Unconditional Election means Unconditional Reprobation

There is no injustice in it. They aren't sent to Hell because they weren't chosen, they are sent to Hell because of their own willful rebellion. Big difference there. Hell is fair. If God slew all of us without "giving us a chance," it would be "fair." It would be "just." Of course, the Apostle Paul counters this objection ("election is unfair") in Romans 9.

"For what shall we say then? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. . . . One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why did You make me like this?' 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? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath--prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory....?" - Romans 9:14-16, 19-23

No. They are one and the same.

Rev. G

 

Calvinist Loraine Boettner says:

If man's fate is decided or predestined before he is ever born, that means there will be a lot of babies and children in hell right?

Russ <><

 

Russ,

What makes you come to that conclusion?

Rev. G

 

"Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days. You never heard its declaration of faith—it was not capable of such a thing—it was not baptized into the Lord Jesus Christ, not buried with him in baptism; it was not capable of giving that "answer of a good conscience towards God;" nevertheless, you may rest assured that it is well with the child, well in a higher and a better sense than it is well with yourselves; well without limitation, well without exception, well infinitely, "well" eternally. Perhaps you will say, "What reasons have we for believing that it is well with the child?" Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true. In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God." - from Charles Spurgeon's sermon on "Infant Salvation"

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

I don't want to be the fly in our Calvinistic ointment, but it is accurate to say that some Calvinists believe that some infants are elect and some are not. Verses 166-182 from Michael Wigglesworth's The Day of Doom represent the Puritan Calvinism of early Congregationalism in America. The popularity of Wigglesworth's verse in his day (mid 1600's) would indicate he was not alone in such beliefs. "Published in 1662, The Day of Doom became America's first best seller, circulating 1800 copies during the first year. It has been estimated that at one time one copy was owned for every thirty-five people in all of New England..."

Arminian friends, I am giving this for historical accuracy. Please do not assume that this is the belief of any of the Calvinists posting in this forum. Let them speak for themselves as to what they believe.

 

Calvin himself affirmed this belief when he said:

It seems John Calvin himself held to the doctrine of supralapsarianism, so if one would label themselves a "Calvinist," then one must by definition hold to supralapsarianism. It would also appear Spurgeon is not a true Calvinist.

Russ <><

 

Calvin was most likely infalapsarian.

Infra vs supra has nothing to do with whether any infants go to hell or not. Calvinist believe that we are all born condemned by the sin of Adam, and with a nature that makes us children of God's wrath. The question is simply whether God chooses to elect all infants that die from that mess of already condemned humanity, or only some infants that die from that mess of already condemned humanity.

[ October 05, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Romans 10:18
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. KJV
Sound.
NT:5353
phthoggos (ftong'-gos); from NT:5350; utterance, i.e. a musical note (vocal or instrumental):

Word.
NT:4487
rhema (hray'-mah); from NT:4483; an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by implication, a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or dispute); with a negative naught whatever:
Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary.

Lastly, the scripture says, “have they not heard”; not have they not seen.
Heard
NT:191
akouo (ak-oo'-o); a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):
KJV-give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

We sometimes forget the ministry of the Holy Spirit. God has allowed us to play a role in salvation, but he has not left another’s salvation dependent on whether I am obedient to his command to witness or not. This is what I’ve been trying to say when it comes to dead babies, retards, idiots and my ancestors in Africa. We cannot change our spots, but god can. But why would he want to. Spots are lovely, black is beautiful, tan is grand, even if white is still the color of the big boss man. (Itsa funny)

I looked for that verse for two hours yesterday. Just in case you need backup, there is another verse in there somewhere that says essentially the same thing.

Freewill is applicable to justice only in that it is the only means provided by God to that results in accountability. A man without options is not accountable when he does the only thing possible for him to do..

No freewill, no accountability. Judgment is a farce without it. It's just that simple. If Your God had just elected, and not set up that Great White Throne of Judgment, OK. But then he demands accountability. There can be no accountability without options...

[ October 05, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

Chappie:

There is a big difference between "free will" and "liberty" (as defined by St. Augustine and elaborated by Jonathan Edwards). Another word we might want to include is "free agency." Calvinists do not deny that human beings are "free" to make decisions. When God holds us accountable, it will be on the basis of the things we chose to do, say, and think. We aren't denying that.

Rev. G

 

NOT SO. The Puritans were mainly supralapsarians, but the earlier Calvinists (Synod of Dort, etc.) were infralapsarians.

Spurgeon, by the grace of God, was a true Calvinist. Of course, "Calvinist" is a really poor term, as Spurgeon himself said. He was a man of God, a Christian.

Rev. G

 

According to Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Clavin was in fact a supralapsarian (if I'm reading it right).

Just so you all know where I stand, I am neither a thorough going Calvinist nor Arminian. I know God is sovereign, yet I also know He gave man free will. I don't dwell on it much. There is more important business to attend to, like preaching Jesus Christ crucified. I include a link for your collective perusal.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ217.HTM

Grace and Peace to you all,

Russ <><

 

All forms of Calvinism (including Supra, Infra, and Amyrauldianims) have God decreeing to permit the fall. So does systematic Arminianism. The differences between them have only to do with the order of the decrees, not with the way in which the fall was decreed. All systems have God decreeing to permit the fall.

There is a conversation I started somewhere called "God as the Author of sin for the last time" that gives the decrees for the different systems. You might be interested in looking for it.

(I found a link that discusses supra/infra/etc. Here it is: Supra/Infra/and the order of decrees)

[ October 05, 2002, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

Rev. G,

You said in effect that there is no injustice found in God because they are sent to Hell because of their wilful rebellion against Him, and not because they were chosen by Him for their eternal demise.

Accordingly, Arminianism and Calvinism teach that all sinners were and are in rebellion against Him. Some how the majority end up in Hell while the elect go into His Presence above. Calvinism teaches that God freely chose in grace His elect. What made the difference for the non-elect? All sinners had rebellion so it wasn't that reason that will place them finally in Hell. Wise, Calvinistic belief says with the alleged truth that God also chose and not inadvertently, to send all His non-elect to Hell.

Even wiser Arminian strands of belief inform people who want to know the truth that God made His plan to save all the people of the world. [I John 2:2] Both the righteous and the lost . . . What makes the difference between Heaven and Hell is that of sincere faith in Jesus Christ.
[Romans 5:1 & I John 5:13] Those how neglect Him will find themselves judged by the same Jesus Christ our Lord. [John 5:22]

Pastor, the truth shall set you free.

 

Some of the brethren on this board, and I do consider them brethren, may not agree with me on this important subject of reprobation. I believe, and the Bible teaches that election is based on the sovereign and free grace of God. To this we all agree. I do not, however, believe the rejection of God of the non-elect was based upon "foreseen" actions, no more than I believe the elect of the people of God was based upon "foreseen" actions. I believe, and the Bible teaches, that there are elect and non-elect angels. The election of the elect angels could not have been with reference to their fallen nature because they never possessed one (In case you have not noticed, I am a Supralapsarian.). Therefore, election must have been based upon love, and nothing else. For if God rejected the non-elect angels because of "foreseen" sin, why could not the election of His people be based upon "foreseen" good works in the creature. This, as you deny, and rightly so, is not and cannot be true. Therefore, I believe that the non-elect were rejected as creatures; passed by and left to follow their own course; the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air. God damns them because of His holy hatred for their sin, but their rejection was based upon the sovereignty of God. Their sins are inevitible because of the fall. There is no man who does good and sins not is the scriptural testimony. When they were rejected, God did not say, "Now, I hope they sin so I can damn them." No, no. It is inevitible, for they are sinners when they are conceived.

 

This shows your presuppositions that lead you to your system to begin with. You refuse, for some reason, to believe that it is okay to be for no reason at all ... You insist that there must be a reason for God to save someone and that that reason must be rooted in man. That is why we insist that you have a very hard time divorcing individual merit from salvation in your system.

You furthermore insinuate that sins are not enough of a reason to sin someone to hell. You insinuate this by arguing that "all men are sinners but not all go to hell" so therefore it must be something other than sin. Here, you misunderstand the whole point of salvation. Every man sins and every man is deserving of hell. Every one who goes to hell will have no one but himself to blame. He did not want to come to God God's way. That is the bottom line. God does not force people to go to hell. They go there when they wilfully refuse to accept Christ's payment and repent and turn to Christ.

 

This is such a deep subject for such a shallow mind as mine Thank you all for being so patient with me.

Russ <><

 

Sovereign Grace,

I think I believe all that you said except your view that God sovereignly chose His elect for Heaven and passed by the non-elect.

A sovereign does not necessarly have to rule in every action of those in his or her kingdom. Calvinists err when they try to make Almighty God the Author of every action of every human being. Then the label is placed on the theology and it is called God's Sovereignty. Many theologies do not even classify Sovereignty as an Attribute of God, but only a perogative that God demonstrates as He sees fit.

 

Pastor Larry,

We have always been ready to hear from a knowledgable Calvinist why God desires to save only His elect and for what reasons. No one ever comes to the microphone to speak. The reason is because God does not choose certain ones for Heaven; He leaves this to their responsiveness to the Gospel.

If you think we have presuppositions--at least ours are back fully with the testimony of the Word of God. The reality is that we start with the Bible and carefully put together the truth that God has carefully written down for all of us.

Respectfully,

Ray

 

This question has been answered so many times it is amazing that you stand here and say differently. God desires to save only his elect for his own glory ... that we should be the praise of the glory of his grace (Eph 1). We have stood "to the microphone" more times than can be counted. You refuse to listen. Ephesians is clear that "he chose us in him before the foundation of hte world." Notice who did the choosing. Why do you suggest otherwise?

This has been shown to be false on many occasions. You come to certain passages and explain them away because your position cannot deal with the testimony of the word of God.

Your act is getting a little bit old Ray. You come in here and act as if nothing as ever been said, as if no one has ever answered your questions, as if we never deal with Scripture. But you know better. You know that we have. You know that we have used Scripture time and time again to support what we have said. You know that we have used to Scripture to refute what you have said. Yet you continue to act as if we do not even post. Why don't you change your approach and interact with the theology in the posts? That would prevent these kinds of ridiculous posts like "No one has ever answered this question." I don't want to be too hard on you Ray, but honestly, this has gotten to the point of needing to be changed. Please help me out on this one.

 

You misunderstood me, pastor. I know you believe that God finds glory in saving His small flock, His elect, [Luke 12:32 & Matthew 7:14] and apparently finds glory damning the rest. [Matthew 7:13] My question that no Calvinist answers is what intrinsicly does God find in His elect that makes Him choose them. If He did indeed do the above, what was His basis of rejecting the vast majority of sinners.

My purpose is not to repeat some views that you and other long standing members may never receive as God's truth, but for the other new people who visit the board who may not have the background to see the truth laid out before them. If we do not offer to them the other view, the new believers may entertain the idea that you are correct. Do you now understand?

Brotherly regards,

Dr. Berrian