Double predestination, part deux

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by convicted1, Aug 24, 2011.

  1. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Bro. Greektim was wanting a response to Romans 9:21,22. First, let us take a look at these two verses:

    Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

    21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

    If you look at these two verses only, it appears to prove double predestination. But let's expand these further, and get to the "marrow of the bone".

    22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

    23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

    24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

    25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

    26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

    It looks like Apostle Paul was calling the Jews the vessels of honour, and the Gentiles the vessels of dishonour/vessels fitted for destruction. Not that God made the vessels of honour for heaven and the vessels of dishonour for hell. He is stating that God will/is pouring His wrath out on the children of disobedience(vessels of dishonour), and blessing those who have put their trust in Him(vessels of honour). Or that is how I see it.

    Also, look at verse 22. Apostle Paul said "what if God is longsuffering(patient) with the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"? So, now God is longsuffering for the Gentiles(vessels fitted for destruction) also, and not just the Jews.

    BTW, I started this new thread because the original one was closed before I could give another response. Please keep this thread CIVIL!!! I love you all!!

    i am I AM's!!

    Willis
     
    #1 convicted1, Aug 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2011
  2. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    What happened to part uno...they close it?
     
  3. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    Yes Don there are different schools of thought among Calvinists....Ive posted a chart in here before thats pretty comprehensive.....here it is still again.

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

    Note, there is a point & click to Hyper-Calvinism also in the body of the text.
     
    #3 Earth Wind and Fire, Aug 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2011
  4. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    454
    Thanks EWF.
    Phil Johnson's chart is excellent and concise. :thumbs:
    It also shows that the view that Skandelon was trying to palm off onto poor old Charles Hodge is not Calvinism at all, but Amyraldism.

    Steve
     
  5. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    I just got finished reading it again myself.... appears that way.

    I also liked his clear definition of Hyper-Calvinism.....all too often, people try to hang a brother by calling him a HC & clearly this shows that they are a classification un to themselves
     
  6. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbs: :thumbs:
     
  7. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed.. I did a thread on this a while back.. and brought it back up a couple of times.. recently within the last month I believe.

    In my thread (seen here) I used two lists from two different sites (Johns from Monergism and Phils from Spureon), since both referenced each other as more information on the subject. In contacting both men, both state their lists are saying the the same things, but one is a little more concise. (you will find this in the thread as well).

    However be careful touting Phil Johnson list as showing H-C because there are some people here who will declare he doesn't know what he is talking about because according to his list, they would be or at have H-C tendencies.

    What is of interest, and important to note is that Hyper-C is NOT just, a view to not proclaim the gospel message (though it IS one of them).. it is in reality a view or views that diverges from historical Calvinism in such a way that it does not take away from.. but in fact adds to and takes the views beyond what was historically held.
     
    #7 Allan, Aug 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2011
  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    454
    just read it. Very good, although a little bit judgemental on whom he calls Hypers. Whether one thinks that God loves the non-elect will depend on how one defines 'love.' But otherwise excellent. Read also the link to Pink's article on 'duty-faith.' This refutes an error propagated by George Ella and others.

    Steve
     
  9. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    What is the deffinition of a Hyper-Calvinist?

    Answer: Anybody with views to the right of you. LOL

    you know your going to get ppl on this board who are going to read these posts & with their new found knowledge start labeling.....Yea, that sounds like "EW&F, Luke, Aaron blah blah blah"

    Just stop doing that! "Judge not" :D
     
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    One, Phil is not writing the canon here. He can be questioned, right?

    Two, all those groups from Amyraldism over are still considered "Calvinistic," by most mainstream and respected Calvinistic scholars. They see them as delineations of reformed theology, but still "reformed." You don't typically see an Infra saying Supras aren't really "Calvinists" do you (or vise versa)? No, they simply differ on one aspect of their views. They still all affirm an unconditional election of a certain elect number who will be certainly saved, which is the heart of Calvinistic soteriology. So, nice try.

    Three, even by Phil's own admission the lines between each group on the chart are somewhat grey and have cross overs depending upon the scholar being discussed.

    For example, he puts W.G.T Shed under the list of scholars who held to Supralapsarianism, but Shed is KNOWN for his views concerning the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for all. Yet, Phil lists that view under the Amyraldist.

    Calvinist Jim Ellis wrote: "An example can be found in the work of W. G. T. Shedd, an eminent Calvinist theologian of the nineteenth century who adopts the "sufficient for all" view. In Shedd's discussion of the extent of the atonement he differentiates between passive and active meanings. Passively, he claims, "the extent of the atonement is unlimited."

    Later in the same paper Ellis quotes Hodge, who supports the same view as Shed, saying, "the atonement has objectively 'removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men.'"

    So, clearly Ellis would differ from Phil's conclusion regarding Shed and Hodge's view regarding the issue of "sufficiency." But, either way, this validates that the view is a form of Calvinistic soteriology supported by scholars throughout history, which I've been demeaned for even suggesting, so thanks for posting it! :thumbsup:
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Note that Phil believes that Amyraldists are still 5 pointers:

    So, Steve's conclusion that Amyraldism is not Calvinism isn't even affirmed by his source. :)

    Also, note that even some of the scholars themselves label their views differently than Phil did here:

    Either way, they are ALL considered "Calvinistic" and thus Steve owes me an apology for supposedly misrepresenting Hodge, Shedd and other reformers who clearly supported a "sufficiency for all" view of the atonement.
     
  12. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    Im a 5 pointer today but not always. At one time I couldnt get past Limited Attonement & so I took on the mantle of a 4 point Calvinist & was accepting of the "Amyraldist" label. Here is what I discovered:

    5 point Calvinists consider an Amyraldist / 4 point Calvinist a joke. How can you put it altogether if you dont have & accept all 5 point of systematic theology? They would actually call me an Arminian. Well with time & prayer & study, I accepted all 5 points.

    "So witout those 5 points you aint got no spurs so get off that cuttin horse cus you aint ridin this rodeo son"! :cool:
     
  13. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    454
    Skandelon,
    I am not going to get into another argument on this. You bring out the very worst in me by your continual inability to understand.

    Please read this again, and also look at the chart.
    The fact that most who call themselves four-pointers are, in Johnson's view, crypto- Arminians does not mean that Amyraldians are not four-pointers. Patently they are, because they deny Particular Redemption.

    Why don't you write to Phil Johnson and ask him if he thinks Amyraldians are 5-point Calvinists? When he stops laughing, I expect he'll explain it all to you, not that that will do you any good because you still won't understand. Sheesh!!

    Steve
     
    #13 Martin Marprelate, Aug 24, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2011
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, according to Phil, he "wouldn't glorify their position [four-pointers] by labeling it Amyraldism." In other words, he affirms Amyraldism is still a 5 point system. Amyraldism is still Calvinism according to Phil.
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, let's all read it again together, shall we? Let's go line by line:

    Amyraldism should not be equated with 4 point Calvinism.

    Amyraldism {NOT=TO} 4-Pointer

    4-Pointers are bad, according to Phil. The don't have a coherent explanation of the atonement.

    So, Phil would not HONOR 4-pointers with the label of Amyraldism. In other words, Amyraldism IS better and should NOT be equated with 4-point Calvinism. Why, because Amyraldists, have a coherent explanation of the atonement.

    In other words, Four pointers are crypto-Arminians NOT true Amyraldism, because Moise Amyraut, the founder, was committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty.

    How can that be any more clearly in support of the fact that Phil affirmed Amyraldism as a form of 5 point Calvinism?
     
  16. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    Then Phil dont get out much :smilewinkgrin:
     
  17. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think that were and are some eminent cal theologians over history who held to views not precisely just "strict 5 points of DoG"

    Think that there are variations/shades within the cal umbtella, maybe more so than some would allow!
     
  18. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,917
    Likes Received:
    95
    JB.....your free to think what you like, but till you adhere to Doctrines of Grace, you aint no Calvinist.
     
  19. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    454
    No. If I reply now, I shall probably get irritable again. Why don't you go back and read it again properly so that you understand what he's saying. It's honestly not hard. I'll give you a little hint.
    Now, you should be able to work it out from there with just a little bit of thought.

    Steve
     
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want you all to notice that Phil put's WGT Shedd under the Supra camp, even though he labels the Amyraldist as being the group that affirms the atonement as "sufficient for all." Now you all read this quote from Shedd and tell me there isn't some cross over on this point:

    Isn't this why many prominent Calvinists prefer the term "Particular Redemption" over "Limited Atonement?"
     

Share This Page

Loading...