Foreknowledge, Foreknown, Predestined

TC,
"Equal ultimacy" – that is a new one for me. As said on another post, I am a student, not a scholar, but what does it mean?

AmyG,

Why doesn’t God pull everyone out of the "damned-bin"? I think that a better question is, "Why does God pull any of us out the "damned-bin"? He is not obligated in any way to pull anyone out of the "damned-bin". He would be just if He let us all stay there and be eternally lost. (NOTE: Later saw that Rippon made this point. I am responding as I catch up with this thread, otherwise my thoughts are like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, "gone from me".)

But, I do believe the answer to your question is that it does not fit His eternal purpose to save everyone. Could God choose to save everyone? Of course, He could. Those of us who are saved are not saved because we are more righteous, more intelligent, or more pre-disposed to choose life – we are saved according to His grace, mercy, and sovereign purpose. We are not saved on the basis of our own works, but on the basis on His grace and mercy. We do not come to Him to receive life because of something special in ourselves, rather we are drawn by His grace in a way that brings us to salvation.

NOT ALL ARE DRAWN THE SAME WAY OR TO THE SAME DEGREE, BUT ALL ARE DRAWN TO A SUFFICIENT DEGREE THAT NONE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IN HIS PRESENCE, "I WAS LOST BECAUSE YOU DECREED MY DAMNATION".

No one will be saved who will be able to say, "I was saved by my own choice to come to the light, irrespective of the grace of God in drawing me to Himself". No one will be lost who will be able to say, "I was lost because God never gave me an opportunity to come to the light". Men are saved by His grace and lost by their rejection of what light they have received.


TC, RefB, NPet,

Classic Calvinism, LBCF Calvinism, historic Calvinism...

I am obviously not the church historian or doctrinal historian that I should be, but rather than defending a position or a man, why not deal with the issues in terms of what the Scriptures say and on the basis of the word meanings and comparisons that deal with the issues and the labels. Part of the problem in this and many discussions/debates (this is the "Baptist Debate" area, isn’t it?) is that we all, or at least some us, have less than perfect understanding of what others may mean when they define themselves according to the terms "Calvinist", "reformed", etc.

Personally, I do not fit into all of the little cubbyholes of ANY of the labels, BAPTIST included. We have elders in our church, for many Baptists, that tends to make me a Presbyterian. We do not pass the collection plate except on rare occasions, for MOST Baptists, that makes me an apostate who has denied "the faith" and is worse than an infidel! Whenever we use labels, we may be identifying with some idea or at least a perception that is not actually what we believe. I find it better to define what I believe in terms of definitive statements rather than a label which may or may not represent what I believe.

I do use labels to identify where I stand on issues. But I always do so with the knowledge that I may well be misunderstood. I have called myself "reformed" with the caveat that I am not reformed as far as my eschatology, ecclesiology, or Israelology. I have called myself a Calvinist with the caveat that I am still trying to find the balance on the "limited" aspects of the atonement. I call myself a Baptist because that is the closest label that defines where I stand, but I understand that there are many who wear that label and who speak and write under that umbrella who say or write things with which I would violently disagree. So, are labels helpful? Yes. Are label harmful? Yes. Use them with these thoughts in mind, IMO.


Rip,

Double predestination? I would like to specifically address this in another thread! Only been back awhile, is there a thread like that anywhere in recent history here? Will wait a while before I start one.

AND ALL NON-CALVINISTS DO?

OK, just saw where RefB made that point. OK, back to my suggestion that we really gain very little by arguing over the labels since we sometimes mean different things by the labels.

Let’s debate the concept or the statement on the basis of its Biblical foundation, or lack thereof, rather than argue over what the label really means.

 

Double post..............

 

What's confusing about it? Isn't God able to remove infants from the damned bin?

 

It's confusing because how did the infants get IN the damned bin to begin with?

I don't believe infants are damned.

 

I think Calvinism teaches that some are "predestined/elected" to be damned and some are "predestined/elected" to be saved--it's what Calvinism calls "double predestination". But not all Calvinists believe in "double predestination"--they say. I'm confused because they appear not to be in agreement with each other on this doctrine. Non-Calvinists get accused of mis-representing Calvinism, but when this is all you see, you begin to wonder--what do they really teach?

 

Linda, what do Baptists teach? It seems confusing to me because there are so many kinds of Baptists who seem to teach different things. Those non believers who come to this site and see one Baptist slaming another probably say "I wonder what they really teach?"

 

Innocence and age of accountability. But you knew that, right?

skypair

 

Reformed Baptist said:

OK, I did. My question as to the distinction between God's sovereignty and God's absolute sovereignty is not addressed. How about if you stop stalling and simply tell us the distinction.

 

If God is not absolutely sovereign then what is He? Is He almost sovereign? Is He almost God?
God has to be all....... absolutely full of all His attributes....... or He is not God. There is no such thing as a sovereign God who is not absolutely sovereign. God is Almighty Sovereign God by definition... or He is not.

 

Adam. Mercy/grace is the only way out. God bestows it upon whomever He pleases.

 

I'll quote RC Sproul at this juncture as my answer to your question:

"Equal ultimacy sees a symmetry between the work of God in election and his work in reprobation. It seeks an exact balance between the two. Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so he similarly intervenes in the hearts of the reprobate to work unbelief" (Grace Unknown, p. 158).

 

ReformedBaptist said:

God is sovereign. It's that simple. To say that he is "absolutely sovereign is a meaningless piling on of words. What happens is that reformed and non-reformed types often disagree as to what sovereignty means. When this happens, you guys don't discuss or define what you mean, rather you fall back to a piling on of words such as "absolutely sovereign". OK, here's what I believe: God is absolutely, wholly, entirely, completely, irreducibly sovereign. Which means the same thing as "God is sovereign. I'm not trying to badger you, I just get tired of a meaningless piling on of words substituting for real arguments and real definitions.

 

The problem is that there are those on this bb who would say that God only knows what is knowable. They are open theists. They would not maintain that God knows all...... period. Then there are those who would say that God is as sovereign as He wants to be... or gives up His sovereignty. That is why we use words such as "absolutely sovereign."

 

But you also make a distinction between primary causes and secondary causes in the outworking of God's sovereignty. I would think that those hyper-calvinists who do not make this distinction would be absolute sovereigntists, not you.

 

I'm sorry sir, I'm missing your point or not understanding what you are saying. The causes (God's providence) I think would be fairly equal on both sides .... hyper vs non hyper. Maybe not. I think the hyper would simply say that God through His providence has ultimately caused, or is the first cause. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

That is your opinion regarding what you have been told, right? Cause "absolute sovereignty" would mean that He controls the every move of the unsaved and make them to commit every sin.

On the other hand, you could mean (as we do) that God has the last word despite human, individual sovereignty.

skypair

 

Sproul has it all figured out human logic-wise, but I can't believe he doesn't know Who the Holy Spirit is. In reading his "Mystery of the Holy Spirit," I find he gets into a circumlocution (as swaimj says of y'all) of logic that still misstates Who the Holy Spirit truly is.

He is the personality of all the wisdom, emotions, and will of God, friends.

skypair

 

RB said:

Are you saying there is no difference in the view of God's sovereignty between calvinists and hyper-calvinists?

 

Although I repeated your question and offered one of my own, I think I answered both of them

Another issue, the infants. Probably needs a new thread, but IMO I do believe that infants are somehow covered by the blood of Jesus, but how and when I cannot say.

I essentially agree with this but struggle with a few questions. If Jesus paid for the sins of all men, how can God consign anyone to eternity in Hell for a debt that has been paid? Not trying to muddy things up, but after years and years of consideration, I am still not sure how to best state the answer to this problem. If you owe me money and someone else pays me on your behalf, I would be unjust to require or accept payment for that debt from you. If God has been fully satisfied, on behalf of ALL, how can He punish any of the lost for a debt that was fully paid on the cross. AGAIN, I am not trying to muddy things, just to confess my inability to be able to easily reconcile all that I know about this side of the issue.

I agree. Salvation is offered to everyone.

Jesus said

Jesus draws all men to some degree. All that the Father giveth shall come, and no man CAN come except the Father draw him.

Therefore, God must draw some men more effectually than others, since not all men will come.

Hope I explained that in a way that makes sense...

I have no idea!? I have some understanding of what Calvinism teaches and agree with some of it. Some of it I soundly reject. If we limit "Calvinism" to the 5 points, I believe that
1) Men are inherently sinful and unable to remedy their lost and sinful condition apart from the Divine working of God’s grace in their lives.
2) Men are elected to salvation according to the sovereign plan of an all knowing, all powerful, all righteous, and loving God.
3) The atonement of Christ is limited in its application, but unlimited in its value and potential.
4) God draws the elect to the degree that they WILL believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. No one is "forced" to accept the Lord, but God works in their lives to the degree that they do accept the Lord.
5) The saved are eternally secure in Christ

I am not comfortable with much of what Calvin taught. On the other hand, when I look at some of my old sermon notes I am not comfortable with some of what I have taught! I am in a position of continually re-examining my theological understanding and positioning to bring it more and more into line with the Word of God. May God in grace, grant that I may never feel like I have arrived, at least not this side of glory.


I know that may not answer your question, but I am not seeking to better understand or defend Calvinism. I have no dog in that fight, no one to cheer on. My commitment is to the Lord and His Word, NOT any theological sytem!