# Equal Ultimacy



## Five Solas (Feb 1, 2018)

Does anyone here hold to Equal Ultimacy?


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2018)

It might help if you define it for us.


----------



## Five Solas (Feb 2, 2018)

My apologies. It is most commonly aligned within the bounds of double predestination. It specifies God not only actively works in, and chooses some for salvation, but also actively works in the unregenerate works of wickedness to further damn them.

Usually Romans 9:17-23 is used as evidence, along with examples of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, and similar such mentions of others God actively damns.

I imagine most people here would subscribe to double predestination, but not in the sense of Equal Ultimacy. The common view of double predestination is God is active in His electing some, and passive in His damning of the rest - He simply passes over them and leaves them to their own destruction.


----------



## Von (Feb 2, 2018)

Five Solas said:


> The common view of double predestination is God is active in His electing some, and passive in His damning of the rest - He simply passes over them and leaves them to their own destruction.


I was unaware of this. Isn't double predestination that God predestines (actively) both sides to their final destination?
Would this change your opinion that you thought "most people here would subscribe to double predestination"?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 2, 2018)

Five Solas said:


> Does anyone here hold to Equal Ultimacy?



I believe there are those who are "prepared for destruction," just as those who are "prepared beforehand for glory." (see ESV trans.) I believe some men are "made to be taken and destroyed... in their own corruption."

Romans 9:22
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,

[ESV]
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

2 Peter 2:12
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 2, 2018)

The term is used generically to summarize the positive-positive view. The careful distinction between positive-positive vs positive-negative is needed, lest Reformed folk be charged with hyper-Calvinistic views. R.C. Sproul, in his book Willing To Believe, addresses this really well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 2, 2018)

And, as we might expect, there are actually a few more nuances out there than those described so far. The biblical evidence seems to go beyond a mere passive, or negative, inaction of God on the part of the non-elect. However, that is different from saying that all humanity was somehow suspended between heaven and hell, in neutral, as it were, and that God split some off in one direction, and some off in the other direction. ALL humanity was headed for hell. This is a decisively important point to press on those struggling with the doctrine of predestination, since then the emphasis is still on God's amazing grace: God didn't owe anyone salvation. All of us deserve hell. That is where we were headed. The idea that God would not allow all to perish is the amazing thing. It is not marvelous that God would predestine some to the destiny they already deserve. That is simply God being a just judge. Nothing remarkable in that. 

What I am getting at here is that, while God's decrees are more or less symmetrical and opposite with regard to humanity (though the Westminster Standards still use less than symmetrical language sometimes to describe God's actions: predestine versus pass by), humanity's destiny is NOT symmetrical or neutral. 

Furthermore, the Bible is also clear that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18), as He does take delight in the salvation of His elect. So, while there might be some aspects of double predestination that are symmetrical, other aspects are not, and it behooves us to be careful in delineating which aspects are symmetrical and which are not. Otherwise, we wind up with a bloodthirsty, homicidal God, or with the entitlement mentality so characteristic of our age. What is clear is that, with regard to the non-elect, God is just, and with regard to the elect, God is merciful. In both cases, the glory of God shines clearly.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 2, 2018)

Five Solas said:


> My apologies. It is most commonly aligned within the bounds of double predestination. It specifies God not only actively works in, and chooses some for salvation, but also actively works in the unregenerate works of wickedness to further damn them.
> 
> Usually Romans 9:17-23 is used as evidence, along with examples of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, and similar such mentions of others God actively damns.
> 
> I imagine most people here would subscribe to double predestination, but not in the sense of Equal Ultimacy. The common view of double predestination is God is active in His electing some, and passive in His damning of the rest - He simply passes over them and leaves them to their own destruction.


The common view that you expressed here is how I understand this issue.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 2, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> And, as we might expect, there are actually a few more nuances out there than those described so far. The biblical evidence seems to go beyond a mere passive, or negative, inaction of God on the part of the non-elect. However, that is different from saying that all humanity was somehow suspended between heaven and hell, in neutral, as it were, and that God split some off in one direction, and some off in the other direction. ALL humanity was headed for hell. This is a decisively important point to press on those struggling with the doctrine of predestination, since then the emphasis is still on God's amazing grace: God didn't owe anyone salvation. All of us deserve hell. That is where we were headed. The idea that God would not allow all to perish is the amazing thing. It is not marvelous that God would predestine some to the destiny they already deserve. That is simply God being a just judge. Nothing remarkable in that.
> 
> What I am getting at here is that, while God's decrees are more or less symmetrical and opposite with regard to humanity (though the Westminster Standards still use less than symmetrical language sometimes to describe God's actions: predestine versus pass by), humanity's destiny is NOT symmetrical or neutral.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible is also clear that God does not take delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18), as He does take delight in the salvation of His elect. So, while there might be some aspects of double predestination that are symmetrical, other aspects are not, and it behooves us to be careful in delineating which aspects are symmetrical and which are not. Otherwise, we wind up with a bloodthirsty, homicidal God, or with the entitlement mentality so characteristic of our age. What is clear is that, with regard to the non-elect, God is just, and with regard to the elect, God is merciful. In both cases, the glory of God shines clearly.


The Lord has his absolute Will being worked out in both cases. but to me, it does also seem that he can say to the lost that they were having their own desire and wants get done, for if they despised coming to the Lord Jesus while here, an eternity with him would be like a hellto them.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 2, 2018)

See also:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cedarbay (Feb 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See also:
> 
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/


My printer is humming away thanks to you, Patrick. Always a topic for further study. God bless you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See also:
> 
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/



Whenever discussion of 'double predestination' comes up on PB, the above essay is offered as clarification of the Reformed view. It is so good that should probably be a 'sticky'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See also:
> 
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/


Based upon that article then, God does not actively predestine/determine that the sinner is damned/not saved, but has decreed what the end result will be for rejecting to be saved?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Based upon that article then, God does not actively predestine/determine that the sinner is damned/not saved, but has decreed what the end result will be for rejecting to be saved?


Are you asking a question? The words above fail to grammatically construct a question. These words are but a statement, despite your adding a question where a period is expected and required.

If you are asking if I agree with your summary (ignoring your oddly placed question mark), then my answer would be qualified, given that I am unwilling to assume how you distinguish between _predestine_ and _determine_. 

All that God accomplishes is from His volitional will. God is not passive (not active), that is, sitting back to see what happens. That God has ordained that some will be left in their state of sin, not a recipient of His efficacious grace, is not some passive act by God. God most certainly, actively, decreed it to be so.

Having said that, God is not going out of His way, as it were, to ensure that those so left in their sins, will remain in their sins. Those in their sins will continue to march onward towards their final destination per their own will.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Are you asking a question? The words above fail to grammatically construct a question. These words are but a statement, despite your adding a question where a period is expected and required.


I was just giving how I was understanding what was on that article, was wondering if that was the correct way to view this issue?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was just giving how I was understanding what was on that article, was wondering if that was the correct way to view this issue?


Then your wonderment should be properly formed as a question. For example:

Based upon that article then, *would it be correct to say that* God does not actively predestine/determine that the sinner is damned/not saved, but has decreed what the end result will be for rejecting to be saved?

Just making statements and appending a "?" does not form a proper question.

See my answer above:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/equal-ultimacy.94880/#post-1158132


----------



## Five Solas (Feb 2, 2018)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to quote certain segments of a previous comment, but this from Patrick is where I'm struggling a fraction:



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> All that God accomplishes is from His volitional will. God is not passive (not active), that is, sitting back to see what happens. That God has ordained that some will be left in their state of sin, not a recipient of His efficacious grace, is not some passive act by God. God most certainly, actively, decreed it to be so.
> 
> Having said that, God is not going out of His way, as it were, to ensure that those so left in their sins, will remain in their sins. Those in their sins will continue to march onward towards their final destination per their own will.



I tend to agree with what you've said above. And even the WCF says God passes over the unregenerate, but also the matter of predestination is to be treated with special care.

However, then I read things like "God hardened Pharaoh's heart". That isn't a passive phrase, nor even a preordained term (although of course it would've been part of the decrees of God). It is a statement of God being active in Pharaoh in his wickedness. I firmly believe God is not the author of sin, so I'm having difficulty coming to grips with how all this works in with itself.

I think I'll go and read that legonier article before commenting further.


----------



## KMK (Feb 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Having said that, God is not going out of His way, as it were, to ensure that those so left in their sins, will remain in their sins.



That's a great way of putting it.



Five Solas said:


> However, then I read things like "God hardened Pharaoh's heart". That isn't a passive phrase, nor even a preordained term (although of course it would've been part of the decrees of God). It is a statement of God being active in Pharaoh in his wickedness.



Think of it this way. I have two houseplants. I choose one to receive my utmost care in watering, fertilizing, and pruning. The second I chose to receive no water or care of any kind from me. I will let it succeed or fail according to its own nature. I have 'actively' decreed the final end of each of the houseplants, but the 'actions' which I take (or don't take) to bring my decree to fruition are not symetrical. The plant that lives receives my life giving activity, but that does NOT mean the plant that dies receives some kind of 'death giving activity'. Its death is ensured simply because it does not receive any of my 'life giving activity'. I don't have to do anything to make the plant die, for it will do so naturally. But I do have to do lots of things to make the plant live.

Life requires a great deal of 'activity', but death requires nothing more than I leave the plant to its own natural destiny.

God does not have to 'actively' do anything to a man's heart to harden it. All he must do is 'pass it over' and it will naturally harden itself. God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart by NOT giving him "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Tim 2:25)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 3, 2018)

Five Solas said:


> However, then I read things like "God hardened Pharaoh's heart". That isn't a passive phrase, nor even a preordained term (although of course it would've been part of the decrees of God). It is a statement of God being active in Pharaoh in his wickedness. I firmly believe God is not the author of sin, so I'm having difficulty coming to grips with how all this works in with itself.



WCF 5.6:
"As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had; and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan; whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others."

God does not harden hearts of men by infusing malice into them, but by not imparting mercy to them. A darkened room remains so unless I walk into it with a candle.

As noted by Ken above, we see this in evidence by observing when the restraints of providence were withdrawn when God softened Pharaoh's heart to let the people go, Pharaoh was left to follow his original purpose and was thereby hardened under God's providence.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 3, 2018)

Regarding Ezekiel 18 and God not taking delight in the death of the wicked. One should reconcile such with "But our God _is_ in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." To think God is not pleased with manifesting His justice toward the wicked is a mistake.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 3, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Regarding Ezekiel 18 and God not taking delight in the death of the wicked. One should reconcile such with "But our God _is_ in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." To think God is not pleased with manifesting His justice toward the wicked is a mistake.



Yes- not pleased that his image bearers are destroyed, yet pleased in the rightness of his justice in doing so. How mighty are his ways- we can only bow before his wisdom and love and justice. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40 (Feb 3, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Yes- not pleased that his image bearers are destroyed, yet pleased in the rightness of his justice in doing so. How mighty are his ways- we can only bow before his wisdom and love and justice.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Exactly. This is why one ought not to use Ezekiel 18 to make a point unless the proper qualification is discussed, which Rev. Lane did allude toward. Many could read his post and think God "takes" no delight in the manifestation of His justice.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 3, 2018)

I have always found the image of a sun baking bricks to be helpful in understanding how God hardened Pharaoh. Just as the sun takes out all the moisture of a brick, leaving it hard, so also God withdrew all His graces from Pharaoh, leaving him hard. It was not a hardening wherein God infused some kind of stubbornness into Pharaoh. Not an infusion, but a withdrawing. 

Earl's point is well-taken. God takes delight in all manifestations of His glory, but He does not take delight in the destruction of the wicked in some kind of bloodthirsty way.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Then your wonderment should be properly formed as a question. For example:
> 
> Based upon that article then, *would it be correct to say that* God does not actively predestine/determine that the sinner is damned/not saved, but has decreed what the end result will be for rejecting to be saved?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification, and how would you answer the question then?


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 3, 2018)

Five Solas said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not sure how to quote certain segments of a previous comment, but this from Patrick is where I'm struggling a fraction:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My understanding on Pharaoh situation was that he was already predisposed to being the enemy of the Jews and of their God, so the Lord took Him, and used Him to have His will and plans fulfilled. In like fashion, God used Judas to betray the Lord Jesus, but did not force him to fulfill prophecy, as Judas was already willing to do that.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 3, 2018)

The proper distinction of God's decree vs the execution of his decrees is foundational here, I think. God has equally decreed both the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. However, the _manner in which he executes those decrees _is very different.

Second, the order of the decrees is important. I think infralapsarians and supralapsarians would potentially have different views on the 'equal ultimacy' question.

Just a couple of observations.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 3, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The proper distinction of God's decree vs the execution of his decrees is foundational here, I think. God has equally decreed both the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. However, the _manner in which he executes those decrees _is very different.
> 
> Second, the order of the decrees is important. I think infralapsarians and supralapsarians would potentially have different views on the 'equal ultimacy' question.
> 
> Just a couple of observations.


Does God determine that they would be lost, or what their end result will be due to them being lost?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 3, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks for the clarification, and how would you answer the question then?


Asked and answered:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/equal-ultimacy.94880/#post-1158132


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 3, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Does God determine that they would be lost, or what their end result will be due to them being lost?


See your post here, then review what came before and after:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/resources-available-infra-supralapsarianism.92987/#post-1134115


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 5, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Are you asking a question? The words above fail to grammatically construct a question. These words are but a statement, despite your adding a question where a period is expected and required.
> 
> If you are asking if I agree with your summary (ignoring your oddly placed question mark), then my answer would be qualified, given that I am unwilling to assume how you distinguish between _predestine_ and _determine_.
> 
> ...


So God did not predestine them to Hell by ordaining that they must be damned period, but that He made sure their rejection of Jesus meant that damnation must happen?
Just trying to see if the biblical concept of this would be in line with how Judas was predestined By God to be the one to betray Jesus, but Judas also willingly chose to do that evil act?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So God did not predestine them to Hell by ordaining that they must be damned period, but that He made sure their rejection of Jesus meant that damnation must happen?
> Just trying to see if the biblical concept of this would be in line with how Judas was predestined By God to be the one to betray Jesus, but Judas also willingly chose to do that evil act?


A deep subject here David, so permit me to lay out bit of groundwork before getting to your specific questions. Let's examine the _logical ordering_ versus _temporal execution_ of the decree of God. Two views are predominant within Reformed orthodoxy, another is rank heresy.

*Supralapsarianism*


Spoiler



_Supralapsarianism_ is the doctrine that God's eternal decrees of man's _creation_ and _the Fall_ were predicated on God's eternal decrees of _election_ and _reprobation_. The idea is that in terms of the logical ordering, God decreed _election_ and _reprobation_, and then decreed _creation_ and _the Fall_ (hence, the term _supralapsarian_, meaning "before (_supra_) the Fall"), which condemned all mankind, creating the conditions necessary to fulfill _election_ and _reprobation_ as a means of redeeming some and leaving others to perish in their sins.

A summary of the above logical orderings of _supralapsarianism_ would resemble something like this:

Elect some per God's own secret volitional will, justly leave the remainder (_reprobates_) in their state of sin with no violence done to their will
Create
Fall
Provide salvation of the elect in the active and passive obedience of the Person of Our Lord
Outwardly and inwardly call the elect to salvation




*Infralapsarianism*:


Spoiler



_ Infralapsarianism_—a more prevalent view among the Reformed—is the doctrine that God's eternal decrees of _election_ and _reprobation_ were predicated on God's decrees of man's _creation_ and _the Fall_. The idea is that in terms of the logical ordering, God decreed _creation_ and _the Fall _(hence the term _infralapsarian_, meaning "after (_infra_) the Fall"), which condemned all mankind, creating the conditions necessary to fulfill _election_ and _reprobation_ as a means of redeeming some and leaving others to perish in their sins.

A summary of the above logical orderings of _infralapsarianism_ would resemble something like this:

Create
Fall
Elect some per God's own secret volitional will, justly leaving the remainder (_reprobates_) in their state of sin with no violence done to their will
Provide salvation of the elect in the active and passive obedience of the Person of Our Lord
Outwardly and inwardly call the elect to salvation




Hyper-Calvinism, the third minority view _excursus_:


Spoiler



There is a third minority view, a denounced heretical view by the Reformed church militant, _hyper-Calvinism_. No matter the various other debated aspects associated with the view, what indisputably distinguishes _hyper-Calvinism_ and is a proper _shibboleth_ for identifying the _hyper-Calvinist_ now follows below.

The _hyper-Calvinist_ affirms that God has decreed reprobates logically prior to the decree of the Fall. Now while this is included in the _supralapsarian_ view, the hyper-Calvinist goes beyond it by fully embracing _equal ultimacy_, which is to say, that God will take great pains to go out of His way to ensure those so reprobated will sin to ensure their status of reprobates. In effect, God literally becomes the _author_ of the reprobate's sin, contrary to WCF 5, Section IV. Sigh.

Let me be quite clear by noting that _hyper-Calvinism_ bears no relation to _supralapsarianism_. Hyper-Calvinists focus upon the means of the execution of the decree of God. Supralapsarians focus upon the order of the things decreed.

Per the above, a summary of the _hyper-Calvinist_ view would resemble something like this:

Elect some, justly leave the remainder (reprobates) in their state of sin with violence done to the will of the reprobate to ensure their status
Create
Fall
Provide salvation of the elect in the active and passive obedience of the Person of Our Lord
Denial of the outward call, inwardly call the elect to salvation
Lastly, I hesitate to point to this discussion, which is often the subject of much disagreement and nuancing, but it is worthwhile for one just getting their feet wet on the _supra_ and _infra_ terms of Reformed terminology to take a discerning look for more food for thought:
http://www.romans45.org/articles/hypercal.htm



Moving forward, both predominant views—_supra_ or _infra_—take great pains to focus upon the logical ordering of the decree of God. That said, arguments abound as to whether God begins with the end in mind and works backwards, or with the beginning in mind and works forward. Or perhaps God does not deductively think at all, but _intuitively_ seeing all _equally vividly _(my personal view), so discussion of logical ordering is perhaps out of place as if God is only able to see things only upon certain conditions.

Clearly, the discussion of _supralapsarianism_ or _infralapsarianism_ is focused upon how we finite creatures conceive of the relationships of the objects of the decree. These human conceptions tend to divide the decree up into portions of actions on the part of God.

We should view these human approaches to be a wee bit wanting, for God knows a being in that being's totality, including all possibilities relative to the same. The decree is simple (as in the _simplicity of God_) and single (conventionally, we use the plural "_decrees_" when speaking of the decree of God), this the _decree_ finds itself with multiple expressions per the way we humans conceive of the objects decreed.

Distinctions between the decree and its execution:


Spoiler



Whatever position taken, it is vital to distinguish between the decree and its execution. There is an important distinction between the decree and the thing decreed.

Per WCF 3.2, the decree _qua_ decree is unconditional. The decree will irrevocably come to pass. Why? Well, because God has decreed it! This decree includes "_others foreordained to everlasting death_," as implied by Section 3 of the WCF. Accordingly, the decree of reprobation is unconditional. However, the _thing decreed_ (reprobation), includes all the specific conditions and relations which are also decreed. Hence section 7 of the WCF states that God was pleased "_to ordain them to dishonor and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice_." The _lump of clay_ contemplated in the mind of God, contrary to hyper-Calvinism, is _a fallen lump of clay_. Sin is decreed as the reason why those ordained to everlasting death are to be punished.

In executing the decree, God's actions are not in the same way towards all things. For example, towards sin (and the reprobate in some degree) there is active permission by God, using evil to punish evil, or overruling evil to accomplish His good purposes. Note here that God is never passive.


The issue with both of these doctrines (supra, infra) is that both are usually presented as being exclusive of the other. That is, _supralapsarianism_ is thought to include a denial of _infralapsarianism_, and _infralapsarianism_ is thought to include a denial of _supralapsarianism_. It seems to me (my _equally vividly_ point above) that the positive assertions of both may be affirmed because there is no reason that the decrees of the Fall and of election and reprobation cannot be _mutually predicated_ upon one another.

_ Supralapsarianism_ affirms "_If *A* then *B*_," whereas _infralapsarianism_ affirms "If* B *then* A*." Both these statements may be true simultaneously, rendering the logical formulation "_*A* if and only if *B*_."

For example, consider the statements
"_If I am a husband, then I have a wife._"
"_If I have a wife, then I am a husband_."

Both are true, and when combined they render "_I am a husband if and only if I have a wife_."

Concerning your predestination of Judas comments:

In Reformed dogmatics, the word _foreordination_ usually implies the decree of God in general. _Predestination_ is usually confined to the destiny of human beings. They are both unconditional decrees. The WCF followed Holy Writ in confining _predestination_ to the elect (something personal). _Foreordination_ encompasses more than something personal, including the impersonal. Naturally _foreordination_ includes _predestination_ when the non-elect, like Judas, are a point of reference. Nevertheless, the God's decree concerning the non-elect is no less unconditional and infallible.

As I have explained, probably poorly so in some places—that will likely be noted by the more learned and astute reader—the actions of Judas arose from his own volitional will, not requiring God to make Judas do what he did, contrary to hyper-Calvinistic views. God used Judas to bring good out of his evil thoughts, words, and deeds, to accomplish His just purposes, glorifying Himself, without doing violence to the will of Judas.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 6, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> A deep subject here David, so permit me to lay out bit of groundwork before getting to your specific questions. Let's examine the _logical ordering_ versus _temporal execution_ of the decree of God. Two views are predominant within Reformed orthodoxy, another is rank heresy.
> 
> *Supralapsarianism*
> 
> ...


Normally, when I have run into the terminology of Double Predestination, would seem be really referring to how Hyper Cals view this topic. At least that is how those against that concept have presented why they were against it. the case of Pharaoh and Judas would seem to be of like fashion in regards to how they choose to act as they did, and that the Lord used them to fulfill His Will.


----------

