Equal Ultimacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
VilnaGaon

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
Dr Flowers on YouTube has a video claiming that Calvin taught Equal Ultimacy and that doctrine is heresy.
But does not Romans 9.22-24 teach Equal Ultimacy??
Does not the text explicitly state that GOD prepares some for Destruction(also Prov 16:4)
while at the same time and manner, GOD prepares some for Glory?
 
The conclusion to the Canons of Dort rejects Equal Ultimacy:

And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenious declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine, the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confessions of the Reformed churches. Whence it clearly appears, that some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public.

"That the doctrine of the Reformed churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and by the devil, and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all; and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches, that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation; and, has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell; so that, neither baptism, nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism, can at all profit by them;" and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies, which, on every side, are heaped upon it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from the declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves, to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ, to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse, as in writing, to the glory of the Divine Name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language; and, to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the holy Scriptures; and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father's right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, bring to the truth those who err, shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful minister of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. AMEN.
 
I wouldn’t listen to much of anything Dr. Flowers says. A man who has built his entire platform on combatting a particular strand of historic Protestant orthodoxy needs to be pitied and prayed for, not engaged. It’s one thing to be a convinced Arminian; it’s another thing entirely to be someone whose hatred for grace is virtually incorrigible and compulsive.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
that the same doctrine teaches, that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will
Click to expand...
I am not a trained theologian, so consider these prima facie reactions as, well, prima facie.

"Arbitrary?" Nothing in God should be considered arbitrary. He is always most deliberate and does all things "after the counsel of his own will."
The Scriptures do not say He works everything according to his nature. His nature is love, but His will (contrary to Owen) is not bound by His Holy nature.
No man ever was condemned for having a sinful nature. Even though an unbeliever's will is in bondage to his nature, only his will is a personal property capable of sinning.

Ephesians 1:11​
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​
​
[ESV]​
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,​
​
[NIV]​
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,​

It seems to me that this Conclusion paragraph is filled with straw man arguments:
  1. "predestined the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation" - Many Reformed believe the opposite. I.e., That the number of the lost will be few compared to the total saved. (In the thread titled: Postmillennialism - Majority Converted? see my introduction to Warfield's paper titled: Are They Few That Be Saved?) More importantly, download Warfield's answer to this claim.
  2. "reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety" - Which Reformed confessions teach this?
  3. "that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers' breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell" - Who believes this? Also, the rhetoric is attributing evil motives to God. E.g., "many children of the faithful are torn," "and tyrannically plunged into hell," they call such children "guiltless." Hmm. see Romans 5:14)

    I gotta go for now. My wife says it's time for a haircut. She's my barber.
 
Ed Walsh said:
Nothing in God should be considered arbitrary.
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define arbitrary. If by arbitrary you mean, as Merriam-Webster defines it, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will," then of course we could not apply that to God. But the Canons of Dort speak of the "arbitrary act of [God's] will" (see the Conclusion of the Canons). In this sense, it is as Noah Webster himself defined it: "depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules."
 
Taylor said:
In this sense, it is as Noah Webster himself defined it: "depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules."
Click to expand...

I will reread the Conclusion—hopefully, tomorrow.
But I cannot think otherwise of God except that He is "not governed by any fixed rules." He is most free, not governed even by His nature.
Is that weird?

Ed
 
Last edited:
Dr. Flowers offers poison blossom in a thicket of thorns.

(A play on a book title.)
 
Pergamum said:
False. There is predestination to glory, Then there is reprobation or passing by in justice. They are not the same.
Click to expand...

What happens to all who are not predestined to glory?

1. They are left in their sins and are damned.
2. Eh. Anything could happen. Doesn't matter.

If the answer is #1, then there is no such thing as "Single" predestination. All predestination is double when there are only two possible outcomes.

If the answer is #2, then single predestination is possible because anything could happen to whomever is left.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
What happens to all who are not predestined to glory?

1. They are left in their sins and are damned.
2. Eh. Anything could happen. Doesn't matter.

If the answer is #1, then there is no such thing as "Single" predestination. All predestination is double when there are only two possible outcomes.

If the answer is #2, then single predestination is possible because anything could happen to whomever is left.
Click to expand...
No. This passing by is reprobation. It is not predestination.
 
Pergamum said:
No. This passing by is reprobation. It is not predestination.
Click to expand...

When there are only two outcomes, choosing some for the one outcome and not choosing others for the same outcomes is exactly the same as choosing those others for the opposite outcome. There is no difference at all. To try to spin it any other way is semantics.

I agree that election and reprobation are not symmetrical (I do not hold to equal ultimacy), but reprobation is absolutely, certainly, and inarguably predestination unto damnation.
 
WCF teaches positive reprobation.

“The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the inscrutable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”
 
Due to our sin we are already part of the damned lump of mankind. God can allow us to fall from the own heavy gravity of our sin. He passes many by. But He chooses to snatch His Elect from this lump of damned humanity by predestination unto Christ. The rest fall by the weight of their own sin and no positive decree.
 
Ed Walsh said:
I will certainly read the Conclusion. Hopefully tomorrow.
But I cannot think otherwise of God except that He is "not governed by any fixed rules." He is most free, not governed even by His nature.
Is that weird?

Ed
Click to expand...
Is it wrong to say that Everything comes from the Will of GOD?
Something is right or Holy because GOD Wills, does it or commands it.
There is nothing above GOD's Will.
 
VilnaGaon said:
There is nothing above GOD's Will.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you agree with what I said.
What am I missing?

Ed

EDIT: I think I must not understand "equal ultimacy."
I read a book review this morning where the author was critical of RC Sproul's impassioned defense of infralapsarianism and rejection of supralapsarianism. A= equal ultimacy, B=supralapsarians.
All A is B, but not all B is A. Is this right?

Note: I uploaded a PDF of Perkins' famous chart that is clearly supralapsarian
 

Attachments

  • perkins.png
    perkins.png
    225.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
No one denies that the Westminster Confession teaches reprobation; that is not the point. The point is that the Confession states that the elect are predestined to glory while the non-elect are foreordained to condemnation. "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death." (Westminster Confession 3.3) I personally do not have a problem with double predestination as long as it is distinguished from Equal Ultimacy, though the Confession does not bind us to such language. While theologians such as Theodore Beza and William Perkins used the language of double predestination, other Reformed theologians considered it to be more in line with scripture to restrict predestination to the elect. Here is another example of where the Westminster Standards do not - as they are often falsely accused - pin down every minute point in theology. They are consensus documents that exclude obvious error but allow for a generic Reformed orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
Not stating my own view, but simply sharing what A’ Brakel has to say in Vol. I of TCRS:

# 1 - Pg. 217:
Predestination consists of two parts: election and reprobation. This is evident from texts in which both are mentioned simultaneously. “... vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: ... vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory” (Rom 9:22-23); “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom 11:7); “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9).
Click to expand...

# 2 - Pg. 220:
The number of reprobates far exceeds the number of elect, who in contrast to them—even of those that are called—are referred to as “few” (Matt 20:16).
(2) Reprobation proceeds solely from God‟s good pleasure. Although the ungodliness of the reprobates is the cause of their damnation, this nevertheless was not the reason why God, to the glory of His justice, was moved to decree their reprobation. It purely proceeds from the good pleasure of God who has the right and the power to do as He pleases with His own. Thus, no one is permitted to say, “Why hast Thou made me thus?” (Rom 9:22). According to His good pleasure He conceals the way of salvation (Matt 11:25-26); “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth” (Rom 9:22). His purpose stands firm. This is confirmed in Rom 9:11 where it is stated, “for the children being not yet born, neither having done good or evil.” It is therefore according to God‟s sovereignty and good pleasure to manifest His justice towards some and His grace to others (Rom 9:22-23). God shall maintain His holiness and justice. Believers
Click to expand...

# 3 - Brakel does seem to need to work this out a but more, in my opinion, as he has a qualifying comment on reprobation on pg. 215-216:
To accomplish that objective He decreed to create men, to permit them to sin volitionally, and to justly damn them for their sins. God did not create one human being to happiness and another to condemnation. Rather, He created the entire human race perfectly holy, and thus unto felicity—His objective in doing so. I repeat that we must here consider God‟s objective in creating man, for the felicity of man was the objective of the state of innocency. If man had remained in this state, it would have resulted in the felicity of all mankind. We should not confuse the objective of creation and the objective of the Creator. In creation it was not God‟s objective that all men would attain unto salvation; for as God‟s counsel will stand and His purpose will always be accomplished, all would then indeed attain unto salvation. God prevents no one from obtaining salvation, but man excludes himself since he sins willfully. The election of some unto salvation is not to the detriment of others. Reprobation is neither the cause that someone sins, nor why someone is damned, but the sinner himself and his sin are the cause.
Click to expand...


1. Would the quote from pg. 220 be Equal Ultimacy?

2. Does anyone else see an inconsistency in Brakel when comparing the # 2 quote with the #3 quote?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Not stating my own view, but simply sharing what A’ Brakel has to say in Vol. I of TCRS:

# 1 - Pg. 217:


# 2 - Pg. 220:


# 3 - Brakel does seem to need to work this out a but more, in my opinion, as he has a qualifying comment on reprobation on pg. 215-216:



1. Would the quote from pg. 220 be Equal Ultimacy?

2. Does anyone else see an inconsistency in Brakel when comparing the # 2 quote with the #3 quote?
Click to expand...
No and no.
 
Ed Walsh said:
It sounds like you agree with what I said.
What am I missing?

Ed

EDIT: I think I must not understand "equal ultimacy."
I read a book review this morning where the author was critical of RC Sproul's impassioned defense of infralapsarianism and rejection of supralapsarianism. A= equal ultimacy, B=supralapsarians.
All A is B, but not all B is A. Is this right?

Note: I uploaded a PDF of Perkins' famous chart that is clearly supralapsarian
Click to expand...
That image reminds me of Kabbalah tree.
 
Grant said:
How would you define equal ultimacy?
Click to expand...
That God works symmetrically in the elect and non-elect. That just as belief is worked into the elect so also non-belief is worked into the reprobate.

a Brakel, and Dordt, explicitly deny this. The unbelief of the reprobate is of themselves, and they are passed over and left in this state. The belief of the elect is of God.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
No one denies that the Westminster Confession teaches reprobation; that is not the point.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Daniel. The state of the question is as you describe it: the WCF reserves "predestination" for the elect and "foreordination" for "others" (WCF 3.3; or "the rest of mankind," WCF 3.7). This is a further matter of interest, which is why I was careful to say "others," using confessional language, not "reprobate." Nowhere in the Standards will you find the words "reprobate" or "reprobation."

I point this out not to say that I have a problem with that terminology ((I think that one can classically say, as noted herein, that predestination has two parts: election and reprobation). Rather, the studied non-use of the word "reprobation" is further evidence of how careful Westminister is being and allowing for different expressions. Even as with Dordt, the church is confessing at Westminster, as you note, a generic Reformed orthodoxy, and not the higher Calvinism of many others, including, in a measure, Calvin himself (as other scholars have pointed out).

We must remember that any given theologian may employ various theological formulations or terminology. What is binding on the church is her doctrinal standards, whether the TFU or the Westminster Standards. This does not necessarily mean that other and more specific ways of speaking are out of accords with such standards, but it does mean that the church is not bound to a higher Calvinism that some would perhaps like to bind it to.

Also, the WCF would remind us, in 3.8, that this whole discussion is always "to be handled with special prudence and care," neither in a speculative nor abstract way that some among us routinely employ. Our talking about the decrees should never adversely impact assurance, devotion to Christ, reverence for God, etc. Rather, any mention should promote "humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." My prayer is that we would be as thoughtful and careful about this as are our Standards.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Equal Ultimacy
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
Dachaser
D
InSlaveryToChrist
  • Locked
"Genuine" Does Not Equal "Perfect"
Replies
5
Views
2K
Peairtach
Peairtach
Back
Top