Featured Faith Precedes Regeneration - Note What Spurgeon Said

Brandan Kraft gave an overview:

"Most calvinists today are infralapsarians and they believe that God decreed to send Christ and save His people because of the fall. In the infralapsarian scheme God chooses to save individuals out of the mass of fallen humanity and then passes over the rest of humanity in reprobation. Infralapsarians usually claim to be against equal ultimacy, but it is my opinion that they cannot logically escape the conclusion that “passing over” is the same as “not electing” which is really election to the negative. It is my opinion that infralapsarianism is really a scheme of selection and not the biblical doctrine of election. Infralapsarians are often found to be opposed to supralapsarianism because they usually believe that supralapsarianism makes God the “author of sin.” What I find odd about that phrase is that it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, yet it’s a phrase that is often guarded like a sacred cow not to be touched. For the record, I do not believe evil and sin originate in the character of God but that He predestined these events for His purposes. It is impossible for God to sin, so I really don’t see what the big deal is. If you want a good definition of sin or evil, just look to God for the definitions as these things are the exact opposite of His Holy Nature. While infralapsarians often accuse supralapsarians with charging God as the “author of sin,” supralapsarians can equally charge infralapsarians with believing that God allowed sin to happen and did nothing to stop it! If I had to pick which one was worse based solely on logic, I’d have to conclude the infralapsarian scheme is because it depicts God with not getting what He wanted and without power to stop something He did not predestine. Infralapsarians also have difficulty explaining where sin came from and sometimes refer to a strange doctrine known as eternal law that exists outside of God which God Himself is bound to obey. I don’t know where any scriptural foundation for this strange belief is found, so you’ll have to ask an infralapsarian that believes in these things to explain this for you if you’re interested. It is my belief that God is the eternal law if there is such a thing."

- rest at Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist - Brandan Kraft (pristinegrace.org)

 

Thanks Ken. That helps. I think you would get some argument from supralapsarians about God being the author of sin but I'm not sure. I don't believe in "eternal law" but I believe that any law we have that comes from God is a reflection of His nature, therefore although not bound by it it still is part of our revealed knowledge of Him and is a reliable indicator of what God would approve of or not.

As for the charge of why didn't God do more in not allowing evil, well those people go farther than I would the other way. You get a response from me that would be like the famous R.C Sproul response to the question of whether God is fair. I believe that if all influences of God were to be somehow removed from Earth, no Holy Spirit, no common grace, I think this would be a dead planet in a short period of time because of what we would do without God's help or influence. But when someone actually makes God the determinate cause of moral evil or sin I say no.

 

Sounds like, to me anyway, that you are being squeamish about the subject. Since it is getting late on a Saturday night, I will leave you with this:

Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

I can only point you to read Daniel 10, Daniel 11, and Daniel 12 as this entire section shows you that God ordains the battles between the king of the south and the king of the north. Since mankind is naturally bent on evil, God uses that corruption to accomplish His will.
In scripture we see a paradox. God ordains all things according to His will and man is held responsible for his own sin. This paradox is what Paul is addressing in Romans 9 when he addresses the argument that since God ordains all things, how can God hold us responsible? Paul's response simply states that we cannot accuse God.
*Romans 9:17-29*
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.”

Paul doesn't attempt to fully explain this. He simply tells us God can do anything He wills and whatever He wills is good...even when it's bad stuff that happens.

Dave, either God is in control of every molecule, or God is less than God and is unaware and reactionary.

 

Wow...and if we follow your last line of ideology there...then God is ultimately responsible for evil, making him a lair...and as the Apostle Paul said, "I speak as a man."

 

Yes. There is a wing of Calvinism, apparently, that openly says that God is the direct and primary cause of sin and evil. I didn't believe it either. He can speak for himself but I don't think Austin is there. What he is talking about, using evil men acting out their own evil desires to accomplish an event God wants accomplished I have no problem with. Sovereignty, even ordaining that an event will happen, is not the same as directly causing it to happen.

 

I didnt think he did, but wasnt sure.

 

Peter also preached that Repentance is given by the Exalted Christ Saviour to Gods Elect Acts 5:31

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Peter also wrote that Faith is obtained by the Righteousness of God Our Saviour and the Lord Jesus Christ 2 Pet 1:1

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

So Both Faith and Repentance are special Gifts given by Christ the Saviour.

You dont mention that, why ?

 

What do you mean make possible by the work of the Holy Spirit ? You should have said made certain by the work of the Holy Spirit, not made merely possible, again I sense mans doing is needed to make it certain, since you said the Spirit only makes it possible.

 

When guys like Bunyan, Owen and Spurgeon preached, they warned men that the conviction you are feeling is from the Holy Spirit. They warned men not to ignore this or put it off because, as I said, the Holy Spirit is making this possible.

Theologically, they would explain that all those that eventually come to Christ were chosen and elect. But I'm sorry, these guys, even John Owen, made the appeals and warned that unbelief will render your calling null and void and you had it in your power to damn yourself to Hell.

What I am discovering is that while all these guys were serious Calvinists in doctrine and soteriology, they preached in a way that seems to disturb some of you modern Calvinists. I haven't figured it all out and am not an authority on this but I can give references to back up what I say.

I think what was happening, and Owen discusses this some, was that our theology is an attempt to look at things from an over view position or even from God's point of view. But what is truly necessary for us is to respond as the creatures God has created with the capacities he gave us. God has condescended and made promises to us that if we come and believe he will save us. That is a level we all can understand. We need to latch on to those promises with out too much theological analysis. And it is not wrong to put things in those terms. But that's what bothers some about Spurgeon.

 

So did you take a razor and cut out the eight Scripture texts that I linked to in my post #87? If God creates evil then He can hardly object to us doing so. The things that God does may certainly appear evil to those whom they affect, but His works are not to be judged by fallen humans like this man Cheung.
Deuteronomy 32:3-4. 'For I proclaim the name of the LORD: ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all of his ways are justice. A God of truth and without injustice; good and upright is He.'

I don't wish to set myself up as any sort of expert on Hebrew, but my understanding is that ra, the word translated 'evil' in Isaiah 45:7, can simply mean 'bad.' God does indeed bring bad things upon the wicked and allows bad things to come upon this world, fallen as it is through sin, but He does not create evil in the sense of wickedness.

 

I don't mean to answer for @DaveXR650 who is well able to look after himself, but 'every good and every perfect gift is from above and comes from the Father of lights.......' (James 1:17). To argue that because God is the author of good things he has to be the author, not just of bad things, but of evil, is neither logical nor honouring to God.

I will also add that just because faith and repentance are gifts of God, it does not mean that we do not have ourselves to repent and believe. Otherwise Mark 1:15 makes no sense. God does not repent and believe for us.

 

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you.
We have a mystery where the Sovereign God does as He wills, without you or I having any authority or right to judge what He wills as evil. This is Paul's argument in Romans 9. Whatever God does, even if it is to create vessels of wrath, is good. To question God is to act exactly like Adam and Eve when they listened to the Serpent's questioning of God's Sovereignty. That is precisely what you are doing by asking if God is fully Sovereign or only partly Sovereign. You want God to be Sovereign with vessels of honorable use, but you don't want Him to be Sovereign with vessels of dishonorable use. You, oh man, are questioning the Almighty and attempting to shove him in your theological box when He is too big for your box and He does not bow to any man's theology (including mine). We either acknowledge God as Sovereign over everything or we consider Him to be less than because our "less than" minds cannot wrap our minds around how God can be sovereign over vessels of righteousness and vessels of wrath. God turns to you and says "Who are you, oh man..."
I do not understand the mystery of God's Sovereignty and how He remains good when He has ordained the very rebellion that He hates. Yet, I bow before Him in faith declaring with many others that "God is good all the time and all the time God is good."

So, you can accuse God as much as you desire while you try to shove Him into your box, or you can accept His full Sovereignty and, by faith, declare all that He wills to be good...even the evil that He ordains upon this world.

Will you have a fully Sovereign God, or will you have a deistic god who merely observers?

 

Who is making God out to be a liar?
1 John 5:9-13, ". . .he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, . . ."

 

Evasion and rabbit trail !

 

Again Repentance and Faith arent ever preached as to their source, God given. When Jesus said that repentance and forgiveness of sins are to be preached in His Name Lk 24:46-47

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

That means that both repentance and forgiveness are because of Him, He the source and author of them.

And thats what Peter preached in Acts 5:31 that Christ gives them because of His exaltation and finished work

 

This was from the original post. From some of the posts above it can be seen that this was exactly correct. I don't really know what to say but I think it explains itself. @MrW . Consider your point made. Now Spurgeon would have said, and I think he did once when he was discussing these issues, that looking back he discovered that he believed on Jesus because of the work of the Holy Spirit and because he was predestined to be saved. But that isn't a suitable answer. That would be evasion and a rabbit trail. People looking at this thread should realize that Spurgeon was a solid 5 point Calvinist by his own explanation. But he preached in a way that would be acceptable and familiar to most non-Calvinist Baptists. This thread is at post 116 and no one so far has a problem with Spurgeon except some Calvinists. There is something to be learned there. I'm not sure what it is.

 

@DaveXR650 , @MrW s point was not made.

I can confidently proclaim "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" because the process is still the same.
1) God chooses to make a person alive by grace alone. (That is the cause.)
2) God gives faith as a gift.
3) The person believes and indeed s/he is saved.

There is no contradiction.

How about you open your Bible instead of spending all your time trying to interpret the past saints. What you are doing is the same thing the Roman Catholic church does. It no longer reads God's word, but instead goes to church decisions and traditions to determine it's doctrine. You're traveling that same path and are not willing to wrestle with scripture. MrW (aka Sliverhair) is wrong.

 

You comment is nonsensical.



"God's will determines all the choices and circumstances of his creatures, so that nothing is up to man's "free will." In fact, because God is completely sovereign, man has no free will:

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalms 139:16)

The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster. (Proverbs 16:4)

In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. (Proverbs 16:9)

A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way? (Proverbs 20:24)

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. (Proverbs 21:1)

All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)

Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." (James 4:13-15)

All things are decided and caused by God – nothing is free from his control, and he has not chosen to forego his control on anything. The doctrine is repulsive to those who abhor the rule and honor of God, and so they oppose it. But the doctrine is a source of comfort and celebration to those who love him. Why would we want it any other way, than for God to rule over all things? And what better life can we wish for, than to be ruled by God?

The doctrine contradicts the religious tradition that God does not decree evil or that he does not cause evil. Of course God does not make decrees against his other decrees. Since God is not insane, he has only one will, one desire. However, there is no problem for him to issue a decree that causes his creatures to violate his precepts. Whereas decrees are declarations of intentions about things that he would cause to happen, precepts are declarations of definitions, not intentions, and do not overlap with the decrees. It must be true that God decrees and causes events that are contrary to his precepts; otherwise, there could be no evil, but there is indeed evil. Therefore, God must be the metaphysical author of sin and evil.

This does not mean that God himself is evil. To metaphysically cause evil and to morally commit evil are two different things. One is a matter of ability to cause something, while the other is a matter of conformity to a principle. The Bible teaches that God is the one who defines right and wrong, and that sin is a transgression of God's law. Therefore, for God to commit evil by causing evil – for this to be bad or wrong – he must declare a moral law that forbids himself to decree or to cause evil, that is, to decree or to cause his creatures to transgress his law. There is no biblical basis to suppose that God has declared such a law against himself. Indeed, the Bible teaches that all that God says and does are right and good. If he says it, it must be true. If he does it, it must be good. Therefore, since God is sovereign and there is evil, God must be the cause of evil, and since he is the cause of evil, it must be right and good for him to be the cause of evil.

There is no divine law that says God would be wrong if he were to be the cause of evil. Why, then, do men assume that it would be evil for God to be the author of sin? What law would God transgress? He would transgress the law of men, or what men have imposed upon him to define what a righteous God must or must not do. This is the sinister truth behind the religious tradition that says God is not the author of sin, for if he were to be such, it would mean that he has transgressed a law that men has declared against him. The necessary conclusion is that the doctrine that God is not the author of sin, or that it is blasphemy and heresy to say that he is, is itself the real blasphemy and heresy. Unless God is the author of sin and evil, he is not completely sovereign, and he is not God. Therefore, to deny that God is the author of sin and evil is to deny God.

The Bible teaches that God's decrees and actions are always right and good. Since he is completely sovereign, and there is evil in this universe, this means that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. But since his decrees and actions are always right and good, then this means that it is right and good that he is the one who decrees and causes evil in this universe. The very fact that he decrees and causes evil means that it is right and good for him to do so. There is no authority or standard higher than God by which to condemn him. If he thinks that it is good for him to cause evil, then it is good for him to cause evil.

This does not mean that evil is good, which would be a contradiction. Sin is defined as a transgression of God's moral law, and when we say that God is the author of sin, we are saying that God is the metaphysical cause of a creature's transgression of God's moral law. God transgresses no moral law, since there is no moral law against what he does, but he causes the creature to transgress. Morality relates to moral law. But there is no moral law against sovereign metaphysical power. It is right and good for God to metaphysically cause evil, just because he does it, and because he has not declared himself wrong for doing it. It is wrong for man to morally commit evil, because God has declared man wrong for doing it, although it is God who metaphysically causes man to do it. Therefore, God remains righteous, and the sinner remains evil. The distinctions are clear. There is no paradox or contradiction, and also no biblical or logical basis for objection against the doctrine.

Does this make God a tyrant? If the word simply means, "an absolute ruler," then of course God is a tyrant. And since he is the sole moral authority, the very fact that he is a tyrant means that he ought to be one, that it is good and just for him to be one. The negative connotations of the word apply only to human beings, since no man is worthy of absolute authority or capable to wield it. But God is "an absolute ruler" – that is what it means to be God."

- Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, page 92 - first paragraph on page 94

(emphasis mine)

 

Spot on. Surely no one on this board would claim that salvation is not a gift, would they? If salvation is a gift - and it is - then everything associated with salvation is a gift - faith is a gift, repentance from dead works is a gift, and after regeneration and believing and repenting of dead works and then living day to day, any good works that the elect perform are gifts.