double-predestination vs predestination

[Esdra]

Hi my Calvinist friends

If I have understood correctly there are Calvinists who believe in double-predestination (God predominates people to salvation but the others to eternal damntion. Correct so far?) and others who don't (mainly mainline Presbyterians and mainline reformed Christians)

But what does then happen to those who aren't predestinated to salvation?
So, basically what's the difference between these two types of Calvinism?

 

[AMR]

Hi my Calvinist friends

If I have understood correctly there are Calvinists who believe in double-predestination (God predominates people to salvation but the others to eternal damntion. Correct so far?) and others who don't (mainly mainline Presbyterians and mainline reformed Christians)

But what does then happen to those who aren't predestinated to salvation?
So, basically what's the difference between these two types of Calvinism?

All Calvinists believe in double predestination, for we do not simply assume that God was simply passive when it came to the aspects of His decree related to the reprobate. So, while our confessions, e.g., the WCF, state that God "passes by", or "leaves" the reprobate in their sins, this in no way means that God had no volitional willing.

The real matter of debate, if you will, concerns whether or not God plays the same active role in the reprobation of some as He does in election of His chosen people. Those that hold that indeed God does so, are said to believe in "equal ultimacy". Here is a nice summary of the equal ultimacy view:
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

The other view, a majority view among Calvinists, is best understood by the following two statements:

God justly tells the reprobate: "I am not going to force you to make the wrong choice, but I am not going to prevent you from making the wrong choice."

God graciously tells the elect: "I am not going to force you to make the wrong choice, but I am going to prevent you from making the wrong choice."​

Note from the statements above, the distinctions between God’s active influence related to grace and redemption, and God’s so-called passiveness related to reprobation. Behind both statements are a couple of book-length discussions to avoid misunderstandings, but this is the hundred thousand foot level view. Hope this helps.

 

[hedrick]

AMR considers that only people who believe in the historic confessions are Reformed. However many (possibly a majority) of the Reformed community believe that Reformed views can develop and have developed beyond the 16th Cent confessions. Of those people, many do not believe that God predestines anyone for damnation.

What do we see as an alternative? I think it's mostly an issue of how we conceive of God. As long as God can see the future in detail, and is omnipotent, I don't see how to avoid the conclusion that he's responsible in some sense for history. I think what people object to is the idea that God intends to damn specific people. That he adopted an approach that includes that is hard to avoid. But I doubt that he set out to damn anyone.

I don't know his thinking, and I don't know what options were available to him. But I think it likely that he couldn't achieve the goals he wanted without real alternatives, and that this resulted in some people being damned. No doubt he chose the best outcome, and that when we see him face to face we will realize that his choices were both just and loving. But there are enough statements in the Bible about him caring about the whole world that I think we should avoid statements that imply that he wants anyone to be lost.

Here's a statement that was added to the Westminster Confession by the Presbyterian Church in 1903. This is prior to the split-off of most of today's conservative Presbyterian churches.

"First, with reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin."

I'm not sure this even contradicts classical statements of predestination. Many conclusions that people draw from this doctrine are wrong. But I think mainline Reformed Christians are a bit more concerned about avoiding language that might imply that God has ill will towards anyone. Calvin was in the middle of conflicts with people who had very strange ideas of grace. He needed to emphasize very clearly God's final responsibility. I think in the process he occasionally made statements that go further than anyone I know would want to go today.

Here is the most recent confessional statement by the PCUSA on this topic:

1 (1) God created and rules in love.
2 God created all the worlds that are
3 and upholds and rules everything.
4 We affirm that the universe exists
5 by the power of God's Word and Spirit.
6 God has chosen to give it reality
7 out of the love we have come to know in Christ.
8 God still works
9 through the processes that shape and change the earth
10 and the living things upon it.
11 We acknowledge God's care and control
12 in the regularity of the universe
13 as well as in apparently random happenings.
14 There is no event from which God is absent
15 and his ultimate purpose in all events is just and loving.
16 That purpose embraces our choices
17 and will surely be accomplished.
18 The Creator works in all things
19 toward the new creation that is promised in Christ.

["A Declaration of Faith", 1977. This was adopted by the GA, but does not have full confessional status.]

Because we don't understand God's perspective, I would prefer to maintain both his love for the whole world and his responsibility for all things, even at the price of inconsistency. I'm not convinced that we know enough of his perspective to be confident of making valid deductions in this area. I have a feeling that this was Luther's position as well.

I will note that there are a significant number of people in the PCUSA who think that God is not omnipotent. However I don't think they're a majority, and I don't think the 1903 statement or the one just above are based on that thinking.

 

[hedrick]

I am not in a position to say why conservative Reformed take the positions they do. I believe I'm correct that mainline Reformed draw the conclusion that because our traditions are not infallible, it's expected that our tradition can develop. I mean no attack on your faith in saying that. I apologize for any implication to the contrary, and am editing my response.

 

[St_Worm2]

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination​

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, I don't think I've used the term "Calvinist" for the PCUSA. I would probably use that term to characterize views that agree substantially with Calvin's original views.

 

[Kyle Arn]

Most people complicate things. The answer is the definition of predestination.
advance decision by God about events. However nothing stats that this is the only option for your life. God he just destined you another word for destined is wanted. So he just wanted you before you were. predestination.

 

[JustAsIam77]

AMR considers that only people who believe in the historic confessions are Reformed. However many (possibly a majority) of the Reformed community believe that Reformed views can develop and have developed beyond the 16th Cent confessions. Of those people, many do not believe that God predestines anyone for damnation.

What do we see as an alternative? I think it's mostly an issue of how we conceive of God. As long as God can see the future in detail, and is omnipotent, I don't see how to avoid the conclusion that he's responsible in some sense for history. I think what people object to is the idea that God intends to damn specific people. That he adopted an approach that includes that is hard to avoid. But I doubt that he set out to damn anyone.

I don't know his thinking, and I don't know what options were available to him. But I think it likely that he couldn't achieve the goals he wanted without real alternatives, and that this resulted in some people being damned. No doubt he chose the best outcome, and that when we see him face to face we will realize that his choices were both just and loving. But there are enough statements in the Bible about him caring about the whole world that I think we should avoid statements that imply that he wants anyone to be lost.

Here's a statement that was added to the Westminster Confession by the Presbyterian Church in 1903. This is prior to the split-off of most of today's conservative Presbyterian churches.

"First, with reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin."

I'm not sure this even contradicts classical statements of predestination. Many conclusions that people draw from this doctrine are wrong. But I think mainline Reformed Christians are a bit more concerned about avoiding language that might imply that God has ill will towards anyone.

I follow your posts and appreciate your knowledge of scripture, I believe you are wrong in your conclusions regarding the subject of God being held to a human standard of 'what is fair'. I regularly see this argument by Arminians that cannot accept that God is a Sovereign God and will do all His pleasure.

My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure, yea, I have spoken, and I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it. Is. 46:10

 

[Lizabth]

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

That's MY kinda Lutheranism.

 

[hedrick]

I follow your posts and appreciate your knowledge of scripture, I believe you are wrong in your conclusions regarding the subject of God being held to a human standard of 'what is fair'. I regularly see this argument by Arminians that cannot accept that God is a Sovereign God and will do all His pleasure.

My counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure, yea, I have spoken, and I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it. Is. 46:10

I've avoided speaking of predestination as unfair. (At least I hope I haven't slipped up.) To me the issue is more Scripture passages speaking of God as caring about the whole world, not unfairness. I don't have the time at the moment to do a detailed discussion of my own evaluation of this question, so I'm not going to go further than I did in the previous posting. It tried to give a sense of where I think the PCUSA currently is.

 

[RINO 72]

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned." - Martin Luther

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination​

This made my evening thank you

 

[RINO 72]

I've avoided speaking of predestination as unfair. (At least I hope I haven't slipped up.) To me the issue is more Scripture passages speaking of God as caring about the whole world, not unfairness. I don't have the time at the moment to do a detailed discussion of my own evaluation of this question, so I'm not going to go further than I did in the previous posting. It tried to give a sense of where I think the PCUSA currently is.

Isn't the problem that you have to merely guess at these things?

 

[hedrick]

Isn't the problem that you have to merely guess at these things?

There is a tension in Scripture between God's expressed desire that everyone should be saved and election. Sometimes it's best not to be so sure of a resolution. Calvinists have a tendency to ignore or explain away that passages saying that God wants everyone to be saved. Arminians tend to ignore or explain away election. I'd rather simply admit that there's a tension there than accept a too-easy resolution.

As I noted above, I do have some personal thoughts, but I'm not ready to write about them.

 

[drjean]

God does say that HE DECIDES ultimately.... but I like to look at these things from a different angle (maybe a higher view?) He says that HE gives grace...and am I glad He extended it to me! We all deserve justice, but He chose to offer grace to some of us.....

Just suppose that there are people who look normal like us, but aren't? "As in the days of Noah"... that was a time when the nephilim had tainted the human race... so they were part evil angel (fallen angels) and part human.... if they had done this once before (re: reason for the flood) why not again?

Plus, there is currently a request for a patent to make cyborg humans... so wouldn't these also be part of the tainted human race and not have option of salvation? They would look just like us they say... (and maybe exist already?)

Just saying... we can't imagine the things that could be, and have all the knowledge God has...so I trust God to know what He's doing and what He's talking about...even if I don't fully understand them.

 

[RINO 72]

There is a tension in Scripture between God's expressed desire that everyone should be saved and election. Sometimes it's best not to be so sure of a resolution. Calvinists have a tendency to ignore or explain away that passages saying that God wants everyone to be saved. Arminians tend to ignore or explain away election. I'd rather simply admit that there's a tension there than accept a too-easy resolution.

As I noted above, I do have some personal thoughts, but I'm not ready to write about them.

No I was referring to where the PCUSA stood on theological issues.

 

[drjean]

"Calvinists have a tendency to ignore or explain away..." ???? Not on your life!

What do you do with the verse that states, "Many are called but few are chosen" ?

Okay, OT, my apologies.

I really don't think the idea of "double" predestination that important in that there are those who are not capable of being saved, though all humans are called to be. I do believe that there are those who are part and parcel of satan's offspring activities etc that are not capable of being saved and thus are predestined to go to hell.

 

[Kyle Arn]

Such as Judas who betrayed Jesus Christ. Do you think he was predestined to do so? And if so he ends up in @#!*% .

 

[drjean]

Yes Judas was predestined to betray, but he also repented

 

[JM]

Such as Judas who betrayed Jesus Christ. Do you think he was predestined to do so? And if so he ends up in @#!*% .

Judas, "the son of perdition" was lost "that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17.12

 

[St_Worm2]

Such as Judas who betrayed Jesus Christ. Do you think he was predestined to do so? And if so he ends up in @#!*% .

Hi Kyle, the OT prophetically tells us what Judas had in mind to do:

Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. Psalm 41:9​

The Lord, who knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), knew what Judas intended to do and "ordained" or "allowed" it to occur, "that the Scripture might be fulfilled". He did not "cause" it to happen. Judas made the choice to act as he did and is therefore culpable as a result.

"Not one of them perished except the son of perdition,
so that the Scripture might be fulfilled."
John 17:12​