Double Predestination/Predestinarianism

[Edward65]

It seems to me that the distinction between "predestination" and "double predestination" is incoherent. If the elect are predestined to go to Heaven, then the non-elect are obviously headed for the other place.

I completely agree and that’s one of the reasons why I don’t call myself a Lutheran even though I’m in agreement with Luther because Lutherans since the 1580’s have rejected Luther’s position of predestination to both heaven and hell and hold only to predestination to heaven. I got ejected from the Confessional Lutheran forum through insisting that Luther held double predestination. They simply wouldn’t accept this even though it’s manifestly true and can be verified by studying The Bondage of the Will (TBOTW).

To believe in single predestination to heaven without a corresponding predestination to hell is of course unscriptural but it’s also illogical and nonsensical, but although confessional Lutherans accept that their position is illogical they still maintain it’s true. They interpret Paul’s statement "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Romans 11:33 ESV) to mean that God can do and does things which defy all reason and logic, whereas Luther in TBOTW applied what Paul said about God’s judgements being unsearchable to being unable to understand the justice of God in predestining people to be damned.

BY the way I ended up here on the Calvinist forum because the thread was transferred from the General Theology forum and continued on here instead.

 

[abacabb3]

I think maybe you’re conflating two separate issues which is God’s punishment of people and God’s hardening of people. God punishes people through using other sinful people to do them harm or allows Satan to harm them, but are you suggesting that God hardens people by using Satan to inject some fresh evil intent into them?

No, but God forgive me for saying this, it appears that God knowingly exploits the evil of Satan to tempt the man to fully realize the evil already in his own heart. THis is what we see with David.

Christ even says he speaks in parables and God tells Isaiah to preach, specifically so certain people will not repent and be saved.

“Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”

Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered,

“Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant,
Houses are without people
And the land is utterly desolate... (Is 6:10, 11)

Clearly, God does not contrive new evil in a man's heart, and does not incite a man to evil directly but rather uses intermediaries (other men, demons, etc.). It appears to me rather obvious that God decrees for men not to believe and so sets it up that they won't. He does this not merely by avoiding the gift of special grace in which opens the hearts of unbelievers to become believers, but He actually does things to make hard hearts even harder, hence "to harden."

I understand God’s hardening in the way that Luther explains it as God using what is good to confront those who are evil and in so doing arouses their enmity and hatred of that which is good and in this way they are hardened. So whilst it’s not a passive hardening in that God doesn’t simply leave them to themselves, it’s not a case of equal ultimacy either as if God was working in their hearts to make them even more evil.

I understand where you are coming from, and this is where I believe Augustine (only one quote of his implies otherwise) and Prosper of Aquataine are coming from. So you are standing on the shoulders of giants. However, what you describe is indeed passive, as God is not actually doing anything extra-ordinary to cause the reprobate to reject Him. The problem is, the Scripture has several specific examples where God goes out of His way to exercise judgment on the reprobate. in Fact, the existence of satan appears to me extra-ordinary enough to show that God desires more than passive hardening. Men would still sin without satan.

So, God does not specifically incite a man to commit an evil act any more than if I knock down a bottle of water, I cause water to spill out. Water spills out because it is already in the bottle just as evil spills out of the heart of man when man is so tempted to do evil.

 

[JM]

Zanchius will answer your questions/objections. I posted it here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7810672/#post65206352

 

[Edward65]

No, but God forgive me for saying this, it appears that God knowingly exploits the evil of Satan to tempt the man to fully realize the evil already in his own heart. THis is what we see with David.

I accept that this is the case and Luther would have as well because he argued that God was omnipotent and brought about everything that happens, and that Satan and men were impelled to act according to their natures, which (unless men are regenerated), results in them doing evil, because they are evil. Luther drew the analogy of God being like a horseman who rides lame horses – unregenerate men being the lame horses. Despite the fact that the rider is an expert horseman the horses must travel badly, which isn’t the fault of the rider.

God brings about evil events by co-ordinating men and Satan to accomplish what He has determined to happen but in such a way that He remains untainted by the evil which is done, but His hardening of men is an additional factor because not all evil men will be predestined to be damned. Some will be predestined to repent and be saved.

 

[JM]

We cannot ignore the spiritual aspects the word 'evil' that is being conveyed to the reader.

" I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" Lamentations 3:37-38

Quote:

rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9; Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). It was necessary for a wise king to be able to discern the evil or the good in the actions of his people (Ecc 12:14); men and women are characterized as evil (1Sa 30:22; Est_7:6; Jer 2:33). The human heart is evil all day long (Gen 6:5) from childhood (Gen 8:21); yet the people of God are to purge evil from among them (Deu 17:7). The Lord is the final arbiter of whether something was good or evil; if something was evil in the eyes of the Lord, there is no further court of appeals (Deu 9:18; 1Ki 14:22). The day of the Lord's judgment is called an evil day, a day of reckoning and condemnation (Amo 6:3). Jacob would have undergone grave evil (i.e., pain, misery, and ultimate disaster) if he had lost Benjamin (Gen 44:34). The word can refer to circumstances as evil, as when the Israelite foremen were placed in a grave situation (Exo 5:19; 2Ki 14:10).

The word takes on the aspect of something disagreeable, unwholesome, or harmful. Jacob evaluated his life as evil and destructive (Gen_47:9; Num_20:5); and the Israelites considered the wilderness as a threatening, terrifying place. The Canaanite women were evil in the eyes of Isaac (i.e., displeasing [Gen 28:8]). The rabble's cry within Israel for meat was displeasing in the eyes of Moses (Num 11:10). This word describes the vicious animal that killed Joseph, so Jacob thought (Gen 37:33). The despondent countenances of persons can be described by this word; the baker's and the butler's faces were downcast because of their dreams (Gen 40:7). It can also describe one who is heavy in heart (Pro 25:20).

In a literal sense, the word depicts something that is of poor quality or even ugly in appearance. The weak, lean cows of Pharaoh's dream were decrepit, ugly-looking (Gen 41:3, Gen 41:20, Gen 41:27); poisonous drinking water was described as bad (2Ki 2:19; 2Ki_4:41). From these observations, it is clear that the word can be used to attribute a negative aspect to nearly anything.

Used as a noun, the word indicates realities that are inherently evil, wicked, or bad; the psalmist feared no evil (Psa 23:4). The noun also depicts people of wickedness, that is, wicked people. Aaron characterized the people of Israel as inherently wicked in order to clear himself (Exo 32:22). Calamities, failures, and miseries are all connotations of this word when it is used as a noun.​

 

[JM]

God predesinted the evil of selling Joseph into slavery and actively had it performed through decree, "ye thought evil against me; but God" stop there and thing for a second..."meant it unto good..." The one evil act was meant by God for good. The human part was utterly evil and wicked.

God predestination all things from a position of moral goodness and kindness for the His people, which is why "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

 

[abacabb3]

God brings about evil events by co-ordinating men and Satan to accomplish what He has determined to happen but in such a way that He remains untainted by the evil which is done, but His hardening of men is an additional factor because not all evil men will be predestined to be damned. Some will be predestined to repent and be saved.

I fully agree with this, this is Luther?

 

[Edward65]

I fully agree with this, this is Luther?

Yes Luther explains in The Bondage of the Will that God is omnipotent and that all things are predestined to happen, and that He moves the wills of men and Satan to bring about what He has determined will happen.

See for example section LXXXIV:

De Servo Arbitrio “On the Enslaved Will” or The Bondage of Will - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[abacabb3]

Interesting take, that if a man is by nature defective, if God prods the man to move at all his movements will also be defective (i.e. the lame horses.)


Thanks for quoting that.

 

[twin1954]

I don't follow why you wish to maintain that God has purpose in what He does but that this isn't according to a plan. Surely if God purposes to do something then it has to be according to a plan otherwise it's done without any forethought and would be aimless.

Since God predestines everything that happens it has to be done according to a plan otherwise He would be intending to bring to pass that which had no definite structure. To purpose to do that which is random and which lacks coherence would be to bring to fruition something which has neither rhyme nor reason and this can't be said about God. The Scriptures say that God does things according to a plan and He has a plan to unite everything in Christ:

making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1:9-10 ESV)

and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, (Ephesians 3:9 ESV)

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:23 ESV)

Therefore hear the plan that the LORD has made against Babylon, and the purposes that he has formed against the land of the Chaldeans: Surely the little ones of their flock shall be dragged away; surely their fold shall be appalled at their fate. (Jeremiah 50:45 ESV)

In each of the passages that you site the word doesn't mean plan.

In Eph. 1:9-10 the word is protithemi and it means to purpose or foreordain.

In Eph. 3:9 the word is koinia and it means communion or fellowship.

In Act 2:23 the word is boule which is council or purpose. But it is more than that in the passage it is actually horizo boule which is appointed purpose.


In Jer. 50:45 the word isn't plan but council or advice not plan.

Why make such a big deal out of it? Because God doesn't make plans He purposes and foreordains He doesn't come up with a plan that can be thwarted or miscarry He purposes and He will do all that He purposes. Men make plans God purposes. He has purposed the end from the beginning and didn't make a plan to bring it about but foreordained in detailed decree all that comes to pass according to His purpose.
God is not a God with a plan, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" nonsense, but a God of purpose. Plans can change bit purpose cannot. Plans are a wish but a purpose is determined.

God doesn't work according to a plan He works according to a purpose.

 

[JM]

Like twin, I'm tying on my phone....

 

[Edward65]

Because God doesn't make plans He purposes and foreordains He doesn't come up with a plan that can be thwarted or miscarry He purposes and He will do all that He purposes. Men make plans God purposes. He has purposed the end from the beginning and didn't make a plan to bring it about but foreordained in detailed decree all that comes to pass according to His purpose.
God is not a God with a plan, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" nonsense, but a God of purpose. Plans can change bit purpose cannot. Plans are a wish but a purpose is determined.

God doesn't work according to a plan He works according to a purpose.

It seems to me that what you're arguing is that God doesn’t purpose to do anything in a random fashion, and that since God knows the end from the beginning and therefore how things will unfold, and also foreordains in detail what will occur, that do you accept (except in words) that God does indeed work according to a plan which He’s carrying into effect. So I think our disagreement is just a matter of semantics here..

With respect to "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" I don’t regard that as nonsense because I hold that the Scriptures also teach universal atonement as well as predestination.

In contrast to God’s plan of predestination which can’t be thwarted God also desires to save everyone and sent Christ to atone for everyone’s sins, and therefore it’s legitimate to say that God has a plan to save everyone because He loves them through Christ, although of course I accept that this could never become a reality because only those whom God elects to salvation from eternity will be saved. However I think it’s appropriate to talk of God having a wonderful plan for people’s lives, dependent of course on them accepting Christ as their Saviour.

 

[JM]

It's nonsense to say God loves all men everywhere, provided salvation for only "some of those He loves," and sends the rest to torment in hell for eternity...even though he loves them. Love is demonstrated. If God loves everybody and everybody isn't saved what does God's love have to do with salvation? Nuttin'

That dog don't hunt.

 

[twin1954]

It seems to me that what you're arguing is that God doesn’t purpose to do anything in a random fashion, and that since God knows the end from the beginning and therefore how things will unfold, and also foreordains in detail what will occur, that do you accept (except in words) that God does indeed work according to a plan which He’s carrying into effect. So I think our disagreement is just a matter of semantics here..

Not semantics at all. The difference is that God didn't plan all history He purposed all history for a specific and detailed end, to glorify Christ in the salvation of His elect. Everything God has done, is doing and will do is to that purpose and end. It isn't a plan, though it is ordained to come to pass in a specific way, it is a purpose that God shall accomplish. There is no blue print that God is going by but a wise and perfect foreordained accomplishing of His purpose. He knows the end from the beginning because He has purposed to do exactly as He does. He didn't say in His mind that this is the plan He will follow but He determined everything in His purpose. He isn't following a plan but accomplishing His purpose.

With respect to "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" I don’t regard that as nonsense because I hold that the Scriptures also teach universal atonement as well as predestination.

And you would be wrong in that. But I already knew that from previous encounters with you.

In contrast to God’s plan of predestination which can’t be thwarted God also desires to save everyone and sent Christ to atone for everyone’s sins, and therefore it’s legitimate to say that God has a plan to save everyone because He loves them through Christ, although of course I accept that this could never become a reality because only those whom God elects to salvation from eternity will be saved. However I think it’s appropriate to talk of God having a wonderful plan for people’s lives, dependent of course on them accepting Christ as their Saviour.

So then you do believe He plans that which He is unable to bring to pass. That is why you argue for a plan instead of a purpose. A plan is a desire that is laid out in order but depends on circumstances to bring to fruition. A purpose is a determination to make it happen exactly as He determine it should. If God plans to do good and save all men then He is just like men.

 

[Edward65]

It's nonsense to say God loves all men everywhere, provided salvation for only "some of those He loves," and sends the rest to torment in hell for eternity...even though he loves them. Love is demonstrated. If God loves everybody and everybody isn't saved what does God's love have to do with salvation? Nuttin'

That dog don't hunt.

I’m following what the Scriptures teach which is that God loves everyone through Christ and sent Christ to atone for the sins of everyone and desires to save everyone. I know Calvinists interpret the word “world” in John 3 to mean only the elect but I can’t accept that is a legitimate interpretation. John 3:16-18 reads:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (ESV)

It makes no sense that people can be condemned for not believing in Christ, if as Calvinists believe Christ only atoned for the sins of the elect. Why would people be condemned for not believing in Christ if Christ hadn’t atoned for their sins and hadn’t been sent to save them?

A person can only be condemned for not believing the truth. A person can't be condemned for believing the truth. So if limited atonement was true then the non-elect would be condemned for believing that Christ isn't their Saviour when that is actually the case. So the non-elect would be condemned for believing the truth if limited atonement was true. Therefore it follows that Christ didn't die just for the elect but for everyone and unlimited or universal atonement is the teaching of Scripture.

So I hold that Christ atoned for everyone’s sins and that the word “world” in the above passage means everyone, and therefore it follows that God has provided salvation for everyone. This salvation however is dependent on people accepting in faith that Christ is their Saviour, but since people need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to have faith only those whom God chooses from eternity to save will believe and die in that faith.

So I don’t accept the view that God doesn’t love everyone in Christ and doesn’t wish to save them. The Scriptures teach that He does. However I also accept that behind all this is the reality of predestination and that God has only chosen certain people to be saved and that according to this will, which can’t be thwarted, God can be said to only love the elect - as in Romans 9:13.

Luther in his book “The Bondage of the Will” shows that God has two wills - His hidden will and His revealed will - and although He chooses to save only the elect by His hidden will, He nevertheless through His revealed will sincerely loves the non-elect and desires also to save them.

 

[JM]

I'm typing on a phone so I'll keep it simple: hogwash! Haha

Any biblical passage dealing with the blood atonement is said to be "for many" not all. The new covenant was promised to a certain people (Jer. 31) and Jesus ratified that covenant in His blood "for many" not all. The blood of Christ was offerd as a propitiation which means a removal of wrath. This means the wrath of God toward the sinner has been removed forever in that one time offering for sin (Heb 10) propitiated sins cannot be punished including the sin of unbelief.

If God loves everybody and offerd Himself for everybody, knowing the death of Christ is effectual....why isn't everybody saved? "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Testament is anther word for covenant which, as you can see, was not made with all people.)

 

[Edward65]

So then you do believe He plans that which He is unable to bring to pass. That is why you argue for a plan instead of a purpose. A plan is a desire that is laid out in order but depends on circumstances to bring to fruition. A purpose is a determination to make it happen exactly as He determine it should. If God plans to do good and save all men then He is just like men.

A plan can either come to pass or not come to pass and if God purposes to do something then of course it must happen as He’s determined it will, but it’s still done according to a plan because a plan is a depiction of what the end result will be and how to get to that end result.

Since God is omnipotent any plan which He has decided to bring to completion has to happen because nothing greater than Him exists which can thwart His intentions, so if God purposes to do something then of course it must happen. However since God doesn’t purpose that which is random but has determined to bring to pass a definite end result which depends on particular things happening in time for this end result to occur, then He’s putting into effect a series of actions that have been thought through as the way to achieve this end result, and therefore He’s working according to a plan. So what God has predestined to happen is predestined to happen according to a plan.

But equally a plan can be conditional and dependent on something else for its completion so in this sense one can say that God has a plan to save everyone but it’s conditional on people having faith and accepting Christ as their Saviour (which of course not everyone will because God doesn't grant everyone faith).

 

[twin1954]

A plan can either come to pass or not come to pass and if God purposes to do something then of course it must happen as He’s determined it will, but it’s still done according to a plan because a plan is a depiction of what the end result will be and how to get to that end result.

Since God is omnipotent any plan which He has decided to bring to completion has to happen because nothing greater than Him exists which can thwart His intentions, so if God purposes to do something then of course it must happen. However since God doesn’t purpose that which is random but has determined to bring to pass a definite end result which depends on particular things happening in time for this end result to occur, then He’s putting into effect a series of actions that have been thought through as the way to achieve this end result, and therefore He’s working according to a plan. So what God has predestined to happen is predestined to happen according to a plan.

But equally a plan can be conditional and dependent on something else for its completion so in this sense one can say that God has a plan to save everyone but it’s conditional on people having faith and accepting Christ as their Saviour (which of course not everyone will because God doesn't grant everyone faith).

Do you realize how contradictory what you just posted is? If, as you claim to believe, God accomplishes what He intends but doesn't accomplish what He intends how is that consistent?

 

[Edward65]

I'm typing on a phone so I'll keep it simple: hogwash! Haha

Any biblical passage dealing with the blood atonement is said to be "for many" not all. The new covenant was promised to a certain people (Jer. 31) and Jesus ratified that covenant in His blood "for many" not all. The blood of Christ was offerd as a propitiation which means a removal of wrath. This means the wrath of God toward the sinner has been removed forever in that one time offering for sin (Heb 10) propitiated sins cannot be punished including the sin of unbelief.

If God loves everybody and offerd Himself for everybody, knowing the death of Christ is effectual....why isn't everybody saved? "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Testament is anther word for covenant which, as you can see, was not made with all people.)

The word “many” means “all” (i.e. everyone) in the verses below:

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Romans 5:15 ESV)

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:18 ESV)

In the first verse above it says “For if many died through one man's trespass” whereas in the second verse above it says “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men”

Since it’s true that all men in their natural state lie dead in original sin because of Adam’s fall it follows that the word “many” means “all men" or “everyone” in the above verses. Therefore it follows that one act of righteousness (i.e. Christ's death on the cross) atones for everyone's sins and everyone is objectively justified.

However this doesn’t mean that everyone will be saved because people also need to be subjectively justified though faith in order to be saved, and of course not everyone is subjectively justified because the Father doesn’t draw everyone to Christ and grant them faith.

 

[Edward65]

Do you realize how contradictory what you just posted is? If, as you claim to believe, God accomplishes what He intends but doesn't accomplish what He intends how is that consistent?

I’m of course aware of the difficult of understanding since God loves everyone and sends Christ to atone for everyone’s sins why He doesn’t elect to save everyone. But this difficulty of understanding how God can desire one thing but accomplish something else is what the Scriptures teach. They teach universal atonement and election and predestination. So I have no wish to correct what the Scriptures teach or to force them into a mold of my own making.

I start from a different perspective than you. I start from the fact that God loves everyone and sent Christ to atone for everyone and then wonder why He doesn’t elect to save everyone, whereas Calvinists start from the other perspective and think God elects only to save some so how can He love everyone and send Christ to atone for everyone.

The solution is that God has two wills. He genuinely loves and desires to save everyone according to his revealed will but His hidden will of predestination has already determined the outcome of all events and the course of world history. I don’t pretend to understand this, but I’m content to just allow God to be God and accept that He has infinite wisdom and understanding and I don’t. Humans can’t expect to understand God. God is mysterious.