Double predestination.

[elopez]

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

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

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.

I thought you just said it does not take God's involvement for something to be predestined? If God is not involved in things that are predestined, what is He involved with?

What am I not allowed to do? Instead of telling me why not show me what it is that way I won't do it.

 

[heymikey80]

You are very mistaken if you neglect we are a cause in our life events.

Just because the steelworker is a cause, doesn't mean that the project manager isn't a cause, or the crane operator isn't a cause, or that the hammer isn't a cause. The word "ultimate" means something.

This argument you raise and it's conclusion I feel are very wondering and off base with much of what I have been saying.

It's not off-base when it explains the basis for predestination in both cases. The relevance to the title and to the OP comments is not off-base. It is in fact directly relevant to the subject.

I believe it is God's omniscience that enables Him to choose the elect, while it is His omnipotence that actually saves the elect.

I think the position neglects the fact that God is omnipotent about more than He is redemptive about.

So if it's not God we're talking about then I don't know where you've been.

Review the forum rules.

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.

No one expects that you're advocating Calvinism. But the representation of Calvinism isn't reasonable, and shouldn't be identified as such.

So if you're trying to pull some age card, I mean go ahead but it really doesn't show much.

There's a lot it shows. A consideration of what people have historically thought about predestination could readily answer the issues presented in the discussion.

You thought I was representing a Calvinist tenant and I simply wasn't.

I expected you were saying you were accurately representing Calvinism in your deprecation of it. Historical documentation contradicts the view of Calvinism presented by your position at a number of points.

At this point I conclude through the typo, that you're not in a position to comment about the content of Calvinistic thought on the matter.

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?

God can work through every event, no matter His unilateral involvement, because He is ultimately involved in every cause of every event in history.

Salvation is a result of God's direct involvement.
Reprobation is a result of God's ultimate involvement.

"predestination" is to designate beforehand, and God works prior to our faith. God's omnipotence would interfere with any conclusion of His omniscience, because frankly every future event is ultimately traced back to God's free choice and power. The net result -- God's omniscient prediction would be dependent on what God's omnipotence does with people.

 

[heymikey80]

I thought you just said it does not take God's involvement for something to be predestined? If God is not involved in things that are predestined, what is He involved with?

You omitted a word: direct.

 

[elopez]

Just because the steelworker is a cause, doesn't mean that the project manager isn't a cause, or the crane operator isn't a cause, or that the hammer isn't a cause. The word "ultimate" means something.

"Ultimate" can mean a few different things, and I don't think you've accurately defined it. I meant it in the sense that we are the end cause of what God foresees or predestines. Obviously this is not to disregard God as the cause or any other causual factors involvement, so this is just a straw man at best.

It's not off-base when it explains the basis for predestination in both cases. The relevance to the title and to the OP comments is not off-base. It is in fact directly relevant to the subject.

I think the position neglects the fact that God is omnipotent about more than He is redemptive about.

I highly disagree. It is exactly becuase God is omnipotent that predestination of the elect is possible.

Review the forum rules.

I don't understand why you could not explain what the problem is?

No one expects that you're advocating Calvinism. But the representation of Calvinism isn't reasonable, and shouldn't be identified as such.

While I am not advocating it, what I said was I am not representing Calvinism. So what representation are you talking about?

There's a lot it shows. A consideration of what people have historically thought about predestination could readily answer the issues presented in the discussion.

I expected you were saying you were accurately representing Calvinism in your deprecation of it. Historical documentation contradicts the view of Calvinism presented by your position at a number of points.

At this point I conclude through the typo, that you're not in a position to comment about the content of Calvinistic thought on the matter.

Yet not once have I mentioned I was refuting any Calvinist doctrine or representing any Calvinist doctrine, in fact there was no mention of anything Calvin until you said something about it because you thought I was talking about it. Again this is for anyone who would claim double prdestination and notjust Calvinsts. What you presented merely states that they do not believe in what I have said of double predestination, yet as I said earlier that doesn't answer the critisicm of the argument at all.

You conclude that through a typo? All I was saying is that I was not representing a Calvinist belief, and instead of saying I was I meant to sau I was not and that's what you conclude your opinion on? And so this must also make you in the position of who is to comment on what matters too, right?

 

[AREMNANT]

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.

It is clear! God is RESPONSIBLE for their damnation (if this doctrine is true or not)!

When you state, "God predestines man to HELL", What "HELL (sheol, hades, gehenna, tartaroo)" are you talking about?

 

[AREMNANT]

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.

First, FORWKNOWLEDGE destroys so-called "free will" and you CONTRADICT yourself.

How is God not RESPONSIBLE, knowingly creating so-called "free willy" people who will NOT make the right choice/decision and then torturing them forever and ever, and ever in some hellhole?

God is RESPONSIBLE for HIS creation and GOD knows the only choice/decision you can make b/c GOD CAUSED it to happen according to HIS PREDETERMINED PLAN AND PURPOSE! You are a TOOL (or piece of clay) in God's Hand!

 

[elopez]

First, FORWKNOWLEDGE destroys so-called "free will" and you CONTRADICT yourself.

How is God not RESPONSIBLE, knowingly creating so-called "free willy" people who will NOT make the right choice/decision and then torturing them forever and ever, and ever in some hellhole?

God is RESPONSIBLE for HIS creation and GOD knows the only choice/decision you can make b/c GOD CAUSED it to happen according to HIS PREDETERMINED PLAN AND PURPOSE! You are a TOOL (or piece of clay) in God's Hand!

You say foreknowledge destroys free will yet you haven't even defined free will. For this argument to hold it must be shown what free will is, and according to you I'm guessing that it is the ability to do otherwise, while agents are only morally accountable if they could have done otherwise.

As of now saying foreknowledge does anything to free will is meaningless without first saying what free will is and showing how that is.

 

[heymikey80]

"Ultimate" can mean a few different things, and I don't think you've accurately defined it. I meant it in the sense that we are the end cause of what God foresees or predestines. Obviously this is not to disregard God as the cause or any other causual factors involvement, so this is just a straw man at best.

So you're saying we're somehow the endpoint of God as the cause. That would make us the ultimate effect or result; not a cause.

I highly disagree. It is exactly becuase God is omnipotent that predestination of the elect is possible.

If God knew beforehand something about us, but couldn't bring that characteristic about in us, then it's not God's omnipotence that predestines the elect. It's that characteristic in us.

I don't understand why you could not explain what the problem is?

It's fairly easy to understand if the rules are read and followed, why the explanation is virtually impossible.

While I am not advocating it, what I said was I am not representing Calvinism. So what representation are you talking about?
* * *
Yet not once have I mentioned I was refuting any Calvinist doctrine or representing any Calvinist doctrine,

Then there's more that has been misstated, for in an earlier posting the assertion was made:

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.

The statements on this thread on numerous points really aren't an accurate description of Calvinism itself, but actually a view that's at odds with Calvinism, something that Calvinism has considered error they've condemned for centuries.

On certain points (such as the use of the word "predestination" to talk about reprobation), you're accurate in that Calvinism does so. But the power of redemption is not the power of reprobation. Both are interventions of God in the world; but they're different interventions, with different bases.

 

[elopez]

So you're saying we're somehow the endpoint of God as the cause. That would make us the ultimate effect or result; not a cause.

It would actually make God the indirect cause and us still a cause, because we still do cause things of our own will. In other words I believe we are self causing agents.

If God knew beforehand something about us, but couldn't bring that characteristic about in us, then it's not God's omnipotence that predestines the elect. It's that characteristic in us.

I believe that God must bring about in us certain characteristics that we otherwise wouldn't be able to ourselves. So again it is omnipotence that plays a role in predestination.

It's fairly easy to understand if the rules are read and followed, why the explanation is virtually impossible.

I've read the rules and I still don't understand what the problem is or why you still cannot explain it. If I am braking some rule, it shouldn't be impossible to explain what that rule is and how I am braking it.

Then there's more that has been misstated, for in an earlier posting the assertion was made:

The statements on this thread on numerous points really aren't an accurate description of Calvinism itself, but actually a view that's at odds with Calvinism, something that Calvinism has considered error they've condemned for centuries.

On certain points (such as the use of the word "predestination" to talk about reprobation), you're accurate in that Calvinism does so. But the power of redemption is not the power of reprobation. Both are interventions of God in the world; but they're different interventions, with different bases.

I'll try to explain this one more time. I was not portraying Calvinism in any part of this thread, rather I was arguing against anyone who claims God predestines the reprobate. That is what I was referring to when I made those statements.

 

[heymikey80]

It would actually make God the indirect cause and us still a cause, because we still do cause things of our own will. In other words I believe we are self causing agents.

Hm. How is it understood -- all I can gather from this assertion is that we're self-causing agents that are unable to cause things within ourselves. What's preventing this idea from being self-inconsistent?

More questions about this --

If we're self-causing, doesn't that make us uncreated? I believe there's a qualification here for God's creation of the agent.

A query of those who object regarding "free agency" would help show whether anyone is actually objecting to this position in the first place. Again, the question of "free agency" is a non-issue to Calvinists. I'll do it in reverse: what's different between free agency and self-causing agency?

What contributes to the self-causing cause? That is, if it's "something" within me that does the causing, what's contributing to it as a cause?

I believe that God must bring about in us certain characteristics that we otherwise wouldn't be able to ourselves. So again it is omnipotence that plays a role in predestination.

We're unable to cause things within ourselves, while we're self-causing agents?

I've read the rules and I still don't understand what the problem is or why you still cannot explain it. If I am braking some rule, it shouldn't be impossible to explain what that rule is and how I am braking it.

Preventing a direct address prevents me from explaining it to you. On the other hand, preventing a direct address is the point.

I'll try to explain this one more time. I was not portraying Calvinism in any part of this thread, rather I was arguing against anyone who claims God predestines the reprobate. That is what I was referring to when I made those statements.

Mkay.

God does predestine the reprobate, but not in the same manner in which God predestines the elect. For the reprobate, God is leaving the reprobate as they are, to be condemned by His foreordained judgment on the Last Day. God created the reprobate. The reprobate fell. The reprobate are predestined to condemnation for their sinfulness, and thus offend the Good God of the Universe.

The elect are predestined to glory on very different terms, and different rules.

 

[elopez]

Hm. How is it understood -- all I can gather from this assertion is that we're self-causing agents that are unable to cause things within ourselves. What's preventing this idea from being self-inconsistent?

More questions about this --

If we're self-causing, doesn't that make us uncreated? I believe there's a qualification here for God's creation of the agent.

A query of those who object regarding "free agency" would help show whether anyone is actually objecting to this position in the first place. Again, the question of "free agency" is a non-issue to Calvinists. I'll do it in reverse: what's different between free agency and self-causing agency?

What contributes to the self-causing cause? That is, if it's "something" within me that does the causing, what's contributing to it as a cause?

What exactly do you mean by "cause things within ourselves"? By agent causation I mean we are capable of causing our own acts in a way that is not reducible to causation by circumstances or events. Think of inanimate objects that we say are caused. We would say that if such a causation occurred, that it would be between events or states of affairs. The dam's breaking was an event that was caused by a set of other events, the dam being weak, the flood water being strong and so on. Yet if man is accountable for his actions, then there is some event that is caused, not by other events or states of affairs but by the agent himself. In some sense we "cause" our desires that manifest into actions in a way that those desires derive from our wants, so I suppose you could say we cause things within ourselves that way.

No, I do not think that would make the agent uncreated however it would make the agent a 'prime mover unmoved' in only those things he causes on his own.

It's not an issue for many Christians too. And I don't suspect there is much of a difference.

We're unable to cause things within ourselves, while we're self-causing agents?

We can "cause" things within ourselves as in our desires and such, but there are things that we cannot cause within ourselves that only God is capable of bringing about. I do not see any inconsistency here.

Preventing a direct address prevents me from explaining it to you. On the other hand, preventing a direct address is the point.

You mean like my street address and all that? You've really got me confused now, I have no idea what the heck you are talking about and still do not understand why an explanation cannot be given and instead more vagueness.

Mkay.

God does predestine the reprobate, but not in the same manner in which God predestines the elect. For the reprobate, God is leaving the reprobate as they are, to be condemned by His foreordained judgment on the Last Day. God created the reprobate. The reprobate fell. The reprobate are predestined to condemnation for their sinfulness, and thus offend the Good God of the Universe.

The elect are predestined to glory on very different terms, and different rules.

Right, because God directly intervenes to predestine the elect while He does not need to for the reprobate. If the reprobate are 'left' as they are and there is no divine intervention, then they are not predestined to damnation.

Predestination is centralized around intervention so if God is not involved with those events He foreknows of, it cannot be adequately claimed as an event that is predestined. As I was saying earlier, scripture only attests to predestination in the sense of salvation, and no other sense of predestination is conveyed, i.e. a predestination of the damned. Also, what do you mean God "created the reprobate"? Do you mean God fashioned the reprobate's nature? Then that direct intervention you were saying does not exist is indeed present in their damnation.

The damned are so as a result of God electing the some of humanity to salvation, which is to say that there is a necessitated damnation of the remnants of man. That is not in any sense equivalent to saying that God predestined them to damnation, so I don't think we should claim that.

 

[brvhrt]

If God gives some in class A irresistable grace to to become chosen for election to become good vessels, but the others in class A which are no different have not been given grace to resist becoming corrupt, or vessels 'fitted for destruction'. What other conclusion is there? It is that doctrine that makes God responsible for his actions, and not man responsible for his actions. I know you dont believe God is a respector of persons, but the doctrine says otherwise. Election is based on our repentance, and faith in Christ, then Gods grace (atonement) is given. The children of faith are counted as his seed.

 

[Deniece]

If God gives some in class A irresistable grace to to become chosen for election to become good vessels, but the others in class A which are no different have not been given grace to resist becoming corrupt, or vessels 'fitted for destruction'. What other conclusion is there? It is that doctrine that makes God responsible for his actions, and not man responsible for his actions. I know you dont believe God is a respector of persons, but the doctrine says otherwise. Election is based on our repentance, and faith in Christ, then Gods grace (atonement) is given. The children of faith are counted as his seed.

Grace is undeserved. If they weren't already guilty they wouldn't have needed grace in the first place. If they were already guilty then their condemnation is their own fault, right?

 

[nobdysfool]

What exactly do you mean by "cause things within ourselves"? By agent causation I mean we are capable of causing our own acts in a way that is not reducible to causation by circumstances or events. Think of inanimate objects that we say are caused. We would say that if such a causation occurred, that it would be between events or states of affairs. The dam's breaking was an event that was caused by a set of other events, the dam being weak, the flood water being strong and so on. Yet if man is accountable for his actions, then there is some event that is caused, not by other events or states of affairs but by the agent himself. In some sense we "cause" our desires that manifest into actions in a way that those desires derive from our wants, so I suppose you could say we cause things within ourselves that way.

No, I do not think that would make the agent uncreated however it would make the agent a 'prime mover unmoved' in only those things he causes on his own.

It's not an issue for many Christians too. And I don't suspect there is much of a difference.


We can "cause" things within ourselves as in our desires and such, but there are things that we cannot cause within ourselves that only God is capable of bringing about. I do not see any inconsistency here.


You mean like my street address and all that? You've really got me confused now, I have no idea what the heck you are talking about and still do not understand why an explanation cannot be given and instead more vagueness.


Right, because God directly intervenes to predestine the elect while He does not need to for the reprobate. If the reprobate are 'left' as they are and there is no divine intervention, then they are not predestined to damnation.

Predestination is centralized around intervention so if God is not involved with those events He foreknows of, it cannot be adequately claimed as an event that is predestined. As I was saying earlier, scripture only attests to predestination in the sense of salvation, and no other sense of predestination is conveyed, i.e. a predestination of the damned. Also, what do you mean God "created the reprobate"? Do you mean God fashioned the reprobate's nature? Then that direct intervention you were saying does not exist is indeed present in their damnation.

The damned are so as a result of God electing the some of humanity to salvation, which is to say that there is a necessitated damnation of the remnants of man. That is not in any sense equivalent to saying that God predestined them to damnation, so I don't think we should claim that.

All men are born condemned, (damned, if you will). Predestination of the elect does not cause the rest to be damned. Predestination changes the fate of those so predestined to salvation, otherwise they would be damned as well. The damnation of man results from the ongoing effects of Adam's sin, which is passed down through his progeny, to this day and beyond, and God's Judgment of that sin. Men add to their damnation by the sins they personally commit. God does not cause that. God's intervention is in the choosing of some to be heirs of salvation, and He intervenes in their lives to a greater or lesser extent, as needed, to bring His predestination of them to pass. No such action is needed on God's part to make men sin. He does exercise control over the extent and depth of sin allowed, through the control and direction of circumstances, which influence the decisions men make. That could be called indirect intervention, I suppose. He also controls the extent of Satan's influence and the boundaries of what Satan may do with regard to individuals and even nations (look at Job). God is not inactive in His Creation, for all things are held together by the word of His Power, and in Him we live and move and have our being.

 

[brvhrt]

What if God had given all grace, not willing that any perish? Could they have resisted?

 

[cygnusx1]

What if God had given all grace, not willing that any perish? Could they have resisted?

Grace = unmerited kindness

all grace can be resisted except one kind , saving Grace .

 

[brvhrt]

So, why doesnt God give all saving grace? Those who have been elected havent been born, nor have they sinned. What is God's reason for choosing before the foundation of the world some out of condemnation, and not others. Did they rebel before they were born? Or, are they evil before they were born?

 

[nobdysfool]

So, why doesnt God give all saving grace? Those who have been elected havent been born, nor have they sinned. What is God's reason for choosing before the foundation of the world some out of condemnation, and not others. Did they rebel before they were born? Or, are they evil before they were born?

He did so because in His eternal counsel, He set His love upon them. He did not choose them because of anything within them, or anything He foresaw them doing. He chose them because it seemed good to Him to do so. Since all mankind is condemned even before they are born, His display of Mercy and Grace upon whom He chooses to bestow it is His decision, and works no injustice to those not chosen. He didn't make them sin, and they are accountable for their sins, and therefore their condemnation for those sins.

Is it unfair of a governor to grant clemency to one prisoner on death row and not all of them? Of course, because he is not obligated to grant clemency to anyone. God is not obligated to save anyone, so if He does, that is Grace, and not unjust. The saved receive Grace, the rest receive Justice.

 

[Ryan Collins]

He did so because in His eternal counsel, He set His love upon them. He did not choose them because of anything within them, or anything He foresaw them doing. He chose them because it seemed good to Him to do so. Since all mankind is condemned even before they are born, His display of Mercy and Grace upon whom He chooses to bestow it is His decision, and works no injustice to those not chosen. He didn't make them sin, and they are accountable for their sins, and therefore their condemnation for those sins.

Is it unfair of a governor to grant clemency to one prisoner on death row and not all of them? of course, because he is not obligated to grant amnesty to anyone. God is not obligated to save anyone, so if he does, that is Grace, and not unjust.

But that same governor is not holding those prisoners on death row morally responsible for their actions when they were foreordained. That governor is holding those prisoners on death row because of the choices they made, not because the governor predestined their actions from before the foundations of the Earth.

 

[nobdysfool]

But that same governor is not holding those prisoners on death row morally responsible for their actions when they were foreordained. That governor is holding those prisoners on death row because of the choices they made, not because the governor predestined their actions from before the foundations of the Earth.

It is not a complete analogy, I admit. It was to illustrate justice and mercy, not predestination. The poster I was responding to wasn't asking a question about predestination, per se.