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

Xeno.of.athens said:

They're irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Hello again Xeno, in this particular case (meaning in the case of this topic in this thread), oddly, I agree with you, the Reformers are irrelevant. I say this to you because what you "claimed" that the Reformers taught (concerning God and the reprobate) and what they "actually" taught are not the same thing.

I've demonstrated this by showing you what a Reformed Confession (from nearly 500 years ago) has to say, as well as what a Reformed church document from the 21st Century says (and then there's all that Mark has pointed out to you in his posts too), so sadly, it seems to me that we're done here (with this particular topic, anyway).

I do have questions to ask and perhaps some points to make about other things that you've said here, but I'll need to do that this evening (Dv).

God bless you!!

--David

Xeno.of.athens said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and that (referring to the RCC as authority) doesn't work. As I said, just as irrelevant as the Reformers are. We are not on the RCC board, the RCC has no more jurisdiction here than the Reformers.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Your comment misunderstands what I am doing: when I cite Catholic dogma I am arguing truth, because the Church teaches—on the authority given by Christ—that “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and that the apostles’ teaching is preserved with divine assistance (John 16:13). Catholic dogma is not a private interpretive lens, but the normative rule of faith defined by the Church Christ established, which Vatican I affirms possesses “the charism of truth” in matters of faith and morals (Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4). So, when I state that predestination is always to grace and glory and never to damnation, I am not merely “noting RCC doctrine”; I am stating what the Church infallibly teaches on the basis of Scripture itself—namely, that God “desires all to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), that Christ died “for all” (2 Cor 5:14–15), and that no one is damned except by freely rejecting grace (2 Thess 2:10).

Click to expand...

So you say, and so you assess. I'm sorry, but unless you can show me by scripture or plain reason, how your reasoning fits scripture in the end, I pretty well have to reject its validity.

Xeno.of.athens said:

That is what I expect of dedicated protestants.

Click to expand...

ha! You say that like it's a bad thing!

I think that Calvin's use of the word 'predestination' for unbelievers didn't mean what we mean by it these days. Calvin seemed to use the theological terms "ordain" and "predestine" interchangeably, but I can't say for sure what his thinking was. I only say this because in his writings he would clearly be contradicting Himself. To put it another way, Calvin did not believe that God was the Author and finisher of an unbelievers unbelief.

"The blame lies solely with ourselves, if we do not become partakers of this salvation; for he calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illuminated by him." (Calvin. Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet).

That's what the term double predestination means, as I see it, that God causes unbelief just as He causes belief. For some, in the Calvinist system, if a person is positively caused to believe, naturally, those who were not caused to believe were indirectly left with one option, and that option is considered a predestination of sorts.

I disagree with this whole line of thinking.

"By grounding election in it's first decree and placing it before creation and the fall, supralapsarianism abstracts election from it's biblical heart, namely that the people of God are chosen in Christ. (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9). "Supralapsarianism theology removes the attention of the believer from the historical person of Christ and His work, and centers it on the eternal decree of God, cold and intellectual, before all time" (Brown "heresies") taken from why I am not an Arminian.

While I do agree that in the correct context, God's decree, or His eternal purpose can be different from His desire, I would only agree that while He hates sin, He does allow it for His purposes. Naturally, this is understandable because man is not forced to believe, but is given a choice and enough common grace to accept or deny it. BUT...I don't think that line of reasoning is supported in the idea of election. I believe election to be corporate. In other words, Jesus was elect, we become elect with Him when we are placed in Him.

In the end, this double predestination debate is basically the infra - supra debate using the reading definitions into theological terms that the writers/theologians of long ago probably never intended. We start with a debate about things that seemingly has no scriptural solution...

"IBID. Ultimately both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism are unsatisfying. As John Frame has observed, the entire discussion of an order of decrees was engaged in a speculation that the Bible simply does not underwrite. One must "try to picture the process of God's thinking before He created the world." But "scripture warns against trying to read God's mind. His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). This discussion runs great risks of engaging in speculation into matters God has kept secret" Doctrine of God pp. 335-37 Brown.

I'll save the infralapsarianism vs. supralapsarianism for another thread. Interesting though, that it was Theodore Beza (Calvin's son in law) who popularized supralapsarianism/double predestination because he was willing to go beyond where even Calvin would go. Calvin was content to leave questions as questions if he felt that the text was ambiguous. But it was Beza who wanted to take Calvin's work, systematically fit it into a philosophy. Sound familiar? Reverse engineering. And also from that you have Arminius, who was a student of Beza who did not agree with either infralapsarianism or supralapsarianism because they didn't fit his philosophy of libertarian free will. Twenty years ago, most reformed people, up until then were infralapsarians. These days it's something different.

...and then, as Spurgeon once famously said, these discussion become narrowed down to being arguments about the meanings of the terms used by those who debated these things so long ago.

I think that the term predestination is for all things that are positively caused by God. Ordain covers everything God created and is governing even today, both predestined and positively allowed.

Dave

Xeno.of.athens said:

Those are your words.

Click to expand...

Which are my words?

Mark Quayle said:

ha! You say that like it's a bad thing!

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

Which are my words?

Click to expand...

Xeno.of.athens said:

Look up. Those are your words.

Click to expand...

You're not being specific. Of course those are my words. Which of them do you intend to turn against me, and how do you intend to do it without cutting them from the whole of what I said?

I didn't say it's a bad thing. I said that you say what you did as though it was a bad thing; I said it pretty obviously implying that it is not a bad thing. Can you make something of it?

Xeno.of.athens said:

Have you never read the gospels? Do you not recall one of Christ's replies to Pontius Pilate?

Luke 23 1 Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” 3 And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” 4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” 5 But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”​

Honestly, why do you need me to show you this before you recognise it?

Click to expand...

Wow. You're going to get this serious about it? Do you think Pilate was jokingly asking Jesus? I don't have your life in the palm of my hand, on the force of accusations against you.

Furthermore, Jesus statement was not legally admissible as a confession that could be taken to say that he was indeed the King of the Jews. If you wish your statement to be indirectly to mean that I was positing a bad thing, you could have simply said so without any recriminations but my denial of your claim. But no, you had to get clever.

No, I didn't automatically make the jump to the account of Jesus standing before Pilate. Why should I have? Do you have Jesus' authority or something?

But the form of the question I did recognize, and that is what didn't make sense. This wasn't a situation where it fit well. I did not say it was a bad thing, nor did I intend to imply it, nor was I asking if indeed it was a bad thing. Your clever remark doesn't fit it. But, your playing fast and loose with Scripture is rather evident. You actually compared this situation and what you said, with what Jesus said to Pilate!

Just one more demonstration of the RCC considering itself equal authority with the Word of God.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Your post adopts a tone of accusation that simply is not warranted, and it misrepresents both what was said and what Catholic teaching actually holds. Recognising the form of a question does not equate to claiming Christ’s authority, nor does drawing an analogy imply “playing fast and loose with Scripture.” Our Lord’s exchange with Pilate in John 18:33–38 is something that I am entirely free—indeed encouraged—to use typologically and analogically, provided I do not distort its meaning (cf. Dei Verbum 12). Nothing in my remark suggested equivalence of authority; it simply noted that certain rhetorical forms recur in Scripture and in ordinary discourse.

Click to expand...

But your discourse was not ordinary. You forced what you say was an analogy, (--for what reason?--), as though doing so fit the scene we had going on. It was --weird.

Xeno.of.athens said:

More importantly, your post ends with a sweeping and unjustified claim that the Catholic Church “considers itself equal authority with the Word of God.” This is contrary to the Church’s own dogmatic teaching. The Church explicitly teaches that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium do not stand in rivalry but form a single sacred deposit of the Word of God (cf. Dei Verbum 10). The Magisterium is not above the Word of God but its servant, teaching only what has been handed on. To assert otherwise is to contradict the very documents that define Catholic dogma.

Click to expand...

Dogma and practice are two different things, then. What the Magisterium decrees is THE interpretation of Scripture to the extent of making up stuff, ANALOGOUS to what the Pharisees did in Jesus time, and contrary to much of Scripture.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Finally, the insinuation that a simple analogy somehow elevates a Catholic interlocutor to divine authority is neither fair nor reasonable. A more charitable reading would have avoided such escalation. If something I said struck you as unclear, the proportionate response would have been to ask for clarification—not to accuse me of Scriptural abuse or of claiming parity with Christ. A discussion grounded in Scripture and truth deserves a tone that reflects both.

Click to expand...

Well, so far in this thread you have talked repeatedly as though what the RCC teaches is therefore THE truth and useful for argument against opposing opinion.

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).

Click to expand...

I am a Predestinarian, semi-Calvinist, but I agree with your sentiments. That's why I'm a semi-Calvinist because contrary to the notion that our will is bound (Luther) and we can do no good, including choose for Salvation, apart from Christ, I believe in Free Will.

I believe God knows from the start who are born to serve Him and who are not born to serve Him. The difference as far as I'm concerned is that God never intended there to be children born who would not serve Him. They are, by contrast, born by will of fallen mankind who have chosen to mix the knowledge of God with the knowledge of Man. And the fruit of a mixed commitment results in children born of both kinds.

Determining who is born what is God's domain. Nevertheless, people no matter how they are born have free choices. And if they choose against Salvation they are free to make that choice.

However we think they are born into we should give all the respect of free choice in my opinion.

Xeno.of.athens said:

David, thank you for your post. It is an interesting turn of events that we find ourselves in agreement regarding the relevance of the Reformers in this specific dialogue. Whilst I hold that Catholic dogma remains the normative rule of faith—defined by the Church that serves as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)—I recognise the effort you have put into sharing the Reformed perspective.

My primary concern has always been to uphold the teaching that God “desires all to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) and that grace is extended to all, as defined by the Magisterium. If our discussion on historical interpretations has reached its natural conclusion, I am quite content to move forward.

I shall look forward to your further points and questions this evening. It is a pleasure to engage with you, and I appreciate your commitment to seeking clarity on these matters. May you have a peaceful afternoon, and I look forward to our continued conversation.

Click to expand...

The problem with proof-texting (e.g. your quote of part of 1 Tim. 2:4) is that it plucks a verse out of context, often enabling the proof-texter to claim a meaning that was not intended by the author.

1 Tim. 2:1-6 (E.M.T.V.)
1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all people,
2 on behalf of kings and all those who are in authority, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior,
4 who desires all people to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony in due time;

The first question regarding words like "all" should be, "All of what, or whom?". What does the context say?

In verse one, we see that prayers, etc., are to be made on behalf of all people; so, is that a generalisation (as would normally be the case with such expressions), or does it refer to every single person, without exception?

Verse two tells us the answer: it refers to all categories of people (i.e. all people without distinction, not all people without exception), with kings and those in authority being the given examples of such categories.

This means that the "all people" whom God desires to be saved, in verse four, are also all categories of people, not every single individual; and this agrees with Scripture as a whole.