• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

double-predestination vs predestination

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,736
Canada
✟880,720.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
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

I disagree with the idea that God is passive. God decrees all that will be and all that will be is found in the decrees of God. This includes sin.

I've posted this before, it's from Jerome Zanchius, I think he explains what I mean clearly:
God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them.

Although there is no action whatever which is not in some sense either good or bad, yet we can easily conceive of an action, purely as such, without adverting to the quality of it, so that the distinction between an action itself and its denomination of good or evil is very obvious and natural.

In and by the elect, therefore, God not only produces works and actions through His almighty power, but likewise, through the salutary influences of His Spirit, first makes their persons good, and then their actions so too; but, in and by the reprobate, He produces actions by His power alone, which actions, as neither issuing from faith nor being wrought with a view to the Divine glory, nor done in the manner prescribed by the Divine Word, are, on these accounts, properly denominated evil. Hence we see that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action, and withholds those gracious influences of His Spirit, without which every action is necessarily evil. That God either directly or remotely excites bad men as well as good ones to action cannot be denied by any but Atheists, or by those who carry their notions of free-will and human independency so high as to exclude the Deity from all actual operation in and among His creatures, which is little short of Atheism. Every work performed, whether good or evil, is done in strength and by the power derived immediately from God Himself, “in whom all men live, move, and have their being” (Acts 17.28). As, at first, without Him was not anything made which was made, so, now, without Him is not anything done which is done. We have no power or faculty, whether corporal or intellectual, but what we received from God, subsists by Him, and is exercised in subserviency to His will and appointment. It is He who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin, for sin is nothing but auomia, illegality, want of conformity to the Divine law (1 John 3.4), a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative and deficient one…
Before Zanchius brought us to this point, showing that God acting “directly or remotely” is not the “Author of them in a moral and compound sense,” he teaches in Position 2;
That God often lets the wicked go on to more ungodliness, which He does (a) negatively by withholding that grace which alone can restrain them from evil; (b) remotely, by the providential concourse and mediation of second causes, which second causes, meeting and acting in concert with the corruption of the reprobate’s unregenerate nature, produce sinful effects; (c) judicially, or in a way of judgment. “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters; He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21.1); and if the King’s heart, why not the hearts of all men? “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good?” (Lam. 3.38). Hence we find that the Lord bid Shimei curse David (2 Sam. 16.10); that He moved David himself to number the people (compare 1 Chron. 21.1 with 2 Sam. 24.1); stirred up Joseph’s brethren to sell him into Egypt (Genesis 50.20); positively and immediately hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Exod. 4.21); delivered up David’s wives to be defiled by Absalom (2 Sam. 12.11; 16.22); sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22.20-23), and mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of Egypt, that is, made that nation perverse, obdurate and stiff-necked (Isa. 19.14). To cite other instances would be almost endless, and after these, quite unnecessary, all being summed up in that express passage, “I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things” (Isa. 45.7). See farther, 1 Sam. 16.14; Psalm 105.25; Jer. 13.12,13; Acts 2.23, & 4.28; Rom. 11.8; 2 Thess. 2.11, every one of which implies more than a bare permission of sin. Bucer asserts this, not only in the place referred to below, but continually throughout his works, particularly on Matt. 6. § 2, where this is the sense of his comments on that petition, “Lead us not into temptation”: “It is abundantly evident, from most express testimonies of Scripture, that God, occasionally in the course of His providence, puts both elect and reprobate persons into circumstances of temptation, by which temptation are meant not only those trials that are of an outward, afflictive nature, but those also that are inward and spiritual, even such as shall cause the persons so tempted actually to turn aside from the path of duty, to commit sin, and involve both themselves and others in evil. Hence we find the elect complaining, ‘O Lord, why hast Thou made us to err from Thy ways, and hardened our hearts from Thy fear?’ (Isaiah 63.17). But there is also a kind of temptation, which is peculiar to the non-elect, whereby God, in a way of just judgment, makes them totally blind and obdurate, inasmuch as they are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (See also his exposition of Rom. 9.)
Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
28,146
45,799
68
✟3,114,011.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I would agree just wondering what you would say.

Hi Kyle, if you agree with this, "Hence we see that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action...", then I believe we are all on the same page so there is no need to continue.

Yours and His,
David
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?

As surely as St. Paul wrote to the Romans, God created double predestination. The question always posed though among Calvinists, with respect to election and reprobation and Divine intervention, is it active/active or active/passive....of course passive/passive is way out of the realm of Reformed theology.

The most important and authoritative basis for all doctrine is Holy Scripture. Predestination is taught so definitely throughout Scripture that all Christians believe in the biblical doctrine of predestination. If we used Bible software to do a word search of "predestin" we would find that even forms of the word predestination are found in Scripture. However, the Scripture proofs are not limited to the word, for what is predestination but God choosing His elect before the foundation of the world. Therefore passages referring to God choosing, and elect or election, and from the "foundation of the world" also pertain to predestination. Without overloading the thread with verses of Scripture, please take some time to look into the following links.

Verses Concerning Predestination This is the most extensive list I have come across, definitely worth checking out, however as long as it is, it is not a complete list. Often we Calvinists will refer to Romans Chapter 9 and Ephesians Chapter 1, but as can be seen from the list referenced above, it is taught all throughout Scripture.

Predestination Search Results This is a list of results from the Monergism site, leading to a wealth of solid resources on predestination

Predestination An article written by Matt Slick of CARM on predestination.

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner Download a free PDF of Loraine Boettner's classic book "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination"

As for an overview of the doctrine of predestination so far as historical theology goes:

""Predestination does not form an important subject of discussion in history until the time of Augustine. Earlier Church Fathers allude to it, but do not as yet seem to have a very clear conception of it. On the whole they regard it as the prescience of God with reference to human deeds, on the basis of which He determines their future destiny. Hence it was possible for Pelagius to appeal to some of those early Fathers. “According to Pelagius,” says Wiggers, “foreordination to salvation or to damnation, is founded on prescience. Consequently he did not admit an ‘absolute predestination,’ but in every respect a ‘conditional predestination’.”[Augustinism and Pelagianism, p. 252.] At first, Augustine himself was inclined to this view, but deeper reflection on the sovereign character of the good pleasure of God led him to see that predestination was in no way dependent on God’s foreknowledge of human actions, but was rather the basis of the divine foreknowledge. His representation of reprobation is not as unambiguous as it might be. Some of his statements are to the effect that in predestination God foreknows what He will Himself do, while He is also able to foreknow what He will not do, as all sins; and speak of the elect as subjects of predestination, and of the reprobate as subjects of the divine foreknowledge.[Cf. Wiggers, ibid., p. 239; Dijk. Om’t Eeuwig Welbehagen, pp. 39f.; Polman, De Praedestinatieleer van Augustinus, Thomas van Aquino, en Calvijn, pp. 149ff.] In other passages, however, he also speaks of the reprobate as subjects of predestination, so that there can be no doubt about it that he taught a double predestination. However, he recognized their difference, consisting in this that God did not predestinate unto damnation and the means unto it in the same way as He did to salvation, and that predestination unto life is purely sovereign, while predestination unto eternal death is also judicial and takes account of man’s sin.[Cf. Dyk, ibid., p. 40; Polman, ibid., p. 158.]

Augustine’s view found a great deal of opposition, particularly in France, where the semi-Pelagians, while admitting the need of divine grace unto salvation, reasserted the doctrine of a predestination based on foreknowledge. And they who took up the defense of Augustine felt constrained to yield on some important points. They failed to do justice to the doctrine of a double predestination. Only Gottschalk and a few of his friends maintained this, but his voice was soon silenced, and Semi-Pelagianism gained the upper hand at least among the leaders of the Church. Toward the end of the Middle Ages it became quite apparent that the Roman Catholic Church would allow a great deal of latitude in the doctrine of predestination. As long as its teachers maintained that God willed the salvation of all men, and not merely of the elect, they could with Thomas Aquinas move in the direction of Augustinianism in the doctrine of predestination, or with Molina follow the course of Semi-Pelagianism, as they thought best. This means that even in the case of those who, like Thomas Aquinas, believed in an absolute and double predestination, this doctrine could not be carried through consistently, and could not be made determinative of the rest of their theology.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century all advocated the strictest doctrine of predestination. This is even true of Melanchton in his earliest period. Luther accepted the doctrine of absolute predestination, though the conviction that God willed that all men should be saved caused him to soft-pedal the doctrine of predestination somewhat later in life. It gradually disappeared from Lutheran theology, which now regards it either wholly or in part (reprobation) as conditional. Calvin firmly maintained the Augustinian doctrine of an absolute double predestination. At the same time he, in his defense of the doctrine against Pighius, stressed the fact that the decree respecting the entrance of sin into the world was a permissive decree, and that the decree of reprobation should be so construed that God was not made the author of sin nor in any way responsible for it. The Reformed Confessions are remarkably consistent in embodying this doctrine, though they do not all state it with equal fulness and precision. As a result of the Arminian assault on the doctrine, the Canons of Dort contain a clear and detailed statement of it. In churches of the Arminian type the doctrine of absolute predestination has been supplanted by the doctrine of conditional predestination." - Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Part One: The Works of God, II Predestination, The Doctrine of Predestination in History

"Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200): This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man.8 But He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial, on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land—on all, in short, a nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them—while He formed all things that were made by His Word that never wearies. ANF: Vol. I, Against Heresies, Book 2:2:4.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215): From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled.186 For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous. ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XVII.

The best treatment of this subject of which I am aware, is found in John Gill's classic work "The Cause of God and Truth (PDF)", The Cause of God and Truth (Kindle, Epub), The Cause of God and Truth (Html).

PART 3

CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION

Introduction

SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Ignatius
SECTION 3. - Justin
SECTION 4. - Minutius Felix
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Caecillius Thascius Cyprianus
SECTION 10. - Novatianus
SECTION 11. - Athanasius
SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 14. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
SECTION 15. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 17. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 18. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 19. - Hieronymus

Finally an interesting article by Paul Helm: Aquinas on Predestination. This should all be enough to keep a person busy for some time.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I would like to also bring attention to an outstanding article by B.B. Warfield entitled Predestination in the Reformed Confessions in which if you scroll through, you'll notice a massive collection of quotes from Reformed confessions on predestination. Here is a short quote from the article:

"Certainly reprobation is treated as an essential part of the doctrine of predestination in all the Reformed creeds in which it is dealt with at all. These include not merely certain of Calvin's own compositions - the Genevan Confession (1537), the Genevan Consensus (1552), Calvin's Articles (15-), the Gallican Confession (1559); and certain others that may be thought to derive in a special way from him - the Confession of the English Exiles (1558), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Lambeth (1595) and Irish Ariticles (1615), the Canons of Dort (1618) and the Swiss Form of Consent (1675); but even such creeds as the Hungarian (1557) and the Brandenburg Confessions, Sigismund's (1614), the Leipzig Colloquy (1631) and the Declaration of Thorn (1645) which, with all their effort to soften the expression of the doctrine in its harder-looking features, do not dream of denying, ignoring, or doubting that it is, as the obverse of election, an essential element of the doctrine of predestination. In all these documents reprobation is treated as involved in the very definition of predestination as a soteriological decree, or in the doctrine of "election" itself as a selection out of a mass. It is not treated with equal detail, however, in them all. It is especially to the Genevan Confession (1537), the Genevan Consensus (1552), the Articles of Calvin (15-), the Gallican and Belgic Confessions (1559 and 1561), the Lambeth and Irish Articles (1595 and 1615), the Westminster Confession (1646), the Canons of Dort (1618), and the Swiss Form of Consent (1675) - together with the softened Brandenburg Confessions - that we must go to find its full exposition. There is, nevertheless, no reason, and indeed no room, to fancy that those documents which speak less fully of the doctrine, or do not even allude to it, occupy any other attitude towards it than the common Reformed attitude, revealed in the Confessions in which it is explicitly mentioned or fully developed. It is rather to be presumed that the common doctrine is presupposed when it does not come to explicit mention: and every indication in the creeds themselves bears this presumption out." - B.B. Warfield
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"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



Should be noted that Luther's followers rejected double presdestination, the Confessions denying it as an error, and some of his other works appear to reject it too.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,489
10,856
New Jersey
✟1,341,298.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Should be noted that Luther's followers rejected double presdestination, the Confessions denying it as an error, and some of his other works appear to reject it too.

Everyone seems to agree that Luther got more careful about expressing it over time. There seem to be different interpretations about what that means. Did he change his mind? Did he decide that it was too dangerous to talk about?

Luther makes a clear distinction between the revealed will of God and the hidden will of God. Reprobation is part of his hidden will. It is dangerous to speculate on. But it's a bit unclear to me whether this is a pastoral statement or a theological statement.

That is, it was obviously clear to him that predestination has dangers pastorally. It can easily lead to despair. There is good reason to tell people that they should trust God's promises, and not try to find out whether they are elect independently from their relationship with Jesus. So there are pastoral reasons for discouraging speculation on whether particular people are elect.

But much of the Lutheran tradition seems to extend this to theology as well. Many Christians find that they became followers of Jesus through God's call, and not through any particular merit of their own. It is easy to draw from this the logical conclusion that if people become Christ's only through election, then those who do not were not elect, so reprobation as well as salvation is God's will. But, in the understanding of much of the Lutheran tradition, this is going beyond what is revealed, and is speculating on the hidden things of God. Hence it's not just that individuals should avoid speculating about whether they are elect, but that we should avoid speculating about the principle of whether God decides to damn people.

It's my impression from limited reading that it is not entirely clear when Luther's speaking of the hiddenness of God is pastoral and when it is theological. At least in the later Luther. Again, it's my impression that any changes he made were likely driven by pastoral concerns. But that doesn't meant that they didn't have theological implications.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Everyone seems to agree that Luther got more careful about expressing it over time. There seem to be different interpretations about what that means. Did he change his mind? Did he decide that it was too dangerous to talk about?

Luther makes a clear distinction between the revealed will of God and the hidden will of God. Reprobation is part of his hidden will. It is dangerous to speculate on. But it's a bit unclear to me whether this is a pastoral statement or a theological statement.

That is, it was obviously clear to him that predestination has dangers pastorally. It can easily lead to despair. There is good reason to tell people that they should trust God's promises, and not try to find out whether they are elect independently from their relationship with Jesus. So there are pastoral reasons for discouraging speculation on whether particular people are elect.

But much of the Lutheran tradition seems to extend this to theology as well. Many Christians find that they became followers of Jesus through God's call, and not through any particular merit of their own. It is easy to draw from this the logical conclusion that if people become Christ's only through election, then those who do not were not elect, so reprobation as well as salvation is God's will. But, in the understanding of much of the Lutheran tradition, this is going beyond what is revealed, and is speculating on the hidden things of God. Hence it's not just that individuals should avoid speculating about whether they are elect, but that we should avoid speculating about the principle of whether God decides to damn people.

It's my impression from limited reading that it is not entirely clear when Luther's speaking of the hiddenness of God is pastoral and when it is theological. At least in the later Luther. Again, it's my impression that any changes he made were likely driven by pastoral concerns. But that doesn't meant that they didn't have theological implications.

Your assesment here is pretty good, I would say. The pastoral concern is an emphasis in Lutheran theology and in the Confessions. People swimming in the pool of the whole determinist vs.libertarian/High Medieval paradigm debate end up having to make concessions in one way or another, and erring on the side of the pastoral seems like a fair call, all things being equal.

Trying to sort out Luther himself on this issue is not nearly as important today as understanding the Confessional Lutheran position. Luther, writing over decades, like most theologians will change his mind and there is ample supply of contradictory statements and perhaps even things he wished he had never said. The Confessions, of course, are the agreed upon position that won't change (merely adherence to them does)

But having said that, the matter of determinism as a philosophy itself and the influence it has on Renaissance exegesis is (to me) a far more interesting study. As a pastor, I don't have a lot of time to explore such topics, but I appreciate those who plough that field. The last book I read on this whole matter was Geisler's, which was interesting.

Ever heard of the "Warm Cookie" position on predestination/election?
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,477
3,736
Canada
✟880,720.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
In the mornings I read my Bible and Richard Baxter's practical works. In the evenings I read Gill, found this tonight:

"Mr. Wesley would have an election found out which does not imply reprobation; but what election that can be, the wit of man cannot devise; for if some are chosen, others must be rejected; and Mr. Wesley's notion of election itself implies it; for if, as he says, "election means a divine appointment of some men to eternal happiness;" then others must be left out of that choice, and rejected."

7. The Doctrine of Predestination Stated
 
Upvote 0