How do you know you are of the elect?

You are correct, it does. This text says nothing, however, about preterition as condemnation. You've equivocated over the meaning of "hate" and "condemn." Esau is reprobated unconditonally, but that does not mean he is condemned unconditionally. He is condemned because of His sin, just as men are justified as a consequence of their faith.

Election itself does not render a man justified. They must believe and repent. Preterition does not render men condemned, they must also be guilty of sin.

Reformed theology is very specific about necessary and sufficient conditions. Calvin himself said that the fall, for example, was made necessary by God's decree, but not compelled by God's decree. The sufficient condition for the fall is found in Adam's sin, not in God's decree. God's decree merely rendered it necessary, e.g. certain. The same holds true for election and reprobation. Election makes salvation certain for the elect. Preteriton makes condemnation certain for the reprobate, but neither side of the decree alone compels, in and of itself, justification or condemnation. That requires a specific action, a sufficient condition.

In Reformed theology, these decrees are asymmetrical. The necessary conditions are election and reprobation as preterition (passing by). However, without the sufficient conditions of faith and repentance (actions), no man elected will be saved. God decrees the ends as well as the means, and this includes the preaching of the gospel and their individual faith and repentance, which, because of men's natural state, can only be affected by the effectual call and regeneration by the Holy Spirit Himself. Faith and repentance arise within men as a natural result of the effectual call and regeneration. As breathing is to a newborn, so faith in Christ and repentance are the natural result of our new birth.

Reprobation as preterition is the flipside of election, but, like election, it requires a sufficient condtion (action) to come to pass. Since all men are sinners already, they are condemned already. This condemnation supplies the condition sufficient to their condemnation, and is their own. No effectual call is required to make them disbelieve, thus reprobation is asymmetrical in its execution.

No, because the decree of the fall makes all men sinners along with their freedom of spontaniety which they use to sin on their own, and thus they are under condemnation, and men have the freedom of spontaniety to act within the category distinctions set by God's decrees. The decrees of God with respect to election and reprobation are uncondtional, so He is sovereign. However,the sinner himself has fulfilled the decree through his sin and is thus chargeable with filling the sufficient condition. Thus he is to blame.

The decree of reprobation makes God responsible for their reprobation the way He is responsible for election, creation, and all things He decrees, but decretal responsibility is not a sufficient condition for moral blame, and blame is necessary for condemnation. Moral blame lies with the proximate, moral cause of sin, the sinner himself, the moral motive behind his actions.

Put in concrete terms: What God desires for His glory, the sinner does because he hates God and loves evil As such he and he alone is to blame for his sin, and thus his condemnation. If he would sincerely not believe (e.g. reject Christ and live in sin) because he truly loves God, he would not, in theory, be condemned, but doing such a thing is a logical contradiction, for one cannot possibly love God apart from also believing in Christ as His Lord and Savior and repenting of his sins and hating sin, which will result in salvation, which only comes from God's decree of election through the effectual call and regeneration.

Most people don't understand the doctrine of reprobation, mostly because not many good treatments on it have been written. Reprobation as preterition is unconditional, and as condemnation it is conditional, because sin makes men guilty and thus condemned. Likewise, election is unconditonal, yet as justification, it is conditional, because faith and repentance, arising from regeneration and calling, connect men to the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by God.

God's passing of some by is not conditioned by their unbelief. It is no more based on God's foreknowledge of their wickedness than election is based upon their foreseen faith. The only reason given for God passing Esau by is the text you cited. As the flip side of election it is unconditional. However, reprobation as condemnation is conditional, because a person is condemned by God for his sins and unbelief. Although all things proceed from God's decree, man alone is to blame for his sins. He is guilty, and the fault is not God's.

One of the best treatments of reprobation is in The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer. He has a section called "Twelve Theses on Reprobation" at the conclusion of his text.

 

Hi Gene,

Your post was worded very well.


Nice to meet you.

In Christ...James

 

Thanks Gene I go through it at the weekend.

john.

 

It's amazing how much sound reason you've packed into your post especially paragraphs like this. I'm amazed and certainly I have been given some interesting food for thought!

 

Hello Gene.

There is no 'must' about it they will believe and repent is more accurate. The sheep will hear His voice.
You say election is not justification nor reprobation condemnation in and of themselves but I believe they are and anyway they assure to the intended end result. It's the thing that causes the thing. Then I think to say that preterition is a 'passing by' too passive and therefore false because God is always at work in His Sovereignty. I believe He did not pass by but actively condemned a number of people for His glory based on nothing more than the fact that He wanted to.

This is the point isn't it? The decision to save or reprobate, and it is a decision in both cases, is the cause of man's final destiny and this is fixed before sin shows it's head.
Symmetry is kept with us going for the strawberries and cream for no reason but God's Sovereign choice and the others to the other place for no reason but God's Sovereign choice. To say they chose their own destiny is the same as saying they are sovereign in their choice even if this is within God's will.

Since Jacob I loved and Esau I hated determined their destiny, before they had done good or bad, then I can't help but believe that man goes to Hell because of God's Sovereign command and not due to sin. He said to some, "I will die for you." And to the others He said, "You will die for me."

Why was no atonement given for those outside of the elect? I know we say that in Christ's death there is a sufficiency to save all men but atonement is only given for Israel. Those of the faith of Abraham have an atonemnt made for them no one else is included. It was given by God for God and it was God who bound all men over to sin and disobedience (Rom 11:32) therefore it is God that causes sin. If it comes down to it, that man makes the choice to sin, it doesn't matter if a man behaves in such a way as to incur wrath from his own choice as he is unable to do otherwise, yet still we get the blame because that is what God has said whether that makes sense or not, God is Sovereign, we are not to confuse the Sovereignty of God with the responsibility of man. God does it and we get the blame. It sounds stupid but if you follow through with God's Sovereignty then Pauls conclusion of this in Romans 9:19 is conclusive, "Why does God still blame us?" Makes no sense if man made the choices. He does not answer the man as if he was to blame, "It was you that did it." But tells the man not to talk back to God. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

The lump is treated the same way. It doesn't say that part of the lump deserved anything but that He has a right to make out of it what He wants. Some for Heaven and some for Hell but He makes out of it what He wants, not what they want.

I cannot image that Christ found Himself on the cross due to a man's decision. The weight of that is too much for Adam to bear as is the death's of so many billions. The world is not in the mess it's in today due to man but due to God. It is exactly as it is because that is God's will, as you will agree with I'm sure.

I believe some are trying to keep God's Hands clean in all of this when He wants us to tell people what He is really like. He is the One that doomed Judas. He raised Pharaoh to power just to destroy him in public. To stop him using his common sense and releasing the Israelites God hardened his heart Ex 4:21 ...But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go..

God at work. That is Pharaoh under the direct control of God, The Puppet Master, in a demonstration of His Sovereignty and power and His ability to cause us to sin as He wishes and punish us for it. Not His sheep though, Jesus died for our sins.
As we receive blessings for the things God works through us so those not so blessed are punished for the things God works through them. Why does He still blame us? Why does He still bless us? Because He loves us and hates them.

A double predestination is not based on anything but God's will. If it is said that man chooses sin then I say he can do no other. If he can do no other because of another then he is innocent in our eyes but God's eyes see it differently. We are not God. 1 Peter 2:8 ...They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for.
Since God says they were destined to disobey then why does He still blame us?

God's eyes man. Predestination is the eternal decree of God where some are damned and others are raised to the Throne of God.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

There is no need to lay another layer to predestination. The choice to hate or love determined the destiny of everyman regardless of their own doings.

What do you think? It's a bit ragged but I would like to continue this dialogue. It is not comfortable being out of line with the Church but my understanding of Sovereignty is all encompassing and not easy to drop.

john.

 

Gentlemen.

JOB 9:15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.

My win? Or what?

Gene? James? Daniel I know this hangs in your place, does this continue the discussion?

I really want feedback on this as I find myself in one of two camps and one of them might not be a camp I'm comfortable in.

john.

 

Gentlemen? Me? hummm

hello johnp....


Not sure about a win, but let me say John, that your post was worded well too. It seems like I may have got you on this one john. You "the Master of debate" missed the point.

Gene's post was very well worded in Mans logic of things, the bad of it...it is mans logic and wrong at that. Notice that there were no verses posted with it, for he has none to post.

Gene said...
**************
Esau is reprobated unconditionally, but that does not mean he is condemned unconditionally.
*************
It does not here in Romans, but it does say it in Mal 1. If you look there you will see the word.."forever"...and I happen to believe it means "forever". Notice also, the Bible is full of verses that tells the Jews and others to repent from their sin for God will Judge them. Esau is never asked to repent....NEVER!!

Gene said...
****************
The sufficient condition for the fall is found in Adam's sin, not in God's decree. God's decree merely rendered it necessary, e.g. certain.
*********
Ok..I can agree with this. But this is from a passive view. The only power there is to enforce or over rule such action comes from God. So...from an active view God was in full control. Gene likes to look at things though mans logic, maybe this logic will help him understand.

If you stand by and watch a man kill a little old lady and you have the power to stop them, but do not, are you not the one with blood on your hands? Your “control” was to watch the murder take place and not stop it. It is YOU that decides if the old lady lives of dies.

Gene said on Election..
********************
1) Election itself does not render a man justified. They must believe and repent.
2) Election makes salvation certain for the elect.
3) election is unconditonal, yet as justification, it is conditional, because faith and repentance, arising from regeneration and calling, connect men to the righteousness of Christ imputed to them by God
4) As the flip side of election it is unconditional.
***************************
Flip side?? Election has no other side. Its by God and from God.

There is a lot of flips on election. When I 1st read this, I thought Gene was talking about “interactive election”, which is not main stream, but is a view that can be supported. I'm not sure what he believes after reading it a 2nd time. Again..we see a lot of nice wording and no support. Before we can talk about election we must know what it means. The word itself only means “choosen”. Or…Choosen by God

Look at Eph 1….which BTW is in the Bible…and answer this..

1) who did the choosing?
2) When did the choosing take place?


But I will say again, that Genes post was worded very well. To bad it was based on mans logic and not the Bible.

John you have supported your post from the Bible..Thanks


In Christ...James