Is there any truth in the ideas expressed by double predestination?

Xeno.of.athens · Saturday at 1:53 PM

Here is a fully scriptural answer, one that shows that double predestination is false, because while Scripture teaches that God “desires all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6), it nowhere teaches that God positively wills anyone to damnation; rather, damnation is always attributed to the sinner’s freely chosen rejection of grace (Rom 2:6–8; Matt 23:37). St Paul affirms that those God “predestined” are predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rom 8:29), not predestined to evil, and he explicitly teaches that those who perish do so because “they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess 2:10). Even when Paul speaks of God “hardening” (Rom 9:18), Scripture itself clarifies that such hardening presupposes a prior self‑hardening (Exod 8:15, 32; 1 Sam 6:6), meaning God permits, but never causes, a creature’s sin. Thus, the Catholic reading of Scripture holds that predestination is real, but always and only to grace and glory, while reprobation is never a divine decree but the tragic consequence of freely resisting the grace God offers to all (Wis 1:12–13; Ezek 33:11).

The Liturgist · Saturday at 2:09 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Here is a fully scriptural answer is that shown that double predestination is false, because while Scripture teaches that God “desires all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6), it nowhere teaches that God positively wills anyone to damnation; rather, damnation is always attributed to the sinner’s freely chosen rejection of grace (Rom 2:6–8; Matt 23:37). St Paul affirms that those God “predestined” are predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rom 8:29), not predestined to evil, and he explicitly teaches that those who perish do so because “they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess 2:10). Even when Paul speaks of God “hardening” (Rom 9:18), Scripture itself clarifies that such hardening presupposes a prior self‑hardening (Exod 8:15, 32; 1 Sam 6:6), meaning God permits, but never causes, a creature’s sin. Thus, the Catholic reading of Scripture holds that predestination is real, but always and only to grace and glory, while reprobation is never a divine decree but the tragic consequence of freely resisting the grace God offers to all (Wis 1:12–13; Ezek 33:11).

This is an important point.

Mark Quayle · Saturday at 3:42 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Here is a fully scriptural answer, one that shows that double predestination is false, because while Scripture teaches that God “desires all people to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6), it nowhere teaches that God positively wills anyone to damnation; rather, damnation is always attributed to the sinner’s freely chosen rejection of grace (Rom 2:6–8; Matt 23:37). St Paul affirms that those God “predestined” are predestined to be conformed to Christ (Rom 8:29), not predestined to evil, and he explicitly teaches that those who perish do so because “they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess 2:10). Even when Paul speaks of God “hardening” (Rom 9:18), Scripture itself clarifies that such hardening presupposes a prior self‑hardening (Exod 8:15, 32; 1 Sam 6:6), meaning God permits, but never causes, a creature’s sin. Thus, the Catholic reading of Scripture holds that predestination is real, but always and only to grace and glory, while reprobation is never a divine decree but the tragic consequence of freely resisting the grace God offers to all (Wis 1:12–13; Ezek 33:11).

Give us a definition for double-predestination. Not the bare skeleton you wish to attach the strawman to.

Xeno.of.athens · Saturday at 6:21 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Give us a definition for double-predestination. Not the bare skeleton you wish to attach the strawman to.

Tell you what, if you profess suffienct expertise to define it and even more to accuse me of creating a strawman, how about you define it.

Neogaia777 · Saturday at 8:45 PM

Omniscience is not possible if there wasn't/isn't always just only one possibility/pathway, or just only one way for everything, which automatically means everything is predestined/foreordained, etc. You can't know a way a thing is going to happen/choose/go for 100% certain if those possibilities are not just only 100% certain one way only, and the other being absolute zero always from your perspective, or you don't know everything, etc. No being anywhere can do that ever, etc. If they are anything other than absolutely 100% and absolute zero, then you, or any other being anywhere, can't know them for 100% certain, etc. But all possibilities can be 100% sure/certain, and knowable for 100% certain, if this universe is 100% deterministic, and there's only ever one way it can all ever happen/go, etc, otherwise it can't, or cannot be ever, etc.

Xeno.of.athens · Saturday at 9:11 PM

Neogaia777 said:
Omniscience is not possible if there wasn't/isn't always just only one possibility/pathway, or just only one way for everything, which automatically means everything is predestined/foreordained, etc. You can't know a way a thing is going to happen/choose/go for 100% certain if those possibilities are not just only 100% certain one way only, and the other being absolute zero always from your perspective, or you don't know everything, etc. No being anywhere can do that ever, etc. If they are anything other than absolutely 100% and absolute zero, then you, or any other being anywhere, can't know them for 100% certain, etc. But all possibilities can be 100% sure/certain, and knowable for 100% certain, if this universe is 100% deterministic, and there's only ever one way it can all ever happen/go, etc, otherwise it can't, or cannot be ever, etc.

I reject the claim that divine omniscience requires a universe with only one possible pathway, because Scripture shows God knowing future free choices without causing or predetermining them—Christ foreknows Peter’s denial (Luke 22:34) and Judas’s betrayal (John 13:11) even though both acts remain morally responsible, proving that foreknowledge does not equal predetermination. The Church teaches the same: “God’s eternal plan includes the free response of each person to His grace” (CCC 600), meaning God infallibly knows contingent futures precisely because His knowledge is not bound by time—“for Him all things are present to His eyes” (CCC 600; cf. 2 Peter 3:8). The argument you quoted falsely assumes God must reason discursively like a creature, but Catholic dogma insists God’s knowledge is simple, eternal, and immediate (CCC 202; 216), so He does not predict possibilities—He beholds all moments of history in a single act of knowing. Scripture explicitly denies that God predestines anyone to damnation: “God desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), “not wishing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9), and Christ weeps over Jerusalem’s refusal of grace (Matt 23:37), which would be incoherent if their rejection were predetermined. Thus, the claim that omniscience requires absolute determinism collapses: God’s perfect knowledge does not eliminate human freedom, because He knows free acts as free, contingent acts as contingent, and His foreknowledge does not impose necessity upon them - “those whom He foreknew He also predestined” (Rom 8:29), meaning predestination follows foreknowledge, not the other way around.

LeafByNiggle · Saturday at 9:33 PM

Neogaia777 said:
Omniscience is not possible if there wasn't/isn't always just only one possibility/pathway, or just only one way for everything, which automatically means everything is predestined/foreordained, etc. You can't know a way a thing is going to happen/choose/go for 100% certain if those possibilities are not just only 100% certain one way only, and the other being absolute zero always from your perspective, or you don't know everything, etc. No being anywhere can do that ever, etc. If they are anything other than absolutely 100% and absolute zero, then you, or any other being anywhere, can't know them for 100% certain, etc. But all possibilities can be 100% sure/certain, and knowable for 100% certain, if this universe is 100% deterministic, and there's only ever one way it can all ever happen/go, etc, otherwise it can't, or cannot be ever, etc.

This argument would make perfect sense if it was applied to humans, or indeed any being that is confined like we are to move along the time dimension at the fixed rate of 1 second per second. We, as limited humans, cannot conceive of any other mode of existence regarding the flow of time. Some say that God is outside of time. That is, He exists separate from the relentless flow of time and and sees it all. His interactions with the world appear to us like that of a being that is moving through time as we are. But that does not mean that is the case. The fact that God can see what "happened"/"will happen" in 2028 in no way constrains what happens in 2028 than if God did not see what did/will happen.

Bob Crowley · Sunday at 7:51 AM

I have an issue with the business of predestination. I don't know the answer but due to personal experience it makes me uncomfortable.

I've maintained for years that the night my father died he appeared in my room. At the very end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared. It was more than just a scream. He was terrified to the core and it was obvious something was coming for him.

But during the preceding conversation he blurted out at one stage "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!"

I was an atheist at the time but I answered back "That can't be right!" (in the sense of being fair and just). He replied "Oh, it's right all right. You can see that from here!".

"Here" in his case was, I think, standing in front of the judgement seat. I couldn't see it and whenever I turned around all I could see was the wall behind me. If I had been able to see it, I'd have died myself since "No man can see my face and live" as God said to Moses.

But my father was already dead having died that night.

Later in the conversation he admitted "I was willing!" (to act in the cruel, stupid, bad-tempered and vindictive way he did and to keep doing it all his married life).

Now he died in January 1979. Going back a few years, I had a "vision" one night where "somebody" said "I've had enough of him! He's doomed! All he's done all your life is to ridicule you! .... He's only got about five years left to live!"

That would have been in early 1974 because late that year I moved to Perth, came back in 1977, he kicked me out of the house in January 1978, and about a year later he died in January 1979 - "about five years later".

Then we have Christ's comment about Judas Iscariot -

NIV John 17:12 "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled."

Even in the case of Pharaoh, I think we read "... and Pharaoh hardened his heart" for the first nine plagues. But for the tenth we read "God hardened his heart". Perhaps God had gotten to the point where He might have said to Moses "I've had enough of him.... he's doomed!"

I don't like it. But I have a suspicion there's more to predestination than we might want to think. In contrast to that we have the parable of the prodigal son in which the sinner is welcomed home to the resentment of the obedient son.

I don't know the full answer. As my father also said the night he died "It wasn't easy for me either you know. And I never had a chance to see anything like this!"

Mark Quayle · Sunday at 1:09 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Tell you what, if you profess suffienct expertise to define it and even more to accuse me of creating a strawman, how about you define it.

My comments were intended to show that to argue against it, one should define just what they are arguing against, before proceeding. The clinical "double-predestination" means very little, but to point toward the notion that both ends are predestined. So then, "predestination" bears defining. That gets into who is doing the predestining. The very definition of God and of Creation and Creatures become involved, and there are huge differences of worldview that come into play.

The one that gets me, about the term, "double-predestination", is all the baggage that comes with it, anymore. The thing people keep wanting to chime in with begins with the assumption that we know what it means for God to be love, and that therefore, HE would not send anyone to hell, would he???, and various other things along those lines. We completely forget WHY anyone is even saved. We forget that God owes nobody anything. We forget that WE are not the reason God made us. We forget that God will do precisely what it takes to make for himself a people in Heaven, to be with him forever, FOR HIS OWN SAKE. We forget that GOD is the one who is doing this.

The reprobate are only being what they are, no matter how you dress it up. The saved aren't much better, yet they are utterly changed, and being built, and that, in part, by the fact of God's justice on display for the saved to learn of God's mercy. THAT is why some are predestined to hell, and, yes, it is their own fault. We are not saved by our merit, but by God's mercy and grace alone.

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 4:15 PM

Mark Quayle said:
My comments were intended to show that to argue against it, one should define just what they are arguing against, before proceeding. The clinical "double-predestination" means very little, but to point toward the notion that both ends are predestined. So then, "predestination" bears defining. That gets into who is doing the predestining. The very definition of God and of Creation and Creatures become involved, and there are huge differences of worldview that come into play.

The one that gets me, about the term, "double-predestination", is all the baggage that comes with it, anymore. The thing people keep wanting to chime in with begins with the assumption that we know what it means for God to be love, and that therefore, HE would not send anyone to hell, would he???, and various other things along those lines. We completely forget WHY anyone is even saved. We forget that God owes nobody anything. We forget that WE are not the reason God made us. We forget that God will do precisely what it takes to make for himself a people in Heaven, to be with him forever, FOR HIS OWN SAKE. We forget that GOD is the one who is doing this.

The reprobate are only being what they are, no matter how you dress it up. The saved aren't much better, yet they are utterly changed, and being built, and that, in part, by the fact of God's justice on display for the saved to learn of God's mercy. THAT is why some are predestined to hell, and, yes, it is their own fault. We are not saved by our merit, but by God's mercy and grace alone.

Your post is not a functional definition of double predestination; it is essentially a meandering complaint built on several theological assumptions that Catholic doctrine explicitly rejects. A functional definition would state the claim itself: that God positively and eternally wills some to salvation and also positively and eternally wills others to damnation. Catholic teaching denies this outright, because Scripture teaches that God “desires all to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6). Nowhere does Scripture teach that God predestines anyone to sin or damnation; rather, those who perish do so because they “refused to love the truth” (2 Thess 2:10). Your claim that “some are predestined to hell” is therefore not a definition but a theological error.

The rest of the post is a grievance about modern discussions of God’s love, but it misstates Catholic doctrine by implying that God creates some people for the purpose of displaying His justice in their damnation. Catholic dogma teaches the opposite: “God did not make death” (Wis 1:13), “has no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek 33:11), and Christ Himself laments the freely chosen refusal of grace: “You were unwilling” (Matt 23:37). Predestination in Catholic theology refers only to God’s eternal plan to bring the saved to glory (Rom 8:29–30), while reprobation is never a divine decree but the consequence of freely rejecting grace. Thus your post is not a definition but a theologically confused complaint that contradicts both Scripture and Catholic dogma.

Mark Quayle · Sunday at 5:47 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Your post is not a functional definition of double predestination; it is essentially a meandering complaint built on several theological assumptions that Catholic doctrine explicitly rejects. A functional definition would state the claim itself: that God positively and eternally wills some to salvation and also positively and eternally wills others to damnation. Catholic teaching denies this outright, because Scripture teaches that God “desires all to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6). Nowhere does Scripture teach that God predestines anyone to sin or damnation; rather, those who perish do so because they “refused to love the truth” (2 Thess 2:10). Your claim that “some are predestined to hell” is therefore not a definition but a theological error.

The rest of the post is a grievance about modern discussions of God’s love, but it misstates Catholic doctrine by implying that God creates some people for the purpose of displaying His justice in their damnation. Catholic dogma teaches the opposite: “God did not make death” (Wis 1:13), “has no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek 33:11), and Christ Himself laments the freely chosen refusal of grace: “You were unwilling” (Matt 23:37). Predestination in Catholic theology refers only to God’s eternal plan to bring the saved to glory (Rom 8:29–30), while reprobation is never a divine decree but the consequence of freely rejecting grace. Thus your post is not a definition but a theologically confused complaint that contradicts both Scripture and Catholic dogma.

Well, that fits, since it wasn't an attempt to give a firm definition. It was intended to demonstrate a need for definition.

Also, I didn't intend it as against RCC doctrine. This isn't the RCC safehouse, where I have to relate what I say to RCC dogma, without complaint.

As to scripture not saying that God predestines anyone to reprobation, you are correct, and I didn't say otherwise. The notion is merely logical, since, 1) All things (which includes facts) "were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made" 2) He is, as nothing else, THE self-existent First Cause. Thus, everything that happens is a result of his causing. 3) Besides many other ways to know —since he is omniscient, knowing what would come of his creating, yet created (caused) anyway, we know that he intended what came of his causing.

By the way, (as to the 'strawman' referenced a few posts back), you did say, in the OP, "Thus, the Catholic reading of Scripture holds that predestination is real, but always and only to grace and glory, while reprobation is never a divine decree but the tragic consequence of freely resisting the grace God offers to all". Thus you imply that double-predestination (as to reprobation), is only ever as opposed to the moral agent's choice. Predestination and indeed God's causation does not oppose, but, rather, USES our choices as means to accomplishing what he has determined from the beginning to make.

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 7:01 PM

Mark Quayle said:
Well, that fits, since it wasn't an attempt to give a firm definition. It was intended to demonstrate a need for definition.

Also, I didn't intend it as against RCC doctrine. This isn't the RCC safehouse, where I have to relate what I say to RCC dogma, without complaint.

As to scripture not saying that God predestines anyone to reprobation, you are correct, and I didn't say otherwise. The notion is merely logical, since, 1) All things (which includes facts) "were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made" 2) He is, as nothing else, THE self-existent First Cause. Thus, everything that happens is a result of his causing. 3) Besides many other ways to know —since he is omniscient, knowing what would come of his creating, yet created (caused) anyway, we know that he intended what came of his causing.

By the way, (as to the 'strawman' referenced a few posts back), you did say, in the OP, "Thus, the Catholic reading of Scripture holds that predestination is real, but always and only to grace and glory, while reprobation is never a divine decree but the tragic consequence of freely resisting the grace God offers to all". Thus you imply that double-predestination (as to reprobation), is only ever as opposed to the moral agent's choice. Predestination and indeed God's causation does not oppose, but, rather, USES our choices as means to accomplishing what he has determined from the beginning to make.

The reasoning in that reply collapses because it treats God’s universal causality as if it were identical to moral predetermination, a move Catholic doctrine explicitly rejects. Scripture teaches that God is indeed the First Cause (John 1:3), but it also teaches that God’s causality includes His free decision to create rational creatures capable of resisting His will: “How often would I have gathered your children…but you were unwilling” (Matt 23:37). To argue that God’s causing a world in which sin occurs means He therefore intends specific sins or damnations is to confuse God’s permissive will with His positive will—a distinction Catholic dogma insists upon. “God did not make death” (Wis 1:13), and He “desires all to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4). Therefore, the claim that God’s omniscience and causality logically entail predestining anyone to reprobation is not logic but a category error: it treats permission as intention and foreknowledge as coercion.

The assertion that God “uses our choices as means to accomplish what He has determined” is true only in the Catholic sense that God incorporates free choices into His providence, not that He predetermines evil choices in order to display His justice. Scripture explicitly denies that God authors sin: “God tempts no one” (James 1:13), and those who perish do so because “they refused to love the truth” (2 Thess 2:10). Catholic teaching therefore holds that predestination is always and only to grace and glory (Rom 8:29–30), while reprobation is never a divine decree but the self‑chosen result of resisting grace. The quoted reasoning collapses because it treats divine sovereignty as if it were incompatible with genuine human freedom, whereas Scripture and Catholic dogma affirm both without contradiction.

St_Worm2 · Sunday at 7:11 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Your post is not a functional definition of double predestination; it is essentially a meandering complaint built on several theological assumptions that Catholic doctrine explicitly rejects. A functional definition would state the claim itself: that God positively and eternally wills some to salvation and also positively and eternally wills others to damnation.

Hello Xeno, since the term "double predestination" was never explicitly used, but certainly and most famously inferred in the teachings of John Calvin (and accepted by the other Reformers), perhaps confining the definition to what they meant & believed would be best (instead of what others continue to claim and believe that they meant/believed instead)

Xeno.of.athens said:
Scripture ... nowhere teaches that God positively wills anyone to damnation; rather, damnation is always attributed to the sinner’s freely chosen rejection of grace.

That's true.

Calvinism and the Bible teach that God ordains ("positively wills") the salvation of His elect (saints to be) by regenerating them to spiritual life (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-3, 4-5 cf 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:12-16). IOW, God works righteousness into the hearts of all who will come to be His, and He comforts "us" (His elect), then, with the promise that none of us will perish (because He will patiently wait for all of us to come repentance and saving faith in Christ .. e.g. 2 Peter 3:9).

The thought that He "positively wills" the destruction of unbelievers and does so by working reprobation or sinfulness in their hearts (as He works righteousness into the hearts of believers) is not only ~not~ what the Reformers meant and taught but is, quite frankly, a silly thought (since unbelievers do not need God's help to reject the Lord Jesus as their Savior).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - The Westminster Standards include many of the beliefs that have been and still are held by Reformed believers (Calvinists) for centuries now, and particularly by conservative Presbyterians today (so hopefully some of the following will be useful).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter Three (1646 AD) (here is a short excerpt from the chapter)

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

Finally, here is a Q&A definition and explanation from today's OPC/Orthodox Presbyterian Church concerning this thread's topic of Double Predestination.

Question:

What is the OPC stance on double predestination?

Answer:

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church states, in its official Confession and Catechisms, that God has chosen some out of the human race to be saved through the finished work of Christ, thus inheriting eternal life. It also acknowledges that others of the same human race are not chosen to eternal life and therefore foreordained to everlasting punishment. This teaching is clearly stated, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, section 3 which says this:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto eternal life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

In other words, God sovereignly ordains the eternal destiny of every human being—the lost as well as the saved. This has sometimes been called "double predestination."

However, a careful study of the Westminster Standards will show that this is never to be understood to say—or even imply—that these are parallel to each other in some symmetrical way (as if every aspect in the one case has a corresponding aspect in the other). In the case of the elect there is a divine intervention called regeneration. This is a sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit whereby a sinner who is spiritually dead is made alive. It is this that enables a sinner to see and enter the Kingdom of God (as Jesus teaches in John 3). In other words, God works in those whom he has chosen to enable them to repent and believe. It follows that all the praise, credit and glory belongs to him alone. It does not belong to the elect sinner who repents and believes.

In the case of those who are not elect, however, there is no internal work of God. It is not God who makes them evil. They already are evil. In their case the Word of God only hardens them in their sin. And it is to them alone—and not to God—that the blame therefore must belong for their final reprobation.

There is a God-decreed finality in both the predestination of the elect to eternal life and the foreordination of reprobate to condemnation. But there is no symmetry between them. It was for this very reason that the Westminster Assembly never used the Scriptural term predestination in speaking of the lost, but instead the term foreordination.

*Whoops, I see that @Mark Quayle has already spoken to some of the above in his last post. Thanks Mark

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 7:27 PM

St_Worm2 said:
Hello Xeno, since the term "double predestination" was never explicitly used, but certainly and most famously inferred in the teachings of John Calvin (and accepted by the other Reformers), perhaps confining the definition to what they meant & believed would be best (instead of what others continue to claim and believe that they meant/believed instead)

They're irrelevant.

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 7:34 PM

St_Worm2 said:
Hello Xeno, since the term "double predestination" was never explicitly used, but certainly and most famously inferred in the teachings of John Calvin (and accepted by the other Reformers), perhaps confining the definition to what they meant & believed would be best (instead of what others continue to claim and believe that they meant/believed instead)

That's true.

Calvinism and the Bible teach that God ordains ("positively wills") the salvation of His elect (saints to be) by regenerating them to spiritual life (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:3; Ephesians 2:1-3, 4-5 cf 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:12-16). IOW, God works righteousness into the hearts of all who will come to be His, and He comforts "us" (His elect), then, with the promise that none of us will perish (because He will patiently wait for all of us to come repentance and saving faith in Christ .. e.g. 2 Peter 3:9).

The thought that He "positively wills" the destruction of unbelievers and does so by working reprobation or sinfulness in their hearts (as He works righteousness into the hearts of believers) is not only ~not~ what the Reformers meant and taught but is, quite frankly, a silly thought (since unbelievers have no need of God's help when they freely choose to reject the Lord Jesus as their Savior).

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - The Westminster Standards include many of the beliefs that have been and still are held by Reformed believers (Calvinists) for centuries now, and particularly by conservative Presbyterians today (so hopefully some of the following will be useful).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter Three (1646 AD) (here is a short excerpt from the chapter)

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

Finally, here is a Q&A definition and explanation from today's OPC/Orthodox Presbyterian Church concerning this thread's topic of Double Predestination.

Question:
What is the OPC stance on double predestination?
Answer:
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church states, in its official Confession and Catechisms, that God has chosen some out of the human race to be saved through the finished work of Christ, thus inheriting eternal life. It also acknowledges that others of the same human race are not chosen to eternal life and therefore foreordained to everlasting punishment. This teaching is clearly stated, for example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, section 3 which says this:

In other words, God sovereignly ordains the eternal destiny of every human being—the lost as well as the saved. This has sometimes been called "double predestination."

However, a careful study of the Westminster Standards will show that this is never to be understood to say—or even imply—that these are parallel to each other in some symmetrical way (as if every aspect in the one case has a corresponding aspect in the other). In the case of the elect there is a divine intervention called regeneration. This is a sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit whereby a sinner who is spiritually dead is made alive. It is this that enables a sinner to see and enter the Kingdom of God (as Jesus teaches in John 3). In other words, God works in those whom he has chosen to enable them to repent and believe. It follows that all the praise, credit and glory belongs to him alone. It does not belong to the elect sinner who repents and believes.

In the case of those who are not elect, however, there is no internal work of God. It is not God who makes them evil. They already are evil. In their case the Word of God only hardens them in their sin. And it is to them alone—and not to God—that the blame therefore must belong for their final reprobation.

There is a God-decreed finality in both the predestination of the elect to eternal life and the foreordination of reprobate to condemnation. But there is no symmetry between them. It was for this very reason that the Westminster Assembly never used the Scriptural term predestination in speaking of the lost, but instead the term foreordination.

*Whoops, I see that @Mark Quayle has already spoken to some of the above in his last post. Thanks Mark

Your post contains several assertions that conflict with both Scripture and Catholic dogma, chiefly by assuming that regeneration is an act God gives only to a fixed subset of humanity and by reading 2 Peter 3:9 as if it referred exclusively to an elect class. Catholic teaching, following the plain sense of Scripture, holds that God “desires all to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4) and that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6). Regeneration is indeed God’s work, but grace is offered universally: “He enlightens everyone” (John 1:9), and the Spirit “convicts the world” (John 16:8). Your post therefore errs in treating regeneration as a unilateral act given only to a predetermined few rather than as a grace offered to all and freely accepted or resisted (Acts 7:51).

Your post also misuses 2 Peter 3:9. The text does not say God is patient only toward the elect; it says He is patient because He does not will “any to perish but all to come to repentance.” This universal language cannot be restricted without doing violence to the text. Likewise, the claim that unbelievers “have no need of God’s help” to reject Christ contradicts Scripture, which teaches that God does not cause sin: “God tempts no one” (James 1:13), and the wicked perish because “they refused to love the truth” (2 Thess 2:10). Catholic doctrine therefore rejects the idea—implied in your post—that God withholds the grace necessary for salvation from some people; rather, grace is truly offered to all, and damnation is always the result of freely resisting that grace.

Finally, appealing to the Westminster Standards does not resolve the theological errors. Catholic teaching, grounded in Scripture, affirms predestination only to grace and glory (Rom 8:29–30) and denies any divine predestination to sin or damnation. God’s sovereignty and human freedom are not competitors; God “wills all to be saved,” yet He does not coerce the will He created. Your post blurs this distinction and therefore misrepresents both the biblical witness and the Catholic understanding of God’s universal salvific will.

Mark Quayle · Sunday at 8:20 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Your post contains several assertions that conflict with both Scripture and Catholic dogma,

I'm having some trouble understanding why you seem to think non-RCC members should, in logical argument, be held to the standard of Catholic dogma. I mean, I agree they should be held to Scripture, if they confess to Sola Scriptura as Calvinists and Reformed do, but why RCC dogma? Why should they care what RCC teaches on the matter, as though that had authority?

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 9:09 PM

Mark Quayle said:
I'm having some trouble understanding why you seem to think non-RCC members should, in logical argument, be held to the standard of Catholic dogma. I mean, I agree they should be held to Scripture, if they confess to Sola Scriptura as Calvinists and Reformed do, but why RCC dogma? Why should they care what RCC teaches on the matter, as though that had authority?

That might be because I am a Catholic and enjoy noting non-compliant perspectives posted by protestant members. Does it bother you? It should not.

regarding sola scriptura, I reject that view of scripture so do not really care one way or the other if you comply with it.

Mark Quayle · Sunday at 10:35 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
That might be because I am a Catholic and enjoy noting non-compliant perspectives posted by protestant members. Does it bother you? It should not.

regarding sola scriptura, I reject that view of scripture so do not really care one way or the other if you comply with it.

So, basically, in using RCC dogma/doctrine, you are just noting —not arguing truth... Ok. I can work with that.

Mark Quayle · Sunday at 10:36 PM

St_Worm2 said:
Hello Xeno, since the term "double predestination" was never explicitly used, but certainly and most famously inferred in the teachings of John Calvin (and accepted by the other Reformers), perhaps confining the definition to what they meant & believed would be best (instead of what others continue to claim and believe that they meant/believed instead)

Xeno.of.athens said:
They're irrelevant.

Then, to be fair, so are your sources.

Xeno.of.athens · Monday at 1:30 AM

Mark Quayle said:
St_Worm2 said:
Hello Xeno, since the term "double predestination" was never explicitly used, but certainly and most famously inferred in the teachings of John Calvin (and accepted by the other Reformers), perhaps confining the definition to what they meant & believed would be best (instead of what others continue to claim and believe that they meant/believed instead)

Then, to be fair, so are your sources.

What I called “irrelevant” is simply that the Reformers are not authoritative for anyone—not even for Protestants—because their writings never constituted a binding rule of faith. They were private theologians whose opinions varied widely and were never universally received, so their disagreements survive today in the thousands of competing Protestant denominations. Scripture itself warns against treating human teachers as if they were apostolic authorities: “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20), and the Church—not individual thinkers—is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). That is why my sources are sacred Scripture and the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church: the former is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16), and the latter preserves the apostolic faith Christ entrusted to His Church (Matt 28:20). The Reformers may be quoted if someone finds their arguments interesting, but they carry no binding weight for anyone; they are simply one more set of fallible Protestant opinions among many.

PS: if you check my posts nearly all of my sources are sacred scripture and the current dogmatic teaching documents of the Catholic Church. The former usually matters to some degree with protestants the latter not so much.

Is there any truth in the ideas expressed by double predestination?

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Old Soul

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Simul Justus et Peccator

Question:​

Answer:​

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Question:​

Answer:​

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Similar threads

Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer: