"Double" Predestination

[frumanchu]

[size=+3]"DOUBLE" PREDESTINATION[/size]

[size=+1]R. C. Sproul[/size]

"A horrible decree ...." "Most ruthless statement. . . ." "A terrible theological theory. . . ." "An illegitimate inference of logic. . ." These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.



The "Double" of Predestination The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the "double" aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God’s sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.
The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term "double" has been set in contrast with a notion of "single" predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

Viewing double predestination as a distinction from single predestination may be seen in the work of Emil Brunner. Brunner argues that it is impossible to deduce the doctrine of double predestination from the Bible. He says:

The Bible does not contain the doctrine of double predestination, although in a few isolated passages it seems to come close to it. The Bible teaches that all salvation is based on the eternal Election of God in Jesus Christ, and that this eternal Election springs wholly and entirely from God’s sovereign freedom. But wherever this happens, there is no mention of a decree of rejection. The Bible teaches that alongside of the elect there are those who are not elect, who are "reprobate," and indeed that the former are the minority and the latter the majority; but in these passages the point at issue is not eternal election but "separation" or "selection" in judgment. Thus the Bible teaches that there will be a double outcome of world history, salvation and ruin, Heaven and hell. But while salvation is explicitly taught as derived from the eternal election, the further conclusion is not drawn that destruction is also based upon a corresponding decree of doom.1​

Here Brunner argues passionately, though not coherently, for "single" predestination. There is a decree of election, but not of reprobation. Predestination has only one side—election. In this context, double predestination is "avoided" (or evaded) by the dialectical method. The dialectical method which sidesteps logical consistency has had a pervasive influence on contemporary discussions of double predestination. A growing antipathy to logic in theology is manifesting itself widely. Even G. C. Berkouwer seems allergic to the notion that logic should play a role in developing our understanding of election.
It is one thing to construct a theology of election (or any other kind of theology) purely on the basis of rational speculation. It is quite another to utilize logic in seeking a coherent understanding of biblical revelation. Brunner seems to abhor both.

Let us examine the "logic" of Brunner’s position. He maintains that (1) there is a divine decree of election that is eternal; (2) that divine decree is particular in scope ("There are those who are not elect"); (3) yet there is no decree of reprobation. Consider the implications. If God has predestined some but not all to election, does it not follow by what Luther called a "resistless logic" that some are not predestined to election? If, as Brunner maintains, all salvation is based upon the eternal election of God and not all men are elect from eternity, does that not mean that from eternity there are non-elect who most certainly will not be saved? Has not God chosen from eternity not to elect some people? If so, then we have an eternal choice of non-election which we call reprobation. The inference is clear and necessary, yet some shrink from drawing it.
I once heard the case for "single" predestination articulated by a prominent Lutheran theologian in the above manner. He admitted to me that the conclusion of reprobation was logically inescapable, but he refused to draw the inference, holding steadfastly to "single" predestination. Such a notion of predestination is manifest nonsense.
Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: "Now tell me your theology without the dialectic, so I can understand it!" Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner’s view of predestination the only way to avoid "double" predestination is with the use of "double-talk."
Thus, "single" predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.
The much greater issue of "double" predestination is the issue over the relationship between election and reprobation with respect to the nature of the decrees and the nature of the divine outworking of the decrees. If "double" predestination means a symmetrical view of predestination, then we must reject the notion. But such a view of "double" predestination would be a caricature and a serious distortion of the Reformed doctrine of predestination.



The Double-Predestination Distortion The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.



The Reformed View of Predestination In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."2 Luther continued:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God’s working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God’s own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2​

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all—in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.



The Reformed Confessions By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)​

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)​

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)​

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good. . . . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: "What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly." (Art. VIII)​

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. Ill—Art. VI and VII)

​

These examples selected from confessional formulas of the Reformation indicate the care with which the doctrine of double predestination has been treated. The asymmetrical expression of the "double" aspect has been clearly maintained. This is in keeping with the care exhibited consistently throughout the history of the Church. The same kind of careful delineation can be seen in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettini, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, et al.



Foreordination to Reprobation In spite of the distinction of positive-negative with respect to the mode of God’s activity toward the elect and the reprobate, we are left with the thorny question of God predestinating the reprobate. If God in any sense predestines or foreordains reprobation, doesn’t this make the rejection of Christ by the reprobate absolutely certain and inevitable? And if the reprobate’s reprobation is certain in light of predestination, doesn’t this make God responsible for the sin of the reprobate? We must answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second in the negative.
If God foreordains anything, it is absolutely certain that what He foreordains will come to pass. The purpose of God can never be frustrated. Even God’s foreknowledge or prescience makes future events certain with respect to time. That is to say, if God knows on Tuesday that I will drive to Pittsburgh on Friday, then there is no doubt that, come Friday, I will drive to Pittsburgh. Otherwise God’s knowledge would have been in error. Yet, there is a significant difference between God’s knowing that I would drive to Pittsburgh and God’s ordaining that I would do so. Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it, but He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining. But in either case, the future event would be certain with respect to time and the knowledge of God.

Luther, in discussing the traitorous act of Judas, says:

Have I not put on record in many books that I am talking about necessity of immutability? I know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ willingly. My point is that this act of the will in Judas was certainly and infallibly bound to take place, if God foreknew it. That is to say (if my meaning is not yet grasped), I distinguish two necessities: one I call necessity of force (necessitatem violentam), referring to action; the other I call necessity of infallibility (necessitatem infallibilem), referring to time. Let him who hears me understand that I am speaking of the latter, not the former; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but whether it was infallibly bound to come to pass that Judas should willingly betray Christ at a time predetermined by God.3​

We see then, that what God knows in advance comes to pass by necessity or infallibly or necessity of immutability. But what about His foreordaining or predestinating what comes to pass? If God foreordains reprobation does this not obliterate the distinction between positive-negative and involve a necessity of force? If God foreordains reprobation does this not mean that God forces, compels, or coerces the reprobate to sin? Again the answer must be negative.
If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate’s being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion. Berkouwer states the boundaries of the discussion clearly:

On the one hand, we want to maintain the freedom of God in election, and on the other hand, we want to avoid any conclusion which would make God the cause of sin and unbelief.4​

God’s decree of reprobation, given in light of the fall, is a decree to justice, not injustice. In this view the biblical a priori that God is neither the cause nor the author of sin is safeguarded. Turrettini says, "We have proved the object of predestination to be man considered as fallen, sin ought necessarily to be supposed as the condition in him who is reprobated, no less than him who is elected."5 He writes elsewhere:

The negative act includes two, both preterition, by which in the election of some as well to glory as to grace, he neglected and slighted others, which is evident from the event of election, and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery; which, however, is as to be understood, 1. That they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them, nor are immediately deprived of all God’s favor, but only of the saving and vivifying which is the fruit of election, 2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness​

The importance of viewing the decree of reprobation in light of the fall is seen in the on-going discussions between Reformed theologians concerning infra- and supra-lapsarianism. Both viewpoints include the fall in God’s decree. Both view the decree of preterition in terms of divine permission. The real issue between the positions concerns the logical order of the decrees. In the supralapsarian view the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall. In the infralapsarian view the decree to permit the fall is logically prior to the decree to election and reprobation.
Though this writer favors the infralapsarian view along the lines developed by Turrettini, it is important to note that both views see election and reprobation in light of the fall and avoid the awful conclusion that God is the author of sin. Both views protect the boundaries Berkouwer mentions.
Only in a positive-positive schema of predestination does double-predestination leave us with a capricious deity whose sovereign decrees manifest a divine tyranny. Reformed theology has consistently eschewed such a hyper-supralapsarianism. Opponents of Calvinism, however, persistently caricature the straw man of hyper-supralapsarianism, doing violence to the Reformed faith and assaulting the dignity of God’s sovereignty.

We rejoice in the biblical clarity which reveals God’s sovereignty in majestic terms. We rejoice in the knowledge of divine mercy and grace that go to such extremes to redeem the elect. We rejoice that God’s glory and honor are manifested both in His mercy and in His justice.

Soli Deo Gloria.


[size=+1]Footnotes[/size]

1. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950), p. 326. 2. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell,1957),p. 206. 3. Ibid., p. 220. 4.G.C. Berkouwer, Divine Election (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960), p. 181. 5.Francois Turrettini, Theological institutes (Typescript manuscript of lnstitutio Theologiae Elencticae, 3 vols., 1679—1685), trans. George Musgrave Giger. D.D., p. 98. 6. Ibid., p. 97.
​

[size=+1]Author [/size]Dr. R.C. Sproul, theologian, minister and teacher, is chairman of the board for Ligonier Ministries. He is widely known for his videocassette series on topics of theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. A graduate of Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological seminary, and the Free University of amsterdam, Dr. Sproul is professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida. His many books include Chosen by God, The Holiness of God, Not a Chance, Grace Unknown, Willing to Believe and more recently Faith Alone.

 

[CCWoody]

[size=+3]"DOUBLE" PREDESTINATION[/size]

[size=+1]R. C. Sproul[/size]

"A horrible decree ...." "Most ruthless statement. . . ." "A terrible theological theory. . . ." "An illegitimate inference of logic. . ." These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.

Ok, I'll come and play! I'll even state for the record that I could be characterized as an absolute Double Predestinarian. But, hey, I'm just naive enough to actually believe the Bible when it says that some were actually "made to be taken and destroyed."

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

The Lord has made all things for himself, yes, even the wicked for the Day of doom.

 

[frumanchu]

But, hey, I'm just naive enough to actually believe the Bible when it says that some were actually "made to be taken and destroyed."

I assume you mean this in the infralapsarian sense

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Fru;
This is only MHO;
The only predestination I will admit to is that of being predestined to be conformed to His likeness. There is not any scriptures I know of that would say that men are predestined to distruction. So why I should I assume that this mans logic is correct after all it is only logic and not necessarily that of the Fathers. It would seem to me that men's logic can bring men nothing but unprovable theories.
A quote if I may;

Here Brunner argues passionately, though not coherently

Quite frankly Mr sproul is not being fair in this statement. Stating that Mr Brunner is not coherent. This in my opinion is a low blow,Mr Brunner didn't relate any of Mr sproul qualities. Although sproul's is imagined because he can't stand the idea of anyone not agreeing with him.

Some of the most heated conversations could be avoided without comments like this.

Mr CC Woody said this;

Ok, I'll come and play! I'll even state for the record that I could be characterized as an absolute Double Predestinarian. But, hey, I'm just naive enough to actually believe the Bible when it says that some were actually "made to be taken and destroyed."

Pardon me but;
2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

This not speaking about the the unsaved but those who have had enlightenment and believed in Christ and then turned from God of there own freewill twisting scriptures to make it say what they want so they may do what they want searing there own conscience. Read the whole chapter you'll see what I mean. They made them selves ready for distruction because of there falling away.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[CCWoody]

Mr CC Woody
Read the whole chapter...

In Christ;
Romanbear

I've watched you post on a few threads now, so I'll tell you what. You knock off the smug condescension and you will not drag this thread into the gutter.

I thought I'd get that out of the way now so that I can come back when I have some time and actually respond to your post and see if I can get you to actually acknowledge the verse which plainly and unapologetically claims that these false prophets and teachers were made to be taken and destroyed.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi CC Woody;
A quote from you;

I've watched you post on a few threads now, so I'll tell you what. You knock off the smug condescension and you will not drag this thread into the gutter.
I thought I'd get that out of the way now so that I can come back when I have some time and actually respond to your post and see if I can get you to actually acknowledge the verse which plainly and unapologetically claims that these false prophets and teachers were made to be taken and destroyed.

Your attacking me for this statement;

Pardon me but;
2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

This not speaking about the the unsaved but those who have had enlightenment and believed in Christ and then turned from God of there own freewill twisting scriptures to make it say what they want so they may do what they want searing there own conscience. Read the whole chapter you'll see what I mean. They made them selves ready for distruction because of there falling away.
In Christ;
Romanbear

Just how is it that you see this as smug and condesending.You hate me without cause. Then you miss judge me and insult me as well. Thank God all Calvinist aren't like you.
Romanbear

 

[calgal]

Attack? Not even close. You are a bit angry about his declaration. You are rather condescending and that is a statement, not the same as an ad homenim. You remind me a lot of a Mormon bishop I knew while in that cult who overpersonalized and got really overly bent out of shape. Woody was correct (if a little enthusiastic) and based on correspondence where you told me that I was likely to relapse into a cult (an opinion not shared by God or by my pastor and elders). I find that an attack and an extremely offensive comment. An apology from you would be surprising Romanbear but would be the christlike thing to do. And if you get over the persecution complex (another Mormon trait), you would be a nicer and happier person.

Hi CC Woody;
A quote from you;

Your attacking me for this statement;


Just how is it that you see this as smug and condesending.You hate me without cause. Then you miss judge me and insult me as well. Thank God all Calvinist aren't like you.
Romanbear

 

[MizDoulos]

Note to everyone: This thread is deteriorating into personal attacks and will be closed if they do not stop. May I remind everyone to respect each other's opinions and use your private message option to resolve personal conflicts. Do not bring them to the public arena as seen several times in these forums. If personal attacks continue, not only will the thread be closed but warnings will be issued.

Please stay on topic and respond kindly to each other.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[noflame]

 

[Received]

I'll only make comments on this:

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice.

"...the notion that a creature born imperfect, nay, born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned [to everlasting torment], is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain. There is but one thing lower than deliberately to believe such a lie, and that is to worship the God of whom it is believed." -- George MacDonald

In our fervent spirit of theological apprehension, we have foregone the practical, a priori truths that should be the foundation of our hermeneutics. If we allow our common understanding of God to hold in place our theology, we will have no problems. The process of discovering the essentials of the divine is quite easy:

"...God is love." -- 1 John 4:8
"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails..." -- 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (NASB)

Not only do we comprend from these simple verses that God is not merely one who conditionalizes His love, but is one who is love; we also grasp the simple nature of love itself. God, who creates men, either loves them into existence, or He does not. The latter is an absurdity. Paul declares in Acts 17 that we are His offspring.

For God to create a creature with in the psychological and spiritual darkness that sin entails, and refuse to love Him, is more than unjust -- it is repulsive. I am simply dumbfounded how many here could hold that the many scriptures that seem to point to God's controlling of an individual in a specific task means not only this, but that the man who is manipulated is thereby responsible. I believe there is middle ground for all of our claims in scripture: man is created in God's image, regardless of the fall, in possession of a will -- regardless of its radical perversion -- and God, who is just, rewards men accordingly. It is according to mercy that He establishes this justice (Psalm 62:12).

I hold that there is something in man that is not man; something congenital, not of his working, and therefore something he is enslaved to. The claim that men who continue to sin are therefore deserving of Hell is nothing less than fallicious; this is precisely what it means to be a slave to sin. For God to create such a being and leave him be in such a state, and thereby condemn him, is tantamount to God condemning Himself. Without the contingency of response in light of the message of Jesus, man can do nothing to win over the powers of sin; though he may hold fast to the truth of the law (imperfectly, of course). Jesus did not come to save men from some shady eschatological punishment; His name was Jesus because He should save men from their sins. The state of being in the ontological present for the unredeemed is the torment. And men who will have nothing of Jesus are given an eternity of this. Those who find themselves in Hell, if indeed an eternal Hell exists, are there by their own admittance. Dante, though exaggerated in his view, was correct. To escape the immutable love of God is itself a feat so horrendously spectacular that it deserves nothing less than the very wish of the subject who has performed such a feat: estrangement from the Good that would have nothing less than to embrace it's soul for an eternity of metaphysical bliss -- the realization of everything beautiful, forever comprehending that which was not comprehended before. Anything less than this formula is to lie outside of omnipotence.

Those who practice the truth come to the light, Jesus says (John 3:20,21). There is obviously something with man's character that enables him to respond to the truth, regardless of his depravity. This, indeed, is what predestination can be based on. This is not predestination based on works; it is based on capacity to receive. Those who are not of this classification are condemned, and thereby used by God as vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, as Paul states in Romans 9.

It seems to me that the reformed theological stance is completely opposite of this form of theology. While I would hold that we must view election in light of the essentials of the divine, calvinism holds that we must view the essentials of the divine in light of election. This is an epistemological bias. Mercy and justice are not two seperate forms of action; they are of one and the same foundation: love -- God's essence. It is us who determine whether this takes the form of wrath (justice), or grace (mercy). Nowhere in scripture is the idea of God being reconciled to us mentioned; contrariwise, it is us who are reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).

God's essence is love and this therefore idealizes His wrath; or God is wrath and we take it from there. Anything else is logical contradiction. Hell is a place for "rebels, successful to the end," as Lewis would have it.

 

[Gamecock]

Romanbear,

I am a new member and this is my first post, so please be gentle

The only predestination I will admit to is that of being predestined to be conformed to His likeness. There is not any scriptures I know of that would say that men are predestined to distruction. So why I should I assume that this mans logic is correct after all it is only logic and not necessarily that of the Fathers. It would seem to me that men's logic can bring men nothing but unprovable theories.

Help me out with what you are saying is light of the following passages:

a. We (Christians) are predestined to believe, Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, etc...
b. We all share the guilt of Adam and Eve....(original sin)
c. Only those who God gives to Christ will be saved. John 6:44

These passages indicate that only those who are predestined will be saved. If that is the case, it would appear that all others are predestined to damnation.

 

[nobdysfool]

"...the notion that a creature born imperfect, nay, born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned [to everlasting torment], is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain. There is but one thing lower than deliberately to believe such a lie, and that is to worship the God of whom it is believed." -- George MacDonald

It seems to me that MacDonald is saying that somehow it is wrong for God to punish wrong-doers. It flies in the face of Romans 1, and seeks to portray those who understand God to be a God of Justice, a Holy God in Whose Presence Sin may not dwell or even survive, as well as a God of Mercy, Who chooses those whom He will save by the counsel of His own Will and for His own reasons and Glory, to be worshipping a capricious, cruel, changeable and wholly man-like god of the accuser's own creation. In short, MacDonald has sadly mis-represented God, to further his own idea of man being a "victim" of things he did not cause and cannot control. And control is the underlying theme, not control for God or by God (Sovereignty), but control by and of man over his own destiny.

"...God is love." -- 1 John 4:8....

Not only do we comprend from these simple verses that God is not merely one who conditionalizes His love, but is one who is love; we also grasp the simple nature of love itself. God, who creates men, either loves them into existence, or He does not. The latter is an absurdity. Paul declares in Acts 17 that we are His offspring.

For God to create a creature with in the psychological and spiritual darkness that sin entails, and refuse to love Him, is more than unjust -- it is repulsive. I am simply dumbfounded how many here could hold that the many scriptures that seem to point to God's controlling of an individual in a specific task means not only this, but that the man who is manipulated is thereby responsible. I believe there is middle ground for all of our claims in scripture: man is created in God's image, regardless of the fall, in possession of a will -- regardless of its radical perversion -- and God, who is just, rewards men accordingly. It is according to mercy that He establishes this justice (Psalm 62:12).

God "loves" men into existence? Scripture, please. God created Adam and Eve, and decreed that they, as all other living things, would reproduce after their own kind. God did not create you or me directly, we were created in the sense that we were in Adam from the beginning. God is He who gives life, to be sure, but we were brought into existence by the process He decreed in the beginning: reproduction.

God did not create man as a fallen being, man CHOSE to be fallen, despite the warning of judgment. It is on that basis that God can Justly send a man to Hell. All sinners are Rightly and Justly condemned for their sins. Man is a born sinner, conceived in sin, and sinning from his first breath to his last. Man is not a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is a sinner.

You've got God getting all sentimental and sloppy over the fact that man keeps reproducing, and therefore God is REQUIRED to love each and every person on the face of the earth. Scripture indicates that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau. God commanded the Hebrews to destroy utterly the inhabitants of the Promised land when they came to possess it. In your theology, God HAD to love those people, even though they hated Him, and sinned greatly against Him. How do you justify God's command to utterly destroy those whom God surely loved so much? Remember, MacDonald doesn't think that man should be punished for his sins, man is a "victim of circumstance".

I hold that there is something in man that is not man; something congenital, not of his working, and therefore something he is enslaved to. The claim that men who continue to sin are therefore deserving of Hell is nothing less than fallicious; this is precisely what it means to be a slave to sin. For God to create such a being and leave him be in such a state, and thereby condemn him, is tantamount to God condemning Himself. Without the contingency of response in light of the message of Jesus, man can do nothing to win over the powers of sin; though he may hold fast to the truth of the law (imperfectly, of course). Jesus did not come to save men from some shady eschatological punishment; His name was Jesus because He should save men from their sins. The state of being in the ontological present for the unredeemed is the torment. And men who will have nothing of Jesus are given an eternity of this. Those who find themselves in Hell, if indeed an eternal Hell exists, are there by their own admittance. Dante, though exaggerated in his view, was correct. To escape the immutable love of God is itself a feat so horrendously spectacular that it deserves nothing less than the very wish of the subject who has performed such a feat: estrangement from the Good that would have nothing less than to embrace it's soul for an eternity of metaphysical bliss -- the realization of everything beautiful, forever comprehending that which was not comprehended before. Anything less than this formula is to lie outside of omnipotence.

You miss the unalterable fact that God is not obligated to rescue man from his fallen condition, because it was not God who put him there, but man himself. God's Justice demands such. His Mercy is not an obligation, but a gift. It is God's to give, as He Wills, not man's to demand as he wills.

Those who practice the truth come to the light, Jesus says (John 3:20,21). There is obviously something with man's character that enables him to respond to the truth, regardless of his depravity. This, indeed, is what predestination can be based on. This is not predestination based on works; it is based on capacity to receive. Those who are not of this classification are condemned, and thereby used by God as vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, as Paul states in Romans 9.

What you have said here is that God chooses men based on qualities within certain men that obligate God to choose them. Therefore, the man has something within himself that God MUST respond to. But what does man have that God has not given him? You're arguing for the heretical idea that every man has a "spark of the divine" in him. That's Pelagianism at its core.

It seems to me that the reformed theological stance is completely opposite of this form of theology. While I would hold that we must view election in light of the essentials of the divine, calvinism holds that we must view the essentials of the divine in light of election. This is an epistemological bias. Mercy and justice are not two seperate forms of action; they are of one and the same foundation: love -- God's essence. It is us who determine whether this takes the form of wrath (justice), or grace (mercy). Nowhere in scripture is the idea of God being reconciled to us mentioned; contrariwise, it is us who are reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Well, you're right about that. Reformed theology is completely opposite the brand of theology you're espousing here. Reformed theology is the theology of the Bible. What you are arguing for here is Pelagianism, pure and simple. God's various attributes are not heirarchal in existence, but co-equal. God's Justice is born of His Holiness. His Mercy is born of His Love. Mercy is meaningless without Justice. You argue for God's Mercy, not realizing that it is not an obligation on His part, nor is it due anyone. The very meaning of Mercy is nearly identical to Grace: unmerited favor. Mercy is granted, not for recognition of any redeeming or mitigating condition or inate goodness in man, but because of the total lack of such qualities. You argue on the one hand for man not being responsible for his condition, and therefore at least somewhat innocent, and then want to apply God's Mercy, which cannot be applied based on the reasons you have argued for, because Mercy is not based on what man is, but what he is not.

God's essence is love and this therefore idealizes His wrath; or God is wrath and we take it from there. Anything else is logical contradiction. Hell is a place for "rebels, successful to the end," as Lewis would have it.

How does God's Love idealize His Wrath?

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Gamecock;

a. We (Christians) are predestined to believe, Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, etc...
b. We all share the guilt of Adam and Eve....(original sin)
c. Only those who God gives to Christ will be saved. John 6:44

In my humble opinion,none of these passages say that some are predestined to distruction. I didn't see where it says we are predestined to believe.

Peter says it's not God's will that any perish.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God is not willing that any perish then predestination to distruction would be God, going against His own will. I don't believe God would go against His own will.

Jn 6:44 is true but we are not given to Christ until the wedding of Christ to the Church and that takes place in Heaven. The reason I say this is because If we are given to Him now in our present state then we are no virgin.we are not without spot because we all still sin.We will not be without sin until we are changed. We have to be changed in the twinkling of an eye first,Then and only then can we be presented to Christ with out spot or wrinkle.I believe that although I'm saved I also believe that my salvation depends on my continuing in Him. I have to kling to Him.I have to depend on Him. As a an old gosple tune says; I'm leaning on His everlasting LOVE. Leaning on Jesus This is not a matter of works for Salvation but one of dependance.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[Romanbear]

Nobodiesfool;

You've got God getting all sentimental and sloppy over the fact that man keeps reproducing, and therefore God is REQUIRED to love each and every person on the face of the earth.

My Reply ;
Did God say that he love only some. No He didn't. He said
"Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,"
He didn't say he Loved some of the world. But the world. God is very Affectionate towards man and does love all of His creation. You're wrong when you say He doesn't.
The word world is still all inclusive in this text. It was all inclusive a year ago and a thousand years ago.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[Gamecock]

In my humble opinion,none of these passages say that some are predestined to distruction. I didn't see where it says we are predestined to believe.

Peter says it's not God's will that any perish.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

It seems that in the totality of Scripture, God has always had hi chosen people, both individuals and groups.

It is clear that Paul is talking about the "fairness" of God's choice begining in Romans 9:18. If God creates one person for Holy purposes and another for unholy, that equates to election.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it kindda sounds like you are advocating universal redemption. I mean if it's not God's will that any should perish, why doesn't he let everyone into heaven???

 

[nobdysfool]

Nobodiesfool;

My Reply ;
Did God say that he love only some. No He didn't. He said
"Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world,"
He didn't say he Loved some of the world. But the world. God is very Affectionate towards man and does love all of His creation. You're wrong when you say He doesn't.
The word world is still all inclusive in this text. It was all inclusive a year ago and a thousand years ago.
In Christ;
Romanbear

The very next sentence in my quote, which you chose not to include, is one that must be taken into account. "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." Also, why did God command the children of Israel to kill the inhabitants of Canaan? Didn't God love them? If He did, how could He tell one group of people whom He loved to kill another group of people whom He also loved? God so loved the world, yet we are told "Love not the world, nor things of the world. If any man love the world, the love of God is not in Him."

You must qualify what is being said here. 2 Peter 3:9 has been explained to you time and time again, as referring to the Elect. The context is crystal clear on this, both in the Greek, and in English. It is not referring to the world in general when Peter says that God wills that none should perish. Any honest scholar would have to come to that conclusion, because of the way it is written. Words mean things, and sentence structure also means something. You can't just dismiss it with a wave of your hand as being of no consequence. The context defines the meaning.

 

[CCWoody]

Hey, Romanbear, if you are going to call someone Satan, at least have the courage to say it out in the light where everyone can examine it. After all, there is nothing that is hidden that will not be revealed. You should be nicer to the Lord's anointed keepers of His Predestinarian truths.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Nobodysfool;
A quote from you;

The very next sentence in my quote, which you chose not to include, is one that must be taken into account. "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

I believe that we have discussed this on another board somewhere.
My Question;
Why do you think God hated Esau? IMHO He hated him because of unbelief and disrespect of his fathers inheritance for a bowl of soup.But even still God wouldn't have turned him away if he had repented...
As far as the cannanites they worshiped other Gods. Sin is what God hates Unbelief is probably what the reason was.When God hates it's because of sin. The Bible says He hates a liar but that doesn't mean that lying is unforgivable, or that God doesn't want your repentance.When we hate it's not for no reason at all we always have a reason. God IMHO can both hate and Love the same person. I believe He is heart broken when we don't love Him, and repent of our sins.

The cannanites were suppose to be killed but the Jews couldn't do it. Why do you think this was? Was it because they wanted to disobey God or was it because they didn't have the taste for mass killing, or they didn't have that level of hate. I believe the latter. After all if God has perfect Love His hate has also got to be perfect.....

Funny thing about the killing of another person it can be addictive with some men in war. Some really got a kick out of it in Nam. Stoned out of there minds on God knows what. Killing the innocent along with the guilty. For me though just the thought of taking anothers life made me sick enough to heave. I guess there are some who got it from me, but I'd rather not know it if they did... The point I'm trying to make is that just because you are told to do this in war it still doesn't make it right if you have a conscience. Once you take a mans life. There are no more chances for him. I'm not saying the Jews were more loving than God I'm just saying they weren't as hateful as God, because there Hate hadn't been perfected. It's hard for man to understand a Love Hate relationship of God.

God so loved the world, yet we are told "Love not the world, nor things of the world. If any man love the world, the love of God is not in Him."

It's the term and it's relation of the other words which change the meaning. The "world" we aren't suppose to love is the "world of sin" not the people. The elect or predestined are not even hinted at in Jn 3:16.
We are commanded to love our neighbors does this mean only if they're elect? God does not hate someone with out cause. We may not be aware of the cause but this doesn't mean there isn't one

You must qualify what is being said here. 2 Peter 3:9 has been explained to you time and time again, as referring to the Elect.

My Reply;

You shouldn't assume that everyone who comes to this message board,reads every post. I don't assume you've read everyone to know this.

Some have stated what they think it to mean, But I disagree. I don't see it through the same perspective as Calvinism teaches, I don't believe in Calvinism . I came here for debate not conversion. I have also stated what I believe it to mean, with as much reception as you are getting from me.This is all here because there are still some who haven't read my opinions. So weather I've been told or not means nothing. For instance these are the first few post between you and I remember on this board. So how am I suppose to know you've read anything by me since I've been here.

Any honest scholar would have to come to that conclusion, because of the way it is written.

This, only your opinion and interpretation. It is absurd to assume that no one else see's it differently than you. There is no perfect doctrine except for that of Christ's. What makes you so sure that your 100% right about anything. I admit that I can be wrong and have been on occasion can you say the same? Don't take my word for it, take Gods word for it....
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[Romanbear]

Hi CC woody
I say won't in public what you have called me. You have attacked me for no reason. You should pray about it don't you think.
Romanbear

 

[drstevej]

If God is not willing that any perish then predestination to distruction would be God, going against His own will. I don't believe God would go against His own will.

If the "any" in this passage refers to any of the elect (for which there is ample contextual warrant), there is no prolem... they won't perish... all will come to repentance.

 

[drstevej]

Hi CC woody
I say won't in public what you have called me. You have attacked me for no reason. You should pray about it don't you think.
Romanbear

Romanbear, I've known CCWoody for a good while and is a gentle soul -- a cordial Calvinist indeed.

Why would you want to insinuate he called you something and lead people to possibly think the worst by your being indefinite? Why are indefinite, public accusations spiritual?

Whatz up, dude?