Equal Ultimacy

[frost]

Sorry if this has been asked before but I still have much to learn about Calvinism. I've heard it said that God does not actively send people to hell. Rather, he "permits" (via passive action,) sinners to remain sinful while electing others to salvation. But, in God's lack of acting does he not actively send these people to hell? I mean, he is sovereign so to say he just leaves folks in their sin is to say he is sending them to hell, right? Isn't then, the whole issue of equal ultimacy and double predestination just symantics?

blessings...

 

[Imblessed]

I don't think there is much difference myself--even if He is not 'actively' sending anyone to hell, the very "act" of "passing over" is IMO 'sending' them. I'm new to Calvinism too, and this is something I'm still struggling with. I read it in the bible, I know it to be true, but I don't LIKE it. Maybe it's just my personality, I tend to not see the "bad side" of people( I think that's called gullibility, or niavity), so it's hard for me to grasp the whole concept of "we all deserve hell anyway" theory.

Anyway, what i mean to say is, maybe trying in trying to explain it, we are using words that arminians might not react so badly too--sort of watering it down a little..although I think you are right in that it's just semantics....

 

[Reformationist]

Sorry if this has been asked before but I still have much to learn about Calvinism. I've heard it said that God does not actively send people to hell. Rather, he "permits" (via passive action,) sinners to remain sinful while electing others to salvation. But, in God's lack of acting does he not actively send these people to hell? I mean, he is sovereign so to say he just leaves folks in their sin is to say he is sending them to hell, right? Isn't then, the whole issue of equal ultimacy and double predestination just symantics?

blessings...

The difference between the proper biblical teaching of double predestination and the unbiblical view of equal ultimacy isn't with regard to God's choice but rather God's actions. You see, the reformed view of predestination states that God actively chooses to actively work faith into the heart of those He has elected unto salvation, thereby ensuring that they are saved. As for the reprobate, God actively chooses to passively leave them to their fallen nature, thereby ensuring that they are not saved. This is the proper reformed view of double predestination. God is active in His choice in both the elect and the reprobate but passive with regard to His actions toward those He has not elected unto salvation.

The view of "equal ultimacy" states that God actively chooses to actively work faith into the heart of those He has elected unto salvation, thereby ensuring that they are saved. As for the reprobate, God actively chooses to actively work unbelief into their hearts, thereby ensuring that they are not saved.

The simple way of expressing the difference is that the accurate biblical teaching of double predestination states that God is passive in leaving fallen man to his unbelief whereas equal ultimacy claims that God is active in working evil into the hearts of the reprobate to ensure they are condemened.

The obvious chink in the armor of equal ultimacy is that it presupposes the need for God to actively work unbelief into the heart of the reprobate to ensure they do not come to saving faith. The reality of fallen man's unregenerate nature is so complete that if God does nothing but simply leaves him to his own devices he will never come to faith and will willingly remain an enemy of the Lord. God need not work fresh evil into the heart of unregenerate man because every thought of his heart is only evil continuously.

Hope this helps.

God bless,
Don

 

[Imblessed]

Hope this helps.

God bless,
Don

It helped alot! Thanks!

 

[frost]

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. I think the problems behind failing to understand this completely is our way of interpreting fairness and justice and our failing to really comprehend our fallen nature. On the former we read, "one who knows the good he ought to do and fails to do it, sins." Does God sin by knowing it would be good to save everyone yet fail to do it? Is it really "good" for God to save all? It might be good for the sinner, but not good for God's ultimate plan. On the latter, when we really understand how sinful we are (and it's easy to forget this,) we see how amazing it is that he even granted mercy to anyone.

 

[frumanchu]

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. I think the problems behind failing to understand this completely is our way of interpreting fairness and justice and our failing to really comprehend our fallen nature. On the former we read, "one who knows the good he ought to do and fails to do it, sins." Does God sin by knowing it would be good to save everyone yet fail to do it? Is it really "good" for God to save all? It might be good for the sinner, but not good for God's ultimate plan. On the latter, when we really understand how sinful we are (and it's easy to forget this,) we see how amazing it is that he even granted mercy to anyone.

frost, you bring up an excellent point. "Our way of interpreting fairness and justice" is inherently biased because we are the ones subject to that justice. The minute anyone places obligation of any sort upon God to save any individual (outside of His own immutability as it relates to His decree to do so) they have destroyed the purity of grace in the death of Christ.

 

[Reformationist]

The minute anyone places obligation of any sort upon God to save any individual (outside of His own immutability as it relates to His decree to do so) they have destroyed the purity of grace in the death of Christ.

That was very eloquent fru. Thanks for being a reformed poet.