Double predestination, part deux

[convicted1]

Bro. Greektim was wanting a response to Romans 9:21,22. First, let us take a look at these two verses:

Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

If you look at these two verses only, it appears to prove double predestination. But let's expand these further, and get to the "marrow of the bone".

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

It looks like Apostle Paul was calling the Jews the vessels of honour, and the Gentiles the vessels of dishonour/vessels fitted for destruction. Not that God made the vessels of honour for heaven and the vessels of dishonour for hell. He is stating that God will/is pouring His wrath out on the children of disobedience(vessels of dishonour), and blessing those who have put their trust in Him(vessels of honour). Or that is how I see it.

Also, look at verse 22. Apostle Paul said "what if God is longsuffering(patient) with the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"? So, now God is longsuffering for the Gentiles(vessels fitted for destruction) also, and not just the Jews.

BTW, I started this new thread because the original one was closed before I could give another response. Please keep this thread CIVIL!!! I love you all!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What happened to part uno...they close it?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes Don there are different schools of thought among Calvinists....Ive posted a chart in here before thats pretty comprehensive.....here it is still again.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

Note, there is a point & click to Hyper-Calvinism also in the body of the text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks EWF.
Phil Johnson's chart is excellent and concise. :thumbs:
It also shows that the view that Skandelon was trying to palm off onto poor old Charles Hodge is not Calvinism at all, but Amyraldism.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks EWF.
Phil Johnson's chart is excellent and concise. :thumbs:
It also shows that the view that Skandelon was trying to palm off onto poor old Charles Hodge is not Calvinism at all, but Amyraldism.

Steve

I just got finished reading it again myself.... appears that way.

I also liked his clear definition of Hyper-Calvinism.....all too often, people try to hang a brother by calling him a HC & clearly this shows that they are a classification un to themselves

 

[webdog]

Bro. Greektim was wanting a response to Romans 9:21,22. First, let us take a look at these two verses:

Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

If you look at these two verses only, it appears to prove double predestination. But let's expand these further, and get to the "marrow of the bone".

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

It looks like Apostle Paul was calling the Jews the vessels of honour, and the Gentiles the vessels of dishonour/vessels fitted for destruction. Not that God made the vessels of honour for heaven and the vessels of dishonour for hell. He is stating that God will/is pouring His wrath out on the children of disobedience(vessels of dishonour), and blessing those who have put their trust in Him(vessels of honour). Or that is how I see it.

Also, look at verse 22. Apostle Paul said "what if God is longsuffering(patient) with the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"? So, now God is longsuffering for the Gentiles(vessels fitted for destruction) also, and not just the Jews.

BTW, I started this new thread because the original one was closed before I could give another response. Please keep this thread CIVIL!!! I love you all!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

I just got finished reading it again myself.... appears that way.

I also liked his clear definition of Hyper-Calvinism.....all too often, people try to hang a brother by calling him a HC & clearly this shows that they are a classification un to themselves

Agreed.. I did a thread on this a while back.. and brought it back up a couple of times.. recently within the last month I believe.

In my thread (seen here) I used two lists from two different sites (Johns from Monergism and Phils from Spureon), since both referenced each other as more information on the subject. In contacting both men, both state their lists are saying the the same things, but one is a little more concise. (you will find this in the thread as well).

However be careful touting Phil Johnson list as showing H-C because there are some people here who will declare he doesn't know what he is talking about because according to his list, they would be or at have H-C tendencies.

What is of interest, and important to note is that Hyper-C is NOT just, a view to not proclaim the gospel message (though it IS one of them).. it is in reality a view or views that diverges from historical Calvinism in such a way that it does not take away from.. but in fact adds to and takes the views beyond what was historically held.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I also liked his clear definition of Hyper-Calvinism.....all too often, people try to hang a brother by calling him a HC & clearly this shows that they are a classification un to themselves

just read it. Very good, although a little bit judgemental on whom he calls Hypers. Whether one thinks that God loves the non-elect will depend on how one defines 'love.' But otherwise excellent. Read also the link to Pink's article on 'duty-faith.' This refutes an error propagated by George Ella and others.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What is the deffinition of a Hyper-Calvinist?

Answer: Anybody with views to the right of you. LOL

you know your going to get ppl on this board who are going to read these posts & with their new found knowledge start labeling.....Yea, that sounds like "EW&F, Luke, Aaron blah blah blah"

Just stop doing that! "Judge not"

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks EWF.
Phil Johnson's chart is excellent and concise. :thumbs:
It also shows that the view that Skandelon was trying to palm off onto poor old Charles Hodge is not Calvinism at all, but Amyraldism.

Steve

One, Phil is not writing the canon here. He can be questioned, right?

Two, all those groups from Amyraldism over are still considered "Calvinistic," by most mainstream and respected Calvinistic scholars. They see them as delineations of reformed theology, but still "reformed." You don't typically see an Infra saying Supras aren't really "Calvinists" do you (or vise versa)? No, they simply differ on one aspect of their views. They still all affirm an unconditional election of a certain elect number who will be certainly saved, which is the heart of Calvinistic soteriology. So, nice try.

Three, even by Phil's own admission the lines between each group on the chart are somewhat grey and have cross overs depending upon the scholar being discussed.

For example, he puts W.G.T Shed under the list of scholars who held to Supralapsarianism, but Shed is KNOWN for his views concerning the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for all. Yet, Phil lists that view under the Amyraldist.

Calvinist Jim Ellis wrote: "An example can be found in the work of W. G. T. Shedd, an eminent Calvinist theologian of the nineteenth century who adopts the "sufficient for all" view. In Shedd's discussion of the extent of the atonement he differentiates between passive and active meanings. Passively, he claims, "the extent of the atonement is unlimited."

Later in the same paper Ellis quotes Hodge, who supports the same view as Shed, saying, "the atonement has objectively 'removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men.'"

So, clearly Ellis would differ from Phil's conclusion regarding Shed and Hodge's view regarding the issue of "sufficiency." But, either way, this validates that the view is a form of Calvinistic soteriology supported by scholars throughout history, which I've been demeaned for even suggesting, so thanks for posting it! :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Note that Phil believes that Amyraldists are still 5 pointers:

But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)

So, Steve's conclusion that Amyraldism is not Calvinism isn't even affirmed by his source.

Also, note that even some of the scholars themselves label their views differently than Phil did here:

A. H.Strong held this view (Systematic Theology, 778). He called it (incorrectly) "sublapsarianism."
Henry Thiessen, evidently following Strong, also mislabeled this view "sublapsarianism"

Either way, they are ALL considered "Calvinistic" and thus Steve owes me an apology for supposedly misrepresenting Hodge, Shedd and other reformers who clearly supported a "sufficiency for all" view of the atonement.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im a 5 pointer today but not always. At one time I couldnt get past Limited Attonement & so I took on the mantle of a 4 point Calvinist & was accepting of the "Amyraldist" label. Here is what I discovered:

5 point Calvinists consider an Amyraldist / 4 point Calvinist a joke. How can you put it altogether if you dont have & accept all 5 point of systematic theology? They would actually call me an Arminian. Well with time & prayer & study, I accepted all 5 points.

"So witout those 5 points you aint got no spurs so get off that cuttin horse cus you aint ridin this rodeo son"!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Skandelon,
I am not going to get into another argument on this. You bring out the very worst in me by your continual inability to understand.

Please read this again, and also look at the chart.

But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)

The fact that most who call themselves four-pointers are, in Johnson's view, crypto- Arminians does not mean that Amyraldians are not four-pointers. Patently they are, because they deny Particular Redemption.

Why don't you write to Phil Johnson and ask him if he thinks Amyraldians are 5-point Calvinists? When he stops laughing, I expect he'll explain it all to you, not that that will do you any good because you still won't understand. Sheesh!!

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

Im a 5 pointer today but not always. At one time I couldnt get past Limited Attonement & so I took on the mantle of a 4 point Calvinist & was accepting of the "Amyraldist" label. Here is what I discovered:

5 point Calvinists consider an Amyraldist / 4 point Calvinist a joke. How can you put it altogether if you dont have & accept all 5 point of systematic theology? They would actually call me an Arminian. Well with time & prayer & study, I accepted all 5 points.

"So witout those 5 points you aint got no spurs so get off that cuttin horse cus you aint ridin this rodeo son"!

Well, according to Phil, he "wouldn't glorify their position [four-pointers] by labeling it Amyraldism." In other words, he affirms Amyraldism is still a 5 point system. Amyraldism is still Calvinism according to Phil.

 

[Skandelon]

Please read this again, and also look at the chart.

Ok, let's all read it again together, shall we? Let's go line by line:

But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism."

Amyraldism should not be equated with 4 point Calvinism.

Amyraldism {NOT=TO} 4-Pointer

In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional.

4-Pointers are bad, according to Phil. The don't have a coherent explanation of the atonement.

So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism.

So, Phil would not HONOR 4-pointers with the label of Amyraldism. In other words, Amyraldism IS better and should NOT be equated with 4-point Calvinism. Why, because Amyraldists, have a coherent explanation of the atonement.

(Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)

In other words, Four pointers are crypto-Arminians NOT true Amyraldism, because Moise Amyraut, the founder, was committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty.

How can that be any more clearly in support of the fact that Phil affirmed Amyraldism as a form of 5 point Calvinism?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, according to Phil, he "wouldn't glorify their position [four-pointers] by labeling it Amyraldism." In other words, he affirms Amyraldism is still a 5 point system. Amyraldism is still Calvinism according to Phil.

Then Phil dont get out much :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JesusFan]

One, Phil is not writing the canon here. He can be questioned, right?

Two, all those groups from Amyraldism over are still considered "Calvinistic," by most mainstream and respected Calvinistic scholars. They see them as delineations of reformed theology, but still "reformed." You don't typically see an Infra saying Supras aren't really "Calvinists" do you (or vise versa)? No, they simply differ on one aspect of their views. They still all affirm an unconditional election of a certain elect number who will be certainly saved, which is the heart of Calvinistic soteriology. So, nice try.

Good question!

As the resident "Amy" on the BB, am I considered to be even a Cal by those holding to the "full" 5 points of DoG?

Definitely NOT an Arm, am I "stuck between 2 shores?"

Three, even by Phil's own admission the lines between each group on the chart are somewhat grey and have cross overs depending upon the scholar being discussed.

For example, he puts W.G.T Shed under the list of scholars who held to Supralapsarianism, but Shed is KNOWN for his views concerning the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for all. Yet, Phil lists that view under the Amyraldist.

Calvinist Jim Ellis wrote: "An example can be found in the work of W. G. T. Shedd, an eminent Calvinist theologian of the nineteenth century who adopts the "sufficient for all" view. In Shedd's discussion of the extent of the atonement he differentiates between passive and active meanings. Passively, he claims, "the extent of the atonement is unlimited."

Later in the same paper Ellis quotes Hodge, who supports the same view as Shed, saying, "the atonement has objectively 'removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men.'"

So, clearly Ellis would differ from Phil's conclusion regarding Shed and Hodge's view regarding the issue of "sufficiency." But, either way, this validates that the view is a form of Calvinistic soteriology supported by scholars throughout history, which I've been demeaned for even suggesting, so thanks for posting it! :thumbsup:

Think that were and are some eminent cal theologians over history who held to views not precisely just "strict 5 points of DoG"

Think that there are variations/shades within the cal umbtella, maybe more so than some would allow!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think that were and are some eminent cal theologians over history who held to views not precisely just "strict 5 points of DoG"

Think that there are variations/shades within the cal umbtella, maybe more so than some would allow!

JB.....your free to think what you like, but till you adhere to Doctrines of Grace, you aint no Calvinist.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok, let's all read it again together, shall we? Let's go line by line:

No. If I reply now, I shall probably get irritable again. Why don't you go back and read it again properly so that you understand what he's saying. It's honestly not hard. I'll give you a little hint.

But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism."

Now, you should be able to work it out from there with just a little bit of thought.

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

I want you all to notice that Phil put's WGT Shedd under the Supra camp, even though he labels the Amyraldist as being the group that affirms the atonement as "sufficient for all." Now you all read this quote from Shedd and tell me there isn't some cross over on this point:

Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God, and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term “redemption,” consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of “atonement,” and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:470

Isn't this why many prominent Calvinists prefer the term "Particular Redemption" over "Limited Atonement?"