The difference between permitting and doing

[Johann Amadeus Schubert]

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

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.

 

[terry43]

"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 ...

 

[Pergamum]

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 ...

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]

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.

 

[Ed Walsh]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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 ...

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...

 

[terry43]

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]

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

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, some 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]

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

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."

 

[terry43]

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, some 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.

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

 

[terry43]

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]

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£)."

 

[User20004000]

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 existbecause 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]

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]

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]

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 existbecause 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

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[User20004000]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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).



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.



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.



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.

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]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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]

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.