How does Preterition line up with single predestination ?

[Philipito]

I've heard many try to explain from the reformed side how God is ultimately in control of the elect, and man is NOT a free agent, and all the while saying that double predestination is a farce.

It's just confusing to me. If man is NOT a free agent, and is elected, then how can someone claim that God simply " passed over " the non-elect ( preterition ) and didn't condemn the non-elect ?

If this is so, then isn't God ultimately in control of the non-elect's destiny as well as the elect ? Would this not somehow diminish the sovereignty of God to claim He ISN"T in control of the non-elect if one claims predestination outside of foreknowledge ?

I guess my point is no one has sufficiently , or biblically proven to me that perterition (in terms of predestination) even exists.

 

[sdowney717]

The non elect are called the reprobate. All the reprobate die in their sins unforgiven because none of them believe in the Son of God.

Everyone has sinned and all are worthy of death, unless God chooses to show to them His mercy versus showing to them His justice for the evil sin they commit.
Do you realize not believing in Christ is a sin in itself? Because they refuse to repent and believe, as God has commanded all men all over the earth to repent and believe the gospel. Refer Acts 17.

Jesus said this.
John 6
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

For those God does His work in they come to the light their deeds done in God, refer to v21 and v20 to note why exists the difference between them .

John 3
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

 

[hedrick]

The OP seems to be confusing the Reformed position with some Lutherans. Reformed have traditionally insisted on double predestination.

Even in the traditional Reformed position, there's a difference in how God works with the elect and the reprobate. He regenerates the elect, through the activity of the Holy Spirit with them. It's easy to get the impression that Calvinism is about God setting plans in motion, with a kind of watch-maker approach. But in fact Calvin believed in God's working personally with his people. Many scholars will tell you that the most important theology principal for Calvin wasn't predestination, but the idea of our "mystical union" with Christ, what Paul refers to as being "in Christ."

No one thinks (as far as I know) that there's a negative equivalent of this, that God inspires the reprobate to reject him. He doesn't need to; we can be sinful on our own.

So even in the traditional view, God has a type of responsibility for the elect that he doesn't for the reprobate.

However Calvin is clear that God wills the rejection of the reprobate just as much as the salvation of the elect. "Moderate" (which I emphasize is non-traditional) Reformed thought would want to limit the sense in which he wills that.

It's worth noting that many (I think possibly even the majority) of denominations that call themselves Reformed are moderate to liberal. Thus they are often not traditional in the area of predestination. That's probably why you ran into people who are Reformed but rejected double predestination. But the assumption behind "ask a Calvinist" is that you're looking for traditional Calvinism.

 

[DeaconDean]

Just to add, in a discussion on the RCC's position on "predestination", one really should read Augustine very very closely.

Unless I'm mistaken, St. Augustine was the first to recognize "double predestination".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Philipito]

The OP seems to be confusing the Reformed position with some Lutherans. Reformed have traditionally insisted on double predestination.

Even in the traditional Reformed position, there's a difference in how God works with the elect and the reprobate. He regenerates the elect, through the activity of the Holy Spirit with them. It's easy to get the impression that Calvinism is about God setting plans in motion, with a kind of watch-maker approach. But in fact Calvin believed in God's working personally with his people. Many scholars will tell you that the most important theology principal for Calvin wasn't predestination, but the idea of our "mystical union" with Christ, what Paul refers to as being "in Christ."

No one thinks (as far as I know) that there's a negative equivalent of this, that God inspires the reprobate to reject him. He doesn't need to; we can be sinful on our own.

So even in the traditional view, God has a type of responsibility for the elect that he doesn't for the reprobate.

However Calvin is clear that God wills the rejection of the reprobate just as much as the salvation of the elect. "Moderate" (which I emphasize is non-traditional) Reformed thought would want to limit the sense in which he wills that.

It's worth noting that many (I think possibly even the majority) of denominations that call themselves Reformed are moderate to liberal. Thus they are often not traditional in the area of predestination. That's probably why you ran into people who are Reformed but rejected double predestination. But the assumption behind "ask a Calvinist" is that you're looking for traditional Calvinism.

This is preterition in a nutshell. The claim of different responsibilities doesn't dismiss that God created both the regenerate and the reprabate. So the claim of double predestination puts squarely on God not only the condemnation of man, but also suggests that He creates sin.

And truthfully , most Calvinists are not as bold as yourself. Most will stop short of claiming double predestination , even if that's what they really believe.

I still have not seen scripturally where preterition is adequately explained according to your doctrine.

 

[Philipito]

The non elect are called the reprobate. All the reprobate die in their sins unforgiven because none of them believe in the Son of God.

Everyone has sinned and all are worthy of death, unless God chooses to show to them His mercy versus showing to them His justice for the evil sin they commit.
Do you realize not believing in Christ is a sin in itself? Because they refuse to repent and believe, as God has commanded all men all over the earth to repent and believe the gospel. Refer Acts 17.

Jesus said this.
John 6
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

For those God does His work in they come to the light their deeds done in God, refer to v21 and v20 to note why exists the difference between them .

John 3
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

I understand Calvin's doctrine except for the explanation of preterition. Did God " pass over " or did God intentionally condemn the non elect according to your doctrine ?

 

[hedrick]

I understand Calvin's doctrine except for the explanation of preterition. Did God " pass over " or did God intentionally condemn the non elect according to your doctrine ?

It's not "my doctrine." I'm a liberal. I'm trying to explain standard Calvinism.

Is there actually a distinction? As long as God set things up and knows what the results are going to be, how can you avoid saying that he determined it? If he wanted different people to be saved and lost, he could certainly make it happen.

How much responsibility do you avoid if you sit by and watching someone condemn himself, when you know what’s about to happen and could have set things up so that he would be saved? I sometimes get the impression from Calvin that this is his point. He thinks that attempts at protecting God from responsibility are unconvincing, and that we should be honest about the implications of our theology.

Luther ends up dealing with the problem by saying that we aren’t allowed to talk about it.

I’m not convinced there’s any way to avoid making God the author of sin other than open theism (the idea that God isn’t fully in control). That doesn’t mean that God sins himself or directly causes anyone to sin. But he decided to create a world which would develop sin, and in which certain people would be lost.

 

[Philipito]

It's not "my doctrine." I'm a liberal. I'm trying to explain standard Calvinism.

Is there actually a distinction? As long as God set things up and knows what the results are going to be, how can you avoid saying that he determined it? If he wanted different people to be saved and lost, he could certainly make it happen.

How much responsibility do you avoid if you sit by and watching someone condemn himself, when you know what’s about to happen and could have set things up so that he would be saved? I sometimes get the impression from Calvin that this is his point. He thinks that attempts at protecting God from responsibility are unconvincing, and that we should be honest about the implications of our theology.

Luther ends up dealing with the problem by saying that we aren’t allowed to talk about it.

I’m not convinced there’s any way to avoid making God the author of sin other than open theism (the idea that God isn’t fully in control). That doesn’t mean that God sins himself or directly causes anyone to sin. But he decided to create a world which would develop sin, and in which certain people would be lost.

Okay... This clears things a tad.. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.

Concerning distinction, yes. I believe those who claim preterition do exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Many who go the way of God's preterition toward the lost make this distinction, but to me , it just doesn't fit with the rest of the doctrine.
I'll try to clarify ... Many who claim single predestination will be completely on board with God's sovereignty toward mankind in all aspects , until they get to the point of how God deals with the non-elect. Then suddenly God just turns away. It isn't consistent with the rest of the doctrine.

And your response is EXACTLY how I feel about the doctrine. Though I don't subscribe to it. If one is honest and follows Calvin's doctrine to it's logical end, one must be a Hyper-Calvinist, IMO. Or , if they follow the doctrine to it's end and cannot hang sin itself on God, then the are not a Calvinist at all.

Thanks for the well thought out, clear, and brief response

 

[TaylorSexton]

All Reformed theology affirms emphatically the free agency of man.

 

[Philipito]

Free agency as described by your doctrine doea not imply choice , except to choose what the object was created to be, which is condemned.

Free agency is non-existent in Calvin's doctrine as all pure Calvinist's believe in double predestination.

There so much conflicting doctrines inside the Calvinist camp it's hard to know what response you will get. But when the doctrine is followed to its logical end, there is no choice. It's just a matter of whether you accept this fact or not.

 

[hedrick]

Whether free agency exists depends upon what you mean by free.

If you mean that no one is forcing you to do anything, so you're free to make whatever choice you want, yes. In fact that's critical. If someone is holding a gun on you forcing you to do something, it doesn't reflect your real character, and most people wouldn't consider you responsible for it. That's not what Calvinism thinks is happening.

Calvinism historically has said that the will is unfree in the sense that because it's fallen, it is incapable of choosing good. But this is an internal lack of freedom. It's not that anyone is forcing you to sin, but that your own character makes you unable to do otherwise without God's intervention. Because your sin reflects your character, it's reasonable to blame you for it.

 

[Philipito]

Having not the choice to be anything except what you are is not freedom of will or agency.

She I agree that the bible teaches man is incapable of reaching God , without God drawing , I see the scriptures time after time speaking of mans responsibility to choose.

Salvation is synergistic according to the scriptures. Not monergistic as according to Calvin.

 

[twin1954]

Your problem isn't with Calvinist doctrines it is with God. Romans 9 answers your question but I doubt that you will bow to it.

God created Adam in righteousness. He gave him one simple command and he broke it plunging all of his seed into a state of sin. Since then all of Adam's seed are born sinners. Rom 5 explains this. We are not sinners because we sin but sin because we are sinners. It is our nature. We can no more change our nature than a leopard can change his spots. We are not free to not sin but we are free to choose which sin we will commit. For everything we do is sin before God.

Now all those who have been born from above were chosen by God to be the objects of His love and mercy. He put them in His Son and made them His son's. He was under no obligation to do so yet He has, in perfect wisdom and righteousness, determined to glorify Himself in mercy in through and by His Son. Ex.33:19

Hath not God both the right and the power to form from the same dishonorable lump vessels of honor? Is He obligated to make vessels of honor out of the whole putrid lump?

While it is true that God purposed the Fall in order to show mercy to whom He would show mercy He didn't force, coerce or make Adam fall. He simply controlled all of the influence and circumstance that gave Adam the choice. God is not the author of sin He simply determined that it should come to pass, according to His infinite wisdom, in order to glorify Himself in mercy by Christ Jesus.

 

[twin1954]

Having not the choice to be anything except what you are is not freedom of will or agency.

She I agree that the bible teaches man is incapable of reaching God , without God drawing , I see the scriptures time after time speaking of mans responsibility to choose.

Salvation is synergistic according to the scriptures. Not monergistic as according to Calvin.

Monergism isn't according to Calvin but according to Paul, Peter and the rest of those who were inspired by the Spirit to write the Scriptures.

 

[Philipito]

Romans 9 certainly speaks of God's sovereignty , but not in the context which you claim. Also, I will have you know I bow to my Creator , not Calvin.

In another thread you say God gets no pleasure in the death of the wicked.. How can this be so when you follow your doctrine ? If it's His will to create furnace fuel as double predestination suggests, then His will accomplished will bring glory and pleasure. ACCORDING TO THAT DOCTRINE. You can't have it both ways.

Does God draw and save the sinner ? Yes. Does man have anything to offer in that regard ? No.

But to suggest man has no free will in the decision is to rip out much of the bible and disregard it.

And as in the other thread. Conversing with you is not edifying. It's an argument based on pride , I fear.

But, this is the case with almost all Calvinist's, especially the hypers . They look at the things of God from a heavenly view as if standing in God's place, instead of the earthly position they are in.

 

[twin1954]

Calvinists do not deny that we make a choice. What we deny is that we make that choice apart from a work of God's sovereign grace in us and for us. God the Spirit gives us a new will and a new desire to have Christ through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit. How many times did you listen to the Gospel preached before you believed?

 

[Philipito]

Calvinists do not deny that we make a choice. What we deny is that we make that choice apart from a work of God's sovereign grace in us and for us. God the Spirit gives us a new will and a new desire to have Christ through the preaching of the Gospel in the power of the Spirit. How many times did you listen to the Gospel preached before you believed?

This is a contradictory statement.

First, if your follow Calvin's doctrine , you adhere to double predestination. It's that simple. He did. So to identify with his doctrine ( which you have ) then you are. Is this a logical, truthful statement , or not ?

Second, if you do identify yourself as adhering to Calvin's doctrine, and adhere to double predestination, then you cannot say with integrity that man has choice. It's illogical and also conflicts with the doctrines of Calvin, which you have identified yourself with.

I do however believe that man CANNOT come to God on his own terms. No "free willer" I know says this. But it's funny you claim that man has free will but call people who believe in free will "free willers"... Is that not a contradiction as well ?

If you follow Calvin's doctrine of predestination, then go ahead and throw in the pound with your penny. Double predestination is what is at the end of Calvin's doctrine my brother. It is. And if that is the logical end of the theology , then man has no free will. Calvin believed it, so someone who claims his doctrine should too.

Concerning my testimony, I ran from God knowing what I should do for years. THE WHOLE TIME MY GOD WAS LOVING AND PATIENT AND LONGSUFFERING WITH ME. I finally came to repentance in my late 20's. I was raised in church, baptized as an small child. Was I saved ? NO. Did God plant a seed in my life then ? YES. When I came to genuine repentance, I was truly born again and was baptized again to genuinely show I identified with Christ as a follower of Him.

I answered your question. Now please answer this. Did Calvin , Or did Calvin not adhere to double predestination ?

 

[twin1954]

This is a contradictory statement.

First, if your follow Calvin's doctrine , you adhere to double predestination. It's that simple. He did. So to identify with his doctrine ( which you have ) then you are. Is this a logical, truthful statement , or not ?

Second, if you do identify yourself as adhering to Calvin's doctrine, and adhere to double predestination, then you cannot say with integrity that man has choice. It's illogical and also conflicts with the doctrines of Calvin, which you have identified yourself with.

I do however believe that man CANNOT come to God on his own terms. No "free willer" I know says this. But it's funny you claim that man has free will but call people who believe in free will "free willers"... Is that not a contradiction as well ?

If you follow Calvin's doctrine of predestination, then go ahead and throw in the pound with your penny. Double predestination is what is at the end of Calvin's doctrine my brother. It is. And if that is the logical end of the theology , then man has no free will. Calvin believed it, so someone who claims his doctrine should too.

Concerning my testimony, I ran from God knowing what I should do for years. THE WHOLE TIME MY GOD WAS LOVING AND PATIENT AND LONGSUFFERING WITH ME. I finally came to repentance in my late 20's. I was raised in church, baptized as an small child. Was I saved ? NO. Did God plant a seed in my life then ? YES. When I came to genuine repentance, I was truly born again and was baptized again to genuinely show I identified with Christ as a follower of Him.

I answered your question. Now please answer this. Did Calvin , Or did Calvin not adhere to double predestination ?

When I get to my laptop instead of an iPad I will give you a more detailed answer. But let me say upfront that I personally have no problem with double predestination though I don't think that is what the Bible teaches. The saved and the reprobate are of the same lump of clay. The only difference between them is God's sovereign mercy.

 

[twin1954]

Romans 9 certainly speaks of God's sovereignty , but not in the context which you claim. Also, I will have you know I bow to my Creator , not Calvin.

Do you really? What if the Scriptures actually do teach the Doctrines of Grace would you bow to it? Would you become a five point Calvinist? What if I can show you from the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't attempt to save all mankind but actually saved a people called chosen, elect and holy to Him? Would you bow to it?

I can do exactly that but perceive that you only want to debate and argue. The truth of the Scriptures does not come by debate or argument but by the revelation of the Spirit. That isn't something that I can give you. I can only point to the truth and leave it to the Spirit to open your eyes.

The truth of God given us in the Scriptures isn't higher learning or superior grace but that which lifts God up in the person of Jesus Christ and puts man in the dust at His feet. God's terms of peace with the sinner isn't let me save you by your choice but SURRENDER OR DIE! He is not a man that we can negotiate with nor a ruler who lets those under His sovereign power tell Him what He can and can't do. He is the King eternal unto whom every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord.

Until a sinner knows who God is and what he is before Him by the revelation of the Spirit he will not bow nor believe. He will fashion a god of his own imagination and carve out a god from the forest of his mind. Which God do you believe in?

In another thread you say God gets no pleasure in the death of the wicked.. How can this be so when you follow your doctrine ? If it's His will to create furnace fuel as double predestination suggests, then His will accomplished will bring glory and pleasure. ACCORDING TO THAT DOCTRINE. You can't have it both ways.

You come to a false conclusion in your assertion. It is by no means a necessary conclusion that God derives pleasure in the death of the wicked if double predestination is true. Certainly He is glorified in His just punishment of all those on whom He finds sin. But that in no way makes it necessary that He derives pleasure from it. A righteous judge can sentence a man do death for his crimes but take no pleasure in the act. He is simply administering justice without mercy as is due.

Does God draw and save the sinner ? Yes. Does man have anything to offer in that regard ? No.

I am glad we agree on this at least.

But to suggest man has no free will in the decision is to rip out much of the bible and disregard it.

Did you actually read my post explaining this or did you just peruse it to find something you could debate? Go back to post #13 and actually read it and respond to all of it not just a sentence or two.

And as in the other thread. Conversing with you is not edifying. It's an argument based on pride , I fear.

Not pride but assurance. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day. I honestly seek to serve my God by serving His people calling them to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures. I do so without apology or compromise and will not, God giving me grace, speak or write anything that I do not rest my eternal soul on as the truth.

But, this is the case with almost all Calvinist's, especially the hypers . They look at the things of God from a heavenly view as if standing in God's place, instead of the earthly position they are in.

You show your ignorance of what Calvinists believe. We do not start with man and work up to God as the Arminian freewiller does. We start with God and work down to man. We look at God from our place in the dust at His feet, sinners begging mercy.

 

[twin1954]

This is a contradictory statement.

No contradiction there except in your imagination.

First, if your follow Calvin's doctrine , you adhere to double predestination. It's that simple. He did. So to identify with his doctrine ( which you have ) then you are. Is this a logical, truthful statement , or not ?

Your first assumption is in grave error. I am neither a follower of John Calvin nor of his doctrines. I identify my as a Calvinist simply because it is much easier to use that label than to go through the whole explanation of the doctrines of grace taught in the Scriptures. I don't even like the acronym TULIP for it often sends the wrong message of those truths.

Therefore if your assumption is incorrect so is your conclusion. Moreover though I own and have read Calvin's Institutes and commentaries I do not agree with a great deal of them. I have read
Jacob Arminius as well along with other commentators who are Arminian.

Your second error is to identify all who claim to be Calvinists as his followers. Calvin taught John Knox who founded the Presbyterian church. I am a Baptist. I hold to a different view of Covenant Theology. Perhaps you should do a little research before you begin to paint with a broad brush. Logical debate actually requires both participants to know not only their position but of their opponent as well. Truth cannot be arrived at with assumptions and false premises.

Second, if you do identify yourself as adhering to Calvin's doctrine, and adhere to double predestination, then you cannot say with integrity that man has choice. It's illogical and also conflicts with the doctrines of Calvin, which you have identified yourself with.

Nonsense. Double predestination has nothing to do with free will. We are not robots. We make choices according to that which we desire the most. We are as free as a frog in a snakes's belly. We can jump in any direction we desire but simply cannot escape our confining nature. We can wish ourselves to fly but have not the ability to make it happen. We are sinners by nature, by choice and by practice.

God determining whom He will save according to His righteousness and justice in the life and sacrifice of His Son and whom He will deal with in righteousness and justice according to their works is not illogical nor a contradiction. He can do whatever He will with His own.

I do however believe that man CANNOT come to God on his own terms. No "free willer" I know says this. But it's funny you claim that man has free will but call people who believe in free will "free willers"... Is that not a contradiction as well ?

No contradiction at all. Of course no freewiller will admit his own belief that his salvation depends on him. If he did he would be going against everything revealed in the Scriptures. But admitting to it and it being true are birds of a different feather. The simple logic that states that man makes the final decision cannot be ignored. Either salvation is all of God according to His sovereign grace or it is of man who chooses to save himself with God's help. Their is no other alternative. Either man saves himself by his free will choice or God saves him by giving him a new life and will in the new birth before he can make that choice. If it is God who gives man life and faith in Christ, and the Scriptures teach, then man's choice is of no consequence. It is the natural outcome of being born from above. If it is man;s faith that gives him life then it is man who makes the difference rather than God. The freewiller can boast before God because he did something that those in Hell did not.

There is no way around this conclusion. You either save yourself with God's help or God saves you.

If you follow Calvin's doctrine of predestination, then go ahead and throw in the pound with your penny. Double predestination is what is at the end of Calvin's doctrine my brother. It is. And if that is the logical end of the theology , then man has no free will. Calvin believed it, so someone who claims his doctrine should too.

I have already stated that I have no problem with double predestination if that is what the Bible taught. But since it isn't then we are left with what I have taken the time and effort to explain.

Concerning my testimony, I ran from God knowing what I should do for years. THE WHOLE TIME MY GOD WAS LOVING AND PATIENT AND LONGSUFFERING WITH ME. I finally came to repentance in my late 20's. I was raised in church, baptized as an small child. Was I saved ? NO. Did God plant a seed in my life then ? YES. When I came to genuine repentance, I was truly born again and was baptized again to genuinely show I identified with Christ as a follower of Him.

So how many times did you hear the Gospel but didn't give it any regard? A thousand? Ten thousand? What made the difference when you did hear it? Was it not the Spirit that opened your ears and eyes and made you see your need of Christ? Why did He do that for you but not all the others that left the service without trusting Christ? Who was it that made the difference? Was it you or was it God's sovereign electing love giving you life and faith in Christ?

I answered your question. Now please answer this. Did Calvin , Or did Calvin not adhere to double predestination ?

I honestly do not know if Calvin believed in double predestination. It has been years since I read his Institutes and my memory is failing.