Double predestination.

[heymikey80]

So you're saying there's an arbitration or harmonization of God's desires that precludes the implementation of universal salvation.

I've seen this preclusion assigned to human will in many theologies.

Calvinists don't assign it there, but somewhere else, within God's own desires.

And for the record, Calvinists don't say everything is determined by Nature (ie, creational or physical laws). However, the term "natural" is very close to the term "carnal" or "fleshly" that Paul uses at a number of points. It includes a particular spiritual condition. It's not physical determinism.

 

[Christos Anesti]

So you're saying there's an arbitration or harmonization of God's desires that precludes the implementation of universal salvation.

I don't think universal salvation is precluded at all. It's also not necessitated. I do believe there is good reason to hope for the salvation of all though.

Calvinists don't assign it there, but somewhere else, within God's own desires

I see.

 

[brvhrt]

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 ...

God does't permit sin, wouldn't that be rebellion? We are all able to, 'save yourselves from this untoward generation' believe, choose, repent, and keep God's laws. And I think what he meant was, if God predestines us not to be endowed with grace to turn us from ous sin, the only course of action is to sin. And if all are doing Gods good pleasure, then all are obedient, but only some receive grace, which would be respect of persons, and discrimination (double predestination) wouldn't it? Shall not the God of the whole earth do right? Abraham. God doesn't attack innocent people before they are even born! Transgression of the law makes us evil, not God. I'm not sure I understand you, but you said God doesnt force men to sin, but if they are created with one option - to sin, opposed to transgressing the law and becoming a lover of sin, who's at fault?

 

[JustAsIam77]

God does't permit sin, wouldn't that be rebellion? We are all able to, 'save yourselves from this untoward generation' believe, choose, repent, and keep God's laws. And I think what he meant was, if God predestines us not to be endowed with grace to turn us from ous sin, the only course of action is to sin. And if all are doing Gods good pleasure, then all are obedient, but only some receive grace, which would be respect of persons, and discrimination (double predestination) wouldn't it? Shall not the God of the whole earth do right? Abraham. God doesn't attack innocent people before they are even born! Transgression of the law makes us evil, not God. I'm not sure I understand you, but you said God doesnt force men to sin, but if they are created with one option - to sin, opposed to transgressing the law and becoming a lover of sin, who's at fault?

When left to our own debased nature, (thanks Adam /s), we are lovers of sin, eat it up, love it, wallow in it. Anyone who claims to be free of the inherent carnal nature ingrained into every fiber of our being is a liar.

Freedom from such bondage is thru grace alone, does God grant grace to some and not others? Yes, scripture states He does! Does God force anyone to sin? Absolutely not!

 

[elopez]

Can I work backwards?

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 know what Calvinists might believe and say, and that is all well and fine, but I am not here attempting to parrot their beliefs rather point out how they are in error. And the bolded part from the Calvinistic council is what I am arguing against.

And now you have confused me here. You claim that Calvinist theology does not subscribe to symmetrical view of predestination of the elect and reprobate, however it says right there in the Calvinist council, "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," which seems to contradict your claim there. If in the election of one faith and good works are caused by God, and the predestination of the elect is in the same manner as the reprobate, then God does cause their sin which could even be considered unbelief itself. Therefore predestination according to Calvinist theology is really symmetrical, or am I missing something here? I open to the possibility of their being an explanation but it honestly seems like you have contradicted yourself here. So actually I am arguing against that whole second paragraph.

Also, predestination in itself is pretty fatalistic I would say, and I don't really intend to include just fatalists to this discussion but anyone really. This thread was originally intended to be about double predestination and one's thoughts of the subject.

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.

I don't really care if they are Calvinists or not, all I know is that they claim to be so. As I said, what they identify themselves on Soteriology is fine, but you reciting what their beliefs are does nothing to account for the argument against the belief. That is what I really wish to discuss here.

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.

And as I pointed out I am talking about predestination in the sense of God's saving presence with humanity. That means He is directly involved with our lives, so yeah God has intervened.

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.

And God could have chosen not to create anything, so what? I don't understand the point in some 'metaphysical hypothetical,' something that could have been.

I do not see any relevant connection to this point at all.

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.

Right, that would more than likely be the hyper Calvinist. Either way if predestination is centered around divine intervention, and God predestines more than half or whatever of humanity to hell, He directly intervenes to damn them. That is my basic premise. God's motivation may not be to damn them but I am mean damn, even Calvinists believe God created man for destruction, as to glorify His wrath. And they even say the atonement was limited to the elect and was not intended for the rest of man.

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.

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

Again I don't think this is much of a point. I agree God knows everything, but so what if He could have done this or could have done that? It's not what actually happened, and that should be the point of discussion.

 

[elopez]

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.

Basically yes. Not even those who receive grace are owed such, for we are all biased to sin. Do you think Christ was sacrificed for all of mankind in the same way? If not that is the answer to the question of 'why not everyone.'

All men to be saved, "all" as in men of all tribes, nations, and cultures. As we know God is no respecter of persons, so God predestines men no matter who they are. God does not desire the salvation for all of mankind in the sense that all men are going to be saved, as is evident from the nature of the atonement.

 

[elopez]

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.

You must have missed my earlier statement prior to the one you quoted. The saving presence of God in one's life. So we are adopted as Sons of Christ, which is meant to become part of God's family so to speak. It means a place and condition of a son to one whom it does not naturally belong to. Thus this son-ship is to be contrasted from a relationship consequently from birth, so it may be said that believers are adopted sons of God while Christ is the natural Son of God. This adoption signifies a special relation between man and God brought about by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul, in which the Spirit gives us a new, profound life and we are to recognize this as originating from God, to which we also get the privilege of calling Him Abba (Father).

Oh, I was saying though how, other than this general saving presence of God, how can we understand predestination Bibllically? I think that is about as clear as it gets.

 

[brvhrt]

To say God knows everything I dont believe is something we know for sure. The scriptures I've seen tend to be obscure. To say God is omniscient, then limit his ability to create a man with freewill to choose or not to choose, and not knowing if they would choose or not, wouldnt be strange to me. God says, if you choose me, I will bless you, but if you rebel, you will be cursed. God knows what is in our heart at the moment, but to know everything that man would ever do before he is born, I dont think was part of his plan for creation. It's just assumption. If God a billion eternities ago knew that a man would steal, kill, torture, rape, and murder thousands of people, would he have created them. Not my God! My God doesn't create monsters. God made man upright. They can become monsters if they choose. But God made Adam and Eve innocent, and he made us innocent. We have been corrupted, not by a just God, but by our own unrighteousness. Everyone God has created has an offer, an invitation of salvation. It is we who reject God, not God who rejects us. I wouldn't feed some of ny children, and not others. God has done every man in the world right. If man doesnt come to God, his offer stands, for God is faithful.

 

[heymikey80]

I know what Calvinists might believe and say, and that is all well and fine, but I am not here attempting to parrot their beliefs rather point out how they are in error. And the bolded part from the Calvinistic council is what I am arguing against.

The bolded part was what the Calvinistic Council is arguing against.

This invalidates the assertion, "I know what Calvinists might believe and say."

Plainly: the OP misrepresents the Calvinistic position, rather clearly. Calvinism does not advocate symmetric predestination.

The quotation makes the point. A reading of the first part of the quotation would've made this flatly clear.

 

[heymikey80]

Also, predestination in itself is pretty fatalistic I would say, and I don't really intend to include just fatalists to this discussion but anyone really. This thread was originally intended to be about double predestination and one's thoughts of the subject.

Well, given that the Council of Trent and Thomas Aquinas both held to predestination, I'm unsure of your point.

I don't really care if they are Calvinists or not, all I know is that they claim to be so.

Were I to do this with Catholicism I'd be tossed off this board.

Dordt explicitly rejects them as Calvinists. It means we would take steps to reform or excommunicate such. In other words, it'd be like an Anglican who's saying there's no difference between him and a Roman Catholic.

And as I pointed out I am talking about predestination in the sense of God's saving presence with humanity. That means He is directly involved with our lives, so yeah God has intervened.

Well, that would beg the question. Reprobation isn't concluded by the same aspects of God's character as salvation.

 

[Ghost air]

You must have missed my earlier statement prior to the one you quoted. The saving presence of God in one's life. So we are adopted as Sons of Christ, which is meant to become part of God's family so to speak. It means a place and condition of a son to one whom it does not naturally belong to. Thus this son-ship is to be contrasted from a relationship consequently from birth, so it may be said that believers are adopted sons of God while Christ is the natural Son of God. This adoption signifies a special relation between man and God brought about by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul, in which the Spirit gives us a new, profound life and we are to recognize this as originating from God, to which we also get the privilege of calling Him Abba (Father).

Oh, I was saying though how, other than this general saving presence of God, how can we understand predestination Bibllically? I think that is about as clear as it gets.

Thanks for clarifying, and I agree that predestination is TO the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, and that this is a forthcoming event, as we wait for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

We have the earnest of our inheritance in Christ now, which does afford us to cry Abba Father.. although imo, that's only the downpayment.. in the fulness of time these vile bodies of death will be changed into a glorious body like His glorious resurrected body, and then the scriptures which speak of predestination to the adoption of sons will be complete.

 

[heymikey80]

And God could have chosen not to create anything, so what? I don't understand the point in some 'metaphysical hypothetical,' something that could have been.

The OP indicates the argument is entirely based on considering hypotheticals: "If He did", "if we believe in all good God", "if God does not intercede" ...

So consider the hypothetical that's constructed. The assertion for this hypothetical is that God is somehow not responsible. But it can't escape the fact that God is entirely responsible for each event in a creation He has built in infinite knowledge and complete detail. He knows. He did so anyway. The fact that God created everything removes omnipotence from being a factor. Were we children, we could confidently claim, "Well He started it!" And we'd be right.

There's no backlash here. God will put all evil to right. That demonstrates that God is just. However, determinism doesn't mean God's responsible for evil. That's already established. God is still extensively responsible for everything He's created, determinism or not. Arguing otherwise is a false dilemma argument combined with a false cause argument.

Right, that would more than likely be the hyper Calvinist. Either way if predestination is centered around divine intervention, and God predestines more than half or whatever of humanity to hell, He directly intervenes to damn them. That is my basic premise. God's motivation may not be to damn them but I am mean damn, even Calvinists believe God created man for destruction, as to glorify His wrath. And they even say the atonement was limited to the elect and was not intended for the rest of man.

Adding more errors in representing Calvinism would generally make this discussion less and less about predestination, and more and more about misrepresentation.

Again I don't think this is much of a point. I agree God knows everything, but so what if He could have done this or could have done that? It's not what actually happened, and that should be the point of discussion.

The point is this: that God has the capability to make everything right, to do everything right, for everything to be right.

His sense of justice would lead Him to actually do everything right.

He created this world and hasn't lost control of it.

So He actually has the knowledge and power that the OP asserts He doesn't.

The presentation of the OP essentially says God is incapable of preventing evil from entering His world, and compelled to make it in such a way that evil does enter. To absolve God would require God is not fully knowledgeable, because as people are presuming here, the universe is filled with evil that wouldn't happen if God didn't create. So "not create" is better than "create".

The contradiction is palpable: God did create.

Tracing back to the error in such an argument: only two possible errors exist. Either God isn't good; or our assumptions are not accurate.

Were the assumptions and possible solutions traced back, we'd get to the point of noticing either our ideas about God or our ideas about creation are wrong. I think we've reviewed our ideas about God, but again, open theists tend to say that's the issue. But on the other hand, Calvinists say our ideas are wrong about creation.

 

[elopez]

The bolded part was what the Calvinistic Council is arguing against.

This invalidates the assertion, "I know what Calvinists might believe and say."

Plainly: the OP misrepresents the Calvinistic position, rather clearly. Calvinism does not advocate symmetric predestination.

The quotation makes the point. A reading of the first part of the quotation would've made this flatly clear.

Again, I think you have misunderstood. I am not here trying represent any Calvinist doctrine, not in the OP nor am I now. I am arguing that if anyone, not excluded to Calvinists, wishes to say God predestines man to hell then the conclusion of my argument must be accepted, which is that God is directly involved with their damnation. I thought that would have been flatly clear but evidently not.

 

[elopez]

Well, given that the Council of Trent and Thomas Aquinas both held to predestination, I'm unsure of your point.


Were I to do this with Catholicism I'd be tossed off this board.

Dordt explicitly rejects them as Calvinists. It means we would take steps to reform or excommunicate such. In other words, it'd be like an Anglican who's saying there's no difference between him and a Roman Catholic.

Well, that would beg the question. Reprobation isn't concluded by the same aspects of God's character as salvation.

My point is actually rather simple and I'll only state it one more time because quite frankly I'm getting tired of repeating myself. If God predestines man to damnation, and predestination is centered around divine intervention, then God directly damns man just as He saves them. Whether a Calvinist or anyone who claims God predestines man to hell does not accept this, I believe this is the conclusion they face if that's what they wish to claim. The Council of Trent does not adhere to a predestination of the reprobate, and any notion of double predestination is mostly not regarded by Catholics. If a Catholic were to claim God predestines man to hell my argument would apply to them as well.

And what question is that, because I agree that reprobation does not denote the same characteristics of God as to election.

 

[elopez]

The OP indicates the argument is entirely based on considering hypotheticals: "If He did", "if we believe in all good God", "if God does not intercede" ...

So consider the hypothetical that's constructed. The assertion for this hypothetical is that God is somehow not responsible. But it can't escape the fact that God is entirely responsible for each event in a creation He has built in infinite knowledge and complete detail. He knows. He did so anyway. The fact that God created everything removes omnipotence from being a factor. Were we children, we could confidently claim, "Well He started it!" And we'd be right.

There's no backlash here. God will put all evil to right. That demonstrates that God is just. However, determinism doesn't mean God's responsible for evil. That's already established. God is still extensively responsible for everything He's created, determinism or not. Arguing otherwise is a false dilemma argument combined with a false cause argument.

Adding more errors in representing Calvinism would generally make this discussion less and less about predestination, and more and more about misrepresentation.

The point is this: that God has the capability to make everything right, to do everything right, for everything to be right.

His sense of justice would lead Him to actually do everything right.

He created this world and hasn't lost control of it.

So He actually has the knowledge and power that the OP asserts He doesn't.

The presentation of the OP essentially says God is incapable of preventing evil from entering His world, and compelled to make it in such a way that evil does enter. To absolve God would require God is not fully knowledgeable, because as people are presuming here, the universe is filled with evil that wouldn't happen if God didn't create. So "not create" is better than "create".

The contradiction is palpable: God did create.

Tracing back to the error in such an argument: only two possible errors exist. Either God isn't good; or our assumptions are not accurate.

Were the assumptions and possible solutions traced back, we'd get to the point of noticing either our ideas about God or our ideas about creation are wrong. I think we've reviewed our ideas about God, but again, open theists tend to say that's the issue. But on the other hand, Calvinists say our ideas are wrong about creation.

I don't think knowledge necessarily equals responsibility. God's foreknowledge does not cause the future events, we are the ultimate cause however due to the future being known it will happen. Determinism means God's infallible foreknowledge of the future being omniscient. In other words, God's omniscience does imply determinism, but I believe free will and determinism co - exist.

Again I am representing Calvinism, this is what you have mistaken. So the discussion should be kept on track.

I agree God has the capability to 'make things right,' and He will. And the OP stresses two aspects of God's nature and that is foreknowledge and divine intervention which indeed does suggest power, or omnipotence. The emphasis is on the power in that God directly saves man, which itself prevents evil from being brought into the world. So I do not understand those statements.

 

[heymikey80]

Again, I think you have misunderstood. I am not here trying represent any Calvinist doctrine, not in the OP nor am I now. I am arguing that if anyone, not excluded to Calvinists, wishes to say God predestines man to hell then the conclusion of my argument must be accepted, which is that God is directly involved with their damnation. I thought that would have been flatly clear but evidently not.

A check of the forum rules would be wise at this juncture.

The term "predestination" -- in English -- doesn't allow this to be flatly clear. In point of fact, this forces the opposite conclusion on the part of people presuming predestination to be God passively looking ahead and "predicting" what people will do, and then choosing those people.

Clearly God's predestination is simple prediction, it is flatly clear that predestination need not be attributed to God's direct involvement.

It's simply not the case. It proves too much. In fact it demonstrates Calvinism's asymmetric double predestination.

But that's a minor point. What is important is that God's direct involvement isn't necessary to invoke the word, "predestination". It doesn't take God's direct involvement. Necessity doesn't require direct involvement, any more than the necessity that a rock fall to the floor implies God is closer to the rock, than to a flying human being.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't think knowledge necessarily equals responsibility. God's foreknowledge does not cause the future events, we are the ultimate cause however due to the future being known it will happen. Determinism means God's infallible foreknowledge of the future being omniscient. In other words, God's omniscience does imply determinism, but I believe free will and determinism co - exist.

We're not the ultimate cause. God is. The view presented deprives God of omnipotence, clearly. But then it deprives God of awareness of what He is creating in its full (and finite) detail, because of the presence of undesirable effects which God could easily suppress, being First Cause and omniscient. That'd mean God isn't infinite.

So it's not God we're talking about.

Again I am representing Calvinism, this is what you have mistaken. So the discussion should be kept on track.

Please restate the assertion. You don't appear to be familiar with Calvinism. I'm firsthand familiar with Calvinism for longer than your age indicates.

I agree God has the capability to 'make things right,' and He will. And the OP stresses two aspects of God's nature and that is foreknowledge and divine intervention which indeed does suggest power, or omnipotence. The emphasis is on the power in that God directly saves man, which itself prevents evil from being brought into the world. So I do not understand those statements.

As I'd mentioned before, nobody's actually said the redemptive power God exercises for salvation is ever used for reprobation.

But "predestine" doesn't refer directly to redemptive power, either. The word is value-neutral in English and Greek, too.

It's fine alerting people to the fact that God's redemptive power is not used for reprobation. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean reprobation is outside God's power. It would simply mean reprobation is powered differently.

 

[elopez]

A check of the forum rules would be wise at this juncture.

The term "predestination" -- in English -- doesn't allow this to be flatly clear. In point of fact, this forces the opposite conclusion on the part of people presuming predestination to be God passively looking ahead and "predicting" what people will do, and then choosing those people.

Clearly God's predestination is simple prediction, it is flatly clear that predestination need not be attributed to God's direct involvement.

It's simply not the case. It proves too much. In fact it demonstrates Calvinism's asymmetric double predestination.

But that's a minor point. What is important is that God's direct involvement isn't necessary to invoke the word, "predestination". It doesn't take God's direct involvement. Necessity doesn't require direct involvement, any more than the necessity that a rock fall to the floor implies God is closer to the rock, than to a flying human being.

If predestination is nothing more than simple prediction and intervention isn't necessary, that would make for a deistic god who isn't really involved with creation. You more or less describe an impersonal god, one of which is contrary to Christianity. God must be involved with His creation one way or the other if we believe in a personal God.

I'll ask you what I did another poster: what is the point in having knowledge of the future if God is not going to be involved with it? It is according to you that God's awareness is nullified because He does not display omnipotence to be involved with humanity.

 

[elopez]

We're not the ultimate cause. God is. The view presented deprives God of omnipotence, clearly. But then it deprives God of awareness of what He is creating in its full (and finite) detail, because of the presence of undesirable effects which God could easily suppress, being First Cause and omniscient. That'd mean God isn't infinite.

So it's not God we're talking about.

You are very mistaken if you neglect we are a cause in our life events. This argument you raise and it's conclusion I feel are very wondering and off base with much of what I have been saying. I believe it is God's omniscience that enables Him to choose the elect, while it is His omnipotence that actually saves the elect. So if it's not God we're talking about then I don't know where you've been.

Please restate the assertion. You don't appear to be familiar with Calvinism. I'm firsthand familiar with Calvinism for longer than your age indicates.

That was a typo, I meant to say what I've been saying and that is I am not here parroting what I think is a Calvinist doctrine. On that you are mistaken. So if you're trying to pull some age card, I mean go ahead but it really doesn't show much. You thought I was representing a Calvinist tenant and I simply wasn't.

As I'd mentioned before, nobody's actually said the redemptive power God exercises for salvation is ever used for reprobation.

But "predestine" doesn't refer directly to redemptive power, either. The word is value-neutral in English and Greek, too.

It's fine alerting people to the fact that God's redemptive power is not used for reprobation. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean reprobation is outside God's power. It would simply mean reprobation is powered differently.

Predestination means to mark out before hand and is in correlation to God's redemptive power as it is stated in scripture when it is spoken of. Romans 8:29 - 30 says that God calls, justifies, and then glorifies those He predestined. How else could God work those affairs in man unless He is directly involved?

 

[heymikey80]

If predestination is nothing more than simple prediction and intervention isn't necessary, that would make for a deistic god who isn't really involved with creation. You more or less describe an impersonal god, one of which is contrary to Christianity. God must be involved with His creation one way or the other if we believe in a personal God.

Asymmetric predestination contradicts your "if", so the rest is inapplicable.

Asymmetric predestination says predestination to different ends result from different interventions of God.

I'll ask you what I did another poster: what is the point in having knowledge of the future if God is not going to be involved with it? It is according to you that God's awareness is nullified because He does not display omnipotence to be involved with humanity.

Read the tagline. Nobody's said God isn't involved, and so as I haven't asserted such, you've misrepresented your opposition. Again.

The forum rules don't allow you to do this. Review the forum rules.