Big Picture

__id_2645
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2645 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:29 pm

darin-houston wrote:
I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position
Isn't that what Calvin believed? I know all today don't believe in double predestination, but it's a classical Reformed position, I think, isn't it?
No, I think Calvin held the view I outlined. Have you listened to Whites review of Gregg's discourse on R.C. Sproul's review of Calvin? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding over what double predestination is, if you go to White’s website, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?i ... 7&catid=12 scroll down to the Radio Free discussion of Gregg’s tape you will hear his explanation of what may be the cause of confusion, 19.50 he touches on the author of sin, 28.01 he touches on the restraining act of God and 31.05 begins to review the mischaracterization of double predestination.

PaulT
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:45 pm

How so? I've heard this treatment and read Sproul's views of the so-called "mischaracterization," but...
From John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen.

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.
Though not subject to simple cut and paste, his view is even more clearly spelled out here:

CALVIN'S CALVINISM

Treatises on the

Eternal Predestination

of God the Secret
Providence
of God

By: John Calvin

TRANSLATED BY HENRY COLE

REFORMED FREE
PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
RO. BOX 2006
GRAND RAPIDS, M149501

http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvi ... ation.html
Even before Calvin, Gottschalk clearly taught this from Augustine onward:
GOTTSCHALK OF ORBAIS
SHORTER CONFESSION
© 2003 Victor Genke, translation
(PL 121, Col. 347–350)

I believe and confess that omnipotent and unchangeable God foreknew and predestined saint angels and elect men to eternal life gratis and that He equally predestined devil, head of all demons, with all of his apostates, and also reprobate men, namely his members, on account of their own most certainly foreknown evil merits, through the most right judgment to deserved eternal death; for thus says the Lord himself in His Gospel: “The prince of this world is already judged” (1). What blessed Augustine explained for people is therefore publicly expressed so: “That is irrevocably destined to eternal fire” (2). Likewise the Truth itself about the reprobate: “Whoever does not believe is judged already,” (3) that is to say is already damned. He (4) says: “The judgment has not yet appeared, but already it has taken place” (5). Likewise, commenting on these words of John the Baptist: “His testimony is not accepted by anybody,” (6) he says thus: “By anybody that is by a certain people, which is prepared for the wrath of God, to be damned with the devil” (7). Likewise about Jews: “They were angry, those dead and predestined to eternal death” (8). Likewise: “Why did the Lord say to Jews: ‘You do not believe, because you are no sheep of mine’ (9), unless He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood?” (10) Likewise commenting on these words of the Lord: “The sheep that belong to Me listen to My voice; I know them and they follow Me. I give them eternal life; they will never be lost and no one will ever steal them from My hand. The Father, for what He has given Me, is greater than anyone, and no one can steal anything from the Father’s hand” (11), he said so: “What can the wolf do? What can the thief and the robber? They destroy none but those predestined to destruction” (12). Likewise speaking about two worlds: “The whole world is the Church, and yet the whole world hates the Church. The world therefore hates the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed” (13). Likewise: “For there is a world about which the apostle says: ‘That we might not be condemned with this world’ (14) For that world the Lord does not pray, for He does not ignore to what it is predestined” (15). Likewise: “Judas, the betrayer of Christ, was called the son of perdition, predestined to perdition” (16). Likewise in Enchiridion: (17) “To the damnation of those whom He justly predestined to punishment.” Likewise in his book On the Perfection of Human Righteousness (18) he says: “This good, which is required, nobody has done, not a single person. But so in that race of men, which is predestined for perdition. For God’s foreknowledge took notice of them and pronounced the sentence on them.” Likewise in his book On the City of God: (19) “Who has given such things even to those who He has predestined to death.” Likewise blessed pope Gregory: “This Leviathan with all of his members is deputed to eternal tortures” (20). Likewise Saint Fulgentius in the third book On the Truth of Predestination and Grace (21) says: “God certainly prepared punishment for those sinners whom He justly predestined to suffer torments.”

Blessed Fulgentius composed a whole book concerning this particular question, that is on the predestination of the reprobate to destruction, for his friend named Monimus.

On which basis also Saint Isidore says: “Predestination is twofold: either of the elect to rest or of the reprobate to death” (22). Therefore so I (23) believe and confess everything with these elect of God and catholic men, inasmuch as I am divinely inspired, animated, equipped. Amen.

A false witness indeed is he who corrupts anything either in meaning or form of that which has been stated.

[footnotes are mostly to Augustine] -- see
Though we could argue as to the "causative agent" of their reprobation, I think it's pretty clear that at least Augustine and Calvin had the common understanding of double predestination. After Calvin, the --lapsarians diverged a bit, but in some sense don't all mainstream Calvinists believe that God "made one vessel for dishonor" in a salvific sense with respect to certain individuals?

Created for the purpose of being reprobate and exercising His judgment on them is what we're talking about (I think) regardless of whether God used their known behavior to reprobate themselves or whether He actively caused them to refuse to believe.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_2645
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2645 » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:04 am

darin-houston wrote:How so? I've heard this treatment and read Sproul's views of the so-called "mischaracterization," but...
From John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen.

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them.
Though not subject to simple cut and paste, his view is even more clearly spelled out here:

CALVIN'S CALVINISM

Treatises on the

Eternal Predestination

of God the Secret
Providence
of God

By: John Calvin

TRANSLATED BY HENRY COLE

REFORMED FREE
PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
RO. BOX 2006
GRAND RAPIDS, M149501

http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvi ... ation.html
Even before Calvin, Gottschalk clearly taught this from Augustine onward:
GOTTSCHALK OF ORBAIS
SHORTER CONFESSION
© 2003 Victor Genke, translation
(PL 121, Col. 347–350)

I believe and confess that omnipotent and unchangeable God foreknew and predestined saint angels and elect men to eternal life gratis and that He equally predestined devil, head of all demons, with all of his apostates, and also reprobate men, namely his members, on account of their own most certainly foreknown evil merits, through the most right judgment to deserved eternal death; for thus says the Lord himself in His Gospel: “The prince of this world is already judged” (1). What blessed Augustine explained for people is therefore publicly expressed so: “That is irrevocably destined to eternal fire” (2). Likewise the Truth itself about the reprobate: “Whoever does not believe is judged already,” (3) that is to say is already damned. He (4) says: “The judgment has not yet appeared, but already it has taken place” (5). Likewise, commenting on these words of John the Baptist: “His testimony is not accepted by anybody,” (6) he says thus: “By anybody that is by a certain people, which is prepared for the wrath of God, to be damned with the devil” (7). Likewise about Jews: “They were angry, those dead and predestined to eternal death” (8). Likewise: “Why did the Lord say to Jews: ‘You do not believe, because you are no sheep of mine’ (9), unless He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood?” (10) Likewise commenting on these words of the Lord: “The sheep that belong to Me listen to My voice; I know them and they follow Me. I give them eternal life; they will never be lost and no one will ever steal them from My hand. The Father, for what He has given Me, is greater than anyone, and no one can steal anything from the Father’s hand” (11), he said so: “What can the wolf do? What can the thief and the robber? They destroy none but those predestined to destruction” (12). Likewise speaking about two worlds: “The whole world is the Church, and yet the whole world hates the Church. The world therefore hates the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed” (13). Likewise: “For there is a world about which the apostle says: ‘That we might not be condemned with this world’ (14) For that world the Lord does not pray, for He does not ignore to what it is predestined” (15). Likewise: “Judas, the betrayer of Christ, was called the son of perdition, predestined to perdition” (16). Likewise in Enchiridion: (17) “To the damnation of those whom He justly predestined to punishment.” Likewise in his book On the Perfection of Human Righteousness (18) he says: “This good, which is required, nobody has done, not a single person. But so in that race of men, which is predestined for perdition. For God’s foreknowledge took notice of them and pronounced the sentence on them.” Likewise in his book On the City of God: (19) “Who has given such things even to those who He has predestined to death.” Likewise blessed pope Gregory: “This Leviathan with all of his members is deputed to eternal tortures” (20). Likewise Saint Fulgentius in the third book On the Truth of Predestination and Grace (21) says: “God certainly prepared punishment for those sinners whom He justly predestined to suffer torments.”

Blessed Fulgentius composed a whole book concerning this particular question, that is on the predestination of the reprobate to destruction, for his friend named Monimus.

On which basis also Saint Isidore says: “Predestination is twofold: either of the elect to rest or of the reprobate to death” (22). Therefore so I (23) believe and confess everything with these elect of God and catholic men, inasmuch as I am divinely inspired, animated, equipped. Amen.

A false witness indeed is he who corrupts anything either in meaning or form of that which has been stated.

[footnotes are mostly to Augustine] -- see
Though we could argue as to the "causative agent" of their reprobation, I think it's pretty clear that at least Augustine and Calvin had the common understanding of double predestination. After Calvin, the --lapsarians diverged a bit, but in some sense don't all mainstream Calvinists believe that God "made one vessel for dishonor" in a salvific sense with respect to certain individuals?

Created for the purpose of being reprobate and exercising His judgment on them is what we're talking about (I think) regardless of whether God used their known behavior to reprobate themselves or whether He actively caused them to refuse to believe.
Why the but? Does this mean that you indeed understand the distinction yet for some reason don’t accept that the distinction is the Reformed position? I don't know about the later quote you provided I would need to study the document in it entirety because as you seemingly understand the position entails a wider view of concepts than what is presented here, but the quote from Calvin indicates that God has determined those that believe are saved those that don't aren't. This is consistent with what I indicated and demonstrates the misrepresentation to which I alluded. God has decreed those that are rebellious to him are punished, so what? By stating God does not afford all knowledge such that they can come to a recognition of their dilemma doesn’t mean He predetermined they will not accept him, it just means, if you went back and read Calvin’s position on the fall that God is allowing them to follow the desires of their heart, what the 2nd document you provided states, “on account of their own most certainly foreknown evil merits, through the most right judgment to deserved eternal death”.

PaulT
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:22 am

This is consistent with what I indicated and demonstrates the misrepresentation to which I alluded. God has decreed those that are rebellious to him are punished, so what?
Based on my understanding, the position you represent here is the Arminian one -- that God decrees the mechanics, but not the individuals. I am pretty certain that Calvin and the rest believe that the very individuals were decreed and created for the very purpose of reprobation and punishment, which they would say glorifies God.

There are modern Reformed who would not agree publicly with this, but it strikes me they have an inconsistent position if they truly believe it.

It may be that I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make -- I'll try to go back and listen to Dr. White's treatment, but am I missing something obvious?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_bshow
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _bshow » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:16 am

Homer wrote:the Calvinist insists the One commanding repentance simultaneously will not allow most to repent.
Hi Homer,

No, the Calvinist does not insist this. Men refuse to repent because they love their sin and hate God. God doesn't prevent anyone from repenting who truly wants to repent. We simply believe that apart from the grace of God, we will never have the desire to repent.

Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_bshow
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _bshow » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:22 am

darin-houston wrote:
I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position
Isn't that what Calvin believed? I know all today don't believe in double predestination, but it's a classical Reformed position, I think, isn't it?
Hi Darin,

I hold to double predestination, but what Homer described is not the classical position. God does not actively "prevent" the reprobate from coming to faith; He doesn't need to. Apart from the active operation of the Holy Spirit to change us, we love our sin and hate God, and would never come to Him.

Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:24 am

Hi Homer,

No, the Calvinist does not insist this. Men refuse to repent because they love their sin and hate God. God doesn't prevent anyone from repenting who truly wants to repent. We simply believe that apart from the grace of God, we will never have the desire to repent.

Cheers,
Bob
I've never been able to understand this distinction -- how is it qualitative different for God to make a person sick and withhold the cure so that they die vs. making a person with the capacity to be sick or well, and making them sick so that they will die.

(I don't believe we are born neutral, by the way, before you suggest such -- I just don't see the practical difference)

Both scenarios would still say the same thing about God. To say it's true, but glorifies God doesn't resolve the problem. If the bible said it clearly, I would have to agree with it even though it doesn't feel right, but that's just not the God I read about who loves all people, gives them a plan they can follow if they only will, and judges according to that will.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_bshow
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by _bshow » Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:38 am

darin-houston wrote:
Hi Homer,

No, the Calvinist does not insist this. Men refuse to repent because they love their sin and hate God. God doesn't prevent anyone from repenting who truly wants to repent. We simply believe that apart from the grace of God, we will never have the desire to repent.

Cheers,
Bob
I've never been able to understand this distinction -- how is it qualitative different for God to make a person sick and withhold the cure so that they die vs. making a person with the capacity to be sick or well, and making them sick so that they will die.

(I don't believe we are born neutral, by the way, before you suggest such -- I just don't see the practical difference)

Both scenarios would still say the same thing about God. To say it's true, but glorifies God doesn't resolve the problem. If the bible said it clearly, I would have to agree with it even though it doesn't feel right, but that's just not the God I read about who loves all people, gives them a plan they can follow if they only will, and judges according to that will.
Hi Darin,

First, are you an Open Theist? If you aren't, then this line of objection has the same force against your position. I can explain further if you wish.

Second, I believe the Bible does teach this (or I wouldn't believe it). See Prov. 16:4 for example.

Your illustration about the sick man is not apt. Didn't Jesus say, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners?" (Mk. 2:17, NASB) The Pharisees were the "righteous" who didn't see their sickness.

Cheers,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_darin-houston
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by _darin-houston » Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:38 am

PaulT said:
No, I think Calvin held the view I outlined. Have you listened to Whites review of Gregg's discourse on R.C. Sproul's review of Calvin? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding over what double predestination is, if you go to White’s website, http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?i ... 7&catid=12 scroll down to the Radio Free discussion of Gregg’s tape you will hear his explanation of what may be the cause of confusion, 19.50 he touches on the author of sin, 28.01 he touches on the restraining act of God and 31.05 begins to review the mischaracterization of double predestination.
I was able to listen to this section during lunch today (thanks for the time markers).

The only distinction I see him making concerns a related but different question -- he rejected as "strawman" the author of sin argument (primary mover or actor vs. decree with secondary actor acting according to their nature).

However, he actually acknowledged that it was not a coherent view of God to believe that He only deals in the macro --- he even acknowledged that God's decree was in fact individual as to election to reprobation -- he just said it was to His glory (a qualitative difference). He objected to the value judgment against the view, but didn't seem to deny the view. The only thing he seemed to suggest was that it was a passive act on God's part, but did agree it was decretive as to the end of these particular men, elect before all time (including pre-fall, I presume).

Especially if the decree was before the fall, there's just no way I can see that you can avoid the consequence of this position, and suggesting the "author of sin" position is a strawman doesn't address the basic question, which exists regardless of your view of the authorship/active reprobation point. (besides, I'm not so sure you can dismiss the author of sin question so easily -- saying it isn't so doesn't remove it unless you agree with our view of corporate election). I agree with White that the only coherent view is that either both or neither types of election are corporate. I think Sproul suggests otherwise, but I can't reconcile the assymetry in my little pea brain.

He then turns to his own strawman, it seems -- that suggesting we want to make God in our own image -- that's just not what we believe -- I can tell you for sure, that I am not capable of the level of forgiveness and acceptance of otherwise reprobate men who merely turn to me - I would demand they prove their love before extending my own. It doesn't address our position fairly, I think, to suggest we just want a God that looks like us. I just want to believe in the God as expressed in His Holy Scriptures, a God who is infinitely patient, yet has limits and will at some point even purposefully harden some people's hearts who have continued in their reprobation. However, to extend that hardening to an entire group of specific individuals before time began just doesn't seem to be suggested by Scripture.

I don't have a problem with a Calvinist who says "yes, the traditional Reformed position is such and such, but I don't personally believe that position." But, there's no escaping that (apart from the author of sin conclusion), the traditional Reformed view is that of double predestination. I recognize that there are probably as many diverse views of these points in the Calvinist camp as there are differences in views of election in the Arminian camp, but Calvinists seem to think they speak in a unified voice on this matter. The difference I have with white is I believe it is a coherent view to believe God deals in the macro on election to reprobation, but only becuase I also believe He deals in the macro on election to salvation.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:45 pm

Hello Bob,
I wrote:The Jews embrace paradox! and believed 'opposing things' can both be true at the same time! Actually, the Jews weren't concerned with resolving these kinds of "intellectual conflicts" as they didn't really have them!
You replied:
Hi Rick,

A. If you mean that the New Testament is not a systematic theology, I certainly agree.

B. On the other hand, if you mean that the NT contains actual (rather than apparent) paradox, or that paradox is merely in the eye of the beholder, then I have to disagree.
A. Right, the NT isn't a sytematic theology: (Jews have never been noted for having that).

B. I meant that the Jewish worldview, as revealed in the Bible and other Jewish writings, simply accepts paradoxical concepts and doesn't try to "solve" them. The Jewish mindest can easily accept that God is in control of absolutely everything yet gives humanity a free will to choose to believe and obey.

Inside the Bible itself, you don't see much of what Calvinists and Arminians debate. The Jews' theology is relational as opposed to philosophical (Gentile: Calvinist, Arminian). Sure, Jews have historically dealt with topics like presestination and free will, etc. But their theology is based in relationship with God, as distinguished from Gentile theology, which is philosophical on these matters.

The debated topics and sub-topics in Calvinism Vs. Arminianism don't matter much to Jews; they didn't (and don't) see things like we (Gentiles) do. IMO, the Hebrew mind has the "highest view of God's sovereignty" to be found! (by "the Hebrew mind" I mean that of the biblical authors).
You wrote:If we were to truly embrace paradox, then communication is impossible and the foundation of God's revelation is undermined, and the NT means anything and everything and nothing.
In terms of doing theology we, of course, have to reason things out, I agree.

I feel the foundations of Calvinism and Arminianism are essentially undermined---the biblical authors held neither view!
(And to Homer), you wrote:Men refuse to repent because they love their sin and hate God. God doesn't prevent anyone from repenting who truly wants to repent. We simply believe that apart from the grace of God, we will never have the desire to repent.
Arminians believe Prevenient Grace precedes saving-faith.... Thanks.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”