Posted on 04/11/2009 7:27:56 PM PDT by ReformedBeckite
I was trying to recall what the difference was between Clark and Van Til, that is all.
Now that we know you can use a dictionary, what was it about the substance of Bahnsen's article that you found biblically objectionable?
From the article: "Scripture itself should be enough to dissuade a person from depending upon evidential arguments for Christ's resurrection. God's word makes clear that man's rebellion against the truth is morally, not intellectually, rooted. The sinner needs a changed heart and Spiritually opened eyes, not more facts and reasons."
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
WCF Chapter 3.
I'm not sure if I can speak for Bahnsen but I think most reformed individuals would rather spend most of their time on talking about the total depravity of man and the death of Jesus to save those sinners from themselves then to be talking about the Resurrection. I think the big beef that these reformed individuals have is that the majority of the other schools of theology spend way to much time on the end story of the gospel while ignoring the beginning of the gospel or lets say the gloss over the sin part of the gospel and the death of Jesus to get to the Resurrection. A majority of their time is spent on apologetics of the Resurrection while very little time is spent on the gospel. You can use apologetics to convince a lot of people that the Resurrection happen and that Jesus is God. But it is really hard to convince them that they are sinners and in need of salvation, and then most of them are only going half heartly admit they are sinners and never admit that Jesus is Lord over them. Yeah you might use apologetics to convince them of historical facts, or evidence but if they do not see Jesus as Lord of everything they are still going to hell. And if they go to hell all the time spent on trying to convince them of historical facts, evidence etc. is all to naught. I think I can say that most reformers would rather spend most time on the front end of the gospel convincing people they are sinners the more harder part of the Gospel then to convince them of the Resurrection(or the easyier or last part of the gospel.) The sin part of the Gospel has pretty much been stripped out the gospel in most churches and the Death of Jesus Christ has well lets say been put to death in most Churches.
Better than this topcat, show me the Scripture that teaches this and we will talk. I am not going to address a creed’s statement and you know that.
Here's a question to the reformed folks out there, and that is what is the difference if any between predestination and foreordained. To me it's also been the same but seeing that the writers of the WCF decided to use one for the saved and one for the cursed there most be a difference or just a flux in how they wrote it. Would this have something to do with the order of salvation with predestination happening before the foreordained in the course of history.
The question whether there is a double predestination to both holiness and life and sin and death, or only a single predestination to holiness and life, was raised in the fifth and sixth centuries, during the Semi-Pelagian controversy, and afterward in the ninth century, in the controversy between Gottschalk and Ratramnus on the one side, and Rabanus Maurus and Hincmar on the other. The stricter Augustinians affirmed the predestinatio duplex to both holiness and sin; the milder affirmed only the single predestination to holiness. Both alike, however, opposed the synergistic Semi-Pelagianism. The Calvinistic reformers and the Calvinistic creeds asserted the twofold predestination. The Westminster Confession declares it plainly. It is explicitly taught in Scripture. In Rom. 8:29, it is said that ‘whom God did foreknow, he also did predestinate proorise to be conformed to the image of his Son’. This is predestination to holiness. In Acts 4:27, 28, it is said that ‘against thy holy child Jesus, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and all the people of Israel were gathered, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before proorise to be done’. This is predestination to sin. Compare also Acts 2:23; Luke 22:22; Jude 4. Precisely the same Greek word is employed in both texts, and should therefore be translated by precisely the same English word in both. James’s translators render it by ‘predestinate’ in Rom. 8:29, and by ‘determined before’ (predetermined) in Acts 4:28. There is no material difference between ‘predestinate’ and ‘predetermine,’ but it would have been better to have employed either one word or the other in both instances, because a merely English reader might be led to suppose that two different Greek words are employed in the original. The Revisers consistently render proorise in both texts by the synonymous term ‘foreordain’. Hetherington (Westminster Assembly, Chap. x.) contends that ‘predestinate’ and ‘foreordain’ are not synonymous and interchangeable, because in Conf. iii. 3, the first is used with everlasting life, and the last with everlasting death. His statement is as follows: ‘By predestination, the Westminster divines meant a particular decree determining to confer everlasting life. By foreordination, they meant a decree of order or arrangement determining that the guilty should be condemned to everlasting death; and this they regarded as the basis of judicial procedure according to which “God ordains men to dishonor and wrath for their sin”. Let it furthermore be remarked that while according to this view the term predestination could never be applied to the lost, the term foreordination might be applied to the saved, since they also are subjects in one sense of judicial procedure’. There are the following objections to this denial that predestination and foreordination are equivalent terms, and to this definition of foreordination: 1. One and the same word, proorise is employed in Scripture to denote the divine action in reference to both holiness and sin, life and death, and therefore if two different words are employed to translate it, they ought to be synonymous and applicable to both cases alike. 2. Lexicographers regard them as synonymous. Stormonth, e.g., defines ‘foreordain’ by ‘predestinate’, and ‘predestinate’ by ‘foreordain’. 3. If proorise in the instance of sin and death, means only a judicial decision to punish sin, then, in the instance of holiness and life, it would mean only a judicial decision to reward holiness. If it is predestination to penalty in one case, it must be predestination to reward in the other. But when St. Paul declares that ‘whom God did foreknow he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son’, he means that He predestinated them to the conformity itself, and not merely to the reward of it. 4. To say, as Hetherington does, that ‘to foreordain some men to everlasting death’ is ‘a decree determining that the guilty shall be condemned to everlasting death’ (i.e., to the penalty of sin), is to misconceive the nature of a decree. The matter of a decree is always optional. It supposes the possibility of the contrary. When God decrees the creation of the world, He is at liberty not to decree it and not to create it. But when He condemns the guilty to punishment, this is not an optional matter, but follows necessarily from the nature of the divine justice and the threatening of the divine law. There is, therefore, no more place for a decree ‘to condemn the guilty to everlasting death’ than for a decree that virtue shall be rewardable, or that two and two shall make four. The same remark applies to Hetherington’s definition of ‘predestination’ as ‘a particular decree determining to confer everlasting life’. Everlasting life, strictly speaking, is the reward of obedience, which follows necessarily from God’s promise, ‘This do and thou shalt live’, and from the nature of remunerative justice. There is nothing optional in it. We cannot conceive of God’s decreeing not to reward obedience, and still less to punish it. Unless, therefore, ‘conferring everlasting life’ includes the origination in the elect of the holiness which is rewardable with everlasting life, as was probably the view of Hetherington, it is not the predestination which St. Paul describes as a predestination ‘to be conformed to the image’ of the Son of God. ( W.G.T. Shedd)
Double PredestinationQuestion
As I have studied and come to accept reformed theology I have also learned that there is a division concerning predestination between a “single” and “double” view. My question is this: did God, in eternity past, simply pass over the reprobate and elect some, or did he condemn the reprobate and not merely pass them over?
Answer
You’ll find that Reformed theologians answer this question differently, depending on how they define “predestination.” Most believe the same thing, even if they use different words to describe it.
The mechanism, however one defines predestination, is as follows: God loves certain people before the foundation of the world and chooses them for salvation (the elect). In choosing some for salvation, he necessarily does not choose others (the reprobate). By his choices and passing over, God renders all his decisions certain to happen (foreordination). When in time and creation God’s eternal decrees are fulfilled, the elect are saved by the active intervention of God (regeneration before faith, gift of faith, irresistible grace, efficacious call, etc.) and the reprobate are lost by virtue of their own character, choices and actions (total depravity).
Notice that nowhere above did I use the term “predestination,” and pretty much all Reformed theologians would agree to the foregoing statements. Now, some people define “predestination” to mean “generic foreordination,” in which case everything that comes to pass is “predestined.” Under this definition, it is not sufficient to say that someone is “predestined”; the statement must be qualified, e.g. “predestined to salvation.” Others define “predestination” to mean “predestined to salvation,” in which case it can only refer to the elect.
Both uses appear to be represented in the Bible (Greek: proorizo), though the generic sense may have a stronger attestation. The generic sense is clearly used in Acts 4:28 and 1 Corinthians 2:7. The salvific sense is used in Romans 8:29,30 and Ephesians 1:5,11. But note that in both Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:5 “predestined” is qualified: “to become conformed …” (Rom. 8:29); and “to adoption …” (Eph. 1:5). Arguably, Romans 8:30 and Ephesians 1:11 are unqualified only because the qualification has already been mentioned. In any event, since both uses arguably appear in the Bible, neither definition employed by theologians is misleading in and of itself, and both have warrant.
There is also a third definition, generally associated with the term “hyper-Calvinism,” which is to be avoided. This is the idea that God not only predestines the reprobate to hell, but actively intervenes in history to make sure that they reject the gospel. While it may be demonstrable that God’s temporal judgment has this effect in certain cases (i.e. it may not be against God’s character to do such a thing, e.g. John 12:40; Rom. 9:17-22), Scripture does not clearly indicate that such negative intervention to prevent salvation always takes place.
Because various definitions of “predestination” exist, it is important always to know which definition a theologian is using before coming to conclusions about the finer points of what the theologian actually believes. (Ra McLaughlin)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.