So you were really disagreeing with Dr Sproul then?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Single Predestination
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
JosephBKuzara
Member
Agree or disagree?
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul
What I agree upon is that all that God decided, He had done so before both immaterial and material creations and lean towards the decree of both the election and non elect to take place before the decree of the fall. Of whom is of His elect to be spared unto life and of the non-elect who will not be spared unto destruction to Glorify Himself in justice and mercy .
I have not seen scripturally that there is enough detail to draw an exact order of decrees to make dogmatic either position of Supra(modified or traditional) or Infra.
Agree or disagree?
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul
Either position can be supported per the scriptures, so just seeing if agree with his basic premise!What I agree upon is that all that God decided, He had done so before both immaterial and material creations and lean towards the decree of both the election and non elect to take place before the decree of the fall. Of whom is of His elect to be spared unto life and of the non-elect who will not be spared unto destruction to Glorify Himself in justice and mercy .
I have not seen scripturally that there is enough detail to draw an exact order of decrees to make dogmatic either position of Supra(modified or traditional) or Infra.
Amusing you would simply repeat your original question right after I've answered in detail. What part of my reply was vague or ambiguous that warranted you to double check? And why skip answering my questions that were meant to actually keep the discussion on topic instead of meandering away?So you were really disagreeing with Dr Sproul then?
To re-reply, I disagree with Dr.Sproul's conclusions as he disagrees with Wesley and Bunyan when he holds to predestined condemnation. My reasons have been stated multiple times and I've asked for anyone who disagrees to give pointed answers to the Scriptural concerns I've raised. Why is it so difficult to take a Scriptural stand when you profess conviction of the truth of this particular doctrine?
Let's just begin with binary answers to keep the ball rolling before evaluating in detail -
1. Do you see and acknowledge that the same word (in bold) is used in the original texts of the following verses? Yes/No.
Eze 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Hos 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
2. Do you acknowledge from Heb 6:17, Isa 46:10, Eph 1:11 that God's counsel is immutable and whatever He counsels will infallibly come to pass and nothing can ever stand against it? Yes/No.
3. If Yes to Q2, Do you agree from Num 23:19 that God first committing to an immutable sovereign counsel/decree that can never be thwarted and then after that desiring against it Himself would be an inconsistency in His glorious nature? Yes/No.
4. Do you believe a new heart is absolutely required to be given by God for any man in the flesh to even come to repentance once? Yes/No.
5. Do you likewise believe God must necessarily enlighten the darkened minds of any man in the flesh for him to even receive any knowledge of the truth once? Yes/No.
6. Do you believe that all the elect were at first like the children of disobedience by nature (Eph 2:2-3), hardened in their hearts and blinded in their minds, but still had a sacrifice for sins in Christ receiving mercy because they erred in unbelief ignorant of the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 1:13)? Yes/No.
7. Do you see and acknowledge the following verse referring to a person sanctified initially by Christ's blood? Yes/No.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I've made it simple in that anyone who wants to take a doctrinal stand here can simply engage in the discussion by first replying Y/N against the Q number before providing their expositions which I will anyway also address. A simple 1.Y, 2.N and so on should do. If any feel there is a loaded question above (i've been careful not to insert any), point to it and mention how you'd like it split up and rephrased. I'm also open to being asked to take a doctrinal stand myself and will give pointed binary answers of my convictions instead of perpetuating ambiguity and variance. As to the above 7 questions, my belief system holds Yes to all of them.
God can desire something to occur, without actually willing it to be so, and God will not have persons who are lost enabled to receive Jesus on a temp basis only, as he views all of us either in Adam and Lost, or in Jesus and eternally secured and safe!Amusing you would simply repeat your original question right after I've answered in detail. What part of my reply was vague or ambiguous that warranted you to double check? And why skip answering my questions that were meant to actually keep the discussion on topic instead of meandering away?
To re-reply, I disagree with Dr.Sproul's conclusions as he disagrees with Wesley and Bunyan when he holds to predestined condemnation. My reasons have been stated multiple times and I've asked for anyone who disagrees to give pointed answers to the Scriptural concerns I've raised. Why is it so difficult to take a Scriptural stand when you profess conviction of the truth of this particular doctrine?
Let's just begin with binary answers to keep the ball rolling before evaluating in detail -
1. Do you see and acknowledge that the same word (in bold) is used in the original texts of the following verses? Yes/No.
Eze 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Hos 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
2. Do you acknowledge from Heb 6:17, Isa 46:10, Eph 1:11 that God's counsel is immutable and whatever He counsels will infallibly come to pass and nothing can ever stand against it? Yes/No.
3. If Yes to Q2, Do you agree from Num 23:19 that God first committing to an immutable sovereign counsel/decree that can never be thwarted and then after that desiring against it Himself would be an inconsistency in His glorious nature? Yes/No.
4. Do you believe a new heart is absolutely required to be given by God for any man in the flesh to even come to repentance once? Yes/No.
5. Do you likewise believe God must necessarily enlighten the darkened minds of any man in the flesh for him to even receive any knowledge of the truth once? Yes/No.
6. Do you believe that all the elect were at first like the children of disobedience by nature (Eph 2:2-3), hardened in their hearts and blinded in their minds, but still had a sacrifice for sins in Christ receiving mercy because they erred in unbelief ignorant of the knowledge of the truth (1Tim 1:13)? Yes/No.
7. Do you see and acknowledge the following verse referring to a person sanctified initially by Christ's blood? Yes/No.
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
I've made it simple in that anyone who wants to take a doctrinal stand here can simply engage in the discussion by first replying Y/N against the Q number before providing their expositions which I will anyway also address. A simple 1.Y, 2.N and so on should do. If any feel there is a loaded question above (i've been careful not to insert any), point to it and mention how you'd like it split up and rephrased. I'm also open to being asked to take a doctrinal stand myself and will give pointed binary answers of my convictions instead of perpetuating ambiguity and variance. As to the above 7 questions, my belief system holds Yes to all of them.
Oh Absolutely. But that isn't the question - can God desire against something He's already earlier willed to be so? For instance, God has willed for all mankind to be judged before the resurrection - can He then desire not to judge man after willing it so? God has willed to save all the elect infallibly - can He then desire not to save the elect after willing it so?God can desire something to occur, without actually willing it to be so
Let the Scriptures speak for God. Show me where it's conclusively stated so. I have shown Scriptures which show God work in non-elect man on a conditional basis (never so with the elect) - take a stand on your interpretation of those passages. Why hesitate to share what you believe by simply answering the Yes/no questions which would at least be committing to moving towards a conclusion instead of vacillating ambiguously?God will not have persons who are lost enabled to receive Jesus on a temp basis only
Any man is either in Adam and lost or in Jesus and safe only through faith - the promise of eternal security is given only to the elect. But where in Scriptures does it say that the rest cannot be enlightened and given a new heart once unto repentance, being conditionally promised salvation as long as they endure in faith to the end? In fact, scriptures say the opposite and I've asked you to take a stand. Begin with the Yes/no questions please if you want to express anything of conviction. But if you simply want to beat around the bush, then feel free to do so - I'll have to simply wait for more commitment in order to reply towards conclusions...he views all of us either in Adam and Lost, or in Jesus and eternally secured and safe!
G.K.Chesterton's Orthodoxy helps put into language some common observations in ourselves. He talks about the pessimist and the optimist - where the former is more like a house hunter who rejects a house on a perceived flaw while the latter is one who overlooks the flaw altogether. He argues that the Christian is neither - but instead more a Patriot. The christian does not overlook flaws but neither does he reject his own home (i read local church / doctrinal system etc.) for the flaws. Moreover the patriot does not identify singular reasons or attributes to hold as a basis to love his home - he loves it just because, a more transcendental basis pointing to the whole and not the parts.
Excerpts from the book, <my comments in italics> :
"What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, "My cosmos, right or wrong." He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world."
"Rational optimism <having a specific attribute/reason as the basis to love> leads to stagnation: it is irrational optimism <no such basis but a love for the whole itself> that leads to reform. Let me explain by using once more the parallel of patriotism. The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason. The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason. If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely) <possibly a city of ill repute at the time>, he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself. But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem."
"Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism....Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history. A man who loves England for being English will not mind how she arose. But a man who loves England for being Anglo-Saxon may go against all facts for his fancy. He may end (like Carlyle and Freeman) by maintaining that the Norman Conquest was a Saxon Conquest. He may end in utter unreason—because he has a reason. "
Excerpts from the book, <my comments in italics> :
"What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, "My cosmos, right or wrong." He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world."
"Rational optimism <having a specific attribute/reason as the basis to love> leads to stagnation: it is irrational optimism <no such basis but a love for the whole itself> that leads to reform. Let me explain by using once more the parallel of patriotism. The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason. The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason. If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely) <possibly a city of ill repute at the time>, he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself. But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem."
"Mere jingo self-contentment is commonest among those who have some pedantic reason for their patriotism....Thus also only those will permit their patriotism to falsify history whose patriotism depends on history. A man who loves England for being English will not mind how she arose. But a man who loves England for being Anglo-Saxon may go against all facts for his fancy. He may end (like Carlyle and Freeman) by maintaining that the Norman Conquest was a Saxon Conquest. He may end in utter unreason—because he has a reason. "
I bring up those ideas in Orthodoxy only because I see us similarly taking doctrinal positions more focused on specific parts than the whole of God Himself. We whitewash contradictions, defending the indefensible, and end in utter unreason - only because there is a reason to hold on to as a basis of love of that doctrinal system. What is that basis? What is the root that keeps both calvinists and arminians from bringing down wasted walls and building up the New Jerusalem? The earlier go-to answer was the authority of Scriptures - but even when that's presented with unambiguous conclusions, there's reluctance to accept any Scriptures going against the presently held doctrinal system. What authority can be greater than what Scriptures lay out that could help determine whether or not we should continue in our existing belief system?
With this particular topic itself - none of the core calvinist doctrines have been compromised. Where they say, only the elect shall ultimately and assuredly/infallibly enter the kingdom of God, single predestination agrees completely. Where they say, none of the non-elect can even begin to know the truths of God without God's monergestic supernatural work in giving them a new heart, single predestination agrees. Where they say God's sovereignty is absolute and that any man's will is never the end of a purpose but instead is always subject to God's overarching sovereign purposes in permitting it so, single predestination agrees. Where calvinism denies universal atonement of sins as on the final Day, single predestination denies it too. God can and does harden vessels fitted for destruction to show forth His power and glory - oh absolutely.
If Single Predestination provides common ground for all this - shouldn't calvinism then gladly jump on board with this belief system given that it simply doesn't stop here but goes ahead in resolving all contradictions against calvinism and reconciling hitherto unexplained falling-away Hebrews passages under calvinism? A logically and scripturally consistent system that does not compromise on any existing core truths - why then so much resistance? Shouldn't love for God and Scriptures as a whole overrule our love for our own doctrinal systems? Tomorrow, if another system attempts to reform single predestination as it's presented here today, without compromising on truths gained but building on further truths more clearly expounded from Scriptures, shouldn't we be ready to be the Berean Church in considering and accepting that then?
With this particular topic itself - none of the core calvinist doctrines have been compromised. Where they say, only the elect shall ultimately and assuredly/infallibly enter the kingdom of God, single predestination agrees completely. Where they say, none of the non-elect can even begin to know the truths of God without God's monergestic supernatural work in giving them a new heart, single predestination agrees. Where they say God's sovereignty is absolute and that any man's will is never the end of a purpose but instead is always subject to God's overarching sovereign purposes in permitting it so, single predestination agrees. Where calvinism denies universal atonement of sins as on the final Day, single predestination denies it too. God can and does harden vessels fitted for destruction to show forth His power and glory - oh absolutely.
If Single Predestination provides common ground for all this - shouldn't calvinism then gladly jump on board with this belief system given that it simply doesn't stop here but goes ahead in resolving all contradictions against calvinism and reconciling hitherto unexplained falling-away Hebrews passages under calvinism? A logically and scripturally consistent system that does not compromise on any existing core truths - why then so much resistance? Shouldn't love for God and Scriptures as a whole overrule our love for our own doctrinal systems? Tomorrow, if another system attempts to reform single predestination as it's presented here today, without compromising on truths gained but building on further truths more clearly expounded from Scriptures, shouldn't we be ready to be the Berean Church in considering and accepting that then?