 |
September 21
(7th in a series)
A brother who calls himself a 'true Calvinist' said:
I must admit I was once a Hyper-Calvinist of the Hardshell type, but through the grace of our Lord was brought back again to believe once more the Bible by correct and scientific exegesis, especially in rightly dividing the Word of truth. While actually answering you by and bye, I would like to show Hardshell Hyper-Calvinism is characterized by the following common presuppositions
7. Most Hyper-Calvinists are Supralapsarians. They put the priority of the decree of election of the elect before the decree of the fall; but assuming their logic is correct, the decree of the fall makes God’s election changeable and absurd.
(7 of 11, 4 other points to follow)
=======
Any real hyper-calvinists out there?
Then come, and let's reason together.
What do you think of the 4th point?
Is that what you believe?
Are you rightly represented?
And Calvinists, please join in to enlighten us.
Sing F Lau
I wish to ask two questions:
1. If the logic of the H-C is correct, HOW DOES God's decree of the fall makes God’s decree of election changeable and absurd? [this is deep. please give me some light.]
2. Is Sublapsarianism an essential point of 'true Calvinism', and Supralapsarianism the belief of damnable heretics?
[I'm not a supralapsarian!] Rocky
Pj
This is my feeble understanding...
1. Decree to give the Son a bride.
2. Decree to permit the fall.
3. Decree to redeem the bride.
In my mind, it doesn't fit either lapsarian model.
Sing F Lau
Does your 'decree to give the Son a bride' include electing a people to be that bride?
If yes, then in your view, the decree of election preceded the decree of the fall.
Does the decree to give the Son a bride precede or follow after the decree of creation?
So how do you put these in LOGICAL order:
- Decree of giving the son a bride
- Decree of election
- Decree of the fall
- Decree of the creation
Thanks Pj
Charles
-election
-creation
-ordain the fall
-provide salvation in Christ
-apply salvation through the Holy spirit
Sing F Lau
Soldier, all the decrees are before time... so we are considering the logical order of those decrees. What's the logical order of those decrees - according to our little minds!
Pj
Bro. Sing, in my mind, the decree of election is either included in or closely follows the decree to give the Son a bride.
There are those (the non-elect) which are not included in these two decrees (the giving of the bride and election), and the fall of man is inconsequential to them being not chosen: for God considered man neither fallen, nor upright in election, but as creable. Since nothing was done to the non-elect, God cannot be charged with any act of injustice towards them. This is my mind's way of seeing this.
Have I strayed from the subject?
Charles
Sing, my order of decrees 1.) election 2.) creation 3.) ordain the fall 4.) provide salvation in Christ 5.) apply salvation through the Holy Spirit
Charles
God's will to save His elect antedates His will in creation. My personal choice in ordering decrees is to exalt sovereignty above all else. There are reasonable and practical reasons to change the order. It is simpler and easier to teach an order that places creation over the election or to place the fall over the decree to elect. There is human logic that clings to practical accomodations. Sovereignty is softened and humanity exalted if it can be shown that salvation came as a response to a need, fallen mankind. You help a sick man but in the sovereign salvation of the elect election antedates the fall of man. That confounds logic but exalts God to the highest level. The decree to permit sin is easy to accept but the decree to ordain the fall antedated by election is difficult if impossible to accept logically and may make the need for it to be a spiritual revelation instead of a human discovery!
Who hath believed our report!
Robert
TULIP is wrong I think Election first? then the TLIP maybe UTLIP?
Pj
God decreed to permit the fall, not that the decree caused it, but that He suffered it to be. What sort of a god would knock someone down only so that he could pick them up?
The elect were the elect regardless of the fall!
Charles
Pj, what kind of decree 'permits' something to happen. It is not a decree. What kind of God creates a fallen race so he could save them? God never created a fallen race. There is a mystery: the existence of evil, Is God the author of sin? maybe the greater mystery is 'mercy'
Charles
perhaps supralapsarianism is counterintutitive! I live with that!
Pj
How was that decree causative of the fall?
Is God the author of sin? Nay!
Charles
called the mystery of iniquity
Pj
This knowledge of the decrees of God -- such knowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high; I cannot attain to it.
Charles
Is God the author of sin? Nay! that is a simple answer if you are an Arminian...easier if you are a dualist ...easier if you believe that Satan has a nigh unto God status!
Pj
I just don't want to ascribe wickedness to God.
Sin of mankind is attributed to the freewill transgression of Adam. However, the angels did also sin.
Charles
My belief in the order of decrees kindles the fire of love and worship toward God. However the orde of decrees can also erode the belief in the sovereignty of God and exalt humanism, which is exactly what modern plans of salvation do!
God is merciful and just and wickedness is rightly ascribed to created beings. Just and right is He!
Pj
Don't some dualists (similar to the Zoroastrians) believe Satan has "a nigh unto God status"?
Charles
many AmeriKan EvangeliKals have that dualism. Arminianism is night uinto a dualism.
Sing F Lau
"TULIP is wrong I think Election first? then the TLIP maybe UTLIP?"
Robert, TULIP does not deal with ORDER! If you say TULIP is wrong, then you need to prove which point is wrong!
Pj
Dualism is a devilish lie!
Pj
Bro. Sing, it seems like he was implying the order of the letters was off, not the doctrines themselves.
Sing F Lau
Let's get back to the initial question
- If the logic of the H-C is correct, HOW DOES God's decree of the fall makes God’s decree of election changeable and absurd? [this is deep. please give me some light.]
Or is this an imagination of the 'true calvinists' themselves? Rocky
Charles
if God has decreed the fall (not just permitted it) then the decree to elect is consistent, unchangeable and certainly NOT absurd. But if the fall is permitted then then there cannot be a decree to elect but a plan of salvation according to what the will of man determines. We all know Adam did sin but we then cannot backup to precreation and say that God determined anything. All that God does is an afterthought. Foreknowledge and predestination are then absurd.
Pj
Maybe my perception of "decree" is off... What does that word mean, and what does it imply?
Robert
Sing I do not fully understand the premise why does election become changeable and how the elect are fixed and unchangeable, God knew man would fall and allowed it because of a greater purpose otherwise we cannot believe Him about sin no more in glory, He may want it to be that way but He would be helpless and blindsided to prevent it other than that Duet.29:29
In Genesis 2:23-24 Adam is already a prophet according to Paul before there was even a fall. God certainly knew Adam would fall and allowed it according to a greater eternal purpose in Christ. I see in the fall a spiritual comparison to Christ and His church between Adam and Eve, Adam was silent and he took and ate. Christ was silent as a lamb before his shearers and became sin for us who knew no sin.
=======
Continue to Damnable Heresy 8 here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/10/damnable-heresy-8-considered.html
