Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  LittleToe

  They are synonyms, but NOT the same word.
  Serious question: Why do you think the confession is worded like that, boys?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  I'd say that I'm nearer the Infralapsarian perspective than any other.

  So your point is... "lapsarian controversy" Could you please elaborate for us (supralapsarian) less educated? D Dog
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  Why do you think the confession is worded like that, boys?

  To make it more readable?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Infralapsarian Is that like Arminianlapsarian?
• 

  LittleToe

  Gah, I lost my post:

  DDog:
  Sublapsarian would be closer to Arminianlapsarian, IMHO
  But in all honesty they are four point Calvinists, or Amyraldists.

  We're now down to discussing the brass tacks of stuff that the bible doesn't ultimately answer. It's finer points of logical order in "the plan", and hence the stuff of which we all confessed to Alan that we didn't know.

  For the sake of this discussion it's the difference between stating the God predestined some to reprobation vs staying on equally solid ground, yet more positive, by concentrating on the Predestination of the Elect and "passing over" others.

  There are other issues, repecting the logical order of things, but I don't believe they touch the subject in question nor the thread title.

  Personally I think the Westminster Divines were very canny. They neatly sidestepped the issue by clever use of language, yielding place to charity, which is probably what we should do (not that I'm adverse to discussing the subject)
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  But in all honesty they are four point Calvinists, or Amyraldists.

  The problem is that Calvin (like the bible) teaches 5 points Did you "Infralapsarians" cut these verses out of your bibles or what?

  ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. PRO 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

  For the sake of this discussion it's the difference between stating the God predestined some to reprobation vs staying on equally solid ground, yet more positive, by concentrating on the Predestination of the Elect and "passing over" others.

  More positive for who? The reprobate or the Elect?

  Personally I think the Westminster Divines were very canny. They neatly sidestepped the issue by clever use of language, yielding place to charity, which is probably what we should do (not that I'm adverse to discussing the subject)

  Good lets discuss. IMHO four point Calvinism ("moderate Calvinism") is not Calvinism at all, because it teaches something(Arminianism) Calvin didn't teach. This is why we disagree, because it leaves the question open to unbiblical teaching. Like, how the atonement just makes men savable. It also leaves open the question of how God knows the future. Does God know the future because He predicts it, or because He decrees it? If He predicts it, He has no control over it, but, if He decrees it, He is sovereign over it. D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  You miss the point, methinks. You are mixing up sublaparianism with Intralaparianism. What you are attempting to shoot down is the former. Sorry, but you jumped the gun and missed the target

  Sublapsarian is four point

  Intralapsarian and supralapsarian are five point, and agree on the five points. The lapsarian issue is of a different quality again. It relates to the order of "the plan" of salvation itself.

  The bible has far more points than that. Lets not lose sight of the fact that the five points of Calvinism were an apologetic against the five points of Arminius. There are MANY more points, in addition, upoin which Arminians and Calvinists agree.

  More positive for who? The reprobate or the Elect?

  Neither. More positive concerning the justice/grace of God.

  I'll tell you where my greatest concern with Supralaparianism lays. It's in the tendancy for it to make God the author of sin. Since He foreordained all that would come to pass (still in chapter three of the Confession). Your partial quoting of that chapter does you no credit
  You'll see the phrase "pass over" very clearly in paragraph seven.

  Further, you will find no place in the bible where it is declared that the reprobate are predestined. That term is reserve for the Elect.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  You are mixing up sublaparianism with Intralaparianism.

  Sorry! I think you moved the target

  Sublapsarian would be closer to Arminianlapsarian, IMHO
  But in all honesty they are four point Calvinists, or Amyraldists.

  I'm glad you cleared that up. My next question was going to be: Can I call myself a Calvinist if I just believe 1,2,3 points of TULIP

  The bible has far more points than that. Lets not lose sight of the fact that the five points of Calvinism were an apologetic against the five points of Arminius. There are MANY more points, in addition, upoin which Arminians and Calvinists agree.

  Agreed

  Your partial quoting of that chapter does you no credit

  Sorry! My goal was not to gain credit. But,I'm still not sure I see the relevance.

  Further, you will find no place in the bible where it is declared that the reprobate are predestined.

  Maybe not those words, but, I think these verses carry the same meaning

  Romans 9:22 ... vessels of wrath fitted to destruction

  John 3:18 ... but he that believeth not is condemned already,

  You'll see the phrase "pass over" very clearly in paragraph seven .

  If we are " chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" the fact of, the human races condition, must have been determined before the foundation of the world as well. Hence my point about "How God knows the future". I think the phrase "pass over" deals with this question.

  More positive for who? The reprobate or the Elect?

  Neither. More positive concerning the justice/grace of God.

  I thought we agreed that this was never in question and where we should remain silent.

  Rom 9:14

  What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

  20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it , Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour

  D Dog
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  This is why we disagree, because it leaves the question open to unbiblical teaching. Like, how the atonement just makes men savable.

  This statement is directed more at Undis than yourself D Dog
• 

  LittleToe

  DDog:
  I never moved the target. My initial declaration was Infralapsarianism. It's not my fault you mistook it for Sub

  Four point Calvinists are really Amyraldists, IMHO, and so not Calvinists at all. They hold to points 1,2,4,5, but have issues with the third point regarding Limited Atonement. To cut to the chase, I think it's the affects of humanistic and wishful thinking to believe the bible goes down a Universalist route.
  I think it's very clear that some dont receive saving grace. Taking the example of Judas, I think it's pretty cut and dried that he wasn't atoned for.
  

  LT wrote: Your partial quoting of that chapter...

  The confession is left open but it has a clear Infra bias in it's language. You just took the citation as far as the bit with the quotation which served your purpose
  In connection with the reprobate it uses the phrase "pass over" instead of "predestinate". This is clearly Infra language. Supra's would have used the latter.

  Let me highlight the issues I see between the two positions, and see if it helps.
  Firstly bear in mind that this "controversy" was regarding the "mind of God" before creation.
  We are going to make an initial assumption (which I believe is scripturally verifiable) that God doesn't get caught on the hop, but is a plan layer and architect. THis immediately confounds the JW position.

  Concerning "the plan" of God, in eternity, before the founding of the world:

  My own position, which leans towards the Infra postion would be that God's purpose was to:

  Create man
  Permit the fall
  Elect some to salvation (the others are "passed over", because truly none are worthy of election)
  Provide the means of that salvation
  Call the elect to that salvation.

  He would then start the creative process with "Let there be light".
  I'm still pondering the order of points three and four, as I consider that the provision may have needed to precede the Election (using that provision), if we're truly going to be tidy about it.

  The Supra order, as I see it is:

  Elect some, reprobate others (even though creation isn't in the plan yet, nor man falling)
  Create
  Permit Fall
  Provide the means of salvation
  Call the Elect to that salvation

  The sticking point with me is "when does He elect?", and the Supra position would place it far nearer the start of "the plan" than even the Infra's.

  The Sub order is:

  Create man
  Permit the fall
  Provide the means of that salvation
  Elect those foreknown to believe
  Call the elect to that salvation.

  I prefer their order, but take exception to their forth point, which is Arminian. It bespeaks of works rather than grace, as if God foresaw something good in them and responded to that.
  I would rather that the category of Sub applied to the order of the same points (at which point I'd likely accept it), and that the issue of foreknowledge was left in the fully in the realms of a category of Amyraldism. Alas, that is not how greater minds than mine have deemed to place it.

  As it happens, the main reason for my Infra position is the wording of exactly that point, far more than an obscure formation of logic surrounding the "mind of God".

  Finally, lets get back to the passage in Romans:

  Has it escaped your notice that we were ALL vessels of clay fitted for destruction?
  It is only by grace that some were Elected to be refashioned...

  It seems to me that your focus has become too narrow, on that passage, without examining the meta-context within which Paul places his argument. The analogy of the vessels is to declare the rightness of God's actions, not to make a distinction about the reprobate. His whole thrust is toward the wonder of his mercy (and that towards Jews and Gentiles, without separation).

  This is seen even if we take Paul's complete sentence, rather than just the snippet:
  

  Rom 9:22-24 (NWT) If, now, God, although having the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, tolerated with much long-suffering vessels of wrath made fit for destruction, in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]?

  Regarding "silence", we have entered into the very territory of which I spoke.
  If we cannot keep silent then we should conduct such things with exhaustive charity, especially before onlookers.

  Now I wonder where Alan got to? It seems that he disappeared on page 18.