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.
162 replies to "Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding"
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
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.
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.
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
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.
[…] 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. […]
“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.
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.
C.L., why would you say that? I hear what you’re saying, but don’t see why you’re saying it.
-Wm
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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! 😉
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. 🙂
LOL Jug. I could argue that it is one. Care to take the time to enter the debate?
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:
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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
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.
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
I beg pardon for the double-post. The first one was an error.
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.
“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?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?”
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
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
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
“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.
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).
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
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.