knoxandcalvin said: Double predestination sound logical. What you think?
That all depends on how you define the word "double"? Theologically, there are two opposing views, "Positive" and "Negative". Supralapsarians hold to a "positive" double predestination and Infra/Sublapsarians hold to a "negative" double predestination. For an excellent explanation on these terms and how they are expressed by the two sides, read this article by R.C. Sproul, Sr. here: Double Predestination. In His grace,
Where does the decree to ransom only the elect and let the reprobates pay for their sins fall within the Infra/Sublapsarian debate? Is it a logical consequence under both systems of the decision to elect some and pass by others?
You need to understand the ORDER of the "Decree(s)" as set forth historically in Systematics. The Supra system does not hold to any "passing by" of the reprobate but rather holds to a "positive" double predestination, i.e., in regard to salvation, both elect and reprobate were predestined to their respective ends before God even determined to create them and without any regard to the Fall.
Read these:
Development of the Doctrine of Predestination - Herman Bavinck
Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism - Herman Bavinck
I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? "Supralapsarian"? "Infralapsarian"? Is a new believer or even a "seeker" (that being someone who has heard the gospel and is actively looking for more answers and a better understanding and are seemingly on their way to "making a decision") going to understand any of this? Beyond that, wouldn't seeing words like that turn them away from the true gospel and rather lead them to follow some false or even a less true gospel simply because they won't feel obligated to be a theology scholar but, rather, a follower of Christ? And isn't being a follower of Christ what matters anyway?
Like I said, I believe in this doctrine, and I am not questioning it. But do we need the big, "ugly" theological words to talk about it? Why can't we explain the various sides of this debate (or any other theological debate for that matter) in terms the regular person can understand? I am sorry to stray from the topic a bit, but all the big words just seem frivolous.
Kalled2Preach said: I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? "Supralapsarian"? "Infralapsarian"? Is a new believer or even a "seeker" (that being someone who has heard the gospel and is actively looking for more answers and a better understanding and are seemingly on their way to "making a decision") going to understand any of this? Beyond that, wouldn't seeing words like that turn them away from the true gospel and rather lead them to follow some false or even a less true gospel simply because they won't feel obligated to be a theology scholar but, rather, a follower of Christ? And isn't being a follower of Christ what matters anyway?
Like I said, I believe in this doctrine, and I am not questioning it. But do we need the big, "ugly" theological words to talk about it? Why can't we explain the various sides of this debate (or any other theological debate for that matter) in terms the regular person can understand? I am sorry to stray from the topic a bit, but all the big words just seem frivolous.
Having shortcut ways to explaining doctrines is necessary to communicate. Can you imagine that every time Scripture desired to use the term "law" that it would have to explain the whole book of Deuteronomy "again", or .... ! Theological terms help us communicate more concisely and effectively.
Now as far as a person coming to Christ, I have never had one ask me concerning what happened in the "very beginning" concerning predestination. We don't teach babies to drive cars (though some would probably do a better job driving ..... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" /> ) and in a similar vein we do not teach those coming to Christ every jot and every tittle of Scripture before they come to Christ. There is such a thing as growth in one's faith! However, if in the providence of God the topic arose I would explain it. The Holy Spirit knows what He is doing and is very effective in giving us and others the understanding of truth.
Your question "again" reveals that you have been influenced too much by McLaren and the emerging church--which constantly attacks the doctrine of the Church. Of course, they replace it with their own, for seemingly stating one has no doctrine is in and of itself a doctrine. However, McLaren and company do have doctrines: not believing in an eternal Hell, not believing in the inspiration of Scripture, et. al. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> The emerging Church today tries to impress individuals with this rationalism:
Quote
I am a pilot, but I have never studied flying for they use big terms like, "Accelerometer," "Aerostat," and "Landing." Let's take off together shall we?
I am a heart surgeon, but I have never studied medicine because the terms are to ugly. Let me operate on you?
I am a Christian, but I don't study doctrine for it has big ugly terms in it. Let me lead you today?
Understanding doctrine and doctrinal terms comes from studying it. A person not willing to study that which he is claiming to be true reveals much about that person.
Listen to scripture:
Quote
Proverbs 4:2 For I give you good doctrine; Forsake ye not my law.
Matthew 15:9 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.
Ephesians 4:14 that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;
1 Timothy 1:3 As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine,
1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4:6 If thou put the brethren in mind of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast followed
1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
Titus 1:9 holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.
Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine:
Titus 2:7 in all things showing thyself an ensample of good works; in thy doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity,
Kalled2Preach said: I will readily acknowledge that God has predestined everyone to either go to heaven or hell, my only question is, how does debating this issue help with the spreading of the gospel? What about the big words? . . .
Why are you denigrating the discussion of theology on a THEOLOGY FORUM? And what do such discussions have to do with the irrelevant topic of bringing the Gospel to unbelievers? Start a new thread if you are wanting to discuss your concerns, e.g., what should be the content of the Gospel, etc.
What is relevant and one of the purposes of this Board is summed up nicely by the writer of Hebrews <------- is that too big of a word to use?
Quote
Hebrews 5:11-14 (ASV) "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil."
Anyone desirous of wanting to bring the Good News to sinners had better be skilled in the Scriptures. (2Tim 2:15) And further, that person had better be 100% positive that what he/she is speaking about is the true Gospel and not some dumbed down version that is nothing more than "another gospel". (Gal 1:7, 9)
Kalled to Preach, words mean things. They really do. And theological words mean things that are of eternal value and importance.
You certainly wouldn't expect a new employee in a plastics factory, or a soldier in boot camp, or heart surgeons, or a tax accountant not to use the meaningful words of their trades when talking about their work and explaining it to others, would you?
Well, the work of every Christian is the gospel, both to understand it ourselves and to communicate it to others. Using the correct, time honored, agreed-upon-through-creeds-and-confessions theological terms and definitions is not only useful it is desirable because through the use of those precise terms, you end up sharing the gospel precisely and giving the person you are sharing with the "word tools" need to not only talk about the gospel but think about it, too.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
Pilgrim said: You need to understand the ORDER of the "Decree(s)" as set forth historically in Systematics. The Supra system does not hold to any "passing by" of the reprobate but rather holds to a "positive" double predestination, i.e., in regard to salvation, both elect and reprobate were predestined to their respective ends before God even determined to create them and without any regard to the Fall.
From the articles, I take it that all Reformed Creeds explicitly reject Supralapsarianism? Yet, the dominant Infralapsarian party is content to welcome the Supralapsarians whom I suppose take formal exception to the Infralapsarian articles of the Creeds? This seems odd to me. If these doctrines are adiaphora, why are they even included in the Reformed Creeds?
speratus said: From the articles, I take it that all Reformed Creeds explicitly reject Supralapsarianism? Yet, the dominant Infralapsarian party is content to welcome the Supralapsarians whom I suppose take formal exception to the Infralapsarian articles of the Creeds? This seems odd to me. If these doctrines are adiaphora, why are they even included in the Reformed Creeds?
1) Your first assumption is incorrect. Most of the Reformed Confessions do not explicitly reject Supralapsarianism. FYI, the body of men which made up the Westminster Assembly who voted on the WCF, WSC and WLC, consisted of those who held to both views although the supras were a minority. Remember now, Confessions were never meant to be a full-blown Systematic Theology, but rather a summary of the basic truths of the Christian faith. Thus you will not find a definitive statement in regard to the logical order of the decree(s). The Canons of Dordt even hint at Supralapsarianism, more so that the WCF.
2)Nowhere will you find a Calvinist consign this issue to the realm of Adiaphora. It's simply one of those doctrines which is "deduced" and thus open to disagreement. Both sides are in full agreement as to the "telos" of God's foreordination and the subjects included. Indeed, there are definite ramifications for both views when pushed, e.g., it is not uncommon for those who held to Supralapsarianism to fall into hyper-Calvinism. Fortunately, this is not the case with all but only some.
Would it be correct to say that regardless of the negative or positive views both the Infra and Supra positions agree that Election and Reprobation proceed out of God’s eternal good pleasure and agree that anything else is Arminianism.
William said: Would it be correct to say that regardless of the negative or positive views both the Infra and Supra positions agree that Election and Reprobation proceed out of God’s eternal good pleasure and agree that anything else is Arminianism.
Speaking for myself.... I would say your conclusion is 100% correct. However, I would be quick to add that this election and reprobation which originates in God's good pleasure was incontrovertibly UNCONDITIONAL, i.e., it was based solely upon God's good pleasure for reasons solely found within Himself and not due to anything which has to do with the individuals themselves. There are some Arminians who would affirm a "predestination", which when scrutinized amounts to "postdestination" and is based upon "prescience", i.e., a decree after the fact; that fact being the exercising of faith by the yet uncreated person.
Pilgrim said: Nowhere will you find a Calvinist consign this issue to the realm of Adiaphora. It's simply one of those doctrines which is "deduced" and thus open to disagreement. Both sides are in full agreement as to the "telos" of God's foreordination and the subjects included. Indeed, there are definite ramifications for both views when pushed, e.g., it is not uncommon for those who held to Supralapsarianism to fall into hyper-Calvinism. Fortunately, this is not the case with all but only some.
How can any teaching that must be deduced from scripture through a process of human reasoning be anything more than a pious opinion? Doesn't scripture alone establish church doctrine not scripture plus human reason? Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?
Last edited by speratus; Wed Dec 07, 200511:19 AM.
speratus said: How can any teaching that must be deduced from scripture through a process of human reasoning be anything more than a pious opinion? Doesn't scripture alone establish church doctrine not scripture plus human reason? Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?
Well my "alien" friend I don't know how "you" derive biblical doctrine apart from "human reason", but the rest of us mortals have been consigned to use our brains by our Creator for that task. Double Predestination is a doctrine which can be deduced from the Scriptures with confidence of its verity, albeit the exact details of the "order of the decrees" is admittedly speculative and thus the differences expressed by the supras and infras. I think Bavinck has taken the right approach in his articles. Obviously, the doctrine of "Predestination" proper is offensive to the unregenerate mind as history shows including such individuals who lived during the time of Paul. (cf. Rom 9:14f)
speratus amazingly said: How can any teaching that must be deduced from scripture through a process of human reasoning be anything more than a pious opinion? Doesn't scripture alone establish church doctrine not scripture plus human reason? Is not double predestination itself merely a human opinion with no basis in scripture alone?
Speratus have you ever read Luther's response to the Diet of Worms? Let me quote you a specific portion.
Quote
If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his country. I stand here and can say no more. God help me.
Even Luther recognized that reason must be imployed when discerning correct doctrine. So how can you a Lutheran deny its use?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
Development of the Doctrine of Predestination - Herman Bavinck
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/BackToTopic.gif)
Why are you denigrating the discussion of theology on a THEOLOGY FORUM? And what do such discussions have to do with the irrelevant topic of bringing the Gospel to unbelievers? Start a new thread if you are wanting to discuss your concerns, e.g., what should be the content of the Gospel, etc.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/crazy2.gif)
I don't know how "you" derive biblical doctrine apart from "human reason", but the rest of us mortals have been consigned to use our brains by our Creator for that task. Double Predestination is a doctrine which can be deduced from the Scriptures with confidence of its verity, albeit the exact details of the "order of the decrees" is admittedly speculative and thus the differences expressed by the supras and infras. I think Bavinck has taken the right approach in his articles. Obviously, the doctrine of "Predestination" proper is offensive to the unregenerate mind as history shows including such individuals who lived during the time of Paul. (cf. Rom 9:14f)