Non-Calvinists Redefine Terms

[russell55]

I think that if one applies Aristotelian logic to reformed thought he/she inevitably ends up with a supralapsarian stance. I think this is what led Beza to take the stance he did in his debates with the Lutherans. If God is omnipotent then how could He not have foreordained everything from the very beginning?

Every Calvinistic (supra, infra, Amyraldian) viewpoint agrees that God foreordained everything from the beginning. The difference is not about whether everything is foreordained from the beginning, but about the logical basis for the decrees having to do with individual salvation. How does the plan build logically: which decrees provide the logical basis for which other decrees?

If the decree for election and reprobation occurred before the fall then how can Christ's resurrection not be restricted to the elect?

The saving benefits of the resurrection are restricted to the elect, but that restriction occurs not only in the supra scheme, but in the infra scheme as well. (And the application of the saving benefits of the resurrection is restricted to the elect in the Amyraldian one as well.)

Other nonredemptive purposes for the resurrection (like the ones I listed for you in my previous post) have universal significance, but those purposes are not dealt with in the order of the decrees because of their narrow focus on the plan for salvation.

And if it is restricted to the elect then how is it if universal significance?

In the nonredemptive purposes I listed for you previously, for a start.

Beza and Calvin warned against prying too deep into the secrets of the "Deus absconditus" - but in the end they do just that, in attempts to logically justify their stances.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I also think that every view of how we are saved has an "order of decrees" that undergirds it. If you examine any view, you can deduce some things about the logical order of the decrees that must undergird it. Even classical arminianism, for instance, has an order of decrees.

I think one can not logically say that the resurrection was for everyone

I don't know of anyone of any view except perhaps open theism who says that the saving benefits of the resurrection were intended for everyone.

and was the great and defining event in salvation history

Now you've gone from the plan of salvation (order of the decrees) to salvation history (the events of the plan that actually occur within time). The resurrection is the defining event in salvation history because it is the historical grounds upon which anyone whom God plans to save will actually be saved. Election is not part of salvation history. Election is planning, not history. The resurrection is history.

and at the same time say that election and reprobation were already sorted out before man's need for a savior was realized.

Ahhh...but that's not what the decrees (any of them) say. They are not about one thing being sorted out before another thing is realized. It is all one single eternal intention, and there is not an order of succession in God's deliberation. It is only a logical order. Some pieces of the plan provide the basis for the other pieces. For instance, in every single order you'll find, the decree for the fall comes logically after the decree to create. That is because any plan to permit people to fall assumes the presence of creation. In order for people to fall, they have to exist as created beings. And the plan to redeem always comes after (logically) the plan to permit the fall, because any plan to redeem assumes the presence of sin.

So the question answered by the difference in logical order between supra and infra in the order of the decrees is "Was the primary reason people were reprobated because they were sinners, or because God is freely sovereign?" It doesn't really have anything to do with God sorting out reprobation and election before realizing that people would need a Saviour. He always knew they would need a Saviour.

 

[J.D.]

But NOT the word World (#3) which means all sinful wicked men. The righteous are not included therein, unless it is describing a geographical location as in a Kingdom (#2). In THAT definition all people OF THAT AREA are apart of the 'all'

Right. So then, as I said, the definition of World does not mean "every person without exception". It is every person within a particular scope, is it not?

Still waiting for an example of when the word "world" means every person without exception. I'm not even sure if there isn't one. All I know is no one here has provided one.

And yes, the definition of propitiation is within the scope of the OP and is appropriate for this thread.

 

[Allan]

Right. So then, as I said, the definition of World does not mean "every person without exception". It is every person within a particular scope, is it not?

Still waiting for an example of when the word "world" means every person without exception. I'm not even sure if there isn't one. All I know is no one here has provided one.

And yes, the definition of propitiation is within the scope of the OP and is appropriate for this thread.

Only in relation to # 2 (geographical location - like we find regarding Romes taxing of the world)

However, the scope of 'World' in #3 (all sinful and wicked mankind) does mean every and all sinful wicked person without exception.

We are not speaking of all people in relation to a geographic location. When scripture says: God so loved the 'world'... the propitation of our sins and not ours only but the sins of the 'whole world'... ext. we are speaking of the 'world' as defined by God throughout the OT as sinful and wicked man.

 

[Allan]

Just off hand here is one where 'world' means every and all sinful wicked men:

Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for [their] evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

World does not mean every person without exception but every sinful and wicked person :thumbs:

EDITED In >>>
Here is one just to balance it out from the NT:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

What does whole world mean to John?

1Jo 5:19 [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

and ---

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Russell55,

I guess we're probably not going to agree on this.

My main point of critique with what we call "calvinism" is that it sets out to define everything too logically. Much of this I think falls under the umbrella of God's will - something I think defies such a logical explanation. In order to "make things work" for calvinism one ends up making assumptions that I find presumptious.

 

[Allan]

bump . . .