Double Predestination

[CalledOutOne]

I hold to a form of double predestination, does that make me a hyper-Calvinist?

I've been reading up on different views lately and many even in the Reformed camp would call me a hyper-Calvinist.

 

[Calminian]

I hold to a form of double predestination, does that make me a hyper-Calvinist?

I've been reading up on different views lately and many even in the Reformed camp would call me a hyper-Calvinist.

I think you are merely taking your theology to its logical conclusions. If LFW doesn't exist, then God is the direct cause of all actions.

I'm a double predestinarian too BTW. God chose to condemn some and chose to justify sanctify and glorify some. Man can neither save himself nor condemn himself. God has to do both.

I do believe though, that a hyper calvinist is one that takes his theology further than calvin did, and I believe Calvin denied double predestination.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I guess I'm not a hyper-Calvinist according to this guy:

Does God Predestine Men to Hell? (Double Predestination Explained Rightly) - YouTube

 

[Skala]

No, you are not a hyper-calvinist.

Double predestination is the logical conclusion of believing in election. If God chose group A for salvation, he necessarily made a choice regarding the fate of group B.

But what you need to understand is that double predestination is not necessarily what we call equal ultimacy.

Equal ultimacy is (an error, I think) the belief that God worked equally in the damnation of the reprobate as He did the salvation of the elect.

The implication of EU is that since God entered the human situation to effectually regenerate the elect and bring them to faith and repentance, he likewise entered the human situation to cause unbelief and stir up evil and rebellion in the hearts of the reprobate. This is wrong.

What is the Biblical picture, is that yes, God did intervene to save the elect, but He didn't do anything positively on his part to cause unbelief in the non-elect. They are unbelievers by fallen nature. Their natural tendency is to rebel and end up in hell. God simply leaves them in in their sins, to their just condemnation.

So it is not a positive/positive working on God's part, regarding the elect and reprobate, but a positive/negative. Thus, it's not Equal Ultimacy.

An example is AW Pink's usage of gravity as an analogy. If you hold a book, and release it, it's default/natural direction is to fall downward. You didn't force it downward. It's going there, apart from your strength in holding it up. If you want to raise a book 3 feet over your head, you must positively take action to work to counteract the natural tendency of the book.

In like manner, sinners are headed to hell by fallen nature, that is their default position. God doesn't need to do anything for them to decline into damnation. But if He must exert positive effort to save sinners from hell.

RC sproul teaches on this subject if you want more information.

 

[Eddie L]

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.

 

[prodigal brother]

I hold to a form of double predestination, does that make me a hyper-Calvinist?

I've been reading up on different views lately and many even in the Reformed camp would call me a hyper-Calvinist.

well that explains your off balance theology

 

[Skala]

Amen Eddie.

Believing in double predestination (which is simply logical, by the way, and thus should be believed) does not make one a hyper Calvinist.

Hyper Calvinism is when you deny that God uses means to accomplish the ends. For example, they believe that the elect will be saved whether or not they hear the gospel and have faith in Christ. Thus, you can see that this affects their stance on evangelism.

Regular, Biblical Calvinism acknowledges that God uses means to accomplish the ends. God uses the gospel (means) to realize the ends of the salvation of the elect. It doesn't "just happen", but it happens through the method and means that God has put into place.

 

[elopez]

Double predestination, followed to it's logical conclusion, does in fact give way to equal ultimacy.

Think of what predestination consists of -- divine intervention and foreknowledge. If there is simply foreknowledge and no divine intervention, then it cannot be predestination but merely God being aware of what is going to happen. God must directly interact for there to be predestination, and if there is a double predestination, well, you get the idea.

If we are denying EU, then what we are essentially disregarding is the idea that God directly intervenes with humanity to damn them, and that (divine intervention) is the central idea for predestination. Thus, by rejecting EU, we reject double predestination.

 

[nobdysfool]

Double predestination, followed to it's logical conclusion, does in fact give way to equal ultimacy.

Think of what predestination consists of -- divine intervention and foreknowledge. If there is simply foreknowledge and no divine intervention, then it cannot be predestination but merely God being aware of what is going to happen. God must directly interact for there to be predestination, and if there is a double predestination, well, you get the idea.

If we are denying EU, then what we are essentially disregarding is the idea that God directly intervenes with humanity to damn them, and that (divine intervention) is the central idea for predestination. Thus, by rejecting EU, we reject double predestination.

Post #4 refutes this.

 

[student ad x]

well that explains your off balance theology

 

[elopez]

Post #4 refutes this.

Actually it doesn't. If it did, there would be an explanation of how predestination can be considered predestination when there is only foreknowledge and not divine intervention.

 

[nobdysfool]

Actually it doesn't. If it did, there would be an explanation of how predestination can be considered predestination when there is only foreknowledge and not divine intervention.

Here is the heart of it:

Equal ultimacy is (an error, I think) the belief that God worked equally in the damnation of the reprobate as He did the salvation of the elect.

The implication of EU is that since God entered the human situation to effectually regenerate the elect and bring them to faith and repentance, he likewise entered the human situation to cause unbelief and stir up evil and rebellion in the hearts of the reprobate. This is wrong.

What is the Biblical picture, is that yes, God did intervene to save the elect, but He didn't do anything positively on his part to cause unbelief in the non-elect. They are unbelievers by fallen nature. Their natural tendency is to rebel and end up in hell. God simply leaves them in in their sins, to their just condemnation.

So it is not a positive/positive working on God's part, regarding the elect and reprobate, but a positive/negative. Thus, it's not Equal Ultimacy.

You're confusing concepts, trying to lump together different things. Please read again, very carefully, and understand the view.

 

[elopez]

The thing is I read that post before I posted. The heart of the view is how it can considered predestination when there is no divine intervention. If there is no divine intervention, it cannot be predestination. That is not confusing anything or lumping different things together.

Again, there is nothing mentioned pertaining to the definition of predestination, or how mere foreknowledge is considered predestination. It is not, so double predestination is false.

 

[elopez]

In other words, there is only one predestination, of which pertains to the elect.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I hold to a form of double predestination, does that make me a hyper-Calvinist?

I've been reading up on different views lately and many even in the Reformed camp would call me a hyper-Calvinist.

No, belief in double predestination does NOT make you a hyper.

Allow me to quote one of my recent posts:

"For a comparison between Arminianism and Calvinism, I recommend the following chart: A Brief Comparitive Study of Arminianism and Calvinism which is from the book "The Five Points of CALVINISM - Defined, Defended, Documented" by David N. Steele and Curtis Thomas. There is also a similar or same chart in the back of (newer editions at least) of Loraine Boettner's book "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination".

As for "hyper-calvinism"...
A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

A list of linked articles:

Monergism :: Hyper-Calvinism

John Hendryx sums up the points nicely the most serious differences in my mind include:

"- that God is the author of sin and of evil
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- that it is wrong to evangelize
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- that God does not command everyone to repent
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism"

A book on this subject by Ian Murray titled "SPURGEON V. HYPER-CALVINISM: THE BATTLE FOR GOSPEL PREACHING":

Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching :: Historical Theology :: Church History :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books - Discount Prices - Free Shipping

Finally, the primary distinctions, or a way that has helped me to sort Arminianism, Calvinism, and Hyper-Calvinism out is as follows:

Concerning the nature of the will, a philosophical comparison:

Arminians = Free Will
Calvinists = Compatiblilists
Hyper-Calvinists = Hard Determinists

Now it may be true that not all hard determinists are hyper-calvinists, but I do believe the logical conclusions of hard determinism in theology necessarily leads to hyper-calvinism."

Hope this helps, God bless

 

[student ad x]

If anyone is interested, acturally......... The History and Theology of Calvinism

 

[St_Worm2]

In other words, there is only one predestination, of which pertains to the elect.

Hi Elopez, I understand what you're saying, but let me try to use what will surely be a poor example to explain what Reformed theology is saying about the 'other side' of Divine Election. Here goes:

Since I'm trying to debate whether or not to grill hamburgers outside for dinner (it's about 95 degrees in the shade right now), I'll use a hamburger as my example. My family likes their burgers done medium-rare. If I determine to grab my spatula and remove the hamburgers from the flames after 4 minutes on one side and about 2 minutes on the other, that's what they'll get. If I decide instead to leave two of them on longer (say for 8 minutes on the flip-side), I know by the foreknowledge of experience .. , that those two burgers will be burned to a crisp.

So you see that my choice prevailed in both cases. I was the one who pre-determined the final outcome of all of the burgers, on the one hand because I acted, and on the other, because I did nothing at all.

Sorry about the example (very bad in many ways, I know), but does that help at all with understanding how Reformed theology can say that God can predetermine something without needing to directly/personally intervene to do so?

--David

 

[elopez]

Sorry about the example (very bad in many ways, I know), but does that help at all with understanding how Reformed theology can say that God can predetermine something without needing to directly/personally intervene to do so?

--David

The example doesn't really help. First, you would be doing something to burn the hamburgers: put them on the grill. In that, there is positive action. If comparable to God and predestination, then that's akin to saying God put the reprobate on the path for destruction. Yes, he may have just left them there to burn themselves, but he is the one that put them there to burn. Which brings up my second point.

You would be putting the burgers on the grill with the intent to burn them. Again, if comparable to God and predestination, then that is to claim god intended for the reprobate to be damned.

 

[St_Worm2]

The example doesn't really help. First, you would be doing something to burn the hamburgers: put them on the grill. In that, there is positive action. If comparable to God and predestination, then that's akin to saying God put the reprobate on the path for destruction. Yes, he may have just left them there to burn themselves, but he is the one that put them there to burn. Which brings up my second point.

You would be putting the burgers on the grill with the intent to burn them. Again, if comparable to God and predestination, then that is to claim god intended for the reprobate to be damned.

I knew the burger example was a bad one, because it involved, well, burning something, as much as anything else. But that was never the point I had in mind.

I'll make this quick and then stop. The fact that the burgers ALL faced the same consequence when I began to cook them (unless I intervened) was my intended meaning (just like every person faces the same end here because of the condition we are born in ,, see verses such as Ephesians 2:1-3 .. unless God intervenes .. see v4-5).

I've got to bow out of this conversation because I can see that I am just going to dig myself into a hole I'll never be able to climb out of .. The next thing I'd no doubt find myself doing is trying to compare infralapsarianism (me ALLOWING the burgers to cook on to their inevitable end vs supralapsarianism which, in this scenario, would probably have me adding a flame thrower into the mix somehow to get the job done ..

Sorry! If I can think of a better example, I'll present it to you as I can see I'll never get my meaning across to you using this one.

--David

 

[elopez]

I knew the burger example was a bad one, because it involved, well, burning something, as much as anything else. But that was never the point I had in mind.

I can figure it wasn't your point, but it is where the analogy was headed.

I'll make this quick and then stop. The fact that the burgers ALL faced the same consequence when I began to cook them (unless I intervened) was my intended meaning (just like every person faces the same end here because of the condition we are born in ,, see verses such as Ephesians 2:1-3 .. unless God intervenes .. see v4-5).

Right, but maybe I can get my point across even clearer using this burger analogy. Okay, so you said the medium rare burgers are the ones your family likes. I presume those burgers are being compared to the elect, so the medium rare burgers are the elect. You take them off earlier so they are edible.

The reprobate are being compared to the burnt burgers. My point is that we do not call the same thing as preparing the medium rare burgers as we would for leaving the others to burn.

Predestination does not extend to the reprobate.

I've got to bow out of this conversation because I can see that I am just going to dig myself into a hole I'll never be able to climb out of .. The next thing I'd no doubt find myself doing is trying to compare infralapsarianism (me ALLOWING the burgers to cook on to their inevitable end vs supralapsarianism which, in this scenario, would probably have me adding a flame thrower into the mix somehow to get the job done ..

Sorry! If I can think of a better example, I'll present it to you as I can see I'll never get my meaning across to you using this one.

--David

I never got into those varying views much. To me, it's all speculation and since we cannot know the mind of God as it is, why speculate what happened prior to creation? Moreover, it wouldn't make sense to say that God decreed events in a certain order from an eternal and thus timeless state.

But yeah, I'd be open to something. As of now I just don't think we should call something predestined when the key aspect of predestination is said to be absent. It doesn't follow.