# The difference between permitting and doing



## SebastianClinciuJJ (Apr 26, 2019)

It is a well know fact that Calvin rejected the language that "something took place by the permission of God, but not also by the will of God." (_Institutes_, I. XVIII. I) 
It’s intersting that, after rejecting the language of permission, he cites Augustine using language of permission and takes no issue with him. (_Institutes_, I. XVIII. III)  
The WCF 5.4 also seems to reject the same thing.
But I also see Reformed theologians using the concept and language of _God's permission of sin_ (example: R.C. Sproul in _Chosen by God_)

Can someone expound on the difference between "bare permission", "permission" and "doing"?


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 26, 2019)

SebastianClinciuJJ said:


> It is a well know fact that Calvin rejected the language that "something took place by the permission of God, but not also by the will of God.". The WCF 5.4 also seems to reject the same thing.
> But I also see Reformed theologians using the concept and language of _God's permission of sin_ (example: R.C. Sproul in _Chosen by God_)
> 
> Can someone expound on the difference between "bare permission", "permission" and "doing"?


What’s the context? ‘Permission’ may be used in the context of sin to denote a right relationship between God and sin


----------



## SebastianClinciuJJ (Apr 26, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> What’s the context? Permission mat be used in the context of sin to denote a right relationship between God and sin



The context is the relationship between sin and the providence of God. I am sorry for my lack of clarity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 26, 2019)

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, (((not willing))) that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

How can God be ‘not willing’ if all things are God’s will. So I do think context is important. I do believe everything that comes to pass is ordained by God.


----------



## KMK (Apr 26, 2019)

Book I; Chapter 18
Book II; Chapter 4
Book III; Chapter 23.8


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2019)

Permission, willing, and doing are human concepts. I don't know the exact way they relate to God, and no one but God does. I can analogicaly understand them as far as it goes. But never in a univocal way. God chose those words and ideas in scripture to best reveal is nature to us.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

How are you defining the will of God? 

His secret providence? His revealed will? His general disposition? 

A thing can be within the will of God and still yet not be in the will of God. God's will is that we should be holy, and yet we sin. We use one word in English and yet there are several concepts at work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2019)

Both. Permissive, decreetal, and his use of primary and secondary causes are all his will. The distinctions are logical. Ontologically we don't know the difference, nor could we. As far as definitions go, however the traditional reformed are is how I would define them. I'm about to start work so I don't have my books. I can look it up when I get home.


----------



## terry43 (Apr 26, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, (((not willing))) that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
> 
> How can God be ‘not willing’ if all things are God’s will. So I do think context is important. I do believe everything that comes to pass is ordained by God.



I believe in context that refers to the elect not all men in general ...

If we really believe in the sovereignty of God we must also believe that He alone controls all the events and actions of men .

And yes that would include the evil works of men.. God means them for good and for his purposes


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Both. Permissive, decreetal, and his use of primary and secondary causes are all his will. The distinctions are logical. Ontologically we don't know the difference, nor could we. As far as definitions go, however the traditional reformed are is how I would define them. I'm about to start work so I don't have my books. I can look it up when I get home.



We can know the difference insofar as the Word of God tells us. 

For instance, when it comes to predestination, the Elect are chosen by God for salvation out of the mass of condemned humanity. But the wicked are passed over and fall by their own weight of sin. There is a qualitative difference.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 26, 2019)

"Bare permission" means God foresaw (in the sense of looking into the future) something happen and let it happen; "bare permission" entails that God lets things happen for reasons besides the good pleasure of His will. The Confession rejects this sort of permission: all future events happen by the positive decree and good pleasure of God. However, to avoid the charge of God being the author of sin, it needs to be qualified that sinful actions (like the Fall)--although ordained according to the good pleasure of God--are not pleasing in and of themselves to God. So God is "pleased to permit" sinful actions: the sin does not please him (hence "permit"), but God, according to the good pleasure of His will, ordained it to happen and ordained Himself to overrule it for good and for His glory.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> "Bare permission" means God foresaw (in the sense of looking into the future) something happen and let it happen; "bare permission" entails that God lets things happen for reasons besides the good pleasure of His will. The Confession rejects this sort of permission: all future events happen by the positive decree and good pleasure of God. However, to avoid the charge of God being the author of sin, it needs to be qualified that sinful actions (like the Fall)--although ordained according to the good pleasure of God--are not pleasing in and of themselves to God. So God is "pleased to permit" sinful actions: the sin does not please him (hence "permit"), but God, according to the good pleasure of His will, ordained it to happen and ordained Himself to overrule it for good and for His glory.



So God is both pleased and displeased with the same action, right? In a different sense.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> So God is both pleased and displeased with the same action, right? In a different sense.


Yes. Sinful actions in and of themselves are displeasing to God because they are contrary to His law. However, God is pleased with the action happening insofar as He determined to use it for His own holy purposes. There is usually also a distinction between the action as an action and the moral quality of the action. God concurs with the action as it is an action (He must Providentially sustain and direct the action in order for it to take place), but as to its moral qualities, the sin proceeds from the creature. Things that are sinful for men to do are not sinful for God to ordain because the evil moral quality belongs to the creature and God is the moral governor of the universe and so, e.g., God will use the sinful actions of men to punish the sins of others. With the same action, men intend it for evil, but God intends it for good.


----------



## terry43 (Apr 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> We can know the difference insofar as the Word of God tells us.
> 
> For instance, when it comes to predestination, the Elect are chosen by God for salvation out of the mass of condemned humanity. But the wicked are passed over and fall by their own weight of sin. There is a qualitative difference.




I am an unashamed Supralapsarian double predestinarian ... God is God, he created the elect and created the reprobate both for His glory

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> So God is both pleased and displeased with the same action, right? In a different sense.



Calvin:

"He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

terry43 said:


> I am an unashamed Supralapsarian double predestinarian ... God is God, he created the elect and created the reprobate both for His glory



You are in serious error if you believe God predestines people to hell in the same manner as he predestines to heaven. You should be ashamed rather than unashamed of your doctrine.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

The _Canons of Dordt_ (Chapter) I, Article 15:

"What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election, is the express testimony of sacred Scripture, that not all, but s_*ome only are elected, while others are passed by*_ in the eternal election of God; whom God, out of his sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to _*leave in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves*_, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but _*leaving them*_ in his just judgment to follow their own ways, at last for the declaration of his justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger thereof."

The _Westminster Confession of Faith_ Chapter III, Articles iii and vii:

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, s_*ome men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death *_(iii).

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His 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 dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (vii)."

Notice the difference in language. 

Neither of these statements state that God predestined people to hell. People are predestined for heaven and passed over and left to go to hell. 

It is all ordained in God's decree, but the manner of execution is different. 

Rather than a person throwing people into a fire, the biblical doctrine is more akin to a person who helps some people already falling into the fire and then choosing not to help others already falling into hell and letting them continue their own downward path.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You are in serious error if you believe God predestines people to hell in the same manner as he predestines to heaven. You should be ashamed rather than unashamed of your doctrine.


That may be overstating it. I think she just means she has a high view of God’s elective decree. In which all Reformed would ultimately agree, no? But I understand where you are coming from. It is tragic that any go lost, and if not for the grace of God so would we go. I don’t feel very proud about it, if anything it should make me tremble. It’s pretty sobering stuff

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 26, 2019)

I’m wondering if there is a distinction between vessels of wrath, vessels of mercy and a 3rd category of those who are simply passed over. (May be morally good in an outward sense, but reprobate nonetheless) ... I’m probably wrong about this 3rd category, but just wondering if all non elect are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction the way Pharoah was?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> We can know the difference insofar as the Word of God tells us.
> 
> For instance, when it comes to predestination, the Elect are chosen by God for salvation out of the mass of condemned humanity. But the wicked are passed over and fall by their own weight of sin. There is a qualitative difference.


Yes, but how "chosen" and "passing over" work in God's being is not something we can understand exactly. The word does tell us the what (distinctions) not the why or how of differences. This is a mystery.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Yes, but how "chosen" and "passing over" work in God's being is not something we can understand exactly. The word does tell us the what (distinctions) not the why or how of differences. This is a mystery.



Why don't have to know why. We are told the ultimate reason is God's glory.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> That may be overstating it. I think she just means she has a high view of God’s elective decree. In which all Reformed would ultimately agree, no? But I understand where you are coming from. It is tragic that any go lost, and if not for the grace of God so would we go. I don’t feel very proud about it, if anything it should make me tremble. It’s pretty sobering stuff



Those reformed creeds I quoted state a clear distinction between Predestination and Reprobation/Preterition. 

We run the danger of painting a false image of God if we don't honor these distinctions.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 26, 2019)

It is not as if humans are in a neutral position and then God comes along and says,
_
Eenie meenie miney mell, 
You go to heaven, you go to hell._

No, humans are chosen out of the mass of fallen humanity and the rest left. That is the language of the confessions. There is an asymmetry.

When we read in the Bible of predestination and being chosen, it is always a positive and gracious act. "Greek Scriptural terms for predestination are always reserved in Scripture for God’s gracious, positive blessings given to God’s fore-loved people." (Travis Fenniman).

In RC Sproul's _Chosen But Free_, Chapter on Double Predestination, he writes the following:

_“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.”_

I agree with Sproul


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 26, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Why don't have to know why. We are told the ultimate reason is God's glory.


True but that's not enough to make an understanding of the different distinctions in God's will.


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2019)

Calvin again:

"And in this way, while acting wickedly, we serve his righteous ordination, since in his boundless wisdom he well knows how to use bad instruments for good purposes."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 26, 2019)

Gen. 50:20

"But as for you, *you* *meant evil* against me; but *God meant it for good*, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You are in serious error if you believe God predestines people to hell in the same manner as he predestines to heaven. You should be ashamed rather than unashamed of your doctrine.




Calvin, John. Institutes of Christian religion.
Section 5 in Chapter 21:

All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.​
I think Calvinists fear that saying that God predestinates people to hell, they are afraid that they are giving God "a bad name" Scripture tells us clearly that God MAKES some for His wrath .

So wiggle if you will .. But do consider if God just "passes over" men He has in effect predestinated them to hell.. unless you want to wander into arminian theology that they can will a difference in this decision

God is glorified by His mercy and His justice and His wrath ...I will not steal the glory from Him


----------



## terry43 (Apr 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> 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 term "hypercalvinism " is a sign hung around the neck of any Calvinist that will not at least consider just a bit of Arminian theology .. Arminians use it to silence the 5 points of Calvinism .
Believing that God decrees both life and death does not meet the "definition " So I suggest using it with care about people with which you hold a slight doctrinal difference


Hyper-Calvinism, previously known as High Calvinism, is a branch of Protestant theology that (1) denies a general design in the death of Jesus Christ, (2) the idea of an indiscriminate free offer of the gospel to all persons and a universal duty to believe the Lord Jesus Christ died for them. It is at times regarded as a variation of Calvinism, but critics emphasize its differences to traditional Calvinistic beliefs. – George Croft
https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/11/23/some-clarity-on-hyper-calvinism-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt/​


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You are in serious error if you believe God predestines people to hell in the same manner as he predestines to heaven. You should be ashamed rather than unashamed of your doctrine.



I am glad the Supra vs. Infra debate is ended once and for all. From now on I will try to be _ashamed_ of my _serious error_.

1 Peter 2:7-8
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 27, 2019)

terry43 said:


> Calvin, John. Institutes of Christian religion.
> Section 5 in Chapter 21:
> 
> All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.​
> ...



"Modern Calvinists respond to the ethical dilemma of double predestination by explaining that God's active predestination is only for the elect. God provides grace to the elect causing salvation, but for the damned God withholds salvific grace. Calvinists teach that God remains just and fair in creating persons he predestines to damnation because although God unilaterally works in the elect producing regeneration, God does not actively force the damned to sin. It is not the view of any of the Reformed confessions, which speak of God passing over rather than actively reprobating the damned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Calvinism

"The WCF uses different words for the act of God's election and reprobation: "predestinated" and "foreordained" respectively. This suggests that the two do not operate in the same way. The term "equal ultimacy" is sometimes used of the view that the two decrees are symmetrical: God works equally to keep the elect in heaven and the reprobate out of heaven. This view is sometimes erroneously referred to as "double predestination", on which see above. R. C. Sproul argues against this position on the basis that it implies God "actively intervenes to work sin" in the lives of the reprobate."

There is no equal ultimacy. It is asymmetrical, God predestines some out of the mass of fallen man to be saved, and leaves the rest in their sin.

I will not steal God's glory, but will use the words Scripture uses on this issue and not use my own rationalistic categories to defend the error of High Calvinism on this point.

The Confession NEVER uses the term predestination with reference to the reprobate.

God discriminates among men considered as sinners and does not choose to damn some men before he chooses to create them. Election is in the context of the Fall, the infralapserian order of the decree prevails. Most Reformed theologians have held to infralapserianism and have reserved the language of predestination for the elect and passing by/reprobation for the non-elect. There is something more active about predestination, whereas reprobation is the choice to leave in sin and withhold grace.

Rev. Lane Keister explains it well in another thread:

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


Of course, there is more nuance than that. God passes by the reprobate, but that does not mean that God is passive in his decree. All of history is within his will. God's will is done. While God does not cause man to sin, in the context of man's sinning, God often removes restraints and punishes sin with more sin and hardness of heart with more hardness (but even in Romans 1 this is called a "giving over" of the sinner). This is an imperfect analogy, but God does not push more darkness into the heart of the sinner, but removes the little light there is so that the darkness takes greater control. While this, too, is part of God's will, it is not an active causation of sin by God towards the sinner. God even shapes the circumstances so that a sinner will be destroyed, as in the case of Pharaoh, and yet God never caused that king to sin.

We can say that God acted positvely to give grace to the Elect. But just as God did not positively cause Adam to fall, those already fallen in Adam do not need God to push them down into hell...they are already falling there by their own weight. Even when God "hardens" a man, that is nothing more than withholding of grace and restraints and merely allows the sinner full vent without restraint to his sin. The language of Romans 9:22 does not negate this, sinners are prepared and reserved to destruction by God's withholding of grace and God's providences in their lives.

Scripture backs up this asymmetry. God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, says Ezekiel 18). Yet many other passages speak of the delight in God's salvation of His elect.

This issue is not merely a matter of semantics, nor a distinction without a difference. It defends the goodness of God and also sticks more closely to the Scripture's language and the phrasing of the Confession, who intentionally chose to use different terms for Election and Reprobation (predestined for the former, and passed by or passed over for the Reprobate). Again, Scripture speaks of predestination only with relation to graces and blessings (and predestination is usually closely linked to being in Christ, see Ephesians chapter 1).

The High Calvinist makes God the author of sins, both Adam's and ours. God permitted the Fall of Adam, God did not make Adam Fall. Yet his fall was certain and willed by God. And now, God does something for the elect by giving graces, but actively choooses NOT to do something for the reprobate. A withholding can be said to be active, as well, but God cannot be blamed for choosing to do nothing because His choice to do nothing for the reprobate is done within the context of a fallen humanity and not a sinless neutral race. A Governor choosing NOT to act to pardon all the sinners on death row does not actively choose to kill the prisoners...they are already heading in that direction, after all. But He does act by withholding, and that withholding is part of his will. The same applies to God.


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert (Apr 27, 2019)

terry43 said:


> Calvin, John. Institutes of Christian religion.
> Section 5 in Chapter 21:
> 
> All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.​
> ...



Hello Terry,

There is a two-fold act (at least) to God's decree in reprobation. You are affirming the positive as when God predamns a soul to hell (Rom. 9:18) and is a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction but neglecting the negative aspect when God passes over some by depriving them of grace (Matt. 13:11).

The sinner left to himself will naturally follow the course of his corrupted will into deeper sin thus storing up wrath for himself.

Therefore in the negative aspect, the Lord is supreme and does what he wills and denies grace ( Matt. 11:25). But in the positive, he is the righteous judge who sentences sinners to damnation.

I don't deny what Calvin says but I think some distinctions need to be laid out.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> "Modern Calvinists respond to the ethical dilemma of double predestination by explaining that God's active predestination is only for the elect. God provides grace to the elect causing salvation, but for the damned God withholds salvific grace. Calvinists teach that God remains just and fair in creating persons he predestines to damnation because although God unilaterally works in the elect producing regeneration, God does not actively force the damned to sin. It is not the view of any of the Reformed confessions, which speak of God passing over rather than actively reprobating the damned."




In my untrained Calvinist mind, this is pure PC language, again trying not to sound "harsh" or unloving or "tarnishing " God's character

God does not need us to bend or stretch our language to defend His honor or sovereignty. "Modern Calvinists " ??? ( not sure how God has changed to keep pace with "modern times")

God does not need my defense or the defense of any man.
What this seems to me is word play.. we can all agree (I hope) that God is sovereign in both salvation and reprobation . If God chooses not to save a man He has in effect predestined that man to hell ... no matter how one choses to "word" it ... Whether God pointed at a man and said "I predestine you to hell" or not the effect is the same ...God has positively predestined it . He will not change His mind or be talked out of it.. it is a surety ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 27, 2019)

terry43 said:


> In my untrained Calvinist mind, this is pure PC language, again trying not to sound "harsh" or unloving or "tarnishing " God's character
> 
> God does not need us to bend or stretch our language to defend His honor or sovereignty. "Modern Calvinists " ??? ( not sure how God has changed to keep pace with "modern times")
> 
> ...



I guess R.C. Sproul is "PC" then? Or the many Reformed theologians that affirm what I wrote. 

Nuance is not the same as word-play.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I guess R.C. Sproul is "PC"



RC also said that Christ could have sinned. Should we believe that too? That's a bizarre thought.
BTW - I donate $25 per month to Ligonier and have for some time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 27, 2019)

I sure miss Patrick (Ask Mr. Religion). We could use him on this one.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 27, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> I sure miss Patrick (Ask Mr. Religion). We could use him on this one.




Patrick said the following:

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

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


----------



## timfost (Apr 27, 2019)

terry43 said:


> In my untrained Calvinist mind, this is pure PC language, again trying not to sound "harsh" or unloving or "tarnishing " God's character
> 
> God does not need us to bend or stretch our language to defend His honor or sovereignty. "Modern Calvinists " ??? ( not sure how God has changed to keep pace with "modern times")
> 
> ...



You're right-- God doesn't need any justification. 

I also know that double predestination is affirmed by Calvin. I would hesitate to demonize the doctrine, though we should acknowledge it is a logical doctrine, not one that explicitly derives from biblical wording.

For this reason, double predestination is not the wording of either Dort or the Westminster standards. The absence of this wording neither affirms or denies the use of the word. However, we should note that our confessions use biblical wording on these points.

Notice Westminster's use in 3:3-4:

"III By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are *predestinated* 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 can not be either increased or diminished."

Notice that the confession does not _positively affirm_ double predestination. 

For myself, I try to stick to biblical/confessional terminology on these points, so I do not espouse the terminology of double predestination myself. However, I don't have any significant issue with those who use the terminology when it's understood and definitely properly.

Concerning the symmetry, I think most would acknowledge an asymmetry in predestination/preterition, namely that for one to believe, _God must positively intervene_. Does God need to positively intervene to harden someone? Of course not! In fact, hardening is a withdrawing the general restraining work if the Spirit. Softening is God intervening, giving us a new heart and imputing a foreign righteousness.

Hopefully this helps...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 27, 2019)

timfost said:


> In fact, hardening is a withdrawing the general restraining work if the Spirit. Softening is God intervening, giving us a new heart and imputing a foreign righteousness.



This is an interesting in family discussion ..

I think the "withdrawing' of the 'general restraining' work of the Spirit is an affirmative act of God for His purpose...not a coincidental random act of the 3rd person .

I look at the words "predestined" and "foreordained" as the same word
and so does the dictionary
*verb (used with object), pre·des·tined, pre·des·tin·ing.*
to destine in advance; foreordain; predetermine:He seemed predestined for the ministry.

And likewise the greek meaning ..so we could easily read the confession

"III By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are *predestinated* unto everlasting life, and others *foreordained (predestined )*to everlasting death.

I know some took offense at my calling this PC or word play .. but it does seem the distinction made in the confessions is to "soften" the idea that God could or would predestine a man to hell


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

terry43 said:


> This is an interesting in family discussion ..
> 
> I think the "withdrawing' of the 'general restraining' work of the Spirit is an affirmative act of God for His purpose...not a coincidental random act of the 3rd person .
> 
> ...



You seem to have added to the Confession in your post above. The Confession actually says:

"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, s_ome men and angels are *predestinated* unto everlasting life; and others *foreordained* to everlasting death _(iii).

Those that wrote the Confession wrote "foreordained" and not "predestined to everlasting death" for a reason. They surely were not PC and knew the semantical differences, and intentional chose the language above. 

Language makes a difference.


----------



## timfost (Apr 28, 2019)

terry43 said:


> I think the "withdrawing' of the 'general restraining' work of the Spirit is an affirmative act of God for His purpose...not a coincidental random act of the 3rd person .



Certainly the Spirit is withdrawn from some according to God's decree. We need to be careful not to think of these doctrines as mutual exclusives.



> I look at the words "predestined" and "foreordained" as the same word
> and so does the dictionary
> *verb (used with object), pre·des·tined, pre·des·tin·ing.*
> to destine in advance; foreordain; predetermine:He seemed predestined for the ministry.
> ...



And many do make this connection. You may want to look closer at both the Greek and context though before discounting as PC.



> I know some took offense at my calling this PC or word play .. but it does seem the distinction made in the confessions is to "soften" the idea that God could or would predestine a man to hell



I think you need to steer away from "if, then" kind of conclusions without carefully studying the issue. Is this terminology to "soften" or to describe a sensitive topic biblically? Charity is in order.

I've quoted Bavinck below as this topic relates nicely to the OP as well as this discussion.

Blessings!

"To be sure, sin should not be referred to “bare foreknowledge and permission”; in a certain sense, the fall, sin, and eternal punishment are included in God's decree and willed by him. But this is true in a certain sense only, and not in the same sense as grace and salvation. These are the objects of his delight; but God does not delight in sin, neither has he pleasure in punishment. When he makes sin subservient to his glory, he does this by means of the exercise of his omnipotence, but to glorify God is contrary to sin's nature. And when he punishes the wicked, he does not take delight in their sufferings as such, but in this punishment he celebrates, the triumph of his virtues, Deut. 28:63; Ps. 2:4; Prov. 1:26; Lam. 3:33. Accordingly, though on the one hand, with a view to the all-comprehensive and immutable character of God's counsel, it is not wrong to speak of a “twofold predestination” (gemina praedestinatio); nevertheless, on the other hand, we must be careful to keep in mind that in the one case predestination is of a different nature than in the other. “Predestination is the disposition, goal and ordination of the means with a view to a goal. Since eternal damnation is not the goal but merely the termination of a person's life, therefore reprobation cannot properly be classified under predestination. For these two things are in conflict with each other: to ordain unto a goal and to ordain unto damnation. For by reason of its very nature, every goal is the very best something, the perfection of an object; damnation, however, is the extreme evil and the greatest imperfection; hence the expression `God has predestinated some men unto damnation' is incorrect.” Hence, no matter how often and clearly Scripture tells us that sin and punishment were ordained by God, nevertheless, the words “purpose” (prothesis),“foreknowledge” (prognosis)and “foreordination” (proorismos)are used almost exclusively with reference to “predestination unto glory.” In the third place, there is still another ground for the assertion that those err who coordinate “predestination unto eternal death” with “predestination unto eternal life,” and view the former as a goal in the same sense as the latter; while it is true that certain individuals constitute the object of reprobation, the human race under a new Head, namely Christ, is the object of election; hence, by grace not only certain individuals are saved, but the human race itself together with the entire cosmos is saved."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## terry43 (Apr 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> You seem to have added to the Confession in your post above. The Confession actually says:
> 
> "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, s_ome men and angels are *predestinated* unto everlasting life; and others *foreordained* to everlasting death _(iii).
> 
> ...



My point was the words men the same thing ..foreordained and predestined mean the same thing..


----------



## terry43 (Apr 28, 2019)

> the human race under a new Head, namely Christ, is the object of election; hence, by grace not only certain individuals are saved,* but the human race itself together with the entire cosmos is saved.*"




Could you clarify what exactly the quoted author meant by this?


----------



## timfost (Apr 28, 2019)

terry43 said:


> Could you clarify what exactly the quoted author meant by this?



I don't want want to derail the thread, so this should answer the question about Bavinck's meaning, but further discussion on the topic would probably be better left to a separate thread.

"Although vicarious atonement as the acquisition of salvation in its totality cannot therefore be expanded to include all persons individually, this is not to say that it has no significance for those who are lost. Between the church and the world there is, at this point, not just separation and contrast. It is not the case that Christ has acquired everything for the former and nothing for the latter. In rejecting universalism one may not forget that Christ’s merit has its limits even for the church and its value and meaning for the world. In the first place, it must be remembered, after all, that though Christ as such is indeed the Re-creator, he is not the Creator of all things. Just as the Son follows the Father, so re-creation presupposes creation, grace presupposes nature, and regeneration presupposes birth. Not included in Christ’s merits, strictly speaking, is the fact that the elect are born and live, that they receive food, shelter, clothing, and an assortment of natural benefits. One can say that God would no longer have allowed the world and humankind to exist had he not had another and higher purpose for it. Common grace is indeed subservient to special grace, and along with salvation God also grants the elect many other, natural, blessings (Matt. 6:33; Rom. 8:28, 32; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3). Still it is wrong, with the Herrnhuter and Pietists, to erase the boundaries between nature and grace, creation and redemption, and to put Christ in the Father’s place on the throne of the universe. Even election and the covenant of grace, presupposing as they do the objects of the one and the participants of the other, were not acquired by Christ but precede his merits. With his creation the Father lays the groundwork for the work of re-creation and leads toward it. With his work, on the other hand, the Son goes back deeply–as far as sin reaches–into the work of creation. Still the two works are distinct and In the second place, Christ did not, for each of his own, acquire the same thing.

There is diversity among believers before they come to the faith, difference in gender, age, class, rank, character, gifts, and so on, and also in the measure and degree of wickedness and corruption. And when they come to the faith, there is diversity in the grace given them. Grace is given to each according to the measure Christ has bestowed (Rom. l2:3; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 3:7; 4:7). The natural diversity among people, though cleansed by grace, is not erased. By the diversity of spiritual gifts, it is even increased, for the body of Christ consists of many members in order that it may be one organism, God’s own creation and masterpiece.

Third, though the church is not of the world it is nevertheless in it. It lives and moves squarely within that world and is connected with it in numerous different ways. Believers are brought in from the human race, and, conversely, there is much chaff among the wheat; there are branches on the vine that bear no fruit and must be eradicated. When Christ went to stand in the place of his own, therefore, he had to assume the flesh and blood that is common to all people. By his incarnation, he honored the whole human race; according to the flesh, he is the brother of all the members of the human family. And also his work has value for all, even for those who have not believed and will never believe in him. For though it is true that Christ did not, strictly speaking, acquire the natural life by his suffering and death, yet the human race was spared on account of the fact that Christ would come to save it. Christ is not the head of all human beings, not the prophet, priest, and king of everyone, for he is the head of the church and has been anointed king over Zion. Yet all human beings owe a great deal to Christ. The light shines in the darkness and illumines every person coming into the world. The world was made through him and remains so, though it did not recognize him. Also as the Christ, he gives to unbelievers many benefits: the call of the gospel, the warning to repent, historical faith, a virtuous life, a variety of gifts and powers, offices and ministries within the church, such as, for example, even the office of an apostle in the case of Judas. "Without Jesus Christ the world would not exist, for it would necessarily either be destroyed or be a hell" (Pascal). Even hanging from the cross, he still prays for forgiveness for the appalling sin being committed by the Jews at that very moment.

Fourth, Christ’s work even extends to the world of irrational creatures. One cannot, with Origen, say that Christ suffered somewhat for them and merited something for them. But when Christ was made to be sin and bore the sin of the world, he also nullified sin with all its consequences. The liberation of the created world from the bondage of decay, the glorification of creation, the renewal of heaven and earth-all this is the fruit of the cross of Christ (Rom. 8: 19f£)."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 28, 2019)

Some thoughts I wrote years ago might prove relevant to the discussion. Particularly toward the end but the context from which I drew at the time was libertarian freedom. 

More and more people who _consider themselves_ consistently Reformed Christians defend the tenets of libertarian free will (LFW), while not claiming the label “libertarian” for themselves. Nonetheless, they argue for the power of contrary choice, even while claiming it is compatible with divine omniscience. What is even worse is that if one dare defend the _necessity_ of the will (especially in the context of the prelapsarian state), which is the only option aside from pure contingency, it is often alleged that he has denied the Reformed confessions while making God out to be the “the author of sin”, a term that is rarely defined by those who employ it most.

I will not provide here a refutation of LFW, nor will I go into any great detail regarding how it is incompatible with God’s omniscience. I have done that most extensively elsewhere on this Blog. I will, however, provide several quotations from past and present theologians that clearly indicate that this is not a new thought, that LFW is incompatible with divine omniscience. That is to say, LFW logically leads to Open Theism, which is simply a resurrection of sixteenth century Socinianism with respect to God’s knowledge. What this means is that the most distinguishing factor of Arminian theology, if taken to its logical end, leads to a rank heresy, the denial of God’s exhaustive omniscience.

“Ironically, the openness critique at this point strongly resembles the long-standing kind of criticism that many Calvinists have given to the classical Arminian model…Open Theists and these Calvinists agree... that classical Arminianism is seriously flawed in at least two of its major tenets: namely, that… exhaustive divine foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian freedom....” *Bruce A. Ware* (p. 41 God’s Lesser Glory)

“Hence, the Arminian should be driven by consistency to the conclusion of the Socinian, limiting God’s knowledge.” *R.L. Dabney* (p. 220 Systematic Theology)

“If [liberty of indifference] be the true theory of the will, God could not execute his decree without violating the liberty of the agent, and certain foreknowledge would be impossible.” *A.A. Hodge*(p. 210 Outlines of Theology)

“Libertarianism is inconsistent, not only with God’s foreordination of all things, but also with his knowledge of future events.” *John Frame* (p. 143 The Doctrine of God)

“Moreover, not only are such contingencies not knowable to God, but also such ‘future, free contingencies’ _do not and cannot even exist_because they do not exist in God’s mind as an aspect of the universe whose every event he certainly decreed, creatively caused and completely and providentially governs.” *Robert L. Reymond* (p. 189 A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith)

“Actions that are in no way determined by God, directly or indirectly, but are wholly dependent on the arbitrary will of man, can hardly be the object of divine foreknowledge.” *L. Berkhof* (p. 68 Systematic Theology)

“But God’s omniscience is limited by what is knowable. If Jones is indeterministically free, then it is not knowable, either to God or to us or to any other observer, what Jones will do when, in a given set of circumstances, he is confronted with a choice.” *Paul Helm* (p. 61 The Providence of God)

“To suppose the future volitions of moral agents not to be necessary events; or, which is the same thing, events which it is not impossible but that they may not come to pass; and yet to suppose that God certainly knows them, and knows all things, is to suppose God’s knowledge to be inconsistent with itself. For to say, that God certainly, and without all conjecture, knows that a thing will infallibly be, which at the same time he knows to be so contingent that it may possibly not be, is to suppose his knowledge inconsistent with itself; or that one thing that he knows, is utterly inconsistent with another that he knows. It is the same thing as to say, he now knows a proposition to be of certain infallible truth, which he knows to be of contingent uncertain truth." *Jonathan Edwards* (p. 137 Freedom of the Will)

The libertarian who wants to hold onto the orthodoxy of divine omniscience asserts that Corey will choose x, not necessarily but contingently. Of course a contingent x, by definition, truly might not occur. Accordingly, all Arminians are left with God knowing that x might not occur while knowing it will occur – but these are contradictory truths and, therefore, impossible for God to know; if x _will _occur, then it is philosophically false that it _might_ occur. Consequently, God would have to know contradictory truths given LFW. He would have to know contingently true, conditional propositions about creaturely free actions couched in the subjunctive mood; such as, _if Corey were in state of affairs y, he would freely choose x_. Such an alleged truth cannot come from God’s necessary knowledge since the truth would be contingently true, making its truth-maker itself, nothing or some unknown entity residing outside of God and his control.

Why then would so many people who call themselves “Reformed” hold to a theory of the will that if consistently maintained would lead to a denial of God's omniscience? My guess is that they would like to protect God from being the “author of sin”, but in doing so they would have God not be God.

*God is often pleased to lead his people into temptation:*

The Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray, _“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”_ What does such a petition presuppose? It presupposes “that the most wise, righteous, and gracious God, for divers holy and just ends, may so order things, that we may be assaulted, foiled, and for a time led captive by temptations.” (Westminster Larger Catechism: answer 195)

*God tempts no man:*

Certainly the Catechism does not contradict Scripture where it states: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” James 1:13, 14

*The biblical balance:*

We must do justice to both truths. Although God is not a tempter, he nonetheless, according to the counsel of his own will, sovereignly upholds, directs and disposes all creatures, actions and things, to the end that even his people may be assaulted, foiled and even _led captive by temptations_, precisely as God has determined, for his own glory and our profit. Matthew 4:1 couldn't be more explicit: "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil."

*Does God merely "permit" sin?*

"[Permits] is the preferred term in Arminian theology, in which it amounts to a denial that God causes sin. For the Arminian, God does not cause sin; he only permits it. Reformed theologians have also used the term, but they have insisted that God permission of sin is no less efficacious than his ordination of good." *John Frame* (p. 177 The Doctrine of God)

"But it is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them." *John Calvin* (p. 176 Concerning the Eternal Predestination)

“By calling it permissive… we mean that they are such acts as He efficiently brings about by simply leaving the spontaneity of other free agents, as upheld by His providence, to work of itself under incitements, occasions, bounds and limitations, which His wisdom and power throw around.” *R.L. Dabney* (p. 214 Systematic Theology)

John Frame dissents from the Arminian view, which is that God does not cause sin and that he only permits it. Rather, Frame acknowledges that God’s ordination of sin is as equally _efficacious_ as his ordination of good. As for Dabney, he is pleased to acknowledge that the _incitements_ of sin (which are no less than the provocations or urgings) come from God’s providential wisdom and power, which he is pleased to “throw around.” Many today (those whom I call the “keepers of the Confession”) would hold Calvin in contempt of the Westminster standards, even if he merely meant by “author” the determiner or _author_ of history, within which sin abounds. However, when people have not internalized their doctrine, any theological statement that does not use the precise language of the Confession is considered _ipso facto_ unorthodox _theology_, regardless of content or intent, which is all too rarely lost on the "keepers of the Confession." Did not the Divines, after all, have to in some measure deviate from biblical language in order to exegete biblical meaning? To merely parrot the same words as what is contained in a passage or doctrinal statement conveys no understanding of the meaning of what is under consideration. If I want someone to explain to me the book of Job, the last thing I want is only to be read the book of Job.

“And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.’” *Job 2:6*


----------



## timfost (Apr 28, 2019)

terry43 said:


> My point was the words men the same thing ..foreordained and predestined mean the same thing..



It is one thing to believe personally that they mean the same thing. It's another to say that the confession uses them interchangeably. Fesko goes into the historical context in ch. 4 of his book _The Theology of the Westminster Standards_. The divines split hairs over this terminology.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 28, 2019)

I have not been able to read every post in this thread, but I get the impression that confusion has emerged because some are equating double predestination with what is known as Equal Ultimacy. 

I have no problem with the term double predestination, but Perg is technically correct to note that the Westminster Confession does not employ that language and uses predestination with reference to grace and glory: "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." (WCF 3.3)

Having said that, the Confession does use the terms predestination and foreordination interchangeably in relation to the elect (3.5, 6), so I would be wary about making too much out of the distinction. Also, the Westminster Standards do not exclude supralapsarianism - otherwise Samuel Rutherford would never have subscribed to them (see Guy Richard's _CPJ_ article on Rutherford and the lapsarian question at the Westminster Assembly).


----------



## timfost (Apr 28, 2019)

RWD said:


> Some thoughts I wrote years ago might prove relevant to the discussion. Particularly toward the end but the context from which I drew at the time was libertarian freedom.
> 
> More and more people who _consider themselves_ consistently Reformed Christians defend the tenets of libertarian free will (LFW), while not claiming the label “libertarian” for themselves. Nonetheless, they argue for the power of contrary choice, even while claiming it is compatible with divine omniscience. What is even worse is that if one dare defend the _necessity_ of the will (especially in the context of the prelapsarian state), which is the only option aside from pure contingency, it is often alleged that he has denied the Reformed confessions while making God out to be the “the author of sin”, a term that is rarely defined by those who employ it most.
> 
> ...



Hi Ron,

What are your thoughts on this?

I'm no expert in this area, but I'm wondering if your writing takes into account pre and post Enlightenment thought, particularly relating to Jonathan Edwards? Fesko's book (quoted from above) goes into a lot of detail on this issue. He states:

"One has to wonder whether this perception of the nature of the decree has been caused by reading the Confession in the light of later developments in Reformed theology rather than in its own historical-theological context. A factor contributing to the misreading of the Confession is the theology of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), who denied the idea of contingency, something the Confession affirms."

I'm not certain that affirmation of the power of contrary choice is necessarily LFW.

I appreciate your thoughts on this.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

terry43 said:


> My point was the words men the same thing ..foreordained and predestined mean the same thing..



But they DON'T.

Predestination always occurs referring to God's grace and blessings.... a positive thing. And often it is closely joined to the Person of Jesus Christ...

Skim over Ephesians 1:

-He hath chosen us in Him
-having predestined us to be His own adopted children
-He hath made us accepted in His Beloved
-In Christ
-In Christ
-In Christ
-In Christ....

Don't ever separate predestination from Jesus.

Not pardoning a convicted killer on death row and letting him be executed justly is different than sneaking into the cell and murdering him in his sleep. God's choice to pass by sinners and let them fall by their own gravity of sin is not the same as causing them to sin or pushing them down.

The distinction is important to defend the goodness of God. God is not merely will; God is love.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 28, 2019)

Just to be clear, if it has not already been stated, the notion of Equal Ultimacy was rejected by the Reformed churches, as we clearly see in the conclusion to the Canons of Dort:

That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is noting more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that noting can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute tot their salvation; *that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety*; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them;" *and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul*.


----------



## timfost (Apr 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> God's choice to pass by sinners and let them fall by their own gravity of sin is not the same as causing them to sin or pushing them down.
> 
> The distinction is important to defend the goodness of God. God is not merely will; God is love.



Perg, 

Although I'm in general agreement with you about not using the terminology of "predestination of the reprobate," I do want to caution that those who affirm double predestination do not necessarily think God causes sin and pushed them down. I think we can have different word preference and still affirm the same truths in the means God uses to harden, etc.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have not been able to read every post in this thread, but I get the impression that confusion has emerged because some are equating double predestination with what is known as Equal Ultimacy.
> 
> I have no problem with the term double predestination, but Perg is technically correct to note that the Westminster Confession does not employ that language and uses predestination with reference to grace and glory: "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." (WCF 3.3)
> 
> Having said that, the Confession does use the terms predestination and foreordination interchangeably in relation to the elect (3.5, 6), so I would be wary about making too much out of the distinction. Also, the Westminster Standards do not exclude supralapsarianism - otherwise Samuel Rutherford would never have subscribed to them (see Guy Richard's _CPJ_ article on Rutherford and the lapsarian question at the Westminster Assembly).



Daniel,

Please check the Confession again. It is clear that the Confession wants to only use election and predestination to refer to predestination to life, and they use foreordination for reprobation. In section 4 we see the commitment to do this because they say, "These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained..." - i.e., they are careful to keep this same distinction throughout.

"Section 3.) By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels(1) are *predestinated unto everlasting life*, and *others foreordained to everlasting death*.(2)
(1) 1Ti 5:21; Mt 25:41 (2) Ro 9:22,23; Eph 1:5,6; Pr 16:4
------------------------------------
Section 4.) *These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained*, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.(1)
(1) 2Ti 2:19; Jn 13:18
------------------------------------
Section 5.) 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, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory,(1) 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;(2) and all to the praise of His glorious grace.(3)
(1) Eph 1:4,9,11; Ro 8:30; 2Ti 1:9; 1Th 5:9 (2) Ro 9:11,13,16; Eph 1:4,9 (3) Eph 1:6,12
------------------------------------
Section 6.) As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.(1) Wherefore, they who are *elected *being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ;(2) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,(3) and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.(4) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.(5)"
------------------------------------
Section 7.) 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 dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.(1)
(1) Mt 11:25,26; Ro 9:17,18,21,22; 2Ti 2:19,20; Jude 4; 1Pe 2:8
------------------------------------
Section 8.) The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,(1) 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.(2) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God,(3) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel."



The Confession does NOT use these terms interchangeably.

Predestination is unto life and passing by or foreordination is unto reprobation. The distinction is clear and intentional.

The majority of the Reformed have been infralapersian, and I sure get an infra feel as I read through the historical reformed confessions. Sure, there were some supralapserians, and many jump on that bandwagon nowadays because they want to get REALLY predestinarian, but I think we shoudl be cautious about High Calvinism, it is a fertile ground for all sorts of errors.

A very quick word study seems to show that the word _'predestinate'_ occurs twice in the NT (NKJV) (Romans 8:29,30). The word, _'predestinated'_ occurs twice in Ephesians 1:5,11. In those instances ONLY the Elect are spoken of. Therefore, we should only speak of the Elect being predestinated and use the word "passed by" or "reprobated" or even "foreordained" to refer to those who do not come to faith.

We should avoid language that makes it sound like, "Before man was even created, God chose to hate and damn half of mankind and therefore created them to do so." Contrary to this, everywhere election is spoken of, it is in the context of FALLEN humanity.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Just to be clear, if it has not already been stated, the notion of Equal Ultimacy was rejected by the Reformed churches, as we clearly see in the conclusion to the Canons of Dort:
> 
> That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is noting more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that noting can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute tot their salvation; *that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety*; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them;" *and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul*.



Great reminder and quote from the conclusion to Dort. I am trying to be faithful to Dort in my distinctions.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 28, 2019)

timfost said:


> Hi Ron,
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> ...



I find the claims absurd that the Divines et al held to LFW in the prelapsarian state and that Edwards was a hard determinist. 

The contingency to which the Divines held to was not metaphysical contingency. They held to omniscience after all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Please check the Confession again. It is clear that the Confession wants to only use election and predestination to refer to predestination to life, and they use foreordination for reprobation.



You are correct; I was agreeing with the general thrust of what you were saying. It uses foreordained with respect to the elect in 3.6, but the non-use of predestined with respect to the reprobate is still worth noting. Also, observe that the Larger Catechism (12) uses foreordained with respect to "whatsoever comes to pass", which obviously includes the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate (WCF 3.1 uses "ordain" with respect to the same thing).



Pergamum said:


> The Confession does NOT use these terms interchangeably



It does with respect to the elect. It does not do so with respect to the reprobate, but my point is that I would be slow to read too much into this distinction. An example of reading too much into it would be to conclude that the Confession's choice of language, which I agree avoids the use of double predestination, was designed to exclude those who preferred the use of such terminology. That seems to be what you are doing in this case.



Pergamum said:


> The majority of the Reformed have been infralapersian, and I sure get an infra feel as I read through the historical reformed confessions. Sure, there were some supralapserians, and many jump on that bandwagon nowadays because they want to get REALLY predestinarian, but I think we shoudl be cautious about High Calvinism, it is a fertile ground for all sorts of errors.



I am agnostic on the lapsarian question because it is not clearly revealed in scripture. That being said, many of the greatest Reformed divines were supralapsarians including prominent voices in the Westminster Assembly itself such as Samuel Rutherford and William Twisse. As Sinclair Ferguson noted, the Westminster Standards represent a generic Reformed orthodoxy. It was not designed to pin down every minute point - least of all something as speculative as the lapsarian question. You should also be wary of forming hasty conclusions as to what the Westminster Confession teaches simply on the basis of what the majority of the Reformed held. Even if the majority of Reformed divines were infralapsarians, a significant body of highly influential divines were supralapsarians. For this reason, the evidence must be weighed in terms of probability rather than gathered by means of a head count. 



Pergamum said:


> A very quick word study seems to show that the word _'predestinate'_ occurs twice in the NT (NKJV) (Romans 8:29,30). The word, _'predestinated'_ occurs twice in Ephesians 1:5,11. In those instances ONLY the Elect are spoken of. Therefore, we should only speak of the Elect being predestinated and use the word "passed by" or "reprobated" or even "foreordained" to refer to those who do not come to faith.



I do not dispute your exegetical conclusion, but a theological usage of a word is not always precisely the same thing as a biblical use of a word.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 28, 2019)

God passing over the reprobate and inclining the wills of the elect are distinctions the Reformed tradition has been jealous to maintain. Although both are equally efficacious, God delights in the latter but not the former - hence the distinction between causes and permits.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You are correct; I was agreeing with the general thrust of what you were saying. It uses foreordained with respect to the elect in 3.6, but the non-use of predestined with respect to the reprobate is still worth noting. Also, observe that the Larger Catechism (12) uses foreordained with respect to "whatsoever comes to pass", which obviously includes the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate (WCF 3.1 uses "ordain" with respect to the same thing).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes...."foreordination" is a larger category. All things are foreordained, and foreordination is used all both elect and reprobate. But predestination is a sub-set of foreordination and used only for the Elect. This is not true "interchangeability" then, but merely different levels of description.

Some use "double predestination" in a sloppy manner to mean that the destination of all men is set and certain. Even RC Sproul uses it in this regard on occasion, even when he devotes a chapter against Double Predestination in his book. We must grant the asymmetry in how God disposes mankind.

Yes, WCF was a generic or even compromise document.

But the Canons of Dort definitely sound infralapserian. See Article 7:

*"Article 7: Election*
Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, *God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.* Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation."

And this source calls Dort, "Unapologetically Infralapersian." 
https://reformedforum.org/canons-dort-standard-teaching-preaching/

"In the “infra” view, election and reprobation only function within the reality of sin. Articles I.7 and I.15 clearly take this position when they say that God chose people out of the fallen human race and left others in their misery. The “supra” position thinks of election and reprobation apart from the fall: God first decided to create some people for glory and others for perdition, prior to planning the history of the world (including fall and salvation).

It is true that the Synod of Dort did not explicitly reject the “supra” position, although they chided Maccovius for some typically “supra” harsh sayings. But the Canons are “infra,” and that is very deliberate. The Canons explicitly mention the fall before election; they purposefully speak of election out of the fallen race; they deliberately identify reprobation as non-election, as “a passing by” of already guilty sinners. All of this is typical of an infralapsarian approach."


The Westminster Confession of Faith is implicitly Infralapserian:

Finally, you can deny my assertion, but I believe the WCF is implicitly infralapserian. The words emphasized and the distinctions used speak of God electing some and passing by others, yes, but even more importantly, this is done in the context of them already being seen as fallen. That is key.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 28, 2019)

Double foreordination might be a better, less contentious term that double predestination. Still, I have no _theological_ problem with the latter term as long as it is not being used in the sense of Equal Ultimacy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Double foreordination might be a better, less contentious term that double predestination. Still, I have no _theological_ problem with the latter term as long as it is not being used in the sense of Equal Ultimacy.


There needs to be no extra word added onto "foreordination" because that already covers everything.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> There needs to be no extra word added onto "foreordination" because that already covers everything.



The reason that people insist on the use of "double" is owing to the denial of reprobation on the part of others.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The reason that people insist on the use of "double" is owing to the denial of reprobation on the part of others.



That makes sense and seems a reasonable excuse to use the term, even if it is not technically correct.


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 28, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> But the Canons of Dort definitely sound infralapserian. See Article 7....*God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin....*
> 
> "In the “infra” view, election and reprobation only function within the reality of sin. Articles I.7 and I.15 clearly take this position when they say that God chose people out of the fallen human race and left others in their misery...
> 
> ...



Your point regarding the confessions seems to be based upon the premise that choosing from fallen humanity is not simply unique to the infra position but also contrary to a supra position.

Coupled with that you also note:

The “supra” position thinks of election and reprobation apart from the fall: God first decided to create some people for glory and others for perdition, prior to planning the history of the world (including fall and salvation).​
In other words, your position appears to be that the infra position is confessional because only an infra position posits that God elected out of fallen humanity and that supralapsarianism is contrary to that notion.

What’s interesting is that given the many problems with the infra position (as well as any perceived difficulties of perhaps the most common supra construct), there are notable supralapsarians who have placed in the first position the election in Christ of _sinful_ men. These theologians were clearly supra for they held to the the unifying principle for any supra position, namely that _creation serves redemption_, which is contrary to the infra position. (See infra, Charles Hodge)


----------



## timfost (Apr 28, 2019)

I'm with Daniel in that I don't consider myself either supra or infra, though admittedly I favor the general terminology of the infra. Remember, it is a strictly _logical_ sequence that does not really help us understand God's "thought process" since He is not bound by time. 

And because I cannot resist quoting Bavinck on this...

"In the fourth place, both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of the decree as standing in subordinate relation to each other. Now it is true, of course, that the means are subordinate to the final end in view, but from this it does not follow that they are subordinate to one another. Creation is not a mere means toward the fall, neither is the fall a mere means toward grace and perseverance, nor are these in turn merely means toward salvation and perdition. We should never lose sight of the fact that the decrees are as rich in content as the entire history of the universe, for the latter is the unfoldment of the former. The history of the universe can never be made to fit into a little scheme of logic."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000 (Apr 28, 2019)

timfost said:


> I'm with Daniel in that I don't consider myself either supra or infra, though admittedly I favor the general terminology of the infra. Remember, it is a strictly _logical_ sequence that does not really help us understand God's "thought process" since He is not bound by time.
> 
> And because I cannot resist quoting Bavinck on this...
> 
> "In the fourth place, both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of the decree as standing in subordinate relation to each other. Now it is true, of course, that the means are subordinate to the final end in view, but from this it does not follow that they are subordinate to one another. Creation is not a mere means toward the fall, neither is the fall a mere means toward grace and perseverance, nor are these in turn merely means toward salvation and perdition. We should never lose sight of the fact that the decrees are as rich in content as the entire history of the universe, for the latter is the unfoldment of the former. The history of the universe can never be made to fit into a little scheme of logic."



I’d humbly recommend Reymond on this, as he relates the subject to _teleo_logical principles.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 29, 2019)

timfost said:


> I'm with Daniel in that I don't consider myself either supra or infra, though admittedly I favor the general terminology of the infra. Remember, it is a strictly _logical_ sequence that does not really help us understand God's "thought process" since He is not bound by time.
> 
> And because I cannot resist quoting Bavinck on this...
> 
> "In the fourth place, both supra and infra err when they regard the various elements of the decree as standing in subordinate relation to each other. Now it is true, of course, that the means are subordinate to the final end in view, but from this it does not follow that they are subordinate to one another. Creation is not a mere means toward the fall, neither is the fall a mere means toward grace and perseverance, nor are these in turn merely means toward salvation and perdition. We should never lose sight of the fact that the decrees are as rich in content as the entire history of the universe, for the latter is the unfoldment of the former. The history of the universe can never be made to fit into a little scheme of logic."



Outstanding quote!


----------

