The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals ^ | R. C. Sproul

[CCWoody]

***America wouldn't be here if it weren't for you.***

Thank you for that admission. Now if we could just get you to be a little thankful now and again for all of this freedom which Calvinist blood bought, it might be nice. I'll try not to hold my breath though.

Woody.

[drstevej]

B.B. Warfield (1851-1921)

The term "fundamentalism" came into existence at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ. These twelve volumes were sent to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School Superintendent, YMCA and YWCA secretary." In all, some 3 million copies were mailed out.

These ideas had been circulating for some time. The first, verbal inerrancy, had been finely honed by A.A. Hodge, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, and B.B. Warfield, a professor at Western Theological Seminary.

 

 

John Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

was a leading and motivating force behind the development of American fundamentalism. Machen made the argument that Christian theologians of his day had abandoned real Christianity and had instead invented a new religion, which he labeled "liberalism." He founded the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1929 after having left the Princeton faculty.

 

[Vernon]

"...complete Apostasy happenes (sic)...,"

Complete apostasy ain't gonna happen, as I indicated, the Calvinistic aberration is one it's way out!

I have some other things I need to do...more important than this childish argument about the living faith of the dead that has become the dead faith of the living. Ya'all take care...later.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

***Given present theological movement, Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism will be nothing more than a historical aberration.***

And, when that complete Apostasy happenes, where there is absolutely no sound Calvinistic doctrine taught, then the end will come.

ROFLOL...hey Vern they sure are a humble bunch...Hey I think I read that in a left behind book...no, it was down at the grocery store at the chech out line in one of those mags...it was next to the one that had bat boy in it. LOL

BigMack

[Vernon]

Hey I love that..."literal inerrancy of the autographs..."

Only problem is there aren't any extant autographs unless it is the King James the Apostle Paul used!!!!! (Not)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

OP, I don't believe you are in the same category as many of the GRPL's. You seem to understand that there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will.

Actually, you mistake me there. I do not believe that "there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will". For that matter, do you believe that "there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will"? Or, is God imperfect in willing to Permit, that which he permits?

I submit that if you believe God's Will in Perfect in that which He ordains to Permit, then God's Permissive Will is (necessarily!) Perfect.

I think that better terminology would be God's "Causative Will" (that which He actually causes to occur by His own action -- i.e., hardening Pharaoh's heart) and God's "Permissive Will" (that which He permits to occur by Men's action -- David's adultery with Bathsheba). Both of which are incorporated into His overall, Perfect Will.

There are some here who actually believe that God not only controls what good happens, but is fully in control and at the helm of everything bad that happens. In other words God's decree extends not only to good, but also to evil.

Well, I do believe that God is "fully in control" of everything that occurs, either by His Causation or by His Permission. Returning to my above two examples:

• The Bible does say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart against the Hebrews (Causative Will, direct action).
• The Bible does not say that God caused David to commit adultery with Bathsheba and murder her husband, but we do know He allowed it (Permissive Will, indirect action). After all, God could have ordained a banana peel to fall un-noticed on the stairs to the palace roof, such that David would slip and fall and be resting in the infirmary while Bathsheba finished her bath, far from his wandering eyes.

So God is "fully in control" of everything that occurs, including Sin. Before all Creation, God does foreknow what a Man will choose in one certain set of conditions (David will proceed up the stairs, spy upon Bathsheba, and decide to Sin); but before all Creation, God also foreknows what a Man will choose in a different set of conditions (David will slip on the banana peel, proceed rapidly DOWN the stairs, and decide that he should call for his Court Physician!).

And so God, by His total foreknowledge of what a Man will choose in one circumstance, and what a Man will choose differently in a different circumstance, and His total control over exactly WHAT circumstance He will Create -- God has infallibly ordained, by either Causation or Permission but in total control at all times, every single action which occurs at all times everywhere.

Thus every sin that is committed is committed through the active decree and will of God, i.e., that God actually affirmatively WANTS those sins committed. I see a lot of the GRPL's who criticize the (FR 5th's) because the (FR5th's) think that what Adam did in the Garden of Eden was "a good thing." Yet these same GRPL's insist that God created Adam for the specific and sole purpose of having him sin in the garden of eden, thus what Adam did, was literally "good" in God's eyes.

No, you are mistaking here the Evil of Man's action, for the Perfection of God's Plan.

Because God had commanded Adam to not eat the Fruit or Trial, Adam's disobedience was an Evil Act on Adam's part. However, Adam's Evil Act was nonetheless foreknown and permitted by God as part of His Perfect Plan.

• "Good" = obeying God's laws.
• "Evil" = disobeying God's laws.

Both a man's Good Actions and his Evil Actions are, however, either causatively or permissively ordained by God as part of His Perfect Plan.

There is a paradox there, isn't there OP?

Not one I've ever seen (not being tendentious -- I honestly don't think this stuff is really all that hard, that's all. [shrugs])

How do you solve the paradox and yet keep your high view of God's sovereignty? Is all evil decreed, or is it merely allowed?

I think that's pretty well covered, above. Lemme know any further questions, though; I'm happy to answer when I've the time.

best, OP

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Thank you for that admission.

You don't read well do you? No admission, just stating that you guys THINK the sun the moon and the stars all await your next post before they can function.

I'll try and break this to you gently, here lay down here.

Get over yourself, the sun the moon and the stars will still come out after Calvinism is dead and in the ground. LOL

BigMack

[P-Marlowe]

For that matter, do you believe that "there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will"?

Yes. God has commanded "Thou Shalt not Murder". That is God's perfect will, that thou shalt not murder. But murder happens doesn't it. God permits men to murder. That is God's permissive will.

God has stated that he wants all men to be saved. That is his perfect will. But just as men commit sin by murdering, they also commit the unpardonable sin by continually refusing to heed the call of the Holy Spirit. God has stated that he does not want either of those events to happen, yet he permits both to happen. God does not make men murder, nor does he make them refuse the call of the Holy Spirit.

God has stated that all things shall work together for Good. Thus by permitting the evil to happen God can and does work it all together for good. But God's statement that he hates sin is clearly inconsistent with any point of view that would make God the cause of the sin.

[drstevej]

So you reject the contention that the original manuscripts were inerrant?

[Vernon]

Absolutely rejected...God is NOT the author of evil.

It is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as existing, in order to have its destiny given to it, And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a pre-requisite of such decree.

It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," Jn. xv: 19, and out of the "same lump" with the vessels of dishonor, Rom. ix: 21. They were then regarded as being, along with the non-elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

Our election is in Christ our Redeemer, Eph. i: 4; iii: 11, which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to be wrought in us by Christ, I Pet. i: 2; 2 Thess. ii: 13.

Election is declared to be an act of mercy: Rom. ix: 15, 16; xi: 5, 6, and preterition is an act of justice, Rom. ix: 22. Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestinated as fallen; and is not permitted to fall because predestinated. The language of Turrettin is informative, Loc. p, Qu. 18, section 5. 1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God's will towards some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God's ineffable goodness.

"It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

"It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination. of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they presuppose their object, do not make it.

"It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent to them: else sin would be on account of damnation, whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

[Vernon]

That is NOT what I said, and you know it. So tell me, which version/translation or whatever do you consider as inspired and inerrant as the autographs? Not playing your games, sir.

[Vernon]

On "Inspiration," I guess you want to get into the nonsense debate about whether they were "verbal," "plenary verbal," "reflective verbal," or whatever.

[drstevej]

***So tell me, which version/translation or whatever do you consider as inspired and inerrant as the autographs? ***

None, how bout chu?

[drstevej]

Share with us your definition of the inspiration of scripture, Vern. We know you hate proof texts, 'cept when you use 'em.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Certainly not in the way you propose. The prevenient grace of God NEVER forces or takes control of anyone against their will. That kind of action, even in a fallen world, is criminal and punishable by law.

And it's not Calvinism, either.

God does not overthrow a man's Will. He monergistically regenerates the man's Fallen Spirit to be Spiritually Alive, such that the man then wants to Repent -- and he thence freely wills to do so!!

God does not "force" or "take control" of the man's Will in His action of regenerating the man's Fallen Spirit. Frankly, the man's Will isn't even consulted on the subject, much less overthrown.

The basic problem is that Arminians insist that Man's Will must necessarily be a Party to the Action of the man's Spiritual Regeneration, when John 1:13 clearly states that Man's Will is not a participant to the Action of the man's Spiritual Regeneration.

Once you accept the express teaching of John 1:13 -- that Man's Will is not a participant to the Action of the man's Spiritual Regeneration -- that pretty much settles the matter.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

God has commanded "Thou Shalt not Murder". That is God's perfect will, that thou shalt not murder. But murder happens doesn't it. God permits men to murder. That is God's permissive will.

So, when God permits Murder, is His Will to grant such Permission -- imperfect?

[Vernon]

God NEVER does anything regarding his eternal salvation outside the willful decision of the person. Reason, spin, and whatever, but just t'aint scriptural nor historically in keeping with the most Holy faith once delivered to the Saints.

Several years ago I had one of the "C's," a pastor, corner me and explained for quite some time how their "belief" went all the way back to John the Baptist! The one thing he convinced me of was he had a serious need of dealing with Church history.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Cuz.... Dabney's resolution of the Infra-Supra controversy doesn't disagree in the slightest with the point which I was making. Basically, I can tell you right now that I agree with everything Dabney said -- and it agrees with everything which I have said.

Hence, it's useless to you as a rebuttal.

Why don't you try re-reading what I wrote, and re-reading what Dabney wrote, and see if you can figure it out on the second go-round. OR, try to explain just precisely why you think my point disagrees with Dabney's. Care to make a go of it?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

God NEVER does anything regarding his eternal salvation outside the willful decision of the person. Reason, spin, and whatever, but just t'aint scriptural nor historically in keeping with the most Holy faith once delivered to the Saints.

Sorry, John says you're wrong.

John 1:13 -- Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Man's Will is not Party to the Action of Spiritual Regeneration. John could scarcely be more plain about the matter.

Several years ago I had one of the "C's," a pastor, corner me and explained for quite some time how their "belief" went all the way back to John the Baptist! The one thing he convinced me of was he had a serious need of dealing with Church history.

In that, you are correct. Messianic-Jewish Rev. Steven Schlissel traces it back a good deal further than that.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof... It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a Plan B. He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve - He redeemed them - by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the Sacrament), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word.
~~ Rev. Steve Schlissel, “The Synagogue of Christ”

[connectthedots]

Any Action of Will, is necessarily a Work. Work = Action, Action = Work.

So is having sexual relations w2ith one's spouse considered a 'work'?