# John MacArthur - God is passive with the reprobate



## Herald

I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others. 

Thoughts?


----------



## KMK

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.
> 
> Thoughts?



I wouldn't want to disagree but what about Rom 9:19-23? Is Paul just presenting a 'hypothetical' or an allegory describing the election process?

Thanks for the tip since I am preaching about election right now. I will check them out.


----------



## toddpedlar

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.
> 
> Thoughts?



I've never thought the 'passive reprobation' position held much water. For instance, I'm fairly certain that God is a decent mathematician. In choosing the elect, He cannot but actively choose the non-elect, since he knows his creation. If the set of all humans is C (and God knows each and every one of those who make up that set) and God elects some (which make up the set, A) then what remains is B, where C - A = B. If God knows both the individuals that make up the set C, then he very well knows who are in set B, and he intentionally has them there. To use this namby-pamby "passes over the non-elect" doesn't make any sense to me at all. When a coach selects his starting lineup, even though he "actively" names the starters, he just as "actively" non-names the bench players. 

Romans 9 is quite hard to understand in light of a 'passive' position, as well, as Ken noted.
In taking the 'passive' view, it seems to me that one is simply trying to get God off the hook for the full impact of election rather than actually accept what the doctrine means.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it is important to note that there is a difference in the way that the reprobation of the wicked is spoken of in comparison to the predestination of the elect:
[bible]Romans 9:21-24[/bible]
Note that the Confession agrees with the Biblical data that speaks of _predestinating_ with respect to the Elect but _foreordination_ with respect to the reprobate:


> Chapter III
> Of God's Eternal Decree
> 
> III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, *some men and angels6 are predestinated* unto everlasting life; and *others foreordained* to everlasting death.
> 
> V. Those of mankind that are *predestinated* unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,9 out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;10 and all to the praise of His glorious grace.11
> 
> VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, *to pass by*; and *to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin*, to the praised of His glorious justice.16


I don't know precisely how MacArthur puts the issue. I don't want to presume that he actually believes God is completely passive with respect to the reprobate. It is appropriate, however, if he's saying that God _passes by_ the reprobate and does not extend mercy to them.

I agree, then, that the Scriptures don't teach "double predestination" but that the elect are predestinated to eternal life while the reprobate are passed by and ordained to eternal destruction for their sins.

Notice the assyemtry in the passage in Romans 9 (and in the WCF as well). God is seen as _actively_ showering mercy upon the Elect, _specifically_ saving them from their sins. The reprobate, on the other hand, are seen as _passed by_. This is not a passive act, per se, but God is not actively damning the reprobate in a symmetrical and equal manner to the way he is saving the elect. Sin, itself, is enough to damn a man apart from God's grace and the sins men commit as a result of their sinful nature adds to their condemnation. It is only the superabounding Grace of God in Christ that can overcome the wrath that men are willfully incurring.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

In light of WCF 3:3,5,7 do the Westminster Standards allow only for infalapsarianism or can a supralapsarian adhere to them as well?


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> I think it is important to note that there is a difference in the way that the reprobation of the wicked is spoken of in comparison to the predestination of the elect:
> [bible]Romans 9:21-24[/bible]
> Note that the Confession agrees with the Biblical data that speaks of _predestinating_ with respect to the Elect but _foreordination_ with respect to the reprobate:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter III
> Of God's Eternal Decree
> 
> III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, *some men and angels6 are predestinated* unto everlasting life; and *others foreordained* to everlasting death.
> 
> V. Those of mankind that are *predestinated* unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,9 out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;10 and all to the praise of His glorious grace.11
> 
> VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, *to pass by*; and *to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin*, to the praised of His glorious justice.16
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know precisely how MacArthur puts the issue. I don't want to presume that he actually believes God is completely passive with respect to the reprobate. It is appropriate, however, if he's saying that God _passes by_ the reprobate and does not extend mercy to them.
> 
> I agree, then, that the Scriptures don't teach "double predestination" but that the elect are predestinated to eternal life while the reprobate are passed by and ordained to eternal destruction for their sins.
> 
> Notice the assyemtry in the passage in Romans 9 (and in the WCF as well). God is seen as _actively_ showering mercy upon the Elect, _specifically_ saving them from their sins. The reprobate, on the other hand, are seen as _passed by_. This is not a passive act, per se, but God is not actively damning the reprobate in a symmetrical and equal manner to the way he is saving the elect. Sin, itself, is enough to damn a man apart from God's grace and the sins men commit as a result of their sinful nature adds to their condemnation. It is only the superabounding Grace of God in Christ that can overcome the wrath that men are willfully incurring.
Click to expand...


WHat is the distinction between predestinating and foreordination....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nicholas,

The difference between the two is highlighted above. Predestinating is a loving, re-creating work of God toward His elect where they are effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved. One might argue that it is merely semantics and that the idea of a pre-destiny is equal to God's fore-ordination but predestination is spoken of with respect to the elect alone in the Scriptures and, I believe, it ought to be connected to God's grace toward the elect and not, broadly, to His foreordination of all things.


----------



## Machaira

I think those that deny so-called "double predestination" are playing a game of semantics. I would agree with Todd that the idea is to get God "off the hook." If God chooses to pass you by is your "destination" any less _chosen by God_ than the "destination" of those whom He chooses to save?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Machaira said:


> I think those that deny so-called "double predestination" are playing a game of semantics. I would agree with Todd that the idea is to get God "off the hook." If God chooses to pass you by is your "destination" any less _chosen by God_ than the "destination" of those whom He chooses to save?



Do you believe that the WCF is "playing a game of semantics" in purposefully using two different terms?

Did you read what I wrote before you posted the above?


----------



## Machaira

SemperFideles said:


> Machaira said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think those that deny so-called "double predestination" are playing a game of semantics. I would agree with Todd that the idea is to get God "off the hook." If God chooses to pass you by is your "destination" any less _chosen by God_ than the "destination" of those whom He chooses to save?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the WCF is "playing a game of semantics" in purposefully using two different terms?
> 
> Did you read what I wrote before you posted the above?
Click to expand...


The words predestined and foreordained mean the same thing in English and the NT doesn't make a distinction either. _If_ the Westminster divines were truly attempting to make a distinction then yes, it's merely a game of semantics.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Very well, Mr. Polk, let's play.


----------



## KMK

I want to play too! 

Rich, what do you do with Rom 8:29 "For whom He did *foreknow*, He also did *predestinate* to be conformed to the image of His Son..."?

It would appear, as you claim, that these words are not exactly interchangeable. But 'foreknowledge' cannot be applied only to the reprobate as it is clearly applied to the elect in this verse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ken,

I'm not sure why you're asking what I'd do with Romans 8:29. It's perfectly compatible with what I just said - especially since the follow-on verses are specifically linked to God's intention to utterly save those whom He foreknew.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> Ken,
> 
> I'm not sure why you're asking what I'd do with Romans 8:29. It's perfectly compatible with what I just said - especially since the follow-on verses are specifically linked to God's intention to utterly save those whom He foreknew.



My bad.


----------



## Herald

toddpedlar said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never thought the 'passive reprobation' position held much water. For instance, I'm fairly certain that God is a decent mathematician. In choosing the elect, He cannot but actively choose the non-elect, since he knows his creation. If the set of all humans is C (and God knows each and every one of those who make up that set) and God elects some (which make up the set, A) then what remains is B, where C - A = B. If God knows both the individuals that make up the set C, then he very well knows who are in set B, and he intentionally has them there. To use this namby-pamby "passes over the non-elect" doesn't make any sense to me at all. When a coach selects his starting lineup, even though he "actively" names the starters, he just as "actively" non-names the bench players.
> 
> Romans 9 is quite hard to understand in light of a 'passive' position, as well, as Ken noted.
> In taking the 'passive' view, it seems to me that one is simply trying to get God off the hook for the full impact of election rather than actually accept what the doctrine means.
Click to expand...


Todd - in defense of JM's position, he is trying to avoid an epistimological argument. I'd have to play back his message, but he is basically saying, "I'm just believing what scripture says." Of course just his saying that doesn't make his interpretation of scripture correct. In his series he develops the doctrine of election scripturally but doesn't spend much time on his singular view of reprobation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KMK said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I'm not sure why you're asking what I'd do with Romans 8:29. It's perfectly compatible with what I just said - especially since the follow-on verses are specifically linked to God's intention to utterly save those whom He foreknew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.
Click to expand...


Incidentally, this makes a good point with respect to "semantics". Certainly we can say that God knows both the elect and the reprobate from all eternity. Further, in the Reformed understanding of ordination, God knows the beginning from the end because He ordains and superintends the beginning from the end. One could make the "semantic" argument that God "foreknows" the reprobate and to distinguish using this verb to refer only to the elect would be a "game". Yet, in Scripture, only the elect are referred to as "foreknown".

It is one thing to assert that a manner of terminology is a game it is another to make an argument. I don't mind arguments but I do mind rude assertions. The former will be tolerated here, the latter will not.

{Ken, this is not directed at you}


----------



## Calvibaptist

Man, you guys are picking on Piper in one thread and MacArthur in another! You're getting on all my boys!

Incidentally, I don't know if this plays much into MacArthur's view, but when I was at DTS, a lot was made of the fact that in Romans 9:22, in the phrase "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," the word "prepared" is in the middle or passive voice, which would indicate either that they prepared themselves (doubtful, since they weren't around) or that their preparation was not active, but passive.

In Romans 9:23, in the phrase "vessels of mercy, whom he prepared beforehand for glory," the word "prepared" is in the active voice, obviously indicating an action performed by God.

This is the main argument I have heard used exegetically defending the view that there is no double predestination. The preparation of the elect was active, while the non-elect was passive.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

What about... [bible]Zechariah 3:1-5[/bible]

Clearly the Lord chooses (predestines - vs 2 & 4) us out of the fire we are already headed for.

But this does beg the question, "Who 'destines" [probably not a word] us for the fire in the first place?"


----------



## cih1355

What is the difference between the manner in which God elects some people and the manner in which God damns the reprobate?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Curt,

I think that's been answered to a large degree already.

This is one of the reasons why the WCF in Chapter 3 teaches:


> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,17 that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.18 So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;19 and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.20


That is to say that Paul primarily introduces the issue of election and reprobation in order to assure Saints that their salvation was not begun in themselves but in God's decision. Election and reprobation are treated far too often as pets that can be rent from the reason why they are introduced in the Word.

We certainly may draw some logical inferences about reprobation from the nature of God and also from other Scriptures but specifically how God chooses the elect and passes over the reprobate is hidden from us. We cannot speak with much Scriptural surety regarding reprobation in the same way we can say a great deal about how much God has purposed for His elect. We are given regular assurances of His kind intentions to save us to the uttermost for that is the reason why Paul introduces the topic.


----------



## toddpedlar

SemperFideles said:


> I think it is important to note that there is a difference in the way that the reprobation of the wicked is spoken of in comparison to the predestination of the elect:
> [bible]Romans 9:21-24[/bible]
> Note that the Confession agrees with the Biblical data that speaks of _predestinating_ with respect to the Elect but _foreordination_ with respect to the reprobate:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter III
> Of God's Eternal Decree
> 
> III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, *some men and angels6 are predestinated* unto everlasting life; and *others foreordained* to everlasting death.
> 
> V. Those of mankind that are *predestinated* unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,9 out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;10 and all to the praise of His glorious grace.11
> 
> VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, *to pass by*; and *to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin*, to the praised of His glorious justice.16
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know precisely how MacArthur puts the issue. I don't want to presume that he actually believes God is completely passive with respect to the reprobate. It is appropriate, however, if he's saying that God _passes by_ the reprobate and does not extend mercy to them.
> 
> I agree, then, that the Scriptures don't teach "double predestination" but that the elect are predestinated to eternal life while the reprobate are passed by and ordained to eternal destruction for their sins.
> 
> Notice the assyemtry in the passage in Romans 9 (and in the WCF as well). God is seen as _actively_ showering mercy upon the Elect, _specifically_ saving them from their sins. The reprobate, on the other hand, are seen as _passed by_. This is not a passive act, per se, but God is not actively damning the reprobate in a symmetrical and equal manner to the way he is saving the elect. Sin, itself, is enough to damn a man apart from God's grace and the sins men commit as a result of their sinful nature adds to their condemnation. It is only the superabounding Grace of God in Christ that can overcome the wrath that men are willfully incurring.
Click to expand...


I usually don't disagree with you, Rich, so this is new territory. Can you explain where you see asymmetry in the Romans 9 passage you quoted? How does "prepared beforehand for glory" and "prepared beforehand for destruction" end up being asymmetrical?

Now we are perfectly agreed that no act of God is passive; whether we're talking about elect being saved from the destructive path they would otherwise be on, or the NOT choosing of those who are on that path - both are active choices of God. There is a natural asymmetry inherent in choosing to a new destination vs. choosing to leave on a path that is already the destination of the reprobate. I'm not sure there is an asymmetry, though, in the language of "predestinate" vs. "fore-ordained". Fore-ordained is used later in the same chapter of the WCF to describe all the means of salvation of the elect. His ordination of the reprobate to damnation is, it seems to me, not much different than the predestination of the elect to salvation. Each is an active verb, each is an active and conscious decision of God according to His eternal counsel, and each is done before time, and I'm content to leave it at that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Todd,

I don't know how to answer this question in brief but it assumes you understand the rest of the Biblical data, especially in Romans, about the special care that God takes to save men from their sins.

To make a symmetrical application in terms of what God has prepared for the damned compared to the elect, He would have to be damning them in the same active sense that He is saving the elect. That is, even as He is at work in us to will in do His good pleasure, He would be at work in the reprobate to will and do what He forbids. It would make Him the author of sin with the equal force that He is the author of our salvation.


----------



## Calvibaptist

toddpedlar said:


> I usually don't disagree with you, Rich, so this is new territory. Can you explain where you see asymmetry in the Romans 9 passage you quoted? How does "prepared beforehand for glory" and "prepared beforehand for destruction" end up being asymmetrical?



Todd, the assymetry is found in the voice of the verbs used. You must have missed my post up above, so I will quote myself (which I don't often do!)



> Incidentally, I don't know if this plays much into MacArthur's view, but when I was at DTS, a lot was made of the fact that in Romans 9:22, in the phrase "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," the word "prepared" is in the middle or passive voice, which would indicate either that they prepared themselves (doubtful, since they weren't around) or that their preparation was not active, but passive.
> 
> In Romans 9:23, in the phrase "vessels of mercy, whom he prepared beforehand for glory," the word "prepared" is in the active voice, obviously indicating an action performed by God.
> 
> This is the main argument I have heard used exegetically defending the view that there is no double predestination. The preparation of the elect was active, while the non-elect was passive.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here is an extract from a brief article by R.C. Sproul:



> The Double-Predestination Distortion
> 
> The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
> This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
> 
> The Reformed View of Predestination
> 
> In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
> In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."2 Luther continued:
> 
> When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2
> 
> Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.
> 
> Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

For what it's worth. I've posted the text of Westminster Larger Catechism 12 & 13 on my PB blog just now.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blog.php?b=29


----------



## KMK

Southern Presbyterian said:


> But this does beg the question, "Who 'destines" [probably not a word] us for the fire in the first place?"



Isn't Adam held responsible? He and the individual who chooses to sin?

So God is passive toward the reprobate in that He allows them to continue down the path that they and Adam chose whereas God is active in that He graciously bestows the promise on the elect.

I guess the question would be, "Did God predestine/foreordain Adam's sin and if so, did He do so actively?"

I agree with Rich and JM in that we should not go where Scripture does not take us. However, what do we do with Rom 9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth." That sounds pretty active.

And Rom 9:21 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" That sounds active as well.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

KMK said:


> Isn't Adam held responsible? He and the individual who chooses to sin?



Yes



> I guess the question would be, "Did God predestine/foreordain Adam's sin and if so, did He do so actively?"



See this thread: Did God create evil? 



> I agree with Rich and JM in that *we should not go where Scripture does not take us*.





But I'm just thinking, "Will God not actively cast the reprobate into the lake of fire at the final judgment?" Or is this seen as a separate thing as opposed to being predestined to wrath?


----------



## toddpedlar

SemperFideles said:


> Todd,
> 
> I don't know how to answer this question in brief but it assumes you understand the rest of the Biblical data, especially in Romans, about the special care that God takes to save men from their sins.
> 
> To make a symmetrical application in terms of what God has prepared for the damned compared to the elect, He would have to be damning them in the same active sense that He is saving the elect. That is, even as He is at work in us to will in do His good pleasure, He would be at work in the reprobate to will and do what He forbids. It would make Him the author of sin with the equal force that He is the author of our salvation.



I don't have any argument with you on this at all - clearly he actively does things in the elect that he does not do in the non-elect. He must actively work, through His Spirit, in the elect in such a way so as to effect his will for them - that is, their salvation. That work, though, is an effect of his decree to save, though... and not the decree itself. My argument, though is (and perhaps this is all that there is) that the decree to save and the decree to damn are equally active. God actively chooses the elect, and by extension, actively dis-chooses the non-elect. The Standards put these in different senses: passing by the non-elect, with the express purpose of sealing the non-elect to their proper and deserved end, and ordaining the elect, with the express purpose of working salvation in them, and granting them graciously an undeserved and unmerited end. My point in entering the discussion at all is that this 'passing by' can't be passed off as some inactive or passive thing - it's an active decision on God's part, just as much as the decision to choose the elect to salvation is active. God either purpose to set the sinner on the path of regeneration, justification, etc., or he purposes to leave them on the path of destruction. I think this is the only fair distinction - and to call one active and one passive seems oddly uncessary to me.


----------



## Calvibaptist

toddpedlar said:


> I think this is the only fair distinction - and to call one active and one passive seems oddly uncessary to me.



Except that the voice of the verbs in Romans 9:28-29 *DOES* call one active and one passive.


----------



## Amazing Grace

On of the main issues I have with this topic is we unintentionaly, confessions included, seperate the Triune Godhead in the election/reprobation, and salvation/damnation of individuals. We cannot forget we were Elect IN Christ. When too much emphasis is put on the Fathers decree, this leads to a diminishing role of the Cross and the Activity of the Holy Spirit. 

I do not know why they chose to use 2 different words to mean the same thing.

fore·or·dain (fôrôr-dn, fr-)
tr.v. fore·or·dained, fore·or·dain·ing, fore·or·dains
To determine or appoint beforehand; *predestine.*

One verse that gets overlooked is:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to *make* one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor?


He MAKES both from the same lump. Now if this verse said He makes the elect to honor and leaves the rest to dishonor, passive reprobation could be concluded, but alas, it does not. The vessels do not make themselves. God does. katartizo, means "to fit, to frame, to prepare." This word compels us to say God was active in this 'fitting'

Getting back to my original point, the reason they end up "unto honor" is becasue they are elect In Christ. And the Holy Spirit applies His death to those fitted unto honor. We must be careful to make a distinction between the decree and the ratification(The Cross) of the decree. If we do not, we end up with Justification IN (not from) Eternity and the cross, and the Holy Spirit being none effect..


----------



## toddpedlar

Calvibaptist said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the only fair distinction - and to call one active and one passive seems oddly uncessary to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the voice of the verbs in Romans 9:28-29 *DOES* call one active and one passive.
Click to expand...


Sure, I got you there, and am happy to accept the difference in voices (and am not, as one whose understanding of Biblical Greek is at the level of an acquaintance, not any deep and intense study, sure of what to make of that difference in voices) as a reason at least to think about a difference in active/passive acts of God. This passive/active voice distinction has many uses, doesn't it? Certainly it doesn't connote a difference in intentionality? 

This verse needs to be read in context of 9:21, though - as Ken pointed out - some are made for honorable use, and some for dishonorable... are the verbs there active and passive, respectively, also? It would certainly strengthen the case for a strict difference if that were so.

My main point in the discussion is not to make an argument for double predestination, per se - but to uphold God's active intentionality with respect to the destinations of all people, elect and non-elect alike. I find that most of the time when there is being made a strict active/passive distinction, (and i know you guys aren't doing this) what is being said is that God didn't exercise his will to send people to hell... that it's against his wishes, but he, being the gentleman that he is, allows people to have what they want despite his desire - and so the impetus for their going to hell is solely in their hands. People in the camp are usually Amyraldian in their theology, saying that Christ died as an atonement absolutely for the elect, and as an atonement conditionally for the non-elect. 

If God actually 'passes over' the non-elect, as we believe, then it seems to me that he is making a definite decision to fore-ordain their destruction by not decreeing their salvation. Sure, the means to that end are absolutely active on God's part for salvation, and passive on God's part for damnation. God simply has to leave the non-elect in their sins in order for them to find their destination, whereas he absolutely has to work a miracle in the elect to bring them to his intended destination for them.


----------



## Calvibaptist

toddpedlar said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the only fair distinction - and to call one active and one passive seems oddly uncessary to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the voice of the verbs in Romans 9:28-29 *DOES* call one active and one passive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I got you there, and am happy to accept the difference in voices (and am not, as one whose understanding of Biblical Greek is at the level of an acquaintance, not any deep and intense study, sure of what to make of that difference in voices) as a reason at least to think about a difference in active/passive acts of God. This passive/active voice distinction has many uses, doesn't it? Certainly it doesn't connote a difference in intentionality?
> 
> This verse needs to be read in context of 9:21, though - as Ken pointed out - some are made for honorable use, and some for dishonorable... are the verbs there active and passive, respectively, also? It would certainly strengthen the case for a strict difference if that were so.
> 
> My main point in the discussion is not to make an argument for double predestination, per se - but to uphold God's active intentionality with respect to the destinations of all people, elect and non-elect alike. I find that most of the time when there is being made a strict active/passive distinction, (and i know you guys aren't doing this) what is being said is that God didn't exercise his will to send people to hell... that it's against his wishes, but he, being the gentleman that he is, allows people to have what they want despite his desire - and so the impetus for their going to hell is solely in their hands. People in the camp are usually Amyraldian in their theology, saying that Christ died as an atonement absolutely for the elect, and as an atonement conditionally for the non-elect.
> 
> If God actually 'passes over' the non-elect, as we believe, then it seems to me that he is making a definite decision to fore-ordain their destruction by not decreeing their salvation. Sure, the means to that end are absolutely active on God's part for salvation, and passive on God's part for damnation. God simply has to leave the non-elect in their sins in order for them to find their destination, whereas he absolutely has to work a miracle in the elect to bring them to his intended destination for them.
Click to expand...


I guess, I would agree with you by phrasing it this way: God is active in his selection of those who he will redeem and those he will not. He is active in bringing the elect to redemption and passive in leaving the non-elect in their sins.

I believe this is MacArthur's view as well.


----------



## KMK

Amazing Grace said:


> Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to *make* one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor?
> 
> 
> He MAKES both from the same lump. Now if this verse said He makes the elect to honor and leaves the rest to dishonor, passive reprobation could be concluded, but alas, it does not. The vessels do not make themselves. God does. katartizo, means "to fit, to frame, to prepare." This words compels us to say God was active in this 'fitting'



Is it possible that we read too much into this analogy of Paul's? Paul is using the analogy to prove a point. We as mere humans do not have the authority to question God in the matter of election. We are mere vessels in the hands of the potter with no right or authority to question the righteousness of God. Are we going one step too far when we interpret Paul as using the analogy not just to stop our mouths but also to teach *exactly *how the election/reprobation process works?

I would hate to be guilty of reading too much into 'word pictures' like some of the early church fathers did.

This subject is very important to me because I am preaching through Rom 9 right now and I want to get it right!


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to *make* one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor?
> 
> 
> He MAKES both from the same lump. Now if this verse said He makes the elect to honor and leaves the rest to dishonor, passive reprobation could be concluded, but alas, it does not. The vessels do not make themselves. God does. katartizo, means "to fit, to frame, to prepare." This words compels us to say God was active in this 'fitting'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that we read too much into this analogy of Paul's? Paul is using the analogy to prove a point. We as mere humans do not have the authority to question God in the matter of election. We are mere vessels in the hands of the potter with no right or authority to question the righteousness of God. Are we going one step too far when we interpret Paul as using the analogy not just to stop our mouths but also to teach *exactly *how the election/reprobation process works?
> 
> I would hate to be guilty of reading too much into 'word pictures' like some of the early church fathers did.
> 
> This subject is very important to me because I am preaching through Rom 9 right now and I want to get it right!
Click to expand...


I was just repeating the words of the writ K. Nothig more, nothing less. My other point being is make sure you make this a triune activity and not soley on the decree. Ones salvation/damnation is not only connectedto how one was created. Redemption/election in Christ is the focus of Pauls overall arguement in his writings. 

I guess hte one thing that bothers me about this "passing by" is I am not an infra. That verse says same lump to MAKE both unto honor and unto dishonor. There is no way this lump is fallen. If it was fallen, the Holy Spirit would have guided Paul to only speak about the ones made/fitted unto honor, and then just leave the rest. Now to guard against this 'author of sin' business, one must make a distinction between election/reprobation and salvation/damnation. Reprobation does not equal damnation. Men are damned becasue of sin. Reprobated becasue of His good pleasure.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

toddpedlar said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> I don't know how to answer this question in brief but it assumes you understand the rest of the Biblical data, especially in Romans, about the special care that God takes to save men from their sins.
> 
> To make a symmetrical application in terms of what God has prepared for the damned compared to the elect, He would have to be damning them in the same active sense that He is saving the elect. That is, even as He is at work in us to will in do His good pleasure, He would be at work in the reprobate to will and do what He forbids. It would make Him the author of sin with the equal force that He is the author of our salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any argument with you on this at all - clearly he actively does things in the elect that he does not do in the non-elect. He must actively work, through His Spirit, in the elect in such a way so as to effect his will for them - that is, their salvation. That work, though, is an effect of his decree to save, though... and not the decree itself. My argument, though is (and perhaps this is all that there is) that the decree to save and the decree to damn are equally active. God actively chooses the elect, and by extension, actively dis-chooses the non-elect. The Standards put these in different senses: passing by the non-elect, with the express purpose of sealing the non-elect to their proper and deserved end, and ordaining the elect, with the express purpose of working salvation in them, and granting them graciously an undeserved and unmerited end. My point in entering the discussion at all is that this 'passing by' can't be passed off as some inactive or passive thing - it's an active decision on God's part, just as much as the decision to choose the elect to salvation is active. God either purpose to set the sinner on the path of regeneration, justification, etc., or he purposes to leave them on the path of destruction. I think this is the only fair distinction - and to call one active and one passive seems oddly uncessary to me.
Click to expand...


I nowhere called the reprobation of the wicked passive. I called it a passing over. I don't believe either decision is passive in God but I am merely pointing out that what God foreordains for one compared to the other is not symmetrical with respect to activity and that the Grace showered upon one cannot be equated to the passing by of the other. I think R.C. noted it well that the elect are predestined to a monergistic work of Grace while the reprobate glorify God through Divine concurrence.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> On of the main issues I have with this topic is we unintentionaly, confessions included, seperate the Triune Godhead in the election/reprobation, and salvation/damnation of individuals. We cannot forget we were Elect IN Christ. When too much emphasis is put on the Fathers decree, this leads to a diminishing role of the Cross and the Activity of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I do not know why they chose to use 2 different words to mean the same thing.
> 
> fore·or·dain (fôrôr-dn, fr-)
> tr.v. fore·or·dained, fore·or·dain·ing, fore·or·dains
> To determine or appoint beforehand; *predestine.*
> 
> One verse that gets overlooked is:
> 
> Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to *make* one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor?
> 
> 
> He MAKES both from the same lump. Now if this verse said He makes the elect to honor and leaves the rest to dishonor, passive reprobation could be concluded, but alas, it does not. The vessels do not make themselves. God does. katartizo, means "to fit, to frame, to prepare." This word compels us to say God was active in this 'fitting'
> 
> Getting back to my original point, the reason they end up "unto honor" is becasue they are elect In Christ. And the Holy Spirit applies His death to those fitted unto honor. We must be careful to make a distinction between the decree and the ratification(The Cross) of the decree. If we do not, we end up with Justification IN (not from) Eternity and the cross, and the Holy Spirit being none effect..



The is the same point I made earlier, however. One could easily use the etymology of a word to go into Romans 8:30 and conclude that the reprobate are included in the "foreknowledge" of God. One could use the term "Elect" to refer to the reprobate. It's not a matter of etymology, however, but being careful to guard ideas. Note how often most Arminians caricature "double predestination" to mean that God is monergistically working damnation into people. It is necessary to stop to consider that Paul uses foreknown, predestinated, etc. to refer to the elect. I don't care what English words are used but the "special care" that the Confession talks about is not immaterial.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

toddpedlar said:


> If God actually 'passes over' the non-elect, as we believe, then it seems to me that he is making a definite decision to fore-ordain their destruction by not decreeing their salvation. Sure, the means to that end are absolutely active on God's part for salvation, and passive on God's part for damnation. God simply has to leave the non-elect in their sins in order for them to find their destination, whereas he absolutely has to work a miracle in the elect to bring them to his intended destination for them.



Yes but in a Concurrent way - permitting their evil and their just punishment for His own glory. I'm not trying to minimize His control but we ought not to seek to argue for more activity here where Paul is primarily emphasizing how God saves. I'm not afraid of reprobation but I don't want to push it too hard to start causing a man to misunderstand and begin believing that Romans 5-8 could be completely re-written, with a negative polarity, to be spoken of about the reprobate.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> The is the same point I made earlier, however. One could easily use the etymology of a word to go into Romans 8:30 and conclude that the reprobate are included in the "foreknowledge" of God. One could use the term "Elect" to refer to the reprobate. It's not a matter of etymology, however, but being careful to guard ideas. Note how often most Arminians caricature "double predestination" to mean that God is monergistically working damnation into people. It is necessary to stop to consider that Paul uses foreknown, predestinated, etc. to refer to the elect. I don't care what English words are used but the "special care" that the Confession talks about is not immaterial.




Both election and reprobation are in God's decree. It is much more than just leaving them in a fallen condition. This is what I find wrong with the thought of passing by...

It is also called an appointing to wrath. “For God hath not appointed us to wrath”. (I Thess. 5:9)

It is also called being appointed to disobedience. “Even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (I Peter 2:8)

It is also called being fitted to destruction. “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (Rom. 9:22)

It is also called being before ordained to condemnation. “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men. .. .“ (Jude 4)


Here is the best article I have read in plain clear language..

Election by Rev. G. H. Kersten


----------



## KMK

Does Rom 9:18 allow for a third party?



> Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.



Does Paul allow for a group who are not elect for grace and yet are also not hardened? In other words,, God actively elects some and actively hardens some but are there others who are not elect, but neither are they actively reprobate? (I doubt it, but I want to be sure)


----------



## Amazing Grace

KMK said:


> Does Rom 9:18 allow for a third party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Paul allow for a group who are not elect for grace and yet are also not hardened? In other words,, God actively elects some and actively hardens some but are there others who are not elect, but neither are they actively reprobate? (I doubt it, but I want to be sure)
Click to expand...


Ken, for the life of me I cannot find a writing of Edwards on this exact subject. I had it years ago, and now have no clue where it ended up. In the article, Edwards actually believed there were 3 categories of people.

1) Elect actively
2) Reprobated actively
3) Some middle of the road group whoGod wills for them to decide after receiving some sort of grace. 

Now before anyone here thinks I am impugning Edwards with this fairy tale, I am not. All I know is the writting was attributed to him, and I was not there when he wrote it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The is the same point I made earlier, however. One could easily use the etymology of a word to go into Romans 8:30 and conclude that the reprobate are included in the "foreknowledge" of God. One could use the term "Elect" to refer to the reprobate. It's not a matter of etymology, however, but being careful to guard ideas. Note how often most Arminians caricature "double predestination" to mean that God is monergistically working damnation into people. It is necessary to stop to consider that Paul uses foreknown, predestinated, etc. to refer to the elect. I don't care what English words are used but the "special care" that the Confession talks about is not immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both election and reprobation are in God's decree. It is much more than just leaving them in a fallen condition. This is what I find wrong with the thought of passing by...
> 
> It is also called an appointing to wrath. “For God hath not appointed us to wrath”. (I Thess. 5:9)
> 
> It is also called being appointed to disobedience. “Even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (I Peter 2:8)
> 
> It is also called being fitted to destruction. “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (Rom. 9:22)
> 
> It is also called being before ordained to condemnation. “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men. .. .“ (Jude 4)
> 
> 
> Here is the best article I have read in plain clear language..
> 
> Election by Rev. G. H. Kersten
Click to expand...


I don't know if you're purposefully refusing to interact with the substance of what I've presented. Either way, I've made myself plain to the casual observer. If you want to claim that God's electing Grace is monergistic in its application to the Saints and monergistic in how the reprobate are damned then you are outside the bounds of the Confessions on this point. supralapsarianism is OK here but not hyper-Calvinism.


----------



## JM

edit, sorry


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The is the same point I made earlier, however. One could easily use the etymology of a word to go into Romans 8:30 and conclude that the reprobate are included in the "foreknowledge" of God. One could use the term "Elect" to refer to the reprobate. It's not a matter of etymology, however, but being careful to guard ideas. Note how often most Arminians caricature "double predestination" to mean that God is monergistically working damnation into people. It is necessary to stop to consider that Paul uses foreknown, predestinated, etc. to refer to the elect. I don't care what English words are used but the "special care" that the Confession talks about is not immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both election and reprobation are in God's decree. It is much more than just leaving them in a fallen condition. This is what I find wrong with the thought of passing by...
> 
> It is also called an appointing to wrath. “For God hath not appointed us to wrath”. (I Thess. 5:9)
> 
> It is also called being appointed to disobedience. “Even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (I Peter 2:8)
> 
> It is also called being fitted to destruction. “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (Rom. 9:22)
> 
> It is also called being before ordained to condemnation. “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men. .. .“ (Jude 4)
> 
> 
> Here is the best article I have read in plain clear language..
> 
> Election by Rev. G. H. Kersten
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're purposefully refusing to interact with the substance of what I've presented. Either way, I've made myself plain to the casual observer. If you want to claim that God's electing Grace is monergistic in its application to the Saints and monergistic in how the reprobate are damned then you are outside the bounds of the Confessions on this point. supralapsarianism is OK here but not hyper-Calvinism.
Click to expand...



I hope it is OK. It is Scriptural. I honestly do not know why you would call me a Hyper- Calvinist Rich. I believe I have intereacted with what you wrote. I deny a mere passing by of the reprobate. But it is not a hill I will die on. The Gospel, the Salvation of His redeemed is my main focus in belief. 

I must ask though Richard, why are you calling me a HC? I am not bothered by it becasue I am not one for labels. How are you defining a hyper-Calvinist?

If you read the articler b G H, I am sure you will see where I am coming from.

1)Election and reprobation are symmetrical. God is both active in both. He MAKES/creates both for a purpose. He does just create the elect and leave the rest in their sins.

2) Reprbotion is not the same as damnation

3) Christ is the reason for Salvation to Glory. I connect election/reprobation to the Cross. 

4) God does not create men to just damn them. The reason for reprobation is His divine sov. the reason for damnation is sin and His justice.


----------



## Romans922

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.
> 
> Thoughts?



Is the word 'predestination' ever used in a context speaking of the reprobate or is strictly used in describing those who have been elected? 

Also, I believe the infralapsarian position of God passing by those who have not been elected is called preterition.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both election and reprobation are in God's decree. It is much more than just leaving them in a fallen condition. This is what I find wrong with the thought of passing by...
> 
> It is also called an appointing to wrath. “For God hath not appointed us to wrath”. (I Thess. 5:9)
> 
> It is also called being appointed to disobedience. “Even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (I Peter 2:8)
> 
> It is also called being fitted to destruction. “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (Rom. 9:22)
> 
> It is also called being before ordained to condemnation. “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men. .. .“ (Jude 4)
> 
> 
> Here is the best article I have read in plain clear language..
> 
> Election by Rev. G. H. Kersten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're purposefully refusing to interact with the substance of what I've presented. Either way, I've made myself plain to the casual observer. If you want to claim that God's electing Grace is monergistic in its application to the Saints and monergistic in how the reprobate are damned then you are outside the bounds of the Confessions on this point. supralapsarianism is OK here but not hyper-Calvinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it is OK. It is Scriptural. I honestly do not know why you would call me a Hyper- Calvinist Rich. I believe I have intereacted with what you wrote. I deny a mere passing by of the reprobate. But it is not a hill I will die on. The Gospel, the Salvation of His redeemed is my main focus in belief.
> 
> I must ask though Richard, why are you calling me a HC? I am not bothered by it becasue I am not one for labels. How are you defining a hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> If you read the articler b G H, I am sure you will see where I am coming from.
> 
> 1)Election and reprobation are symmetrical. God is both active in both. He MAKES/creates both for a purpose. He does just create the elect and leave the rest in their sins.
> 
> 2) Reprbotion is not the same as damnation
> 
> 3) Christ is the reason for Salvation to Glory. I connect election/reprobation to the Cross.
> 
> 4) God does not create men to just damn them. The reason for reprobation is His divine sov. the reason for damnation is sin and His justice.
Click to expand...


Nicholas,

I am not calling you a Hyper-Calvinist. I do think that you are either not reading what is being presented or you are too quickly passing over it to notice the difference in substance between what I am talking about. Even in your delineation above you failed to address the principal issue of concern: monergism or concurrence.

I frankly don't really care much about the supra-, infra- debate. I think far too much is made of the issue and many delve too much into why or how God chose men. I don't have a problem with a supra- position on the issue.

My problem comes out in what men are foreordained unto. That is, foreordination is not merely something God does in His decree but it is also something that He carries out Sovereignly.

Now, you can argue all you want about the active choice of God as to the identity of the reprobate or the identity of the elect but the issue that has been discussed so far moves beyond that and on to the issue of how the elect are purposefully and monergistically not only foreknown but predestined. Not only predestined but called. Not only called but justified. Not only justified but glorified. In other words, the elect are predestined to a monergistic work of Grace.

In contrast, the reprobate are not foreordained to a symmetrical process of damnation. God superintends their reprobation but not in a way that He works sin in them. I presume that you are reading more in this thread than what I write to you. I noted that Paul spends a great deal of time in Romans 5-8 developing the utter surety of our salvation on the basis of God's choice. This he does throughout his Epistles. In contrast, he does not develop a process of damnation that sees God working in a symmetrical yet precisely oppposite way. In fact, Romans 5 is a perfect example where this would not work at all. Christ is called the second Adam and His satisfaction is said to superabound to cover not only Adam's sin but the sins we commit. The passages would have to be re-written to state that it's not Adam's sin that is the reason for our condemnation but that God is causing sin in mankind to abound while God works against Himself to abound Grace above where He is actively reprobating in other areas.

Thus, if you merely want to preserve God's choice of election and call it somehow symmetrical in terms of activity, I find it to be needlessly speculative but not precisely un-Confessional. If, after reading again everything I've written, you still claim that what the reprobate are ordained _unto_ is symmetrical in terms of the monergistic work of God then we've got real problems.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> Now, you can argue all you want about the active choice of God as to the identity of the reprobate or the identity of the elect but the issue that has been discussed so far moves beyond that and on to the issue of how the elect are purposefully and monergistically not only foreknown but predestined. Not only predestined but called. Not only called but justified. Not only justified but glorified. In other words, the elect are predestined to a monergistic work of Grace.
> 
> In contrast, the reprobate are not foreordained to a symmetrical process of damnation. God superintends their reprobation but not in a way that He works sin in them. I presume that you are reading more in this thread than what I write to you. I noted that Paul spends a great deal of time in Romans 5-8 developing the utter surety of our salvation on the basis of God's choice. This he does throughout his Epistles. In contrast, he does not develop a process of damnation that sees God working in a symmetrical yet precisely oppposite way. In fact, Romans 5 is a perfect example where this would not work at all. Christ is called the second Adam and His satisfaction is said to superabound to cover not only Adam's sin but the sins we commit. The passages would have to be re-written to state that it's not Adam's sin that is the reason for our condemnation but that God is causing sin in mankind to abound while God works against Himself to abound Grace above where He is actively reprobating in other areas.



Now I understand what you are getting at, Rich! And it has been very helpful. This would be a good and necessary argument from silence, would it not? Or at least a caution for us in that if God did not go there, neither should we go there?


----------



## toddpedlar

SemperFideles said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God actually 'passes over' the non-elect, as we believe, then it seems to me that he is making a definite decision to fore-ordain their destruction by not decreeing their salvation. Sure, the means to that end are absolutely active on God's part for salvation, and passive on God's part for damnation. God simply has to leave the non-elect in their sins in order for them to find their destination, whereas he absolutely has to work a miracle in the elect to bring them to his intended destination for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but in a Concurrent way - permitting their evil and their just punishment for His own glory. I'm not trying to minimize His control but we ought not to seek to argue for more activity here where Paul is primarily emphasizing how God saves. I'm not afraid of reprobation but I don't want to push it too hard to start causing a man to misunderstand and begin believing that Romans 5-8 could be completely re-written, with a negative polarity, to be spoken of about the reprobate.
Click to expand...


Understood Rich - I appreciate the dialog, and agree; you couldn't write Romans 5-8 in an exactly parallel way concerning the reprobate. I'm not much one for "permission" language, though, since God does ordain everything that comes to pass... but I hear you and appreciate the sharpening.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

toddpedlar said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God actually 'passes over' the non-elect, as we believe, then it seems to me that he is making a definite decision to fore-ordain their destruction by not decreeing their salvation. Sure, the means to that end are absolutely active on God's part for salvation, and passive on God's part for damnation. God simply has to leave the non-elect in their sins in order for them to find their destination, whereas he absolutely has to work a miracle in the elect to bring them to his intended destination for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but in a Concurrent way - permitting their evil and their just punishment for His own glory. I'm not trying to minimize His control but we ought not to seek to argue for more activity here where Paul is primarily emphasizing how God saves. I'm not afraid of reprobation but I don't want to push it too hard to start causing a man to misunderstand and begin believing that Romans 5-8 could be completely re-written, with a negative polarity, to be spoken of about the reprobate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understood Rich - I appreciate the dialog, and agree; you couldn't write Romans 5-8 in an exactly parallel way concerning the reprobate. I'm not much one for "permission" language, though, since God does ordain everything that comes to pass... but I hear you and appreciate the sharpening.
Click to expand...


Thanks Todd. I didn't presume you disagreed but these dialogs are helpful. I remember being struck for the first time several years ago by the fact that the Confessions do, universally, speak in different ways about the elect and the reprobate. Salvation is not seen to be of us but of the Lord. In contrast, sin is said to be our fault and never God's. I do think that, whether one want to use the term permission or "endures with longsuffering" as Romans 9 does, that the fact that God's decree and control includes allowing men to sin against Him when He can stop it is a Biblical motif. What men intend for evil, God intends and uses for good.

Perhaps it's because many of us come from backgrounds where the free will of men is overwrought that we are too wary at times to acknowledge that men do, yet, bear real responsibility for their willful rebellion and that men are punished for the sins that they freely commit. It is men who suppress Truth and God's wrath is seen as being meted out against their rebellion and not because He plants the desire in them to rebel simply so He can get glory out of judging what He immediately caused.

It is a good study to go through the Book of Romans to follow Paul as he leads men to be sure of God's intentions from Romans 4-11 with these "course-corrections" that make sure people don't jump to the wrong conclusions. One of those "course corrections" is Romans 10, which follows on the heels of God's sovereign choice. Not for a second is the unbelief of Israel to be seen because God has withheld the News from them or has forced them to rebel. Romans 10 dispels any misconception that Israel is justly condemned and that God is not capricious in that judgment.

Thus, you can really see in Romans, especially, this strong motif of God _saving_ His elect and Paul screwing that down so tight that nobody could ever unscrew it. Yet, he then makes sure that somebody doesn't try to apply that same activity to the reprobate by saying that those that God has passed by are still responsible for their rebellion. I wouldn't want to speculate too much on how God superintends rebellion and I think the Confessions do a fine job of noting that God permits sin for His own glory in the manifestation of His justice in punishing sin and how He lavishes Grace upon His elect but is not the author of sin. I also believe that one of the primary purposes that Paul introduces reprobation is not to provide the full orbed understanding of it for our curious minds as to how God works it but as an added support to help us understand how our election is sure. That is to say, Romans 9 is not principally to be understood as a naked theological text to make sure we can fill in all our curiosities but it is presented to undergird Romans 8 and the natural doubt that would have arisen concerning Israel according to the flesh.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## MW

Rich correctly draws attention to the two distinct terms used by the Westminster Standards. Foreordination is generic and predestination is specific. But they are both terms which point to absolute determination of individual persons to specific destinies. WCF 3:3 can't be read in any other way. When we come to sects. 5, and 6, "election in Christ" and "foreordained means of salvation" are subordinate to the predestination of men to life. It is therefore natural to read sect. 7, and its reference to "preterition" and "ordination to wrath for sin," as subordinate to the foreordination of men to everlasting death.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Rich correctly draws attention to the two distinct terms used by the Westminster Standards. Foreordination is generic and predestination is specific. But they are both terms which point to absolute determination of individual persons to specific destinies. WCF 3:3 can't be read in any other way. When we come to sects. 5, and 6, "election in Christ" and "foreordained means of salvation" are subordinate to the predestination of men to life. It is therefore natural to read sect. 7, and its reference to "preterition" and "ordination to wrath for sin," as subordinate to the foreordination of men to everlasting death.



Phew! 

Thanks for that Rev. Winzer. I was a bit nervous about how you might weigh in.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Thanks for that Rev. Winzer. I was a bit nervous about how you might weigh in.



Don't worry about my judgment, Rich; I hope it is tempered with mercy. As long as we're on our guard against any kind of conditionality in God's decree of individual destiny, I think it is right to show the differences between election and reprobation. Even in Rom. 5, Adam's disobedience prefigured Christ's obedience antithetically. This means the outcomes of both were unconditionally certain, even though both were effected in different ways.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that Rev. Winzer. I was a bit nervous about how you might weigh in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about my judgment, Rich; I hope it is tempered with mercy. As long as we're on our guard against any kind of conditionality in God's decree of individual destiny, I think it is right to show the differences between election and reprobation. Even in Rom. 5, Adam's disobedience prefigured Christ's obedience antithetically. This means the outcomes of both were unconditionally certain, even though both were effected in different ways.
Click to expand...


It wasn't your judgment I was worried about but my energy level and ability to continue to interact in a fruitful way. I've been tired and impatient over the past few days and didn't really have the energy if you were going to detect a major ommission in my thinking. I fully agree with the above.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're purposefully refusing to interact with the substance of what I've presented. Either way, I've made myself plain to the casual observer. If you want to claim that God's electing Grace is monergistic in its application to the Saints and monergistic in how the reprobate are damned then you are outside the bounds of the Confessions on this point. supralapsarianism is OK here but not hyper-Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it is OK. It is Scriptural. I honestly do not know why you would call me a Hyper- Calvinist Rich. I believe I have intereacted with what you wrote. I deny a mere passing by of the reprobate. But it is not a hill I will die on. The Gospel, the Salvation of His redeemed is my main focus in belief.
> 
> I must ask though Richard, why are you calling me a HC? I am not bothered by it becasue I am not one for labels. How are you defining a hyper-Calvinist?
> 
> If you read the articler b G H, I am sure you will see where I am coming from.
> 
> 1)Election and reprobation are symmetrical. God is both active in both. He MAKES/creates both for a purpose. He does just create the elect and leave the rest in their sins.
> 
> 2) Reprbotion is not the same as damnation
> 
> 3) Christ is the reason for Salvation to Glory. I connect election/reprobation to the Cross.
> 
> 4) God does not create men to just damn them. The reason for reprobation is His divine sov. the reason for damnation is sin and His justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nicholas,
> 
> I am not calling you a Hyper-Calvinist. I do think that you are either not reading what is being presented or you are too quickly passing over it to notice the difference in substance between what I am talking about. Even in your delineation above you failed to address the principal issue of concern: monergism or concurrence.
> 
> I frankly don't really care much about the supra-, infra- debate. I think far too much is made of the issue and many delve too much into why or how God chose men. I don't have a problem with a supra- position on the issue.
> 
> My problem comes out in what men are foreordained unto. That is, foreordination is not merely something God does in His decree but it is also something that He carries out Sovereignly.
> 
> Now, you can argue all you want about the active choice of God as to the identity of the reprobate or the identity of the elect but the issue that has been discussed so far moves beyond that and on to the issue of how the elect are purposefully and monergistically not only foreknown but predestined. Not only predestined but called. Not only called but justified. Not only justified but glorified. In other words, the elect are predestined to a monergistic work of Grace.
> 
> In contrast, the reprobate are not foreordained to a symmetrical process of damnation. God superintends their reprobation but not in a way that He works sin in them. I presume that you are reading more in this thread than what I write to you. I noted that Paul spends a great deal of time in Romans 5-8 developing the utter surety of our salvation on the basis of God's choice. This he does throughout his Epistles. In contrast, he does not develop a process of damnation that sees God working in a symmetrical yet precisely oppposite way. In fact, Romans 5 is a perfect example where this would not work at all. Christ is called the second Adam and His satisfaction is said to superabound to cover not only Adam's sin but the sins we commit. The passages would have to be re-written to state that it's not Adam's sin that is the reason for our condemnation but that God is causing sin in mankind to abound while God works against Himself to abound Grace above where He is actively reprobating in other areas.
> 
> Thus, if you merely want to preserve God's choice of election and call it somehow symmetrical in terms of activity, I find it to be needlessly speculative but not precisely un-Confessional. If, after reading again everything I've written, you still claim that what the reprobate are ordained _unto_ is symmetrical in terms of the monergistic work of God then we've got real problems.
Click to expand...




Ok Richard. Is there any way you can differentiate between what you mean of monergistic vs concurrent. THis language is new to me in regards to this subject. Are you speaking of the distinct steps from election to salvation vs reprobation to damnation? 

The saved are completely saved becasue of God alone. Where as the damned are damed becasue of Gods decree and their own sins, which would involve some sort of synergy. IS this what you mean? If so I agree


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Yes. Read the Sproul excerpt above for a brief note on concurrence.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Yes. Read the Sproul excerpt above for a brief note on concurrence.



Then I think we agree...

God does not have to continue to actively compel men to sin and continue to blind them.

HEre is an excerot from the article by Kerster.

On that ground the second accusation also falls away, that it makes God to be an author of sin. We have already opposed that attack. God does not work sin; He grants rational creatures all the necessary gifts to resist sin. Angels and men fell according to the determined counsel of God, but not because God worked sin. The creature did so himself, and that without compulsion, entirely voluntarily.

Others, opposing reprobation, think it is unjust. God has concluded all under sin. Thus man, they say, must sin, and therefore the sentence to perdition is unjust.

To this we respond: (1) reprobation does not compel men to sin; but righteous judgment follows his voluntary action: and (2) reprobation is a decree of God, immanent in the Essence of God, and is an act of sovereignty, not of justice. The exercise of justice follows the sin, and therefore the condemnation is just. The righteous sentence over sin condemns it, but reprobation does not. Yet the decree of God determined this sentence, therefore the reprobates are called vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. (Rom. 9:22) 


Do you agree with this and his whole article? If yes, then we may be on the same team here Richard


----------



## Calvibaptist

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.
> 
> Thoughts?



I just listened to JM's message that bill is mentioning. I disagree with his statement on this. He very clearly goes to the original decree and says that God does not go down the list of humanity and say "You are going to heaven. You two are going to hell. You four go to heaven. You ten go to hell."

But, later he mentions that God determines every man's destiny. It sounds to me that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Being that I like JM, I am going to assume that he doesn't realize he is doing this, but he clearly is.

Obviously, as has already been established in this thread, God determines who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, but only actively works in those whom He has chosen for glory. The others he leaves to their own sinful ways.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I wonder though, Doug, since I haven't listened to it, if he's trying to speak from an infra- perspective.

I wouldn't want to describe God's choice by the above either. It sounds too simplistic. It's not because I don't believe that God is very selective in His choice but I don't like the anthropomorphic picture of God going over a list. I think His selection is more profound.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> I wonder though, Doug, since I haven't listened to it, if he's trying to speak from an infra- perspective.
> 
> I wouldn't want to describe God's choice by the above either. It sounds too simplistic. It's not because I don't believe that God is very selective in His choice but I don't like the anthropomorphic picture of God going over a list. I think His selection is more profound.



And ultimately He has not revealed that process to us. (Thankfully) So we best not try to describe it anthropomorphicly or otherwise.


----------



## KMK

Southern Presbyterian said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Adam held responsible? He and the individual who chooses to sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question would be, "Did God predestine/foreordain Adam's sin and if so, did He do so actively?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See this thread: Did God create evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Rich and JM in that *we should not go where Scripture does not take us*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm just thinking, "Will God not actively cast the reprobate into the lake of fire at the final judgment?" Or is this seen as a separate thing as opposed to being predestined to wrath?
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be God actively working his 'justice' and not 'reprobation'?

Sorry I missed this post earlier.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> Here is an extract from a brief article by R.C. Sproul:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Double-Predestination Distortion
> 
> The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
> This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
> 
> The Reformed View of Predestination
> 
> In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
> In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."2 Luther continued:
> 
> When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2
> 
> Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.
> 
> Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.
Click to expand...


Rich, your posts in this thread have been very helpful. Thank you.

Also, can you tell us where this great quote by Sproul can be found?


----------



## JM

In the book of Exodus we find where God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, only three of those 19 times the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is ascribe to Pharaoh himself, the rest was God effectually hardening his heart. Just as God ‘gave them over to a reprobate mind’ [Rom. 1:28] so did He give up Pharaoh to believe the working of his preacher/magicians, his pagan witch doctors. Where did they get the power to do their wicked magic? The Bible supplies us the answer for the 'working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.’ ‘And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.’ 

Brothers and sisters this is what the Bible has to say, ‘And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:’ with the reason given ‘That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.’ 

God harden Pharaoh’s heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart...

God harden Pharaoh’s heart 16 different times! [note taken from Don Fortner's sermon on reprobation]

If this isn't active reprobation I don't know what is.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> In the book of Exodus we find where God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, only three of those 19 times the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is ascribe to Pharaoh himself, the rest was God effectually hardening his heart. Just as God ‘gave them over to a reprobate mind’ [Rom. 1:28] so did He give up Pharaoh to believe the working of his preacher/magicians, his pagan witch doctors. Where did they get the power to do their wicked magic? The Bible supplies us the answer for the 'working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.’ ‘And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.’
> 
> Brothers and sisters this is what the Bible has to say, ‘And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:’ with the reason given ‘That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.’
> 
> God harden Pharaoh’s heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart, and He harden his heart...
> 
> God harden Pharaoh’s heart 16 different times! [note taken from Don Fortner's sermon on reprobation]
> 
> If this isn't active reprobation I don't know what is.



In light of everything that preceded in this thread, if that argument isn't facile then I don't know what is.


----------



## Wannabee

Wow!
I just stumbled on this thread. I'm sorry I missed it earlier, but it was a great read.

Great job Rich!


----------



## Archlute

One verse that has not yet been addressed, which I have always found persuasive in an argument for a more active view of reprobation, is Proverbs 16:4, which states:

"The LORD has created everything for its purpose, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."

This seems like specific intentionality unto reprobation.


----------



## Iconoclast

*Preterition*



Romans922 said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been listening to JM's series on Election (current series on his website). In message # 2 he stated that the bible doesn't teach "double" predestination. He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the word 'predestination' ever used in a context speaking of the reprobate or is strictly used in describing those who have been elected?
> 
> Also, I believe the infralapsarian position of God passing by those who have not been elected is called preterition.
Click to expand...


I found this quote from wgt Shedd on a google search for preterition, I will search for ,awPink,and John murray ,next


Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland 
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: [email protected]
FREE PRESBYTERIAN ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -
- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE 

HOW CAN GOD ORDAIN SIN AND YET NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT
Shedd; DO ELECTION AND PRETERITION RELATE TO THE ORIGIN OF SIN?
The sublapsarian preterition, which is that of the Westminster Confession and all the Reformed creeds, supposes the fall in Adam and the existence of sin to be prior, in the order of nature, to both election and preterition. Election and preterition, consequently have reference to the continuance of sin, not to the origin of it. All men fall in Adam, without exception; so that there is no election or non-election to the fall itself, but only to deliverance from it. Both election and preterition suppose the fall, and are inexplicable without it as a presupposition. Men are elected from out of a state of sin; and men are passed by and left in a state of sin. 'They who are elected [and they who are passed by]
being fallen in Adam,' etc., Con. iii. 6. Election stops the continuation of sin; preterition permits the continuance of it.

WHAT IS REQUIRED IN GOD'S PART FOR THE NON ELECT SINNER TO CONTINUE IN SIN?
The non-elect man, then, like the elect, being already in the state of sin and guilt by the free fall in Adam, nothing is requisite in order to make it certain that he will for ever remain in this state but the purpose of God not to restrain and change the action of his free will and self-will in sin by regenerating it. To denominate such merely permissive action as this, compulsion, is absurd. And yet this permissive action of God secures the certainty of everlasting sin and death in the case of the non-elect, just as infallibly as the efficient action of God secures the certainty of everlasting holiness and life in the case of the elect

WHAT MAKES THE CERTAINTY OF SIN IN THE NON ELECT SINNER SO CERTAIN?
But in the former instance the certainty is secured wholly by the action of the sinner himself, while in the latter instance it is secured by the action of the Holy Spirit within the sinner. This leaving of the sinful will to its own movement makes endless sin an infallible certainty. For the sinner himself will and can never regenerate himself; and if God has in his sovereignty decided and purposed not to regenerate him, his willing and endless continuance in sin and death is certain. Every Christian knows that if, in his unregeneracy, he had been left wholly to his own free will, without any restraint from God, he would infallibly have gone from bad to worse for ever and ever.

TO RECAP…WHAT ARE THE TWO WAYS IN WHICH GOD MAKES THESE THINGS SURE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE WILL OF THE SINNER?
In these two ways of efficiency and permission, God 'foreordains' and makes certain two things that unquestionably 'come to pass,' namely, the everlasting holiness and life of some men, and the everlasting sin and death of some men; 'yet so as thereby God is not the author of sin; nor is violence done to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty of second causes taken away, but rather established'.


----------



## Iconoclast

*here is some more*

Have not found Pink, or Murray yet,but here is a few more ideas;

Both infra- and supralapsarians see the fall as included in the divine decree and preterition as an act of God's sovereign will. Originally the point of difference between the two positions was whether the fall was decreed or was merely the object of divine foreknowledge. But the idea that the fall is only foreseen is Arminian not Reformed, and was therefore rejected by the Reformation. 
Both positions take sin into account regarding the decree of reprobation. This is obvious in the infra position which sees the decree of election and rejection as logically occurring after the decree of the fall. This view emphasizes God's justice and mercy. Supralapsarianism emphasizes God's sovereign will, but it rejects the idea that God destined some men for eternal destruction simply by an act of His sovereign will, without taking account of their sin. While it sees preterition as an act of God's sovereign will, the second element of reprobation, namely, condemnation, is an act of justice and takes account of sin. This proceeds on the supposition that logically preterition precedes the decree to create and to permit the fall, while condemnation follows this.2.72 
Having seen that the infralapsarian position emphasizes sin as rebellion against God, the incarnation of Christ as a reaction to this rebellion, the freedom of man and the fact that it does justice to the historical-eschatological trinitarian structure of christian thought, it comes as no surprise that it has been accepted above the supralapsarian position in the reformed confessions. The Synod of Utrecht (1905) states ``our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation,'' but that ``this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation.'' Bavinck has also pointed out that the supralapsarian presentation has not been incorporated into a single Reformed Confession, but that the infra position has received an official place in the Confessions of the churches.2.77The Confessions cannot be called infralapsarian in the sense that they make explicit pronouncements on the order of the decree of God but they evidence great sympathy for the infra presentation when predestination is continually mentioned in such a manner that it is brought to bear on sin and guilt. In the Lord's day 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism we read that the Son of God has chosen a Church to life eternal out of the human race, and in Article 16 of the Belgic Confession that God preserves from perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel out of mere goodness has elected. The saving of the elect is referred to as an act of God, but the infra position is evident from the emphasis on God's merciful election. This is also true of the Canons of Dordt which say that the decree of rejection does not make God the author of sin, but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and Revenger thereof


----------



## Iconoclast

*here is some from Dabney*

The Five Points of Calvinism
by Robert Lewis Dabney

God's Election
In our Confession, Chapter III., Section iii., verses 4 and 7, we have this description of it: 
3d. "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death."
IV. "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished."
VII. "The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."
This leads to the crowning argument. This Saul was by nature "dead in trespasses and in sins" (Eph. ii. 1), and, therefore, would never have in him any faith or repentance to be foreseen, except as the result of God's purpose to put them in him. But the effect cannot be the cause of its own cause. The cart cannot pull the horse; why, it is the horse that pulls the cart. This is expressly confirmed by Scripture. Christ says (John xv. 16): "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain." Romans ix. 11-13 : "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;" and verse 16: "So then, it is not of him that: willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." What is not? The connection shows that it is the election of the man that willeth and runneth, of which the apostle here speaks. Paul here goes so dead against the notion of conditional election, that learned Arminians see that they must find some evasion, or squarely take the ground of infidels. This is their evasion: that by the names Esau and Jacob the individual patriarchs are not meant, but the two nations, Edom and Israel, and that the predestination was only unto the privation or enjoyment of the means of grace. But this is utterly futile: First, Because certainly the individual patriarchs went along with the two posterities whom they represented. Second, Because Paul's discussion in this ninth chapter all relates to individuals and not to races, and to salvation or perdition, and not to mere church privileges. Third, Because the perdition of the Edomite race from all gospel means must have resulted in the perdition of the individuals. For, says Paul: "How could they believe on him of whom they have not heard?"
This is the right place to notice the frequent mistake when we say that God's election is sovereign and not conditioned on his foresight of the elected man's piety. Many pretend to think that we teach God has no reason at all for his choice; that we make it an instance of sovereign divine caprice! We teach no such thing. It would be impiety. Our God is too wise and righteous to have any caprices. He has a reasonable motive for every one of his purposes; and his omniscience shows him it is always the best reason. But he is not bound to publish it to us. God knew he had a reason for preferring the sinner, Jacob, to the sinner Esau. But this reason could not have been any foreseeing merit of Jacob's piety by two arguments: the choice was made before the children were born. There never was any piety in Jacob to foresee, except what was to follow after as an effect of Jacob's election. Esau appears to have been an open, hard-mouthed, profane person. Jacob, by nature, a mean, sneaking hypocrite and supplanter. Probably God judged their personal merits as I do, that personally Jacob was a more detestable sinner than Esau. Therefore, on grounds of foreseen personal deserts, God could never have elected either of them. But his omniscience saw a separate, independent reason why it was wisest to make the worse man the object of his infinite mercy, while leaving the other to his own profane choice. Does the Arminian now say that I must tell him what that reason was? I answer, I do not know, God has not told me. But I know He had a good reason, because he is God. Will any man dare to say that because omniscience could not find its reason in the foreseen merits of Jacob, therefore it could find none at all in the whole infinite sweep of its Providence and wisdom? This would be arrogance run mad and near to blasphemy.
One more argument for election remains: Many human beings have their salvation or ruin practically decided by providential events in their lives. The argument is, that since these events are sovereignly determined by God's providence, the election, or preterition of their souls is thereby virtually decided, Take two instances: Here is a willful, impenitent man who is down with fever and is already delirious. Will he die or get well? God's providence will decide that. "In his hands our breath is, and his are all our ways." (Dan. v. 23.) If he dies this time he is too delirious to believe and repent; if he recovers, he may attend revival meetings and return to God. The other instance is, that of dying infants. This is peculiarly deadly to the Arminian theory, because they say so positively that all humans who die in infancy are saved. (And they slander us Presbyterians by charging that we are not positive enough on that point, and that we believe in the "damnation of infants.") Well, here is a human infant three months old. Will it die of croup, or will it live to be a man? God's providence will decide that. If it dies, the Arminian is certain its soul is gone to heaven, and therefore was elected of God to go there. If it is to grow to be a man, the Arminian says he may exercise his freewill to be a Korah, Dalthan, Abiram, or Judas. But the election of the baby who dies cannot be grounded in God's foresight of its faith and repentance, because there was none to foresee before it entered glory; the little soul having redeemed by sovereign grace without these means.
But there is that sentence in our Confession, Chapter X., Section iii.: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth." Our charitable accusers will have it that the antithesis which we imply to the words "elect infants dying in infancy" is, that there are non-elect infants dying in infancy are so damned. This we always deny. But they seem to know what we think better than we know ourselves. The implied antithesis we hold is this: There are elect infants not dying in infancy, and such must experience effectual calling through rational means, and freely believe and repent according to Chapter X. There were once two Jewish babies, John and Judas; John an elect infant, Judas a non-elect one. Had John the Baptist died of croup he would have been redeemed without personal faith and repentance; but he was predestinated to live to man's estate, so he had to be saved through effectual calling. Judas, being a non-elect infant, was also predestinated to live to manhood and receive his own fate freely by his own contumacy. Presbyterians do not believe that the Bible or their Confession teaches that there are non-elect infants dying in infancy and so damned. Had they thought this of their Confession, they would have changed this section long ago.
When an intelligent being makes a selection of some out of a number of objects, he therein unavoidably makes a preterition (a passing by) of the others; we cannot deny this without imputing ignorance or inattention to the agent; but omniscience can neither be ignorant nor inattentive. Hence, God's preordination must: extend to the saved and the lost.
But here we must understand the difference between God's effective decree and his permissive decree, the latter is just as definite and certain as the former; but the distinction is this: The objects of God's effective decree are effects which he himself works, without employing or including the free-agency of any other rational responsible person, such as his creations, miracles, regenerations of souls, resurrections of bodies, and all those results which his providence brings to pass, through the blind, compulsory powers of second causes, brutish or material. The nature of his purpose here is by his own power to determine these results to come to pass.


----------



## Iconoclast

*dabney/part2*

Now, it is vain for those to object that God's will cannot have anything to do with sinful results, even in this permissive sense, without making God an author of the sin, unless these cavilers mean to take the square infidel ground. For the Bible is full of assertions that God does thus foreordain sin without being an author of sin. He foreordained Pharaoh's tyranny and rebellion, and then punished him for it. In Isaiah x. he foreordains Nebuchadnezzar's sack of Jerusalem, and then punishes him for it. In Acts ii. 23 the wicked Judas betrays his Lord by the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God. In Romans ix. 18, "he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth," so in many other places. But our Confession, Chapter X., Section vii., makes this express difference between God's decree of election and of preterition. The former is purely gracious, not grounded in any foresight of any piety in them because they have none to foresee, except as they are elected and called, and in consequence thereof. But the non-elect are passed by and foreordained to destruction "for their sins, and for the glory of God's justice."
We thus see that usual fiery denunciations of this preterition are nothing but absurd follies and falsehoods. These vain-talkers rant as though it was God's foreordination which makes these men go to perdition. In this there is not one word of truth. They alone make themselves go, and God's purpose concerning the wretched result never goes a particle further than this, that in his justice he resolves to let them have their own preferred way. These men talk as though God's decree of preterition was represented by us as a barrier preventing poor striving sinners from getting to heaven, no matter how they repent and pray and obey, only because they are not the secret pets of an unjust divine caprice.
The utter folly and wickedness of this cavil are made plain by this, that the Bible everywhere teaches none but the elect and effectually called ever work or try in earnest to get to heaven; that the lost never really wish nor try to be saints; that their whole souls are opposed to it, and they prefer freely to remain ungodly, and this is the sole cause of their ruin. If they would truly repent, believe, and obey, they would find no decree debarring them from grace and heaven, God can say this just as the shepherd might say of the wolves: if they will choose to eat my grass peaceably with my lambs they shall find no fence of mine keeping them from my grass. But the shepherd knows that it is always the nature of wolves to choose to devour the lambs instead of the grass, which former their own natures, and not the fence, assuredly prompts them to do, until almighty power new-creates them into lambs. The reason why godless men cavil so fiercely against this part of the doctrine, and so fully misrepresent it, is just this --that they hate to acknowledge to themselves that free yet stubborn godlessness of soul which leads them voluntarily to work their own ruin, and so they try to throw the blame on God or his doctrine instead of taking it on themselves.
In fine, unbelieving men are ever striving to paint the doctrine of election as the harsh, the exclusive, the terrible doctrine, erecting a hindrance between sinners and salvation. But properly viewed it is exactly the opposite. It is not the harsh doctrine, but the sweet one, not the exclusive doctrine, not the hindrance of our salvation, but the blessed inlet to all the salvation found in this universe. It is sin, man's voluntary sin, which excludes him from salvation; and in this sin God has no responsibility. It is God's grace alone which persuades men both to come in and remain within the region of salvation; and all this grace is the fruit of election. I repeat, then, it is our voluntary sin which is the source of all that is terrible in the fate of ruined men and angels. It is God's election of grace which is the sweet and blessed source of all that is remedial, hopeful, and happy in earth and heaven. God can say to every angel and redeemed man in the universe: "I have chosen thee in everlasting love; therefore in loving kindness have I drawn thee." And every angel, and saint on this earth and in glory responds, in accordance with our hymn:
Why was I made to hear his voice
And enter while there's room,
While others make a wretched choice
And rather starve than come?
'Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew me in;
Else I had still refused to taste
And perish in my sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> One verse that has not yet been addressed, which I have always found persuasive in an argument for a more active view of reprobation, is Proverbs 16:4, which states:
> 
> "The LORD has created everything for its purpose, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
> 
> This seems like specific intentionality unto reprobation.



In what manner, though? I certainly had that in mind during this discussion. It folds quite nicely into the Potter analogy where the Potter creates both vessels.

I really think the only debate over intentionality has not been on God's choice but on how that activity plays itself out in the choices of individuals. 

If left to our own sinful desires, God can superintend all our actions to the glory of His justice when we are punished at the judgment. Necessarily, however, for the elect, God must regenerate and even our process of sanctification is not merely superintended but is the result of ongoing work by Him to perfect His vessels.

In both cases secondary causality is at work but in the latter God is the more proximate cause so that we can rightly call the works we do to God's glory His works. In contrast, the reprobate cannot say to God that the evil works they are doing are proximately caused by God and that their sin is really God's sin. 

Adam tried to blame Eve's temptation on God's creation of her but it really didn't fly.


----------



## Amazing Grace

SemperFideles said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> One verse that has not yet been addressed, which I have always found persuasive in an argument for a more active view of reprobation, is Proverbs 16:4, which states:
> 
> "The LORD has created everything for its purpose, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
> 
> This seems like specific intentionality unto reprobation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner, though? I certainly had that in mind during this discussion. It folds quite nicely into the Potter analogy where the Potter creates both vessels.
> 
> I really think the only debate over intentionality has not been on God's choice but on how that activity plays itself out in the choices of individuals.
> 
> If left to our own sinful desires, God can superintend all our actions to the glory of His justice when we are punished at the judgment. Necessarily, however, for the elect, God must regenerate and even our process of sanctification is not merely superintended but is the result of ongoing work by Him to perfect His vessels.
> 
> In both cases secondary causality is at work but in the latter God is the more proximate cause so that we can rightly call the works we do to God's glory His works. In contrast, the reprobate cannot say to God that the evil works they are doing are proximately caused by God and that their sin is really God's sin.
> 
> Adam tried to blame Eve's temptation on God's creation of her but it really didn't fly.
Click to expand...


Richard, now I believe I know where you are coming from. A light bulb just went off my my head..lol Their is a continuous monergistic work of God on the elect from beginning to end. From Election to Glorification. This is not present in the reprobate. There is not a continuous "rehardening" as if they can make themselves see and God has to reharden them again and again. It is the opposite of 
Preserverence of the Saints" (I changed the name, I dont think perseverance is correct) God MUST continuously preserve the elect In Christ. Throughout their lives. When they fall, He picks them up..etc etc etc. Not so for the reprobate. They have no hope, their is no blood for them, no atonement.


----------



## Archlute

SemperFideles said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> One verse that has not yet been addressed, which I have always found persuasive in an argument for a more active view of reprobation, is Proverbs 16:4, which states:
> 
> "The LORD has created everything for its purpose, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
> 
> This seems like specific intentionality unto reprobation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner, though? I certainly had that in mind during this discussion. It folds quite nicely into the Potter analogy where the Potter creates both vessels.
> 
> I really think the only debate over intentionality has not been on God's choice but on how that activity plays itself out in the choices of individuals.
> 
> If left to our own sinful desires, God can superintend all our actions to the glory of His justice when we are punished at the judgment. Necessarily, however, for the elect, God must regenerate and even our process of sanctification is not merely superintended but is the result of ongoing work by Him to perfect His vessels.
> 
> In both cases secondary causality is at work but in the latter God is the more proximate cause so that we can rightly call the works we do to God's glory His works. In contrast, the reprobate cannot say to God that the evil works they are doing are proximately caused by God and that their sin is really God's sin.
> 
> Adam tried to blame Eve's temptation on God's creation of her but it really didn't fly.
Click to expand...


Hello Rich,

I'll be out for the weekend after this, but when I get back I would like to give this more thought, and read through the thread more carefully. I know that there are some writings that I have on the issue of theodicy (to which this directly relates), that I would like to restudy. 

From my past studies, if memory serves me correctly, I have tended to think that many Reformed folk get hyper-sensitive against asserting God's direct hand in these issues, and that there are some good arguments (even larger Scriptural passages) that should cause us not to flinch when discussing God's direct involvement. Too often the general Calvinist sounds like he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue (Sproul fudges a lot here, and on his attempts at explaining other difficult subjects, in my opinion), and we become less than credible to our critics.

This is a difficult area of theology, however, and I must return to it later. Have a good weekend, all.


----------



## KMK

SemperFideles said:


> Notice the assyemtry in the passage in Romans 9 (and in the WCF as well). God is seen as _actively_ showering mercy upon the Elect, _specifically_ saving them from their sins. The reprobate, on the other hand, are seen as _passed by_. * This is not a passive act, per se, but God is not actively damning the reprobate in a symmetrical and equal manner to the way he is saving the elect.* Sin, itself, is enough to damn a man apart from God's grace and the sins men commit as a result of their sinful nature adds to their condemnation. It is only the superabounding Grace of God in Christ that can overcome the wrath that men are willfully incurring.



This is the point that Rich made earlier that seems to cut to the chase. Election and reprobation (preterition) are not 'symmetrical'. If our detractors criticize our argument, so be it. I would rather stop short where the Scriptures do than to conjecture some great scheme regarding 'how' God actively causes reprobation.


----------



## Archlute

KMK said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the assyemtry in the passage in Romans 9 (and in the WCF as well). God is seen as _actively_ showering mercy upon the Elect, _specifically_ saving them from their sins. The reprobate, on the other hand, are seen as _passed by_. * This is not a passive act, per se, but God is not actively damning the reprobate in a symmetrical and equal manner to the way he is saving the elect.* Sin, itself, is enough to damn a man apart from God's grace and the sins men commit as a result of their sinful nature adds to their condemnation. It is only the superabounding Grace of God in Christ that can overcome the wrath that men are willfully incurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point that Rich made earlier that seems to cut to the chase. Election and reprobation (preterition) are not 'symmetrical'. If our detractors criticize our argument, so be it. I would rather stop short where the Scriptures do than to conjecture some great scheme regarding 'how' God actively causes reprobation.
Click to expand...


Well, since I've not left yet, I'll venture a comment - you still must integrate the implications of Proverbs 16:4. There it seem clear that all things have been created for specific purposes, which specifically includes the creation of the wicked for the day of destruction. God is not here working with something that has already been affected by the fall, but rather is decreeing the creation of something with the purpose already in mind that their end will be destruction. You may say that God uses secondary means in developing their sinfulness, that's fine, but this verse clearly speaks of something else, namely, God's intentions to reprobate by divine decree.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Archlute said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the assyemtry in the passage in Romans 9 (and in the WCF as well). God is seen as _actively_ showering mercy upon the Elect, _specifically_ saving them from their sins. The reprobate, on the other hand, are seen as _passed by_. * This is not a passive act, per se, but God is not actively damning the reprobate in a symmetrical and equal manner to the way he is saving the elect.* Sin, itself, is enough to damn a man apart from God's grace and the sins men commit as a result of their sinful nature adds to their condemnation. It is only the superabounding Grace of God in Christ that can overcome the wrath that men are willfully incurring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the point that Rich made earlier that seems to cut to the chase. Election and reprobation (preterition) are not 'symmetrical'. If our detractors criticize our argument, so be it. I would rather stop short where the Scriptures do than to conjecture some great scheme regarding 'how' God actively causes reprobation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I've not left yet, I'll venture a comment - you still must integrate the implications of Proverbs 16:4. There it seem clear that all things have been created for specific purposes, which specifically includes the creation of the wicked for the day of destruction. God is not here working with something that has already been affected by the fall, but rather is decreeing the creation of something with the purpose already in mind that their end will be destruction. You may say that God uses secondary means in developing their sinfulness, that's fine, but this verse clearly speaks of something else, namely, God's intentions to reprobate by divine decree.
Click to expand...



Amen. Everythign God does has a purpose. I dont know if this is what Rich is arguing about though. I think his intent is to say the whole life of the elect is monergistically affective by God's action, from begininning to end.

I agree in active reprobation, what I am not sure about is how does reprobation play out in the life of the reprobate. I cant see God continuously blinding them. Once blind, always blind if reprobate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> One verse that has not yet been addressed, which I have always found persuasive in an argument for a more active view of reprobation, is Proverbs 16:4, which states:
> 
> "The LORD has created everything for its purpose, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."
> 
> This seems like specific intentionality unto reprobation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what manner, though? I certainly had that in mind during this discussion. It folds quite nicely into the Potter analogy where the Potter creates both vessels.
> 
> I really think the only debate over intentionality has not been on God's choice but on how that activity plays itself out in the choices of individuals.
> 
> If left to our own sinful desires, God can superintend all our actions to the glory of His justice when we are punished at the judgment. Necessarily, however, for the elect, God must regenerate and even our process of sanctification is not merely superintended but is the result of ongoing work by Him to perfect His vessels.
> 
> In both cases secondary causality is at work but in the latter God is the more proximate cause so that we can rightly call the works we do to God's glory His works. In contrast, the reprobate cannot say to God that the evil works they are doing are proximately caused by God and that their sin is really God's sin.
> 
> Adam tried to blame Eve's temptation on God's creation of her but it really didn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Rich,
> 
> I'll be out for the weekend after this, but when I get back I would like to give this more thought, and read through the thread more carefully. I know that there are some writings that I have on the issue of theodicy (to which this directly relates), that I would like to restudy.
> 
> From my past studies, if memory serves me correctly, I have tended to think that many Reformed folk get hyper-sensitive against asserting God's direct hand in these issues, and that there are some good arguments (even larger Scriptural passages) that should cause us not to flinch when discussing God's direct involvement. Too often the general Calvinist sounds like he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue (Sproul fudges a lot here, and on his attempts at explaining other difficult subjects, in my opinion), and we become less than credible to our critics.
> 
> This is a difficult area of theology, however, and I must return to it later. Have a good weekend, all.
Click to expand...


I'll be travelling on Monday and Tuesday back to Japan. Will try to interact when I have time.

I don't think this issue is one of hyper-sensitivity but some caution is warranted on this subject. You've brought up some prophecies and wisdom literature. Even with lengthy passages one ought to be honest with how they reconcile the data with some of the clearer passages of Scripture. Sometimes the criticism of "talking out of both sides of our mouth" might be warranted but sometimes it is a charge from those that have constructed a bit too much from some questionable inferences. The passage you brought up, for instance, about God ordaining even the wicked to the day of destruction can be pressed into service for both camps.

I do hope that you read what we talked about carefully. Actually, it is my recent very detailed study of Romans that has sharpened my understanding of election and reprobation. I have repeatedly stated that I'm not uncomfortable in the least with the notion that God foreordains all things and that we don't need to apologize that God superintends even the most grotesque acts.

Perhaps the title of this thread has caused you to assume that the main thrust has been to argue that God's reprobation of individuals is as if He is watching a movie and is passive in the whole program. The very important point that has been continually affirmed (to which the Confessions clearly testify) is that God's foreordination unto reprobation is not even close in symmetry to what he has predestined for the elect. I put it another way in saying that you cannot take Romans 5-8 and in some "Bizarro world" schema say that "...yeah, just like that for the reprobate except the exact opposite of everything Paul just said about the elect...."

I think there is some reason to tread carefully on the nature of reprobation and speak in a generally vague manner on the "ins and outs" because, frankly, nowhere is there a systematic treatment of the process in the same detail that foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification receive. What I found fascinating as I studied (and taught) through Romans is that even as Paul is teaching on these subjects, he is actually "guarding" _against_ the kind of symmetical treatment that some want to press with a slew of "...you will say to me...." Interestingly, he has every opportunity in this lengthy Epistle to spell out the process of reprobation but leaves the details unrevealed.

Thus, I find it to be pious and prudent to not try to unpack things any further than the Scriptures permit us to unpack them. If that is "hyper-sensitivity" then I'm guilty as charged.

I'll interact further when I'm in Japan in a few days and see what your response(s) is.


----------



## Quickened

This thread is fantastic. I just wanted to post a thanks to the gentlemen that are discussing God's Word here. Its refreshing to see people discussing these issues in such a gentlemenly fashion. I am not used to that (from the other board i floated around on)

This is definately "food for thought". One of the areas i basically skipped over while growing in Christ was Calvinism. When i started attending the church i am at now i had no choice but to research. I might chime in as time goes on but i wanted to give a wholehearted thanks to the gentlemen discussing in this thread


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

One side note - (I'm not sure I saw it in the thread.)

Double Predestination is not a bad term. I think some may get confused on thinking of the "Predestination" on one hand and "Passive"-ness of reprobation (which is really not passive) on the other, but then confuse it with Equal Ultimacy.

Predestination is to destine beforehand someone someplace. The elect are "elected" (a term used of them and not the reprobate) to salvation (predestined to heaven), and the reprobate are "preterated" (or pre-destinated) to damnation. You can use fore ordination if you'd like. Neither of these uses of Predestination is the heresy of equal Ultimacy.

EU teaches that as God so instill in His elect regenerating grace and so demonstrates their predestination in that way, so he also infuses and degenerates the wicked (thus you get the term equal Ultimacy that is rested on God).

Personally, I don't have a problem with fore ordination, predestination, double predestination, election, reprobation, preterition, or any other theologically pact concept if you simply explain it well. Sometimes, though, Double predestination gets a bad wrap by being equated with equal Ultimacy.


----------



## Herald

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> One side note - (I'm not sure I saw it in the thread.)
> 
> Double Predestination is not a bad term. I think some may get confused on thinking of the "Predestination" on one hand and "Passive"-ness of reprobation (which is really not passive) on the other, but then confuse it with Equal Ultimacy.
> 
> Predestination is to destine beforehand someone someplace. The elect are "elected" (a term used of them and not the reprobate) to salvation (predestined to heaven), and the reprobate are "preterated" (or pre-destinated) to damnation. You can use fore ordination if you'd like. Neither of these uses of Predestination is the heresy of equal Ultimacy.
> 
> EU teaches that as God so instill in His elect regenerating grace and so demonstrates their predestination in that way, so he also infuses and degenerates the wicked (thus you get the term equal Ultimacy that is rested on God).
> 
> Personally, I don't have a problem with fore ordination, predestination, double predestination, election, reprobation, preterition, or any other theologically pact concept if you simply explain it well. Sometimes, though, Double predestination gets a bad wrap by being equated with equal Ultimacy.



It's the white elephant in the room (double predestination) that must be dealt with once a person becomes a Calvinist. The Calvinist gleefully embraces election, but the thought of those who are not elect being predestined to hell is an assault on their conscience. The foreknowledge view is more an attempt at assuaging guilt than a scriptural defense (In my humble opinion). What John MacArthur believes (that God chooses the elect, but simply passes over those who are not elect) is a logical inconsistency. God is active in election only? The rest of mankind is simply a matter of unfortunate circumstances? I don't think we need to completely understand it, but we certainly cannot bring God's sovereignty in this matter down to our level.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Man became a *slave* to sin at the Fall. That means Man, of His own Fallen nature, *always* and *actively* conforms to the preordained character of the reprobate. No active superintending necessary for sin slavery (the default) - although there is some directed superintending to shape events.

God chose to demonstrate that unless Man had direct superintending by God, he would, of his own free will, choose disobedience and death over obedience and life. Thus God foreknew and preordained the Fall.

God, preordaining the ultimate working out of His Love and Justice to His own glory as it relates to Man, foreknew the Fall and Judgment of Man, yet predestined some, for His own good pleasure, to be spared His just judgment so as to display His Love through *unmerited* mercy for the elect.

Which takes me back again to this statement that I believe is supported by Scripture (of good and necessary consequence):

Mercy's preciousness is measured by it's rarity or there is no true justice.

Which is why many are predestined to damnation but few are foreordained for glory.

Bottom line: God does not preordain that Man individually condemn himself through ongoing sin, and is thus not the author of sin. It is our default fallen condition.

He actively saves the elect. The ongoing sin of the elect now evokes repentance.

The ongoing sin of the reprobate evokes judgment.

God is sovereign, man is responsible.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

I'll say this much whether He is active or not it appears out here in Hollywood (not to mention my own heart) that when left to our own devices we heap our plates full of plenty of wrath without any divine nudging.

I still wrestle with double predestination.


----------



## Amazing Grace

BaptistInCrisis said:


> It's the white elephant in the room (double predestination) that must be dealt with once a person becomes a Calvinist. The Calvinist gleefully embraces election, but the thought of those who are not elect being predestined to hell is an assault on their conscience. The foreknowledge view is more an attempt at assuaging guilt than a scriptural defense (In my humble opinion). What John MacArthur believes (that God chooses the elect, but simply passes over those who are not elect) is a logical inconsistency. God is active in election only? The rest of mankind is simply a matter of unfortunate circumstances? I don't think we need to completely understand it, but we certainly cannot bring God's sovereignty in this matter down to our level.



What we need to realize is that the reprobate are at times more 'religious', more 'moral', do more 'good works' than the elect. We use the scales of justice according to our own understanding. There is nothing in the elect to make them savable and there is nothing in the reprobate to make them unsavable.

The problem arises when we seperate the decree from the Cross/redemption. Christ is the ETERNAL SACRAFICE!!!! Before the world, at Golgatha, at the consumation of all in the end of linear time. Once I wrapped my mind around this, it made more sense to me. There is no beginning nor end to what HE did on the cross for His sheep..


----------



## Amazing Grace

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> One side note - (I'm not sure I saw it in the thread.)
> 
> Double Predestination is not a bad term. I think some may get confused on thinking of the "Predestination" on one hand and "Passive"-ness of reprobation (which is really not passive) on the other, but then confuse it with Equal Ultimacy.
> 
> Predestination is to destine beforehand someone someplace. The elect are "elected" (a term used of them and not the reprobate) to salvation (predestined to heaven), and the reprobate are "preterated" (or pre-destinated) to damnation. You can use fore ordination if you'd like. Neither of these uses of Predestination is the heresy of equal Ultimacy.
> 
> EU teaches that as God so instill in His elect regenerating grace and so demonstrates their predestination in that way, so he also infuses and degenerates the wicked (thus you get the term equal Ultimacy that is rested on God).
> 
> Personally, I don't have a problem with fore ordination, predestination, double predestination, election, reprobation, preterition, or any other theologically pact concept if you simply explain it well. Sometimes, though, Double predestination gets a bad wrap by being equated with equal Ultimacy.




Matthew: I know it becomes a matter of semantics in order to avoid that "terrible label" of hyper-Calvinist.(notice the quotes denoting it is not as bad as some make it). Richard appears to be espousing Sproulesque speak in his 'Chosen by God" book. On which I disagree if we continue to say God passes by, or witholds His grace, or the detestable passive hardening. that is a bigger oxymoron than jumbo shrimp. Why we feel the need to protect the Sovereign God is beyond me. Equal ultimacy is a truth to a point. Where it goes astray is when some confess there is a constant life long hardening after the initial blindness and deafness is actively done by God.

Sproul and Rich will profess this:

Calvinism Hyper calvinism(error)
positive-negative positive-positive
asymmetrical symmetrical
unequal ultimacy equal ultimacy
God passively hardens God actively hardens



Scriptures present one more truth other than the above.

Truth
positive-positive-negative
equal ultimacy>unequal ultimacy
symmetrical>asymmetrical
Actively hardens> leaves in sin


God is both very very active in creating faith and creating unbelief and blinding. The difference is He continues to preserve the elect, then leaves the reprobate unredeemed by the blood of Christ. IT is the Cross the creates the unequal ultimacy. The elect sin as do the reprobate, just one remains unredeemed and they perish. One remains in Christ who continues for them forever..

9Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

If I am wrong in this assesment towards Richard, I will correct my presumption quickly..


----------



## caddy

Boettner has an interesting take on this:

The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination

_Warburton gives a very fitting illustration here. He supposes a case in which a lady goes to an orphans' home and from the hundreds of children there, chooses one, adopts it as her own child and leaves the rest. "She might have chosen others; she had the means to keep others; but she chose one. Will you tell me that woman is unjust? Will you tell me that she is unfair, or unrighteous, because in the exercise of her undisputed right and privilege she chose out that one child to enjoy the comforts of her home, and become the heir of her possessions, and left all the others, possibly to perish in want, or sink into the wretched condition of gutter-children? . . . Have you ever heard any lay the charge of injustice, or of unrighteousness against the one who has done such an action? Do men not rather hold such an action up to praise? Do they not speak in the highest terms of the love, the pity, and the compassion of such a person? Now why do they do this? Why do they not condemn the taking of the one, and the leaving of the rest? Why do they not complain that it was unjust for this particular one to be chosen, and not another, or not all? . . . The reason is this because men know as also know that all those children were in exactly the same plight and that not one of them had a single claim, or the least vestige of a claim, upon the person whose will and pleasure it was to adopt one as her own . . . Do you, or can you, see anything different in this act of God's from that of my neighbor's? The children in that foundling home had no claim upon my neighbor. Neither had fallen man any claim upon God; and God's choice, therefore, just as it was free and unmerited, so was it also righteous and just. And this free and unmerited fore-choice of God in view of man's self-procured ruin, is all that is meant by the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination." _


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Amazing Grace said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> One side note - (I'm not sure I saw it in the thread.)
> 
> Double Predestination is not a bad term. I think some may get confused on thinking of the "Predestination" on one hand and "Passive"-ness of reprobation (which is really not passive) on the other, but then confuse it with Equal Ultimacy.
> 
> Predestination is to destine beforehand someone someplace. The elect are "elected" (a term used of them and not the reprobate) to salvation (predestined to heaven), and the reprobate are "preterated" (or pre-destinated) to damnation. You can use fore ordination if you'd like. Neither of these uses of Predestination is the heresy of equal Ultimacy.
> 
> EU teaches that as God so instill in His elect regenerating grace and so demonstrates their predestination in that way, so he also infuses and degenerates the wicked (thus you get the term equal Ultimacy that is rested on God).
> 
> Personally, I don't have a problem with fore ordination, predestination, double predestination, election, reprobation, preterition, or any other theologically pact concept if you simply explain it well. Sometimes, though, Double predestination gets a bad wrap by being equated with equal Ultimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew: I know it becomes a matter of semantics in order to avoid that "terrible label" of hyper-Calvinist.(notice the quotes denoting it is not as bad as some make it). Richard appears to be espousing Sproulesque speak in his 'Chosen by God" book. On which I disagree if we continue to say God passes by, or witholds His grace, or the detestable passive hardening. that is a bigger oxymoron than jumbo shrimp. Why we feel the need to protect the Sovereign God is beyond me. Equal ultimacy is a truth to a point. Where it goes astray is when some confess there is a constant life long hardening after the initial blindness and deafness is actively done by God.
> 
> Sproul and Rich will profess this:
> 
> Calvinism Hyper calvinism(error)
> positive-negative positive-positive
> asymmetrical symmetrical
> unequal ultimacy equal ultimacy
> God passively hardens God actively hardens
> 
> 
> 
> Scriptures present one more truth other than the above.
> 
> Truth
> positive-positive-negative
> equal ultimacy>unequal ultimacy
> symmetrical>asymmetrical
> Actively hardens> leaves in sin
> 
> 
> God is both very very active in creating faith and creating unbelief and blinding. The difference is He continues to preserve the elect, then leaves the reprobate unredeemed by the blood of Christ. IT is the Cross the creates the unequal ultimacy. The elect sin as do the reprobate, just one remains unredeemed and they perish. One remains in Christ who continues for them forever..
> 
> 9Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
> 
> 10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
> " 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
> and ever hearing but never understanding;
> otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'
> 
> If I am wrong in this assesment towards Richard, I will correct my presumption quickly..
Click to expand...

 
You just need to be a little more clear on what you mean. It is one thing to explain that God so determines and manipulates the circumstacnes around Pharaoh so that *he (Pharaoh) *will sin, where equal ultimacy teaches that God CREATES that sin in Pharaoah and Pharaoh then acts out those disposition as a result of that creation. (Running with an "equal" idea which is the opposite of the elect who have a regenerated heart.)

For a VERY good treatment of this whole idea (biblically coreect on determinism), see "Calvin's Calvinism" where Calvin demonstrates biblically that the wicked cannot even lift a little pinky finger without God's consent. It is an extraordinary work on the subject. (If you have time, see also Turretin.)


----------



## DMcFadden

Matthew,

Heaving you reference Turretin brought a smile to my face. Your frequent mention of Turretin in some of your MP3s convinced me to order my own set. Thanks!


----------



## Robert Truelove

Anyone ever though of Jude 1:4 as it relates to this discussion?

"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated (appointed/ordained) for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."


----------



## Herald

prespastor said:


> Anyone ever though of Jude 1:4 as it relates to this discussion?
> 
> "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated (appointed/ordained) for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."



I'll hazard a guess as to how those who hold to God's passivity in reprobation would view this verse. They may be of the opinion that the individuals in Jude 1:4 were destined for their role, that God was active in appointing some of those passed over for specific roles. God was still passive in not electing them, but since they were not elect God was active in assigning them to these functions. It would a similar view of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Romans 9:17-18.


----------



## Amazing Grace

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> You just need to be a little more clear on what you mean. It is one thing to explain that God so determines and manipulates the circumstacnes around Pharaoh so that *he (Pharaoh) *will sin, where equal ultimacy teaches that God CREATES that sin in Pharaoah and Pharaoh then acts out those disposition as a result of that creation. (Running with an "equal" idea which is the opposite of the elect who have a regenerated heart.)



Brother Matthew:

According to who's definition? I find Sproul using this terminology first and therefore giving a definition that actually blankets double predestination of which is a grand truth. What this definition is describing is some sort of Parkerism seed doctrine. This is a terrible heresy. As a confessed supra, I settle this by taking 'sin"/'sins" ot of the equation. I do not know what it means that God 'creates this sin".. AS I have mentioned the elect sin as the reprobate, therefore Christs redemption is given to one and not the other. This is where the difference lies.. 

Passive hardening just does not make sense in light of the writ. But perhaps it is just me


----------



## danmpem

I'm sorry for resurrecting this thread after it has been down a while, I just wanted to contribute a little.

As to the original post, I have listened to several of MacArthur's sermons on his website (I subscribe to two of his podcasts). From what I have gathered, MacArthur does not teach explicitly that God "passes over" the non-elect and just leaves them in their sin, nor does he explicitly teach that God created the non-elect and set them apart purely for the role of condemnation. I have heard sermons of his which teach things that usually go hand-in-hand with either double-predestination or Amyraldianism. I think, though, if one understands the approach MacArthur takes to interpreting scripture, that he consistently acknowledges, even indirectly, the non-linearity of the Word of God. In other words, he will take Romans 1:18-32 as far as it will go and Romans 9 as far as it will go. A good example of this is his sermon "When God Abandons a Nation". He has a wonderful exegesis on Romans 1 in which he mainly focuses on God's grace being removed from sinners and a society which continually pursues a life of indulgence in their sins.

In his book "The Love of God", MacArthur endorses A.W. Pink's "The Sovereignty of God", but is still somewhat critical of it. He makes the point of saying that he agrees with Pink on every point except the point that God does not love the elect. Now, as to how far that goes I am unsure.

Here is a link to a .pdf on MacArthur's church's web site, in which he directly address The Sovereignty of God.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Ron

> He said that all mankind is born in sin and bound for hell. Instead of choosing some for hell, God simply allows them to continue in their sinful condition and elects others.



These two statements need to be distinguished. All supralapsarians and infralapsarians would agree with the first. The contention is over the second, which deals with the question of the logical order of the decree.

Ron


----------



## etexas

AS A NEBIE Presbyterian! Back to the original post ?, HELP me here, OK, in "effect" what would the difference be?


----------



## holyfool33

That's sad to hear that just a couple months back I learned Macarthur didn't believe in Limited Atonement until 1995 (or where abouts)


----------



## raekwon

holyfool33 said:


> That's sad to hear that just a couple months back I learned Macarthur didn't believe in Limited Atonement until 1995 (or where abouts)



Does this make him not Calvinist enough or something? I don't understand.


----------



## holyfool33

raekwon said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's sad to hear that just a couple months back I learned Macarthur didn't believe in Limited Atonement until 1995 (or where abouts)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this make him not Calvinist enough or something? I don't understand.
Click to expand...


Not really just inconsistent.


----------



## raekwon

If it's indeed true that he only came to believe in Limited Atonement in 1995, he's consistently believed it for the past 13 years, yes? It might be different if he came to believe in it last week, but 13 years isn't exactly a short time.

(I apologize if I appear argumentative. I just don't understand why it matters.)


----------

