purpose

Based upon the ontological and teleological purpose of Christ Jesus coming, being both fully divine and fully man, we can thereby say that man given his ontological and teleological purpose has not fulfilled his purpose to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Equal Ultimacy

I had written a few years back on what I had thought was then Equal Ultimacy. The idea is that God works evil in the reprobate the same way He works righteousness in the elect. Although I would not charge God for being evil, I will now give God more of a active role in hardening the reprobate. The text in Romans 1 depicts God giving man or handing man over to the lust of their own hearts. This is active and not passive. Where as in my previous post I had said that God gave passively men over to the lust of their own hearts. No. God first elects and reprobates and then ordains that the fall would occur and then gives the reprobate over to the lust of their own passion and lust and sin. This is very active and not passive.

God's uncoerced choice

As God decreed before the foundations of the world in eternity past to glorify Himself - not because there was a need of God but because the glory of God is instrinsic to who He is and His nature so that what He does and how He reveals Himself cannot be seperated from His divine being. That God chose within Himself to Glorify Himself (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to make known His divine attributes) can only be but apart from any considerations of the creature or any other created thing. What God does is completely free and sovereign and is by His own free uncoercive choice and pleasure. What does this mean other than what happens in this world is already predetermined by the sovereign will of the triune God. That Christ was chosen to be the mediator of a particular persons and that His work was intended to bring about the sole redemption of those persons is based upon the choice of the whole person of who the mediator would be. That the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church was so natural that nothing was added to it or had to be touched upon later. That the Holy Spirit would honor the head by applying the redeming work of Christ to the Body of Christ.
Now If I might further say that God had also reprobated certians ones for the very purpose of bringout His divine pleasure in the making known who are the elect, and who is the Christ and His work.

Read: Abraham Kuyper, Herman Hoeksema, and Geerhardus Vos for more information and clarification

On Salvation, Christian Living, and Holy Spirit

My thought is that we cannot truly understand the Holy Spirit's work in the Christian life without first understanding what is the salvation of the Christian. A.W. Pink talks about the work of the Holy Spirit and that essentially if we could somehow do it all by ourselves as if all we needed to do is to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and have our faith rest in Him in order to escape hell and to go to heaven then there is really no need of the Spirit (Pg. 45 in the baker edition of the Holy Spirit). I would also add that if all we needed is just a little push or prodding then there would still be no need of the Holy Spirit.
Christ did not die to save us from Hell, although that is not void from the gospel. However He died that we by faith may attain to His nature which is wrought in us by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Has Pink says, "If the salvation which He has provided is a deliverance from sin and self-pleasing, from worldliness and indulging the lust of the flesh, and the bestowing of a nature which desires and determines to live for God's glory and please Him in all the details of our present lives - then it is clear beyond dispute that none but the Spirit of God can impart a genuine desire for such a salvation." Again this alludes to the question what is true freedom? Is freedom a thing that says I can choose between two choices without any external pursausions (spelling?) or is freedom that scripture speaks of a freedom from the bondage of sin. Well if we say freedom is that I might choose between two equally uncoerced choices - then the question is is God free? I would argue no. However scripture does not state that is what true free-will (freedom) is. (Romans 5) Because Adam sinned all of his posterity(spelling) have been plunged into death and are now born naturally totally depraved (Psalm 51:5, 58:3). Jesus says that if you sin then you are a slave to sin. Romans 3 says that all men are hate God (paraphrased). Essentially the idea is that there is something wrong with our nature with our total being. In in Romans 5 we see the two covanental ideas that in Adam all die but in Christ recieved by grace through faith all are made righteous and are given life. So my point is that true freedom is not having the ability to choose between two choices but is freedom from the bondage of sin from a life that hates God and wants nothing to do with God to a life that loves God and longs to do His good work (Philippians 2:12-13). And by this we need the Holy Spirit to do. If we did not then it would be useless for us to say that the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is  necessary.
I think Herman Hoeksema says this very well in his work "The Wonder of Grace." He says, "Saved by grace! Delivered from wrath, guilt, damnation, corruption, and death - all by grace! Clothed with righteousness, holiness, life, and glory - by grace only! Translated into light, from death into life, from shame into glory, from hell into heaven - all by the power of God's wondrous grace! And all because of the eternal, sovereign love of Him Who chose the things that are not to bring to nought the things that are; that no flesh should glory in His presence!" (Pg. 15)

Jesus Christ's Soveriegnty in His Passion

Scripture says: "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." (John 10:18)

A.W. Pink says, "When Christ died, He did so of His own voluntary will. This is a point of vital importance. We must never give a place to the dishonoring thought that the Lord Jesus was powerless to prevent His sufferings, that when He endured such indignities and cruel treatment at the hands of His enemies, it was because He was unable to avoid them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The treachery of Judas, the arrest in the Garden, the arraignment before Caiaphas, the insults from the soldiers, the trial before Pilate, the submission to the unjust sentence, the journey to Calvary, the being nailed to the cruel tree - all of these were voluntarily endured. Without His own consent none could have harmed a hair of His head. A beautiful type of this is furnished in Gen. 22:13, where we read that the ram, which was placed on the altar as a substitute for Isaac, was 'caught in a thicket by his horns.' The 'horns' speak of strength and power (see Hab 3:4, etc.). Typically they tell us that the Saviour did not succumb to death through weakness, but that He gave up His strength. It was not the nails, but the strength of His love to the Father and to His elect, which held Him to the Cross."

Philippians 2:5-11 also speaks of Christ humbling Himself.

Stuliped

Sovereignty of God

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistable Grace

Preservation of the Saints

Eternal Justification

Double Predestination

Just thoughts on the number of points I think I would hold to.

On God, Sovereignty and Freedom

How is God not sovereign when Calvinist say that God purposed to save some men (His Elect) and reject others (The Reprobate) when the foundation of this relies in God's free elective choice. Is it not the same when we say that God has commanded the good not because of any arbitrariness with God or that the good was above God (as if  making God obligated to something higher than He). That is the most exagerated statement anyone can make, when on the contrary we uphold God's absolute freedom by the fact that He is God and nothing else is. God is free and sovereign to uphold whatever is of His Glory.

On Particular Grace

Particular grace is a question about what God does  and wills and not a question about what man does and wills.

Not all without exception but all without disctinction

The idea is that Christ death was a death that went out towards different kinds of people not just towards certain kinds. As was the case for the old dispensation where God chose a people for Himself to further out His redemptive purposes. Jesus was born of the Jewish religion not of the Greek system where the belief was pagan. Jesus was a Jew. Salvation was from the jews scripture says. To the Jew first then to the Greek. The Jews were God's chosen people in that the Messiah came from them (Romans 9:1-5). Of course this does not mean that under the old testament dispensation that there were no pagans who were brought from Darkness to Light. However, they had to become Jewish. An offshoot of this is that the Christians in Acts were wondering whether to make Gentile Christians to first become Jews so that they could become Christians. But the conclusion made was no for salvation is by Grace Alone which is the point of the letter to the Galatians.
Of course the wall of seclusion was not knocked down until after Jesus accomplished his mission. The seclusion was that only the Jews were God's people and anyone outside of Jewish community were considered filthy.
The statement made in John 3:16 was astounding for the purpose - John writes was to show that God qualitative love was not just toward the Jewish audience but extended out toward the rest of the world of the gentile. So when scripture makes reference that Christ died for all people it should really be read as all kinds of people. The atonement was in fact particular in intent in that God purposed that Christ should die for the salvation of His elect those whom He had Chose since before the foundation of the world who were spread abroad throughout the world.
The good news is that now the gospel is for all kinds of people. it is not just for the wealthy or the poor people but all people are to repent of sin and trust in Christ for righteousness sake. 1 Timothy 2 speaks of this truth. So today where one might be born in a Christian home the temptation might be that because He is of the Christian family he is saved. This is not true at all. Scripture says for all have sin and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore all must find there refuge in Adam number two. The idea is that as we preach the gospel to all people only those whom the Father has chosen to come to faith in His Son Jesus Christ will come by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit who works so graciously and free (Ephesian 3:14-19).
Now this by no means says that Christ died for all men without exception that all men everywhere universally have been bought with a price by the blood of Christ for certianly He died for only His elect people whom God chose most freely in eternity past. Only God's elect will come to faith at the hearing of the gospel at the particular point that God decreed. The reprobate will be hardened by God's good providence.

A good book to read on this subject is Abraham Kuyper's Particular Grace

John Calvin's Order

So aparantly there are certian people (Anabaptist and Arminians - perhaps) who would consider that John Calvin was not truly a Calvinist. If I may regurgitate their argument myself: They say that Calvin's view on Regeneration and Faith and Repentance is not the order that later Calvinist instituted. They claim that somewhere around book 3 chapter 3 around sections 6-10 that Calvin's order is that of Faith - Repentance - Regeneration (New Birth). Thus they claim Calvin's order falls more inline with either the Anabaptist or the Arminians (I wish to lump them together). However, this looks pretty considering the fact that they even made up arguments for this reading. But, the thing is that they are not reading Calvin as Calvin, instead they are reading Calvin as Anabaptist or whatever.
Although, Yes in the Institutes this seems to be the order in which Calvin does use. But, however, is it truly the order in which Calvin purposed? This question is not clearly asked so I will make it clear. The question one needs to consider is What is the focus of Calvin's writing. The problem with trying to put an order to Calvin's system: Faith - Repentance - Regeneration due to the apparant logic by which he wrote is that it does not truly do justice to his writings. Part of the problem is that one is trying to read Calvin in a temporal logical order in which case of course they will end up reading into Calvin what is not there. In some sense it is related to the decree of God. Although in the mind of God the decree is one, they are often viewed as multiple due to the finite mind as decrees. Further, how the decree is played out in time is different from how God ordered the decree in His mind. So although there is a logical order to the decree, the decrees itself is eternal. This is my point which is to say just because one orders something in a particular way does not mean that they are pressing the order in a temporal way. The purpose of Calvin's thought is to show that Faith and Repentance is the New Birth. When one is Born Again (Regenerated) they have a new mind and a new will (hence I once was blind but now I see). Often times one may say Repent and Believe, sometimes the order may say Believe and Repent. As Louis Berkhof said Calvin's thought of regeneration is very comprehensive, which is different from how the Westminster Divines for example had sat up their Confessions.
Therefore, one should not read Calvin's thought in light of another system. The divines were not dumb, and so to say that one person can affirmatively 'debunk' them would bring them down to our level of thinking. We simply live in a different period (not to say we can never truly understand the way they understand); but it is ridiculous to say for example one can read one or two works by John Owen and proclaim that they know better than him. When Owen wrote his works he was 17 of age who wrote on different subjects. It is often times rare today to find a PHD doctor to write on different subjects at the age of 30.
Although with this being said I would say that most calvinist today have watered down what Calvin had said. J.V. Fesko's work Diversity In the Reformed Camp is great. He says that later Calvinist have watered down the thoughts of John Calvin. What do I mean? I mean that Calvin was a Supralapsarian in the deepest sense, whereas most Calvinist and Confessions are Infralapsarians. Of course there are reasons for this but that is for another post.

What is the cheif end of Man?

"Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever."


Lee Williams - Chapter and verse?
 
Mark Austin - I think Kirk was quoting the first question of the Westminster Catechism. It provides biblical references.
Man's chief end is to glorify God (1Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36) and enjoy Him forever (Ps. 73:24-26; Jn. 17:24-26).
 
Lee Williams - I knew the origin of the quotation. I question that the context of those passages will support the interpretations of the Westminster Confession. The 1st Cor. and Romans passages do not speak of glorification as the "chief end" of mankind, nor can the end of "enjoying" God be derived from the passages from Psalms and John.
 
Mark Austin - Mr. Williams, fair enough. I take this as an opportunity to learn. So, wIth all respect, what is the chief end of man? Or even, Is there a chief end of man?
 
Lee Williams - Perhaps we could clarify purpose by looking at the words of God in Gen. 1:26-28. It would seem that part of our "chief end" is to display the purposive understanding of the image of God.
 
Mark Austin - I can see how Gen. 1:28 could be seen as purposive. Yet, that is far from a chief purpose of man. The question remains, is there no chief purpose of man? Based upon your response, is it then better to look at each imperative given to humanity in order to determine man's purpose(s)? As for Gen. 1:26f, that is a statement of ontology *not* teleology. Are you grounding man's teleology in his ontology?
 
Lee Williams - It would seem to me that, teleologically, man was to represent God to the creation, since man was created in the image of God. This is possible because, ontologically, God is the Creator and Sustainer of that creation.
 
Mark Austin - I agree with you. So then, in light of Gen. 3 and say Jn. 1 what are the new teleological implications for man (especially in light of the ontology and teleology of Jesus)?

Objections to the Doctrine of Decrees

Objections to the doctrine of Decrees - Berkhof says that one objection is that it makes God the author of sin. In reply to this he says, "It may be said, however, that the decrees merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the author of sin. Sin is made certain by the decree but, God does not himself it by His direct action."