Double Predestination

[Verona]

Interestingly, the idea that one who holds to "double predestination" (with the understanding that this means that God, before the foundation of the world, definitively and effectively purposed the salvation of the elect and therefore the passing over and reprobation of the rest) is a "hyper-Calvinist" has it's origin among Arminians who do not really understand the doctrine.

This is not "hyper-Calvinism", it's just Calvinism.

Dont quite see this. Did God pass over or activily predestine the non elect?

Passing over is weak Calvinism. Activily predestining the non elect is the Calvinism of Luther, Calvin Bucer et al. It is here that Arminias split with the leaders of his time.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Dont quite see this. Did God pass over or activily predestine the non elect?

Passing over is weak Calvinism. Activily predestining the non elect is the Calvinism of Luther, Calvin Bucer et al. It is here that Arminias split with the leaders of his time.

It is a shame that so many do not research the matters for themselves and simply take others word for it. Passing over is not weak Calvinism, it is taught by John Calvin himself.

" But others, not versed in Scripture, and deserving no approbation, so
wickedly assail this sound doctrine that their insolence is intolerable.
Because God chooses some, and passes over others according to his own
decision, they bring an action against him. But if the fact itself is well
known, what will it profit them to quarrel against God? We teach nothing
not borne out by experience: F611 that God has always been free to bestow
his grace on whom he wills. I shall not inquire in what respect the
descendants of Abraham excelled other men, except in that esteem whose
cause is not found outside God. Let them answer why they are men rather
than oxen or [the other word for a donkey]." - John Calvin from his Institutes (Battles Translation) Vol 3 Chapter 22 second paragraph

"Still, the matter can be explained to fuller satisfaction. Do they ask how it
happens that of two men indistinguishable in merit, God in his election
passes over one but takes the other? I, in turn, ask: “Do they think that
there is anything in him who is taken that disposes God to him?” If they
admit that there is nothing, as they must, it will follow that God does not
consider the man but seeks from his own goodness the reason to do him
good. The fact that God therefore chooses one man but rejects another
arises not out of regard to the man but solely from his mercy, which ought
to be free to manifest and express itself where and when he pleases" - John Calvin from his Institutes (Battles Translation) Vol 3 Chapter 22

 

[Anoetos]

Additionally, Westminster

"The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (3:VIII)"

Note that although the confession does use the expression "ordain" (which I and AW also admit, of course), it avoids the use of the word "predestine" to describe God's purposing the fate of the reprobate.

It is also interesting that the London Baptist confession of 1689, which is mainly just a revision of Westminster, leaves this out entirely.

The Belgic Confession

"We believe that-- all Adam's descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves. (Article 16)"

And, of course the imagery is from Scripture:

"For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt. -Ex 12:12,13"

So we see then that the use of the expressive image of God "passing over" the reprobate, not choosing them, not saving them, not rectifying them with His Grace, is actually not merely venerable; it is the historically preferred construction, and also at root, an essentially biblical one.

To call it "weak Calvinism" is to betray ones ignorance of Scripture and history.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Additionally, Westminster

Note that although the confession does use the expression "ordain" (which I and AW also admit, of course), it avoids the use of the word "predestine" to describe God's purposing the fate of the reprobate.

It is also interesting that the London Baptist confession of 1689, which is mainly just a revision of Westminster, leaves this out entirely.

The Belgic Confession

Something interesting relating to the Belgic Confession and John Calvin is the time periods.

John Calvin lived between 1509 and 1564

The Belgic Confession dates around 1561 with the final revision in 1566.

According to the Wiki article: "De Brès was a Presbyterian and a Calvinist, and the initial text he prepared was influenced by the Gallic Confession. [Presbyterian is a denomination and a form of church government. Presbyterians are Calvinists, with some recent exceptions. Since the Presbyterian Church (Church of Scotland) was just being established when de Brès was martyred, he probably was not a Presbyterian in that sense.] De Brès showed it in draft to others, including Hadrian à Saravia, Herman Moded, and Godfried van Wingen (Wingius). It was revised by Franciscus Junius, who abridged the sixteenth article and sent a copy to Geneva and other churches for approval; and was presented to Philip II of Spain in 1562, in the hope of securing toleration for his Protestant subjects in the Low Countries.[1] In 1566, the text of this confession was revised at a synod held at Antwerp. It was adopted by national synods held during the last three decades of the sixteenth century."

If a copy of the Belgic Confession was to Geneva around 1562, this would have been during John Calvin's lifetime and I have little doubt it would have escaped his eyes.

At Reformed.org we read:

"During the sixteenth century the churches in this country were exposed to the most terrible persecution by the Roman Catholic government. To protest against this cruel oppression, and to prove to the persecutors that the adherents of the Reformed faith were not rebels, as was laid to their charge, but law-abiding citizens who professed the true Christian doctrine according to the Holy Scriptures, de Bräs prepared this confession in the year 1561. In the following year a copy was sent to King Philip II, together with an address in which the petitioners declared that they were ready to obey the government in all lawful things, but that they would "offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire," rather than deny the truth expressed in this confession. Although the immediate purpose of securing freedom from persecution was not attained, and de Bräs himself fell as one of the many thousands who sealed their faith with their lives, his work has endured and will continue to endure. In its composition the author availed himself to some extent of a confession of the Reformed churches in France, written chiefly by John Calvin, published two years earlier.

The work of de Bräs, however, is not a mere revision of Calvin's work, but an independent composition. In 1566 the text of this confession was revised at a synod held at Antwerp. In the Netherlands it was at once gladly received by the churches, and it was adopted by national synods held during the last three decades of the sixteenth century."

And as I suspected from a lovely introduction the Belgic Confession....

"Our Belgic Confession was explicitly approved by John Calvin, Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva) and the church at Geneva.

Guido de Brès spent five years in England where Martin Micronius, Martin Bucer, and John a Lasco were his fellow Reformed workers. He also spent some time learning the Reformed faith in Switzerland. He was trained in Lausanne under Beza and then he went for a year to Geneva, where he attended the lectures of John Calvin. We also have a record of a letter from Calvin to de Brès.

As well as studying under Calvin for a year and corresponding with Calvin, we know that de Brès owned at least some of Calvin's books, for works by Calvin were in de Brès' library which the civil authorities in Tournai discovered in a garden shed and burned. Thus the ties between Guido de Brès and Calvin are very strong.

Also the Belgic Confession (1561) leans heavily for order, content and wording on the French Confession, which was written in 1559, being drafted by John Calvin for the French Reformed churches. When de Brès penned his confession, he used the French Confession, took some things out, put other things in, reworked material, changed things, developed things, etc. So not only was our Belgic Confession written by a man who studied at Geneva for a year, corresponded with Calvin and read Calvin's books but also it was based on a confession which Calvin drafted! No wonder one can sense the flavour of Calvin in the Confessio Belgica!

In a letter to someone either in or from the Lowlands, John Calvin actually wrote about the Belgic Confession, which evidently he had read: “In your confessional statement [i.e., the Belgic Confession] we have not noticed anything which does not agree with the holy oracles of God and the orthodox faith. Therefore, we willingly approve the summary of doctrine contained it.”4

What a high endorsement from the Genevan Reformer! He “willingly approves” the Belgic Confession, not finding in it “anything which does not agree with the holy oracles of God and the orthodox faith.” Of course, for de Brès was a student of Calvin's and he was leaning heavily on the French Confession which Calvin drafted!" - Introducing the Belgic Confession of Faith

 

[CalledOutOne]

What is the difference between God's active predestination and God "passing over".

 

[Eddie L]

What is the difference between God's active predestination and God "passing over".

the cross and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What is the difference between God's active predestination and God "passing over".

I highly recommend downloading and reading the section "Of the Decrees of God" from Vol 1 of The Works of Thomas Boston, a Puritan. Here is a taste ...

2. That the decree of God is properly distinguished into that which is effective, and that which is permissive.

(1.) His effective decree respects all the good that comes to pass, whether it be moral or natural goodness. All the actions and motions of the creatures have a natural goodness in them; and even sinful actions considered abstractly from any irregularity, obliquity, or deformity cleaving to them, have a natural goodness in them, so far as they are actions: they have a goodness of being considered purely and simply as actions. Now, God has decreed to effect all these, yea even sinful actions considered purely as natural. For he is the first and universal cause of all things, the fountain and original of all good. And it is said with respect to the oppressions of the church by wicked men, Psal. 115:3. ‘Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he pleased.’

(2.) His permissive decree doth only respect the irregularity and pravity that is in sinful actions. God decreed to permit the same, or he determined it to be, himself permitting it. Hence it is said, Acts 14:16. ‘In times past he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.’ And God doth nothing in time, but what he did from eternity decree to do. So that the futurition of sin is from the decree of God. God determined that it should be. He did not decree to have any efficiency in sin, considered as such; but he willed that it should be done, himself permitting it. The counsel of God did not determine to do it, but that it should be done.

3. God decreed the permission of sin for great and glorious ends. It is true, sin in its own nature has no tendency to any good end. If it end in any good, it is from the overruling providence of God, and that infinite divine skill that can bring good out of evil, as well as light out of darkness. Now, the great and glorious end for which God decreed the after-being of sin, is his own glory: and the ends subordinate thereunto are not a few. Particularly, God decreed the futurition of sin, (1.) That he might have occasion of glorifying his infinite wisdom, love, and grace in the redemption and salvation of a company of lost sinners through the death and sufferings of his own dear Son. (2.) That his patience and long suffering in bearing with and forbearing sinners, might be magnified, admired, and adored. (3.) That he might be honoured and glorified by the faith and repentance of his people, and their walking humbly with him. (4.) That his justice might be illustriously displayed and glorified in the eternal damnation of reprobate sinners for their own sins and abominations, sin being the cause of their damnation, though not of their reprobation. Thus God decreed the futurition of sin for these holy and wise ends, that he might glorify his wisdom in bringing good out of so great an evil, and a greater good than the evil he decreed to permit.

4. The decree of God about the permission of sin does not infringe the liberty of man’s will. For sin doth not follow the decree by a necessity of co-action or compulsion, which indeed would destroy human liberty; but by a necessity of infallibility, which is very consistent with it. It is sufficient unto human liberty, or the freedom of man’s will, that a man act without all constraint, and out of choice. Now, this is not taken away by the decree. Men sin as freely as if there were no decree, and yet as infallibly as if there were no liberty. And men sin, not to fulfil God’s decree, which is hid from them, but to serve and gratify their vile lusts and corrupt affections.

Object. 2. If God hath determined the precise number of every man’s days by an unalterable decree, then the use of means for the preservation of our health and lives is altogether unnecessary; for nothing can frustrate the divine decree. We will certainly live as long as God hath appointed us, whether we use any means or not. And therefore when we are hungry, we need not eat and drink; and when we are sick, we need not take physic, or use any medicines.
In answer to this, you must know, that as God hath decreed the end, so he hath decreed the means that are proper for attaining that end; so that these two must not be separated. Though God hath decreed how long we shall live, yet seeing it is his ordinary way to work by means, and he hath commanded and enjoined the use of them to men, therefore it is still our duty to use lawful means for preserving our life and health, and to wait on God in the due use of them, referring the event to his wise determination. In Paul’s dangerous voyage to Rome, an angel of the Lord assured him, that God had given him all that sailed with him in the ship; and Paul assured them from the Lord, that there should be no loss of any of their lives: yet when some were about to flee out of the ship, he says to the centurion who had the command, ‘Except these abide in the ship, you cannot be saved,’ Acts 27:31. And he exhorted them to take some meat after their long abstinence, telling them, that it was for their health. From which it plainly appears, that as God had decreed to save their lives, so he had decreed to save them in the due use of ordinary means; so that they were to use means for the preservation of their life and health. And when Hezekiah was recovered from a mortal disease, and received a promise from God that he should have fifteen years added to his days, and the promise was confirmed by a sign, the miraculous going back of the sun, he did not neglect or cast off the use of means: but, as was prescribed by the prophet, he applied a bunch of dried figs to his sore, and used still his ordinary diet. Therefore it is gross ignorance and madness in men to reason so against God’s decrees. The Lord, by an unchangeable counsel and purpose, hath decreed and set down all things, and how they shall come to pass; and therefore it is a wrong way of arguing for people to say, If God hath determined how long I shall live, then I shall not die sooner, though I never eat or drink.

Object. 3. If God hath determined the eternal state and condition of men, whether they shall be happy or miserable for ever, then it is in vain to repent and believe, or use any means for their own safety. For if God hath elected them to salvation, they shall certainly be saved, whether they use any means or not; and if they are not elected to everlasting life, all that they can possibly do will be to no purpose at all, for they shall never be saved by it.

If you want to read a "clean" copy of just that section, I copied it from my LOGOS library and saved into MS Word format: OF THE DECREES OF GOD

 

[Verona]

It is a shame that so many do not research the matters for themselves and simply take others word for it. Passing over is not weak Calvinism, it is taught by John Calvin himself.

Selective quoting I think.

Here are are a few more from John Calvin where he teaches double predestination. I.E not just passively passing over the non elect.
It is a shame so many do not read ALL Calvin's work.

I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will

John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 3 Chapter 23


"God ... arranges all things by his counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death"
John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 3 Chapter 23

"it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening
John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 2 Chapter 23


"some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.”
John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 3 Chapter 21

 

[Verona]

A hyper-calvinist believes...

1. the gospel should only be preached to the regenerate
2. all people are not commanded to repent
3. a person's actions are not connected to their faith (what a person does is in no way an indicator of their election)

I personally believe that there are two problems with the thinking of hypers.

1. They do not connect the sovereignty of God to secondary causes
2. They believe it is illogical to command something that people do not have the ability to obey.

Forgive me for being critical.

1. How can the gospel be preached only to the regenerate when they are not distinguishable from the no regenerate. At least initially.

2. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? Matt 7:16. Do Hyper Calvinist not know this text ?


3. What second causes ?

4. Maybe they think it is illogical for God to command something that people have not been given the ability by God to obey. Not quite the same as what you said above.

 

[Eddie L]

Forgive me for being critical.

I've gleaned what I know from Spurgeon's sermons, so I'm no authority on this, but I'll answer what I think I know (which could be wrong).

1. How can the gospel be preached only to the regenerate when they are not distinguishable from the no regenerate. At least initially.

They see repentance as the sign of regeneration. They believe that you can only preach the good news to those have demonstrated regeneration by repenting after hearing of their sin.

3. What second causes ?

Anything and everything can be a secondary cause, a means to a predetermined end. Calvinists believe that God predetermines events, but also that He uses secondary causes to see them through. Hypers agree that events are predetermined, but don't see the connection between the predetermined act and the human action God uses to carry them out.

4. Maybe they think it is illogical for God to command something that people have not been given the ability by God to obey. Not quite the same as what you said above.

This is what they believe, which is completely contrary to Calvinism. That's why, to me, to call them Hyper-Calvinists is incorrect. On many things, they are not a more extreme version of Calvinism, since their logic often branches off into different directions entirely.

 

[Verona]

I've gleaned what I know from Spurgeon's sermons, so I'm no authority on this, but I'll answer what I think I know (which could be wrong).

They see repentance as the sign of regeneration. They believe that you can only preach the good news to those have demonstrated regeneration by repenting after hearing of their sin.

Anything and everything can be a secondary cause, a means to a predetermined end. Calvinists believe that God predetermines events, but also that He uses secondary causes to see them through. Hypers agree that events are predetermined, but don't see the connection between the predetermined act and the human action God uses to carry them out.

4. Maybe they think it is illogical for God to command something that people have not been given the ability by God to obey. Not quite the same as what you said above.

This is what they believe, which is completely contrary to Calvinism. That's why, to me, to call them Hyper-Calvinists is incorrect. On many things, they are not a more extreme version of Calvinism, since their logic often branches off into different directions entirely.

Thanks Eddie.

Calvinism is almost a non issue in my part of the world.
I certainly do not understand it as I also think it is illogical for God to command something that people have not been given the ability by God to obey.

As for John Calvin. He seems to some times sit on the "passed over" weak Calvinism and sometimes on the hard determinism side as quoted in a previous post.

Here is an extract from the Institutes Volume 3 Chapter 21 Section 1 which IMO every one should read whether Calvinist or not (hi-lights are mine)

But before I enter on the subject, I have some remarks to address to two classes of men. The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth.49[6]

For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word--revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.

 

[Verona]

Just a bit more from Institutes Volume 3 Chapter 21 Section 5

This is partly why I do not go along with the "passed over " version of Calvinism.

Is the bit shown in blue what you were referring to as secondary causes ?



5. The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at, especially by those who make prescience its cause. We, indeed, ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say, that it is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former (see chap. 22 sec. 1). When we attribute prescience to God, we mean that all things always were, and ever continue, under his eye; that to his knowledge there is no past or future, but all things are present, and indeed so present, that it is not merely the idea of them that is before him (as those objects are which we retain in our memory), but that he truly sees and contemplates them as actually under his immediate inspection. This prescience extends to the whole circuit of the world, and to all creatures. By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Selective quoting I think.

Of course, just as you do below. Did you miss this bit of info: "Our Belgic Confession was explicitly approved by John Calvin, Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva) and the church at Geneva." ?

and did you read the quote from the Belgic Confession?

""We believe that-- all Adam's descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves. (Article 16)"

Seems to me you might be selectively responding...

Here are are a few more from John Calvin where he teaches double predestination. I.E not just passively passing over the non elect.

I believe in double predestination...and as Thomas Boston wrote "That the decree of God is properly distinguished into that which is effective, and that which is permissive." And the need to distinguish between first and secondary causes.

It is a shame so many do not read ALL Calvin's work.

I agree, it's a shame I have not read more, you got me there. But to read ALL of Calvin's work is a tall TALL order, how many volumes would you guess that Calvin wrote? For the sake of the discussion there is no need to read all of his writings, we're concerned with what he had to say concerning predestination, which doesn't account for a great deal of the totality of his work.

I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will
John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 3 Chapter 23

Yes, by His permissive will. Whatsoever He allows, He also willed.

"God ... arranges all things by his counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death"John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 3 Chapter 23

Is it not true that God is all-knowing? Does God not foreknow every soul that will face eternal punishment? Does God not also allow every one of those souls to be born? Yes, Yes, and Yes.

"it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 2 Chapter 23

Did God not harden Pharaoh's heart?

"some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.”John Calvin from his Institutes Vol 3 Chapter 21

Just because so many are "preordained" to eternal damnation, that does not mean we know who they are, that does not take away from the need to preach the Gospel, we are not all knowing, we may even have doubts about our own salvation. About the word "preordained", it is connected with the DECREES of God, for we cannot talk about preordaination without talking about the will of God. On this, I recommend taking a some time to read the full "OF THE DECREES OF GOD" by Puritan Thomas Boston.

 

[Eddie L]

Thanks Eddie.

Calvinism is almost a non issue in my part of the world.
I certainly do not understand it as I also think it is illogical for God to command something that people have not been given the ability by God to obey.

I don't think it illogical at all. None of us could have ever kept the Jewish Law, but it certainly was commanded. Jesus fulfilled it, but that didn't remove it as a human obligation. I think the gospel works the same way.

As for John Calvin. He seems to some times sit on the "passed over" weak Calvinism and sometimes on the hard determinism side as quoted in a previous post.

I think the "passed over" and the "hard determinism" is completely compatible. I think most Calvinists would agree. I think hyper-Calvinists would agree with most free-will theists that they are not compatible.

Here is an extract from the Institutes Volume 3 Chapter 21 Section 1 which IMO every one should read whether Calvinist or not (hi-lights are mine)

But before I enter on the subject, I have some remarks to address to two classes of men. The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth.49[6]

For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word--revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.

I agree with this. The mind of God is unknowable, and His specific plans are not ours to understand. We have His written Word, and we need go no farther. Logic has its place, but our data is not conclusive enough for our logic to dictate truth to us when concerned with the mind of God.

 

[Verona]

Of course, just as you do below.

The problem is we select. But what about the other texts we ignore ? They do not go away do they. So what do we do ? Bury our heads in the sand ?

""We believe that-- all Adam's descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just. He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works. He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves. (Article 16)"

Seems to me you might be selectively responding...

Glad you mentioned this as when I quote the unpopular texts of John Calvin some say "ah but we are not followers of Calvin 100%" or words to that effect. However most if not all reformed texts e.g the Belgic Confessions are nothing but John Calvin's theology.

I believe in double predestination...and as Thomas Boston wrote "That the decree of God is properly distinguished into that which is effective, and that which is permissive." And the need to distinguish between first and secondary causes.

Now you have got me. I have not read Thomas Boston. However I don't find permissive/effective whatever in the Bible. Yes I have heard it talked about some.

I agree, it's a shame I have not read more, you got me there. But to read ALL of Calvin's work is a tall TALL order, how many volumes would you guess that Calvin wrote? For the sake of the discussion there is no need to read all of his writings, we're concerned with what he had to say concerning predestination, which doesn't account for a great deal of the totality of his work.

Absolutely. More so with Augustine.

....


Just because so many are "preordained" to eternal damnation, that does not mean we know who they are,

The "aha we don't know who they are" clause. Whether we do or not makes no difference to the things preordained by God. Beats me why this phrases so popular. I guess its the reason we are sent to evangelize, the Argument against being - what's the point if the are pre elected.

, I recommend taking a some time to read the full "OF THE DECREES OF GOD" by Puritan Thomas Boston.

Ill take a look. Thanks

 

[Verona]

I don't think it illogical at all. None of us could have ever kept the Jewish Law, but it certainly was commanded. Jesus fulfilled it, but that didn't remove it as a human obligation. I think the gospel works the same way.

I was going to write " I see your point". But, was the Jewish law given for man to keep and get to heaven? I am thinking the law was given to show man that he cannot work his way to heaven no matter how hard he tries. The non elect were not given even the means to understand a command.

I think the "passed over" and the "hard determinism" is completely compatible. I think most Calvinists would agree. I think hyper-Calvinists would agree with most free-will theists that they are not compatible.

Regarding "compatible". above. I cannot see how that can be. I am not saying you are wrong. Just whatever it is, I am missing it.

Here is an extract from the Institutes Volume 3 Chapter 21 Section 1 which IMO every one should read whether Calvinist or not (hi-lights are mine)

But before I enter on the subject, I have some remarks to address to two classes of men. The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth.49[6]

For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word--revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.

I agree with this. The mind of God is unknowable, and His specific plans are not ours to understand. We have His written Word, and we need go no farther. Logic has its place, but our data is not conclusive enough for our logic to dictate truth to us when concerned with the mind of God.

I agree with your agreement. The 'compatible' above is IMO not fathomable but is one of the secrets of Gods will.

 

[Verona]

BTW I re-quoted Institutes Volume 3 Chapter 21 Section 1 in the previous post not because I agree with John Calvin on every thing. He does back track at times and can be ambiguous. But then he was only human. However things like:

Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word--revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.

are IMO spot on and should not be ignored.

 

[Eddie L]

I was going to write " I see your point". But, was the Jewish law given for man to keep and get to heaven? I am thinking the law was given to show man that he cannot work his way to heaven no matter how hard he tries. The non elect were not given even the means to understand a command.

The Jewish Law was written to be obeyed. There were real penalties for not keeping it, but nobody but Jesus could really do it. It was more than eternal salvation. The rocks thrown at people really did hurt.

Regarding "compatible". above. I cannot see how that can be. I am not saying you are wrong. Just whatever it is, I am missing it.

It's made most clear to me by understanding the difference between what the Father Causes via the Son and Spirit verses what God determines through other means. The Holy Spirit does not CAUSE reprobation (He is not its influence), but He CAUSES regeneration. The world was condemned BEFORE the cross, not by it, though the work of the Son actively redeems the elect. God is personally involved as a direct cause that sees His predetermination of the elect come to pass. God's involvement in those He passes over is one as Sovereign Lord, but not a direct cause. The predestination of the reprobate, then, is not symmetrical with God's work to save the elect.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The problem is we select. But what about the other texts we ignore ? They do not go away do they. So what do we do ? Bury our heads in the sand ?

Speaking of, have you read any from Calvin's "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will"? I believe it sheds more light on Calvin's thinking on this issue.

Glad you mentioned this as when I quote the unpopular texts of John Calvin some say "ah but we are not followers of Calvin 100%" or words to that effect. However most if not all reformed texts e.g the Belgic Confessions are nothing but John Calvin's theology.

I doubt you'll like this answer, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. That said, I believe John Calvin was also a follower of Jesus Christ, and a faithful one at that. I cannot say that I agree with him 100%, especially not having read everything he wrote, but I can say he is a giant among theologians, one I can sit on his shoulders so to speak and learn from. Interestingly enough, John Calvin had little to do with my conversion to Reformed Theology, but he is one of the primary sources historically speaking.

Now you have got me. I have not read Thomas Boston. However I don't find permissive/effective whatever in the Bible. Yes I have heard it talked about some.

"Thomas Boston (March 17, 1676 – May 20, 1732) was a Scottish church leader. He was born at Duns. His father, John Boston, and his mother, Alison Trotter, were both Covenanters. He was educated at Edinburgh, and licensed in 1697 by the presbytery of Chirnside. In 1699 he became minister of the small parish of Simprin, where there were only 90 examinable persons.His autobiography is a record of Scottish life, with humorous touches, intentional and otherwise. His books, The Fourfold State, The Crook in the Lot, and his Body of Divinity and Miscellanies, had a powerful influence over the Scottish peasantry. His Memoirs were published in 1776 (ed. GD Low, 1908). An edition of his works in 12 volumes appeared in 1849." - Reformation Heritage Books

You probably won't find permissive/effective in the Bible and I have no idea what the Greek equivalent words would be, but then again there are alot of other words not found in the Bible either, like the word "Theology" or "Soteriology" or even "Trinity" for that matter.

The "aha we don't know who they are" clause. Whether we do or not makes no difference to the things preordained by God. Beats me why this phrases so popular. I guess its the reason we are sent to evangelize, the Argument against being - what's the point if the are pre elected.

Simple, God ordains the means to the end, that is He uses His people (secondary causes) to accomplish His will.

 

[Eddie L]

The "aha we don't know who they are" clause. Whether we do or not makes no difference to the things preordained by God. Beats me why this phrases so popular. I guess its the reason we are sent to evangelize, the Argument against being - what's the point if the are pre elected.

Verona,

But this is exactly the kind of knowledge in the mind of God that Calvin's passage addresses. We do not know who God has elected. It is secret knowledge, tucked away in the mind of God. This is the knowledge Calvin does not want us looking into. Imagine us trying to decide who is elect and who isn't. Imagine the damage we could do if we thought we knew this answer. It's a part of the secret we are not to look too closely into.

What we believe that we do know about the elect is as follows:

1. They are not elect because of what they have done
2. They are no less wicked than those passed over (apart from the work of God in them after regeneration)
3. They are not made into something that is righteous apart from the work of God in them
4. They owe everything regarding their faithfulness to the gospel

Our mission as evangelists is to find the elect and save them via the gospel. That kind of gets me excited. We are putting out the word and watching the Spirit of God bring those made for His glory home.

Fear not, for I am with you;
I will bring your offspring from the east,
and from the west I will gather you.
I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the end of the earth,
everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.​

(Isaiah 43:5-7)​