Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Ordering the Soteriological Elements

I agree with

  • Supralapsarianism.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Amyraldism.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Arminianism.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
unred, I would naturally disagree.

Romans 9 - INTRODUCTION TO ROMANS 9

The apostle having discoursed of justification and sanctification, and of the privileges of justified and sanctified ones, proceeds to treat of predestination, the source and spring of all the blessings of grace; and to observe how this distinguishing act of God's sovereign will has taken place, both among Jews and Gentiles; in treating of which, he knew he should go contrary to the sense of his countrymen the Jews, who have a notion that all Israel shall have a part in, or inherit the world to come (q): and that the Gentiles will be for ever miserable; and nothing was more disagreeable to them, than to talk of their rejection of God, and the calling of the Gentiles; wherefore that it might be manifest, that it was not out of pique and ill will to them, that the apostle said the things hereafter related; he expresses the most cordial affection to them imaginable, and which he introduces in Rom_9:1, by way of appeal to Christ, who knew the truth of what he was about to say, and who could, together with the Spirit of God and his own conscience, testify for him that it was no lie: the thing he appeals for the truth of, is in Rom_9:2, that the salvation of the Jews lay near his heart; that it was no pleasure to him to think or speak of their rejection, but was what gave him continual pain and uneasiness: and his great desire for their good is expressed in a very strong and uncommon manner, Rom_9:3, the reasons of it are partly the relation they stood in to him, being his brethren and kinsmen; and partly the many privileges they had been favoured with of God; an enumeration of which is given, Rom_9:4, and foreseeing an objection, he prevents it, which might be made, that if the Jews were cast off, the promise of God to that people that he would be their God, would become void, and the preaching the Gospel of Christ to them of no effect; to which he answers by distinguishing between Israel and Israel, or the elect of God among them, and those that were not; wherefore though the latter were rejected according to the purpose of God, the promise and preaching of the word had their effect in the former, Rom_9:6, and that there was such a distinction, he proves from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, who were both Abraham's seed; yet one was a child of promise, and the other a child of the flesh, and were emblematical of the children of the promise, and the children of the flesh among that people; Rom_9:7, and further confirms this by the instance of Jacob and Esau, who were born of the same parents, and were twins; and yet one was in the favour of God, and the other not; and that this was owing not to works, but to the sovereign will of God in election, he proves by observing that this was before good or evil were done by either of them, Rom_9:11, and that this was notified to Rebekah before, Rom_9:12, as appears from a passage in Gen_25:23, and by another passage in Mal_1:2, which is cited, Rom_9:13, then an objection is started, Rom_9:14, that if God loves one, and hates another, both being in equal circumstances, as Jacob and Esau were, he must be guilty of unrighteousness; which he answers and removes, first by a detestation of such a charge against God, and then by producing testimonies out of the books of Moses, proving both election and reprobation, as being not of the works of men, but of the will of God; the former of these he proves, Rom_9:15, from Exo_33:19, by which it appears, that the choice of men to salvation is not according to the will of man, but according to the grace and love of God, Rom_9:16, the latter he proves by the case of Pharaoh, Rom_9:17, and the Scripture relating to that, Exo_9:16, and from both testimonies concludes, Rom_9:18, that God's having mercy on one, and hardening another, are according to his sovereign will and pleasure; then another objection rises, up, if so, God has no reason to find fault with men that are hardened in sin, since they are according to his will, and in sinning do but fulfil it, and which no man resists; and this objection is formed in a very pert and sneering manner, and insinuates that God is cruel and acts unreasonably, Rom_9:19, to which he answers, by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made; and by observing the folly and madness of replying against God, and the absurdity of such a procedure, taken from the consideration of the one being a creature, and the other the Creator, Rom_9:20, and by instancing in the case of the potter, who has power over his clay, to form it in what shape, and for what use he pleases, Rom_9:21, and accommodates this, both to the affair of election and reprobation, and to the business of the latter first, Rom_9:22, where he observes the end of God in it to show forth his power and wrath, and describes the subjects of it, which clears him from injustice, and points at the patience of God towards them, which frees him from the charge of cruelty, Rom_9:22, and then proceeds to apply the metaphor before used, to the objects of election styled vessels of mercy, and the end of the Lord to manifest the riches of his glory in them, and the method he takes to bring them to eternal happiness, by preparing them for it by grace, Rom_9:23, which is done in the effectual calling, the objects of which are both Jews and Gentiles, Rom_9:24, That it is the will of God that the Gentiles should be called, he proves, Rom_9:25, from some passages in Hosea, Hos_2:23, and that God had chosen, and so would call some among the Jews, he clearly makes appear, Rom_9:27, from some prophecies of Isaiah, Isa_10:22, and then he concludes the chapter by observing the free and distinguishing grace of God, in the calling of the Gentiles, and the justification of them by the righteousness of Christ; that such who were far off from it, and sought not after it, should enjoy it, Rom_9:30, when the Israelites, who were diligent and zealous in seeking after a righteousness to justify them before God, yet did not arrive to one, Rom_9:31, the reasons of which are given, Rom_9:32, because it was not the righteousness of faith, or the righteousness of Christ received by faith they sought; but a legal one, and by works which can never be attained by sinful men: they sought after a wrong righteousness, and in a wrong way, because they stumbled at Christ, and rejected him and his righteousness; and this removes an objection which is suggested in the two preceding verses, that God is unrighteous in calling the Gentiles, who never sought after righteousness, and in rejecting the Jews that followed after one: and that they did stumble at Christ and his righteousness, is no other than what was foretold in Isa_8:14, and that whoever believes in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be saved, he suggests is a doctrine agreeably to Isa_28:16, which passages are referred to, Rom_9:33

(q) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. sect. 1.
 
~JM~, that isn’t naturally disagreeing, that is artificially assuming someone else’s belief system. Do you have your own thoughts on this? I’m not going to try to make a point, only to have you say that you actually feel more inclined to so&so's view in that area. If you can’t put it into your own words, don’t bother to answer. I liked you better when you were pretending I was on ‘ignore’.
This is a discussion board, not a book exchange. Even a book review would be more like an actual dialog.

How are you feeling today, JM? Do you have your doctor’s report in your pocket? :wink:
 
unred typo said:
~JM~, that isn’t naturally disagreeing, that is artificially assuming someone else’s belief system. Do you have your own thoughts on this? I’m not going to try to make a point, only to have you say that you actually feel more inclined to so&so's view in that area. If you can’t put it into your own words, don’t bother to answer. I liked you better when you were pretending I was on ‘ignore’.
This is a discussion board, not a book exchange. Even a book review would be more like an actual dialog.

How are you feeling today, JM? Do you have your doctor’s report in your pocket? :wink:

unred, do you have something against books? Are you really "unread?"

I didn't have time to type it out so I quote those who express the view I hold to, a view I held before reading any of Gill's works and Dr. John Gill is able to explain it much better then I could.

I won't bother to answer you, again.

~JM~
 
In the context of Romans 9 with the Potter making one for wrath and one for glory, I fail to see how God didn't know anything about those He created or what they were created for.

He did know, but isn't that the point. You must prove that He knew not only because He is all knowing, but because He caused it. Can God make a decree, that allowed both His permissive and effectual will, based on Him being all knowing? Or can He only make a decree as a result of what He effectually causes? I don't believe that He is limited in that way. Because He is all knowing, this allows Him to decree from both an effectual and a permissive will from the foundations of the world.

The Potter, knowing the fall would happen, also knowing that both would be guilty, elected Jacob before the foundations of the world. They both have a fixed end before they are created. Both Jacob and Esau, guilty, but God elected Jacob. Jacob saved, based on God's effectual will, Esau, based on God leaving Him to himself and his just punishment, before anything had yet happened. The statement "before they did any good or evil" does not confound every other option but supra. And these are not the only two choices.

"...is Calvin speaking within the context of being predestined to damnation from the beginning or only after the fact of original sin?"

Ask from scripture, this same question, not "in time", but from the foundations of the world. Show me were the predestined is used on anyone being pronounced guilty?

Quote:
Supralapsarianism is the teleological order and infralapsarianism is the historical order. Since the purpose for discussing the order of the eternal decrees is to discover the logical arrangement of the formulation, and not the historical order of the plan's execution, supralapsarianism is the biblical position.

No more than Budists prove they are correct by proving evolution wrong. In fact, isn't that the Muslim way? If they critiqued the Koran one, one thousandth as much as they critiqued the Bible, they would find nothing but problems. Problems that make their criticism of the Bible look foolish and then some.

The point is, that there are other options. You need to prove what you believe from scripture. I said from the beginning that I disagree with both and supra and infra.
 
~JM~ said:
unred, do you have something against books? Are you really "unread?"

I didn't have time to type it out so I quote those who express the view I hold to, a view I held before reading any of Gill's works and Dr. John Gill is able to explain it much better then I could.

~JM~

Fine, I’ll deal with it if you could just please explain what ‘it’ is in this portion of his ridiculously endless run-on sentence:

“by putting the objector in mind that he was a man, a mere creature that started it, and that it was God against whom it was made;â€Â

I would be embarrassed to say he had explained anything better than I could have done if I were you. What an impossible ball of strung together words he has made to supposedly ‘explain’ the chapter! It is so convoluted there isn’t a paragraph or a period in 1200+ words. Surely, you could do better than that, ~JM~! If the author was trying to obscure the true meaning of his explanation, he couldn’t have done a better job of it. :roll: It’s totally absurdly obscure.

~JM~ said:
I won't bother to answer you, again.

~JM~

Does that mean you're going to pretend I'm on 'ignore' again? Or you're not going to cut and paste the same answer to me again? Because you didn't bother to answer me even that time.

edited for clarity: missing word: 'was'
 
Jason, I don't think that i'm doing a good job of getting my points across and as a result, i'm probably causing more confusion than anything.

Both Supra and Infra are argued from an eternal decree. But how can anyone lay out what they believe to be God's thought process from the foundations of the world without laying out the decrees in some order. Both infra and Supra need to do this. This gives the illusion that one or both are being argued "in time", but really they are not. That's why I said in one of my first posts that we must aways be aware of the fact that God is not bound by time. Many have said that Augustine's "reprobation" is very passive, in other words closer to the infa "subsequent to the fall" camp, and not the Supra "before the fall" camp. Many are unsure which, if any Calvin is making his points from, the Supra or the Infa perspective, or neither. I think that the supra is being assumed into his argument because many are assuming that the infra argument is not sourced in an eternal decree.

Concerning infra, Election of those chosen is unconditional, just as with Supra. It's the damnation that is different. In Supra it is unconditional, in Infra, it is conditional.

One more quote...

"While the infralapsarian doctrine of decrees agrees with the Supralapsarian that all things come to pass in accordance with God's eternal plan, the infralapsarian object ed to the supralapsarian notion of the fall as "an upward step in fulfilling God's redemptive purposes," thus compromising the evil of sin."

The canons of Dort began with the fall of Adam, not God's eternal decree. I think that this fact speaks loudly. If I had to assume one it would be infra because it does not conflict with God's nature. I like infra because not only does it fit better with the rest of the Bible, it assumes the best from God. For the most part, i'm content to leave the thought process of God from before the foundations of the world as a mystery, unless scripture gives me a glimpse into His thinking. Having said that, a glimpse it will remain. I cannot create a theology from that. It's good to search for the truth, but we need to be careful at the same time.
 
Jerome Zanchius wrote a wonderful booklet during the Reformation about the attributes of God and predestination. He was one of Calvin’s students and like Beza, was supra. Zanchius begins with the attributes of God to establish the supra view…following his lead and taking notes and pointers from his work I typed out a few things from his works. These are just a few notes, his work is tightly nit but we all not have the time to read books online. lol

God’s Knowledge: I believe God’s knowledge is perfect and what is known by God is known from eternity (Acts 15:28). God doesn’t learn as time unfolds, His knowledge exists as He does, “…but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.†The future is not speculation but fact to God and in fact comes to pass, His knowledge cannot be thwarted or challenged. God's foreknowledge of events is really knowledge of events that exist in both God’s will and foreknowledge which are consistent with each other. We find an example in Acts 2:23.

God’s Will: God’s will is free. Whatever happens, happens freely by God’s will, this includes sin which needs God’s permissive decree to take place. Martin Luther wrote, "God permitted Adam to fall into sin because He willed that he should so fall." Zanchius wrote a masterful piece, from which I draw much good doctrine, including the following references to Exodus 4:21, Gen. 22:12 and Matt. 26:43. God wills the salvation of the elect and therefore, wills the reprobation of the non-elect, nothing is contrary to His will. Deut. 2:26, 30, Psalm 33:11, Job 23:13, 14, 1 Sam. 2:25, Psalm 33:11, Eph. 1:11. The evil performed seems contrary to God’s revealed will but His hidden will is omnipotent and cannot be hindered or deterred as we seen in the story of Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Man meant it for evil, God meant it for God. The unrevealed will is briefly displayed in this these words “God meant.†God’s will is supreme, all that there is was will into existence by God. As Jerome Zanchius notes, “In consequence of God's immutable will and infallible foreknowledge, whatever things come to pass, come to pass necessarily, though with respect to second causes and us men, many things are contingent, i.e., unexpected and seemingly accidental.â€Â

You wrote:

He did know, but isn't that the point. You must prove that He knew not only because He is all knowing, but because He caused it. Can God make a decree, that allowed both His permissive and effectual will, based on Him being all knowing? Or can He only make a decree as a result of what He effectually causes? I don't believe that He is limited in that way. Because He is all knowing, this allows Him to decree from both an effectual and a permissive will from the foundations of the world.

It seems that you’re saying God didn’t know what decree He would make until He made the first one? What is the purpose in God’s decrees?

The Potter, knowing the fall would happen, also knowing that both would be guilty, elected Jacob before the foundations of the world. They both have a fixed end before they are created. Both Jacob and Esau, guilty, but God elected Jacob. Jacob saved, based on God's effectual will, Esau, based on God leaving Him to himself and his just punishment, before anything had yet happened. The statement "before they did any good or evil" does not confound every other option but supra. And these are not the only two choices.

We take different steps. What I get from your post, God’s election is based on man’s fall or what God can foreknow, but election can’t take place until the fall happens. How is it different then Arminianism? I don’t see how it is. You’re saying God foreknew the fall would happen and then decreed in time who would be saved. I’d say God knew what would take place before the decrees, before anything happens or takes place, it’s the will of God that wills it. God made man with the purpose of showing His glory by saving some. The average reader will agree, to elect some and pass over the rest is double predestination, but some folks twist on this point.

"...is Calvin speaking within the context of being predestined to damnation from the beginning or only after the fact of original sin?"

Ask from scripture, this same question, not "in time", but from the foundations of the world. Show me were the predestined is used on anyone being pronounced guilty?

Dave, did you think about the passages I posted where God sends an evil spirit? As for this new question, God does activity hardens the hearts of the reprobate. You can’t and I know you won’t deny this but I don’t know why it doesn’t factor in when thinking about the decrees.

John 17:12 – lost on purpose
Romans 9:21-22 – made for
Romans 11:7 – activity hardens the heart
Jude 4 - ordained to condemnation
Isaiah 19:14 – activity led by God astray
Exodus 9:16 – raised up for this purpose. Think about what the purpose of Pharaoh was.
Proverbs 16:4 – created the wicked for destruction

There’s a few, but I’d like to know what you make of the evil spirits being sent.

No more than Budists prove they are correct by proving evolution wrong. In fact, isn't that the Muslim way? If they critiqued the Koran one, one thousandth as much as they critiqued the Bible, they would find nothing but problems. Problems that make their criticism of the Bible look foolish and then some.

The point is, that there are other options. You need to prove what you believe from scripture. I said from the beginning that I disagree with both and supra and infra.

What does Islam have to do with two Christians discussing the decrees of God? Nothing. Teleological means there is a purpose in the design of the world, of man, from the will of God which activity brings about His will even in allowing sin. Infra and other forms do not take into account God’s purpose in creation, that’s all that’s meant. It arranges the order of the decrees according to the history without taking into consideration a divine plan. That’s all.

Jason, I don't think that i'm doing a good job of getting my points across and as a result, i'm probably causing more confusion than anything.

You’re doing a great job, we just disagree.

Both Supra and Infra are argued from an eternal decree. But how can anyone lay out what they believe to be God's thought process from the foundations of the world without laying out the decrees in some order. Both infra and Supra need to do this. This gives the illusion that one or both are being argued "in time", but really they are not. That's why I said in one of my first posts that we must aways be aware of the fact that God is not bound by time. Many have said that Augustine's "reprobation" is very passive, in other words closer to the infa "subsequent to the fall" camp, and not the Supra "before the fall" camp. Many are unsure which, if any Calvin is making his points from, the Supra or the Infa perspective, or neither. I think that the supra is being assumed into his argument because many are assuming that the infra argument is not sourced in an eternal decree.

“For Augustine the order of the decrees was very different. Sometimes, indeed, he includes reprobation in predestination, but even when he does not, he construes foreknowledge, not as being negative and passive but as active.†Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 2.

[After Augustine, before the Reformation, we find other names mentioned in connection with supra, Alvarez, the Salmanticenses, Estius, Sylvius and latter Gottschalk, Bradwardine, Wycliffe. I only point this out for further reading.]

Bavinck continues to observe a litter latter in the same chapter when speaking of Calvin’s works, “According, Adam’s fall, sin in general, and all the evil in the world cannot just have been foreseen by God but must also in a sense been willed and determined by him. Hence, there must have been a reason (unknown to us) why God willed the fall: there has to be a higher plan of God that existed prior to the fall.†As a reference to Calvin’s work he is writing of, he lists J. Calvin “The Doctrine of Predestination†CR XXXVI, 288 (Reid, 75) Calvin seems to move between the two views of infra and supra and speaks of proximate and remote causes of sin because they have a personal application but he does ascribe to God the idea of reprobation, but as you know Beza was the successor to Calvin in Geneva and continue from where Calvin left off. Please note that Herman Bavinck was not supra or infra and actually maintains a similar view to the one you’ve presented. In hopes of finding a middle voice to speak for Augustine and Calvin I reviewed Bavinck’s works. If you have just one set of Dogmatics this would be the one to get. He’s a middle roader, classic Reformed, very elegant in style.

I’d say the supra’s are not assuming anything but basing arguments on what is found about God in scripture, His attributes, His plan, His will.

Concerning infra, Election of those chosen is unconditional, just as with Supra. It's the damnation that is different. In Supra it is unconditional, in Infra, it is conditional.

Reymond's Modified Supralapsarianism
1. Elect some sinful men, reprobate rest
2. Apply redemptive benefits to the elect
3. Provide salvation for elect
4. Permit Fall
5. Create

Because God knows all from eternity, you’ll noticed how Reymond’s version begins with “elect some sinful men.†There isn’t a time when God doesn’t know about us, our future, our sinfulness, our election and the state of the reprobate, that’s why there’s a limited atonement.
The canons of Dort began with the fall of Adam, not God's eternal decree. I think that this fact speaks loudly. If I had to assume one it would be infra because it does not conflict with God's nature. I like infra because not only does it fit better with the rest of the Bible, it assumes the best from God. For the most part, i'm content to leave the thought process of God from before the foundations of the world as a mystery, unless scripture gives me a glimpse into His thinking. Having said that, a glimpse it will remain. I cannot create a theology from that. It's good to search for the truth, but we need to be careful at the same time.

On to Dort…it was a starting point. It was a compromise in many ways as they tried to defend against the Arminians and provide a way to express Calvinistic soteriology. The result was beginning with the fall which was after all the main bone of contention. A latter confession, the Westminster, re-opened the debate and in chp. 3 we see it’s left undecided once again. The idea that God has two wills that are contrary to one another is unsettling to say the least but this is the outcome of infra [and other forms of ordering]. Adam’s fall was permitted to happen even when God didn’t want it to, so God had to begin election and even permits men and women to go to hell which is contrary to His will. [WCF reads, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.†EPH 1:11, JAM 1:13, ACT 2:23] What I believe the scriptures to teach would be a will of command and a will of decree. Neither of these wills are ever in conflict with each other. It’s my view that infra doesn’t view God in a better light but makes God seem illogical and therefore unbiblical. Robert Higby compares the infra [selection] with supra [election] when dealing with the immutability of God and although I don’t agree with everything on the 5solas site, I think we can find middle ground by reading infra and Brother Higby’s article:

Infra: To properly understand what God has determined in history, we must reason from the beginning of time to the end. God’s thought and purposes are bound by the order of time.

Supra: To properly understand what God has determined in history, we must reason from the end of time to the beginning. God’s thought and purposes, being infinite, transcend the human limitations of time. If God always accomplishes what his sovereign will desires (assuming his unitary will), creatures with limited minds cannot understand his purposes without starting at the point where God ultimately desires history to consummate.
http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=564

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2zanchiu.htm

Out of time, peace.

~JM~
 
JM said:
God made man with the purpose of showing His glory by saving some. The average reader will agree, to elect some and pass over the rest is double predestination, but some folks twist on this point.
*raises hand* I'm one of those who get twisted by that. One is not glorified (God or no God) if one creates some for worthiness and to glorify Him and some for destruction. :-? There's no comfort in my Faith if this is true. One logical conclusion one may come to if they were to think this out all the way, is if God were to sanctify all mankind. :o The other logical conclusion is if some willingly rejected HIM. Either/or would glorify.

There's neither glory nor honor in creating some purposely for destruction.
 
Vic C. said:
JM said:

*raises hand* I'm one of those who get twisted by that. One is not glorified (God or no God) if one creates some for worthiness and to glorify Him and some for destruction. :-? There's no comfort in my Faith if this is true. One logical conclusion one may come to if they were to think this out all the way, is if God were to sanctify all mankind. :o The other logical conclusion is if some willingly rejected HIM. Either/or would glorify.

There's neither glory nor honor in creating some purposely for destruction.

Then logically, God in your view, can't know the future. In your view, God would have to have created all mankind and see what happens.

If, in your view, God does know the future, He still created a mass of people that would eventually be sent to hell/destruction...but God still knew they would reject Him and He still created them knowing they would never be saved but sent to hell. There's little difference between our two views if we accept that God knows the future. It's in the wording Vic. You word it so it sounds nice, but it's the samething. I know you believe God knows the future and He still created a mass of people that reject Him but nothing can happen contrary to the will of God if God's will is perfect and His knowledge absolute.

~JM~
 
JM said:
Then logically, God in your view, can't know the future. In your view, God would have to have created all mankind and see what happens.

If, in your view, God does know the future, He still created a mass of people that would eventually be sent to hell/destruction...but God still knew they would reject Him and He still created them knowing they would never be saved but sent to hell. There's little difference between our two views if we accept that God knows the future. It's in the wording Vic. You word it so it sounds nice, but it's the samething. I know you believe God knows the future and He still created a mass of people that reject Him but nothing can happen contrary to the will of God if God's will is perfect and His knowledge absolute.

~JM~

You know what is interesting? Is the way your worded that. I don't believe in fatalism nor do I believe that God "elects" those whom will go to hell. But the way you worded that is interesting me to me...

...but God still knew they would reject Him and He still created them knowing they would never be saved but sent to hell.

I guess I never questioned it in that context.


-Mike
 
Before we go any further...should we? Should we continue to discuss this topic in public with so many new believers around?

~JM~
 
Jason, I know that this is going to seem like a cop out, but really it's just the opposite. Last night I checked my e-mails for the first time in a few days and I started reading from some of the links you gave me, starting with Dabney in Chapter 18, aand was amazed at what a great job he not only did in explaining my understanding of this debate, as I was in complete agreement with him throughout, but this particular work of his seemed to be tailor made for this discussion in that he addresses all the questions that you are posing.

He deals with the difference between Angelic election and man's election, and the flip side which deals with the sourse of the fall of both. He deals with Supralapsarianism, and also sublapsarianism (which I believe is just another name for infralapsarianism), athough they may legitimately be different with only slight differences that I have yet to detect. He deals with Esau and Jacob in great detail from different questions, just as you asked, and even confronted unread's point of view of the same. Just about every point that I tried to make, he made, and did it much better. And just about every question posed in this thread to me, he assumed in his writing and then he answered. He even came to the final conclusion that I did. Not what I expected.

I read it three times. It's full of a bunch of little nuggets that can easily be over looked, so take your time with it. He even accurately defines foreordained. Which is nice to see. I think much of the problem in us understanding each other has to do with terminology being used to make a point, while the definition of these same terms is possibly being understood differently, or not recognized in it's proper context from one to the other.

I was going to E-mail you about this since it came from you, but I'll post it so everyone can read since Dabney is my new friend and he absolutely nailed it, so perfectly.

http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20D ... pter18.htm

I feel like posting the whole chapter.....

"For thoooose about to read, we saluuuuute you" na NA na NA NAaaa :-D

Dave
 
Before we go any further...should we? Should we continue to discuss this topic in public with so many new believers around?

That's funny, from the same link, Dabney made the same observation.

"The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care." In preaching it, that proportion should be observed, which obtains in the Bible; and no polemical zeal against the impugners of the doctrine ought to tempt the minister to obtrude it more often. To press it prominently on anxious inquirers, or on those already confused by cavils of heretics or Satanic suggestions, or to urge it upon one inclined to skepticism, or one devoid of sufficient Christian knowledge, experience and humility, is unsuitable and imprudent. And when taught, it should be in the mode which usually prevails in Scripture, viz: a posteriori , as inferred from its result, effectual calling.

But when thus taught, the doctrine of predestination is full of edification. It gives ground for humility, because it leaves man no ground for claiming any of the credit of either originating or carrying on his salvation. It lays a foundation for confident hope; because it shows that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." It should open the fountains of love and gratitude, because it shows the undeserved and eternal love of God for the undeserving. See here an eloquent passage in Witsius, b. 3, chap. 4, 30. We should learn to teach and to view the doctrine, not from an exclusive, but from an inclusive point of view. It is sin which shuts out from the favor of God, and which ruins. It is God’s decree which calls back, and repairs and saves all who are saved. Whatever of sin, of guilt, of misery, of despair the universe exhibits, arises wholly out of man’s and Satan’s transgression. Whatever of redemption, of hope, of comfort, of holiness and of bliss alleviates this sad panorama, all this proceeds from the decree of God. The decree is the fountain of universal benevolence; voluntary sin is the fountain of woe. Shall the fountain of mercy be maligned because, although it emits all the happiness in the universe, it has a limit to its streams?
 
Hey brother, Dabney's work has been responded to, I can send you those links as well... ;-) Dabney was somewhat a low infra and total Amyrauldian on the "L." {like Shedd}

I'll get to work, it's been a while since I've read the responses, but I'm sure I can find something for you.

Peace,

jm
 
From Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination"

In the eternal ages back of the creation there could not have been any certainty as to future events unless God had formed a decree in regard to them. Events pass from the category of things that may or may not be, to that of things that shall certainly be, or from possibility to fruition, only when God passes a decree to that effect. This fixity or certainty could have had its ground in nothing outside of the divine Mind, for in eternity nothing else existed. Says Dr. R. L. Dabney: "The only way in which any object can by any possibility have passed from God's vision of the possible into His foreknowledge of the actual, is by His purposing to effectuate it Himself, or intentionally and purposely to permit its effectuation by some other agent whom He expressly purposed to bring into existence. This is clear from this fact. An effect conceived in posse only rises into actuality by virtue of an efficient cause or causes. When God was looking forward from the point of view of His original infinite prescience, there was but one cause, Himself. If any other cause or agent is ever to arise, it must be by God's agency. If effects are embraced in God's infinite prescience, which these other agents are to produce, still, in willing these other agents into existence, with infinite prescience, God did virtually will into existence, or purpose, all the effects of which they were to be efficients."

And to the same effect the Baptist theologian, Dr. A. B. Strong, who for a number of years was President and Professor in the Rochester Theological Seminary, writes: "In eternity there could have been no cause of the future existence of the universe, outside of God Himself, since no being existed but God Himself. In eternity God foresaw that the creation of the world and the Institution of its laws would make certain its actual history even to the most insignificant details. But God decreed to create and to institute these laws. In so decreeing He necessarily decreed all that was to come. In fine, God foresaw the future events of the universe as certain, because He had decreed to create; but this determination to create involved also a determination of all the actual results of that creation; or, in other words, God decreed those results."

Foreknowledge must not be confused with foreordination. Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but is not itself foreordination. The actions of free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. Hence Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge. When I say, 'I know what I will do,' it is evident that I have determined already, and that my knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it."

Since God's foreknowledge is complete, He knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since He knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is plain that the saved and the lost alike fulfill His plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, He could at least refrain from creating them.

We conclude, then, that the Christian doctrine of the Foreknowledge of God proves also His Predestination. Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled things; and nothing can have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God,  the great first cause, freely and unchangeably foreordaining whatever comes to pass. The whole difficulty lies in the acts of free agents being certain; yet certainty is required for foreknowledge as well as for foreordination. The Arminian arguments, if valid, would disprove both foreknowledge and foreordination. And since they prove too much we conclude that they prove nothing at all.


I'm taking a break from posting on the forum for a few days so I can do some net reading, I'll be around to read posts but won't respond for short time.

Peace,

jm
 
Dave... said:
That sounds cool. Do you have any of these books? if so do they have any insight?

(see Calvin's Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff; also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 364ff)

From here http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

Here's one in pdf that you can save and search, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Loraine Boettner.

Do you mean: Description: A series of addresses on the leading historical characters and the great biblical doctrines of the Reformation, including chapters on Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, Assurance, and Calvinism and Arminianism. “There are two leading aspects in which the Reformation, viewed as a whole, may be regarded; the one more external and negative, and the other more intrinsic and positive. In the first aspect it was a great revolt against the see of Rome, and against the authority of the church and of churchmen in religious matters, combined with an assertion of the exclusive authority of the Bible, and of the right of all men to examine and interpret it for themselves. In the second and more important and positive aspect, the Reformation was the proclamation and inculcation, upon the alleged authority of Scripture, of certain views in regard to the substance of Christianity or the way of salvation, and in regard to the organization and ordinances of the Christian church†(William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation).

Nope. I'll be reading Toplady, Brine, Bavinck [again] and Zanchius.

~JM~
 
From Loraine Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination"

About your post quoting Loraine Boettner quoting Dabney. I'm having a really hard time trying to understand what her point is, or to even follow her logic. I thought it wuld be an argument against infa, about predestination. She seems to be making her argument against Arminianism.

Dabney quote fit's perfectly with Infra. The logic of her argument doesn't seem to flow very well from any context.

Is she arguing against Dabney? Or using him as part of her case?

If the point she is trying to make is what I think it is, I have a better example.

"There are serious questions concerning the logical compatibility of comprehensive divine foeknowledge and libertarian freewill. The idea, roughly, is this. If God knows already what will happen in the future, then God knowing this is part of the past and is now fixed, impossible to change...If God knows that a person is going to perform [some act], then it is impossible that the person fail to perform it, so one does not have a free choice whether or not to perform it." William Hasker

Dabney touches on some of the same.

"5th. From the Arminian doctrine of conditional election, must flow this distinction, admitted by many Wesleyans. Those who God foresaw would believe and repent, He thereupon elected to adoption. But all Arminians believe that an adopted believer may "fall from grace." Hence, the smaller number, who God foresaw would persevere in gospel grace, unto death, He thereupon elected to eternal life. And the persons elected to eternal life on foresight of their perseverance, are not identical with those elected to adoption on foresight of their faith. But now, if the former are, in the omniscience of God, elected to eternal life on foresight of their perseverance, then they must be certain to persevere. We have here, therefore, the doctrine of the perseverance of this class of the elect. The inference is unavoidable. On this result we remark first: It is generally conceded by both Calvinists and Arminians, that the doctrine of perseverance is consistent only with that of unconditional election, and refutes the opposite. Second: In every instance of the perseverance of those elected unto eternal life (on certain foresight of their perseverance) we have a case of volitions free and responsible, and yet certainly occurring. But this, the Arminians hold, infringes man’s freedom. Third: No effect is without a cause. Hence, there must be some efficient cause for this certain perseverance. Where shall it be sought? In a contingent will? or in efficacious grace? These are the only known sources. It cannot be found in a contingent source; for this is a contradiction. It must then be sought in efficacious grace. But this, if dispensed by omniscience, can be no other than a proof and result of electing grace."
 
Two fat caterpillars sat on a branch arguing about the green color of the leaves. One said the color was created by God as camouflage for green caterpillars while the other insisted it was the eating of the green leaves that caused transparent caterpillars to be green and after the fall turned the leaves red, they would change as well, therefore proving God‘s ultimate plan of salvation. While they hotly contended for their view, a bird swooped down and ate them both.

:-D
 
Dave... said:
About your post quoting Loraine Boettner quoting Dabney. I'm having a really hard time trying to understand what her point is, or to even follow her logic. I thought it wuld be an argument against infa, about predestination. She seems to be making her argument against Arminianism.

Dabney quote fit's perfectly with Infra. The logic of her argument doesn't seem to flow very well from any context.

Is she arguing against Dabney? Or using him as part of her case?

If the point she is trying to make is what I think it is, I have a better example.

"There are serious questions concerning the logical compatibility of comprehensive divine foeknowledge and libertarian freewill. The idea, roughly, is this. If God knows already what will happen in the future, then God knowing this is part of the past and is now fixed, impossible to change...If God knows that a person is going to perform [some act], then it is impossible that the person fail to perform it, so one does not have a free choice whether or not to perform it." William Hasker

Dabney touches on some of the same.

"5th. From the Arminian doctrine of conditional election, must flow this distinction, admitted by many Wesleyans. Those who God foresaw would believe and repent, He thereupon elected to adoption. But all Arminians believe that an adopted believer may "fall from grace." Hence, the smaller number, who God foresaw would persevere in gospel grace, unto death, He thereupon elected to eternal life. And the persons elected to eternal life on foresight of their perseverance, are not identical with those elected to adoption on foresight of their faith. But now, if the former are, in the omniscience of God, elected to eternal life on foresight of their perseverance, then they must be certain to persevere. We have here, therefore, the doctrine of the perseverance of this class of the elect. The inference is unavoidable. On this result we remark first: It is generally conceded by both Calvinists and Arminians, that the doctrine of perseverance is consistent only with that of unconditional election, and refutes the opposite. Second: In every instance of the perseverance of those elected unto eternal life (on certain foresight of their perseverance) we have a case of volitions free and responsible, and yet certainly occurring. But this, the Arminians hold, infringes man’s freedom. Third: No effect is without a cause. Hence, there must be some efficient cause for this certain perseverance. Where shall it be sought? In a contingent will? or in efficacious grace? These are the only known sources. It cannot be found in a contingent source; for this is a contradiction. It must then be sought in efficacious grace. But this, if dispensed by omniscience, can be no other than a proof and result of electing grace."

Dave, Boettner is a guy and solidly infra, the post was made for your pure enjoyment brother. :wink:

God sent Christ to redeem the elect because he loved them, but how could he love those he ought to hate? This is an insoluble problem under INFRALAPSARIANISM, in which the decree for the fall of all men occurs before the decree to redeem the elect, so that the various decrees follow a historical order. However, the problem does not appear under SUPRALAPSARIANISM, in which the election of some to be saved in Christ occurs before the decree for the fall of all men, so that the various decrees follow a teleological order. When speaking of the order of eternal decrees, we are of course only considering a logical order and not a temporal one, since all thoughts are simultaneous in the mind of God.V. Cheung, Systematic Theology

I think we maybe over thinking it. Calvin include the doctrine of predestination under the decrees of God, BUT, he moved it to salvation after thinking about it. I haven't found a reason given. Any ideas?

Although all thoughts are simultaneous in the mind of God, the logical arrangement of the eternal decrees begins with the decree that God would glorify himself through the salvation of the elect by Christ and the destruction of the reprobates. Each subsequent decree is then made as the means by which the former one would be accomplished. Therefore, God chose to glorify himself, and the means by which he would be glorified is the salvation of some by Christ and the damnation of all others. The means by which the latter would be accomplished is the redemptive work of Christ. And the means by which the redemptive work of Christ is made meaningful is the fall of mankind. For the fall of mankind to be possible, God decreed the creation of the world and man. V. Cheung, Systematic Theology

Dave, I can't get away from the idea that infra holds election as an after thought or a consequence of the fall.

Infralapsarianism confuses the execution of the eternal plan with its formulation, so that it begins where the supralapsarian order ends. However, a rational mind formulates a plan first by determining the end, and then working backward, determines the means by which it would reach the determined end. The execution of such a plan, however, reverses the order of the formulation so that it begins where the formulation ends. Supralapsarianism is the teleological order and infralapsarianism is the historical order. Since the purpose for discussing the order of the eternal decrees is to discover the logical arrangement of the formulation, and not the historical order of the plan's execution, supralapsarianism is the biblical position. This means that God actively decreed the fall of mankind as one of the steps by which he would fulfill his eternal plan. Sin was not an accident, and redemption was not a mere reaction on the part of God. As the Scripture says, "The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster" (Proverbs 16:4). V. Cheung, Systematic Theology

Cheung's works can be downloaded for free by clicking here. Every once in a while I read his works, but I haven't yet disagreed with what I've read. You may enjoy reading Peter Lombard who seems to agree with what you've stated so far. He was a Catholic Bishop in the 12 century and his name keeps coming up in Calvin's Institutes. Do you own the Insititutes? I can send you a pdf so you can search our topics. I have a few other pdf books you might be interested in, just say the word and I'll send them.

God bless,

~JM~
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top