• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The inconsistencies of the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace

Discussion in 'Salvation (Soteriology)' started by Dr. Jack, Mar 24, 2019.

  1. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Why are you dodging the fact that Prophecy originates from the mind of God? Are you suggesting prophecy does not involve such concepts as ordain and decree?
     
  2. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    Okay then, I will ask the question another way:

    How is it possible for Adam NOT to transgress, since according to Calvinism God decreed, and or ordained him to trespass?

    In the nature of first and second causes, the second cause (Beta) cannot counter the first cause (Alpha).


    Usually, in a court of law, the only time such questions are permitted is when the witness is deemed "hostile"; meaning, they do their best to evade the actual questions.

    The doctrines of Calvinism are carefully framed as to infer particular beliefs that do not stand true to the total tenor of Scripture.

    As I discussed Total Depravity earlier, it is absolutely dependent upon the dichotomous view of man. However, in the actual definition of Total Depravity, that fact is not mentioned (for obvious reasons).



    Nor do I.


    Agreed


    I have said repeatedly in this thread ... There is a HUGE difference theologically between God having foreknowledge of sin; and God decreeing sin. The latter is causal; while the former is not.
     
  3. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,225
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    It seems the real issue here is the meaning of "decree" and "ordain". If all that is meant is that God already knows "whatsoever comes to pass", then all we need to do is acknowledge that God already knows.

    But, the real problem is that Calvinists (WCF) believe that God's omniscience is subservient to His sovereignty.

    iow, the ONLY REASON God knows "whatsoever comes to pass" is BECAUSE God ordained and decreed "whatsoever comes to pass".

    So, this is the real issue. Is God's attribute of omniscience subservient to any of His other attributes?

    The Bible NEVER even suggests that God's attributes are in any kind of hierarchial order.

    They are all co-equal, just as the Triune God in 3 Persons are all co-equal.

    Since that is true, all this talk and rumor about first and second causes can cease.

    Since God knows all that will come to pass, He has a plan for "whatsoever comes to pass".

    And God actively decrees certain things to happen.
     
  4. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    It isn't quite that simple. Predestination of the "elect" requires more than foreknowledge alone. It requires that past events leading up to the present day events, must, out of necessity have taken place, just as future events out of necessity rely on present events. (You cannot exist unless all four of your grandparents existed ... and the process of necessity continues.)

    According to Calvinism, it isn't just that God has foreknowledge of events, but that He ordained the events so that His perfect plan would come to fruition.

    I'll take this one step further ... We have seen the doctrine of omniscience presented that God not only knows the events of history which have happened; but He also knows every possible scenario of what would have happened via other circumstances, or other decisions being made. This is known as the doctrine of "counterfactuals". This is absolutely true. This however is something the hyper-Calvinists simply cannot grasp.

    It is their assertion that God can only know true suppositions. The problem with that idea is that God, and His creation are not math problems which operate under absolute rule.

    Molinism is much like Calvinism except that with Molinism God possesses "middle knowledge" (that knowledge which is what would occur under other circumstances). Rather than God only having a single plan to actuate, (ordain and bring to pass); God can choose from a variety of plans, and actuate the plan that suits His purpose best. A famous theologian that isca proponent of Molinism is Dr. William Lane Craig.

    It is my opinion that neither of these positions are Scriptural.
     
  6. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I think the question assumes "middle knowledge", which assumes a learning God. Foreknowledge is often thought of in illustrative terms of God passively peering into the corridors of time and making His choices based on passive observation of His creatures choices, which not only subverts the free will choices of the Creator to the choices of creatures, it is God crunching numbers going through all "possible" outcomes and choosing the best "possible" final outcome. This is all interesting, fascinating stuff, I used to subscribe to this type of foreknowledge, but it is not compatible with omniscience and immutability. Unfortunately the crunching numbers game involves learning, and we both agree God does not learn, as this would clearly contradict the attribute of omniscience. So with all that said, the simple answer is, it was not possible for Adam to not transgress, in the same way it was not possible for Judas to not betray Christ, in the same way it was not possible for Jesus Christ to fail to be the prophesied Messiah.
     
  7. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,225
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    But since God is perfectly omniscient, all that would be accounted for. So it does seem quite that simple to me.

    But then, I've always subscribed to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid. :)

    Correct. God's omniscient includes every possible scenario, out to infinity. My problem with Calvinism's view of God's omniscience is that they make His omniscience subservient to God's sovereignty.

    For them, the reason God is omniscient is that He determined, decreed "whatsoever comes to pass". However, there is no evidence of that from Scripture.

    And they assert that God's omniscience is due to Hisw sovereign decrees.

    I never got into Molinism. For me, God doesn't have any "plan B's". All His plans are based on His omniscience, so He doesn't need a plan B, unlike mankind.

    Amen!
     
  8. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    In all of my years as a Calvinist, I have never ever read even one Calvinist suggest the omniscience of God is subservient to the sovereignty of God, not once. God is omniscient because He is God, the Scriptures affirm this. Of course from our perspective as finite human beings, there is a distinction between a mind and a will, and from our perspective these two having different functions while working in unison together. In all of this discussion though, I cannot help but feel like a finite man attempting to penetrate the infinite, attempting to get inside the mind of God, and feel the insanity of running into a wall, over and over, it is impossible to fully comprehend God, we can only know in part. Human reasoning can only take us so far before the impenetrable wall is reached. I think it is also true, that each of us has a point, which may differ from person to person as God allows before reaching the impenetrable wall of attempts at comprehending eternity, the infinite, immeasurable, untestable, nature of His attributes. Most of what we can know is knowledge He has revealed to others and passed down in Scripture. Otherwise we would have far more in common with the beasts of the field, not precisely (considering we are image bearers of God, but even that knowledge is acquired from Scripture), but as a figure of speech.
     
  9. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,225
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    What I've heard is that God is omniscient because He decreed all things. Or words to that effect. Generally, Calvinists just don't explain their views in totally clear ways.

    For example, why even both using the terms "decree" or "ordain" for what happens, since God is omniscient, "because He is God"?

    Yes, they affirm His omniscience, not that He decrees all things.

    If Calvinists would just replace "decree" and "ordain" with His omniscience regarding "whatsoever comes to pass", a lot of problems would be solved.
     
  10. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    Middle knowledge is the 'term' used to describe that knowledge which pertains to counterfactuals.

    11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Matthew

    Jesus authoritatively spoke of knowing what would have been, under other circumstances. Jesus did not speak in a manner which indicated He had '"learned" something new. Rather, He spoke as One having perfect knowledge of all things, because He is omniscient.

    If it is any consolation to you, that description of "foreknowledge" is completely contrary to Scripture, and is NOT a belief that I (and many others) subscribe to.

    You must understand, omniscience is just that ... omniscience. It is NOT just the knowledge of what has, and will happen; but of all those things that would have occurred under other circumstances (as spoken by Jesus above).

    Please consider:
    1) God exists outside of time.
    2) God created time.
    3) God is not effected by time.

    Keeping the above in mind ...
    4) God is also omniscient.
    A) God knows all that shall come to pass.
    B) God knows all counterfactuals.
    (God does not "learn" counterfactuals, He has always known them. It isn't a matter of "God passively peering into the corridors of time" ... Since God is omniscient, He has no need to 'peer' and learn ... He already knows. Not because He ordained the events of time; but because He is God, and is omniscient; and must know all things.

    If you're speaking of the Molinistic version "Middle knowledge" I agree. But I don't think you're getting this. Both the Calvinistic and Molinistic God 'activate' His 'plan of events'. I am in no way saying that God doesn't have a 'plan'; I am saying that as part of God's plan He allows men to choose Him, knowing from eternity what decisions would be made, and even knowledge of the counterfactuals.

    I think I have addressed this already.


    Only from the perspective of God having perfect omniscience is the true (in that God knew what WOULD occur). But as we also know, Jesus clearly also had knowledge of counterfactuals.

    Foreknowledge based upon omniscience is not equivalent to foreknowledge based upon the decree of God. I hope you can see the difference.
     
  11. His student

    His student Well-Known Member

    698
    +366
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I check back in here for a moment with the hopes that you would not be up to the same old straw man representation of Calvinist’s beliefs.

    I'm still busy. I'll be back later. But I had hoped you would have moved beyond that kind of thing and be ready to discuss substance.
     
  12. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    And this is precisely what happens when it is pointed out to a person who holds to the Reformed Theology position that the WCF contradicted itself.

    Let's do this ...

    ... substitute the word "decree" with a word that you think won't cause a contradiction. Use a thesaurus, look up the word you choose in the Bible, and see how it is used in Scripture.

    That is what I did with the word "decree". When a decree was made in Scripture, what did that mean? Yes, it was "law" ... with no option but to obey.

    2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. Luke

    Now when Ceaser made the decree that all the world should be taxed (he had to be a Democrat) the people didn't get to choose whether or not to move, and then be taxed. It was mandatory.

    When God decreed Adam to transgress, it wasn't a choice, it was mandatory.
     
  13. Gr8Grace

    Gr8Grace Well-Known Member

    +281
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Dr Jack, is laying out a very factual and astute observation of reformed theology. I was stuck in calvinism for years.....And what he is laying out is not a 'straw man.' It's exactly what I had shoved down my throat.

    If he is throwing out a straw man........then why is he saying the EXACT thing that my OLD pastor taught, and is refuting what my OLD pastor taught?

    I know calvinism just as well as the people who haven't been saved from that garbage ........But it's a 'straw man', 'you don't know',' your misrepresenting' and all kind of excuses.
     
  14. His student

    His student Well-Known Member

    698
    +366
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Yes- laying it out wrong.
    I've listened to and read the teaching of a great many Calvinist preachers in person, in books, and on the internet for over 60 years now. You are right in asserting that many of them are mere parrots regurgitating things they have heard and read from others without giving the doctrines much prayerful thought of their own.

    IMO - you should have located another pastor who was a better teacher instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    As Ronald would say, “There you go again.”

    Here is an example from real life of the principle we have been discussing.

    (Every illustration a person could give of the workings of God will, admittedly, fall short somewhere along the line.)

    I’m going to choose one of two words to write in red. One of the words I’m considering is “good” and one of the words is “evil”. If I choose the word good it means that I have made a Godly choice. If I choose the word evil it means that I have sinned.

    (Whether the decision to use this example or the final outcome from my example was inspired by God or of the flesh – I wouldn’t at this time know.)

    My very existence as a thinking functioning being created in the image of God mandates that I make choices all the time out of my free will. Both you and I should agree about that – as do all Calvinists.

    How I got to this exact point in my life required what is probably a million or so decisions along the way on my part and probably many trillions on the part of God.

    It'll have to wait to be unpacked for another post. But suffice it to say that you opponents of the WCF statement have failed to address the fact that among the “what so evers” that God supposedly decrees are His own almost innumerable actions involved in the things that happen here in His creation as well as what His creation itself will do.

    Neither you nor I nor any Calvinist I am aware of would say that I am not making this choice of my own will or that I am making it with coercion from anyone else including God.

    At this point what’s his name would attempt to draw us off into the weeds. But I hoping you are above those kinds of tactics. My example is no doubt flawed in some ways – but I think it serves the purpose here anyway.

    I choose EVIL (therefore I have chosen to sin – in my example.)

    By the way - my name, believe it or not, is Calvin.

    Here is the disputed statement from the WCF.

    “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

    Here are two statements to represent what the WCF and I say about what just happened and what you “SAY that we say”. Remember I am considering everything the WCF wrote and not just cherry picking their statement in order to misrepresent the person’s who wrote it.

    1.) “God is not constrained by anyone to ordain any event to come to pass. God from all eternity ordained that a man named Calvin would come into being in 1945 and subsequently write an entry on a Christian Forum on 4/03/2019. God was not the author of what he chose to write. As one given free will by God - it was Calvin’s God given right to make the decision just as he did. No violence was done to Calvin’s will and Calvin’s liberty to make his own choices was left in place as he played his part in what God decreed to happen - namely that he write a word of his choice in this post.”

    P.S. --- God made His decree knowing full well what my choice would be and what any ramifications of my making that choice would be.

    2.) “God thought up a sin and freely placed that sin in Calvin’s mind. God decreed that Calvin sin by making him choose the word “evil” rather than the word “good”. God was the author of Calvin’s sin because He didn’t just know through His omniscience that Calvin would sin. He also thought the sin up and forced Calvin to do it by doing violence to his free will by taking the liberty Calvin should have had away from him in order that Calvin might do the evil God intended him to do.”

    Again – at this point what’s his name would resort to picking apart one of the ways I have worded this quick example off the top of my head. I’m hoping that you will not be the kind of person that he is known to be here in the forum.

    There is obviously a lot we could discuss about the part God played in bringing me to this point in my life. But that can wait for another post – hopefully soon, if you will admit the bias ways you have worded your charges against the WCF statement and put your misrepresentations behind us.

    Which of these two admittedly rough explanations of what I was ordained to do and did best describes what just happened here on this thread according to the WCF? Isn’t it my example that represents the totality of the WCF’s statement and isn’t it yours that misrepresents what they and I believe and teach?

    I think everyone here knows the answer to those questions.

    There seems to me to be no way on earth that an honest person could read the statement by the WCF and fail to see exactly what they meant by it (whether they happen to like the words “ordain” or “decree” or not). E.g. – God authored the event. He did not author the sin which was a part of the event. That sin was authored by the sinner to whom He had given free will to chose as he wished.

    There seems to me to be no way on earth that the 2nd formulation of the intent of the WCF statement would even come to mind for anyone without an agenda to misrepresent the WCF statement.

    That is particularly true because of the way that the compilers of the WCF went out of their way to make it virtually impossible to see their statement about God ordaining everything that comes to pass portraying Him as the author of sin. I’m thinking that they would roll over in their graves if they could see the way hatred of Calvinism has poisoned the well of honest and clear thought here in the Forum.

    But I’m trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt on this because I believe that your thinking has been clouded by your dislike for Calvinism in general or some particular aspect of it. That seems to me to be the case because I have noticed you lashing out occasionally against the 5-points or against election or something else people debate about Calvinism when it isn’t even the topic of the conversation we have become involved in here.

    I sincerely hope that you are not the kind to misrepresent your brothers purposefully. That would be a sin.

    Having said that – I find it very hard to believe that an intelligent man like yourself couldn’t see where they were going wrong for as many posts as you have posted your misrepresentations and after your reading of as many corrections as you have been given here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2019
  15. His student

    His student Well-Known Member

    698
    +366
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Foreknowledge based on omniscience concerning only the choices of the men involved without also including God’s knowledge of HIS innumerable future concurrent actions along with what is known to occur through the choices of men doesn't even begin to address what plays into His knowledge of future events. I hope you can see that.

    Trouble is that anti-Calvinists like yourself and what's his name conveniently leave out the prerequisite omnipresent activities of the Word of God and (whether it is purposeful or not) present God as a transcendent spectator only rather than the One Who holds all things involved in what He sees as future events together by His Word or decree.

    The Westminster theologians didn't have the luxury of just conveniently leaving out the consideration of certain truths from God's Word. They had to consider them all during their 5 years or so of drafting their final short pithy statements which could be used for the next few hundred years as catechisms in Christ's Church. They had to compare scripture to scripture in a very thorough and systematic way to accomplish the task they had before them.

    Granted that they had 5 years or more to kick these things around and you only have a few visits to your computer to give your partially thought out opinions on these matters. But then if you guys haven't long ago thought thru these things backward and forward you probably shouldn't be writing words that may well be read and considered by newer and weaker Christians all around the world.

    "Let not many of you become teachers, my brothers, knowing that as such you will incur a more strict judgment."

    REGARDING THE CHOICE OF THE WORD “DECREE” AND “ORDAIN”:

    I, and many other Reformed theologians over the last 400 years or so find them perfectly satisfactory words – since we have tried to understand how they came to be used rather than just pick at them as part of an anti-Calvinist agenda.

    The Reformers sought to use a simple word or two that would convey to their readers what the scriptures tell us about the way God creates things, sustains things and brings events to pass.

    That way of doing things is the sending forth of His beloved Word.

    “My word … which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

    It isn’t very long in the study of the scriptures that we discover that the One Who so proceeds from God and makes all that He is and knows manifest for His glory – is not an it but a person, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    Psalm 138:2 is admittedly a difficult translation. But it is clear that God has exalted His Word above all else. He is, after all, the “1st born” of all creation.

    “For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.” “You have so exalted Your solemn decree that it surpasses Your fame.”

    In the scriptures we see the Word exalted as one existing before the creation with God and indeed Who is God Himself. We see the Word as the spoken Word bringing creation out of nothing and nothing could resist Him. We see the Word as the written Word which must be fulfilled. We see the Word as having become flesh, dwelling among us and laying down His life for us. We see that title emblazoned on His thigh and proceeding from His mouth in order to enforce His will when He returns to the earth He created.

    Sometimes it’s even difficult in the scriptures to see whether they are talking about the spoken, written or living Word – they are so intertwined.

    One thing is certain – the Word in whatever form He is presented will complete what He begins – whether in creation, in prophecy, or salvation.

    He is omnipresent and nothing happens without His say so. If God takes His mind (or more biblically accurate His Word) off of anything or any situation it will simply cease to exist.

    In a massive understatement for the ages John says in the ending of His gospel concerning the Word:

    “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25

    “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

    Can you imagine it? You and me and every other created thing “have our being” in the Word of God.

    Given these magnificent and all encompassing statements about the Word of God and considering that Jesus Himself said that the Word “must” be fulfilled – the Reformers wanted to do this “1st cause” of all thing justice.

    The Westminster authors chose the words decree and ordain because they and their readers were quite familiar with them and because they adequately convey the idea that what the sovereign Lord says “must” be done – whether we are talking about the kings of the earth or the King of Kings.

    As FG2 so aptly informed us, the root of the word decree conveys that the statement going forth from the Lord “must” be done – no ifs ands or buts. The Lord’s Word or decree is law.

    The Reformers naturally wanted 1st of all to give due credit to what they saw in the scripture as the One and only source of everything and every event in creation. They chose the illustration of a decree from a King.

    But in doing so they realized that there could be some misunderstanding concerning the idea of the relatively free will of men in relationship to these sovereign decrees since free will was also a clear teaching of the scriptures and therefore extremely important concept to cover in their document as well. They wanted no one to think that they were saying that God decreed or "authored" sins.

    So they purposefully and clearly added the caveats which tell us that God uses a law He has put in place to fulfill what He decrees to take place – namely free will for men and angels. They purposefully made absolutely sure that no one could misunderstand their statements about God sending forth His Word and decreeing everything in creation and thinking that that included sin.

    I won’t quote a bunch of their statements here about the authorship of sin or the freedom given to men to sin or not. They clearly lay out their position and I’m thinking that you know full well what they say. Suffice it to say that no one who reads their words from the WCF with an open mind could fail to see what their intent was.

    And still ------ we see dishonest people misrepresenting them in order to undermine and misrepresent many of their brothers in Christ and their beliefs and teachings about these things.

    It would be just amazing if it wasn’t so sad as well.

    These supposed teachers will give an account when they meet the Lord - not only for their inadequate and often false teaching but for purposefully doing their brothers in Christ a disservice on the internet and elsewhere..
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2019
  16. FreeGrace2

    FreeGrace2 Senior Veteran

    +1,225
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    What you mean by "what plays into His knowledge of future events"??

    Are you suggesting that God's omniscience is dependent upon factors, like it is with men?

    Here's the simple truth: God KNOWS ALL because He is omniscient (all knowing). Without ANY other "factors" involved.

    You're just trying to complicate what is so clear and simple.

    He knows everything INTERNALLY. He doesn't need any outside factors at all. If you think otherwise, you do not understand what omniscience means.

    You have just admitted the Calvinist error that God's omniscience is subservient to other attributes. Here, you bring in God's "prerequisite omnipresnet activities...as a transcendent SPECTATOR" and then bring in "future events together by His Word or decree".

    iow, God's omniscience is because of His Word/decree. iow, He knows because He decrees. That's what I got from what you have posted above.

    Is God's omniscience dependent upon ANY other attribute? Yes or no.
     
  17. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    So let's try this:

    The WCF states ...

    “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Ps 33:11†; Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Heb 6:17; Rom 9:15, 18):"

    Now without considering anything else; what does the above statement mean? I want those who subscribe to Reformed Theology to address this.

    I will put some stipulations on your answer: you must address the "God from all eternity, did ... freely, and unchangeably ordain" and the "whatsoever comes to pass".
     
  18. Hammster

    Hammster Private Status. Do Not Read. Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +15,733
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Whatever happens is ordered by God.
     
  19. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    Thank you for your comment; I will give other Reformed Apologists an opportunity to comment as well.
     
  20. Dr. Jack

    Dr. Jack Well-Known Member

    799
    +105
    United States
    Baptist
    Private
    I would like to discuss the Scriptural use of "ordain".

    1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. Titus

    I was 'ordained' into the ministry in 1992 after 1) graduating from Bible College; and 2) serving in an interm position where my testimony would be proven, along with my ability to use the Scriptures (as ordained Man of God cannot be a novice).

    Prior to being ordained (after having served an ample time as described above), I was given an "Application for Ordination" which was in all actuality a huge questionnaire designed to put my beliefs in print, so that an Ordination Counsel could examine my answers, and then prepare questions for my Official Ordination Counsel. This questionnaire had 100 questions (many being multiple part questions, as well as many which demanded long essay type answers).

    I am stating this to make the following point:

    In Titus 1:6-11, and 1 Timothy 3:2-7 we find the qualifications of a Bishop (Pastor).

    So prior to being "ordained" a candidate must meet all of the particular requirements.

    Paul ends Titus 1:5 with the words, "as I had appointed thee".

    Paul had the God given authority to 'appoint' or 'ordain' Timothy and Titus into the ministry, because they met the requirements.

    Hence, the Scriptural use of the word 'ordain' means to appoint to a particular position of service.

    Now we consider the text in question:

    “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Ps 33:11†; Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Heb 6:17; Rom 9:15, 18):"

    We now have God ordaining (appointing) "whatsoever comes to pass".

    Paul's appointment of Timothy and Titus had a purpose:

    1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Titus

    Therefore, according to the WCF, when God "unchangeably ordain[ed] whatsoever comes to pass"; it had to be for a specific purpose.
     
Loading...