TULIP: Unconditional Election

Note GE I don't believe in "Luck". My contention is that if you take unconditional election to its conclusion then you have double predestination. And I can't buy into that. If you conclude in double predestination then "Luck" becomes a major player. Note the verse show that there is a few that find it which means people are actively seeking and not seeking. The difference between you, Dr. Walt, and myself is not so much to do with the elect but those not elect. You two hold to double predestination. I hold that they send themselves to hell.

 

Would you mind going back to Romans 1:18-31 and finding just one statement that indicates that man would make any other choice than to rebell against all light given him???? Isn't that exactly what Christ says as well in John 3:17-19??? Romans 1:18-31 assumes that the human will is by nature antagonistic to God and comes that way by birth just as Paul later clearly states in Romans 8:7.

 

GE:

"Step 5 ...conclusion" is absurd; no; humbug— the surmising of think-less stuff.

1) God's Election is from everlasting and before any 'group' existed from which He supposedly afterwards must have "_selected_".

2) God PREDESTINED / PREDESTINATED whom he chose— not arbitrarily or at random, without design and purposeless; but

3) God elected whom He chose, “according to, his Eternal PURPOSE” to bring it to FULFILMENT; and

4) to bring to FRUITION that which He WILLED unto his own glory through CHRIST:…

5) … through CHRIST “TO US-WARD” the Elect of God.

So that God’s PLAN and Election have EVERYTHING to do with the Elect themselves; and has NOTHING in itself besides or outside that which has to do with the Elect of God the believers in Jesus Christ.

Which is the only possible and the only true ‘conclusion’ God’s Eternal Purpose and Unconditional Election allow.

Away with fatalism! Away with Unitarianism its whore-mother! Away with Islam in Christianity! Away with self-justification and works-righteousness! Away with synergism! Away with Arminianism and Pelagianism! Away with dishounoring the Sovereignty of God…

….through man’s stupidity…!

 

I don't call you names or insult you GE. I give you respect and I hope you would give me the same respect. I don't agree with your view on the Sabbath nor do I agree with your view of Double predestination. I believe I can disagree with you respectfully. Please feel free to do so with me. Otherwise I may catagorize you in a place not worthy of you if you get my meaning.
Now as for your review:

You fail to show how my conclusion is absured. If the elected person is such with out having merit of themselves. Then the question becomes what factor was used in determination. Leaving out all possibility of Merit there can only be two rendering some arbitrary process of the Almighty or a Random selection. If Choosing someone because it adds to the Glory of God - then ultimately it is a merit of that particular person to add to the Glory of God. Which it cannot be since the elected selection was not merited. It is simple. Your next point doesn't reason it out either. It begs another question.

Selected how. What process of reasoning lead God to the conclusion that so and so should be elected?

By what mechanism? If not arbitrary but purposeful by design then what about the elect got them elected? If there is anything about them that did it then election is by merit. See how this is circular?

Are you saying then that something about the elect ensures fulfilment? If so then it is to their merit.

This shows nothing of God's decision making process "He willed it" is an arbitrary statement. If God is reliant on the fruition and how that elected person may bring it about then it is by the merit of the elected.

You are saying the elected of God are worthy of it or have in some way merited salvation which goes against Unconditional aspect of election.

I actually agree with this statement however double predestination makes fatalism inevitable.

 

GE:

God does not stand by and look on passively how the wicked unregenerate, "send themselves to hell". God "prepared" hell for the reprobate; He has a LAW for to send them to hell according to; it is the WILL of God that the wicked are REPROBATES; God, willing, ACTS in 'sending' the wicked to hell because it is God's LAW that is the STRENGTH of sin and it is GOD who rewards with "the reward of sin", which is death and hell. Nothing per chance or accident; everything to the will of God!

This is mercy, the love and salvation of God through Christ: That every man deserves God's WILL upon him to die death eternally for being a sinner BUT: That God CHOSE sovereignly his Elect NOT to receive God’s wrath, but his salvation in Christ.

 

No you are wrong. God prepared hell for the Devil and his angels. Men making the same choice as Satan and the fallen angels recieve the same reward. Men in effect choose to go to hell.

 

GE:

This is a contradiction in terms: "God is the "Saver", the "Remaker", the "Restorer", of the divine relationship that involves man's cooperation, but God's total miraculous work of salvation." ..."man's cooperation" ...but" ..."God's total work".

However, say it like this, and see if it isn't nearer the truth:

'God is the "Saver", the "Remaker", the "Restorer", of the divine relationship that BRINGS ABOUT WITHOUT REQUIRING man's cooperation, the total involvement of man through God's miraculous work of salvation.

 

GE:

Yes; God prepared hell for the Devil and his angels— 'messengers'— 'men' or 'angelic creatures', no difs.

It's the same thing, call it same ‘logic’ like you do, if you will: but God is the One who willed hell; He, is the One who determined and decided and “prepared” hell; not the devil or man. God willed, God chose, and God determined – as Calvin says – ACCORDING TO HIS GOOD PLEASURE: that the transgressor of God’s Law —not any ‘law’ of cause and effect but the law of God’s will— must--- MUST, die! God, chose, for the devil and his angels and the reprobate; they had no ‘choice’ although they would argue that they have. Or there cannot be such ‘thing’ as ‘reprobate’ or ‘damned’. And they are ‘reprobate’ and ‘damned’— no free creatures who ‘choosing’, “in effect choose to go to hell”. God, FIRST fore-ordained them each one KNOWN to Him BEFORE, for hell.

And this is where Dr Walter’s and my views part ways. He (I think), thinks ‘infralapsarian’; I think ‘supralapsarian’. ‘Supra-lapsarian’ means God DECREED the election or nonelection of individuals BEFORE the fall; ‘infralapsarian’ means God DECREED the election or nonelection of individuals AFTER the fall.

Infralapsarianism NULLIFIES the sovereignty of God; supralapsarianism rests totally on the sovereignty of God.

Infralapsarianism presupposes some residue of his original created goodness in a free agent in the crisis of decision making that unaffected and independently, determines man’s ‘choice’.

Supralapsarianism presupposes:
1) the “Total Depravity” of the man who already in Adam has made wrong decision;
2) the Unconditional Election of God in his grace or favour or ‘goodpleasure’ (Calvin), uninfluenced and uninfluencible by all men’s wrong decision made in Adam;
3) to the bringing to END and PURPOSE of which decision of God, Christ made the PERFECTLY INDIVIDUALLY SUCCESSFUL Limited Atonement by the Sacrifice of Himself [a phrase REMOVED from the Scriptures by some who know who they are];
4) which end and purpose the Holy Spirit through Irresistible Grace EFFECTS despite their sins and sinfulness and rebellion in the heart and lives of God’s Elect INTNE Body of Christ’s Own ‘Corporately’
5) and individually unto the faithful Perseverance of every and all saints the Elect of God until Christ comes again and they be raised from the dead bodily and immortal.

 

Infralapsarianism does not nullify the sovereignty of God at all. It explains it in a way that is consistent with the facts revealed in scriptures. Fact #1 the elect are called "vessels of mercy" and supralapsarianism denies either "mercy" or "justice" in regard to either election or judgment because it has God's decree of election prior to any fallen condition. Hence, it presents God's election completely arbritrary without any basis of "grace" or "holiness."

This is not true. In fact, it is supralapsarian that begins election with a SINLESS condition of man in a good and unfallen state. Infralapsarianism is the view presented by Christ in John 3:17-19 that presupposes a "condemned" condition already and that election is God's response of "mercy" (Rom. 9:19-21) and "grace" (Rom. 11:5) unto salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) and damnation is God's just response to the non-elect. Infralapsarianism absolutely denies any contingent presupposed goodness involved in fallen man or in the choice of man. Infralapsarianism establishes that election and damnation are founded upon a basis of divine mercy and justice rather than arbritrary and unjust foundations.

Supralapsarian makes God the author of sin and makes a mockery of mercy and justifice.

This is has nothing to do with either supra or infra. Both equally take this position.

Both equally assert that the "good pleasure" of God is the basis of His grace in election but supra makes "sin" the "good pleasure" of God whereas infra denies that God has any "good pleasure" in sin but deals with sin by permission for the greater good. Infra equally denies that any forseen good or bad actions in FALLEN MAN influences election but supra views man in an unfallen sinless state where no "mercy" or "grace" is applicable in regard to election.

Infra equally brings to END and PURPOSE the elective designs of God but without making God the author of sin and without making a mockery of justice and mercy.

Ecclesiology has nothing to do with elective soteriological redemptive grace. There is no such thing as your view of the body of Christ in regard to election as there was no such body of Christ prior to the ministry of Christ as the apostles were first set into that body (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28) and yet there was the elect saints from Adam to the Malichi.

I believe in the preservation of the saints but I do not believe in John McArthur and Calvin's perseverance of the saints as that is simply justifiation by works under the epitaph of grace. I do believe that the saints persevere in saving faith.

 

Would someone please regurgitate the above(lapra... and supra..) in a language such that a little child can understand? Many of us have difficulty comprehending(digesting) words with more than 15 letters.

All of our theological gyrations still boil to: "I AM THAT I AM". Jesus was crucified for having said that.

What have we done with JESUS?

"then they all forsook Him and fled"--Gethsemmane Garden, circa A.D. 33.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You're going against the meaning of the context of the passage of scripture that I am using. Matthew 25:41 states:

Clearly indicating that Hell or the lake of fire punishment initial intent was for the devil and his angels (not man). However, due to God's inate sense of justice the same crime deserves the same punishment.

I disagree with your view and I think if we get down to it so does Calvin that God created Hell for his good pleasure but justice requires it.

I disagree entirely. Satan sent himself there. Otherwise God cannot act justly in this manner and has created satan with the intent of sending him to hell. This is a problem I have with double predestination. Because ultimately according to your view God is responsible for sin and in God "who can neither sin nor be tempted to sin".

I'm more familiar with the terms Antelapsarianism and Postlapsariansim. I disagree with both views all it does it attempt to put a time frame of when God makes his decree. Either view man ends up acting as a preprogramed robot or is no more than an autonomaton. And I actually believe verses like John 3:16 in that God loves the whole world not all sorts of men in the whole world or 1 Tim 2:4

again not all kinds of people or 2 Pet 3:9

And Ezekiel 33:11

These verses contradict your view of Calvin's that God's good pleasure was to make hell. No, you contradict God and his nature in this beleif.
Like I said before how most calvinist deal with the reprobate is what I take issue with. And in my opinion so do these verses. I don't believe God predestines anyone to hell. And I don't believe as Dr Walter points out that the destination of the clay is hell and to select a few arbitrarily (because in the end the selection process must be this) is the only act of Mercy God plans for humanity. I honestly believe that God does not predestine anyone to hell and that he gives grace, through Christ, to everyone and calls everyone with no exception to salvation. Titus 2:11

or 1 Corinthians 15:22

So, here then is the problem If God gives his grace to everyone then why doesn't everyone enter heaven? Well, most Calvinist will point and I'm sure you as well Romans 9:18

Well, it seems then that God gives Sufficient Grace to everyone for salvation however to the Elect God gives Sufficient and Efficacioius Grace to the elect and God Give Sufficient but Inefficacious Grace to the Reprobate. Now with Efficacious Grace its important to note that it elevates the free will rather than replacing it. If it subverted the will as is being purported here verses like Matt 19:17

and 1 Tim 4:7

or 1 Cor 3:8

are in the end pointless. I believe in a syncranistic dynamic between grace and will. So that

or the free will consents because grace efficaciously has already moved it to the willing and performance of a good choice. Therefore in my analysis God is blameless and Justice is maintained and man is not made a robot that is preprogramed.

 

These theological terms try to present the LOGICAL order of decrees that occurred in the eternal purpose of God. Of course there can be no CHRONOLOGICAL order because this occurred before time began or outside of time and with God there is no time when He thought one thing before another thing.

In regard to our discussion, supralapsarianism is the view that the decree to elect occurred previous to the decree of the fall whereas the infralapsarianism is the view that the decree to elect followed the decree of the fall of man.

I don't usually get involved in this kind of discussion because I think it is nonsense to try to figure out the logical order of thoughts in the mind of God in regard to His eternal purpose.

 

My view of election does not teach that it is God's "good pleasure" to punish, kill, destroy or that he takes good pleasure in sin.

My view of election makes a distinction in God's will of pleasure in regard to righteousness and His will of permission in regard to sin and all the consequences natural and judicial.

My view of election stems from God's mercy or justice in regard to mankind in a fallen state not an unfallen state.

My view of election does not teach or produce robotism in the elect or non-elect but choice due to only internal coersion of their own heart and mind without any external coersion or force of will.

My view of election does not make God the author of sin or that God elects anyone to hell.

 

Then we are closer in view. And you to are at ODDS with GE doctrinally.

 

Neither Satan or man sends themselves to hell. Indeed, they would avoid that with all their will power. Hell was prepared for Satan and his angels because sin began with them and because God made no provision of redemption for them. God purposely provided no redemption for Satan and his angels. He purposely prepared hell for them because he purposely did not provide any redemption for therm.

I did not say that God made them sin or that God was the author of their sin. God permitted them to sin as he did Adam but with Adam he made provision for salvation from sin. Therefore, God could not say that he prepared hell for mankind because God made redemptive provision for mankind. However, those who continue following Satan will end up where Satan ends up.

The problem is that all of mankind would follow Satan if left to their own fallen nature and its choice.

However, God is perfectly just to allow any number of fallen mankind to continue in that choice and will be perfectly glorified in divine justice being carried out on them for that choice. God is not responsible for sin but that is the inclination and natural response of all fallen creatures.

Only "mercy" and "grace" due to the arbritrary good pleasure of God can be responsible for electing any of Adam's fallen race unto salvation. The good pleasure that is not constrained by justice to do anything for them other than punish them for their sins.

It does no violence to the free choice of the non-elect to permit them to continue in what they love to do - sin. Neither does it do any violance to elect as God simply gives them a "new" heart and a "new" spirit that is freely inclined to choose righteousness. The choice of the elect to repent and believe the gospel is no more intrusion by God than how he works in us to "both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philip. 2:13).

The fact that election is "of grace" and according to "mercy" denies that God must grant it to all as a matter of justice as that very idea denies the very essence and meaning of both "grace" and "mercy."

 

I disagree. I believe that for them they cannot concieve of being in God's presence and that is just as disagreable to them as the torment of hell. In fact, I believe if there were no hell, heaven would be as much torment for them as hell. FYI.

apart from avoiding hell. I agree.

agreed.

I entirely agree. However, I would like to stress that I agree with Lewis regarding this aspect of hell

In as far as you have explained it in this paragraph I agree.

I don't believe God is arbitrary. I use that term to show the fallacy in a double predestinarian view with regard to election.

in a sence to the extent of how I explained Sufficent and Effecacious grace I would agree with you.

 

GE:

You are underestimating 'our' intelligence, both of you.

First Bro James in sooo coy language gives his indoctrinating lecture, "33 AD", it's swallowed whole like a fish would bait for gospel.

Then "AMEN!" SMM --- to introduce and return insults and attempt at grandiloquence, also like his beloved brother wounded in his pride because his pool of wit has clean dried up.