Article: The Destructive Teaching of Hypothetical Universalism

[Robert R. Higby]

You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...l-Universalism

[Ivor Thomas]

Very good post Bob, agree with you, and you have made some interesting point's, Amyraldianism to me strips the whole Tulip, and I think it to be nothing more than confused Arminianism. Some say we have to understand what Amyraut taught,but this is not so. We know for example that Jesus prayed Not for the World, but for His sheep, surely He would have prayed for the World? if these would be Amyraldians where right., Ivor Thomas

[Brandan Kraft]

I agree with you Ivor. Amyraldianism / fullerism / neo-calvinism is an enemy of the Gospel. I thought I'd comment on these words by Bob that I completely agree with...

Of course, the same scenario is true in reverse with the damnable doctrine of common wrath—God emotionally hates his people for a time because of original sin and only later turns his emotions to love them and extend his grace for eternity.

This sort of ties in with my latest blog entry of how conditionalism always seems to raise its ugly head. Marc Carpenter is one of the biggest enemies to the common grace preachers on the internet. He has written many great articles condemning common grace theology, but ironically he also holds to a form of it in that he holds to the damnable "common wrath" doctrine. I don't know how he can deny common grace and embrace common wrath at the same time. Anyway, I do think it's serious enough of an error to point out. Proponents of common grace usually are in support of common wrath as well and the two seem to go hand in hand.

[Javelin]

Brandan---In light of your comments, please provide an explanation for Exodus 4:14.

You and BillTwisse (Bob?) so harshly condemn folks for believing that God could be angry with His people. But don't you see how Exodus 4:14 would lead someone to that understanding? At the very least, you ought to soften your acerbic wording, especially in light of such plain Scriptural language.

We all must beware that our strong dogmatism does not become a self-deceiving camoflage for a secret (or not-so-secret) enjoyment of strident arrogance. This is a spiritual danger, especially among those who stand on the firmest Scriptural ground. I'm not accusing you of this, but warning you of the danger. Let each man probe his own heart.

Javelin

[Robert R. Higby]

The anger against Moses in Ex. 4:14 is clearly temporal in the context of the Old Covenant. The notion that God emotionally changed from truly loving Moses to truly hating him, then changed back to loving him (if cherished seriously), is an attempt to create God in the image of man's changing feelings. Clearly, the anger of God in the context of this scripture has to do with a single event in time and has nothing to do with his immutable and eternal purposes of grace and wrath. To understand the eternal perspective of theology and grace, start with the final revelation of God to Paul in the New Testament, not with the shadows of the Old Testament!

[Javelin]

Bob,

I agree that the anger is temporal. I would also agree that an expression of anger is not necessarily an expression of hatred any more than a father's anger against his child is an expression of hatred. I'm not familiar with Marc Carpenter. None of my comments are intended to defend him or his theology.

But, here's the next question: If God has temporal anger for His eternally loved children, then why not temporal love for the reprobate?

Thanks for your response.

Javelin

P.S. The Apostle Paul referred to the Old Testament quite a bit, suggesting it's extensive usefulness and applicability. Paul's theology harmonizes with the OT completely.

[Mickey]

Javelin, if this is what you meant then dissregaurd. 'Paul's theology' defines how we read the OT. The mystery of Christ was revealed to him, not the OT saints. So in light of what Paul reveals to us in the NT we can then interpret the OT accordingly.

Mike

[Mickey]

Oh ya and I don't think its a matter of "then why not temporal love for the reprobate?" I think the burden of proof is on those that suggest that it exists. The problem is those that hold to 'common grace' or 'common wrath' take the issue further then a divine emotion (if we can even call it that). There is a difference between God's dealings with His children and His dealings with the children of the devil.

God's temporal anger for His children have in its purposes conformity to Christ. Are you suggesting that God will temporaly love the reprobate to harden them and demonstrate His wrath?

[ray kikkert]

But, here's the next question: If God has temporal anger for His eternally loved children, then why not temporal love for the reprobate?

Thanks for your response.

Javelin

P.S. The Apostle Paul referred to the Old Testament quite a bit, suggesting it's extensive usefulness and applicability. Paul's theology harmonizes with the OT completely.

Javelin, your "why Not" question regarding a temporal love for the reprobate is a foolish question to ask. It is a generalizing of the love of God. Amongst all the other damned theological general doctrines like atonement, grace, election et al. That God can be angry with His own, I have no doubt. But His own are dealt with in chastisement rather than outright punishment. There is a difference. If not , all would indeed suffer eternal punishment for all have fallen short of the glory of God, there is none that doeth good , no not one, all are prone to hate God and there neighbour. What if God, willing to show His power endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.

[Brandan Kraft]

We all must beware that our strong dogmatism does not become a self-deceiving camoflage for a secret (or not-so-secret) enjoyment of strident arrogance. This is a spiritual danger, especially among those who stand on the firmest Scriptural ground. I'm not accusing you of this, but warning you of the danger.

Why did you make this comment? You may deny it, but it appears to me as if you actually are accusing us as being "arrogant" about our position.

[Javelin]

Brandan,

I made this comment because I used to be a hypercalvinist. I used to frequent circles that made a past-time out of casting reproach on non-hypercalvinistic Christians. I remember the stridency of my own heart, and there are sometimes when the vitriolic words in this forum remind me of those former days.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that we should reprove error when it appears. However, our reproofs should be couched in a humility that recognizes that we too would succumb to error were it not for God's Spirit working in us. We too have many blind spots and weaknesses in understanding of God's word.

Whether any struggle with arrogance or not (which of us doesn't?), you will need to judge your own hearts. I was careful not too accuse anyone. Such a charge would have been inappropriate and even hypocritical.

The important thing in discussion and debate is not our vehemence, but our attention to accuracy, and our willingness to honestly confront the hard questions head-on when presented.

That's all for now. Thanks for listening, and for bearing with my questions/comments.

Godspeed.

Javelin

[Robert R. Higby]

I'll let Javelin answer Brandan's challenge on the arrogance issue. I, for one, will not apologize for having strong convictions about high-grace doctrine based on the gospel revealed to Paul. For me, there is no possible compromise on this matter. The whole discussion about the "intellectual arrogance" of those with high-grace conviction (of which the events occurring on this forum are a puny microcosm of the whole evan-jelly-fish world)--it is nothing new. The principle is the same as with Luther vs. Erasmus; Erasmus contended that Luther was arrogant for making his ASSERTIONS. I will let Luther's response to Erasmus stand on this one, for those who want to take the time to read it in The Bondage of the Will.

But, here's the next question: If God has temporal anger for His eternally loved children, then why not temporal love for the reprobate?

I have already given my presuppositional hermeneutic (ASSERTIONS!) on this, based on Paul's covenantal arguments in Galatians 3. In the OT, God's dealings in the law (obligatory) and promissory covenants stood side-by-side. Only the covenants of promise are related to God's eternal and unchanging purposes; the covenants of law were established deliberately by God as conditional upon the faithfulness of man. It is critical to understand that the Law Covenant is not a covenant of eternal life or death! Never. It is strictly related to blessings and curses in this life only but also illustrates the futility of the notion that EVERLASTING grace and salvation can be obtained by personal human merit. In the law covenant, God determines to make his promises and dealings with man conditional. This means that God planned to 'repent', exercise temporal anger (based only on law, not grace) with those who were loved from eternity, exercise temporal loving-kindness or chesed (based on obedience for a time) with those who were hated from eternity, etc. But none of this has anything to do with the New and Everlasting covenant of grace cut in the atonement of Christ!

It is entirely inadequate to begin with the Old Testament in sorting out truth. In the New Testament (New and everlasting covenant of grace), God does not repent (change his mind), he does not exercise redemptive love toward the reprobate in any sense (as he did in the temporal redemptive events of the Old Covenant), he does not exercise the attribute of reprobating wrath toward his elect in any sense. The New Covenant reveals to us the eternal and unchanging disposition of God toward both his elect and his enemies.

[Mickey]

I don't claim to have a special insight into every little detail of what God is presently doing or has done in the past. However with the revelation given to Paul which he then recorded in his epistles gives us a 'general' understanding of God's intentions with both his children and those of the devil. We all know Rom 9, and that certainly isn't all of the scriptures that give us insight into these things but I think it is clear enough to use as a standard for my silly little outline:

Child of God:
God's plan:
-Conform into the image of Christ (Glorification and Santification).
-Through chastisment and blessing He molds us to achieve the above, to the praise of His glorious grace.

Child of the Devil:
God's plan:
-Harden their hearts to diplay His wrath and make His power known.
-Through individual circumstances (whether percieved as blessing or curse to the elect or the reprobate) He hardens the reprobates heart. If its percieved as blessing the reprobate continues life getting their needs and wants met remaining in their status quo to keep them in ignorance. If percieved as a curse they shake thier fist at God in arrogant rebelion. There are of course many differnt ways the reprobate may react but the main point is God's intention still stands--He does what He does as a form of judgement. Remember He 'patiently endures His vessles of wrath'.

So to say that God showes 'temporal love' to the reprobate, when He knows full well His plan for them, sounds kinda sophomoric to me given the facts. And vice versa with 'common wrath'.

Oh, and Javelin, none of this was directed at you. I'm just working all of this out in my head. I know you haven't come out and said this is what you believe, you just posed the question.

Mike

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks, Mike for that contribution. Let me make one additional response:

So to say that God showes 'temporal love' to the reprobate, when He knows full well His plan for them, sounds kinda sophomoric to me given the facts. And vice versa with 'common wrath'.

I completely agree with you as long as we are talking about the realm of God's eternal purposes carried out in his workings on earth throughout time. I think that Javelin may be referring to the scripture where God removed his loving-kindness from Saul, which several contributors made such a big deal out of for so long. My point is that the love of God removed from Saul was a change in the law-covenant faithfulness of God (which occurs a lot in the Old Testament, based on man's obedience or disobedience to specific laws) and not the promised eternal covenant of grace. Under the Law, God changed his temporal workings with man time after time. Not so with grace! This is why I believe it is inadequate to conclude anything about the process of eternal redemption from those OT examples related to a covenant of law.

[Mickey]

I completely agree with you as long as we are talking about the realm of God's eternal purposes carried out in his workings on earth throughout time.

Absolutly Bob, at no point in time has anyone that was one of God's reprobate been loved by God, temporaly or eternaly, and they have existed since Adam. We must look at those under the Mosaic Law with an understanding that THEY WERE UNDER THE LAW. The whole purpose of that LAW was to foreshadow that which was to come. We must separate those things that happen under that covenant with the things under the promisary covenants otherwise we will end up like some dispensationalists saying that the Jews were saved by works or they somehow gained God's favor.

God's workings under the Law covenant give us no insight whatsoever into His eternal purposes. In the same way, God's workings to this day don't give us any insight whatsoever into His eternal purposes. All we have is the preciouse blood of Christ to trust in.

[Robert R. Higby]

Yes, Doc--we are in complete agreement on all points!

Since the 'changing' actions of God under the Law are a shadow and not the substance, they cannot be used as arguments with regard to God's eternal purposes and how they are fulfilled in his providential actions on earth.

I do believe that history indicates something of God's salvific purposes but it is not according to the historical events recorded that were strictly tied to the conditions of the ministry of condemnation.

[Mickey]

Yes, Bob, Yes! How is it you can get down in writting exactly what I'm thinking? Maybe it's the age, wisdom thing...I don't know.

But yes, I don't see how God's workings both now and in the past can be tied directly to His eternal purposes. For what we perseve isn't enough to know what God intends to accomplish through it, unless otherwise stated clearly by scripture.

[ray kikkert]

Yes, Bob, Yes! How is it you can get down in writting exactly what I'm thinking? Maybe it's the age, wisdom thing...I don't know.

But yes, I don't see how God's workings both now and in the past can be tied directly to His eternal purposes. For what we perseve isn't enough to know what God intends to accomplish through it, unless otherwise stated clearly by scripture.

Indeed and well said. It is that perception of man that gets him into trouble and is prone to. Case in point the Justification controversy. It is not enough for some that there should be a universal aspect to God's salvation, this becomes all the more adulterated and blasphemous when the discussion turns to His everlasting covenant. In that His covenant as well has universal implications because it is defined by the perimeters of man when in reality Scripture always defines it as God's to establish , sustain, and maintain. Psalm 39 and 90 among others are excellent primers

[Mickey]

Ray I will cherish those words for as long as I can remember them! Psalm 39 and 90 put this whole convo into perspective. Thanks brother.

Psalm 90:17
Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us,
and establish the work of our hands upon us;
yes, establish the work of our hands!

Eph 6:23
Peace be to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mike

[Mickey]

I came across this verse today and I think it may have some relevance to what we have been talking (writing) about.

Psalm 92:6-7
6 A senseless man has no knowledge,
Nor does a stupid man understand this:
7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass
And all who did iniquity flourished,
It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore.