click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding
by C Michael PattonJanuary 7th, 2010
158 Comments
Did God create people just to send them to hell? If God elected some people and not others, doesn’t this mean that the others were elected for hell? Doesn’t Calvinism necessitate that God is the author of evil?
There are common questions/objections that Calvinists such as myself have to answer. They are good questions. But the problem is that so many people assume the answers before studying the issues. I do not believe that God created people to send them to hell. I do not believe that God is the author of evil. And, yes, I am a Calvinist. In fact, I am representative of most Calvinists.
Like so many belief systems, Calvinism is subject misunderstanding, stereotyping, and the propagation of misinformation. In fact, apart from dispensationalism, I don’t know of any other belief system in Christianity that is more misunderstood on a popular level and attacked more furiously.
My purpose here is not to enter into an exhaustive defense of the system, nor to set the record straight at every turn, but to deal with one particular issue that is, at first glance, very difficult and lofty, but, in reality, simple and down to (theological) earth. It is the issue of divine decrees.
Most simply put, the “divine decrees” are those theoretical declarations and decisions in the Godhead concerning the arrangement of the enacting purposes of God in the creation and redemption of man. Yeah, I know… Let me try again. The divine decrees describe how God went about planning salvation. There, much better. Each decree represents one part of how the plan is carried out.
Theoretically, there is an “order” of divine decrees. The order of decrees implicitly tell a story about not only the what of redemption, but the why. This is where things get a little dicey. For example, when Kristie and I got married, we had a certain order of arrangements about what our marriage would look like and how it would function. First, we decreed to get married. We had an understanding that we might have children (Lord willing), but we also might not have children. Either way, the decree to get married was set, children or not. Once we had children, we decreed to bring them up in the Lord. But, we might have done things differently. We might have first decided to have children who we would bring up in the Lord. But, as this scenario goes, we needed to get married in order to accomplish this purpose. Therefore, the marriage served as a means to an end to another purpose (i.e. having godly children) in the latter, while the former, the marriage was the purpose, and the children were a contentious possibility that would be a result of the first decree (i.e. getting married). Notice how the two situations produce the same result, but reveal different “ultimate” purposes. Put that in your back pocket for a minute.
The divine decrees produce similar effects with regard to God’s purposes. Here are the different decrees, in no certain order and stripped bare of many of the implications of purpose:
- God’s decree to redeem the elect and to reprobate/”pass over” others
- God’s decree to create man
- God’s decree to allow for the fall
- God’s decree to send Christ as the redeemer
- God’s decree to apply salvation
Our next goal is to put these in a certain order (like with the marriage). However, this is not necessary a temporal order, since the divine decrees are before creation and hence timeless, but a logical order.
Supralapsarianism
Supralapsarianism literally means “before or above the fall” (supra=”above”; lapse=”fall”). This is the form of Calvinism that is often called “hyper-Calvinism” (“hyper being an adj not a noun) because of its radical nature. It is held by very few Calvinists, and does not represent so-called “Evangelical Calvinism.” The belief here is that the decree to elect happens before the decree to allow for the fall. So, the order of the decrees would go this way:
- God’s decree to redeem the elect and to reprobate/damn others
- God’s decree to create the elect and reprobate
- God’s decree to bring about the fall as a means of reprobation
- God’s decree to send Christ as the redeemer only for the elect
- God’s decree to apply salvation to the elect
Although there are some other modification that can be made, this is good for now. Notice the radical nature of this system. Like the decision to have children that proceeded the decision to get married, here the decision to elect and reprobate comes before the decision to create the individual, meaning that the reprobate were created for the very purpose of damnation. Creation is the means to an end of reprobation. In the supralapsarian scheme, God becomes the very author of damnation for its own sake. Supralapsarians have trouble separating God from evil as God seems to be the very creator of evil. A defense would be made of this position by referring to Romans 9:22 and the potters right to prepare people for destruction. In the end, according to supralapsarians, God is glorified in his decree both to elect and to reprobate.
However, let me make this very clear. This is not representative of mainstream or normative Calvinism. In other words, most Calvinists, historic and contemporary are not supralapsarians.
Infralapsarianism
Infralapsarianism literally means “after or below the fall” (infra=”below”; lapse=”fall”). This form of Calvinism is representative of normative and Evangelical Calvinism. There are many different forms of infralapsarianism and much debate on what is actually representative of historic Calvinism (both of Calvin and of Dort, another issue for another time), but the most important element is stable: most Calvinists are infralapsarian in their theology.
Normative Calvinistic Infralapsarianism
- God’s decree to create man
- God’s decree to allow the fall
- God’s decree to redeem the elect and to reprobate/pass over all others
- God’s decree to send Christ as the redeemer only for the elect
- God’s decree to apply salvation salvation to the elect
Notice the difference here. God’s decree to create man is the first priority, not his decree to elect or damn individuals. Like in the marriage illustration. In this case the decision to get married was the driving factor, not what might happen as a result of the marriage (i.e. children). Of course in all scenarios God knew ahead of time that the fall would happen, but what God knew and when is not the issue with the divine decrees. Once God allows for the fall, then and only then does he decree what to do as a result of the fall. In other words, infralapsarians do not believe that God purposed the fall in order to elect or condemn. Therefore, God is not the author of evil or of the fall.
Here are a couple of other options (with the distinctives in bold) to help you get your mind around this a little more:
Modified Calvinistic Infralapsarianism (Amyraldism/”4-point Calvinism”)
- God’s decree to create man
- God’s decree to allow the fall
- God’s decree to send Christ as the redeemer for all people
- God’s decree to redeem the elect and to reprobate/pass over all others
- God’s decree to apply salvation salvation to the elect
Arminian Infralapsarianism
- God’s decree to create man
- God’s decree to allow the fall
- God’s decree to send Christ as the redeemer for all people
- God’s decree to redeem the elect those who trust in Christ and damn all others
- God’s decree to apply salvation salvation to those who believe (i.e. the elect)
I don’t want to spend too much time on the details here. My purpose has been to give a basic introduction to the divine decrees, but more importantly to correct a very common misconception about Calvinism. Most Calvinists have a theology that makes it very clear that God is not responsible for the creation of evil and did not institute the fall in order to accomplish his purpose of reprobation. In other words, he did not create people for hell. I know that there are some that do believe this, but they are very much the exception, not the norm.
Similar Posts:
- Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
- Ten Myths About Calvinism
- What Do You Mean When You Say God is Sovereign?
- Calvinists Sometimes Make the Worst Calvinists
- For those of you interested in the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism
158 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael,
I am wondering how you see Romans 9:22 fitting into all of this? This is something I have been trying to understand for quite some time now.
Like or Dislike:
0
While I don’t hold to any of the positions outlined above, I was rather amazed at the presentation of supralapsarianism outlined above.
The *purpose* of God’s decree of reprobation, per supralapsarianism, is the same *purpose* that He has for redemption. His own glory. The means He uses differ in each case – but the purpose is the same.
I just thought I’d point that out. My first thought, on reading this, was “Wow, CMP tossed the Supras under the bus to make Calvinism look ‘nicer’”. After reflecting a little bit, I don’t think I’ve changed my mind.
I would highly suggest you take a look through some reputable sources, and take a gander at the theologians who were supralapsarian. As I said, I don’t hold to infra or supra (as I don’t believe it’s logically coherent to believe that eternal decrees have a logical *order* – which implies temporal succession of thoughts) – but this strawman was quite merrily burned for your entertainment, in my humble opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hmm, first time I read this, I missed the part where you said that supralapsarianism is “hypercalvinism”.
Michael, that’s just wrong. Hypercalvinism has nothing to do with -lapsarianism. It’s defined mainly by denying that we should preach the gospel to everyone. (A hyper-calvinist doesn’t think we’re supposed to present the gospel to the non-elect.)
Phil Johnson has a good primer on it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Oh, just an additional note – I was referring the reader to further study of reputable sources, not Michael. I’m sure he’s quite well-read on the subject, despite my disappointment at his treatment of it
Like or Dislike:
0
Another problem with your description of supralapsarianism:
I don’t know what you mean by this, unless you’re saying that damnation is evil. And I’m sure you don’t intend to say that.
But if that’s not what you mean, how does the supralapsarian order make God any more the author of evil than the infralapsarian order?
Why does “I’ll allow the fall so that I can display both my mercy and my wrath by saving some & not others” make him more the author of evil than “I allowed the fall (for some reason), and now I’ll display both my mercy and my wrath by saving some & not others”?
Like or Dislike:
2
No matter how you frame the decrees, Calvinism is still premised on what I see as a flawed anthropology (inherited guilt), and a God who is driven by wrath (penal substitution), correct? To me, these are the real issues. (I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just still trying to understand Calvinism.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Alden, those characteristics are not Calvinism’s, but protestantism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, no, that’s not it at all. First, it’s not “inherited guilt”, it’s “imputed guilt”, for imputed sin. Secondly, God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature. That is not God’s only attribute. Third, that is not identical to penal substitution. Wrath is a real attribute of God, found all through Scripture. Penal substitution is the means God determined to satisfy His wrath – but it is not His wrath. We are justified in God’s sight due to the penalty Christ suffered in our place. The penalty is the exercise of His wrath. Does that make sense?
Like or Dislike:
0
No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post. Please keep things on topic.
Like or Dislike:
0
A variety of good theological sources point out that supralapsarianism is not to be identified with hypercalvinism. However, the two are related in that all hypercalvinists are supralapsarian. No recognized Calvinistic confession of which I’m aware excludes supralapsarianism. However, any number of them exclude hypercalvinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
I disagree – but yeah, moving along
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael
You said yourself that “in all scenarios God knew what the outcome would be”. This is the thought that initially pulled me toward Calvinism. The order of decrees might apply to human actions but since God never has or had to learn anything, attaching an order to His “decrees” seems to me an attempt to deflect the implications of Rom 9:22 ( I would be interested to hear your explanation of same.) Brian
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s not that we Arminians think Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil, it’s that the Calvinist positions seem to lead there logically. Most Calvinists seem to unwittingly hold a view that is very close to making God the author of evil. They obviously would reel at the idea, but I don’t think they are carrying it out logically.
The way God’s decrees are articulated many times gives the impression that God is the author of evil. For instance, when Calvin writes things like, “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees,” or, “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined,” I think you can begin see why we would begin to level this charge.
Now I want to be fair and acknowledge that he clearly said God isn’t the author of sin: “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil.” However, it seems like he’s just contradicting himself and practicing special pleading. These inconsistencies compel us to point out that the logical conclusion of divine determinism still seems to end with God being the source of sin.
God bless
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree entirely with RazorKiss’ first comment, but I’d also like to add that the question of “Is God the author of evil?” is a totally different question from “Is God evil?” – neither follows from the other. The problem of laundering the existence of evil through passivity on God’s part (whether by free will, or something more general as it seems this article is doing) is the problem with Arminianism that Calvinism is supposed to solve.
The allegedly supralapsarian position that evil exists for the glory of God is exactly the answer which all Calvinism requires, regardless of where on the lapsarian debate one falls.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the other consideration with God’s sovereignty is understanding the difference between producing evil and having complete control over it. God does not do the former, but He does do the latter. Hence, whether one is infra or supra does not really affect whether God is seen as the author of evil.
Like or Dislike:
0
Curt Daniel in The History and Theology of Calvinism, p. 102 states:
CMP, do you agree?
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] is a response to Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding over at the excellent Parchment & Pen [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Arminians and Calvinists differ so very slightly that it’s absurd to hear this. The only difference that grounds this claim is that Calvinists believe that God created people knowing that they would be sinful and doomed to hell, and yet purposed to save “only” some of them. Arminians believe that they’ve got a safety valve: that God did not purpose to save some, but rather provided a plan that, if anyone follows it, will result in our salvation (whereas if we don’t follow it, going to hell is simply the logical consequence of not following the plan).
But this isn’t sufficient to make the “author of evil” complaint against Calvinists. It simply doesn’t follow that THIS difference makes a Calvinistic deity authorial of evil while at the same time allowing the Arminian deity to do all the things that both Arminians and Calvinists agree He does, while remaining unauthorial.
What are those things? Well, the things God says He did in the Bible: He brought the Babylonians into Israel with the express intent of destroying with horror and causing cannibalism in the city. He wills the death of each sparrow that falls. He prepared Hell and plans to use it for the punishment of every person who doesn’t believe in Christ — including the ones who never heard of Christ. He alone causes calamity in a city. The heart of the king is in His hands, and He turns it wherever He wishes — including kings such as Herod. The list goes on.
These things, you protest, do not connote authorship of evil. I agree. Neither, for the same reasons, does God’s decree, laid before the foundation of the world, to choose us in Christ and to predestine us to adoption as His sons — and therefore to NOT choose others.
The same arguments that support one argument support the other; if you can prove that God would author evil by doing one, you also prove that He authors evil by doing the other.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
A few observations:
1) The early Reformers did not engage in lapsarian speculation, but, on the contrary, actually warned against curious prying in to the secret will of God.
2) There are varieties of supralapsarianism that are not accounted for in this brief post. Surprisingly, there are even supralapsarians who believed that Christ suffered for the sins of all men (such as William Twisse, for example). Also, as others have pointed out, not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists. If they take their supralapsarianism so far as to deny that a) God loves the non-elect, b) deny that God is gracious to the non-elect, c) deny that God is making sincere/well-meant offers to the non-elect, and d) deny that Gospel hearers are responsible to evangelically believe it [i.e. duty-faith], then they have fallen in to the error of hyper-Calvinism. Not all of of them have done that, so it is an error to impune them all as hyper-Calvinists, as Dr. Curt Daniel has noted.
3) Even as there are some supralapsarians who believed that Christ satisfied for all men, even so there are some infralapsarians who believed the same. The above post seems to assume that both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism mandates a strict view of Christ’s satisfaction, such that he only died for the sins of the elect. Historically, we get a much different picture. See, for example, John Davenant’s Animadversions, where he [a universal redemptionist and English delegate to Dort] discusses lapsarian issues.
4) To expand on point #3, the above post suggests that one is necessarily an Amyraldian and/or a “modified” Calvinist if one believes in a form of universal redemption, or that Christ suffered for all men. First, those in the early Church, even Augustine, believed in universal redemption. Most, if not all, of the early Reformers believed Christ suffered for all men, such as Martin Luther, Wolfgang Musculus, Zacharias Ursinus, Heinrich Bullinger and others. Even several of the delegates to the Synod of Dort believed in a Calvinistic form of universal redemption, and they either preceeded Amyraut or show no reliance upon him at all, but were rather influenced by the early Church fathers, the early Reformers, James Ussher, John Preston, and others. So, basically, it is at least anachronistic to suggest that these earlier universal redemptionists were “Amyraldian.” Recent scholarship is increasingly recognizing this fact, especially since Jonathan Moore’s recent publication on Engish Hypothetical Universalism.
5) There are some Calvinists who reject lapsarian speculation altogether as unnecessary. Herman Bavinck and Robert Lewis Dabney are two examples, and yet both of them differed on the issue of the extent of Christ’s death. The former, Bavinck, believed Christ suffered for the sins of the elect alone, while Dabney believed Christ expiated for every man. This throws a monkey wrench in your presentation as well, as neither are Amyraldian or lapsarian.
Like or Dislike:
0
iMark,
Yes, I would agree.
Like or Dislike:
0
Brian,
The implications are the same as the Romans passage. Even there, we would not say that there is a temporal succession.
Like or Dislike:
0
For those of you who want to study this further (and see all the subdivisions), check out Sam Storms here: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/divine-decrees/
Like or Dislike:
0
Cheryl,
There are some key exegetical issues that give me pause in Rom 9:22.
1. The vessels of wrath have no explicit subject like the vessels of mercy. While this may not mean anything as the context seems to suggest that the potter is the one responsible for both, it is important simply because the subject is stated explicitly with regard to the vessels of mercy.
2. The vessels of mercy are said to have been prepared “beforehand.” They vassals of wrath are not. This might/could suggest that the vessel of mercy are prepared beforehand in that God has eternally elected them while the vassals of wrath are prepared on their own in time (i.e. not beforehand).
Both of these led me to the conclusion that there is something very different about the “preparation” process for the vessels of wrath as compared to the vessels of mercy. Hence, I do not believe in double “active” predestination. I believe that only the elect are actively predestined, while the non-elect are passively predestined. Hence I am not a supralapsarian.
I think to push a supralapsarian approach, as I have said in this post, has troublesome implications and is overly speculative, attempting to make a system fit.
Having said this, Romans 9:22 could be interpreted in a supralapsarian way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Some of you have commented about “Hyper” calvinism being associated with supralapsarianism. Please take note that I qualified this with the understanding that this is an adj not a noun, attempting to avoid any such side trails. I don’t really know of any formal noun definition for a Hypercalvinism. So let’s not go there. Use it as an adj and we should be good.
Like or Dislike:
0
Other than that, I think I have kept up with everyone’s comments.
Let’s stay on track here as I know how these things can go.
Main point: Most Calvinists are not of the supralapsarian variety even though most critiques of Calvinism are made against such assuming that all Calvinists adhere to the tenants of supralapsarianism.
If anyone thinks differently here, I would like to hear.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I agree with your stated main point above. Either they assume that mainstream Calvinism believes what you say supralapsarianism believes, or they think that it entails it. So, commonly, they don’t make a distinction between what Calvinists say they believe and what they [the opponents] think is entailed by those beliefs, thus creating straw men, rather than reasoning by means of an attempted reductio ad absurdum. There’s a difference between saying P [some Calvinistic person in the mainstream or majority position] believes Q [your description of supralapsarianism or hyper-Calvininism], and P’s beliefs logically entail Q. Attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument is fine, as we all do it, but we should all strive to rightly represent one another, knowing that we don’t commonly believe what is [or may] be entailed by those beliefs.
Grace to you,
Tony
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, can you explain what you mean by passively predestined?
And how does that fit it with Calvinistic views of the sovereignty of God?
God bless,
Martin
Like or Dislike:
0
The one hypercalvinist I personally knew didn’t know what superlapsarianism was. I think hypercalvinism is an excuse founded in willful ignorance, more than a theological position. To follow it you have to place your own reasoning abilities above the clear text of the Bible (which says that we ARE supposed to defend our faith to ANYONE).
Thus, I would not expect my experience to be unusual.
That guy soured me on Calvinism for many years.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
A good book to read on this subject is B.B. Warfield’s “The Plan of Salvation.” A classic in my young opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Main point: Most Calvinists are not of the supralapsarian variety even though most critiques of Calvinism are made against such assuming that all Calvinists adhere to the tenants of supralapsarianism.
Hyper Calvinism may be rare to shake hands with but don’t under estimate the internet influence on the Church. I would think considering the operation of your ministry you would be mindful of this but in an optimistic way. Hyper anything thrives on the web. I have encountered more Hyper-Calvinists then I would have cared to. I think we will be explaining ourselves because of them more and more. At least we should be.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis said:
That’s an important point. The Internet provides a venue in which extreme voices can thrive unchecked unlike they would be face to face, or in a local church environment where trained leaders can expose and silence their errors.
Quite frankly, the problem of hyper-Calvinism largely exists among young white males who are all too eager to teach and “debate.” Since they would be quickly discovered as unqualified characters to lead others in a local church context, they use the Internet instead to influence others to deny God’s common love for all mankind, or to think God directly causes sin, etc. As Spurgeon said of them:
Being characterized by hate, they think God is like them, so they prioritize and/or emphasize hate and wrath in their highly cherished rationalistic theological systems. They use the Internet to further infect like-minded individuals around the globe, and, consequently, some tend to think they are just standard Calvinists, rather than a small minority [but a dangerous group] of extremists.
Like or Dislike:
0
I wasn’t going to say anything more about hyper-Calvinism here–I sent an email to Michael about it, since he wanted to head off further discussion here.
However, I just saw wm tanksley’s comment and Cadis’s comment, where they use the term in two different ways. Cadis used it for supralapsarianism, wm tanksley used it for historic hyper-Calvinism.
That confusion merits another comment.
This is why it’s worthwhile to maintain the distinction between “supralapsarian” and the historical meaning of “hyper-Calvinism”. If you think supralapsarianism is extreme, you can call it “extreme Calvinism”. And if “hyper-Calvinism” didn’t already have a particular meaning, you could use that without problem. But since it does, we’re going to end up with people talking past each other.
Mind you, I still don’t understand the rationale that says supralapsarianism has something that makes God the author of sin more so than in regular Calvinism. I explained why in comment #5.
Cadis said,
“Hyper Calvinism may be rare to shake hands with but don’t under estimate the internet influence on the Church.”
John Piper would be a major source of the influence of supralapsarianism.
Like or Dislike:
0
YnottonY,
If you meant “suprlapsarian Calvinism” when you said that, keep in mind that Spurgeon would have been using the term in the historical sense–the kind that rejects evangelism and common grace. That’s clear from how he describes it.
I would also note that you find prideful, angry argumentativeness in the defenders of just about every theological system. You’ll see very vitriolic anti-Calvinism. (But I do think I see prideful, angry Calvinists more often than prideful, angry non-Calvinists. And prideful, angry hyper-Calvinists more than prideful, angry Calvinists.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum,
I didn’t use the term Supralapsarian because I was talking about Hyper Calvinism and not necessarily Supralapsarianism.
you got it backwards. And it is the HyperCalvinists view that is often used to represent all of Calvinism. I understand you can be Supra and not Hyper.
Sorry Michael! I’m zipping up now
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
Oh, gotcha. I interpreted your comment as though you were using it the same way Michael is.
See? Confusion!
Like or Dislike:
0
Jugulum,
Read my first comment about Michael’s post. I, like Cadis, am not equating supralapsarianism with hyper-Calvinism either. As Curt Daniel [an acknowledged expert in the history and theology of Calvinism, particularly in the field of hyper-Calvinism] commonly says, “all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, but not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.”
Incidentally, it is another historical error to think that hyper-Calvinism is against preaching to all, even though that is very commonly circulated. What they were/are against in that matter is indiscriminate, sincere and well-meant offers, not universal proclamations of the Gospel or preaching to all. See Iain Murray’s comments on that HERE and HERE, as well as Curt Daniel HERE. Many modern hyper-Calvnists argue that they are not such because 1) they preach to all and 2) they believe in “common grace” in the sense that there are bare providential bounties that acrue to all. Underneath that veneer, however, is a rejection that God is well-meaning to all through those universal gospel proclamations and providential bounties. Fundamentally they don’t want to grant that God is favorably disposed [as in gracious to, or loving in the sense of wishing their eternal good/salvation] to any of the non-elect, due in part to their extreme forms of supralapsarianism and other erroneous assumptions.
These errors are not found in all supralapsarians. I am aware of that. One example is Cornelius Van Til. He was supra, but definitely no hyper. That’s a long way of saying that Cadis and I are on the same page
Like or Dislike:
0
YnottonY,
Ah, I missed that, and wanted to make sure.
I’ll also consider your clarification about hyper-Calvinism. I’m trying to offer some correction where it was needed, but I don’t want to be overly-confident about the specifics of the term.
Like or Dislike:
0
That, I think, would be unwise — it prejudges the issue. It’s like calling it “sinful and arrogant Calvinism”, or “unbiblical Calvinism”. It’s a suitable conclusion for an argument (I’m making no assumptions about the truth of such an argument), but it’s a poor choice of terms for carrying out an argument.
In addition, Supralapsarianism isn’t merely one of the positions on a sliding scale of Calvinism; it’s a distinct position on a philosophical issue raised by Calvinism. Sublapsarians aren’t less Calvinistic. (Although I have to admit that Calvin DID apparently hold to superlapsarianism — nonetheless none of the confessions do.)
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
YnottonY, I admire your research and your nickname. I’m not sure I agree, because it seems to me to make it impossible to distinguish between High and Hyper Calvinism.
The distinguishing marks you point out seem to be subjective opinions, since God’s offer can not be objectively “sincere” if God knows with certainty that it will not be taken and cannot be taken unless God acts.
What am I missing?
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony said: “That’s a long way of saying that Cadis and I are on the same page”
Sure, that would make sense seeing I learned this from you.
This being that Supra is not always Hyper.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi wm tanksley,
Although I am very much inclined to answer you, I don’t want to stretch Michael’s patience by further digressing on our digressions from his post and “main point.” For the record, I do distinguish between High and Hyper-Calvinism [see HERE], just as Dr. Curt Daniel does. My above distinctions are grounded in an objective analysis of the primary source writings of the Reformers, Puritans and their modern successors, which it is not wise to deal with here and now. Also, this isn’t the appropriate context to deal with your question of how God can sincerely offer to 1) those he has not decreed to save and 2) who have not the moral ability to believe, unless he acts. It’s a very good and profound question which I am prepared to answer, but, again, this isn’t the place for that. What’s “missing” are some crucial theological distinctions that will massage and soothe the mental charlie horse between the ears
If you wish to interact on that topic, feel free to send me an email [see my contact info HERE].
Grace to you,
Tony
Like or Dislike:
0
This should get interesting:
——————————
“Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism” — 01/08/2010 – Tur8infan
C. Michael Patton has a new post entitled, Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. Unfortunately, Patton’s post actually promotes a misunderstanding and confuses a few categories.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3722
Like or Dislike:
0
It doesn’t matter how you slice it, Calvinism is just Satan worship designed by the Devil to convince you that John 3:16 isn’t true and that God doesn’t love everyone, God is not love, and that Jesus only died for an elite group of lucky lottery winners.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey, how can you say that? John 3:16 clearly says “For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. And everyone else can just go ___ themselves.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey, it is hard for me to believe that you would actually (and seriously) propagate such misinformation on THIS blog.
Please read the blog rules. I am not going to delete your comment since it has already appeared in the feed.
I am sure that there will be many who come in to “talk” to you about this.
Calvinists friends, please don’t respond to Rey’s remarks in kind, even though I know you will respond.
Wm. Go after it!
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey and George, I think John 3:16 is clear, especially when you read it in the KJV, or even better, in Klingon.
Like or Dislike:
0
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3722
I couldn’t help myself.
Like or Dislike:
0
YnottonY
“Quite frankly, the problem of hyper-Calvinism largely exists among young white males who are all too eager to teach and ‘debate’.”
You think that’s part of one’s genetic racial makeup? And what do you think young non-white males are eager to do? Are they genetically programmed to operate elevators instead? Can we discover one’s theological predispositions form genetic testing?
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony, it might help if you identified yourself as an Amyraldian, so that others would know that this is the Amyraldian interpretation of Hyper-Calvinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey, The response to John 3:16 that I give is a question.
Whosoever will? This is one of the questions that motivated me to study what the Bible has to say about this subject with an attitude that maybe I had been wrong about “free will”. Brian
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Could you give the non-Amyraldian intrpretation of Hyper-Calvinism?
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve Hays,
Of course I don’t think that it’s part of one’s genetic racial makeup. My comment was a sociological observation, not a genetic one, much like saying that it is young white males in our culture who would be most inclined to sit in their bedrooms in their pajamas while watching Star Trek clips on YouTube and also debating Calvinism on the Internet at the same time, possibly while wearing plastic pointy Spock ears
[Note to Michael Patton: stop doing that! You're older now, and married.]
In the United States particularly, 1) it is young white male Christians who are largely turning to Calvinism in terms of their soteriology. That’s a fact. It’s another fact that 2) young men are prone to be arrogant and quickly puffed up by any new intellectual insight they gain, leading to self-confidence, hence the unwisdom of quickly elevating them to leadership positions. Prone to lean on their own understanding, these young white males turning in large droves to Calvinism [many times in reaction to their former Arminianism] are therefore easily inclined to rationalism, so they tend to flatten out any theological tension in their systems [sometimes for polemical purposes] by holding to one truth at the expense of another. When some of them do this in the name of their Calvinism, they reason that either a) God only loves the elect, or that b) He is only gracious to the elect, or that c) He’s only sincerely offering Christ to the elect since d) He only wishes their salvation, not the non-elect; or that e) the elect alone are duty-bound/responsible to evangelically believe the gospel, since they alone are given the ability to do so. When they reason this way, they have arrived at hyper-Calvinism.
If and when these young, arrogant and polemitically aggressive white males become curious about lapsarian speculation, in their preoccupation with the decretal will of God, they are most attracted to extreme varieties supralapsarianism, finding it in men like Gordon Clark and Herman Hoeksema.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think the non-Amyraldian version would not add “sincere, well-meant” to the offer with the idea that God really wants everyone to be saved. That is an Amyraldian view. Calvinists are divided on that point, and that does not make them hyper-Calvinists. I would point to Phil Johnson’s breakdown of hyper-Calvinism for generally agreed upon definitions.
Like or Dislike:
0
“1) it is young white male Christians who are largely turning to Calvinism in terms of their soteriology.”
I think it has more to do with affluence than race. Perhaps bored rich kids who get more of a kick off of attacking happy Christians and making them lose the joy of their salvation than they do off of simply living for Christ and enjoying the joy of their own salvation (if they truly have any). Perhaps at the heart of what makes on a Calvinist is that they don’t feel saved, can’t feel the love of God, and get jealous of those who do and decide to make those people’s lives a living hell by casting all sorts of aspersions on God’s moral character.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Phil Johnson believes the gospel is not sincerely offered to all ?
Like or Dislike:
0
Copied and pasted from Phil Johnson’s “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”
2. It is that school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]
Notice what he says about offer, is Phil Johnson an Amyraldian? I’m confused.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Your effort to discredit my historical description of hyper-Calvinism by associating me with Amyraldism is problematic for at least two reasons. Here’s the first reason:
1) You erroneously assume that anyone who holds to a dualistic view of Christ’s death [such that He suffered for the sins of all, but with a special intent to save the elect] like me is an Amyraldian. “It might help” if instead of reading Turretinfan, you read Dr. Richard Muller and other top-notch Reformed historians/scholars [who are non-Amyraldians] who have conceded that varities of “hypothetical universalism” can be found in Wolfgang Musculus, Jerome Zanchi, Zacharias Ursinus, Jacob Kimedoncius, Heinrich Bullinger, William Twisse, James Ussher, John Davenant (and others in the British delegation to Dort), Edmund Calamy, Lazarus Seaman, Richard Vines, Robert Harris, Stephen Marshall, John Arrowsmith [these last 6 men are Westminster divines], John Bunyan, and others. “It might help” if you read Dr. Robert Godfrey’s doctoral dissertation [see W. Robert Godfrey, Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1974), pp. 196-198.], wherein he concedes that Matthias Martinius [a moderate Calvinist from the Bremen delegation to Dort] could appeal to Zacharias Ursinus [of Heidelberg] for support for his atonement views. Muller and Godfrey are on the same page with respect to Ursinus, and it would be unwise and anachronistic to call Ursinus an Amyraldian. “It might help” if you listened to what James Swan recently said about Martin Luther on the extent of the atonement. I don’t hear any Reformed scholars calling Luther an “Amyraldian.” Why not call me Lutheran on the point, or Ursinian, or a Bullingerite, or a Musculurite, or an Ussherite, or a Davenantian on the atonement rather than Amyraldian? “It might help” to stop reading Turretinfan [an anonymous and unaccountable über-apologist on the Internet] on the subject and start reading some genuine scholarship instead.
The second reason is forthcoming.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
Your confusion stems from the fact that you didn’t read what I said. I said the Amyraldian view interprets the offer as a “sincere, well meant” offer where God is hoping that the non-elect will accept it and be saved. I didn’t say that Hyper-Calvinists were not to be defined as rejecting the language of “offer.” Johnson’s description, therefore, is consistent with what I said, as I’ve read it many times.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony,
I’m not attempting to discredit you. That’s a little paranoid, don’t you think? I wanted you to make the fact known, however, that this interpretation of hyper-Calvinism, which frankly includes many non-hyper-Calvinists, is a specific interpretation of these issues, not necessarily what is held by most Calvinists.
Second to this, I went round and round with you a few years ago on the Founder’s Blog. I don’t know if you remember. Whether you want to call yourself an Amyraldian or not, you defend those views as your own. I said nothing as to the dual purpose of Christ’s sacrifice. I believe He died for all too; but not for the reasons you do. I also know that many monergists believe the way you do. That was not my point.
My point instead is that you, and a couple of those who are of your camp, make it a point to go around and argue that what many Calvinists believe is really hyper-Calvinism every time there is a discussion on Calvinism. I don’t see any other group making this argument. So to me this is simply the convenient interpretation of Amyraldians that allows them to discredit monergism that is not of their brand.
In any case, you erroneously confuse my arguing against an interpretation of hyper-Calvinism for an argument that would posit that any dualistic view of Christ’s death is Amyraldian. Not so, my friend, I just know your history.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Your effort to discredit my historical description of hyper-Calvinism by associating me with Amyraldism is problematic for this second reason:
2) You erroneously assume that my definition of hyper-Calvinism is an “Amyraldian interpretation,” assuming that “the non-Amyraldian version would not add ‘sincere, well-meant’ to the offer with the idea that God really wants everyone to be saved.”
2A) It would be a remarkable case of folly to call Iain Murray an “Amyraldian,” and yet he sums up his book on Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism this way:
In the book itself, which few people are reading carefully, Murray wrote:
On page 88, just before the above quote, he says these thigns are “perhaps the most serious difference of all between evangelical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.” He goes on, quoting Spurgeon on the “sincere offer” and God’s “wish” for all lost sinners sitting under the gospel “to come and be saved,” and says that “Spurgeon regarded the denial of God’s desire for the salvation of all men as no mere theoretical mistake. For it converged with one of the greatest obstacles to faith on the part of the unconverted, that is to say, a wrong view of the character of God.” Ibid., 90.
Like or Dislike:
0
2B) Erroll Hulse [yet another non-Amyraldian] writing in Reformation Today, said:
and:
and again:
Hulse is a Reformed Baptist, not an Amyraldian, and he’s writing in complete harmony with Iain Murray on the subject of the free offer and the love of God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Next comes a renowned expert in the field of the history and theology of Calvinism, particularly in the area of hyper-Calvinism.
2C) Dr. Curt Daniel is on the same page with Murray, Hulse and Gay above. Daniel wrote:
Expanding on this, he lists four “main Hyper-Calvinist arguments” against “free offers” along with the historic Calvinist reply. The fourth in the list says:
——————————
2D) Robert A. Peterson [co-author of the book Why I Am Not an Arminian and a licensed, ordained teaching elder in the PCA] and Anthony Hoekema also associate the denial of the well-meant offer with hyper-Calvinism. Peterson, after talking about the need of taking the gospel to everyone and affirming that it is a well-intentioned offer for them all, says “Who would ever say the Gospel call is not a well meant offer? Hyper-Calvinists.”
——————————-
2E) Loius Berkhof long ago boldly [and rightly] said:
NONE of these men are Amyraldian, and I am only saying the same thing they are on the subject of the sincere/well-meant offer.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony,
I don’t have time to get into another long debate right now, but a few things.
1. Repeat of what I said in #59. Your posts didn’t address this.
2. I said nothing to the idea of whether God loves the non-elect. I am talking about the idea that God is hoping that the non-elect will accept His offer and be saved.
3. Quoting to me books like Murray’s that cuts and pastes material that supports his position and leaves the rest out doesn’t speak “scholarship” to me. Murray has the same axe to grind that you do.
4. The nomenclature is not important. I called you an Amyraldian, not every Calvinist who thinks of this issue like you do. My point is that, as an Amyraldian, you gather the historic quotes that help build a case you want to make against the rest of Calvinistic thought that runs contrary to your thinking. Rather than engage that thought as equally within the Calvinistic camp, you want instead to malign it and confuse it with hyper-Calvinism, which is frankly cultic in nature.
5. I would like you to explain the distinction here, as you were asked before to do so, between High Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. I’m guessing High Calvinism, interpreted by you, is going to sound a whole lot like hypo-Calvinism.
I leave the rest of this debate to those who are more willing and wish to be more relevant to the thread.
Like or Dislike:
0
Final question: Do you understand the difference in God wanting everyone to obey His commands, including that of the Gospel, and do what is right, which in this case would be to obey the Gospel, and the idea that God really wants them to be saved?
Like or Dislike:
0
2F) Although I no longer appeal to Phil Johnson’s insufficient article, he did say these things elsewhere, which are quite revealing:
And, in a discussion with one hyper-Calvinist, Johnson wrote:
Johnson is a Spurgeonite Calvinist, by no means an Amyraldian, yet look at what he is saying about hyper-Calvinism, the well-meant offer, and God’s will in the above quotes. It’s not Cadis who is “confused.” You are.
Like or Dislike:
0
Let me just clarify:
What you, and all the men you quoted, need to do is not just say that hypers believe X. What you need instead to do is to show that ALL non-hypers believe Y instead of X, and Y is the condition that must be met in order to be a consistent non-hyper. X, therefore, cannot be believed by a genuine non-hyper.
Showing that hypers believe X is not showing that they are distinct from other Calvinists or Calvinism. This is the same issue as the supra discussion above.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Do you understand the difference in God wanting everyone to obey His commands, including that of the Gospel, and do what is right, which in this case would be to obey the Gospel, and the idea that God really wants them to be saved?”
There is no difference. Only a blasphemer would try to create one.
@#54, John Calvin certainly fits the description of a bored rich kid himself, being the son of a wealthy French lawyer and having nothing better to do than burn Spaniards at the stake.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony,
Yeah, I think you’re confusing the issues that would be answered by the question I posed to you above. I believe God sincerely wants all men to obey Him and believe the Gospel. My issue is with those who would say that God is really hoping that they will be saved. That’s the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey,
And with that brilliant observation, I’m out.
Like or Dislike:
0
Now, finally:
2G) On the subject of the love of God and hyper-Calvinism, I could cite Robert Peterson, Michael Williams, D. A. Carson, Samuel Waldron, Erroll Hulse, Curt Daniel and Iain Murray. They all associate the denial of God’s love for all as hyper-Calvinism, and none of these men, again, are “Amyraldian.”
With similar boldness as Berkhof, John Davenant [an English delegate to the Synod of Dort] said:
J. C. Ryle cites the Davenant iquote above in his treatment of John 3:16.
Relating the love of God to the issue of God’s will, Iain Murray wrote:
Murray is rightly saying that it is absurd to think that God loves all without a desire for their highest good, i.e. their salvation, according to his revealed will. Go Hoeksemian and deny that God loves any of the non-elect in any sense whatsoever, rather than adhere to Gill’s futile position that God merely temporally loves the non-elect without a corresponding wish/will/desire for their eternal well-being/good.
No Amyraldians here, yet it is remarkable what the above “axe-grinding” men have to say on hyper-Calvinism, the free offer and God’s love. Surely they have no more credibility than I do on the topic
Like or Dislike:
0
It is a brilliant observation. For if God wants “everyone to obey His commands, including that of the Gospel, and do what is right, which in this case would be to obey the Gospel,” then he wants them to be saved, because if they did so they would be saved. And since he wills them to do so, he wills them to be saved. But they don’t will to do so because they have free will and they don’t wanna.
God is not a college project that you should be using to make yourself feel like you have a superior intellect. Convoluting the gospel with asinine philosophy doesn’t make you smart. It makes you an enemy of Christ. And Calvinists would be better of if they learned that before they die.
Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
All your philosophy about determinism does is turn men to the “elemental spirits of the world” and away from Christ. Calvinist attacks on the faith either make atheists or Calvinists, but never Christians. Christians worship Christ, not Fate.
Like or Dislike:
0
And my dear Hodge, when you say in #68 “My issue is with those who would say that God is really hoping that they will be saved. That’s the issue.” What you are doing is asserting that you reject 1st Timothy 2:4.
God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1st Timothy 2:4) No so! Wrong Paul! You’re a liar! So some say anyway, but not me.
Like or Dislike:
0
If for the sake of the argument God didn’t want all men to be saved, and some poor Christ-like individual thought (oh horror of horrors) that God did want all men saved, what would God do to that sap? Burn him in hell forever for thinking that God is better than he actually is? This whole debate is just so silly. “Oh God please forgive me of thinking you wanted people saved. I’ve made such a grave mistake.” I mean come on.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
in post #58 I did read and understand what you said. You did not read me. I did not say look Phil Johnson uses the word offer . I said look what he said about offer, how he defines offer
” thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them;”
I’ve read down through this definition a few times myself , Phil Johnson is defining a sincere well meant offer in the same manner as Tony defines it. Now the deeper into the issue you investigate I know there would be some differences but noone is saying that either a supra or a strict particularist is Hyper.
The issue is the gospel message and restricting it’s proclamation. Restricting by a bit or alot is still restricting.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey,
Continue posting comments like that and they will continue to be deleted.
That being … such and such burning in hell…
These type of comments are inflamatory and fruitless.
Like or Dislike:
0
My apologies I was signed in as admin to moderate when I left the comment I just deleted…
OK so, Hodge. In what way do Iain Murray and Ynot, “have the same axe to grind.”?
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yikes, I’m sucked into a debate I don’t really want to have.
Admin,
Murray has been criticized for doing what Tony has done: Quote a bunch of statements that sound like they are in favor of his position without clarifying the main issue. The issue is whether rejecting the idea that God hopes that the non-elect will be saved is specifically a hyper belief. If no non-hyper rejected it AND it is inconsistent with being a non-hyper then Tony and Murray have a point. If it is simply a matter of hypers rejecting this doctrine, but non-hypers also reject it, then characterizing the rejection of it as the hyper position falls prey to the same criticism that one would get when characterizing supralapsarian belief as the hyper position.
Rey,
Of course only heretics would say something like:
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.
Finally,
Tony, please read my questions to you. They have nothing to do with Murray’s belief that one cannot say that God loves the non-elect unless God really wants them to be saved. Is that the view of all non-hypers or is that Murray’s opinion?
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
” thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them;”
This phrase could be taken either way, so it is not clear that it is referring to the well-meant offer or just God’s desire that the non-elect believe that offer. It may be that Johnson meant the former, but the definition does not make that distinction clear. Perhaps, the quotes given by Tony clarifies that issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here’s the dilemma I see:
1. All people are saved because God chooses to save them
2. The non-elect could be saved if God really wanted them to be
3. God really wants the non-elect to be saved
4. Ergo, _____________________________________ (fill in the blank)
Now, this could be worked out somehow between God’s two wills, but I would want to hear how exactly it does.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ok Hodge. Thanks. By the way I was still logged in as admin when I posed my question to you. I promptly deleted that post then asked again under my name as I didn’t want it to be perceived as a position being taken by the ministry.
Would you mind naming some Reformers or Puritans who rejected the well-meant offer or that God wills the salvation of all men according to the revealed will? I presume you can since you feel both Murray and Ynot are inaccurately “cutting and pasting” historical quotes to buttress their position.
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
For the record, I do not believe all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.
I felt I had to make at least one comment that was on topic!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Carrie,
I actually think its anachronistic to impose the debate on the Reformers and even many of the Puritans. It’s sort of like asking which Church Fathers believed in substitutionary penal atonement. The question is whether what they say about the non-elect is consistent with this idea.
Now, since this debate, there are numerous Calvinists who would reject the idea that God really wants everyone to be saved; but the problem is that many of them would be characterized by Tony as hyper, even if they rejected all other aspects of hyper-Calvinism.
The main heretical element in hyper-Calvinism with this issue is when they say: “We deny duty faith and duty repentance — these terms suggesting that it is every man’s duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe. We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God” (emphasis added). And Article 33 says, “Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.”
But those of Tony’s group want to expand this to the idea that God may not desire everyone to be saved. Fine. Let him prove it then. The onus is not on me to go through every Calvinist who has ever lived. I’m not making the claim. Tony and his ilk need to show their statements true. If they do, great. I’ll believe that that is historic Calvinism and that a belief to the contrary cannot be held by anyone who is a historic Calvinist. I also then would like to see how holding this belief is inconsistent with the non-hyper view.
What I have largely seen is that the misunderstanding of some historic figures on the “all” passages have led them to think that God has two desires for the reprobate: His decretive will that decrees that only the elect will be saved and His moral will that decrees that He wishes all men to be saved. From what I can gather, the decrees deal with calling men to repentance and belief, as a result they would be saved; but the desire of God is that they obey those decrees. Now, if the decrees are “be saved” (and by that God is talking to the reprobate rather than using it to change the elect in the crowd) then Tony has a point.
The reason why I don’t want to get into this debate is (1) time and (2) I don’t think it is important. It’s not a matter of orthodoxy. It doesn’t have anything to do with what we are to do. It only makes a fine distinction that in the end is only a matter of semantics, since both the person who believes in the well meant offer and the person who only believes in the offer end up believing the same thing about what God ultimately did/does and what we are to do with the gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
To clarify on my last point, In what way is this question meaningful, and therefore, a meaningful distinction between hypers and non-hypers?
Here’s a scenario. I have ten children who I love with all my heart. All ten are playing in the street. A semi is racing down the road. I have within my power to save all ten out of the street. I really want to save all of them. I choose to save five of them, and not only do I not save the other five, but I send other influences (in this case, people) to convince them to stay in the street, so that they will not be saved from the Semi.
Now, in what way can we speak of my really desiring them to be saved? If their only hope of being saved was what I do, and I not only did not do it, but made sure they remained in the street by sending other influences, then how exactly am I really hoping that they will be saved?
It seems, therefore, to be a matter of semantics. Tony’s group wants to say that what God does here is loving desire to save. The other group wants to say that what God does here is not loving desire to save, even though God wanted all the children to obey His voice and get out of the street. In the end, therefore, how is the distinction meaningful, if in fact, it’s simply describing the same act with different words?
Like or Dislike:
0
Anachronistic? Prosper (c. 390 – c. 455), a disciple of Augustine of Hippo, said this long ago:
Prosper, an Augustinian, was aware of the idea that some might have that God only willed the salvation of the fixed number of the predestined, and he considered it “harsh.” It was in fact a topic they thought about at that time, as Prosper demonstrates, and it was rebuked even then.
Iain Murray, Curt Daniel and I have appealed to both Reformers and Puritans [and some modern Calvinists from later centuries] to substantiate our claims regarding the consensus on the free offer and God’s will for the salvation of all men. You, “Hodge” (whoever you are–formerly “Bristopoly” I’m guessing from the Founders Blog?), have said we’re not quoting them rightly. Which of them are we misquoting or misrepresenting? Since you can’t name a Reformer or Puritan who rejected the free/well-meant offer, perhaps you can name some we’ve supposedly misrepresented?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
Wow. It’s not semantics. The issue is whether God wills all to be saved, he does, scripture tells us so, as Rey has so lovingly pointed out
Man is the problem here not God. God is not barring man from salvation. He is not putting quicksand in the middle of the road. Man does not want to come. That is the issue. Man has no one to blame but himself. And he certainly cannot blame God. That God gives man what man wants is tremendously different then saying God prevented and barred him from salvation. He has not, he would that all should come…and none would….so God forces his hand on some for his own plan and purpose unknown to me.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony,
What in the world? We’re talking about Calvinists. Is Prosper a Calvinist? Talk about anachronistic. BTW, you’d be able to find Augustine himself saying that. We’re not talking about what others in history have believed.
Here’s name for you then, Tony. John Calvin. Does Calvin believe in the well meant offer in the sense that you are proposing? Is he to be considered a hyper-Calvinist?
http://www.prca.org/articles/ctjblack.html
I didn’t say anyone misquoted anyone. I said that this type of “cut and paste” scholarship doesn’t come off to me as scholarship because it quotes everything in your favor and leaves out anything that is contrary to it. Very little context is explained. I can’t see any quotes from others, like Calvin himself, that would dismiss your concept that only hypers believe X. And the major criticism I had was that you rail off a bunch of quotes without clarifying the main issue.
BTW, a great example of this is your quote of Johnson, who you know does not apply this across the board as you do. That’s what I mean by “cut and paste.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Hodge.
You said
“I actually think its anachronistic to impose the debate on the Reformers and even many of the Puritans. It’s sort of like asking which Church Fathers believed in substitutionary penal atonement. The question is whether what they say about the non-elect is consistent with this idea.”
I say:
If one is seeking to demonstrate what has been believed regarding a certain doctrine or doctrines by the vast majority of Calvinists throughout Calvinistic history, then it is in no way anachronistic to appeal to the very sources who held those beliefs.
In other words, if I am simply to appeal to modern sources about a Calvinistic view of the “well-meant offer” or “God’s universal saving will as it is seen in His revealed will” then how on earth will I gain a comprehensive historical understanding of what has been believed? How would I know what is orthodox regarding this issue? How would I know anything contrary to it might be considered outside the bounds or reformed thinking? How would I know for sure if these modern sources fell in line with the historical ones? Would it not be wise when discussing a distinctly historical issue to appeal to historical sources?
This has been done by Iain Murry and even here on this very blog, by Tony. Your only reponse to that has been to suggest they are using these sources inaccurately (without demonstrating that to actually be the case, I might add).
Further still instead of actually providing historical sources to support your position you claim you don’t need to, that the burden of proof is not on you and state that my even asking it is anachronistic (which I have shown you that is not the case).
I have to think the reason you can’t provide a list of reformers or puritans who rejected the notion of a “well-meant offer” or who denied “God’s universal saving will as seen in His revealed will” is because there are none.
So if you can’t provide these sources, just say so please. Don’t evade the question as you clearly did in your response to me.
If this type of dialogue is your standard approach then I have no interest in debate (and when I say that, I really mean it. Which means I won’t be back to discuss this directly with you).
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
If I say a square is a square and you call it a circle, but then go on to describe to me a square, then I see little distinction except for in semantics. Now, if the WMO crowd wants to say that God’s actions P should be defined as X instead of Y and that’s different from saying that God’s actions P should be defined as Y instead of X, that’s fine; but I see little importance to the semantics of it. I could be wrong though, and I am actually offering up to Tony to refute what I’ve said on the historical issue. So we’ll see there.
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie, I provided John Calvin himself. My point is that there are Reformed individuals who believe otherwise. Tony classifies all of these individuals as hyper. Tony is arguing that anyone who believes X is a hyper rather than non-hyper from a historical perspective. I want, therefore, to know if that is true. I didn’t say that it absolutely wasn’t, but from what I can see, there are Reformed folk, present and past, who disagree with this idea. To label them all as hyper needs the added information that everyone who is non-hyper has and must believe in the well meant offer, as it is defined by this group (i.e., that God is really hoping that the non-elect are saved). I’ve already said I don’t have time to do this, nor do I think it is beneficial, so accusing me of not engaging the debate in the way you want me to is a bit ridiculous. I’m simply asking for this data, and I don’t like the smearing of a lot of modern Calvinists as hypers simply because they don’t believe what they view as a logical contradiction. AND most will admit that it is. The answer that I see most people of Tony’s group give is that we have to chalk it up to mystery because it is contradictory.
Like or Dislike:
0
Friends, this conversation amounts to a circular waste of time. Please adjust your reasons for being here. Some discussions are not worth having. This is one of them as conceding and learning are not on the table. Move along…
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, Michael. I would just say to Carrie that if you want to see another perspective of the historical situation, you can look here:
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m surprised Michael let it go on this long.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not sure why this didn’t post, Carrie, but here it is again.
http://www.prca.org/current/index3_files/Free%20Offer/cover.htm
Like or Dislike:
0
“That being … such and such burning in hell… ”
How did you not see it was joke? Seems to me from Hodge’s perspective, Amaraldius (i.e. Moses Amyraut) is in hell because he had the audacity to believe God’s offer of grace must be sincere. I was just mocking the cruelty of such a view. I don’t remember who all I included but I said something like “Poor Amaraldius is burning in hell with John Wesley and Billy Graham for believing in 1st Timothy 2:4.” I didn’t really mean they are there. I mean that this is what the Calvinist condemnation of Amaraldians amounts to.
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey I am very sorry about that. I completely misread and misunderstood the tone of your comment. I thought you were serious …
I do apologize!
Like or Dislike:
0
Rey,
This is pure slander. I didn’t say anyone was in hell. In fact, I said this issue isn’t important. Did you not read that? I don’t think Tony is going to hell for believing it. My concern is claiming that how one falls on this issue makes one a member of a cult instead of orthodox. My point was that it’s not a matter of orthodoxy. Please read what I said rather than spilling your wild imaginations all over those you deride.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge,
My concluding remarks are these:
In comment #53 you said, “I would point to Phil Johnson’s breakdown of hyper-Calvinism for generally agreed upon definitions.”
It should be noted that in contrast to my historical sources, you’ve twice linked to Protestant Reformed Church material, when they qualify as type-3, 4 and 5 hyper-Calvinists according to Phil’s Primer. As Phil says, “The best-known American hyper-Calvinists are the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC).” I would add that they are the most extreme variety as well. Reader beware. Phil’s description of David Engelsma’s historiography fits other PRC advocates as well, including Herman Hanko. As Phil says:
PRC sources are notoriously unreliable examples of theological propaganda. It’s telling that you would side with their historiography as opposed to Murray, Daniel, Johnson and the other sources I provided above.
Grace to you,
Tony
Like or Dislike:
0
Tony,
I consider their quotations the same as yours, and found for the same reasons. BTW, what you have just done there is something we like to call ad hominem and begging the question. I alluded to Johnson’s list of beliefs that refer to hyper-Calvinism, not everything Johnson believes should be placed under that category. I disagree with him on that point, as he disagrees with you that James White is a hyper-Calvinist according to his list. If anyone wants to follow the debate with you then they can look here:
http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/30/david-allen-hyper-calvinism-and-james-white-the-rundown/
and here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-white-is-not-hyper-calvinist.html
Fare thee well
Like or Dislike:
0
And since we’ve used Phil Johnson’s stuff so much here, I thought it would be fitting to let him have the last word:
“Let me go on record here: I know James White well and he is not a hyper-calvinist. The article Dr. Allen cited from me says nothing whatsoever about what God “desires.” What I have consistently said elsewhere is that optatiove expressions like desire are always problematic when it comes to describing God’s demeanor toward the reprobate. I try to avoid them most of the time, though I think there’s a germ of important truth in God’s own pleas and expressions of willingness to be reconciled to any and all sinners. But I recognize and affirm the equally valid point being made by those who reject the language of “desire,” and who choose never to use it. I would not call someone a “hyper-Calvinist” for holding and defending that opinion. Especially someone who is as active in evangelism as James White.
Moreover, in the section of my notes on h-cism that deals with God’s will toward the reprobate, I expressly acknowledged that there is a strain of classic high-calvinists who deny that God’s expressions of goodwill toward the reprobate may properly be called “love,” but who are not really hyper. I said, “They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It’s a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Seriously everyone, no more about nomenclature. Who cares if people don’t agree about what is a hyper-Calvinist? It ads nothing and takes away nothing from the points being made! The designation “hyper” can be used and abused no matter what the issue and is going to be subjective in most circumstances.
That is why I qualified this in the original post and then further warned about this in a comment.
“wrangling about words” cannot find a better illustration.
I am just glad that 95% of the people only read the post, not the comments.
Anyway, as respectfully as I can say it, enough of this.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hodge didn’t say that, though. You’ve been saying it over and over — do you believe that Christians should condemn people to hell for minor differences on subtle points of doctrine?
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
This topic is based on a presumption that everything happens by decree or God acts only by decrees. That does not seem to be so. God wills (wants) everyone to be saved, but He does not save everyone. His will is not always done on earth because He respects human free will. If all outcomes were determined by decree, we would just be playing a role in a predetermined script.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, I’ve never met a Calvinist yet that didn’t condemn Amaraldians to hell. So I guess Hodge is the first if he’s being honest. I’m glad to finally meet one. But it is still disconcerting to hear that anyone claiming to be Christian would deny that God’s offer of grace is sincere, and I do doubt the profession of faith of anyone who calls God’s offer of grace insincere and wrangles with others trying to prove God to be insincere.
Like or Dislike:
0
rey, I hope you’ll think about this carefully. You previously accused Hodge of profound heresy, and you did so without any evidence. You now accuse every Calvinist you’ve ever met of that same basic heresy, when I’ve seen you in debate on these forums without ANYONE telling you you’re going to hell, Calvinist or otherwise — so although you may have possibly run into some Calvinist who DID tell you that, it’s more likely (considering the evidence) that you’ve simply treated every Calvinist the way you just treated Hodge and “every Calvinist [you've] ever met”, and assumed without cause that they’d condemn you to hell.
The hellfire is not coming from the people you’re debating.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello all,
I am new to Parchment & Pen and I have been thoroughly enjoying the posts and discussions for about a month now. The posts and the commments have been quite beneficial and fruitful, spurring me on to devotion and further study.
However, I have been following this particular post for a couple days now and I am really questioning the usefulness/fruitfulness of such an extended debate on a topic like this. I am by no means seeking to discourage theological discussion and healthy debate. But are there not certain areas of theology that we should focus less on? Not neglect all together, but maybe not entertain for too long?
I hope I am not coming across as arrogant or judgmental, but I would genuinely like some feedback on this. I’m a young guy looking forward to a life in ministry, I love learning about theology and I love even more to teach it, but it seems that there has been a tremendous amount of focus and energy spent on an issue that “seems” to be mostly speculative.
I would love some direction on this. Sorry for straying from the topic a bit. I’m just wanting a little help here.
Please correct any wrong assumptions I have and give me a push in the right direction.
C.L.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.” CMP: No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post. Jugulum: I actually agree w/him on “wrath”. Wrath isn’t an attr. because God’s wouldn’t be wrathful if he hadn’t created. God was/is/will-be eternally holy/righteous, which includes the trait, “I will be wrathful toward sin”. You might call that a “attr. of wrath”, but I think that was the distinction CMP was making. Similarly, God wasn’t eternally merciful, apart from a sinful creation. Mercy & wrath are expressions of his eternal attributes. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
“Wrath isn’t an attr.” Its an emotion. Wrath is just a fancy word for anger. And its funny how those who say God is impassible (beyond feeling emotions) are the ones who most maximize God’s wrath, going so far as to make it an attribute of his very being.
Like or Dislike:
0
God in His mercy has decided to save some but not all. There seems to be an underlying assumption among non -Calvinist that sinners are
owed salvation. God’s going to manifest the full range of His attributes to all creation both seen and unseen and this includes
justice for some and mercy for others based on God’s free will to
do as He pleases. God’s most important desire is the pursuit of His
own glory. Guess what? He deserves it.
Like or Dislike:
0
C.L., why would you say that? I hear what you’re saying, but don’t see why you’re saying it.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
I have to agree with CMP on the ‘wrath’ subject. Wrath isn’t a divine attribute, but rather is the correct response of perfect righteousness to the presence of unholiness. This doesn’t change God; but God has revealed that He responds within time to things that happen within time.
rey, anger is indeed an emotion, and when we attribute anger to God, we are using a metaphor. When we speak of God’s wrath or anger, we’re talking about His actions displayed within time as a response to unholiness; we’re not talking about an impossible emotion or some other change within God. And because the Bible speaks about God’s wrath, we cannot ignore it.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm,
I guess I am just wondering what the significance is of the order of the decrees of God. I’ve got a lot of questions about theology and this is the first time I have ever heard of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. Please forgive my ignorance. If there are things that God has decreed and we know what they are, does it matter what order they come in? How does it change my theology?
Genuinely curious, I have no position here to defend nor any point to make, I’m not educated enough on this particular topic. I ask mainly because I feel more confused than anything after reading all the points and counterpoints and response blogs that have been posted.
Thanks for responding
C.L.
Like or Dislike:
0
disclaimer: I didn’t read 90% of the above comments, so sorry if I missed something important to what I’m gonna say.
John Frame, in his book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, demonstrated pretty well that “logical order” of the decrees is ambiguous anti-abstractionist language, as “logical order” could refer to teleological order, anticipated temporality, causal order, instrumental priority, or any number of other things related to the “logic” of salvation. The discussion is on pages 260-67 if you wanna have a look. If Calvinists could agree better on what exactly is meant by “logical order,” or if they used more specific terms and ordered the decrees in light of them, more Calvinists would probably agree on this subject. I no longer identify myself as an infra- or a supralapsarian because of this. I would say that the teleological goal of the fall was, penultimately, reprobation of the non-elect, and ultimately, the glorification of divine grace given to the elect. But I would never say that God is the author of any fresh evil (or any evil) in the hearts of the reprobate; so reprobation is in a sense passive, although it is not merely permitted by God but positively decreed and worked out in history.
Like or Dislike:
0
C. L. Graves,
In addition to Frame, look in to Robert Lewis Dabney’s discussion on lapsarianism in his Systematic Theology (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2002), 232-234. It’s available online for free HERE [look to the middle of the page]. He also rejects lapsarian speculation. He wrote:
As I mentioned above, Herman Bavinck, another Calvinist, also rejects lapsarian speculation. It’s unnecessary to engage in.
Like or Dislike:
0
YnottonY,
I greatly appreciate the response. The link was incredibly helpful. I thought that with the amount of discussion this post was attracting, I might have missed something important in the significance of lapsarian speculation.
I like the way Dabney puts it.
“God’s decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God’s thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind.”
One more quick question YnottonY: At what point when we study do we cease to try to fit the mysteries of God into our little brains and rest in the truth of Deuteronomy 29:29? (The secret things belong to the Lord our God…)
Once again, genuinely curious.
C.L.
Like or Dislike:
0
C. L.,
I don’t know if there is a fixed formula for that
It seems to me that we ought to be driven primarily to ask questions that the scriptures prompt us to ask. If we are overly curious and preoccupied about highly speculative matters, it’s questionable if we are pursuing this information with a view to knowing and living unto God. Nevertheless, the tendency in our culture is toward intellectual laziness. If God has revealed something about Himself to us, we ought to excercise our minds to know it as much as possible within our abilities, but rest confidently in the trustworthiness of his word when we feel any tension. I like the balance that the Puritan John Howe [click] talks about. Also, I have written a piece on Paradox and Mystery that gives some distinctions and counsel. You may find it helpful.
Grace to you,
Tony
“There is a point, easily reached, where the simplest facts end in mystery, even as they begin in it; just as each day lies between two nights.” – R. Turnbull
Like or Dislike:
0
Greatly appreciated sir. It’s good to get a bit of guidance and perspectivce. Especially for a youngster like myself that knows next to nothing
I will most certainly check out your writing and Howe as well. I like to get on my hands on things I’ve never read before. I’m very thankful for your input.
Humbly thankful,
Chance
Like or Dislike:
0
Lapsarian speculation can quickly devolve into something that is truly beyond any man’s ability to speak on. However, much of it does have relevance in issues of purpose. To suppose purpose in God assumes so sort of logical (or less preferable, theological) succession. Therefore, I don’t think we can delve too deep into speculations about God’s purpose, we can proceed to the degree that revelation allows. And there are quite a bit of purpose statements in Scripture that must not be ignored and whose secession is both relevant and important. Not the least of which are issues of predestination and explicit statements of succession in Romans 8.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
1) The non-lapsarian Calvinists are not ignoring the purpose statements in Scripture, as you seem to imply above.
2) Why do statements of purpose “assume some sort of logical succession” eternally subsisting in the mind of God?
3) And what “statements of succession in Romans 8” point to a need to engage in lapsarian ordering/speculation? Romans 8:29-30 may demonsrate an ordo salutis, but that does not get one to any sort of lapsarianism or ordered decretalism. All one can derive from Rom. 8:29-30 is that God’s predestinating purpose issues in the sanctification of those predestined [a "conforming" of them to Christ's image], and that he in time effectually calls them, justifies them and will inevitably glorify them. Where is infralapsarianism or any lapsarianism in that?
Thanks,
Tony
Like or Dislike:
0
Boy, people can make arguments out of anything!
You must simply be looking at this differently. Purpose requires succession for purpose aways proceeds plans. That is what the issues involve, what is the purpose that brought about the plan. As I said, there are plenty of purpose statements from which we can draw systematic conclusions. Even though these can become (and, indeed, often are) speculative they don’t necessitate anything but a systematic theology.
If you don’t agree, it really does not matter. I certainly don’t have time to debate the legitimacy of lapsarian schemes! I just explain them and offer the most likely position in my opinion. That is the case that I have made. I think the infralapsarian scheme is the most likely. But this was not even an argument for infralapsarianism. Just an overview with personal observations.
Don’t go all hyper-argumentative on me (and certainly don’t argue about whether I am using “hyper-argumentative” rightly!
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“Don’t go all hyper-argumentative on me (and certainly don’t argue about whether I am using “hyper-argumentative” rightly! ”
Of course not. “Hyper-argumentative” isn’t a historical term.
Like or Dislike:
0
LOL Jug. I could argue that it is one. Care to take the time to enter the debate?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Nah, I’d be more interested in picking up my question from earlier.
‘Cause I still don’t understand your opinion that supralapsarianism is more extreme and makes God more the author of evil than infra-.
I had asked:
Like or Dislike:
0
Jug, I don’t believe that sublapsarianism necessarily makes God the author of evil, I am just saying that it carries those implications as it places a purpose of damnation in God’s plan (along with salvation) and therefore requires God’s purpose bring about this damnation. The intrumental cause of this damnation is sin. Therefore, it leans in such a direction. At least, as I have argued, much more so than infra.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘Michael … I don’t think Tony was making an argument for the sake of making an argument. I think he was sincerely inquiring about your appeal to Scripture.
Personally I think Rom 8 has more to do with the ordo salutis than it has to do with some logical order of thought within the eternal mind of God. Election is addressed (again as what I see as a “step” in the logical order of salvation)but delving any further into the actual ‘order of election’ if you will is attempting to speak to something on which Scripture is silent.
@ Anyone….
As far as certain position being labeled this or that….
I find it ironic that folks have no problem tossing about terms such as “arminian” or “amyraldian” or “4-Pointer” with the utmost certainty that they are clearly defined historical terms but when the term “hyper-Calvinism” is brought up everyone goes all post-modern and states “well we can’t really know, it’s soooo subjective”. Nothing more to add to that really, just that I find it ironic.
And finally….
@Everyone…
My advice is this, if you think you know a lot about Calvinism take pause and ask yourself how much have you really read on the matter? Whom have you read and what is their agenda? Are you reading the primary sources or rather those interpreting the primary sources? (Ad fontes, anyobe?) Are you seeking to have your prejudices confirmed or are you genuinely interested in a legitimate pursuit of historical truth? Finally how do all of these sources measure up to a plain reading of the text of Scripture?
I think the above are steps in the right direction of ridding oneself of what I have come to call “folk Calvinisn”. I think it would also serve the purpose of weeding out all the unstudied “experts” that misrepresent a very complex historical theological movement.
We need to strive to be honest and do our theology with integrity.
That is how we continue to learn and grow in the truth of Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
The point is that this is the wrangling about words that I warned against at the very beginning. If someone cares so much about the various ways to define hyper-Calvinism, fine. But this blog is not the place to argue ad infinitum about something that is so far outside the circle of importance that it always turns into a waste of time. This is the kind of stuff that not only gives Calvinism a bad name, but theology in general.
No more talk about how people define hyper-Calvinism, please. All comments pertaining to such, and not the subject of this post will unfortunately be deleted from here on out.
Sometime, I don’t know when, but this passage has to come into play:
“He has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions.” (1Ti 6:4
We are there folks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Those poor misunderstood Calvinists are always giving us distinctions without any difference but it does make them feel better.
Raise your hand if you ever had a Calvinist admit that he was understood and you still think him wrong.
Raise your hand if you think that was decreed before the foundations of the world.
I know Calvinists never raise their hands when and invitation is given.
Like or Dislike:
0
In place of ‘evil suspicions’, the KJV says that these “questions and strifes of words” procude “envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings.” It is certainly an ‘evil surmising’ to surmise that God is the author of evil. Truly all Calvinism is hyper: hyper-obsessed with proving God to be evil. It is all wrong headed and condemned to the extreme by 1st Timothy 6:4. “He is proud, knowing nothing,” who makes the gospel all about predestination rather than following Christ and being conformed to his image.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, lets quit wrangling over words and get back to the issue and topic.
“In the supralapsarian scheme, God becomes the very author of damnation for its own sake. Supralapsarians have trouble separating God from evil as God seems to be the very creator of evil.”
Supralapsarians who create a misunderstanding for the rest of us Calvinists, because they make God out to be evil, correct?
Like or Dislike:
0
In all Calvinist schemes God is said to take pleasure in the damnation of the sinner, quite contrary to Ezekiel 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth [in sin], saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.”
Like or Dislike:
0
The contributions by ynottony are quite interesting and the most informative of the lot. It seems pretty clear that those who disagree with him on supralapsarian are wrong (or, disagree with the authors he cites). If anyone is only reading the last few posts, I would encourage them to read his/her posts 19, 36, 57, 60, 61, and 62.
regards,
#John
Like or Dislike:
0
rey, in the Bible God is said to work out all things for His own good pleasure. This doesn’t mean that damning sinners pleases Him; it means that damning sinners is part of His plan, which (in whole) pleases Him. Note that turning Jesus over to be killed by sinful men was also part of His plan.
This isn’t specifically Calvinistic; it’s pretty generally Christian, and as such all Calvinists who wish to be Christian affirm it.
This means that your claim about what all Calvinists believe is contradicted by what Calvinists claim… Of course, that doesn’t disprove you, but it does emphasize that there’s a burden of proof on you to back up your assertion that all Calvinists believe something that directly contradicts a simple Scriptural text (a very improbable claim, at best).
John, YnottonY’s posts are indeed interesting, but they don’t actually address the point, either about explaining the order of God’s decrees or showing that hypercalvinists can be distinguished from Calvinists by means of consistent superlapsarianism.
Like or Dislike:
0
rey, in the Bible God is said to work out all things for His own good pleasure. This doesn’t mean that damning sinners pleases Him; it means that damning sinners is part of His plan, which (in whole) pleases Him. Note that turning Jesus over to be killed by sinful men was also part of His plan.
This isn’t specifically Calvinistic; it’s pretty generally Christian, and as such all Calvinists who wish to be Christian affirm it.
This means that your claim about what all Calvinists believe is contradicted by what Calvinists claim… Of course, that doesn’t disprove you, but it does emphasize that there’s a burden of proof on you to back up your assertion that all Calvinists believe something that directly contradicts a simple Scriptural text (a very improbable claim, at best).
John, YnottonY’s posts are indeed interesting, but they don’t actually address the point, either about explaining the order of God’s decrees (the point of the original post, I think) or showing that hypercalvinists can be distinguished from Calvinists by means of consistent superlapsarianism (not the point, but an interesting and natural digression). The name “hypercalvinist” is pejorative, and as such should be used only attached to a characteristic which is not merely questionable in the extremes, but actually clearly _wrong_ in its essence. This is also why it’s reasonable for you to object to being called a ‘semi-Pelagian’ — given that you actually do correctly object to this, John, you should be first in line to defend superlapsarianists from this label.
Thus, the label ‘hypercalvinist’ should be used only for clear error — and there are two clear, real, and related errors to which it’s clearly historically attached. The first error is the claim that due to the sovereign decrees of God there’s no need for us to offer the Gospel (which includes no need to evangelize, but may be stated more subtly); the second is that we are responsible to administer the decrees of God by examining ourselves and others to confirm that we and they are ‘elect’ according to His decree before we claim they or we are saved or savable.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
I beg pardon for the double-post. The first one was an error.
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm Tanksley wrote [of a group(s) holding erroneous theology]: “We are responsible to administer the decrees of God by examining ourselves and others to confirm that we and they are ‘elect’ according to His decree before we claim they or we are saved or savable.”
I am unfamiliar with this concept. Was it elaborated previously in this long thread? If not, could you suggest a source that elaborates?
Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
“rey, in the Bible God is said to work out all things for His own good pleasure.” (wm tanksley)
Yet if you will read carefully every passage in which God’s “good pleasure” appears is exclusively about salvation, not one of them is about damnation. It is his good pleasure only to save. Damning is not pleasurable to him.
2 Thessalonians 1:11 “Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS GOODNESS, and the work of faith with power:”
Philippians 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”
Ephesians 1:9 “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:” speaks only of salvation.”
Ephesians 1:5 “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
Luke 12:32 “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
Psalms 51:18 “Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.”
You will not find even one passage that refers to damnation as “good pleasure.” Will you admit this?
Like or Dislike:
0
rey, I agree with what you’re saying, and it doesn’t come close to addressing what I said. Re-read, please. Keep in mind that you’re not claiming merely that God takes pleasure in good; you’re claiming that all Calvinists claim that God takes pleasure in punishment. You’ve got a lot more to prove than you think you do.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
WB, one commonly cited source is Phil Johnson’s paper. The quotation you’re looking at is most supported by his third “crucial point” (search for “third”). That paper is lacking in one point: it builds a negative definition rather than a positive one, telling us what hypercalvinists _reject_ rather than what they _accept_. But that’s minor; it’s a good paper.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
WM T, you said “This doesn’t mean that damning sinners pleases Him; it means that damning sinners is part of His plan, which (in whole) pleases Him.”
But No, Damning people IS NOT part of His plan. Damning people is what His plan seeks to avoid. His plan is a way to provide salvation so He won’t have to damn anyone. But the not everyone decides to follow the plan, so some people will have to be damned.
Like or Dislike:
0
wm tanksley, thanks for the link. I am familiar with the paper but now, thanks to that additional context, I see what you’re getting at.
Like or Dislike:
0
WM…
I don’t think it lacking because he is stating if someone rejects A. B. and or C. then they are (in this case) a hyper-Calvinist.
The Arians are known heretics because they reject that Christ is an eternal being.
The Modalists are known heretics because they reject that God is three distinct persons yet one eternal being.
Those who John called “anti-Christ” were done so because they rejected that God came in the flesh.
It would appear that historically speaking most heretics are weeded out due to what they reject not what they believe.
Phil’s primer is not much different from Nicea, or Chalcedon, or even John in terms of method that is (not authority!)
- Carrie
Like or Dislike:
0
So going with my previous thought there…
I think that is a good way that we can come to find if a particular movement within history is orthodox or not….
What have the majority of folks believed concerning a certain doctrine.
Not to say that because a majority of folks believe something it makes it right or true, but if the majority holds to something and a handful of people are rejecting these things, then I ask, who is more suspect?
I would have to say the latter.
- Carrie
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie Hunter: “If the majority holds to something and a handful of people are rejecting these things, then I ask, who is more suspect?”
That sounds to me like the sort of argument the Pope and his minions would have been making during the Reformation. Moreover, Jesus said we’re to enter via the narrow way. Preferring the broad way because the narrow way is suspect would seem to me not to lead to a good result.
I think that the popularity of a claim has absolutely no bearing on its truth.
Like or Dislike:
0
WB
“I think that the popularity of a claim has absolutely no bearing on its truth.”
So do I ….
“Not to say that because a majority of folks believe something it makes it right or true, but if the majority holds to something and a handful of people are rejecting these things, then I ask, who is more suspect?”
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t think it lacking because he is stating if someone rejects A. B. and or C. then they are (in this case) a hyper-Calvinist.
That’s fine for a doctrinal statement, but it’s not sufficient to define what a doctrinal position is. Telling us what hypercalvinists reject merely tells us what Calvinists accept; that tutorial doesn’t really work outside of that context.
The Arians are known heretics because they reject that Christ is an eternal being.
That’s actually a direct positive statement about the Arians: they believed that the Son is a created being.
The Modalists are known heretics because they reject that God is three distinct persons yet one eternal being.
Great example. This statement tells us nothing about what makes the Modalists modal. Modalists _believe_ that God is one Person who manifests through different modes. There are other heretics that reject the same thing, and aren’t Modalists.
Those who John called “anti-Christ” were done so because they rejected that God came in the flesh.
But this didn’t identify precisely one heretical group; rather, it cut across a huge number of heretical groups.
It would appear that historically speaking most heretics are weeded out due to what they reject not what they believe.
That’s true, because there are a large number of ways to disbelieve, but only one Way to believe. It’s definitely useful to define the right thing to believe, and I should express more gratitude to Phil for doing that (so thank you, Phil).
Phil’s primer is not much different from Nicea, or Chalcedon, or even John in terms of method that is (not authority!)
That’s true; but the purpose of the Councils and Creeds wasn’t to give a primer on a specific error, but rather was to explain true doctrine in light of that error. It would be easy to misunderstand the error if all one had was the Conciliar documents.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Carrie Hunter said: “If the majority holds to something and a handful of people are rejecting these things, then I ask, who is more suspect?”
I suppose you’ve got a point, of course; if you’re promoting a doctrine that’s brand new, you’ve got a high standard of proof in front of you. BUT… The term “Athanasius contra mundum” comes to mind.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
This is a side issue, but… if God’s purpose for God’s plan is to not have to damn anyone, then God has failed; His purpose is thwarted. God will have to damn people, and He knew it, and what’s more, He will do it. And that doesn’t fit the God who declares that He will do all His will, and none will stay His hand.
So I don’t think you can go so far as to say that God’s purpose is to not damn anyone. Most Calvinists say that God’s purpose is to save some people. (Whereas Arminians simply say that God’s purpose is to not save some, but to offer the possibility of salvation to all, with the open possibility that NONE will be saved.)
Double-predestination Calvinists, of course, hold that God’s purpose includes saving some and damning the rest, each person considered individually. The Bible doesn’t explicitly support this, but it doesn’t contradict it either; God might do that even though He takes no pleasure from it. (I’m with CMP on this — I don’t think it’s reasonable to go this far on this little evidence.)
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
“Phil’s primer is not much different from Nicea, or Chalcedon, or even John in terms of method that is (not authority!)”
And Phil agrees with me, not you and Tony. If you asked Athanasius if he agreed with Eusebius, it would be a negative on that one. So if the one presenting the definitions of orthodoxy does not agree with where others are trying to take those definitions, what say you about that?
“if someone rejects A. B. and or C. then they are (in this case) a hyper-Calvinist. ”
The problem is that our dispute was over whether people who believe A and B, but define C differently are hypers.
I hate to get dragged into this, but if you take a look at three of the quotes Tony quoted (Berkhof, Muller, and Johnson), he did not show them in context. If you read the exact page in Berkhof, he’s actually saying what I said (i.e., that God wants the reprobate to repent and believe in the sense that He wants all to obey the law), not what Tony said about the offer.
If you look at Muller, you’ll see that he believes that none other than John Gill is a traditional and orthodox Reformed theologian. So obviously if Gill rejects the WMO, then Muller does not agree with Tony either (BTW, he quoted Muller through Daniels, not directly). Johnson’s was the same, as I quoted above. And my reference to Calvin was to show that, by very definition, one could not be a hyper-Calvinist by saying what Calvin said.
Hyper-Calvinism is a cult. It rejects the idea that people need to make an offer of the gospel to others, it rejects the idea that God loves the reprobate in any sense of the word, and it rejects the idea that one should believe that he or someone else is elect based on faith in what God has said, absent of certain external signs that one is elect. It has nothing to do with the WMO in the sense that God is hoping the reprobate are saved.
So in what way should it be compared to the Arian heresy or Gnostics or Modalists? And I agree with Wm. If the standard is the size of the group holding to a doctrine, then say hello to Arianism, as well as Roman Catholicism during Luther’s early ministry.
If this were a matter of historic orthodoxy, then I would submit myself to it; but it simply is not. And you’re adding to the slander in which the neo-WMO crowd indulges itself. I do think it is a sin to take such a fine point of doctrine, a semantic distinction in the end, to start a war within Reformed circles. We don’t need any more of those unless it’s absolutely necessary.
That’s all I say to the matter, Michael. I promise, I’m done.
Like or Dislike:
0
Good article but the evangelical calvinists still have alot of explaining to do. Even if they claim that God did NOT create some for damnation this still does not expalin why God does not wish to save all mankind , but is content to save only some (and to make matters worst, apparently only a minority at that).
Like or Dislike:
0
Either you’ve missed the point of the article (it was saying that Calvinists, apart from those in the error of hypercalvinism, believe that God does “wish” to save all mankind), or you’ve missed the fact that God is, in fact, “content to save only some.”
There are a lot of people in the world that God has not saved; God seems “content” to accept their rebellion. Some of them lived in a time and place when God’s means of salvation were not available, and they rebelled against God. Others simply rejected those means as part of their rebellion against God. In both cases, God remained content to not save them. These are the facts as they stand, not simply the claims Calvinists make.
Calvinists (and Augustinians) add a twist, though: God did not simply sit there and remain content with everyone’s rebellion and deadness to Him. Some He reached out and gave life, so that they would cease their endless rebellion.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Okay, to the extent that I can comprehend the timelessness of God, here is how it must needs work:
God said…and everything was. Being timeless, from the moment He acted, everything was set in stone -as far as we are concerned. We just don’t know how true that is until looking back, as with the fulfilling of prophesy by Jesus. It’s not that He “decides” who goes where, rather, the work was done -for all time- in that one instant. Look at it like this: A man takes a large rubber stamp with the following imprint, “e = eternally+existings”, on it. He slams the stamp down on paper, BAM. Job done. The first letter happened the same “time” as the last, and what “happened” between is “eternally-existing”. To us, He set things in motion. Which, to us, is true. HE, however, already knows the end. So, when He saw that, due to “y”s choices, “y” was going to sell out “all”, He simply used “y” to His Holy ends. He made y, but He did not “make” y WHO y was. “y”s bad choices did (sorry if that sounds goofy -but it’s the best I could do w/ my limitations).
God operates independent of time, but He knows we are held to its limitations, and He deals w/ us according to our understanding because, by definition, He is outside of our FULL understanding. He made us. He made time. He doesn’t expect us to *be* as Him in any way other than as outlined in the Bible. Because God knows what we will do does not equal “God picked me for hell or Heaven”, it means we’ve already made the necessary choice (before today, or perhaps in the “future”) that did lead to our place in eternity. He knows what we eventually “chose” to do. That’s not the same as choosing for us. He uses our choices to the affect of His glory. What is wrong or even nonsensical about that? (remember, I am talking within the context of being what I am: a creation of a Creator that is impossible for me, in any reasonably quantifiable way in relation to all that He is, to conceive of beyond what He has revealed. Hence, “..God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself…”.)
He really DOES want us all to be “eternally existing” with Him but, He had to give us the choice. Otherwise, life would have all the substance of an, ink stained, rubber stamp. And He wants love, not self gratification.
Like or Dislike:
0
You seem to go to great effort to specifically deny that God decided the form the universe took, but none of your arguments touch on that; it’s pure assertion on your part. Since that’s the actual substance of contention, it’s a crucial oversight.
Whether or not you’ve understood the nature of timelessness, you need to actually address (and not merely assert) whether God created the universe intentionally or unintentionally — whether we’re this way according to God’s will or by accident. I think the best source for this would be the Bible, not philosophy (which you tried) or physics. Could God know what His creation would do before He actually made it? Could God have then made it some other way, so that it would do something else instead? Eph 1:4 seems to indicate that before creation (if that’s what “before the foundation of the earth” means) God not only knew what we’d do, but actually chose us for a special destiny, being changed to conform to the image of His son. He did that before stamping out the universe, to use your metaphor.
Did He make Jeremiah — before he was born — to be a prophet to the nations? If so (and that’s what the Bible says), how does that allow you to say that God did NOT make “y who y was”? Does God make at least SOME people who they are?
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding 151 comment(s) | by C Michael Patton [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.” CMP: No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post. Jugulum: I actually agree w/him on “wrath”. Wrath isn’t an attr. because God’s wouldn’t be wrathful if he hadn’t created. God was/is/will-be eternally holy/righteous, which includes the trait, “I will be wrathful toward sin”. You might call that a “attr. of wrath”, but I think that was the distinction CMP was making. Similarly, God wasn’t eternally merciful, apart from a sinful creation. Mercy & wrath are expressions of his eternal attributes. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding C. Michael Patton, January 7, 2010 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] 2. Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell. Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] arguments, C. Michael Patton, Divine Simplicity, Eternity, Immutability, Mercy, Theology, Wrath My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.” CMP: [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Calvin states God decreed the fall not just foreknew/allowed it:-
” … The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree.” “And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision..”. Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 7.
“God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at His own pleasure arranged it … Though their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves … Man therefore falls, divine providence so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault.”. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.23.7; 3.23.8
Whether one agrees with Calvinism or not, he did state the fall was a pre-determined act, any less view such as he allowed it, has to be considered a non-conservative Calivinist position, thus non Calvinistic; unless you can tell me why Calivin says what he says?
More Comments: