How does Preterition line up with single predestination ?

[twin1954]

Now I have taken the time and effort to respond to you point by point so I would appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[hedrick]

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.

Yes, he did.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I have found that most non-Calvinists who try to speak for what Calvinists believe have rarely, if ever, actually read Reformed confessional or theological literature. This thread is just another monument to that sad reality.

 

[twin1954]

Yes, he did.

As I said before I have no problem with that.

 

[twin1954]

I have found that most non-Calvinists who try to speak for what Calvinists believe have rarely, if ever, actually read Reformed confessional or theological literature. This thread is just another monument to that sad reality.

Most of these debates end up with the Calvinists wasting their time trying to straighten out the mess of straw men arguments that always appear.

 

[Philipito]

No contradiction there except in your imagination.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If you aren't a follower of Calvin's doctrines, then you shouldn't identify yourself as a Calvinist, and you shouldn't be answering questions in the " Ask a Calvinist" thread as if you are.

Double predestination and single are a canyon width apart theologically. You need to figure out where you stand, and maybe we will continue the conversation.

 

[Philipito]

As I said before I have no problem with that.

You don't even know if you follow Calvin's doctrines. You don't even know if you believe in single or double predestination....and you say "strawman"... This is too rich.

 

[twin1954]

If you aren't a follower of Calvin's doctrines, then you shouldn't identify yourself as a Calvinist, and you shouldn't be answering questions in the " Ask a Calvinist" thread as if you are.

Double predestination and single are a canyon width apart theologically. You need to figure out where you stand, and maybe we will continue the conversation.

As I suspected you ignore all of what I clearly took the time and effort to respond to you in order to jump on one point that you twist what I said. Many who identify as Calvinist are not followers of John Calvin. Calvinist is a large umbrella that covers a whole host of different views. John MacArthur identifies himself as a Calvinist but he is decidedly Dispensational. You again build a straw man with this red herring nonsense.

If you can actually respond to what I took the time to post. Common courtesy would expect the same effort that I gave you.

 

[twin1954]

You don't even know if you follow Calvin's doctrines. You don't even know if you believe in single or double predestination....and you say "strawman"... This is too rich.

I know exactly what I believe and explained it to you in my posts. But as usual Frewillers ignore what they cannot dispute.

 

[twin1954]

It is interesting that you have 26 posts and 21 of them are seeking to argue with Calvinists. That should be enough to show your real agenda.

So if you want to argue with Calvinists I invite you to the Debate with a Calvinist forum. I will meet you there and answer all of your actual objections. Are you willing to back up your obvious agenda?

 

[Philipito]

This is in the "Ask a Calvinist" forum.

Understand where I'm coming from first. Logically speaking, the question I posed would be answered entirely different depending on which camp you adhere to.

1. If you believe in single predestination, then we can actually discuss preterition.

2. If you follow double predestination as CALVIN did, then there is no point in debating , as they don't believe in preterition.

But , considering that you have already stated that you "don't have a problem with double predestination", then I don't really know how to debate you. There are no ground rules and you would be welcome to flip- flop with no doctrinal surety to base your argument off of. This isn't being rude, but it's thinking logically.

You see, how can you debate preterition , if you don't have a problem with a theology that throws preterition completely out the window ( double predestination ).

These two doctrines are miles apart. Before I can debate you, then tell me where you stand. To adhere to single destination means to ignore, or dismiss double. You can't have it both ways, and I can't begin to talk about these things with you until I know where you stand.