Need some Sea Tulips?

[rlvaughn]

Thought I would throw this in the mix. Wondering what BB members think about this position?

SEA TULIP Gospel Predestination, Part 1: Why Reductionist Five-point TULIP Calvinism is Bankrupt

Adding the points of Supralapsarianism, Eternal Justification, and Active Decree to the historic five points of TULIP will provide a new and comprehensive basis for defending the truth of the gospel in future generations. Therefore I am convinced we need to pursue this formulation in earnest. The SEA-TULIP articles will provide an 8-Point confession of Gospel Predestination that will permanently reject and stand against evangelical Fullerism and its anti-Reformation heresies.

 

[Reformed]

Thought I would throw this in the mix. Wondering what BB members think about this position?

SEA TULIP Gospel Predestination, Part 1: Why Reductionist Five-point TULIP Calvinism is Bankrupt

I reject eternal justification. The Puritan, John Flavel, wrote in his Vindiciarum Vindex, "That the elect are not justified from eternity is clear, because although their justification is purposed in eternity, it is not purchased and applied until time. We are justified by Christ’s blood and by faith. (Rom. 5:9,1) The elect sinner is not freed from condemnation nor justified till he is united to Christ, which union is by faith, and takes place during the elect’s life-time. It is both irrational and unscriptural to imagine that men can be justified before they exist." (emphasis is mine)

As far as Supralapsarianism, TULIP is not dependent on Infra or Supralapsarianism. There is freedom in this area since men of goodwill hold opposing views that do not contradict the whole of Reformed theology.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Thought I would throw this in the mix. Wondering what BB members think about this position?

SEA TULIP Gospel Predestination, Part 1: Why Reductionist Five-point TULIP Calvinism is Bankrupt

Ok, as someone half between Arminianism and Calvinism for the moment. Modern Calvinism has a logical dilemma trying to explain the origin of sin. That needs to be addressed still.

SEA makes God the author by decree of open rebellion against Him. A God that cannot tempt. This is ridiculous. God is not sin's author.

 

[Reformed1689]

Ok, as someone half between Arminianism and Calvinism for the moment. Modern Calvinism has a logical dilemma trying to explain the origin of sin. That needs to be addressed still.

Might I point out to you that is not a uniquely Calvinistic problem? Arminians also have to account for the origin of sin.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Might I point out to you that is not a uniquely Calvinistic problem? Arminians also have to account for the origin of sin.

Oh, of course. I figured that out a few days ago. Thank you. I have seen an explanation by a scholar named Platinga about how Arminianism allows evil through choice though.

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh, of course. I figured that out a few days ago. Thank you. I have seen an explanation by a scholar named Platinga about how Arminianism allows evil through choice though.

And that's great, but it is a cop-out. Who gave the choice? Who determined what is evil and what choice would be evil? They still have the exact same problem.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

And that's great, but it is a cop-out. Who gave the choice? Who determined what is evil and what choice would be evil? They still have the exact same problem.

Good points. The Arminian problem is more like this: How is a mind and will and emotions after God's image tempted at all when God the Father suffers no temptation? The explanation I have heard is we are tempted like God the Son. Ok, why can we give into temptation and God the Son has not?

 

[Reformed1689]

Good points. The Arminian problem is more like this: How is a mind and will and emotions after God's image tempted at all when God the Father suffers no temptation? The explanation I have heard is we are tempted like God the Son. Ok, why can we give into temptation and God the Son has not?

Again, that ignores the real issue. The real issue is why does evil exist at all.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Again, that ignores the real issue. The real issue is why does evil exist at all.

Hmm, let me see if I get your reasoning yet. So where does evil or sin, a rebellion against God, come from? How could God make beings capable of evil if He is all good and tempts no one?

 

[rlvaughn]

God made all things that are made. Beings capable of evil exist. Therefore God made beings capable of evil.

 

[Reformed]

Therefore God made beings capable of evil.

Capable? Yes. Caused? No (and I am not suggesting you said that).

James 1:13-14 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states (with scripture proofs):

5.4_____ The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
( Romans 11:32-34; 2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1; 2 Kings 19:28; Psalms 76;10; Genesis 1:20; Isaiah 10:6, 7, 12; Psalms 1:21; 1 John 2:16 ) (Emphasis mine)

 

[Steven Yeadon]

This got me thinking. Think about Eden. Adam and Eve are made innocent, and mankind is made upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29). However, what is the one thing banned to them. The knowledge of good and evil should they eat of the tree. Our original sin was to disobey God, yes, but in that disobedience the result was to understand what evil and good are. Fascinating.

 

[rsr]

It appears to me that the OP embraces an old-time Baptist hyper-Calvinism — including "predestination of all things" — that now survives only in pockets here and there. I know it still exists among some Primitives, but I don't think it's anywhere near a majority.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Capable? Yes. Caused? No (and I am not suggesting you said that).

James 1:13-14 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states (with scripture proofs):

5.4_____ The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that his determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, which also he most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth, in a manifold dispensation to his most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceedeth only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
( Romans 11:32-34; 2 Samuel 24:1, 1 Chronicles 21:1; 2 Kings 19:28; Psalms 76;10; Genesis 1:20; Isaiah 10:6, 7, 12; Psalms 1:21; 1 John 2:16 ) (Emphasis mine)

This goes further. Clearly God made mankind and the angels and the serpent of Genesis, Satan, able to disobey His commands. A key question is why is this?

Clearly rlvaughn is right that He made it so rebellion was possible through enticement by the heart. Otherwise we wouldn't be here and Genesis would be void. An almighty God has this capability of course, He can do all He pleases, even make children of wrath of no fault of their own. The thing is what was the point of allowing rebellion? That would be a rich topic of inquiry.

So far, you get answers like, "because He wanted us to really love Him," but is that biblical? Is it anywhere in scripture? Why are at least some clearly elected by no goodness of their own, such as the Jews who believed in the time of Jesus and the apostles? Why special grace at all if the intent was to be "really loved" by His creatures. Depending on where this discussion goes I may make a new thread.

 

[rlvaughn]

Looking at other writings by the author of the linked post, I don't think he is a Baptist. Just wanted to put that information in, though I don't think it matters so much to the topic under discussion. As rsr mentions, I believe there are versions of Baptist Calvinism that would be consistent with the ideas in the Sea Tulips article.

I expect most Baptists/people will find sea tulips dry and bitter to the taste. But there is no accounting for taste.

It appears to me that the OP embraces an old-time Baptist hyper-Calvinism — including "predestination of all things" — that now survives only in pockets here and there. I know it still exists among some Primitives, but I don't think it's anywhere near a majority.

Yes, I think that is correct. I believe that Absolute Predestianarian Primitive Baptists would agree with S.E.A., but that Conditionalist/Old Line Primitive Baptists (who make up the majority) would not. However, in general, I find myself more in agreement "in spirit" with the Absoluters in that they believe the God who ordained the end (eternal salvation) also ordained the means to bring them to faith in Christ. Many Conditionalists do not, only applying predestination to eternal salvation (including the fact that some of the elect may never exercise faith in Christ in this life).

Capable? Yes. Caused? No (and I am not suggesting you said that).

I like to leave my thoughts on this with what it seems we can know and not speculate on the whys and wherefores -- as in, yes, God made beings capable of evil, but why did he do that? I don't know why, other than that he willed to do so. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.