Chapter XI is called “Unconditional Election.” Boettner writes:
“The doctrine of Election is to be looked upon as only a particular application of the general doctrine of Predestination or Foreordination as it relates to the salvation of sinners; and since the Scriptures are concerned mainly with the redemption of sinners, this part of the doctrine is naturally thrown up into a place of special prominence…The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine decree which, antecedently to any difference or desert in men themselves separates the human race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death. So far as this decree relates to men it designates the counsel of God concerning those who had a supremely favorable chance in Adam to earn salvation, but who lost that chance” (p. 83).
I think we can accurately say that when it comes to God’s sovereignty over evil, a modified form of deism and dualism has been THE consensus among Calvinist Reformed persons throughout history. Boettner asserts that the human race (all who were represented by Adam) “had a supremely favorable chance in Adam to earn salvation, but who lost that chance.” Interesting — “a supremely favorable chance in Adam” to THWART God’s eternal decree and to ROB the cross of Christ of its redemptive glory. A “supremely favorable chance” to put God in their DEBT. What self-righteous DUNG.
One might be scratching their head in bewilderment in light of Boettner’s professed adherence to the WCF, saying to themselves:
“The Westminster Confession of Faith states in chapter 6 that God was ‘pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit’ the fall, so what’s with this “supremely favorable chance” stuff, Boettner?”
The Calvinist notion of a so-called “permissive decree” is a modified form of deism and dualism. But “a supremely favorable chance in Adam” doesn’t seem to make sense even according to their scheme. Their scheme affirms that God “decreed to permit” the “mysteriously inscrutable” fall of Adam AND vehemently denies the biblical teaching that God decreed to actively cause the fall of Adam.
So how may one reconcile this Calvinistic incoherence and confusion of an allegedly certain, immutable, infallible “decree to permit” Adam’s fall with this supposed “supremely favorable chance in Adam to earn salvation” by ripping the Triune God off the throne of His sovereign redemptive glory? Well, one can’t reconcile it because it’s utter nonsense. It’s similar to the Calvinistic nonsense that asserts that God can be “IN CONTROL” of things which He is not “ACTUALLY CONTROLLING.”
The so-called “decree” of popular and fashionable Calvinism is NOT the true decree of Scripture. Furthermore, fashionable Calvinism believes that pre-fall Adam was free from God’s sovereign control which is nothing but atheism cloaked in religious garb. Obviously if pre-fall Adam’s will is free from God’s active control and causation then atheistic notions like “luck” and a “supremely favorable chance” make a bit more sense.
What of the Calvinist “sovereign determination” to “permit,” and thus “make infallibly certain” the fall of Adam? Who REALLY is the ultimate determiner of Adam’s fall according to fashionable Calvinism? God OR Adam? Genuine historical Mormonism has an “Adam is God” doctrine. And not to be outdone, genuine historical Calvinism has its own version of an “Adam is God” doctrine. In fact, they dreamt up their particular version much earlier than Brigham Young did his. Next Page (13)