Double predestination.

[elopez]

I am not sure if this topic belongs here or in the Soteriology forums, so forgive me there. I am interested in what the views of are on the idea of double predestination, so whether you agree or disagree with the idea, if you could state the reason(s) why. Biblical or logical, or both, it doesn't matter. I will be listing a few reasons why I find the doctrine to be false, both of which are scriptural and argumentative.

Personally I believe that predestination is centralized around two crucial factors of God's nature, divine intervention and divine foreknowledge, with the emphasis being on the former. Therefore to say that God predestines one to damnation would be declaring that God positively intervenes in that one's life as so to damn him. This would suggest that God influences man to sin and causes man to sin, which is contrary to what scripture claims.

In James 1:13 it states "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." If God cannot be tempted by evil, which alone implies God is good and there is no evil in His nature (1 John 1:5), then He would not force man to sin.

I think it would also be chief to consider that the thought of God intervening in all of humanities affairs is erroneous. If He did, we wouldn't be living life genuinely but would be acting in every way by the hand of God. Again, this would mean man's sinning is the result of God's sovereign will to push him to sin and so God is the author of sin. This cannot be if we believe in all good God, so while it may be said that God foreknows of all future events it would not follow that He causes all future events to take place.

So if God does not intercede in a future event but only knows of it's happening, it cannot be called an event that is predestined since predestination is centered around divine intervention. God does not intervene in one's life to force him to sin and so to hell, He is simply aware of the man sinning and going to hell. Thus God does not predestine man to damnation, just foreknows of his damnation.

What I am stressing here is that there is no eternal ordination of the elect that is comparable to the damned. God directly interferes with the elect to save them but does not need to do the same as to damn the reprobate, for the reprobate will sin out of their inherit nature to do so. Any further notion of God positively evoking man to sin would be literal overkill and makes for no God of Christianity.

 

[Verticordious]

If God forces people to sin, and then punishes them for that sin, then God's the one to blame. God does have an obligation to help us if he is the one that caused us to be in this situation. Only if we have freewill would God not be required to save us, as it would be our responsibility for the situation we are in. There is no way to get around it.

 

[elopez]

If God forces people to sin, and then punishes them for that sin, then God's the one to blame.

I agree, which is what I was arguing against in the OP.

God does have an obligation to help us if he is the one that caused us to be in this situation. Only if we have freewill would God not be required to save us, as it would be our responsibility for the situation we are in. There is no way to get around it.

We are not capable of saving ourselves, and nothing we do could earn salvation, rather this is a gift of God alone grounded in His gracious will (Ephesians 2:8). This I believe is what one cannot get around, which is in direct opposition with what you are stating, not to mention that of which is found in scripture. Simply put, it is grace that saves us, not man's free will.

Though I must admit, I can see how this relates to the OP on some level, but not enough to continue arguing the point I believe we would continue to be arguing.

 

[tmanz12]

God doesn't chose for us. He just knows what we're going to do in the future before it happens.

 

[elopez]

God doesn't chose for us. He just knows what we're going to do in the future before it happens.

God doesn't choose what for us?

 

[Christos Anesti]

We are not capable of saving ourselves, and nothing we do could earn salvation, rather this is a gift of God alone grounded in His gracious will (Ephesians 2:8). This I believe is what one cannot get around, which is in direct opposition with what you are stating, not to mention that of which is found in scripture. Simply put, it is grace that saves us, not man's free will.

But does grace save us in contradiction to our will. In other words if we say no to the grace of God and reject Him does He force Himself on us? If He was willing to force Himself on us then what is the purpose of the whole drama of the fall and redemption? It would seem rather pointless.

 

[tmanz12]

God doesn't choose what for us?

Our destination.

 

[elopez]

But does grace save us in contradiction to our will. In other words if we say no to the grace of God and reject Him does He force Himself on us? If He was willing to force Himself on us then what is the purpose of the whole drama of the fall and redemption? It would seem rather pointless.

We would not say no to grace, for this type of grace would inevitably will us to say yes. God would not be forcing Himself on us but rather it is because the nature of said grace is so effective and desirable that it helps our will in things pertaining to salvation, thus we would want to follow and love God no matter what. We can say that initially God "forces" Himself on us, but that is because it is necessary since we cannot come to Him initially, but that is hardly pointless.

So it cannot be in contradiction with our will because once we have received such grace it works with our will.

 

[elopez]

Our destination.

Do you believe that God intervenes in humanities affairs? If so, what would God intervene with? If not, what's the point in knowing the future?

 

[Verticordious]

We are not capable of saving ourselves, and nothing we do could earn salvation, rather this is a gift of God alone grounded in His gracious will (Ephesians 2:8). This I believe is what one cannot get around, which is in direct opposition with what you are stating, not to mention that of which is found in scripture. Simply put, it is grace that saves us, not man's free will.

Though I must admit, I can see how this relates to the OP on some level, but not enough to continue arguing the point I believe we would continue to be arguing.

All that salvation being a gift means is that we didn't deserve it, as opposed to it being compensation for something we did. Christ actions do not make us saved in the sense that it forces us into salvation, they make us saved in the sense that they make us able to be saved. If we choose to trust God and obey then we will be saved, if we do not then we will not be saved.

 

[elopez]

All that salvation being a gift means is that we didn't deserve it, as opposed to it being compensation for something we did. Christ actions do not make us saved in the sense that it forces us into salvation, they make us saved in the sense that they make us able to be saved. If we choose to trust God and obey then we will be saved, if we do not then we will not be saved.

Salvation as a gift means simply more than something we do not deserve, though while it does mean that would it not also mean that this gift is free? Salvation cannot be based on our acceptance of the atonement or else it is not really a free gift. Therefore the gift of salvation must come from God's merciful will alone, in which salvation is then something granted to humanity freely with no conditions.

As to the nature of the atonement, if Christ's death only makes man savable and does not actually save any one of them, then it does not actually satisfy the wrath of God for man's sins. His death only becomes a potentiality in which he possibly dies for the sins of man if man accepts that he in fact died, but again in which case the gift of salvation is not free.

 

[student ad x]

-MOD HAT ON-

Hey folks, this thread has been moved from Hamartiology to Soteriology.
Carry on........

-MOD HAT OFF-
​

 

[cygnusx1]

God doesn't "force " anyone to sin , HE doesn't have to , men are lovers of self , lovers of money and lovers of the "pleasures of sin" .

God no more forces a sinner to sin than I force a ball to fall to earth by letting it fall !

BTW , I do think the above analogy does hold for it does not iliminate two distinct powers at work , even in sinners sinning , they could not unless God permitted it !

Permitting is not forcing ...

 

[heymikey80]

I am not sure if this topic belongs here or in the Soteriology forums, so forgive me there. I am interested in what the views of are on the idea of double predestination, so whether you agree or disagree with the idea, if you could state the reason(s) why. Biblical or logical, or both, it doesn't matter. I will be listing a few reasons why I find the doctrine to be false, both of which are scriptural and argumentative.

Sure. The fact that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the First Cause of everything concludes in foreordination.

Romans 9, the end of Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and a snippet of 1 Peter 2 form the basis for Biblical predestination and foreordination of human beings. There're others, depending on which aspect you're looking at.

Personally I believe that predestination is centralized around two crucial factors of God's nature, divine intervention and divine foreknowledge, with the emphasis being on the former. Therefore to say that God predestines one to damnation would be declaring that God positively intervenes in that one's life as so to damn him. This would suggest that God influences man to sin and causes man to sin, which is contrary to what scripture claims.

It requires defining the sense in which each term is meant. For instance, God intervenes in creating just as He intervenes in redeeming -- however, Scripture doesn't call the former "intervene", but "create".

Precision is key.

Predestination of people to damnation is not considered an intervening of God in any Calvinistic theology. It's actually considered a foreordained consequence of the Fall.

In James 1:13 it states "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." If God cannot be tempted by evil, which alone implies God is good and there is no evil in His nature (1 John 1:5), then He would not force man to sin.

Neither predestination nor reprobation involve oppressive or forcing people's wills -- in fact reprobation doesn't involve anything contradictory to the fallen human will.

I think it would also be chief to consider that the thought of God intervening in all of humanities affairs is erroneous. If He did, we wouldn't be living life genuinely but would be acting in every way by the hand of God. Again, this would mean man's sinning is the result of God's sovereign will to push him to sin and so God is the author of sin. This cannot be if we believe in all good God, so while it may be said that God foreknows of all future events it would not follow that He causes all future events to take place.

The concept of intervention here is erroneous. If God supports reality by His omnipotent power, then the very electrons and muons that you're constructed of would collapse without His intervention.

So if God does not intercede in a future event but only knows of it's happening, it cannot be called an event that is predestined since predestination is centered around divine intervention. God does not intervene in one's life to force him to sin and so to hell, He is simply aware of the man sinning and going to hell. Thus God does not predestine man to damnation, just foreknows of his damnation.

God causes things and is completely and absolutely aware of all its results and consequences. Absent God's intervention in reality nothing would come to pass. With His intervention everything has come to pass. God is not simply aware. God intended what He created, in all its rich detail. Thus God does predestine some people to damnation, because --

He knows, infinitely. He's capable of acting differently, entirely within every range of possibility. And He's created this world, with this result.

What I am stressing here is that there is no eternal ordination of the elect that is comparable to the damned.

It again, depends what you mean by "comparable". No, they do not operate the same way, even in Calvinism. They are both considered "predestination" by the term. They are not the same kind of predestination.

In reprobation, sinners are foreordained to condemnation because of their own nature and actions.

In predestination, sinners are foreordained to salvation wholly because of God's favor toward them, in spite and to the point of vindicating their nature and their actions.

God directly interferes with the elect to save them but does not need to do the same as to damn the reprobate, for the reprobate will sin out of their inherit nature to do so. Any further notion of God positively evoking man to sin would be literal overkill and makes for no God of Christianity.

That's an accurate statement even for double predestination.

 

[elopez]

Sure. The fact that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the First Cause of everything concludes in foreordination.

Romans 9, the end of Romans 8, Ephesians 1, and a snippet of 1 Peter 2 form the basis for Biblical predestination and foreordination of human beings. There're others, depending on which aspect you're looking at.

I am referring to predestination in the saving sense in which God must intercede as to save man since he is utterly incapable of doing it himself. What other way can we reference predestination Biblically?

It requires defining the sense in which each term is meant. For instance, God intervenes in creating just as He intervenes in redeeming -- however, Scripture doesn't call the former "intervene", but "create".

Precision is key.

Predestination of people to damnation is not considered an intervening of God in any Calvinistic theology. It's actually considered a foreordained consequence of the Fall.

I've seen many Calvinists adhere to the position of positive double predestination which affirms God's direct intervention towards man to influence him to sin, or at least that is how the one's I've conversed with have articulated their views. Logically though, we can derive that there can be no predestination of the reprobate unless we conclude that God does interfere to damn one, since again predestination is centered around divine intervention.

Neither predestination nor reprobation involve oppressive or forcing people's wills -- in fact reprobation doesn't involve anything contradictory to the fallen human will.

I agree. Predestination does not mean God drags us by our feet kicking and screaming, rather the effect predestination has on the individual will always produce salvation. So once granted this gift we will inevitably want to follow and love God.

The concept of intervention here is erroneous. If God supports reality by His omnipotent power, then the very electrons and muons that you're constructed of would collapse without His intervention.

I don't see how considering I am speaking of humanities affairs, as in our personal trials and tribulations. If God is involved with every event in the world, evil and everything else is at the will of God and so He is accountable for it. That doesn't make for such a good God, and so I believe He does not directly intervene in our or any other's everyday life. Sure my very existence may be dependent on God's will, but I don't think that would take much power nor intervention.

God causes things and is completely and absolutely aware of all its results and consequences. Absent God's intervention in reality nothing would come to pass. With His intervention everything has come to pass. God is not simply aware. God intended what He created, in all its rich detail. Thus God does predestine some people to damnation, because --

He knows, infinitely. He's capable of acting differently, entirely within every range of possibility. And He's created this world, with this result.

I agree God causes things but I do not agree God directly causes all things since again that would be to affirm God causes evil things. All things will come to pass without God directly intervening anyway since from eternity He foreknew all future events and thus they will happen no matter what less God be incorrect in His knowledge, which I highly doubt.

That said, I do not believe that it was God's intention for man to sin rather I think God wished that the first couple follow His command and remain within His presence. So again to say God predestines some to hell would be to maintain that God does directly intervene in man's life to force him to sin.

It again, depends what you mean by "comparable". No, they do not operate the same way, even in Calvinism. They are both considered "predestination" by the term. They are not the same kind of predestination.

In reprobation, sinners are foreordained to condemnation because of their own nature and actions.

In predestination, sinners are foreordained to salvation wholly because of God's favor toward them, in spite and to the point of vindicating their nature and their actions.

By comparable I mean God does not need to intervene in one's life to damn him in much of the same way He would as needed to save one. Therefore I think there is only one type of predestination, and that is the type in which He intervenes to save man. I think that since God is not involved with all of humanities affairs, those events cannot be called predestination, and since God does not intervene as so to damn one it cannot be called predestination.

 

[Ghost air]

What other way can we reference predestination Biblically?

By simply reading what the bible says about predestination... Eph 1 says that we are predestined to THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN by Jesus Christ.

Romans 8 makes it perfectly clear that we are still waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

That's what Predestination means biblically.

 

[heymikey80]

Can I work backwards?

By comparable I mean God does not need to intervene in one's life to damn him in much of the same way He would as needed to save one.

Quite correct. In fact, that's what Calvinistic Predestination is.

In point of fact, the Calvinistic council that explains Predestination identifies the following as a lie, that Calvinists don't believe:

it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:
* * *
that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness ... ​

The distinction you're talking about was recognized early on, and symmetrical predestination is condemned by all of Calvinism as fatalistic.

It sounds like you're discussing this issue with someone who's not a Calvinist, but a fatalist.

I've seen many Calvinists adhere to the position of positive double predestination which affirms God's direct intervention towards man to influence him to sin, or at least that is how the one's I've conversed with have articulated their views.

I'll be quite honest. They're not Calvinists. Calvinists are identified by the Synod of Dordt. Calvinists have to avoid all the anathemas of this council to be considered Calvinists. Here's what Dordt says about Calvinists in reaction to those who accuse Calvinists of holding to the position above:

very many other slanderous accusations of this kind the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.​

These quotes are from the Canons of Dordt. It identifies Calvinists on the point of Soteriology.

Logically though, we can derive that there can be no predestination of the reprobate unless we conclude that God does interfere to damn one, since again predestination is centered around divine intervention.

But as I've pointed out, divine intervention takes different forms, not least is God's intervention in creating everything, without which nothing would even exist to be condemned.

It doesn't exist separately, but dependently, on God.

God has intervened.

I don't see how considering I am speaking of humanities affairs, as in our personal trials and tribulations. If God is involved with every event in the world, evil and everything else is at the will of God and so He is accountable for it. That doesn't make for such a good God, and so I believe He does not directly intervene in our or any other's everyday life. Sure my very existence may be dependent on God's will, but I don't think that would take much power nor intervention.

God could've chosen not to allow the creation or formation of sinful people in His creation. It's assuredly that simple, and there is no escape for this point.

God created the universe as He wants it. God knows all, in detail. He created it this way. He could've created differently (your "better" apparently). He didn't.

The only conclusion we can draw is that we don't know better than God.

I agree God causes things but I do not agree God directly causes all things since again that would be to affirm God causes evil things.

Again, no Calvinist asserts God directly or unilaterally causes evil things, certainly not in the sense of His wanting it to be evil. Calvin pointed out clearly, God's motivation for certain events is not the same as an evil or human motivation. The story of Joseph comes to mind. The crucifixion of Jesus comes to mind.

All things will come to pass without God directly intervening anyway since from eternity He foreknew all future events and thus they will happen no matter what less God be incorrect in His knowledge, which I highly doubt.

Which of course proves my point. God knows everything; God could've prevented everything in this creation from happening by creating differently.

He didn't.

That said, I do not believe that it was God's intention for man to sin rather I think God wished that the first couple follow His command and remain within His presence. So again to say God predestines some to hell would be to maintain that God does directly intervene in man's life to force him to sin.

Do you think God wasn't intending the Crucifixion before the foundation of the world?

 

[Christos Anesti]

We would not say no to grace, for this type of grace would inevitably will us to say yes.

When God sends us His grace our will follows along by necessity ? Why not simply give it to everyone then? I mean the example Christ gave shows us that God is very giving and willing to sacrifice Himself for the world. He even bent down and washed the feet of Judas His betrayer and asked His Father to forgive those who crucified Him. What reason do we have to believe that He doesn't want the best for everyone? Doesn't He even say that He wants all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4)? If that manner of understanding predestination is correct that would imply that 1. God predestined everyone to salvation or 2. He doesn't want all men to be saved. Most people who support it reject the first idea though so it seems rather contradictory.

 

[heymikey80]

If that manner of understanding predestination is correct that would imply that 1. God predestined everyone to salvation or 2. He doesn't want all men to be saved. Most people who support it reject the first idea though so it seems rather contradictory.

I think the issue is much, much broader than just referring to predestination.

The logical problem is pretty clear.

God knows everything, extensively (all knowledge, omniscience). God also has or had the power (all power, omnipotence) to create differently, so that what He wants, occurs. Nothing is in His way except Himself.

Nothing.

This is fantastically easy to see if you start with God just prior to the point of Creation.

Once you go back there, where God could've created everything and might have created everyone to be saved, the issue is quite clearly expansive to all theologies.

So if God "wants all men to be saved" is a comprehensive or overriding statement, then not even predestination matters. The problem applies to every theology. Either this statement doesn't mean what is being alleged, or God doesn't have omniscience, omnipotence, or responsibility for His actions.

I embrace the former. The latter contradicts much more than one verse, and there are readily other ways to understand this singular verse.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I don't think it is contradictory to say that God desires the salvation of all but He doesn't wish for it happen through necessity or coercion. He also desires that we have freedom. His love "causes" Him to desire both even if at times they seem to be at counter purposes. He wants to have a loving relationship with us and is willing to have such a relationship with anyone else who is willing to do the same with Him. That relationship is our salvation. Maybe everything isn't ruled by natural determinism?