Unraveling the confusion of God’s Decree: 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

[makesends]

I believe you shouldn't assume your version of "election" is true. God chose Jesus Christ. There was a target God had in election. That target was Jesus Christ. The "elect" of God. This entire life is about conforming man into the image of Jesus Christ. That requires the willing..... The willing servant.

Exo 21 is a parallel of this life. It gives us the reason this life has been designed the way it has been designed. It is designed to produce the willing servant.


Exo 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
Exo 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

I will admit that much of what drives my thinking (my lens) through which I read Scripture, is the simple logical assumption of particular and exhaustive causation descended from (and through) First Cause Himself. It has not always been so, but as I've gotten older, I've seen it is the only way for Scripture to synthesize, and I found it forcing the awareness of it through Biblical study and prayer, and not primarily through reason. I want to say, to the gall that arises within some of you at hearing that, that my understanding of, or 'feel for', the Love of God has exploded, more than even like seeing color and focus for the first time in one's life. God had to hurt me to do this, and I'm not about to give it up just because someone else's notion of the Love of God colors all they see, differently, or because they can present compelling-sounding arguments. I do not, in spite of years of arguing with people, find ANYTHING in scripture that counters that simple logic.

Now, to your post: That Christ was The Elect of God does not mean that those members of Christ's Body are not Elect, and I don't mean that by way of a play on words. While I hope you can see the causal reason to believe that God is particular in every detail —not to mention his joy and satisfaction in the perfection of every detail of the Bride and of his Dwelling Place, and of the glory to be revealed in us— the simple logic follows that if God knew every detail that would result (omniscience), yet he caused what brought it about (creation), then he intended for it to happen. To me, not only does Scripture deny that anyone's definition of love drive God to do as he did or does, but it demands exhaustive particular exacting determinism.

I just wrote a whole paragraph and hit a button somewhere and it disappeared. Maybe I need to condense it: To me, to allow that this is not so, is either because of the hatred some hold for Calvinism and its tenets, (and that, I think, mostly by way of the supposed implications people draw from them), or because they simply can't justify what they have so far read in Scripture with the notion that God exhaustively causes all things.

For whatever it is worth, there are many, perhaps even most, Calvinists and Reformed who don't agree with me about what they call hard determinism. I myself don't like like the term, because of the antagonism associated with it.

I'm hoping to hear from @civic on the thread in which is copied a very good article that well defines, (whether they are right or not), terms so that we can have an actual debate on the reasons to believe what we do, instead of forever defining what WE mean by this or that. I would link it here, but I can't find it right now.

 

[makesends]

I'd like to point out that you've said that Adam was not created with Eternal life. If you don't have Eternal life, what happens?

Perhaps it would help if you could find me that quote. I don't recall it. Maybe I quoted someone saying so and didn't disagree? Regardless, the terms of it need defining before I can answer your question.

Even if Adam had lived forever in Edenic bliss, it would not equal the glory that is to be found in us, when we see God as he IS. Eden wasn't even close to what Heaven will be like, IMHO. That heavenly existence is what I refer to as Eternal Life. It is much more than simply 'existing forever', or even 'existing forever and enjoying it'.

So, by dictionary alone, if you don't live forever, it means that sooner or later you die.

But by what I think of as Eternal life, if you don't have eternal life, you go to the Lake of Fire.

 

[makesends]

I realize that you believe that. It is a requirement for your beliefs. There is reason to everything we state. We are rational beings. Which is an indication that we are not Total Depraved. All human beings reason. In fact, God asked man...

"Come now, let us REASON together."

God doesn't need us. Never has. Never will.

I wholeheartedly agree, "God doesn't need us. Never will."

I don't see what your reason was for saying so.

But I will leave the side-track on total depravity alone for now.

 

[makesends]

No since babies and infants do not all go to hell when they die disproves the sinful nature and calvinisms total depravity.

Good thing the title to this thread encompasses such a huge scope of subjects, or this would be off-topic! Quick! Hide from the thread police!

I believe infants and babies go wherever God has decreed for them. And that is not mine to say which it is. I am fully satisfied that Calvinism allows for God to regenerate anybody he chooses, and thus to give them the faith that saves them.

 

[makesends]

A good conversation would be to discuss exactly what Adam supposedly "lost" when he disobeyed God. It is a good conversation. I've found that Calvinism does a very poor job of addressing the issue. In fact, Calvinism doesn't really address the issue. There are way too many assumptions made.

I don't know that Calvinism doesn't address the issue, but, I still have quite a few leftovers from my dispensational years. I say he lost his innocence, and gained a sin nature, from which he needed to be reborn, just like the rest of us.

It might be worth mentioning to someone who has never been "in Calvinism" or the like, that it doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive systematic theology, but rather a defining of certain facts that govern the meaning and use of all other facts. It doesn't pretend to arrange the 'end times' schedule, for example. Calvinism's main focus, (it seems to me), is "right up my alley": The Doctrine of God, The Doctrine of Man, The Doctrine of Sin, The Doctrine of Salvation, The Doctrine of Sanctification, and such, all of which tie together and are intrinsic to the Gospel and defining of the meaning of Grace.

In other words, I wouldn't expect "Calvinism" to particularly address the issue of what Adam supposedly "lost" when he disobeyed God, and I expect many Calvinists would counter me on what I believe about it, and some to even chide me for being so non-committal about it.

 

[civic]

I don't know that Calvinism doesn't address the issue, but, I still have quite a few leftovers from my dispensational years. I say he lost his innocence, and gained a sin nature, from which he needed to be reborn, just like the rest of us.

It might be worth mentioning to someone who has never been "in Calvinism" or the like, that it doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive systematic theology, but rather a defining of certain facts that govern the meaning and use of all other facts. It doesn't pretend to arrange the 'end times' schedule, for example. Calvinism's main focus, (it seems to me), is "right up my alley": The Doctrine of God, The Doctrine of Man, The Doctrine of Sin, The Doctrine of Salvation, The Doctrine of Sanctification, and such, all of which tie together and are intrinsic to the Gospel and defining of the meaning of Grace.

In other words, I wouldn't expect "Calvinism" to particularly address the issue of what Adam supposedly "lost" when he disobeyed God, and I expect many Calvinists would counter me on what I believe about it, and some to even chide me for being so non-committal about it.

The biggest problem I discovered with calvinism is in the doctrine of God. That is why I finally came to reject the entire systematic.

 

[makesends]

The biggest problem I discovered with calvinism is in the doctrine of God. That is why I finally came to reject the entire systematic.

I hear ya. I'm beginning to think you had learned some faulty notions that are not really of themselves, Calvinism. (But then, I have a lot to learn about just what Calvinism is, as a mutual acquaintance of ours has been making plain, lately (on that other site). I'm not sure if he and I are talking past each other, or what, but he sounds to me, at last exchange, in saying that God is not exhaustively deterministic, that humans do have some true spontaneity, which, as you know, makes no sense to me —it implies that humans are little first causes, which is to me outrageous, illogical, unbiblical, even heretical. I never did get a final answer from him as to whether he represents Calvinism in this matter.)

 

[civic]

I hear ya. I'm beginning to think you had learned some faulty notions that are not really of themselves, Calvinism. (But then, I have a lot to learn about just what Calvinism is, as a mutual acquaintance of ours has been making plain, lately (on that other site). I'm not sure if he and I are talking past each other, or what, but he sounds to me, at last exchange, in saying that God is not exhaustively deterministic, that humans do have some true spontaneity, which, as you know, makes no sense to me —it implies that humans are little first causes, which is to me outrageous, illogical, unbiblical, even heretical. I never did get a final answer from him as to whether he represents Calvinism in this matter.)

I still lurk over there and read some of the interactions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't know that Calvinism doesn't address the issue, but, I still have quite a few leftovers from my dispensational years. I say he lost his innocence, and gained a sin nature, from which he needed to be reborn, just like the rest of us.

It might be worth mentioning to someone who has never been "in Calvinism" or the like, that it doesn't pretend to be a comprehensive systematic theology, but rather a defining of certain facts that govern the meaning and use of all other facts. It doesn't pretend to arrange the 'end times' schedule, for example. Calvinism's main focus, (it seems to me), is "right up my alley": The Doctrine of God, The Doctrine of Man, The Doctrine of Sin, The Doctrine of Salvation, The Doctrine of Sanctification, and such, all of which tie together and are intrinsic to the Gospel and defining of the meaning of Grace.

In other words, I wouldn't expect "Calvinism" to particularly address the issue of what Adam supposedly "lost" when he disobeyed God, and I expect many Calvinists would counter me on what I believe about it, and some to even chide me for being so non-committal about it.

I've meet Calvinists that would but it has been a very long time since I have. I'm probably too dismissive of certain comments because of how little training I see in some today. Not criticizing anyone here.

In my view, a good systematic approach would require such thoughts.

I can agree with Adam losing innocence to a degree and establishing a method of guilt among humanity. Adam had it "better" in the garden than his descendents. His descendents and Adam/Eve all had to begin suffering.

I have a problem with the idea of a "sinful nature". I do believe suffering can produce a sinful attitude. As such, sin is a result, not exactly a cause. I believe Adam was capable of sin (peccable) from the beginning because he was incomplete. Contrast those in Christ are targeted for completeness through conformity to the image of God in Jesus Christ. Which is God's intent from the beginning.

 

[makesends]

I've meet Calvinists that would but it has been a very long time since I have. I'm probably too dismissive of certain comments because of how little training I see in some today. Not criticizing anyone here.

In my view, a good systematic approach would require such thoughts.

I can agree with Adam losing innocence to a degree and establishing a method of guilt among humanity. Adam had it "better" in the garden than his descendents. His descendents and Adam/Eve all had to begin suffering.

I have a problem with the idea of a "sinful nature". I do believe suffering can produce a sinful attitude. As such, sin is a result, not exactly a cause. I believe Adam was capable of sin (peccable) from the beginning because he was incomplete. Contrast those in Christ are targeted for completeness through conformity to the image of God in Jesus Christ. Which is God's intent from the beginning.

In much of scripture, sin is both result and cause. (Eg, "the one that sins is a slave to sin", "it desires to have you, but you must master it"). I hope you don't take there to be little difference between the redeemed that are indwelled by the Holy Spirit vs those who the Bible describes as living according to the flesh, or having the mind of the flesh. Frankly, I don't see any middle ground there. It is one or the other. (Not saying, of course, that those of us who are born-again don't revert to favor 'the old man' sometimes.) That much, I think you would admit to, even if you deny the notion of original sin or the 'default' state of man as sinful.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In much of scripture, sin is both result and cause. (Eg, "the one that sins is a slave to sin", "it desires to have you, but you must master it").

I believe this falls under peccability. While peccability is relative to the ability to sin. It also speaks of incompleteness. The lack of knowledge and understanding of many things is what causes sin. I do agree that sin "begets" sin. Sin when it is finished, brings forth death. Sin is progressive. Our own personal sins start a "fire" that can lead to an out of control end that destroys and damns.

1. Personal sin = Pro 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

2. Lack of Knowledge and associated destruction = Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

3. Responsibility of man to himself. (mankind)

Also, man is culpable to one another. I believe this is exactly the responsibility "laid at the feet of Adam" in his sin.

1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

It is our responsibility and purpose to "enlighten" our own (mankind) with knowledge of God.

Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

I hope you don't take there to be little difference between the redeemed that are indwelled by the Holy Spirit vs those who the Bible describes as living according to the flesh, or having the mind of the flesh.

I believe they are very much alike. However, they are definitely different in action but not necessarily relative to nature. I do agree that reprobation is a "wholesale" abandonment of the nature of God left within the human consequence. The "fingerprints" of God left in all of humanity. Though peccable, there is a natural resistance that exists in humanity to evil. They can "feel" evil. "Feel God".

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Reprobation is a deadening of these natural innate senses that are common to all of humanity. Thus, this is proof of a progressive damnation not relative to nature.

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Frankly, I don't see any middle ground there. It is one or the other. (Not saying, of course, that those of us who are born-again don't revert to favor 'the old man' sometimes.) That much, I think you would admit to, even if you deny the notion of original sin or the 'default' state of man as sinful.

I understand. I have changed significantly in my life. My beliefs were once very similar to this.

Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

The "giving over" to sin and the "past feeling" aspects that some humans experience is relative to the progressive nature of not understanding (either through unbelief or just not knowing because they have been taught differently). This results in the willing choice to sin being made. A will that Adam had from the beginning. We know He had it because He sinned. This is proof of a will that can resist God. A will present in Adam in a state of innocence. I see the same with Adam's offspring. I do see worse from his offspring but I see that they all have this will to resist God from the beginning.

The will itself is not evil. Adam wasn't created evil. What God did was good.

I hope I've made sense in this. I know that I've said much relative to your comments. I ramble at times. Thanks

 

[praise_yeshua]

Added.

I said "consequence" above and meant "conscience". Not sure how I got that way and didn't notice it. Thanks

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
In much of scripture, sin is both result and cause. (Eg, "the one that sins is a slave to sin", "it desires to have you, but you must master it").

I believe this falls under peccability. While peccability is relative to the ability to sin. It also speaks of incompleteness. The lack of knowledge and understanding of many things is what causes sin. I do agree that sin "begets" sin. Sin when it is finished, brings forth death. Sin is progressive. Our own personal sins start a "fire" that can lead to an out of control end that destroys and damns.

1. Personal sin = Pro 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?

2. Lack of Knowledge and associated destruction = Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

3. Responsibility of man to himself. (mankind)

Also, man is culpable to one another. I believe this is exactly the responsibility "laid at the feet of Adam" in his sin.

1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

It is our responsibility and purpose to "enlighten" our own (mankind) with knowledge of God.

Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Not to deny the validity of your points or even of your overall view of the close kinship and nature of the regenerated man vs the nature of the un-regenerated, but am I correct in guessing that you deny both the doctrines of the imputation of Adam's sin and of the inherited sin nature? Do you deny, "original sin", in the use of it as affecting the internal (mind, heart, soul) nature of Adam's descendents?

 

[makesends]

I believe they are very much alike. However, they are definitely different in action but not necessarily relative to nature. I do agree that reprobation is a "wholesale" abandonment of the nature of God left within the human consequence. The "fingerprints" of God left in all of humanity. Though peccable, there is a natural resistance that exists in humanity to evil. They can "feel" evil. "Feel God".

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Reprobation is a deadening of these natural innate senses that are common to all of humanity. Thus, this is proof of a progressive damnation not relative to nature.

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I often speculate on what God means, or where he draws the line, as to what is sin and what only leads to sin, and on other related matters. I find James' descriptions so specific that I'm pretty sure God doesn't see it very much like we do.

One of my notions has to do with good vs everything else. I'm pretty sure that when one dies without Christ, they are resurrected into abandonment that reveals their true nature —bereft of virtue, because I think all virtue is of God, and none intrinsic to man.

As CS Lewis describes them, "a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare."

A quote from The Weight of Glory

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one...

www.goodreads.com

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

One of my notions has to do with good vs everything else. I'm pretty sure that when one dies without Christ, they are resurrected into abandonment that reveals their true nature —bereft of virtue, because I think all virtue is of God, and none intrinsic to man.

I would add that, even among the saved, anything intrinsic to man's own will, no matter how good it seems, shall be burned up. All true good comes from God.

 

[atpollard]

I would add that, even among the saved, anything intrinsic to man's own will, no matter how good it seems, shall be burned up. All true good comes from God.

Imageo Dei ... there is SOMETHING (I cannot quite define it, but know it when I see it) that is innately different between "man" and all other creation. That transcendent "something" (Imageo Dei), however corrupted and desperately in need of redemption, is ours (it is US) and it is OF GOD and it is eternal and it will continue. [imho]

So no THING will survive, but WE (our Imageo Dei) are eternal.

 

[civic]

Imageo Dei ... there is SOMETHING (I cannot quite define it, but know it when I see it) that is innately different between "man" and all other creation. That transcendent "something" (Imageo Dei), however corrupted and desperately in need of redemption, is ours (it is US) and it is OF GOD and it is eternal and it will continue. [imho]

So no THING will survive, but WE (our Imageo Dei) are eternal.

Agreed and that image is not fallen, man is still created in Gods image/likeness which is why we and not the angels are redeemable.

 

[makesends]

Imageo Dei ... there is SOMETHING (I cannot quite define it, but know it when I see it) that is innately different between "man" and all other creation. That transcendent "something" (Imageo Dei), however corrupted and desperately in need of redemption, is ours (it is US) and it is OF GOD and it is eternal and it will continue. [imho]

So no THING will survive, but WE (our Imageo Dei) are eternal.

Agreed and that image is not fallen, man is still created in Gods image/likeness which is why we and not the angels are redeemable.

Yes! The image is not fallen, as it remains the image. But the individual is fallen, until born again from above. Thus, the only good in me is of God.

We are made, different from even angels, into something (we will see) that is nothing in and of itself, but yet is not God himself, but is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Sons of God, the Dwelling Place of God, whose very essence is OF God, and not of self. THIS is, to me, a necessary derivative of the terms, "In Christ", and, "One With God".

It is for THIS that we are made, and not for this life. In the proto-principle of "Already But Not Yet", we are these things, but not yet the complete beings we are created to become.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I would add that, even among the saved, anything intrinsic to man's own will, no matter how good it seems, shall be burned up. All true good comes from God.

Comes from. Yes. Gifted. Yes. What happens once you receive a gift?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Imageo Dei ... there is SOMETHING (I cannot quite define it, but know it when I see it) that is innately different between "man" and all other creation. That transcendent "something" (Imageo Dei), however corrupted and desperately in need of redemption, is ours (it is US) and it is OF GOD and it is eternal and it will continue. [imho]

So no THING will survive, but WE (our Imageo Dei) are eternal.

Then you're accepting the incompleteness of man in creation narrative. If you accept that Adam was incomplete, then what do you see Adam losing? It is more an issue with recognizing what Adam did not have to begin with.