Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Here is a perspective quoting Hoeksema's 'Second Ransom' doctrine favorably, yet by all appearances this author is purely infralapsarian.

    http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer....y/th/site/iiim

    Does Hoeksema's doctrine merely confirm infralapsarians in their misguided understanding of God's love and justice?
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    boise
    Posts
    104
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby View Post
    Here is a perspective quoting Hoeksema's 'Second Ransom' doctrine favorably, yet by all appearances this author is purely infralapsarian.

    http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer....y/th/site/iiim

    Does Hoeksema's doctrine merely confirm infralapsarians in their misguided understanding of God's love and justice?
    Robert, could you please help me to understand more clearly what Hoeksema means in his doctrine. Is there more of his teaching on this that you could direct me to?
    Col 2:9, (NASB), For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Trav,

    Many of Hoeksema's writings can be found online at the Protestant Reformed Church website http://www.prca.org .

    Hoeksema is generally classified as a supralapsarian, however, like most he taught things contradictory (such as this one) to his core theology. On the present subject I can only refer you to the book mentioned in the article: The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel. I wrote against Hoeksema's doctrine of second ransom in Part 1 of the Two Seeds series: http://www.predestinarian.net/librar...p?e=3&catid=11

    The 'first ransom' (which should be the ONE and ONLY) is Christ paying the ransom to God for the salvation of the elect in His atonement. But the doctrine of 'second ransom' teaches that the eternal security of the saints is dependent on eternally witnessing the tortures of the damned as a warning against future rebellion and exhibition of what 'eternal law and justice' requires of rebels.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    boise
    Posts
    104
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Thank you Robert, I'll look into this.
    Col 2:9, (NASB), For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,304
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Quote from article: "The idea here is that the ungodly serve to deliver the righteous out of trouble, to glorify them. And having done so they perish for their sins. Still stronger is the language of Proverbs 21:18: "The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright." Here again we have the idea that God gives the wicked as a ransom, which He pays to glorify the righteous."

    That doesn't make any sense to me though, that the wicked would be a ransom for us? I don't know if he just is stretching the truth our there or what. But I would see that Christ is our ransom, that He took our place to make us righteous.

    Mk 10:45, (NASB), "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
    1 Tim 2:6, (NASB), who gave Himself as a
    ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

    Also I wont paste it but look up John Gills comment
    ary on this he even says its not as in atonement for our sins, a ransom as Christ was.. but just in everyday life a ransom for some.

    "There are species of animals in which the male dies after mating. The male is cast off (reprobated) to give life to the young." Quote from article

    Its almost like they are saying that without the death of the reprobate Christians wouldn't be saved. So its saying that the nonelect must die to give eternal life to the elect. Thats so wrong, and makes no sense. Why doe so many theologians and people complicate Gods Word and the truth of the Gospel???!!!

    Quote "God even uses the reprobation of others to bring about the salvation of His elect."

    Its still a form of adding to the Gospel, the cross, it was only at the cross that our salvation was finished by the death of Gods Son, nothing else is needed. We dont need the death of reprobates in order to be brought to salvation. What if there were no reprobates? Just an example, we'd still be in sin and need redemption but it'd be alone by Jesus Himself not by reprobates 'cause there is none. So this is not a good explanation of how God uses reprobates in our lives. Article also talks about how it was man who chose to fall in the Garden and wasn't determined by God. It really is too sad that many infralapsarians allow tradition and old views to creep in destroying the truth of God, cares of the world just choke the Truth right out for them.
    A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold. - Wisdom

  6. #6
    Moderator Saint Nicholas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New Castle, PA
    Posts
    711
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby View Post
    I wrote against Hoeksema's doctrine of second ransom in Part 1 of the Two Seeds series: http://www.predestinarian.net/librar...p?e=3&catid=11

    The 'first ransom' (which should be the ONE and ONLY) is Christ paying the ransom to God for the salvation of the elect in His atonement. But the doctrine of 'second ransom' teaches that the eternal security of the saints is dependent on eternally witnessing the tortures of the damned as a warning against future rebellion and exhibition of what 'eternal law and justice' requires of rebels.
    Robert, I have read your article "Two Seeds" many times before, and re-read it yesterday once more. I am in full agreement with you here.

    In my view there is only one ransom. Christ and His work is our ransom.

    Being that the scriptures do however allude too and even state the words "the wicked are a ransom" We must harmonize the meaning and idea conveyed in those verses, while not adding a second ransom or salvific benefit along side of, or in addition to Christ's ransom.

    Because ALL things serve a purpose to bring glory to God, even the wicked reprobate, how must we then interpret these passages to provide a cogent response to our audience?

    In light of Romans 8:28

    28 "And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose"

    So in some sense according to Rom 8:28, not only do the wicked glorify God as we believe, they do however work for our good because they are part of the All things.

    Your insights and the insights of others are most welcomed. I am thinking this through to provide harmony to the passages as to not introduce a premise (like the others have done) that add to the sufficiency of Christ's ransom and or contradict it.

    Nicholas
    My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand..........John 10:27,28

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Nick: Being that the scriptures do however allude too and even state the words "the wicked are a ransom" We must harmonize the meaning and idea conveyed in those verses, while not adding a second ransom or salvific benefit along side of, or in addition to Christ's ransom.

    I agree Nick, however, the only such scripture I know of is the one quoted entirely out of context by Hoeksema:

    Prov. 21:17-19 He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich. The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright. It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    which in context refers strictly to a principle unfolded in this life based on the judgment of God manifested in history and has nothing to do with 'insurance' of eternal salvation (like Hoeksema reasons). I, for one, see nothing in this Proverb that has anything to do with 'everlasting insurance' against rebellion for the elect after they are made immortal!

    --Bob
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    74
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: Favorable Citing of Hoeksema's Doctrine of Second Ransom

    Mary: Its still a form of adding to the Gospel, the cross, it was only at the cross that our salvation was finished by the death of Gods Son, nothing else is needed. We dont need the death of reprobates in order to be brought to salvation. What if there were no reprobates? Just an example, we'd still be in sin and need redemption but it'd be alone by Jesus Himself not by reprobates 'cause there is none.

    RIght on all counts! Hallelujah!

    God indeed purposed reprobation for His glory. In the final restitution of all things, God will vindicate His own righteousness and also His saints in the exalted rule of Christ and HIs elect over their reprobate enemies. But this fact does not in any measure insure the success of His purpose of salvation unto His glory. Redemption stands on its own in God's purposes in all of its magnificent splendor, even if there were no reprobation!
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

Similar Threads

  1. Active Reprobation
    By ~JM~ in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-06-07, 08:23 AM
  2. Sanctification
    By katoikei in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-19-06, 11:41 AM
  3. Tree of Life
    By jmgipson in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-15-05, 04:43 PM
  4. Upgraded Software: vBulletin Version 3.0.0 GOLD
    By Brandan in forum News & Announcements Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-23-04, 10:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •