clark-sanctification-depends.html

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12 KJV)

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5 KJV)

1. I hold to synergistic sanctification which is not one that denies that salvation is ALL of sovereign grace. There is nothing that a true Christian thinks, says or does which has any merit whatsoever in regard to salvation.

2. The majority who hold to "monergistic sanctification" denigrate or even deny regeneration and its results, i.e., a RADICAL transformation of the soul. Additionally, the majority who hold to "monergistic sanctification" insist that the regenerated sinner is "totally depraved", which is antithetical and totally contradictory.

3. Clark's statement is certainly correct on its face. It certainly does not stand in opposition to what I hold in regard to "synergistic sanctification" which is confessional.

The first section you quoted from the WCF refers to Adam's condition PRIOR to the fall. The last section clearly denies free will exists.

The human nature prior to the fall is not predetermined to good or evil. But that does not prove that Adam had two equal choices as the libertarian free will view espouses. God has free will but does God have the liberty to become the author of evil acts? Not at all. So the natural liberty you refer to in Adam does not and never could say that Adam had "libertarian" free will. Adam was free from original sin or any corruption of nature prior to the fall. AFTER the fall the human nature IS predetermined to wickedness:

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5 KJV)

Notice that the divine image that is totally corrupt is the "thoughts of his heart." The divine image and likeness of God is rationality and the ability to think. After the fall the noetic effects of sin has corrupted man's ability to reason properly, which leads to all sorts of evil.

As he thinks in his heart, so is he. Proverbs 23:7

What brings about transformation is the knowledge of God's Word. The Scriptures are the instrument God uses in the effectual call. Romans 10:7-17. Acts 4:10, 12. Matthew 22:14

You are overgeneralizing. Clark himself advocated synergistic sanctification. The point of my quote is that even Clark is inconsistent here. And the further point is that even Calvinists who advocate synergistic sanctification are not advocating libertarian free will or any other such thing. That's because free will does not exist even in the regenerated elect. That's obvious because even the regenerate continue to sin both voluntarily and involuntarily in this life. They only become sinless in glorification.

Once again, you have failed to address what I wrote and the subject of man's "free agency" vs. "free-will", as held by semi-Pelagians. Historic Arminianism, ala the 'Remonstrance' was biblically sound. Their solution to man's dilemma, his corruption of nature, is in error and heretical; prevenient grace.

I do not hold to any form of "libertarian free-will" so you can desist from implying any such nonsense. My position has been stated with great clarity and often enough and is that which is held by all of the Reformers, Puritans and Reformed Confessions & Catechisms. Man can only think, speak and will that which is according to his nature. According to a man's nature, he has the freedom of choice. In short, he is a "free agent".

On the matter of Adam, he was SOLELY predisposed to all righteousness, for he was created upright. Thus the conundrum of HOW he fell. God decreed that he would, but God's decree never forces a man's will, vis-a-vis WCF IX.

Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. (Psalm 135:6 KJV)

So, what IS your point?

Clark was certainly consistent with Scripture and with the Reformed Confessions. Evidently, Clark and myself and a multitude of others who hold to "synergistic sanctification" are inconsistent with your minority view. Doubtless, I am comfortable with that!

My point is that your view is Arminian, while Clark's view is not.