Double Predestination/Predestinarianism

[cygnusx1]

You have not provided proof of favour unto salvation in either case.



You still haven't dealt with the awkwardness such an interpretation of 'hate' leads to in Luke 14:26

Romans 9:11 has no mention of predestined election unto salvation. It is certainly an example of God choosing whom He would work through - the line that would lead to Christ. Verses 30-32 refer back to such verses as this when Paul sums up what he has been arguing. The Jews thought that they could attain righteousness through the law, but Paul says otherwise. Verse 11 is an example of this fact, for the provision would come through God's sovereign choice...leading to the coming of the saviour, Jesus Christ. No man could by pass this and save himself through fulfilling the law. Righteousness would only come to those that exercised faith in God's provision.



This is assertion. How do you know the extent of God's interaction with mankind?



Dob?

Sorry, but you have not come close to proving your understanding of Romans 9.

Romans 2:11
For God does not show favouritism.

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."

This phrase "no respecter of persons" is found six times in the New Testament, and every time the modern versions have distorted the true meaning. Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, James 2:1 and 9, and Acts 10:34. In each case it has to do with not receiving the face, outward position, nationality or social rank of another. But God does not treat all people the same, nor are we told to do so either. We are to withdraw from some, avoid, exclude, reject, separate from, and not cast our pearls before others. Most importantly, God Himself chose His elect people in Christ before the foundation of the world and "of the SAME LUMP" makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour - Romans 9:21. This is definitely showing partiality, but it is not respecting persons.​

Will Kinney​

 

[janxharris]

This phrase "no respector of persons" is found six times in the New Testament, and every time the modern versions have distorted the true meaning. Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, James 2:1 and 9, and Acts 10:34. In each case it has to do with not receiving the face, outward position, nationality or social rank of another. But God does not treat all people the same, nor are we told to do so either. We are to withdraw from some, avoid, exclude, reject, separate from, and not cast our pearls before others. Most importantly, God Himself chose His elect people in Christ before the foundation of the world and "of the SAME LUMP" makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour - Romans 9:21. This is definitely showing partiality, but it is not respecting persons.

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."

Though 'nation' is mentioned, and Peter has previously discuss how Jew's where not supposed to associate with Gentiles, nevertheless, he does say that he is now not to 'call anyone impure or unclean,' and specifically says in v.35, 'the one who fears him,' so the impartiality that God shows is related to the individual.

Romans 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

All men equate to those made for common use, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Those made for special purposes would be those that are under Christ.

Verse 16 relates directly to vv.31&32:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

The Jews effort in works of the law would not attain righteousness. So, as Paul say, it does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy - which is Christ, and anyone can attain righteousness through faith in Him.

 

[cygnusx1]

Acts 10:34-35
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."

Though 'nation' is mentioned, and Peter has previously discuss how Jew's where not supposed to associate with Gentiles, nevertheless, he does say that he is now not to 'call anyone impure or unclean,' and specifically says in v.35, 'the one who fears him,' so the impartiality that God shows is related to the individual.

Romans 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

All men equate to those made for common use, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Those made for special purposes would be those that are under Christ.

Verse 16 relates directly to vv.31&32:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

The Jews effort in works of the law would not attain righteousness. So, as Paul say, it does not depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy - which is Christ, and anyone can attain righteousness through faith in Him.

Don't take this the wrong way Janx , but it would be more helpful if you had done a verse by verse commentary on Romans 9 so that we can all follow your thoughts on this text.

 

[janxharris]

Don't take this the wrong way Janx , but it would be more helpful if you had done a verse by verse commentary on Romans 9 so that we can all follow your thoughts on this text.

Fair enough.

 

[Lopez 15721]

According to Catholicism, the “predestination” that Calvinists believe in is “predestinarianism” and they adhere to traditional doctrines of “predestination.”

Predestination means that God elects who is destined to be saved through faith in Christ before the world was created.

Predestinarianism is the belief that God essentially elects/takes an active role in choosing who is to be damned. The doctrine of “equal ultimacy” goes as far as to say that God spurs on the non-elect (“reprobates”) to do evil so they will not be saved.

Predestinarianism is what many Calvinists call “double predestination.” John Piper makes Double Predestination a point in “seven point Calvinism,” which to me implies double predestination is not a necessary Calvinistic doctrine, in which there are traditionally only five points.

I want to approach this topic carefully, because historically the doctrine of double predestination has been condemned by the Second Council of Orange, which definitively denounced semi-pelagianism in the 500s. Also, I want it to be known that I do not have a formal stance on the subject and if anything, I would prefer to have a stance that is consistent with traditional predestination as affirmed by the Second Council of Orange and thinkers such as Prosper of Aquitaine.

Predestination is Biblical. Predestination is mentioned in the Bible a handful of times. It is connected to salvation such as it is in Romans 8:29-30. Not once does the Bible mention predestination and then in the same sentence mention something about Hell or the reprobate. So the Bible doesn't speak of a "double predestination," just one, and it is in reference to salvation. Thus I'd have to say the doctrine of "double predestination" is not Biblical.

That should end the discussion, but there are those who buy it and take Scripture with it, perhaps like Acts 4:28 when it doesn't mention salvation and instead refers to "whatever your hand...whatever your purpose predestined to occur." Well, why would someone conclude God's purpose is for man to be damned? Again, not a Biblical concept. I take this verse to mean, since God wants to save souls, that that's what His hand and purpose are there for.

Then they'll say if you accept predestination of the elect, you must also, out sheer logical necessity, accept the predestination of the damned. That is false. That assumes God's nature is dual, in that He does both good and evil, since God would literally be causing sin and evil to occur had He predestined it. Since that is not the case, God does not predestine sin and evil. God does not need to act in order to damn man, man can damn himself on his own just fine. Though with salvation, man cannot save himself on his own, and must have God to do it for him.

 

[janxharris]

Predestination is Biblical. Predestination is mentioned in the Bible a handful of times. It is connected to salvation such as it is in Romans 8:29-30. Not once does the Bible mention predestination and then in the same sentence mention something about Hell or the reprobate. So the Bible doesn't speak of a "double predestination," just one, and it is in reference to salvation. Thus I'd have to say the doctrine of "double predestination" is not Biblical.

That should end the discussion, but there are those who buy it and take Scripture with it, perhaps like Acts 4:28 when it doesn't mention salvation and instead refers to "whatever your hand...whatever your purpose predestined to occur." Well, why would someone conclude God's purpose is for man to be damned? Again, not a Biblical concept. I take this verse to mean, since God wants to save souls, that that's what His hand and purpose are there for.

Then they'll say if you accept predestination of the elect, you must also, out sheer logical necessity, accept the predestination of the damned. That is false. That assumes God's nature is dual, in that He does both good and evil, since God would literally be causing sin and evil to occur had He predestined it. Since that is not the case, God does not predestine sin and evil. God does not need to act in order to damn man, man can damn himself on his own just fine. Though with salvation, man cannot save himself on his own, and must have God to do it for him.

If a man needs to be picked by God so as to be saved (per Calvinism), then those not picked are, without doubt, predestined to damnation. Within Calvinism, a man cannot exercise belief in order to be saved, so he is without hope and God would be behind it.

There are no scriptures that say that God predetermines who will be regenerated in order that they will believe and be saved. Romans 8:29 includes the word 'foreknew'.

Since faith is not a work, then we most certainly can put our faith in God in order that we can receive the gift of salvation.

 

[abacabb3]

Then they'll say if you accept predestination of the elect, you must also, out sheer logical necessity, accept the predestination of the damned. That is false. That assumes God's nature is dual, in that He does both good and evil, since God would literally be causing sin and evil to occur had He predestined it. Since that is not the case, God does not predestine sin and evil. God does not need to act in order to damn man, man can damn himself on his own just fine. Though with salvation, man cannot save himself on his own, and must have God to do it for him.

This is a very good point, "logical necessity" is not compelling enough to make a doctrine without the Scripture bearing it out. I would say though that it is obvious that God does will the hardening of certain hearts, even the deaths of specific men. Would implicit in killing people that deserve judgment on earth also be their judgment in the hereafter?

 

[sdowney717]

Predestination is Biblical. Predestination is mentioned in the Bible a handful of times. It is connected to salvation such as it is in Romans 8:29-30. Not once does the Bible mention predestination and then in the same sentence mention something about Hell or the reprobate. So the Bible doesn't speak of a "double predestination," just one, and it is in reference to salvation. Thus I'd have to say the doctrine of "double predestination" is not Biblical.

That should end the discussion, but there are those who buy it and take Scripture with it, perhaps like Acts 4:28 when it doesn't mention salvation and instead refers to "whatever your hand...whatever your purpose predestined to occur." Well, why would someone conclude God's purpose is for man to be damned? Again, not a Biblical concept. I take this verse to mean, since God wants to save souls, that that's what His hand and purpose are there for.

Then they'll say if you accept predestination of the elect, you must also, out sheer logical necessity, accept the predestination of the damned. That is false. That assumes God's nature is dual, in that He does both good and evil, since God would literally be causing sin and evil to occur had He predestined it. Since that is not the case, God does not predestine sin and evil. God does not need to act in order to damn man, man can damn himself on his own just fine. Though with salvation, man cannot save himself on his own, and must have God to do it for him.

What you might consider evil, God must consider good. Since only
God is good. God's justice is good and God also does whatever He wishes. So everything God does is good.

Romans 9 pretty specifically brings up a double predestination concept. Some people dont want to apply it individually saying it is all about Israel. But v 24 mentions the gentiles so it does apply to more than Israel. And is personal as it mentions us in a personal way.

24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[Lopez 15721]

If a man needs to be picked by God so as to be saved (per Calvinism), then those not picked are, without doubt, predestined to damnation. Within Calvinism, a man cannot exercise belief in order to be saved, so he is without hope and God would be behind it.

There are no scriptures that say that God predetermines who will be regenerated in order that they will believe and be saved. Romans 8:29 includes the word 'foreknew'.

Since faith is not a work, then we most certainly can put our faith in God in order that we can receive the gift of salvation.

The statement does not logically follow. God must act as to save man, so predestination is necessary for salvation. God does not have to act, however, in order to damn man. Again man can sin on his own without God acting as to make him sin. That is why there is no predestination of the reprobate.

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.." The passage does mention predestination. Not just foreknowledge.

 

[sdowney717]

If a man needs to be picked by God so as to be saved (per Calvinism), then those not picked are, without doubt, predestined to damnation. Within Calvinism, a man cannot exercise belief in order to be saved, so he is without hope and God would be behind it.

Well, without hope,
How about this

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

So God creates men who are without hope and without God in the world.?

You can be sure God is in control of all things.

 

[Lopez 15721]

What you might consider evil, God must consider good. Since only
God is good. God's justice is good and God also does whatever He wishes. So everything God does is good.

Romans 9 pretty specifically brings up a double predestination concept. Some people dont want to apply it individually saying it is all about Israel. But v 24 mentions the gentiles so it does apply to more than Israel. And is personal as it mentions us in a personal way.

I never cared much for that response. What I consider evil comes from my understanding of what God considers evil. God says murder is evil I say murder is evil.

Romans 9 brings up no such point. The verse does not specifically say "God predestined them to Hell." Man already has experienced God's wrath, and had has fitted himself for destruction. God has endured these vessels.

 

[janxharris]

The statement does not logically follow. God must act as to save man, so predestination is necessary for salvation. God does not have to act, however, in order to damn man. Again man can sin on his own without God acting as to make him sin.

That is why there is no predestination of the reprobate.

So man does have libertarian free will then? When it suits you, man is responsible, but a genuine statement such you make would necessitate that men were able to have faith in Jesus, but we know Calvinists won't allow that.

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.." The passage does mention predestination. Not just foreknowledge.

Predestined in the sense that God provided Christ and those that believe (and remain believing) are predestined to eternal life. God made sure of it. But God did not make sure who would believe by creating in such a way that some would be sheep and some would be non-sheep. Jesus preached the gospel to those that were not His sheep (Jn 10:37-38).

 

[janxharris]

Well, without hope,
How about this

So God creates men who are without hope and without God in the world.?

You can be sure God is in control of all things.

Are you really suggesting that Gentiles who died before Christ was resurrected are without hope. Really? Too bad, you died a nano second before Christ could have saved you?

Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

All men, including Israelites, would be without hope if God had decided to leave us as is, and not send His son. No man is without hope unless he chooses to shun the offer of eternal life.

 

[sdowney717]

Are you really suggesting that Gentiles who died before Christ was resurrected are without hope. Really? Too bad, you died a nano second before Christ could have saved you?

Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

All men, including Israelites, would be without hope if God had decided to leave us as is, and not send His son. No man is without hope unless he chooses to shun the offer of eternal life.

uh, DEATH reigned from Adam to Moses.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

No some gentiles were obviously saved. How about Enoch. But yes, most gentiles were not saved before Christ.

 

[janxharris]

uh, DEATH reigned from Adam to Moses.

And?

No some gentiles were obviously saved. How about Enoch. But yes, most gentiles were not saved before Christ.

You are speculating. If you are suggesting that unless a Gentile converted to Judaism they were without hope of salvation, you are wrong.

 

[sdowney717]

And?

You are speculating. If you are suggesting that unless a Gentile converted to Judaism they were without hope of salvation, you are wrong.

Uh, did I say that? You always look to add in something extraneous.
I am speculating?
Death reigned, what do you think that means??
Does that not mean death? Spiritual death?
Today all men still physically die, you cant say they are all spiritually dead. Even spiritually alive people physically die. So 'death reigns' must mean they were spiritually dead. But not all of them, exceptions existed. Within death reigning overall, God had mercy on some. It is up to God whether He imputes to them sin.

 

[sdowney717]

Death reigned from Adam to Moses, and then this, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. So then death stopped reigning! Because they had Christ before Christ came in the flesh to earth. Christ was there with them in the Old Covenant established from Moses onwards for Israel. Christ is Life so when Christ was with them in this way, death stopped reigning over all the earth.

1 Corinthians 10

New King James Version (NKJV)

Old Testament Examples

10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

 

[abacabb3]

I never cared much for that response. What I consider evil comes from my understanding of what God considers evil. God says murder is evil I say murder is evil.

Romans 9 brings up no such point. The verse does not specifically say "God predestined them to Hell." Man already has experienced God's wrath, and had has fitted himself for destruction. God has endured these vessels.

True, but the vessels were made with a purpose, the fact that God made them.

The Lord has made everything for [c]its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil. (Prov 16:4)


So, God Himself does not compel anyone to do evil, but He does not show equal grace to all so in which some may lead evil lives out of the inclinations of their own heart and change and live righteously in Christ, while others will die in their own sins and God does not extend His grace to change such a person.

 

[Lopez 15721]

So man does have libertarian free will then? When it suits you, man is responsible, but a genuine statement such you make would necessitate that men were able to have faith in Jesus, but we know Calvinists won't allow that.

Predestined in the sense that God provided Christ and those that believe (and remain believing) are predestined to eternal life. God made sure of it. But God did not make sure who would believe by creating in such a way that some would be sheep and some would be non-sheep. Jesus preached the gospel to those that were not His sheep (Jn 10:37-38).

No, man does not have libertarian free will. Acting in a sinful manner would be in accordance to man's current state, he cannot act otherwise in a holy way. He doesn't want to. That's what makes man responsible for his sin. Man being able to sin on his own doesn't equate to man being able to save himself. Mankind's sinful nature is why we cannot save ourselves.