• The Two Seeds

    Part I: Are the wicked a second ransom insuring the eternal security of the saints?
    And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel. (Gen. 3:15, NKJV)
    No expositor has ever questioned that this passage in scripture is the first mention in linear time of the doctrine of redemption in Christ. But how many have really examined its implications? Very few. Most brush over it with astonishingly brief exposition and go straight to other ‘more important’ considerations. But the first redemptive promise of God in linear time contains vital and eternal truths rewarding only those spirits who truly and passionately seek the One God as the author of scripture! Others will miss out. Most in previous generations have missed the implications of this passage. Most will continue to miss it for many generations to come!

    Before meditating on the purposes of God announced at the linear beginning of the history of mankind, it is imperative to first consider the revelation of God’s purposes manifested at the end of linear history. A mind accustomed to Eastern, Western, modern, and post-modern philosophy can only perceive of God's purposes as occurring in the order of time. The 'divine decrees' have to start with what is first in time and end with what is last. But if we are to understand God's plan of salvation, we must start at the final end of history and reason back to the beginning. God has purposed a final outcome. Everything that occurs prior to that ultimate goal of history happens in order to achieve it. Gordon Clark is lucid:
    Supralapsarianism, for all its insistence on a certain logical order among the divine decrees, is essentially, so it seems to us, the unobjectionable view that God controls the universe purposefully. God acts with a purpose. He has an end in view and sees the end from the beginning. Every verse in Scripture that in one way or another refers to God's manifold wisdom, every statement indicating that a prior event is for the purpose of causing a subsequent event, every mention of an eternal, all-embracing plan contributes to a teleological and therefore supralapsarian view of God's control of history . . .

    The connection between supralapsarianism and the fact that God always acts purposefully depends on the observation that the logical order of any plan is the exact reverse of its temporal execution. The first step in any planning is the end to be achieved; then the means are decided upon, until last of all the first thing to be done is discovered. The execution in time reverses the order of planning. Thus creation, since it is first in history, must be logically last in the divine decrees.
    As both the climax of linear history and the first of God’s purposes, the new creation contains three groups of created beings:
    1. The elect angels who never rebelled.
    2. The elect humans saved from sin and death in the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
    3. The reprobates who always and continually rebel.
    In the entire history of Christian dogma, there is not a single good treatise fully explaining the subject of reprobation and why God positively destined group #3 to eternal judgment. A few supralapsarian teachers have ably defended the scriptural teaching of equal ultimacy: God predestines souls to reprobation as deliberately and positively as he elects persons to salvation. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to those few who have stood against the populist infralapsarian dogma of the masses. They got us to thinking biblically regarding the implications of what it means for God to be truly sovereign. Unfortunately, since the rationale of most supralapsarians in the past has been dedicated to maintaining Patristic and Augustinian views of creation and the fall, a strange and almost incomprehensible doctrine from the history of dogma has reared its ugly head among them. That doctrine is the teaching of the wicked as a second ransom insuring the eternal security of the saints!

    In early 2004, the "New Focus" magazine re-printed a defense from the late Dr. Herman Hoeksema of the doctrine of second ransom. Bible students have to wonder why an expositor of such stature and inestimable value in Christian history would so passionately defend such a notion. But he was only defending a belief that had long-standing respect among Calvinists. There is no motive for the doctrine other than the a priori reasoning from the ‘common fall’ to eternity future, which is strictly an infralapsarian argument. So this very lucidly demonstrates to us that those who call themselves supralapsarian often still reason exactly like their infralapsarian opponents.

    The Calvinist doctrine of a second ransom is as much a doctrine of devils as the papal doctrine of a second mediator. As Christ does not share his glory as mediator of our salvation with Mary, he certainly does not share his glory as the ransom for our sins with the wicked. This is nothing but a metamorphosis of the Patristic doctrine of atonement. One of the great ironies in the history of dogma is that Protestants will not renounce the Patristic and Augustinian view of the origin of sin. Although Protestantism totally renounces the Patristic doctrine of Christ’s atonement as a ransom paid to the devil, the trained churchmen of today are as dedicated as ever to maintaining the Patristic denial of God as the sovereign cause of evil. For supralapsarian churchmen, the unique ‘spin’ and end-result of defending Neo-Platonism is obvious. It translates into a doctrine of second ransom in eternity future.

    As the Bible never speaks of a mediator other than Jesus Christ, it just as certainly never speaks of anyone other than Jesus Christ as the ransom for our sins. So we must surely accept the truth that scripture has an entirely different doctrine of positive reprobation than that promoted by the typical supralapsarian Calvinist.

    Part II: Is There an Alternative to the Second Ransom Theory?

    In Part I, it was observed that supralapsarian Calvinism has fallen short in its explanations of why God has determined to create billions of creatures for a reprobate destiny. Although high-grace Calvinism has masterfully demonstrated from scripture that God desires and purposes a damned people; in his final and perfect determined state of the universe, it has suggested the very worst of reasons for this plan of divine wisdom. The reason that has been proposed is this: the saved need a second ransom in order to insure the eternal security of their souls.

    The second ransom theory certainly betrays its serious doubt that God is able to regenerate previously sinful humans to a perfection that guarantees an eternity free of rebellion. Some further ‘insurance’ is needed in this view. Therefore, in addition to his plan to elect a people conceived in iniquity to eternal salvation in Christ, God determined to elect and create a people with the same nature as the redeemed in their unregenerate state to everlasting misery and the withholding of salvation. The example of a people created in the identical and exact circumstances of body and soul—but denied the inestimable gift of salvation and instead tortured without measure—this would provide the insurance needed to absolutely guarantee that no saved creature in glory would ever consider as second rebellion. The gratitude of the elect of being saved from such an awful state of indescribable torment would be the key to eternal security.

    Naturally, the second ransom theory provides the motive needed for high Calvinism to defend the Augustinian view of the common fall. If God has delighted to purpose the torture of a people for eternity that might have been elected and saved in Christ, the nature of the sin of the reprobate is consequentially defined to be identical to that of the elect. So an ‘ingenious compromise’ (for lack of a better expression) has been reached; one that enables supralapsarian teachers to remain in the community of faith as defined by historic churchmen and still be accepted. That community consists of all men and women who confess the law established by Plato in his Republic—considered binding on all teachers who would be respected for all time: God must never be proposed to be the author of sin.

    In contrast to all this, does the Bible provide a better and more rational answer to the question of why God positively purposed reprobation? The good news is, most definitely! In fact, the theory of second ransom has not a single scripture to support it. The solution to unraveling this mystery of God’s ultimate purposes transcendent of time and space is not difficult. It lies in gaining a biblical understanding of the nature and destiny of three distinct groups of eternal spirits. These created beings have been positively elected by God to experience extreme distinction one from another, in order to glorify himself.

    Part III: The Truth about Elect Angels


    It is crucial to realize that since the 2nd century, the law of Plato has been an underlying and a priori assumption in all formulation of institutional Christian doctrine. This law proposes that God is the creator only of that which is good and of nothing evil. Nowhere in Christian thought is devotion to this law more evident than in the historic teaching on elect angels.

    The elect angels are the first of three distinct congregations of souls in the final creation. The published history of theology is very much in error in its teaching about the angels who never rebelled. This is because of a compartmentalized approach to the history of the universe. It is proposed that after the 'common fall’ of mankind in Adam, all the principles in scripture regarding the functionality of evil came into being. Before that point, however, it is proposed that sin and rebellion did not originate out of corruption in the hearts of creatures. The principle that bad fruit is always born from a corrupt tree was not yet supposed to be in operation. This conclusion has to be reached if one assumes that God never creates evil. John Gill is one of the most explicit of Calvinist teachers in defining and defending this compartmentalized view of the origin of evil.

    Looking to the final creation, the logic of the traditional view would not only propose that wicked human beings are a necessary ransom to insure the holiness of elect humans. The same logic would propose that wicked angelic souls are a needed ransom to insure the holiness of the elect angels! But this whole teaching on ransom would never have existed without the a priori assumption of the law of Plato. So it is interesting to note the contribution of supralapsarian Calvinists. Although many of them claim to begin with the pre-eminent creation in Christ as the starting point in reasoning God’s purposes, the application of the law of Plato still results in a view of eternity future that is conditioned on an assumed common creation of angels and mankind. So the reasoning ends up being left-to-right after all!

    If the law of Plato is thrown out, we have no such difficulty and no reason to defend these positions. One day it will be known that Plato’s chief hatred in philosophy was the Hebrew scriptures. It was these that he opposed most of all--in his philosophy of a God who only creates what is good. Bible revelation teaches us that the sovereign God of the universe always accomplishes his perfect pleasure in everything that he determines (Isa. 46:9,10). God causes all; he does not merely permit anything. Everything is planned to the end of a positive and perfect destiny that is the first and greatest of his purposes.

    All philosophy must start with certain assumptions, assertions, and propositions. The a priori assumption here, based on scriptural revelation, is that the principles of the created universe never change in time and space. Evil thoughts and actions proceed only from evil hearts, in all places and times.

    The main issue with the souls of elect angels is whether God created them impeccable. Historic Christian dogma denies that this is possible--because it assumes that all angels had to be created alike. Otherwise, God is proposed to be ‘the author of sin.’ The Bible, of course, does not engage in a detailed discussion of the original state of soul of righteous angels. It is not a systematic theology. But we must conclude, based on the eternal and unchanging principles contained in scripture, that the original state of soul of elect angels was indeed impeccable. They were unable to sin and had no desire or impulse to entertain the propositions of the devil. Their praises eternally ascend unto God and they never tire in their worship of him (Rev. 4, 5)!

    God has purposed to have a congregation of souls in eternity that never entertained the slightest thought of rebellion; souls that were always perfectly faithful to him. His purpose with regard to them is absolutely complete and faultless. They need no example of a congregation of fallen and tortured angels created exactly the same originally--to keep them faithful or increase their gratitude towards God. They will be perfectly content in their absolute adoration of God; not only thanking him for their own creation as impeccable souls—but in his creation of wicked human souls who were to be redeemed in the atoning work of Christ. They were privileged to serve as ministering spirits on behalf of these souls. They fought valiantly with reprobate angels to keep them from harming God’s saints. They will constantly study for eternity in wonderful awe the mystery of human redemption.

    Part IV: The Truth of the Gospel
    But if even we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. (Gal. 1:8-10, NKJV)
    The only true and genuine basis of Christian unity is the everlasting gospel delivered once-for-all to the saints. This gospel is concerned with the salvation of elect mankind in the person and work of Jesus Christ. A proper understanding of it must of necessity include belief in the following doctrines:

    1. The Trinity - Salvation, being the work of the triune God, is unintelligible to man apart from knowing the contributions of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in relation to it. The apostolic doctrine on the Trinity was attacked very early in the post-apostolic assemblies. The fact of God’s unity in three eternal persons was recovered in the early centuries, however, the glorious implications of this to the work of salvation has been recovered mainly since Reformation times.
    2. The Person and Work of Christ - The truth about who Jesus was in his incarnation and the redemption achieved in his work for the elect is certainly the core of the gospel. This includes the facts regarding Christ’s true deity, humanity, sinless life, atoning death, resurrection, and coronation as Lord of all.
    3. The Universal Sinfulness of Man - A doctrine of two seeds of evil is being proposed here as the only true Biblical teaching. But the fact that all persons descended of Adam are indeed sinful rebels, deserving only of God’s wrath, is fundamental to knowing the gospel. Christ suffered the curse of the law under the wrath of God--as a substitute for the deserts of the elect in their rebellion and sin.The dominion of sin is broken in the elect at regeneration--but the presence of the flesh (impulses of sin) will not be eradicated until final glorification or re-birth.
    4. Justification by Faith Apart from Law - The truth of the gospel involves more than solely by grace, solely by Christ, or even solely to the glory of God! The assurance of justification is declared to an unworthy sinner solely by faith, personal faith. If this faith is proposed to be anything but personal to the elect sinner (but the property and gift of God alone), assurance is destroyed and the work of the Holy Spirit in applying redemption is denied.
    5. Divine Election - The gospel is concerned primarily with the salvation of a great multitude; it is focused on the truth that God has elected a people in Christ to a new and saved humanity. The kingdom of God in Christ will have no end--as prophesied of old by Daniel and confirmed by the angel to Mary (Dan. 2:44, Luke 1:33). The nature of the kingdom encompasses both spiritual and material (cosmic) redemption.
    Why pause to re-affirm some of these great and historic truths? It is because nothing of historic Calvinist dogma regarding Christ and salvation is being challenged in this viewpoint. Everything on the redemption side of God’s purposes, occurring in-between the original sin of Adam and the final glory, is affirmed to be exactly as the great Reformed teachers of the past have taught it. In addition, the joys and glory of eternal life in Christ following the consummation are affirmed to be the same. The extreme differences lie in the affirmations of the nature of reprobation in the first and pre-eminent creation and the origin of evil in the shadow creation.

    Why does any of it matter? Is not salvation itself more important than the plan of salvation? It matters because of the nature of worship. God is jealous for his own glory and demands that we ascribe glory to him only in the way that he has indicated. The final state of the universe is strictly ordained unto the glory of God and the proper worship of himself. We know that the central focus and theme of eternal ages will always be the redemption of an elect people in Christ, to the glory of God the father. We have already seen a second elective purpose of God to glorify himself in eternity: the creation of a multitude of elect and impeccable angels who would never entertain an unfaithful thought or act. A third elective purpose of God is reprobation and will be the subject of the next study.

    Part V: The Truth About Reprobation


    On the redemption aspect of New Testament teaching, there is no substantive disagreement between the author of this study and the rest of interpreters in the Reformed tradition. We are in agreement on what constitutes both a sound Christology and an orthodox soteriology. The purpose of this study will be to condemn the false teachings of Augustine on the matter of eternal sin and reprobation. Regardless of the consequences, the study of this subject is a most necessary and significant endeavor in the current time of increased knowledge. We are to study the truth of biblical revelation on all important matters to show ourselves approved unto God. Either the Augustinian doctrine of the fall and reprobation is true--or the Bible teaches a different message.

    There are many critical subjects taught in the Bible that no thorough work of the human pen has adequately addressed. These include the nature of the Christian community (ecclesiology), the doctrines of baptism and communion, the matter of the origin of evil, the biblical doctrine of judgment, the biblical doctrine of wholistic man, and the issue of what truly constitutes double predestination. Of course, volumes have been written on all of these subjects. The fine details of the perspectives vary almost endlessly. But in the final analysis, the Augustinian and Patristic tradition ends up defining the essence of every one of these doctrines. Naturally, the presence of teaching similar to St. Gus is abundant in the writings of Rabbinic and Philonic Judaism. This fact contributes heavily to the assumed certainty of the correctness of tradition and God’s leading in all of it.

    It took many centuries for the studied within Christendom to condemn many Patristic errors. The false views of the atonement endured for a thousand years and were only gradually corrected afterward. Ditto the false doctrine of the sacraments (making salvation dependent on receiving ‘the drip’), the doctrine of the rule of bishops over the conscience and society, endless philosophies on the natural autonomy of man, and the damnable dogma of subjective justification. A good example of the slowness of christen ’dumb’ to oppose false teaching is the matter of Origen’s heathen and unscriptural eschatology. Two centuries later, Eusebius still included Origen as an orthodox saint in his chronicling of the history of Christianity.

    The matter of Augustine’s orthodoxy certainly lies at the crux of these issues. Theologians of any tradition other than Reformed (notably Lutherans) have been candid in admitting Augustine’s dependence on Neo-Platonic philosophy. The great Reformed teachers, believing Augustine to be the post-apostolic champion of the doctrines of grace, refuse to admit this. Even Dr. Gordon Clark in his Ancient Philosophy, after masterfully demonstrating how the philosophy of Plotinus transformed Platonic thought by synthesizing in a large amount of determinism, nonetheless insists that Augustine’s dependence on this Neo-Platonism is much overstated by theologians. Non-Reformed observers are bound to notice that this is one more example of the Reformed tradition’s extreme and unwarranted over-reverence of St. Gus.

    The present author is convinced, after studying the ‘partial determinism’ taught by Plotinus, that Augustine’s view of predestination indeed comes from the philosophic tradition of Neo-Platonism. It is not the Hebrew and Pauline doctrine of predestination. The thought of Plotinus hastened to admit that the events in the universe are largely determined by a higher power. But it still deferred to Platonic thought in refusing to believe that evil has its origin in the purposes and direct creation of God (Gordon Clark, Ancient Philosophy: "Plotinus Theory of Empirical Responsibility" pp. 444-458). The Augustinian and Reformed doctrine of predestination follows the philosophy of Plotinus exactly.

    The teaching of the supralapsarians has come the nearest to recovering the scriptural position on the twin purposes of God in salvation and reprobation. The current writer joyfully acknowledges his dependence on the advances in Bible understanding gained by a study of these men. Without this step forward in the history of Christian thought, it would be impossible to go the rest of the way. Strangely enough, even universalist Karl Barth admitted that the supralapsarians were the closest to the truth among the historical ‘orthodox.’ Which is the greater sin: to deny that a portion of mankind will be damned or to deny that God positively determines the destinies of all? Although both of these denials are condemned by scripture, the far greater sin is to cast disrepute on God’s sovereignty! The election side of God’s purposes is absolutely perfect, complete, and glorious in and of itself. If there were no damnation, it would not detract the least whit from the glories and perfection of the plan of salvation in Christ. Reprobation is an opposite plan designed to bring glory to God in an entirely different manner.

    Luther had to re-discover an orthodox soteriology by returning to the Bible itself. There is no published source between the apostles and Luther that clearly enumerates the scriptural doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness received by faith alone. Even so, the alternative to Rabbinic, Patristic, and Augustinian teachings on the origin and purpose of evil and reprobate souls can only be discovered by returning to the scriptures. The other writings of man cannot help us on this one.
    I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sin, and from the west, that there is none beside me: I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together: I the Lord have created it. Isa. 45:5-8, KJV

    Remember the former things of old, For I am God ant there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,’ Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. Isa. 46:9-11

    But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. For He performs what is appointed for me, and many such things are with Him. Job 23:13,14, NKJV

    But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day. Deut. 2:30

    But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. 1 Sam. 16:14,15 KJV

    The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes. Prov. 21:1

    Then you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord: "Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land—even the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—with drunkenness! And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together," says the LORD. "I will not pity nor spare nor have mercy, but will destroy them."’" Jer. 13:13,14

    Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lam. 3:38 KJV

    For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Col. 1:16; Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. Col. 2:15

    What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, Rom. 9:22,23

    But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable, And He said to them,"To you is has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’" Mark 4:10-12

    When he is judged, let him be found guilty. And let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children continually be vagabonds, and beg; Let them seek their bread also from their desolate places. Let the creditor seize all that he has, And let strangers plunder his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy to him, Nor let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be continually before the LORD, That He may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Ps. 109:7-15

    But You, O GOD the Lord, Deal with me for Your name’s sake; Because Your mercy is good, deliver me. Ps. 109:21

    Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men. For they speak against You wickedly; Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. Ps. 139:19-22

    Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 2 Thess. 1:6,7

    After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her." Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped God who sat on the throne, saying, "Amen! Alleluia!" Rev. 19:1-4

    But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. Gen. 50:20

    Shall the trumpet be blown in a city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Amos 3:6, KJV
    The scriptures cited above, when taken as a complete and logical whole, reveal a very different doctrine from that of historic churchmen on teachings related to the subject of reprobation. These teachings will now be discussed individually. In harmony with the right-to-left view of the plan of salvation taught by supralapsarians, the ‘last will be first’ and the ‘first will be last.’

    1. The nature of final glory in the relationship of the saved to the damned.


    The historic churchmen have certainly taught us a stoic view of eternity future, very unlike the triumphant spirit of Revelation! The preaching on the tortures of hell--especially by Calvinists--is not directed to the lost. The wicked are unable to discern spiritual matters anyway; this fact is freely admitted. No, the preaching of hell-fire is aimed at the saints to sober their perception of the reality of heaven. The wicked in their torture are forever proposed to be a second ransom for the saints, keeping them safe from all future rebellion. It is suggested that the knowledge of the fate of the ungodly in the present--and the actual witnessing of it in the future--will make the saints very sober, considering what they have escaped. After all, the non-elect human souls are proposed to be exactly the same in nature as the elect saints were before conversion. It is taught that the reprobate will always be capable of regeneration--but additionally denied it by God! The wonder of grace is supposed to be that God selected some for eternal life--while leaving others of the same sinful essence to their just deserts--as a consequence of Adam’s unique sin committed while having no impulse toward sin whatsoever. In the Calvinistic view, it seems that Adam will have a dubious position in the eternal state of things--since every human being will justly be able to accuse him of causing the damnation of billions into torturing hell-fire without measure and without end! A prominent TV evangelist once stated that the first thing he will do in heaven is to find Adam and slap him on the face!

    Is the real essence of final salvation taught in the doctrine of second ransom? Is the chief point of eternal bliss the notion that the saved among men will look upon the damned among men; stating with trembling awe: It might just as easily have been me? If so, the triumphant redemptive note sounded in the Bible is nonsense. The saints have no reason whatsoever to celebrate the downfall and punishment of reprobates--if what they are witnessing in eternity is supposed to be their own destiny. According to such a proposition, the judgment executed on the finally impenitent is the exact same destiny as that the saints were headed for--except for the grace of God in selecting or snatching them out of such a fate in Christ!

    To comprehend their unworthiness and desert of God’s retribution, the elect are to look to the wrath of God poured out on Jesus Christ in his atonement. They are not to look to the final punishment of the reprobate. The notion that Christ’s suffering is the equivalent of the suffering of the reprobate is nowhere advanced in scripture. It is instead a philosophy stemming from Anselm’s erroneous position on God’s justice--which compares the divine law to medieval notions of punishment meted out on a pound-for-pound scale. If the seed of the woman is not created reprobate, God’s wrath upon the finally impenitent was never a possible destiny for them. This is why a triumphant note is always sounded by God’s people when action is taken against the hopelessly godless. If their attitude is instead supposed to be sober, always thinking "it might have just as easily been me," then such exuberant praise to God for condemning the reprobate would not be appropriate. God’s people are to look only to the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and think "it might have been me."

    So what is the real purpose of the election of multitudes to reprobation? It is the advancement of the glory of God in the manifestation of absolute and unstoppable impenitence! In the end, the stubborn refusal of reprobate creatures to repent is ordained to praise the wisdom of God’s sovereign purposes. It is no more complicated than this. Every creature that God has created in his image, whether angelic or earthly, is absolutely dependent on God’s eternal purpose in the final destiny that is received. The elect angels will forever praise God that they were created impeccable and unable to rebel. The elect humans will forever praise God that they were shapen in iniquity and nonetheless redeemed by the blood of Christ. The reprobate angels and biological descendants of Adam will forever glorify God in their blasphemous cursing. The premise of their rebellion is absolutely irrational and stupid. It is the notion that God forever owes those who are hopelessly wedded to sin the life of evil that is their sole and continuous desire.

    Final judgment on the impenitent consists of two aspects: the curse of the law and the curse of the gospel. Reprobate mankind will be judged according to law and suffer material torment in proportion to their deeds. The whore is given torture and grief in proportion to her sins (Rev. 18:6-8). This is not eternal punishment but torment with measure. She will suffer the same sort of punishment meted out on Jesus Christ. Christ suffered the curse of the law for the chief of sinners; which is one who persecutes and murders the saints (symbolized by the woman).

    The finally and hopelessly wicked will also be judged according to the gospel; which involves a plunging into everlasting shame and contempt. Christ did not suffer this fate for anyone; he atoned only for sin that was to be forgiven and repented of. The atonement is for the seed of the woman, not for the seed of the serpent. The curse of the gospel is a unique destiny which befalls only those who forever laugh at God’s grace and mock the plan of salvation as it exists on God’s terms. This aspect of punishment is what brings the most glory to God in the plan of reprobation; the wrath of unimaginably stupid devils bringing him praise.

    The final state consists of the triumphant rule of Christ, the redeemed saints, and the elect angels over the reprobate angels and men. Every aspect of the final and first creation is the pre-eminent and eternal purpose of God. God positively predestined a great multitude to reprobation. He created and breathed life into them for the sole purpose of displaying his glory in their damnation. In no sense are they ever potential candidates for redemption. God never desired their salvation; his pleasure was always to lift them up for a time, endure their iniquity until the appointed day of demise, and finally plunge them into a state of everlasting shame and contempt. Christ and his saints will forever and triumphantly rule over them with a rod of iron (Rev. 2:26,27).

    2. The biblical nature of judgment.

    Western Christianity has short-changed the biblical doctrine of judgment in so many ways. In the jargon and writings of historic churchmen, ‘judgment’ generally refers to the anger and wrath of God. In the Bible this is only one side of judgment; not even the most important side. The more important aspect is that God’s justice, righteousness, and justification brings salvation to the elect. In the Psalms and other Old Testament works, the people of God appeal continuously to the justice of God to bring redemption. Contrary to the writings of so many scholars, the Bible does not contrast God’s justice and mercy: they are not opposites. Justice comprises God’s elective purposes of both mercy and wrath.

    There are no gray areas in the biblical perspective; it is all black and white: men are either righteous or wicked. On the day of final reckoning, there will be no wicked who ‘almost made it’ or righteous who ‘almost didn’t make it.’ Neither are the elect among the truly wicked in their unregenerate state. The seed of the woman is conceived in iniquity and depraved in every aspect of being prior to regeneration. Yet they are righteous in God’s own reckoning and purpose. The fact that Jeremiah was called to be a prophet while still in the womb does not mean that he escaped the lot of depraved conception. But he was always reckoned as one of the godly in the justice of God; his justification was constituted in the future atonement of Jesus Christ.

    The Psalms are full of imprecation of God’s wrath by his people against their enemies. Many skeptics view these passages as evidence that the Bible is full of error. The type of prayers engaged in would be inappropriate if there were any overlap between righteousness and wickedness in God’s purposes. There is not. The assumption is that the wicked are hopeless reprobates who cannot repent. Therefore the full wrath of God against them earnestly invoked, to be manifested in every sort of judgment.

    3. The origin and nature of evil.


    We now come to the last discussion, which is the matter of two seeds of evil—the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The promised seed of the woman is ultimately Jesus Christ. However, the culmination of the prophecy in him is not all that is talked about. There is a long historical enmity between the two seeds which spans the time between the original curse and the death of the promised Messiah.

    ‘Seed’ in this instance cannot mean pure biological descent, though it includes an element of that. All of humankind, both elect and reprobate, are biologically descended from Eve. Yet there are two separate seeds promised in Gen. 3:15. This introduces a spiritual element. As the serpent was not merely physical but also the habitation of Satan, even so a large portion of mankind would be created in his likeness. They were to appear biologically as humans--but spiritually they would be snakes: not human but devil. They would all be the devil’s children, created in an iniquity that is beyond redemption. Since God purposed from eternity to create them for the sole purpose of glorifying himself in their damnation, there would be no capability of righteousness in them.

    It is impossible for an elect soul to experientially understand the nature of the mystery of iniquity: eternal sin unto death that will never be forgiven. Even though all the elect are conceived in iniquity, they are not of the seed of Satan. They are not devils. The seed of the woman, Jesus Christ only excepted, is born in the likeness of Eve in her rebellion. This seed is purposed to experience sin and guilt, then be saved by the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is the seed in which the Holy Spirit works throughout history to wage war against the devil’s children. It was also to have a biological element between Eve and Jesus Christ—there was to be an unbroken physical line of regenerate souls through which the Messiah would finally come.

    The fact of two seeds of evil demonstrates that sin and rebellion does not come through the genes. It is created directly by God in each individual soul. After the creation of it, God directs the evil to specific thoughts and acts predestined in history to accomplish his purposes. Every wicked impulse, thought, and act of devils and elect men is planned in detail by the Lord: it is he that has accomplished it all. It is the philosophy of Plato that God cannot create evil, not the teaching of scripture. Many of the references cited above are from the KJV--because the NKJV has lessened the force of the Hebrew RA to include only calamity. So have all more recent translations attempted to change the word of God. In this reasoning, God only caused the calamity resulting from the intoxicating of men in wickedness--not the sin itself. But RA means both wickedness and calamity: all things related to the kingdom of darkness. The Lord stirs up the hearts of reprobates and elect to specific sin, resulting in the calamity that he purposes.

    The angels have no biology. God created each one directly. The passages above in Colossians make it clear that the devils (principalities and powers) conquered by Jesus in his atonement were also created by him. The Platonic assumption that God cannot create evil is the only reason why men have come up with an alternate system of doctrine from the Bible: teaching that Satan was created holy and righteous, then later sinned without having an impulse of sin.

    As a rock cannot be changed into an apple and still be a rock, a snake cannot be changed into a woman and still be a snake. The two seeds are entirely different: black and white, wicked and righteous. A reprobate cannot be changed into a lover of Christ. The nature of reprobates is as different from the elect, even in their unregenerate state, as a rock differs from an apple or a snake differs from a woman.

    God’s purpose in reprobation is to glorify himself in the opposite manner than he is glorified from redemption. God purposed from eternity to create a people unto damnation--a people who would have souls incapable of regeneration, a people whom he and the saints would always hate and joyfully celebrate their downfall and condemnation.
    Comments 167 Comments
    1. Brandan Kraft's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse View Post
      God must never be proposed to be the author of sin.
      Bob, you once made an excellent point I'd like to repeat for everyone reading this: The Bible never refers to anone or anything as being the "author of sin". The Bible refers to God as the creator of sin. So this talk about the "author of sin" by modern theologians is ridiculous....

      Bob, can you tell me why this "author of sin" business is such a sacred cow?

      God is the creator of all things, so logically, doesn't that make him the "author" of all things as well? My wife and I don't have a problem with saying that God is the author of sin - we simply mean He created it for His purpose - not that evil originated withing God HImself...

      I'm sorry to take this thread off topic - I just wanted to make a quick point - good stuff so far and I'm in agreement with you...

      B.
    1. wildboar's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by BT View Post
      In early 2004, the New Focus magazine re-printed a defense from the late Dr. Herman Hoeksema of the doctrine of second ransom.
      Not that it matters to the discussion, but Rev. Hoeksema never received a doctorate from any institution as far as I am aware. I am uncertain as to what article is being referred to. He does speak of the reprobate being given as a ransom which God pays for the higher glory of the elect in The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel but I don't believe it is accurate to speak of it as a second ransom.
      Quote Originally Posted by BT View Post
      In fact, the theory of second ransom has not a single scripture to support it.
      Hoeksema does in fact provide Scripture in support of his position in the article I mentioned.
      Quote Originally Posted by HH View Post


      Now we are prepared to give an answer to the question, What is the place of reprobation in that scheme? God has reprobated as well as chosen. Taken by itself, reprobation is the decree of God in which He has determined, as sovereignly as in election, that some individuals should not enter eternal glory, but are destined for destruction. Thus it should be expressed. I realize it seems milder to say that God decided to leave others in their sins and ruin. This is the way it is formulated in our Canons, in which the Synod of Dordt adopted the infra standpoint, contrary to the wishes and protestations of Gomarus.

      Yet, as a matter of fact, this is not a milder way of expressing it. We may close our eyes to the problem and refuse to seek an answer, but the problem remains. The question inevitably arises, How did these people fall into the sin in which God permitted them to lie? Another question also arises, Why did God leave them in this sin and misery when He could have saved them? I fully realize that all questions cannot possibly be answered. Nevertheless, it is also true that by closing our eyes to the problems that arise we fail to find a solution.

      Besides, Scripture certainly teaches more. The Potter does with the clay as He pleases, and no one can deny Him the right to form of one lump of clay a vessel unto honor and of another a vessel unto dishonor. Surely, here we are taught more than that God permits something to lie where it has fallen. The vessels unto dishonor are also made by Him in accordance with His appointment. Therefore, we would rather say that reprobation is that decree of God by which He sovereignly destined some to destruction. For, certainly, the condemnation shall be on the basis of the sin and guilt of the reprobate, but never as if this reprobation rests on foreseen sin. Reprobation, even as election, is entirely, sovereignly free.

      At present, however, we are not so much concerned about reprobation as such, but rather about its relation to election. The question is, What is the relation of the former to the latter? Or rather, the more weighty question, Why did God reprobate? You say: To the glorification of His name. Correct. We agree. God the Lord has wrought all things for His own sake, even the wicked to the day of evil. We grant that. But the question arises: Is God the Lord glorified to a greater extent by having reprobated some, rather than if He had saved all? Granted that the damnation of the reprobate glorifies Him eternally, would His honor not have been greater if He had saved all? Again you say, No, because then His righteous indignation would never have been revealed. But is that true? We agree, of course, that in the destruction of the reprobate God reveals His righteous anger and is thereby glorified. Was that anger not sufficiently revealed in the suffering of Christ? Every time the same question confronts us: Why has God reprobated some? To find an answer to this we must place ourselves before the question: What is the relation of election to reprobation? Do these form a dualism? Then there is dualism in God also; then God is a God of highest love, and at the same time of deepest hatred. This surely is impossible. God does not desire the destruction of the reprobate in the same way in which He delights in the salvation and glory of His chosen people. Therefore we maintain that Scripture gives the following in answer to this very important question: Reprobation exists in order that election may be realized; reprobation is necessary to bring the chosen to the glory which God in His infinite love has appointed for them.



      God loved His people with an infinite love. In His great love He determined to lead them to the glory He had appointed for them in Christ. If He determined to attain this greatest glory and lead the elect into it, it was necessary for Him, reverently speaking, to reprobate some. Not because all could not find a place in that glory, for then the question would arise, Why did God decree to create more people than could assume a place in the organism of the body of Christ? But because those who are presently to be damned must for a time serve the salvation of the elect, be it in an antithetical manner. In this sense, reprobation is a divine necessity. In this sense, the reprobate exist for the sake of the elect. They are in a certain sense the price, the ransom, which God pays for the higher glory of His children.

      Of course, you will ask if we can prove this. We think we can. In the first place, we wish to refer you to the fact that this idea is not strange to God's general revelation in nature and in history. You find it proved in the life of the nations and of people in particular. On many monuments erected in honor of our soldiers who lost their lives on the battlefield, you may read the inscription, "They gave their lives that we might live." Here is a figure of election and reprobation as we are now considering it. How often it occurs that thousands lose their lives on the battlefield in order that others may live. They do not merely give their lives, but it is required of them. They were reprobated that the nation might live.

      It is no different in the lives of individuals, or individual persons and animals. The mother gives life to her child, not infrequently at the expense of her own. It is virtually always true that one generation lives and dies to make room for the next. There are species of animals in which the male dies after mating. The male is cast off (reprobated) to give life to the young.

      According to the Scriptures, it is no different in the plant kingdom. When a farmer sows seed in his field, he sows much more than he needs. When the seed falls into the earth and dies, there appear not only the kernels of wheat, for which the seed was planted, but also the stem, the straw, and even the chaff. Without the stem and the chaff the grain could never have germinated and ripened. The stem and the chaff serve the grain, the seed. Yet both will presently be burned by fire in order that the grain may be gathered into the barn. Here also we find election and reprobation, and in such a way that the latter serves the former, and is necessary to it.

      Yet this is not all. Not only do you find a figure of this truth in the general revelation of God, but it is also literally proved in Scripture, both in various texts and in the historical accounts. The Lord declares in Isaiah 43:4 to Israel, "Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life." It is true that this passage refers to that which the Lord did for Israel in the past. But it is also true that this passage refers to the eternal counsel of God's good pleasure. For indeed God has loved His people from eternity. In His counsel they are precious in His eyes. Thus the text refers to the eternal love of God. In that eternal love He has desired to glorify and magnify His people, and to lead them to the highest possible glory in His eternal inheritance. The text says that, in order to accomplish this, God has given other people in the place of His chosen people. Because He loved His people, those others had to pay for Israel's salvation with their own lives. Israel's history proves this time and time again. Pharaoh and his host perish. They must serve Israel temporarily, but God does not hesitate to give people for the life of His people. When Israel enters Canaan, people are again given in the place of Israel. This is effectuated by the sins of these people. They have filled the measure of iniquity at the time when Israel must enter into the rest and are destroyed to make room for Israel. So it is throughout the history of Israel. Babylon also serves a purpose, namely, to chastise Jerusalem. Yet, hereby it makes itself ripe for judgment. And when it has served to realize God's counsel, Babylon is destroyed.

      Thus it is literally presented in Proverbs 11:8: "The righteous is delivered out of trouble and the wicked cometh in his stead." The idea here is that the ungodly serve to deliver the righteous out of trouble, to glorify them. And having done so they perish for their sins. Still stronger is the language of Proverbs 21:18: "The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright." Here again we have the idea that God gives the wicked as a ransom, which He pays to glorify the righteous.

      Naturally, this does not detract from the other truth that in reprobation God also reveals His righteousness, and is glorified in revealing His holy name. Indeed, these reprobate do not serve the salvation of the elect willingly, but as godless, and in spite of themselves. For this reason, they become guilty in serving this purpose, and are worthy of condemnation. Thus, in serving God's purpose they become ripe for destruction. Just as chaff ripens for destruction while it serves the grain, so the godless become ripe for perdition while they serve the elect.

      More evident this is in the case of our Savior Himself. Surely for the glorification of the elect, the blood of the Savior must flow. But if this blood is to flow, there must be a wicked and reprobate world to shed it. There must be a Judas who betrays Him; there must be a Sanhedrin that condemns Him; there must be a mighty and godless Roman power that finally brings Him to the cross. In all this, the reprobate serve for the glorification of the elect. Without that ungodly world, the cross cannot be imagined. But the situation is also thus that the world, in crucifying the Savior, through which it serves for the glorification of the elect, becomes ripe for destruction. As it was then, so it is now. So it will be to the end of the world. And when the end shall come, the ungodly shall be righteously condemned and damned, in sin having served God's counsel. The elect shall be eternally glorified with the Savior in the inheritance of the saints. Thus we conclude that in the unity of God's plan, reprobation necessarily serves election. God's love toward His people reigns supreme in His counsel. To reveal and to realize this love fully He brings into existence people who must finally be damned. Reprobation is the necessary antithetical counterpart of election.
      If this is not the meaning of these passages of Scripture, then what is the meaning?

      Quote Originally Posted by DG View Post
      My wife and I don't have a problem with saying that God is the author of sin - we simply mean He created it for His purpose - not that evil originated withing God HImself...
      God certainly ordains the sinful actions of men. But sin at its root is a desire to rob glory from God. Sin has to do with intent and God never intends nor does he ever rob glory from Himself so He cannot properly be said to be the author of sin. It is the intent of the man which commits those actions which make the actions sinful.
    1. Skeuos Eleos's Avatar
      Not only does the bible not speak about the 'author of sin' I don't think it is a helpful phrase. The differences between DG and WB may be nothing more than different interpretation of this term. Better then to describe it in line with scripture which speaks of creation, will, decree, intent and so on. It is certainly man's intent that determines whether an act is sinful, e.g. Gen 6:5. In all that God creates, wills, decrees and intends God does not sin - He is perfect, all His ways are perfect and just - His intent is never in question it is always His Glory. And His glory includes His unfailing love which He has lavished upon His elect in all wisdom. Yet the bible clearly teaches that God decrees and intends that things come to pass that require very specific sins to be committed. God's 'plans' includes the details of such sin. At this point using the word "author" doesn't help because it could be taken to mean the decreeing of the means by which God's ultimate purposes come about or it could mean the one conceving the action with wicked intent. Surely it is the reason for a thought, word or act that determines whether it is sinful?

      To me, the relationship between God's decrees and man's intent is a mystery that I can't see how I'll ever quite understand! Though we may not like the word 'author' yet we must own up to all that is revealed in scripture - of which the following is only a selection:
      - Out of a man's heart come evil thoughts, etc (Mat 15:19), yet, even though it is in the integrity of his heart that Abimelech did not sin, yet it is also said that God kept Him from sinning (Gen 20:6). Indeed is it not "Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good"? (Lam 3:38) "Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6)

      - "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Gen 50:20)

      - Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? (Ex. 4:1)

      - Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. (1 Kings 22:23)

      - A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way? (Pr. 20:24)

      - The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Pr 16:33)

      - Many are the plans in a man's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails (Pr. 19:21)

      - The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases (Pr. 21:1)

      About as far as I think I can go is to say that I think God conceives the original idea or plan of what is necessary in order to accomplish His purposes for His glory and, man, in time, conceives the same idea out of the evil intent of His heart - but even the evil intent of man's hearts are controlled by the sovereign ruler of all who works all things according to the counsel of his will who can "do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2) who does as He pleases, etc, etc. Hopefully this shows the beginnings of a way in which we can treat this subject without reference to the phrase 'author of sin'. Others, no doubt, can express it more fully and much more eloquently than me.

      Martin
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      I only cited Hoeksema because of the recent surfacing of the doctrine in the article; I have read it in other Calvinist works. To me it is most dreadful teaching because it distorts the meaning of God's eternal purposes in election.

      I agree fully with Hoeksema that reprobation is the antithesis of election. In fact, I agree with his reasoning on all counts except his clear and unmistakable defense of the doctrine of second ransom:

      Therefore we maintain that Scripture gives the following in answer to this very important question: Reprobation exists in order that election may be realized; reprobation is necessary to bring the chosen to the glory which God in His infinite love has appointed for them.

      God loved His people with an infinite love. In His great love He determined to lead them to the glory He had appointed for them in Christ. If He determined to attain this greatest glory and lead the elect into it, it was necessary for Him, reverently speaking, to reprobate some. Not because all could not find a place in that glory, for then the question would arise, Why did God decree to create more people than could assume a place in the organism of the body of Christ? But because those who are presently to be damned must for a time serve the salvation of the elect, be it in an antithetical manner. In this sense, reprobation is a divine necessity. In this sense, the reprobate exist for the sake of the elect. They are in a certain sense the price, the ransom, which God pays for the higher glory of His children.


      Wrong (to use the lightest expression my emotions will permit)! The plan of salvation is perfect and complete in and of itself. If universalism in the case of human beings were true, there would be not one whit less amount of glory and honor given to God for his wonderful and perfect plan. The atonement of Christ would have the same exact meaning and redemptive value that has in the arrangement with a purpose of human reprobation existing. Although reprobation is the antithesis of BOTH human and angelic election, the marvelous purposes of God in these two wonderful decrees of election IN NO WAY are dependent on the existence of a decree of reprobation AT ALL. That is my stand.

      Martin, it is interesting that you use the Authorized Version for Amos 3:6 with RA translated as EVIL. Almost every other translation has gone to 'calamity' or 'disaster', thus denying the compound and pregnant force of the real Hebrew. I agree with you!
    1. wildboar's Avatar
      BT:

      Could you then provide an explanation of the verses mentioned? I don't believe that Hoeksema is saying that the suffering of the reprobate somehow atone for the sins of the elect. He seems to be saying that they serve the salvation of the elect just as all things work together for the salvation of the church. But regardless, I'm interested in how you would interpret the verses he mentions since it seems to very explicitly say that they are a ransom in some way for the elect.
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      Response to 'author of sin' questions and comments of Brandan and Martin:

      I do not use the phrase 'author of sin' to describe God only because it might suggest to some that God causes evil with an 'indulgent impulse of positive delight' towards it; thus minimizing the biblical perspective on God's wrath and anger towards all evil.

      Having said that, I have often quoted Calvin from the Institutes where he does say that God is the author of sin. Meaning: the creator and ultimate cause of sin. This I fully agree with.

      The Lord does all of his 'pleasure' which includes the predestination and creation of wickedness unto his glory. For me, this means several things that are viewed by historic churchmen as heretical:

      1. God creates all eternal souls directly and immediately, just as he of necessity had to create the souls of all angels (both elect and reprobate) directly and immediately. Each soul is a distinct and separate personal identity.

      2. God creates wickedness (wicked impulses of the heart or mind) in those whom he destines to use evil for the accomplishment of his purposes. In no way does this evil originate in his own nature; it is a created entity entirely foreign to the person of the Lord himself.

      3. The character of evil in created elect humans and reprobates is not the same. One is related to the seed of the woman; the other to the seed of the devil.

      Which I am in process of trying to expound.

      DG:

      Bob, can you tell me why this "author of sin" business is such a sacred cow?

      It comes from the Patristics (whom I believe got it from their Neo-Platonic schooling) and it has never been seriously challenged. The perfect parallel is the Patristic doctrine of the atonement as a ransom paid to the devil. It was just as sacred of a cow for many centuries but entirely horrible and unbiblical. Someone would inevitably challenge it biblically in the end and did.

      As the translations of the OT Hebrew finally get more accurate (rendering the hiphil verb tense more correctly, etc.) I believe this sacred cow will one day vanish. The Hebrew view of God's sovereignty does not allow for the Patristic doctrine.
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      One more thing. The two snippets from Proverbs simply state principles of how the Lord often causes matters to turn out in this life. The fact that he uses the misfortune of the wicked in this life to benefit and lift up his own people in no way gives us a theology of God's purposes in eternity--that somehow the salvation of an elect people in Christ dependent on the damnation of the non-elect. This is a style of interpretation termed 'reasoning from analogy' and in my estimation does not fit the Bible's doctrine of eternity.
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      Dear Brethren:

      My recent studies (over the last few weeks) have uncovered a very annoying, awful, and strange issue on which I have been deceived and lied to by 'evangelical' churchianity--a different one than is the subject of this thread. This is why I have been unable to continue my posts in earnest.

      Based on my past studies of the history of dogma, I have been for many years-- and continue to be absolutely convinced--that the entire Protestant movement has continued to revel in and perpetuate the lie of Augustine on the matter of the origin of evil, the common fall, the doctrine of hell, and the whole plan of salvation itself. But I have discovered even more Neo-Platonic heresy (rooted in the teaching of Plotinus, the ultimate neo-Platonist whom Augustine imitated in his teaching) and don't yet know how to interpret it or respond.

      The issue is the notion of the natural immortality of the human soul. That is all that I will say for now.

      Kindest Christian regards,

      Bill Twisse
    1. doctr_of_grace's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse View Post
      Dear Brethren:

      My recent studies (over the last few weeks) have uncovered a very annoying, awful, and strange issue on which I have been deceived and lied to by 'evangelical' churchianity--a different one than is the subject of this thread. This is why I have been unable to continue my posts in earnest.

      Based on my past studies of the history of dogma, I have been for many years-- and continue to be absolutely convinced--that the entire Protestant movement has continued to revel in and perpetuate the lie of Augustine on the matter of the origin of evil, the common fall, the doctrine of hell, and the whole plan of salvation itself. But I have discovered even more Neo-Platonic heresy (rooted in the teaching of Plotinus, the ultimate neo-Platonist whom Augustine imitated in his teaching) and don't yet know how to interpret it or respond.

      The issue is the notion of the natural immortality of the human soul. That is all that I will say for now.

      Kindest Christian regards,

      Bill Twisse
      WOW bill .... I guess I look forward to your "new" revelations. I am not sure it is something I will accept. I am sure you probably don't care if I do or don't but I sure worry about when someone comes up with some new way of understanding scripture. I guess to throw out the past 1600 plus years of biblical scholars is something I am not ready or willing to do. I think the "FULL" preterists are guilty of that as well as a few other so called "reformed" groups out there.

      It should be interesting .

      out for now .... Jan
    1. Brandan Kraft's Avatar
      My problems with preterists is not their tendency to break with "tradition", but for being wrong!
    1. Ugly_Gaunt_Cow's Avatar
      I just finished the bible again and am back in genesis...

      I think I might have touched on someting regarding the two seeds somewhere between chapters 4-6 but Im not too sure.

      Bob, can you help me with some reading material that could get me up to speed on this, cuz I think I'm *somewhat* starting to, however remote, understand.

      In Him.

      Scott.
    1. doctr_of_grace's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill View Post
      My problems with preterists is not their tendency to break with "tradition", but for being wrong!
      hahaha brandan .... well that too!!!
    1. Bill Ross's Avatar
      <Bill Twisse>
      >>...There is no published source between the apostles and Luther that clearly enumerates the scriptural doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness received by faith alone....

      <Bill Ross>
      Hello. I have not been on this list since May.

      Can you please document where Luther believed in the Reformed concept of "Christ's imputed righteousness received by faith alone...."? I do not think he shared the reformed view at all. In fact, I do not believe that Calvin did either, so if you can show that, I would appreciate you posting it as well.

      Thanks!

      Bill Ross
    1. Skeuos Eleos's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Bill Ross View Post
      <Bill Twisse>
      >>...There is no published source between the apostles and Luther that clearly enumerates the scriptural doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness received by faith alone....

      <Bill Ross>
      Hello. I have not been on this list since May.

      Can you please document where Luther believed in the Reformed concept of "Christ's imputed righteousness received by faith alone...."? I do not think he shared the reformed view at all. In fact, I do not believe that Calvin did either, so if you can show that, I would appreciate you posting it as well.

      Thanks!

      Bill Ross
      I believe that Calvin taught this in a number of places in his commentaries on Romans such as 4:6, 4:24, 10:4, but perhaps clearest of all is in his comments on 10:3:
      Quote Originally Posted by John Calvin View Post
      We have already stated, in another place, how men put on the righteousness of God by faith, that is, when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them.
      Rom 10:3-4 For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes
      At least according to the following so did Luther:
      1. Faith without works is sufficient for salvation, and alone justifies

      2. Justifying faith is a sure trust, by which one believes that his sins are remitted for Christ's sake; and they that are justified are to believe certainly that their sins are remitted.

      3. By faith only we are able to appear before God, who neither regards nor has need of our works; faith only purifying us.

      4. No previous disposition is necessary to justification;neither does faith justify because it disposes us, but because it is a means or instrument by which the promise and grace of God are laid hold on and received.

      5. All the works of men, even the most sanctified, are sin.

      6. Though the just ought to believe that his works are sins, yet he ought to be assured that they are not imputed.

      7. Our righteousness is nothing but the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; and the just have need of a continual justification and imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

      8. All the justified are received into equal grace and glory; and all Christians are equally great with the virgin Mary, and as much saints as she is.

      From MARTIN LUTHER'S EIGHT STATEMENTS
      Martin
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      Bill Ross:

      Can you please document where Luther believed in the Reformed concept of "Christ's imputed righteousness received by faith alone...."? I do not think he shared the reformed view at all. In fact, I do not believe that Calvin did either, so if you can show that, I would appreciate you posting it as well.

      Here is a link to begin the study of Luther; do a scan of Luther's Works online and you will find selected writings from the Wittenberg project: the 1535 commentary on Gal. 2:14-16 is a good starting point.

      http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...b/gal2-14.html

      I don't have time to post Calvin tonight but I'm sure there are thousands of references (as there are in Luther).

      You should not challenge well-documented facts of history without contrary evidence of your own.
    1. Brandan Kraft's Avatar
      Bill Ross is the old resident 5solas "Jehovah's Witness" (well not exactly - Arian though)... He started posting here a few years ago before you came to the forum Bob.
    1. Bill Ross's Avatar
      <Bill>
      I do not purport to be an expert on these guys, by any means, but I think it is very clear to me from having read a significant amount of both authors that they do not agree with Berkhoff et al on the idea of being justified by obtaining the law-derived merits of Jesus.

      In the passage you cite, Luther speaks of the *forgiveness of sins* on the basis of *faith*:

      ***
      1. Faith without works is sufficient for salvation, and alone justifies

      2. Justifying faith is a sure trust, by which one believes that his sins are remitted for Christ's sake; and they that are justified are to believe certainly that their sins are remitted.

      3. By faith only we are able to appear before God, who neither regards nor has need of our works; faith only purifying us.

      4. No previous disposition is necessary to justification;neither does faith justify because it disposes us, but because it is a means or instrument by which the promise and grace of God are laid hold on and received.

      5. All the works of men, even the most sanctified, are sin.
      ***

      When he subsequently speaks of the "righteousness of Christ" (an unscriptural term) it is safe to understand it as the righteousness of faith referred to above, and not some unannounced idea of a transfer of merit from Jesus' Torah observance:

      ***
      6. Though the just ought to believe that his works are sins, yet he ought to be assured that they are not imputed.

      7. Our righteousness is nothing but [HERE I WOULD READ EXCLUSIVELY, RATHER THAN A DEFINITION!] the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; and the just have need of a continual justification and imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

      8. All the justified are received into equal grace and glory; and all Christians are equally great with the virgin Mary, and as much saints as she is.
      ***

      As to Calvin, he is crystal clear that he believes that justification consists entirely in the forgiveness of sins, not in imputed merit:

      (Sins are remitted only through the righteousness of Christ, 21-23)
      21. Justification, reconciliation, forgiveness of sins

      Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the definition, viz., that justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins. We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners. This is elegantly expressed by Isaiah in these words: "Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear," (Isaiah 59: 1, 2.) We are here told that sin is a separation between God and man; that His countenance is turned away from the sinner; and that it cannot be otherwise, since, to have any intercourse with sin is repugnant to his righteousness. Hence the Apostle shows that man is at enmity with God until he is restored to favour by Christ, (Rom. 5: 8-l0.) When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We adds that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins.


      http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/ca...#twentythr.htm

      So, the idea of the Treasury of Merits justification is actually both a later (Berkhoff, et al) and earlier (Judaism) idea.

      And of course, it does not agree with Paul.

      Bill Ross
    1. Ian Potts's Avatar
      Thanks for pointing this out Bill - I know just what you're meaning.... (Not that righteousness is not imputed to the believer through Christ's death, but what that righteousness is based upon - the merits of Christ's law-keeping life AND his death, or simply that righteousness of God put to the believer's account through his death alone ie. being justified by his blood. The taking away of our sin means we are forgiven and thus righteous in God's eyes).

      Folks here might be interested to read the following article on the subject of Christ's 'active odedience'...

      http://www.ids.org/pdf/imputation.pdf

      (Although this subject seems a little bit 'off-topic' from the Two Seeds so I don't intend to discuss it here)


      Ian
    1. Ian Potts's Avatar
      Also the following article details the response which the authors of my previously linked article received from 'FIRE' and their answers.

      http://www.ids.org/pdf/fire.pdf

      These articles and more can be found on http://www.ids.org

      Which is connected with http://www.ncbf.net

      Anyone here familiar with this church?

      Ian
    1. Forester07's Avatar
      Ian,

      I'm pretty Familar with it. I live in the Northern Arizona and NCBF is held on the ASU Campus in Tempe AZ. I have met and talked with one of the Elders from the church about NCT recently. I like the ministry they do and have read all their theological papers.

      Forester07