On Geerhardus Vos and Supralapsarianism

For although Jacob, in comparison with Esau, revealed some ethically ignoble qualities, yet in spiritual appreciation of the promise he proved himself the superior of the two. In order to guard against all misunderstandings arising from this, the principle was established at a point where no such considerations, pro or con, could possibly enter into the matter.

Emphasis is added - Biblical Theology, Pg. 94

G.H. Kersten and Equal Ultimacy

I am not sure, but it sounds like G.H. Kersten would hold to Equal Ultimacy.

God did not passively allow sin, and although according to all His perfections He hates sin, nevertheless, He willed it in order to glorify Himself in righteousness and mercy. "The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4) Regardless of the purpose of those who would include the fall in God's knowledge, but say He did not decree it, we must insist that God knows all things by virtue of His eternal decree. Thus God knew that man would fall because He had decreed that man would fall.

G.H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatic, Pg. 213

Calvin and the supposed two wills of God

Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence

In as far as God wills a in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God. But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. 

 

On Clark, Equal Ultimacy, and Cause of God

Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything there is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign. Not only is Satan his creature, but every detail of history was eternally in his plan before the world began; and he willed that it should all come to pass. The men and angels predestined to eternal life and those foreordained to everlasting death are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Election and reprobation are equally ultimate. God determined that Christ should die; he determined as well that Judas should betray him. There was never the remotest possibility that something different could have happened.

(Emphasis is mine)Gordon H. Clark., Religion, Reason and Revelation., Pg.  173

God the ultimate Cause of all things whether sin or good

During the times of scripture the people assumed a belief that all things were already controlled. For instance the reason why I had a headache this morning was not because it just happened that way but it goes far deeper than that there were forces yet unseen which caused such things to occur. For instance not only was my head hurting but further the situation with which my head ached was also the cause. But, not only this but going yet more deeper is the fact that my head was hurting not because of the circumstances at hand but also the spiritual forces which was fundamentally the cause of my headache. Either by the influences of the flesh or by the direct actions of the spirits themselves. I woke up w/ a headache because of the spiritual forces at hand. There is a reason for my headache. But still further these spiritual forces whether they be evil spirits sent from Satan or good spirits are ultimately from the direct and final cause of the ruler and sustainer of all things - the Triune God. Who not only commanded the spirits to do such but also had brought about the very necessary actions (if I am using the word correctly) who alone remains the primary or ultimate cause of it all by his sovereign active decree. Men I would say are either committing various actions for either sin or good reasons. Which in turn goes further back. Satan who entices the flesh sent by God or the Spirit of God who is working in them to bring about his good purposes.

On Augustine's weak understanding of Evil

Augustine . . .  Under Neoplatonic influence . . . taught that all existing things are good; evil, therefore, does not exist - it is metaphysically unreal. Being non-existent, it can have no cause, and God therefore is not the cause of evil. When a man sins, it is a case of his choosing a lower good instead of a higher good. This choice too has no efficient cause, although Augustine assigns to it a deficient cause. In this way God was supposed to be absolved. Augustine, admittedly, was a great Christian and a great philosopher. Later in the chapter more will be said about him. But here he was at his worst. Deficient causes, if there are such things, do not explain why a good God does not abolish sin and guarantee that men always choose the highest goods.

This is an interesting quote by Gordon H. Clark. The last sentence seems to say that even if God is void of the cause of sin and evil it still does not give us any real reason why sin and evil are not totally destroyed or absolved. Herman Hoeksema in his Reformed Dogmatics says something of this - for God to be able to stop or prevent evil but does not, would make Him just as responsible.

Clarkian's Revelation and Morality

I have been reading Gordon H. Clark's work Religion, Reason and Revelation in order to under the issues better of Equal Ultimacy which I have slim knowledge of.
It has been good so far, yet some things I have difficulty understanding. Might be worth another read through sometime. But there is a quote from Newman Smyth (I have not heard of him) whom Clark quotes which says, 

Old theology is always becoming new in the vitalizing influence of ethics. . . . It is reason enough for doubting and for restudying any traditional teaching or received word of doctrine if it be felt to harass or confuse the Christian conscience of an age. Nothing can abide as true in theology which does not prove its genuineness under the ever renewed searching of the Christian moral sense. . . . Still less can we allow in Christian ethics any dogmatic belief which would put in bonds the Christian ethical principle itself; as, for instance, the tenet that morality is dependent upon the divine will. . . . Christian ethics cannot consent to commit suicide in any supposed interest of theology.

Clark does not agree with the quote (Neither do I). But he says the reason why is that Smyth separates as Kant and Plato does the truth and the practical. That is truth is set in one arena while ethics is what matters here and now. That the practical is the judge of what is true based upon what the quote says is interesting. It kind of informed me that as a Christian I am to be both the dispenser of truth and while also (not watering the truth down) but showing its practicalness or applying the very truth to the hearers of truth.

Listening to James White

James White believes in Common Grace. I am listening to a Dividing Line today in which he goes through Michael Browns statement about the atonement. Around 45 minutes into this he gets upset about Michael's understanding of a particular passage and Christ Messiahship  saying that the OT does not differentiates the offering of sacrifices. Michael's point is that Christ work is worked out differently from the Non-elect, and the Elect so that Christ is not a saving Messiah toward the Reprobate, but is still a messiah. Now an issue with James Whites consistency is that he does hold to Common Grace - Now granted I am unsure if he would say Christ bought this common grace or not - but many who do hold to common grace (especially my pastor) would say that it does. In one sense Christ merits is for all (both reprobate and elect alike).

Our Freedom in Christ Alone never in the Law

The point in 1 Corinthians 9 is that Paul is no longer under the law but being in Christ has become free unto the law of Christ. The gospel, the good news, is that we are free from the that says my right my want to consider others as more important than ourselves.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is that of combating issues of disunity within the church. Essentially Paul deals with the quite essential reasons why there are disunity or breaking of fellowship. His last reason and most compelling and important one at that is that their doctrine of the Gospel was messed up. Without a great foundation a house will not stand together not only congruently but perhaps maybe even permanently as foundations shifts and moves the house will suddenly break apart and tumble down eventually. The issue of the church was not their view of the law, but of much extreme importance of the gospel - the resurrection. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still caught in our sins and are most to be pitied never mind the thought that we will then be shown to be most morally good and perhaps praised. Paul knocks this thought down right away in Chapter 15 verse 18.

So with that the law cannot bring unity but only disunity. As Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Seminary) says in his book Culture Shift, The city of man is disunified, whereas in the city of God the ruler is God and all are unified under His rulership. Those who are outside of Christ are under the curse of the law and its demands and burdens. No one is free there is no unity to be had in the works of the law. Some might charge this Antinomian - I don't see it this way. The law is preached to those who are dead in trespasses and sins to show them that they have not obeyed and are not righteous but have fallen short of God's glory and are under His just wrath and anger. Paul says in Romans 8 however that God has done what the law weakened by the flesh could not do and that is essentially break down the curse and save humans from the corrupting power and decay of its power by work of the Spirit. In Christ God has not only punished sin but He has justified sinners (Romans 3). Therefore Paul could explain that there is Therefore NOW no Condemnation for God's elect (those who are IN CHRIST). Finally it has been done. The debt has been Paid, nothing do I owe.

So going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that he most certainly does have a right to eat and drink according to his privilege as an apostle, however, he does not take up his privileges but rather has surrendered his rights (v. 12; v. 15). The reason why he has surrendered his rights and could do such is because he is not under the law. Paul in verse 19 - 23 says that in order to win some not under the law he becomes like one not under the law and to win those who are under the law he becomes like one who is under the law So that He might win some to Christ. He could do this because he is not under the law but is in Christ who has become for him a new 'law' - that is the law of love in which believers who are in Christ stand in unity of because of the Gospel truth that Christ has died and has been resurrected destroying both sin and death so that by faith repenting of their sins and trusting in Him alone they might also live freely unto glory.

So with that Paul is able to say that "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." He can only do such by surrendering his rights and can only surrender his rights only in Christ.