jlay wrote:Does anyone else think this sounds like smuggling in middle knowledge?So it is clear that God does not “create people whom He has, by His own will, identified, and predestined specifically to spend eternity in Hell”… That is a gross caricature. God predestines the reprobate to hell in light of the fall.
Did you read the link, or did you just pick that out? It has nothing to do with "middle knowledge", at least not in the sense you probably want to suggest...
Then present why you think this might relate to your idea of "middle knowledge".jlay wrote:I read what you pasted in.
Bart,Canuckster1127 wrote:Danny, I'm glad that you believe that you've got double predestination figured out and no issues exist for you. The problem with your assertion of apparent absolute certainty in refuting and addressing all the issues involved is that Calvinists themselves don't agree on everything you've posted and contrary opinions and assertions abound, all of which leave this as an open issue.
The position that you mention is a viable option that some (not all) Calvinists appeal to by making it appear that God's choices in their model are proactive in the case of those who are saved and passive for the reprobate, just choosing to "passover" as you say, and leave them in the condition they find themselves already due to the fall (which is something of an attempt to move responsibility from God to another event that the Calvinist Doctrine attributes to God as well, so it's hardly a strong argument.) Somehow, that maneuver makes some feel that they've not constructed a framework in which God is therefore making the decision for others.
First off, the "passing over" which is the precise word you've used is characteristic, not of double predestination, but of single predestination so you're confusing definitions in that regard.
Boettner for example, scoffs at the appeal that you're making and states that for God to predestine some to salvation IS to predestine some to damnation. He says of reprobation, "We [Calvinists] believe that from all eternity God has intended to leave some of Adam's posterity in their sins, and that the decisive factor in the life of each is to be found only in God's will." (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 104)
Even more to the point, Boettner refered to single predestination as "Mild Cavinism" which he saw as an attempt to soften the harsh implications of the pure logic underlying it and he said this, of precisely the position you've just appealed to: "'Mild Calvinism' is synonomous with sickly Calvinism, and sickness, if not cured, is the beginning of the end." (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 105)
R.C. Sproul says, "It [the Calvinist view of predestination] teaches that from all eternity God has chosen to intervene in the lives of some people and bring them to saving faith and has chosen not to do that for other people. From all eternity, without any prior view of our human behavior, God has chosen some unto election and other unto reprobation ... The basis for God's choice does not rest in man but solely in the good pleasure of the divine will." (Sproul, Chosen by God, 137)
Now to be fair, I've read other things from Sproul where he attempts to say that the two decrees of God, election and reprobation are not equal. He doublespeaks however many times in my observation and contradicts himself without recognizing or addressing the contradiction.
How big a difference is this really? Both situations are ultimate and eternal and both are unconditional on anything having to do with the person involved in the first place as it's solely in the choice and will of God. Trying to quibble with this rather than just owning it is just evidence that Calvinists themselves are not comfortable with the straightforward statements and implications of their primary assertions, in my opinion.
So far from discouraging you in your understanding, I'm actually glad to know you go at least this far in attempting to reconcile the "Horrible Decree," as Calvin described it and you recognize that something doesn't seem quite right to the point that you're motivated to try to come up with an explanation. That encourages me. I hope it encourages you to look closer at the camp you're in and the close neighbors. Your view of Calvinism is certainly relevant to you and I can understand completely why there would be a need to refute or soften such criticisms from the outside or from your own understanding of the implications of what is being said about God's character. Your view however, is not the whole of Calvinism and while you may give your opinion as to how you believe it reconciles, you should be aware that there are many High Calvinists who totally disagree with you and embrace God indeed as proactively sending people to hell. So you may want to dial back considerably on your representation that something of this nature has been "totally refuted." Far from it'; your own camp doesn't agree on what you've suggested.
It sounds to me like you might lean more toward low Calvisnism, which I have fewer problems with and I'm not focusing on entirely in this approach. In any event, I'm glad you're wrestling with the issue. It's a vital one.
In any event, thank you for the response Danny. I appreciate the opportunity to understand a little better what you're thinking and to see your heart in this and I appreciate the opportunity to address your concern.
Did you read the bit about the positive-positive versus the positive-negative view of double predestination? It seems to me that there is nothing "single" about predestination.If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate's being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion.
I thought you were sincere in your previous acknowledgement that I had that option. I can understand your desire for me to just spit them out but as we both know in the past, it's led to claims on your part that the positions were not being supported. The cake here cannot be had and eaten concurrently.Still think you’ve got me figured out, don’t you? What am I trying to reconcile, Bart? Specifics please.Canuckster1127 wrote:If you'll note the thread title, it says Reformed Theology Discussion, not discussing DannyM's understanding and personal reconciliation of Reformed Theology to the exclusion of all other reformed positions.
Canuckster1127 wrote:I suggest you read back over my post which you try to reject summarily. First, I noted Sproul equivocates on the issue. How do you reconcile your quote of him with mine? They're self-contradicting.
1. That crystal ball of yours is working overtime today, Bart. What is there to refute? Forgive me here, but you appear to believe you’re on to something big. I see things a whole lot differently. I’m just a young pup starting out in Calvinism, but all I see is a desperate attempt to rubbish the system. You see, even if everything you say is factually correct (we’ve had evidence it isn’t), then what have you achieved? Please, spell it out for me, Bart…Canuckster1127 wrote:Second, where disagreement on issues exist between Calvinists themselves, as much as from a debating and argumentative position you might like to defend the entire position; just as I'm being very careful to define and differentiate the different positions within Calvinism itself, when Calvinists don't agree on an issue, then by definition, if the positions can't be reconciled there, then you're not able to defend the entire movement and make the broad sweeping claims as to refutation that you appear to enjoy making. You say nothing of Boettner who responds to your position and states that it makes Calvinism sick and weakly? DIdn't want to take on a fellow Calvinist on that issue?
Okay.Canuckster1127 wrote:In matters of definition, single predestination and double predestaination are established and well defined terms. You may try to defend one by appealing to the other, but that doesn't change that they are different positions and noting the existence of one doesn't eliminate the existence of the other.
Bart, with all due respect, I’ve been waiting for you to substantiate those very assertions since the WBC thread. So forgive me if I’m getting a wee bit impatient. But it’s obviously a going to be a biggie, so I still can’t wait…Canuckster1127 wrote:As to the points I enumerated, I will get to them in my own good time when I'm good and ready to and have completed my prep work.
All I can find from you is this:Canuckster1127 wrote:As to what Calvin is saying, I've already made that clear in the post that quoted him from 3 different portions of the Institutes and I believe I was quite clear as was Calvin as to what was being said. There's no need to repeat that, you may refer to the original.
Now, can you quote for me directly where Calvin says this, please, since I can’t find a direct quote from you. All I’m asking is that you quote Calvin directly, what he is addressing, and then give me your rundown.Canuckster1127 wrote:OK, as Calvin certainly knew what he was saying in this areas and he was clear.
If that's not clear enough Calvin goes on shortly thereafter, and says,God once established by His eternal and unchangeable plan those whom He long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction." (Calvin's Institutes 3.21.7)
Calvin referred to this once as "God's Horrible Decree." Calvin, knew exactly what he was saying. To reassert to make it perfectly clear, the basis for Gods choice of those who go to Heaven and those whe go to hell, has no basis at all within the person so chosen. It comes down solely to the good pleasure of God's devine will and nothing else. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the foreseen character or choices of any person.Therefore those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for His own children." (Calvin's Institutes 3.27.1)
[/quote]Canuckster1127 wrote:You might want to try interacting with the material I'm offering here rather than simply offering your own claims and appeals to other threads. I'm not going to be distracted and led down different paths on this. I'm happy to interact, as I have and am doing here, but this thread has a stated purpose and progression and I'm holding to it.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xxiv.html7. Objection, that God did not decree that Adam should perish by his fall, refuted by a variety of reasons. A noble passage of Augustine.
7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam’s posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: “Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent).
My source has it differently, bro. Is my quote the quote you are referring to?Canuckster1127 wrote:I double checked my reference and it is 3.28.7 not what you suggest, but thanks for seeking to clarify.
Five points of Calvinism
Calvinist theology is sometimes identified with the five points of Calvinism, also called the doctrines of grace, which are a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (see History of Calvinist-Arminian debate) and which serve as a summation of the judgments rendered by the Synod of Dort in 1619.[6] Calvin himself never used such a model and never combated Arminianism directly. In fact, Calvin died in 1564 and Jacob Arminias was born in 1560, and so the men were not contemporaries. The Articles of Remonstrance were authored by opponents of reformed doctrine and Biblical Monergism. They were rejected in 1619 at the Synod of Dort, more than 50 years after the death of Calvin.
The five points therefore function as a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, but not as a complete summation of Calvin's writings or of the theology of the Reformed churches in general. In English, they are sometimes referred to by the acronym TULIP[7] (see below), though this puts them in a different order than the Canons of Dort.
The central assertion of these canons is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy, and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or inability of humans.
"Total depravity": This doctrine, also called "total inability", asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)[8] This doctrine is borrowed from Augustine who was a member of a Manichaean sect in his youth.
"Unconditional election": This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those He has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God[9]
"Limited atonement": Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", this doctrine asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all. Hence, Calvinists hold that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect.[10] The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement.
"Irresistible grace": This doctrine, also called "efficacious grace", asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. This means that when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. The doctrine holds that this purposeful influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit, "graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ."[11]
"Perseverance of the saints": Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints (the word "saints" is used to refer to all who are set apart by God, and not of those who are exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven). The doctrine asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.[12]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
At the most basic it is the theology/ies born out of the reformation.Bill McEnaney wrote:Please forgive me for a silly question, everyone. What does "reformed" mean in the phrase "reformed theology?" "Dutch Reformed?" Computer science and philosophy are my fields. I know some Catholic dogmatic theology, too, but most evangelical jargon is new to me.