Predestination, How does single differ from double?

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have just been listening to a Q&A RC Sproul gave and he is asked what is double predestination. (Below clip - @ 10.45 mins)


Listening to his answer I can't understand how his description of Double Presdestination (Positive / Negative = Asymetric) differs from how he described Single Predestination. In both it seems God passes over the non-elect. Only in the form of Double Presdestination that is Positive / Positive = symetrical (which Sproul does not subscribe to) is God said to actively work evil or sin in the hearts of the non-elect.

So how does Double (Positive/Negative sort) and Single Predestination differ?
 

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So how does Double (Positive/Negative sort) and Single Predestination differ?

Semantically speaking; I don't think it does.

One thing I think people often miss in the argument of "double predestination" is that the wages of sin are earned. God doesn't "predestine" anyone to hell they "predestine" themselves by the state of being dead in trespass and sin. And maybe this is what Sproul means by the statement that there's really no such thing as "single predestination". It's a synergetic concept; maybe like "equal and opposite reaction"? The "negative" aspect is a "natural outcome" of the positive aspect just because the "negative" is unavoidable and you can't just pretend it isn't there.

So in that sense I would agree with Sproul there is such a thing as "double predestination".

Now how do Scripture verses like "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" play into all this; I don't really know? We know God is not the author of sin and all He really needs to do is remove His hand of restraint and the "total depravity" of any given individual begins to manifest as "depraved totally". As they actively seek to sink themselves deeper in their sin; God lets them go. They are vessels "fitted unto destruction". I looked up the word "fitted". It means they are "thoroughly completed to" destruction. They have filled up the cup of indignation and are to reap the consequences of that.

That's profound!
 
  • Like
Reactions: twin1954
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,330.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It looks like double predestination is the idea that God chooses who will be saved and He chooses who will not be saved.

And single predestination could mean God chooses who will be saved, but He does not actively choose that others will not be saved.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have just been listening to a Q&A RC Sproul gave and he is asked what is double predestination. (Below clip - @ 10.45 mins)


Listening to his answer I can't understand how his description of Double Presdestination (Positive / Negative = Asymetric) differs from how he described Single Predestination. In both it seems God passes over the non-elect. Only in the form of Double Presdestination that is Positive / Positive = symetrical (which Sproul does not subscribe to) is God said to actively work evil or sin in the hearts of the non-elect.

So how does Double (Positive/Negative sort) and Single Predestination differ?
Well, when I saw the thread title I thought of Sproul, because of his wording that the two are practically the same (though it seemed in that short paragraph (that I'm paraphrasing) I was seeing (elsewhere a while back) he seemed to allow that those feeling single and double are not simply the same can have a kind of mystical view or some such, instead of only just an unawareness or logic mistake). And to some apparently there is such an alternative view, which to me personally would be akin to seeing election as being like a handshake or one-way-door, which a person might enter, and then become predestined (or is this yet just another of the many views?).

To me personally this seems somewhat esoteric, perhaps also involving some mystery (regarding free will aspects) and one needn't understand anything of it, and do fine of course, but my own guess is instead something like this:
Corporate election - Wikipedia
(heh, I see some like to argue this enough so that someone wanted to challenge the wiki which was merely laying it out)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have just been listening to a Q&A RC Sproul gave and he is asked what is double predestination. (Below clip - @ 10.45 mins)


Listening to his answer I can't understand how his description of Double Presdestination (Positive / Negative = Asymetric) differs from how he described Single Predestination. In both it seems God passes over the non-elect. Only in the form of Double Presdestination that is Positive / Positive = symetrical (which Sproul does not subscribe to) is God said to actively work evil or sin in the hearts of the non-elect.

So how does Double (Positive/Negative sort) and Single Predestination differ?

:) fun Q and A. Fun to hear him having fun.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dms1972
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Well, when I saw the thread title I thought of Sproul, because of his wording that the two are practically the same (though it seemed in that short paragraph (that I'm paraphrasing) I was seeing (elsewhere a while back) he seemed to allow that those feeling single and double are not simply the same can have a kind of mystical view or some such, instead of only just an unawareness or logic mistake). And to some apparently there is such an alternative view, which to me personally would be akin to seeing election as being like a handshake or one-way-door, which a person might enter, and then become predestined (or is this yet just another of the many views?).

To me personally this seems somewhat esoteric, perhaps also involving some mystery (regarding free will aspects) and one needn't understand anything of it, and do fine of course, but my own guess is instead something like this:
Corporate election - Wikipedia
(heh, I see some like to argue this enough so that someone wanted to challenge the wiki which was merely laying it out)

"Corporate election" is an idea that states that God's election is determinate on a group of people, not upon individuals and so long as you are part of that group you are "in". The Scripture never says that though.

And that concept of "corporate election" is the basis behind dispensationalist view of Israel. (I.E. God has a special plan for them just because they are Jewish.) Well no; He doesn't.

And thus arises the imaginary conflict of "replacement theology".

Anyone who comes into the Kingdom is only coming through the blood. And besides this, history is chuck full of Jews who died in their sin. That is very obvious to anyone who just reads the Old Testament.

Now as for your analogy of someone entering the door and becoming predestine. They enter the door because they are predestine. No one becomes predestine because they made a choice. The Holy Spirit quickened them to life and as a result of that quickening they made a choice. That is the historical understanding of predestination.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now how do Scripture verses like "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"
This became clear recently -- the already-evil-doing pharaoh was to be 'hardened' later after Moses began working the signs, so that he would not quickly cave in out of mere self-interest to let Israel go early, so that more signs could be worked so that Israel would better know the reality of God being real (by the signs). He was 'hardened' because he was already evil by the scale of his evil deeds, but also hardened to be too brave in the face of God's miracles through Moses.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Corporate election" is an idea that states that God's election is determinate on a group of people, not upon individuals and so long as you are part of that group you are "in". The Scripture never says that though.

And that concept of "corporate election" is the basis behind dispensationalist view of Israel. (I.E. God has a special plan for them just because they are Jewish.) Well no; He doesn't.

And thus arises the imaginary conflict of "replacement theology".

Anyone who comes into the Kingdom is only coming through the blood. And besides this, history is chuck full of Jews who died in their sin. That is very obvious to anyone who just reads the Old Testament.

Now as for your analogy of someone entering the door and becoming predestine. They enter the door because they are predestine. No one becomes predestine because they made a choice. The Holy Spirit quickened them to life and as a result of that quickening they made a choice. That is the historical understanding of predestination.

Ah, but my view is like that in the wiki, not the (new to me) version you addressed. Of course we are only saved by Christ's blood. To get what the wiki says you'd have to read it fresh possibly, without assuming what the wiki version is saying. But I don't feel a need to defend that view nor dispute others actually. Though one does need to be able (something that actually does matter) to answer very specific questions some seekers may present such as: "How is it fair for God to choose to save some already from birth and not others, damning them to hell?" etc. etc.

I found Sproul's representation of reformed double predestination in the video interesting, in that it was somewhat more vague than I remembered, which seemed more...reasonable then, as it seems to involve mystery, and we shouldn't represent mystery as cut and dried.
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This became clear recently -- the already-evil-doing pharaoh was to be 'hardened' later after Moses began working the signs, so that he would not quickly cave in out of mere self-interest to let Israel go early, so that more signs could be worked so that Israel would better know the reality of God being real (by the signs). He was 'hardened' because he was already evil by the scale of his evil deeds, but also hardened to be too brave in the face of God's miracles through Moses.

It's still mind blowing though to consider the amount of hatred Pharaoh had, even toward his own nation. Would you not spare your own people this incredible suffering if given the opportunity? Wow, what a special kind of wicked that is!

Yet to think? We know God is not the author of sin. God didn't make Pharaoh do these things; God only allowed Pharaoh to see the depths of degeneration that already resided in him. Speaking of the profound reality of what it really means to be dead in trespass and sin!

Then there's a verse in Exodus that speaks of multitudes of Egyptians who left too and who would blame them?
 
Upvote 0

The Righterzpen

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
Feb 9, 2019
3,389
1,342
53
Western NY
Visit site
✟144,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Ah, but my view is like that in the wiki, not the (new to me) version you addressed. Of course we are only saved by Christ's blood. To get what the wiki says you'd have to read it fresh possibly, without assuming what the wiki version is saying. But I don't feel a need to defend that view nor dispute others actually. Though one does need to be able (something that actually does matter) to answer very specific questions some seekers may present such as: "How is it fair for God to choose to save some already from birth and not others, damning them to hell?" etc. etc.

I found Sproul's representation of reformed double predestination in the video interesting, in that it was somewhat more vague than I remembered, which seemed more...reasonable then, as it seems to involve mystery, and we shouldn't represent mystery as cut and dried.

I understand what the Wiki is saying; and as general "descriptor" (maybe?) that understanding is "useful", yet corporate entities are made up of individuals and there's no denying that salvation has a profound impact upon the individual. How the individual interacts with God on a personal level holds more "staying power" than "membership" in any group ever will.

So, as a secondary reality, I could see "election" as being "corporate"; but it starts with the individual and its primary focus is the regeneration of individual lives.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I was reading a while ago about the difference between Beza and Calvin on predestination.

To quote from McGrath, Reformation Thought:

"The doctrine of predestination was not central to the thought of Calvin himself, it became the central nucleus of later Reformed theology through the influence of writers such as Vermigli and Beza."

"Far from being arid, abstract theological speculation, Calvin's analysis of predestination begins from observable facts. Some do, and some do not, believe the Gospel. The primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why some individuals respond to the gospel and other do not. It is an ex post facto explanation of the particularity of human responses to grace. Calvin's predestinarianism is to be regarded as a posteriori reflection upon the data of human experience, interpreted in the light of Scripture, rather than something which is deduced a priori on the basis of preconceived ideas concerning divine omnipotence."

What I want to ask about this is in regards to whether people who refuse Christ at first receive additional opportunities to accept the Gospel. Say that when a person first hears the Gospel, they reject it, and don't believe. Is that then to be taken as evidence that they are non-elect? Or is there a possibility they might at some later time in their life accept the Gospel and Christ?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why some individuals respond to the gospel and other do not.
Christ gave us 2 reasons some won't believe, and the gospel of John another.

3 clear reasons from the gospels, thus no need to try to figure anything out on that. (We should all re-read Christ's words, even a third or fifth time, and with just total listening (putting aside all doctrine and listening)).
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Christ gave us 2 reasons some won't believe, and the gospel of John another.

3 clear reasons from the gospels, thus no need to try to figure anything out on that. (We should all re-read Christ's words, even a third or fifth time, and with just total listening (putting aside all doctrine and listening)).


Can you point to those particular verses you are refering to please.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
If I am understanding Reformed theology correctly, all people are said to be resistant to the Gospel, but with the elect God overcomes that resistance. Correct me if I am misunderstanding things. Only some (the elect) get an Effectual Call, that call is inward and spiritual. So the effectual call is like God's word in Creation, it creates out of nothing. The Effectual Call, creates new spiritual life that was not there before, and the person responds. Is this correct?
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,330.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Say that when a person first hears the Gospel, they reject it, and don't believe. Is that then to be taken as evidence that they are non-elect? Or is there a possibility they might at some later time in their life accept the Gospel and Christ?
I would say Saul who became our Apostle Paul had more than one opportunity to consider trusting in Jesus. But he went through a process before he became ready.

Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him," in John 6:44. From this, I see how our Father prepares a person. And John 6:45 to me means God teaches a person in preparation for the person to trust in Jesus (Ephesians 1:12).

So, during this time of being drawn, it is possible, in my opinion, that ones will reject and question Jesus. But as God changes them in their character, then they become able to obey Jesus (Titus 3:5).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,330.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why some individuals respond to the gospel and other do not.
I can see how John could have developed his logic. If all humans are equal, to start with, it is reasonable that all would make the same good or bad choices, all equal, if they were all equally made by God. Yet, we see people making very unequal choices, showing their character is not all equally good or bad.

And we see how very evil people have made exact opposite choices about Jesus. So, the only explanation can be that God made the difference.

This is what I can see that John could arrive at, from such a starting question. Predestination, then, for him, would not be a starting doctrine, but a conclusion.

If I may, I would care to share how I developed. I was not really concerned about if predestination is true. But after I made a pass at getting saved by Jesus, I fell and failed and was ashamed and embarrassed and frustrated, not knowing what happened.

Then I went through a process of discovering how I could really not control my own self. And I could see I was at God's mercy. Then I was brought to Romans 9:21 which says >

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21)

I was so undone, that I was fully ready to believe this meant God not only chose what He would do with me, but also He is my Potter who controls what will become of me for all eternity. So, it seemed to me, then, that Romans 9:21 goes beyond what John Calvin has been saying, about predestination > there is not only God choosing, but God in control.

This, though, does not mean He was actually causing me to be the wrong way, but He was in control of which way things in me were allowed to go in me or to leave while He would bring in what is good.

So, I stopped and was still, and discovered what became of me. I sensed that God was doing what He wanted, and I would be doing the discovering.

And Philippians 2:13 says,

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

To me, this meant I do not work my own will to do what God wants, but I need how God alone in my will is able to produce the willing . . . of what to believe, what to do, and all He pleases. So, I considered myself totally at the mercy of God.

More and more I have seen the love meaning of Biblical predestination >

If we all were made "from the same lump", we all have come from what was used to make our Apostle Paul and Saddam Hussein and predatory priests and Adolph and me and you . . . all "from the same lump" . . . all starting from the same basic human stuff . . . stuff which could have turned into a predator or a pastor!! So, I need to be humble about if I have not become like Adolph or Saddam or others. And have compassion on any and all other people, however they are turning out.

And our Apostle Paul says what is the main purpose of predestination >

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

So, our destiny in Jesus is not mainly about us and going to Heaven and being prospered by God and even loved by our Father; but first of all, I now see, is how our Father so is pleased by Jesus that He desires to have many children who are like Jesus so pleasing to Him.

So, this needs to be what gets our attention the most . . . not only who is making choices and who is controlling. Our egos can be hung up about who is in control and who makes choices. But we need how our Father in us is changing us to be like Jesus; and this is a major part of Christianity, and Paul says this is what he has been laboring for, in Colossians 1:28-29.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you point to those particular verses you are refering to please.

I thought at first it would be far better (not just better, but far better) for you to read the gospels again (it's always good for anyone, even the 7th time through), and these 3 things are in the Gospels of John and Mark. But, when we do read through a full gospel instead of simply a chapter or a passage, we are vastly better off not to be distracted by some doctrinal question, noise in our mind, which might prevent us from fully listening (as our minds would be talking in stead of fully listening to Him). So, instead I'll go ahead and point to the chapters: In the gospel of John, in chapters 3 (regarding one's motives to seek the light or seek the dark; note v21 is not at all about perfection, but instead about what one wants to be in) and in chapter 5 about what we want more (what kind of 'glory' are we most wanting...) and how that kind of glory (which flavor) will affect whether we can believe; and in Mark in chapter 8, in v1-21. This last one is slightly more subtle. After reading ask: why didn't they already believe regarding the adequacy of the bread on hand?, and then consider what Christ asked them, the questions. Consider: what does it mean to have a soft heart in relation to belief. So, on reflection we can arrive at 3 sharply clear things that affect belief.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I am understanding Reformed theology correctly, all people are said to be resistant to the Gospel, but with the elect God overcomes that resistance. Correct me if I am misunderstanding things. Only some (the elect) get an Effectual Call, that call is inward and spiritual. So the effectual call is like God's word in Creation, it creates out of nothing. The Effectual Call, creates new spiritual life that was not there before, and the person responds. Is this correct?

When discussing this before with redleghunter, one question he had asked was something like what is it that affects who God chooses to save? (or I'd word it 'chooses to help').

To mind came the verse (repeated throughout scripture in a variety of forms, too) that seems to answer just that. Here are some instances:

Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5
One nice one, the one that came to mind: “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

There are so many other forms of just exactly this same message in scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have a small booklet called Great truths of the Bible. It goes through nine or ten Bible words, such as Justification, Predestination, Election etc, and gives a short explanation. The author is Phil Coulson.

He says many discussions flounder because people are using the terms 'election' and 'predestination' as though they are synonymous. Election he says is a truth that concerns sinners before they are saved, and predestination applies only to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ once they have been saved. Predestination he writes has nothing whatever to do with unregenerate souls:

"Predestination is the divine decision to bring redeemed souls into the relationship of sons to a Father, each one conformed to the image of His peerless, pre-eminent Son, and to bestow upon them 'an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you'" (1 Peter 1:4)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0