Double Predestination

[Osage Bluestem]

Do any of you here reject double predestination?

 

[Eddie L]

That's too open-ended a question. You're gonna have to define what you mean by double predestination.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

That's too open-ended a question. You're gonna have to define what you mean by double predestination.

God predestines people to both glorification and damnation. In other words, some are predestined to glorification in Christ, the rest are predestined to damnation in their sins.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I'm not sure how you can be Reformed and deny double predestination.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Do any of you here reject double predestination?

I used to subscribe to single predestination, to be fair double predestination is not easy to understand or embrace. I wouldn't say DP is an essential belief to being a Calvinist, but SP is. I gradually came to embrace double predestination primarily from Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 9. One of my primary theology sources, Dr. Sproul helped me to better understand double predestination and it's relation to the will of God.

This is an area where we should be especially gracious and patient, it is difficult to wrap the mind somewhat around the mysteries of God, and certainly requires the Holy Spirit dealing with our weak flesh.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I used to subscribe to single predestination, to be fair double predestination is not easy to understand or embrace. I wouldn't say DP is an essential belief to being a Calvinist, but SP is. I gradually came to embrace double predestination primarily from Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 9. One of my primary theology sources, Dr. Sproul helped me to better understand double predestination and it's relation to the will of God.

This is an area where we should be especially gracious and patient, it is difficult to wrap the mind somewhat around the mysteries of God, and certainly requires the Holy Spirit dealing with our weak flesh.

A pastor I like, an otherwise solid calvinist, called double predestination a heresy last night at church. I'm very annoyed. I wrote him an email and explained that he had basically called me a heretic. I wrote to my friend who is a Reformed theologian that studied under Gerstner and he said he wasn't surprised that many of the reformed today deny double predestination but that he thought that was a shame.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A pastor I like, an otherwise solid calvinist, called double predestination a heresy last night at church. I'm very annoyed. I wrote him an email and explained that he had basically called me a heretic. I wrote to my friend who is a Reformed theologian that studied under Gerstner and he said he wasn't surprised that many of the reformed today deny double predestination.

I'm sorry to hear you had that experience, I've had similar experiences. A Pastor should be very slow to project the heresy word. A Calvinistic Pastor should be most gracious with the disagreements within Calvinism and Reformed Churches. It saddens me how ungracious we can be at times with those we disagree. I wonder if the pastor realizes how many within Calvinism (and throughout Church history) he branded a heretic in his statement. You should ask him for a lineage of single predestination Calvinists, and see who all that includes and how far his lineage of non-heretical Calvinists goes back. Such strong statement, strikes me as an arminian in calvinist clothes, or a calvinist who's struggling with undoing or letting loose of the former non-calvinist philosophy.

 

[Anoetos]

The problem with double predestination is not the doctrine itself but the delight Calvinists take in it.

Sinners analyzing and enjoying the punishment of souls exactly like their own.

 

[Eddie L]

The controversy is why it needs to be defined. Double predestination can be defined in a way that gets me cranky, though there is a simple way to use the term that is only logical. There is an important distinction in God's predestination of the elect that changes everything: the Son and Spirit are at work in election, not reprobation.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm sorry to hear you had that experience, I've had similar experiences. A Pastor should be very slow to project the heresy word. A Calvinistic Pastor should be most gracious with the disagreements within Calvinism and Reformed Churches. It saddens me how ungracious we can be at times with those we disagree. I wonder if the pastor realizes how many within Calvinism (and throughout Church history) he branded a heretic in his statement. You should ask him for a lineage of single predestination Calvinists, and see who all that includes and how far his lineage of non-heretical Calvinists goes back. Such strong statement, strikes me as an arminian in calvinist clothes, or a calvinist who's struggling with undoing or letting loose of the former non-calvinist philosophy.

Ok. I just finished communicating with him. It was a problem of semantics. He was condemning the notion that God is the author of sin for sins sake and takes delight in the punishment of the wicked. What tripped me up was that he used the term double predestination to describe that notion. He told me we are in agreement. I showed him JM's calvinism chart and all is well now. I'm sure he will be more careful with definitions in the future though.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The controversy is why it needs to be defined. Double predestination can be defined in a way that gets me cranky, though there is a simple way to use the term that is only logical. There is an important distinction in God's predestination of the elect that changes everything: the Son and Spirit are at work in election, not reprobation.

It certainly was a matter of semantics. I should have done as you did here and first off asked him to define double predestination and this could have been avoided.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Ok. I just finished communicating with him. It was a problem of semantics. He was condemning the notion that God is the author of sin for sins sake and takes delight in the punishment of the wicked. What tripped me up was that he used the term double predestination to describe that notion. He told me we are in agreement. I showed him JM's calvinism chart and all is well now. I'm sure he will be more careful with definitions in the future though.

Glad to hear....the humility of being a pastor...I'm not cut out to be one...the tendency to "puff up" is strong in me...not to mention how easily my mind can go blank in the spotlight.

 

[JM]

The problem with double predestination is not the doctrine itself but the delight Calvinists take in it.

Sinners analyzing and enjoying the punishment of souls exactly like their own.

I guess I agree but should I?

Scripture makes it plain, the reprobate were created to show God's wrath and justice...therefore His glory.

 

[hedrick]

Unfortunately my answer has to be maybe. I believe God chose to make things so that only some get saved, and that he knows who they are. So the identities must be part of his plan.

However sometimes double predestination says that God specifically sets out to damn certain people, and sets things up to do that. I think that's going too far. 1 Tim 2:4.

My reading of Rom 9 is that Paul is here justifying why God allowed most of Israel to not respond. The whole context of Rom 9 is Israel. I don't think 9:21 means that he intended specific people for damnation, but rather that he's really talking about Israel there. However even though I don't think he specifically designed anyone for damnation, I do think his plan includes the identities of those who are saved and not.

I'm not sure whether this is double predestination or not. The alternative is that the doesn't know the future or isn't in control. While I've seen plausible arguments for that, I'm not quite prepared to go there, at least not now.

 

[Anoetos]

I guess I agree but should I?

Scripture makes it plain, the reprobate were created to show God's wrath and justice...therefore His glory.

I have no argument with the doctrine.

The way we handle it saddens me sometimes.

 

[twin1954]

I have to ask, What difference does it make if double predestination is true or not? If God created people for damnation that is fine with me and if He didn't that is fine too. It is only a point of contention that natural religionists want to argue over. All this "theology" has complicated the simplicity that is in Christ. The simple fact is God is God and does whatever He pleases. End of story and discussion. Don't preach theology( I used to though and learned better) preach God's electing love in Christ Jesus the Lord. I don't desire for folks to know theology and the nuances of doctrine I want folks to know Christ and be found in Him. I want them to see Him and learn of Him. I want folks to feed on Christ and His wondrous grace and glory.

 

[JM]

If it is true and scripture declares this doctrine it should be professed and believed. "...let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord."

 

[twin1954]

If it is true and scripture declares this doctrine it should be professed and believed. "...let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord."

There is a great deal of difference between determining to let sinners have their way and be damned and actually creating them for damnation. But either way God is still God. What we believe concerning Him doesn't change anything. It is an infra/supra argument that has little value to the soul.

Do I stand on one side or the other? Of course I do. But why confuse folks with theology when you can comfort them with Christ?