Keep you from falling

HP: What exactly is the difference as you see it between “active damnation of the reprobate’ and ‘active damnation of those whom God has not elected to salvation?” I shall then know how to respond better.

 

Sorry, double post

 

It's the same thing, as far as I know.

Reprobate = non-elect

Non-elect = reprobate

 

HP: That is what I would believe as well. Possibly I am not understanding what RB is saying and or asking. Hopefully he will restate what it is exactly that he desires for me to produce.

How about you Dustin? Is double predestination avoidable if in fact God predestinates who will be granted the necessary abilities to respond to His plan, and withholds the necessary abilities to others? Is this not precisely what the regeneration of some antecedent to salvation, without which salvation cannot be accomplished, entails?

 

Speaking of 'well-bred Calvinists'....... Could someone give me a short list of some ‘well-bred’ Calvinists and another of some ‘ill-bred’ ones? Thanks.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but here's what I believe.

Just as God actively regenerates the elect, bringing them from darkness to light, He also actively blinds and hardens the reprobate. To the elect He gives the gifts of faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ and repentence from dead works and sin. The reprobate, on the other hand, are hardened and reject the true Gospel. They will follow thier sinful desires, they will reject any sound teaching, they will scoff at the thier folly, they will attempt to please God (or themselves) with thier own rightousness, they will appeal to tradition or religion, they will even come in the name of Jesus and will never come to a true understanding of the Gospel or who the real Jesus is. I believe all of this is part of God's will, or else it wouldn't happen.

 

HP: If I were to examine your belief I would say that you indeed hold to double predestination just as Calvin admitted was impossible to avoid in light of his (Calvin’s) over all view of things.

Now for the real important questions. Was Calvin simply a Calvinist or a hyper-Calvinist? Was Calvin ‘ill bred’ or ‘well bred?’

 

We have TC to thank for the "well-bred" adjective. lol

Here are some notable ones. I will use only those I know have expounded or defended the doctrines of grace (calvnism) well, that represent historical, classic calvinism.

Well-Bred Calvinists

1. C.H. Spurgeon (but I am sure you knew I'd mention him :laugh: )
2. Dr. John Gill - see his work, The Cause of Truth and God. (some hold him to be on the hyper side, I haven't seen it yet, so I could change my estimation if I do)
3. John Calvin (duh)
4. The Huguenots
5. Abraham Kuyper
6. Benjamin Keach
7. Isaac Backus
8. James P. Boyce (founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
9. William Carey (father of modern missions)
10. John Eliot
11. David Brainerd
12. Adroniram Judson
13. Luther Rice (Luther Rice Seminary is named after him)
14. John Bunyan
15. John Newton (authored "Amazing Grace" which we all love)
16. Samuel Davies
17. J.C. Ryle
18. Martin Lloyd-Jones
19. J.C. Philpot
20. B.H. Caroll (SBC)
21. J.L. Dagg (SBC)
22. B.B. Warfield
23. Thomas Watson
24. Jonathan Edwards
25. John Knox
26. George Whitefield


I am sure there are many I am leaving out.

I am not familiar with any famous ill-bred calvinists, i.e. hyper-calvinists, but I am familiar with what it is. This is a great summary of it:

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

 

I appreciate the list of names. That puts on the same page. Why don’t we just begin with the “Duh,” John Calvin himself.

Here is a man that had the integrity to understand and admit to the logical end of his theology , and admit that double predestination was indeed the only end it could produce. Double predestination admits to the predestination of the damned as well as the saved. That should be enough to convict him and any others that follow him as eliminating human responsibility for the fate of the damned or saved. All is predestined by God and of necessity will come about. I believe some call that hyper-Calvinism, although I would just call it what it is, i.e, plain old Calvinism.

 

Remember, it is the INTEGRITY OF GOD and not the INTEGRITY OF A HUMAN (that would be me, you and anyone else human) that guarantees our salvation.

 

HP: Alex, are we thinking right about salvation? When one enters into a conditional covenant with God, is not the integrity and faithfulness of both parties involved? It would appear to me that you are pitting one against the other, when in fact both are involved due to the conditional nature of the covenant. “He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”

We haven’t got to the end that I am aware of. Have you?

 

I find your misunderstanding of salvation unfortunate.

 

HP: God calls us to help the unfortunate. This may well be your oportunity to shine.

Tell me, what is so unfortunate in the way I believe Scripture treats salvation?

 

I included John Calvin because I am certain, as it related to the 5 points, he is in agreement with them. Concerning predestination I have not read a syllable of him, so perhaps I am in error. Can you show me where John Calvin taught the active damnation of the non-elect? That is, God infusing into a man a principle or force of evil such that he is unable to free himself and so is damned.

Where do you derive your definition of "plain old Calvinism" as you call it? Are you simply equating your conclusions about calvinism with calvinism? Wouldn't that be a logical error if it be true? If I say that God before the world began pre-determined who would be saved and who would not, does that necessarily mean that the manner and way in which He saves the elect is the same way which He damns the non-elect?

Would God be actively damning a man if He leaves that man in his sins unto his just condemnation as the confessions explain? Methinks you haven't really studied this....

 

HP: I will not go deep into the writings of any man not on this list, due to the fact I cannot discuss what they wrote with them. You have asked a specific question and I will try to answer it the best I can. I do not remember exactly the clearest place he presented his thoughts on double predestination but I will give you some references where he upheld it.

On page 951 of his attributes starting on line 8-11. “though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author of it (speaking of their sinful nature and or guilt)-which is very true….”

Calvin pp948 approx line 36- “it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God’s secret plan.” …..pp 949 approx line 26 “for his will is, and rightfully ought to be, the cause of all things that are.” Pp952” With Augustine I say: the lord hath created those whom he unquestionably foreknew would go to destruction. This happened because he willed it so.” Pp 954 “ by his predetermined plan he hath so willed.” speaking of the evil God foreknew. Pp 954 “he so ordains by his plan and will that among men some were born destined for certain death from the womb, who should glorify his name by their own destruction.” On pp 954 Calvin states that not only did God foresee human events, “he determined them by his decision.” Continued on page 955 “it is clear that all things that place rather by his determination and bidding.” He continues on pp955 “ It ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision.”

I know that in another place he mentions directly double predestination, but the references I have given sufficiently make the case that he did clearly believe and uphold double predestination.

Let me ask you once again. Who put it in Adam’s heart to sin? Why are you so silent when I ask you this simple question?

 

HP: What do you mean ‘just condemnation?’ I would think that one has not the least clue what justice is if one is, by God’s determination, created in such a state and for such a purpose as to sin and that continually and mandated to inherit eternal damnation for something utterly impossible to avoid. That is nothing short of a most heinous blight upon any thought of justice or the character of a Holy God.

 

Just in case there is any doubt about Calvin’s views concerning double predestination, read all about them in his Institutes Chapter 21 entitled “Eternal Election, By Which God Has Predestined Some to Salvation, others to Destruction.”

 

Incorrect. Some men are predestined as 'vessels of wrath' (Rom. 9). All are already guilty in Adam (Rom 5:12 - please read it). You don't want God to be fair with you do you?

Dan V.

 

Adam chose to sin when tempted by the serpent, as God had ordained. Simply put, God could have prevented the serpent from entering the garden - He was smart and powerful enough. Or God could have made Adam not subject to change, but He did.

Thuse Adam died spiritually (Gen 2:17). All his descendents are born with a sin nature, hating God. Last I checked, dead men are not very responsive, unless someone makes them alive (John *5:21 - For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. )

Note - 'Whom He Will'. Not all.

God is pleased to change the hearts of some. He is sovereign.

All for God's glory, Whose ways are higher than ours.

I don't mean to be blunt - just efficient!

Dan V.

 

"the son quickeneth whom He will"

"He is NOT WILLING for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

"He is the atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

"The spirit of truth convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16

"I will DRAW ALL mankind unto me" John 12:32.

"HE is the light that coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY man" John 1.

"HE came unto HIS OWN but HIS OWN received Him not" John 1.

The Bible continually tells us that God is NOT the one arbitrarily deciding to love some but hate others.

Romans 2:11-13 "God is not partial" toward the "FEW" of Matt 7 and biased against the MANY of Matt 7.

These texts refute the 4pt and 5pt Calvinist view but they affirm the "God so Loved the WORLD -- yes REALLY" view of Arminians.

in Christ,

Bob