I don’t know how I stumbled on this debate as a Muslim, but it’s a really interesting discussion thanks for sharing this knowledge in such a clear manner.
I'm a confessional Reformed Baptist and I must say that this is one of the first videos I've seen on social media where the details of one of our historical theological discussions has been accurately represented by someone from another tradition! Well done Jordan! Most of the time the "other side" doesn't take enough time to properly understand what we're actually trying to say and thus, they end up attacking a straw man. For myself, I follow the Puritan divine Thomas Goodwin in his view of Christological supralapsarianism. This is particularly derived from a careful reading of Eph. 1:3-6 (for those who think our theological discussions find no basis in exegesis). The way the text can legitimately be understood is like this: predestination is about the Father's eternal decree of the end (the goal), while election is about His eternal decree of the means (the process of getting to that goal). The end is that those adopted as His sons through Christ should praise the glory of His grace in Christ forever. The means to that end is that Christ should be given those appointed for adoption and that He should make them holy and blameless of all unrighteousness before the Father (this is what Jesus taught in John 6:35-44). Thus, Christ Jesus was directly involved with both predestination AND election in eternity past in relation to those individuals who were chosen. This seems to make a lot of sense since, vs. 7 carries on indicating that the Son achieved in space and time what the Father had decreed for those whom the Father had decreed, namely their eternal redemption from bondage to sin. eternal forgiveness for participating in sin, and eternal sonship as coheirs with Him. Then vs. 13-14 go on to indicate that the Holy Spirit then takes what the Son achieved and applies it to the elect (those who believe) in space and time and makes sure they will make it to the end to praise the glory of His grace in Christ forever by sealing them with Himself. Thus, salvation from beginning to end is a unified work of the Triune God, which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all fully agreed upon in eternity past and having been bringing to pass in history, all to the praise of His glory! I hope this helps others to understand the Biblical, exegeitcal basis for the distinctions Jordan was accurately explaining. As well, f I may recommend a book that would be helpful: "A Puritan Theology" by Joel Beeke and Mark Jones. I've found it very helpful on several points, although I don't agree with all of the theological formulations or conclusions because I'm a Baptist, not a Presbyterian :) Many blessings!
I would say the means were election/predestination (chose us in him/in love having predestined) whereas "to the praise of his glorious grace" as a doxology expanded on as a purpose in v. 9..." making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things In him, things in heaven and things on earth" And again in ch. 3 v9 "and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, so that THROUGH THE CHURCH(means, not end)the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places this was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in christ Jesus our lord"...
This by the way is my understanding exegetically of means/end in scripture, primarily the verses you sited, not an attack of supralapsarianism, although I would identify as infralapsarianist...
I read and reread your post and honestly don't see supralapsarianism characterized by your post...seems sound to me...can you better explain where your position differs from mine?
" Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son" the goal here is being made in christs image , here stated " predestined to be" as the means
Infralapsarian at 2:12, Supralapsarian at 3:12 the first is passive, God leaves sinners in their reprobation by decreeing the Fall first the second is active, in that God decreed the fall to save some and reprobate others The latter is the minority view. Read Dr Cooper's first book "The Great Divide", it's so interesting and discusses the dispute between Calvinists and Lutherans.
I think this debate is critical, even central in theology because it allows you to understand everything else. The purpose of creation, of evil and of redemption. Of course, supralapsarianism is the only possible option, regardless of its popularity. I wrote a book on monergism and one chapter deals with this.
Found your channel recently and it has been more than helpful to myself.(Just started Catechism classes). Even watching your conference lectures and taking notes! God bless your ministry
I don’t believe Amyraldism is accepted as “Reformed” theology but if you want to broaden out the differing views of the decrees of God, there is also the Arminian view, the Lutheran view, and the Catholic view among others.
Amyraldism is not hypothetic universalism.... Davenant was not Amyraldian and he was HU hypothetical universalism has to do with the limited-ness of the atonement, not the order of the decrees you can be a full on determinist supralapsarian Calvinist and affirm hypothetical universalism
Paul is explaining doctrine and in the process imagines those he is educating to be questioning, challenging his points based on a human attempt to understand God in relation to evil. This is not a minor issue, but central to theology. Paul's answer is the same question God put to Job: Who are you to ask God, to question, to assume anything about God? Paul's 2ndary point reflected in this video's question of the ORDER logically of God's decrees seems to be 2 different attempts to insist on & establish this PROPER ATTITUDE toward God: Hence the attempt of these 2 camps or views: 1. Infralapsarian, or 2. Supralapsarian 1. God decreed the sinful dead mass of clay-a metaphor for the fall of all; from this he decreed a chosen elect to salvation as God's own glory of grace & goodness beyond all wonder-leaving the rest in death, OR 2. God decreed his elect & the reprobate-eternally damned-BOTH from eternity as the most important thing; from this he decreed the fall as a means to show his glory & goodness Number two appears more gutsy about the truth, when push comes to shove, of what happens to individuals; whether this telling is more honoring to God is questionable; Nevertheless, both say GOD IS IN CHARGE of everything. As to which is better? Paul is reasoning with an imagined ordinary person and the proper attitude toward God is the point. So whichever articulation stays closest to the metaphor of pots & clay and Paul's language, and communicates that some are saved, some not, and that is not ours to judge...that ALL is part his plan from eternity and the telling of this should encourage our thankfulness & wonder at God's greatness & goodness.
The major point I have is did G-d foreknow the fall and foreordain election or foresee man might fall and created the means to elect to grace those He willed? I remain convinced He foreknew man's weakness permitted the fall, and the Covenant of Redemption is His sovereign means to elect some to grace and pass over others to reprobation.
Pastor Cooper. Those videos you did where your standing and speaking on "three uses of the law" and law and gospel still won't work on my end. And yes it is just my end. Do you cover the three uses anywhere else?
I think when we say "decrees" some mistakenly think this is synonymous with "causes" However whether God actively causes something, or "allows" or "permits" something, in order to bring about his purposes, it doesn't change his active sovereignty over that event
Article XVIII: Of Free Will. , I am just getting up. Might be in that section . Been awhile for me as well. Just getting back into the swing of things, If it's not there I will try to look again Edward
Luther knew that some men would reject the need for salvation some would have little or no Faith or belief in Jesus or the existence of God even now many have departed from the Faith Jesus did say If you deny me before men I will deny you before my Father
Edward. I am not sure which document in the BOC we see Luther signing off. This is a study in and of itself. Sorry. If I stumble upon anything I will let you know. God speed
Yeah, Luther started the Reformation, but the "Reformed" tradition as the term is used today describes the theology that came from Calvin and those after him. So there's a lot of differences that separate the two.
@@StevenRudolph of course. And the theology "of Calvin" is just biblical theology. Yes, it is reformed - recovering the gospel from the papacy. I'm not well-read on Luther so help me here. What would he disagree with in Calvin's Institutes, for example.
From reading “The Bondage of the Will” I think Luther was infralapsarian in viewpoint. For instance he says the following: “Now, if you are disturbed by the thought that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God when he damns the undeserving, that is to say, ungodly men who are what they are because they were born in ungodliness and can in no way help being and remaining ungodly and damnable …. rather must God be honoured and revered as supremely merciful toward those whom he justifies and saves, supremely unworthy as they are, and there must be some acknowledgement of his divine wisdom so that he may be believed to be righteous where he seems to us to be unjust.” (pages 289,290 Luther's Works Vol 33) Luther, in this statement and others, seems to view predestination in the light of the Fall so I’m persuaded that he probably wasn't a supralapsarian. Incidentally the quote above wouldn't make any sense if Luther rejected predestination to hell. If God (as the Formula of Concord maintains) wants to convert everyone through the Gospel, and man alone is responsible for his damnation through resisting the Holy Spirit, then God wouldn't appear unjust in damning people. He would be damning the deserving not damning the undeserving as Luther says.
Have you spent time looking at Luther's comments on the issue in his Genesis Commentary? It seems to negate a double-predestinarian reading of Luther, though I recognize that some passages in the BotW sound that way.
Yes I’ve read Luther's commentary on Genesis 29:9 where he discusses the fact that we can only know whether we’re predestined to be saved through our faith in Christ and not through any other means, but nowhere does he exclude predestination to hell. If he actually believed that predestination was only to heaven and not also to hell it’s inconceivable to me that he wouldn't have said this somewhere in his vast output of writing. In any case he makes it plain in The Bondage of the Will that everything is predestined by God which obviously includes the destinies of everyone. In his conclusion for instance he says the following which is pretty conclusive surely - I can't see how it's possible to argue that he didn't include predestination to hell: “For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there can't be any free choice in man or angel or any creature”. (page 293, Luther's Works, Vol 33)
Where’s the evidence that Luther later on denied double predestination? As late as 1537 he was saying The Bondage of the Will was one of his best writings. I’m certain he never denied double predestination.
Augsburg Confession I believe in the BOC. Luther signed off on that if I'm not mistaken, Yes he said save the Catechism's and BOW the rest were rubbish. BOW is the best work I've read on man's depravity. Amazing work. But Luther by 1530 AC changed to a single view. Remeber BOW is HIGHLY polemical. Hyerbole is used.
