Election / Reprobation

[OkieAllDay]

"Double predestination" vs "Single predestination"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"Double predestination" vs "Single predestination"

Both are in error. Can't vote.
Blessings.

 

[Clare73]

Both are in error. Can't vote.
Blessings.

Ro 8:29, 30, Eph 1:5, 11?

 

[zippy2006]

Both are in error. Can't vote.

The poll is not about whether they are in error. It is about their relationship.

For example, if there were a poll, "Does atheism lead to nihilism?," it would not make sense to say, "Both atheism and nihilism are errors, so I can't vote in this poll."

 

[OkieAllDay]

Both are in error. Can't vote.
Blessings.

I agree that both are in error. The point that I was trying to make (and probably should have made more clear) was that IF Calvinism is true can there be only "single predestination" or by necessity wouldn't that entail double predestination if God chooses some for salvation and not others.

 

[Clare73]

I agree that both are in error. The point that I was trying to make (and probably should have made more clear) was that IF Calvinism is true can there be only "single predestination" or by necessity wouldn't that entail double predestination if God chooses some for salvation and not others.

Seems like it to me, you can't have one without the other.

But "unconditional reprobation" is an oxymoron.

Election is only because of reprobation, which is conditioned on Adam's guilt. . .no guilt of Adam, no reprobation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Editing to add Disclaimer: This is coming from an orthodox and confessionally Lutheran perspective:

Unconditional Election is taught in Scripture. God chose us before the foundation of the world, having loved us in Christ before all things, that we should be heirs of His grace and be justified. Extra Nos, outside and apart from ourselves.

But no where does Scripture teach that anyone is outside of the reaches of God's saving mercy and love which He has for all in Christ. For Scripture teaches that He is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe. Scripture teaches that through Christ's obedience all have been justified. Scripture teaches that it is God's will that all be saved, that all repent, that all have eternal life through faith in His Son.

So "Unconditional Reprobation" would be a false, pernicious doctrine of hell. One that is contrary to the Gospel, and which elicits within men no comfort from the Gospel, but only dread and despair, and also hate, vice, and the furtherance of sin. Which is why the Lutheran Confessions come out explicitly against such an idea.

Election, Predestination, is God's gracious word to of Gospel, to comfort us with the hope and assurance of Jesus Christ; it is not and never can be a doctrine of faithlessness, hopelessness, and godless despair--those things are of the devil. Only "single predestination" is possible, a "double predestination" is wicked.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

...Only "single predestination" is possible, a "double predestination" is wicked.

But how does any of this address the question of the OP in any way? The wickedness of double predestination has nothing at all to do with whether it is entailed by single predestination, and, prima facie, double predestination is entailed by single predestination.

 

[zippy2006]

Does belief in "unconditional election" entail by necessity a belief in "unconditional reprobation"?

I wish I could say 'no', but I must tentatively say 'yes'. I have no way to support a 'no' answer.* That said, I think there are paradoxes involved here, and that a logical tension needs to be maintained.

But perhaps a crux of this issue is this: Adam was neither unconditionally elected nor unconditionally reprobated. Even the infralapsarian reaches a paradox when it comes to Adam. Furthermore, if there is a manner of responsibility that is shared between generations, and we are in some way implicated in Adam's sin, then Adam's freedom with respect to salvation also extends to us in some way.

* Unless we posit Universalism, but that is a technicality and a heresy.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I agree that both are in error. The point that I was trying to make (and probably should have made more clear) was that IF Calvinism is true can there be only "single predestination" or by necessity wouldn't that entail double predestination if God chooses some for salvation and not others.

I like to cut to the chase on God's time.
Blessings.

 

[Clare73]

I agree that both are in error. The point that I was trying to make (and probably should have made more clear) was that IF Calvinism is true can there be only "single predestination" or by necessity wouldn't that entail double predestination if God chooses some for salvation and not others.

"Unconditional reprobation" is an oxymoron.

Election is only because of reprobation, which is conditioned on Adam's guilt. . .no guilt of Adam, no reprobation.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Does belief in "unconditional election" entail by necessity a belief in "unconditional reprobation"?

Not necessarily. For example, a belief in unconditional election does not commit an infralapsarian to a belief in unconditional reprobation. On an infralapsarian view of the ordo salutis, the decree of the fall logically preceded the decree of election and reprobation. That is to say, the objects of God's choice were sinners. Their reprobation and condemnation is conditional. God chose to save by grace a certain number of sinners, and the rest are left justly condemned for their sin.

You might get a different answer from a supralapsarian.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But how does any of this address the question of the OP in any way? The wickedness of double predestination has nothing at all to do with whether it is entailed by single predestination, and, prima facie, double predestination is entailed by single predestination.

I took the question being posed in this thread as that it is, for unconditional election to be true that it is, by necessity, also true that God has chosen others for reprobation, i.e. to be condemned and damned. That is, that Unconditional Election requires a Double Predestination, an predestining of the elect and of the reprobate, a predestining of those chosen to be saved and a predestining of those chosen to be condemned.

And the answer to that question is no.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

And the answer to that question is no.

What you haven't said is why.

The subtext in this thread is the premise that double predestination is bad. We already know that. The question is whether single predestination can avoid double predestination. All you seem to have said is, "Double predestination is bad."

To be clear, the idea here is that if an omnipotent being unconditionally elects 4/10, then he has either implicitly or explicitly reprobated the other six.

 

[zippy2006]

Does belief in "unconditional election" entail by necessity a belief in "unconditional reprobation"?

Not necessarily. For example, a belief in unconditional election does not commit an infralapsarian to a belief in unconditional reprobation. On an infralapsarian view of the ordo salutis, the decree of the fall logically preceded the decree of election and reprobation. That is to say, the objects of God's choice were sinners. Their reprobation and condemnation is conditional. God chose to save by grace a certain number of sinners, and the rest are left justly condemned for their sin.

You might get a different answer from a supralapsarian.

I am then led to believe that the infralapsarian posits a quality of freedom within Adam's sin that the supralapsarian cannot. Is this correct? That if reprobation is conditioned by the Fall, then Adam's sin was free and contingent rather than necessitated? And if John Calvin held that all human acts are necessitated, then the infralapsarian here parts ways with Calvin? (If, on the other hand, Adam's sin was necessitated, then I cannot see how the infralapsarian distinction makes any difference.)

 

[ViaCrucis]

What you haven't said is why.

The subtext in this thread is the premise that double predestination is bad. We already know that. The question is whether single predestination can avoid double predestination. All you seem to have said is, "Double predestination is bad."

To be clear, the idea here is that if an omnipotent being unconditionally elects 4/10, then he has either implicitly or explicitly reprobated the other six.

Because Scripture doesn't teach it.

Scripture teaches that God wills that everyone be saved.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

Because Scripture doesn't teach it.

Scripture teaches that God wills that everyone be saved.

-CryptoLutheran

So if Scripture teaches that Jonah has two eggs, and Scripture teaches that Jonah receives another two eggs, but Scripture does not teach that Jonah has four eggs, then we cannot conclude that Jonah has four eggs?

It is fascinating how seldom I ever see a Lutheran give a straight answer to a question.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So if Scripture teaches that Jonah has two eggs, and Scripture teaches that Jonah receives another two eggs, but Scripture does not teach that Jonah has four eggs, then we cannot conclude that Jonah has four eggs?

It is fascinating how seldom I ever see a Lutheran give a straight answer to a question.

If the conclusion, though reasonable and logical, would contradict Scripture then no we cannot conclude that. In the example you provided, there's no biblical justification for saying that Jonah can't have four eggs.

The doctrine of double predestination is directly contradicted by Scripture which says that God wills that all be saved, therefore even if double predestination is a logical, reasonable conclusion it remains false.

Lutheranism makes a distinction between what we call a ministerial use of reason and a magisterial use of reason. Reason can serve faith, but reason cannot rule over faith.

If Scripture says one thing, and Scripture says another thing, and if our reasonable conclusions are that we have to discard or gloss over one of those things to uphold the other, then that is wrong.

If Scripture says God predestines us in Christ.
And if Scripture says God desires that all be saved.
Then both statements are true, even if it doesn't make rational sense to us.

If Scripture taught that God has predestined some to damnation and that Christ only died for the elect, that'd be one thing; but it doesn't. Double predestination is a logical syllogism, but it flies in the face of direct and explicit statements made in Scripture, and therefore cannot be true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

If the conclusion, though reasonable and logical, would contradict Scripture then no we cannot conclude that. In the example you provided, there's no biblical justification for saying that Jonah can't have four eggs.

Well then you've shifted your position again, this time from, "Because Scripture doesn't teach it," to, "Because a Scriptural proposition contradicts it."

The doctrine of double predestination is directly contradicted by Scripture which says...

But you are willing to throw out the doctrine of non-contradiction when it suits you and retain it when it suits you.

If Scripture says God predestines us in Christ.
And if Scripture says God desires that all be saved.
Then both statements are true, even if it doesn't make rational sense to us.

But your opposition to double predestination is based on nothing more than the doctrine of non-contradiction. "God wills all to be saved; double predestination implies that God does not will all to be saved; therefore by the doctrine of non-contradiction, double predestination must be false." The Calvinist needs to do nothing more than quote your own words back to you, "Both statements are true, even if it doesn't make rational sense to you."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I am then led to believe that the infralapsarian posits a quality of freedom within Adam's sin that the supralapsarian cannot. Is this correct?

The supralapsarian believes that the divine decree of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall—which means that, when God decreed to elect some and not others, they were contemplated as not yet fallen. It seems to me that their reprobation in this case is primarily an act of divine sovereignty and secondarily an act of divine justice. Such is not the case for the infralapsarian, for whom the reprobation of undeserving and condemned sinners is primarily an act of divine justice. It may be correct, then, to say that the infralapsarian "posits a quality of freedom within Adam's sin that the supralapsarian cannot."

If reprobation is conditioned by the fall, then Adam's sin was free and contingent rather than necessitated?

That is what Reformed theology teaches, at any rate. Chapter 9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states that God endowed the will of man with a natural liberty that is neither forced nor inclined necessarily toward good or evil, a freedom and natural ability to will and to do what is good and pleasing to God. However, this is man in his original state before the fall. The Confession goes on to say that man lost this freedom when he fell into a state of sin by his transgression, completely losing all ability to choose any spiritual good that accompanies salvation. Yes, Adam's sin was free.

And if John Calvin held that all human acts are necessitated, then the infralapsarian here parts ways with Calvin?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you elaborate on this a bit, and provide a cited quote or two?