Predestination, How does single differ from double?

[The Righterzpen]

What I want to ask about this is in regards to whether people who refuse Christ at first receive additional opportunities to accept the Gospel. Say that when a person first hears the Gospel, they reject it, and don't believe. Is that then to be taken as evidence that they are non-elect? Or is there a possibility they might at some later time in their life accept the Gospel and Christ?

I agree with what @com7fy8 says here and Paul being an obvious example of this truth.

Fact of the matter is that because we are all dead in trespass and sin to begin with; we all "reject Christ" as some point or another. And here is where those who say "rejecting the gospel is blaspheming the Spirit"; in this belief, they've negated their own alleged salvation. LOL

So no, not believing the first time you've heard it does not automatically mean someone is non-elect.

If I am understanding Reformed theology correctly, all people are said to be resistant to the Gospel, but with the elect God overcomes that resistance. Correct me if I am misunderstanding things. Only some (the elect) get an Effectual Call, that call is inward and spiritual. So the effectual call is like God's word in Creation, it creates out of nothing. The Effectual Call, creates new spiritual life that was not there before, and the person responds. Is this correct?

Yes, I would agree with your statement here.

He says many discussions flounder because people are using the terms 'election' and 'predestination' as though they are synonymous. Election he says is a truth that concerns sinners before they are saved, and predestination applies only to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ once they have been saved. Predestination he writes has nothing whatever to do with unregenerate souls:

Maybe this would need some clarification because it really doesn't make any sense. Although "election" and "predestination" may not mean exactly the same thing if your looking at a strict dictionary definition but theologically they are pretty much maybe two sides of the same coin.

Election - a nation chooses a leader
Predestine - does this mean that leader was predetermined before the election was held?

See this is where simple definitions break down in theological explanations; because those who were chosen by God (elected) were in deed predestine to that election before it was enacted upon in their earthy time.

 

[com7fy8]

"election" and "predestination"

The words have to do with realities, in any case. May be we can not split hairs exactly, about each word . . . possibly because as you say they are related > relatives? What they mean is not only the definition, but what they are talking about.

In the bible, to me it seems, predestination means God's action of deciding something in advance.

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

I think, in this scripture, in any case, it is clear that God predestining something means He committed Himself ahead of time to what will happen. We who have trusted in Christ (Ephesians 1:12) are predestined to become "conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (in Romans 8:29)

So, it is good to know that being His predestined is not only a guaranteed ticket to Heaven, but God will change us to be like Jesus. And He is doing this now, in us. This includes correction which Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees to every child of God.

Now, the elect are the ones who are destined to this. So, possibly, "foreknew" means elected. He chose what He wanted and with whom, and committed Himself to doing this with us. So, I now can see > election is the choosing, and predestination is the committing to and guaranteeing. But in order for Him to choose, He already needs to have some commitment, or destining, in place for whomever He is going to choose. So, it might be there was predestination of what to do, first, then choosing the elect to do it with, and then there would be the automatic destining of the ones elected.

So, may be it is kind of like political selecting. First, we know what we want > this is destined by us. Then we select who will do it . . . we hope, in our case, since we are not God. And then we destine that selected one to do it. And we do all we can to make sure we get what we want with that selected person.

Likewise, God now is very busy with making sure He gets all He desires to have with us. Because He is committed to changing us into the image of His Son. So, this needs to have our attention, too. This was the main purpose of Paul's ministry, according to what I see in Colossians 1:28-29.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Now, the elect are the ones who are destined to this. So, possibly, "foreknew" means elected

Foreknew in this context I think means to be loved before creation was commenced. Because ultimalty the only reason God did any of this was on demonstration of His love.

So yes, I would agree with you that though all these terms don't mean exactly the same thing; they are all "cousins".

 

[dms1972]

The words have to do with realities, in any case. May be we can not split hairs exactly, about each word . . . possibly because as you say they are related > relatives? What they mean is not only the definition, but what they are talking about.

In the bible, to me it seems, predestination means God's action of deciding something in advance.

But is there any "in advance" from God's point of view in Eternity. Saying in advance just makes it sound like eternity is the more distance past, as if its the time before time began, but eternity isn't really temporal at all is it?

 

[com7fy8]

But is there any "in advance" from God's point of view in Eternity.

I understand about a day being as a thousand years, with the Lord.

And I know Jesus prayed >

"'And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.'" (John 17:5)

So, even though time, for God, can be a day as a thousand years, Jesus says He had glory with our Father "before" there was the world. And that would have been during eternity, in my opinion. So, I can see there is such a thing, in eternity, as before and during and after.

And, by the way . . . a little more related to our discussion > I see how Jesus God's own Son was so delighting to our Father, and this is what motivated our Father to want to have many children who are like Jesus. And for this reason > the reason first of God's love for Jesus > God predestined that Jesus would have many brethren who are conformed to His image > Romans 8:29.

So, it was not first about how much God loved us, but how He is so well pleased by Jesus. Love for His Son predestined us, I think we could say. If you love something or someone, is it not true that this love can destine what will happen?

And our Apostle Paul says we have been chosen, yes > in Christ Jesus >

"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love," (Ephesians 1:4)

So, predestination mainly has to do with how Jesus is approved by our Heavenly Father. And therefore it is our destiny to be changed to be "holy and without blame before Him in love".

I find it intriguing, then, how people talking about predestination mainly give attention to if we have free wills or not while we are not even close to being how our Father wants us to become. And ones say not a word about how we are destined to become, and therefore how much this needs the attention of our ministering. No one seems to say we should use our wills to choose to become conformed to Jesus; ones only or mainly seem concerned about the guaranteed ticket to Heaven . . . for themselves . . . rather than first be choosing to seek how our Father conforms us to Christ.

But > "before" all this > our Father made the choice. Plus, His word guarantees how His word shall do all which God desires > Isaiah 55:11 < this is part of all which is predestined, now God's word shall accomplish all which God desires. So, it does not matter how ones can make it seem that this is not happening and not getting attention.

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)

 

[dms1972]

Hi Com7fy8, thanks for giving some thought to the matter

I wanted to address your point about God's Eternity. I think when we speak of Eternity, we are limited to our experience as creatures. There are even different views on the nature of Eternity, but in any case we are talking of an attribute of God. I don't think Eternity is something God exists in, so much as an attribute of Him. The older language of God's everlastingness, is maybe more accomodating to our difficulties. Didn't some translations of the Bible speak of God as being from everlasting, to everlasting. Salvation doesn't depend on our getting our heads round God's being, surely an impossible task. We can only grasp what he reveals and gives us the capacity to understand albeit always in a limited creaturely manner.

The thing we need to be careful about is that modern philosophical ideas can infect the content of Biblical terms, something for instance that has happened with Bultmann.

Perhaps its unfair to think that Sproul should be able to delineate the differences between Single and Double Predestination in an off the cuff Q&A. The problem is that double predestination is understood in at least two ways, and often the severe symmetrical version is what people think is what all Reformed christians believe. The difference between that and Single is easier to see however.

There is also a big difference in how Calvin approached the subject - he didn't approach it as a first principle in the manner Beza did, for Calvin predestination was an a-posteriori explanation for the reason some people never come to accept Christ as their Saviour. He begins his Institutes with the Knowledge of God the Creator, not the Decrees of God.

There is a real problem with someone reading Calvin thinking they already know what Calvin taught and what his emphasis was, the danger of seeing double predestination where its not being discussed.

Since making more of an effort to put pre-conceived notions out of my mind about what Calvin thought, I have found what struck me as one or two somewhat un-'calvinistic' passages in Calvin's Institutes. He doesn't say much if anything about sitting and waiting to become regenerated, what he is saying quite often is "Look to Christ", it seems to me.

Lastly I do think CS Lewis says makes an important point in The Great Divorce, that while we are in Time all answers to the question of Predestination tend to deceive somewhat. From our point of view Predestination and Freedom are something like a paradox.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I have just been listening to a Q&A RC Sproul gave and he is asked what is double predestination. (Below clip - @ 10.45 mins)

Listening to his answer I can't understand how his description of Double Presdestination (Positive / Negative = Asymetric) differs from how he described Single Predestination. In both it seems God passes over the non-elect. Only in the form of Double Presdestination that is Positive / Positive = symetrical (which Sproul does not subscribe to) is God said to actively work evil or sin in the hearts of the non-elect.

So how does Double (Positive/Negative sort) and Single Predestination differ?

Look up 'equal ultimacy' and you will find your answer.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I have just been listening to a Q&A RC Sproul gave and he is asked what is double predestination. (Below clip - @ 10.45 mins)

Listening to his answer I can't understand how his description of Double Presdestination (Positive / Negative = Asymetric) differs from how he described Single Predestination. In both it seems God passes over the non-elect. Only in the form of Double Presdestination that is Positive / Positive = symetrical (which Sproul does not subscribe to) is God said to actively work evil or sin in the hearts of the non-elect.

So how does Double (Positive/Negative sort) and Single Predestination differ?

This also boils down to Supralapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism. I hold to Supra, but not double predestination. But it has to do with equal ultimacy, too.

 

[roman2819]

Predestination of individuals is totally unscriptural. So is double predestination .

If we interpret Bible in context, God did not choose individuals to redeem. Ephesians chapter 1,2,3 explain predestination in 70 verses: It is corporate predestination, which means God offered redemption to Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- which together means everyone. God offers to redeem all, but in the context of the Scripture, each one must decide whether to repent and turn to Him. Predestination is so misunderstood because people are so awed by words such as "He predestine us" and fail to see context.

Ephesians was written to Gentile Christians. Speaking as a Jew, Paul identified with his people by using the adverb 'we' and 'us' to say how God first chose the Jews:

[Eph 1:4-11] just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ... having been predestined according to the plan of him …. (12) in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, ...(13).. Weren't the Jews the first to hope in Jesus?

Then when referring to the Gentiles, the apostle used the adverb "you" and "you who were Gentiles":

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth …... Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and “uncircumcised” ….. excluded from citizenship in Israel… (Eph 2:13) ..... For He... has made the two groups one... His purpose was... in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross… (3:18)... This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ."

Before Jesus atonement, the Gentiles did not have access to Jehovah. But after Christ’s atonement, both Jews and Gentiles have access to God. This move has been pre-planned or predestined by God. Predestination just means to pre-plan something. More important is what did God pre-plan?

We know that initially Israel was the chosen people of God. After Christ's atonement, the apostles initially thought that God chose to save the Jews only. After Peter's vision, however, the Gentiles were allowed to believe too. But as more Gentile Christians started to outnumber the Jewish believers, the Jews resented it and insisted that Gentiles should observe Sabbath and circumcision. Jews also claimed that God had suddenly decided to offer redemption to the Gentiles after Israel rejected Jesus, implying that Gentiles were less favored. Refuting such allegation, Paul said that God does not show favoritism between the circumcised and uncircumcised [Galatians 2:6].

In Ephesians, the apostle refers to Gentiles as the Elect [Eph 1], thus placing them on equal footing as the Jews (who are chosen). Elect or chosen is a status, it does not mean being chosen to be saved individually.

In the beginning -- before the foundation of earth -- God chose the Jews, but now the Gentiles are also part of the Elect. "Before the foundation of the earth" just means "initially". It is unfortunate that some people are so awed by the words "before foundation of the earth" and "predestination" because they do not interpret in context.

In Romans 9:11, God said He loves Jacob and hate Esau. God was referring to these 2 persons only, specifically, so how does this extend to chosen - and not being chosen - of everyone else? How does Romans 9:11 become a blanket statement ??? Seriously.

In Romans, Paul as a Jew saluted Israel's heritage, but he went on to say the new order is here, things have changed, get used to it.

Romans 9:18-23: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .... " While the Jews were shocked that God offered redemption to Gentiles, Paul said that God could choose to have mercy on Gentiles. It does NOT mean that God has mercy on some particular individuals and choose them. In the larger context of the Scripture, each one has to decide to repent and turn to God.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son... He who predestined, He also justifies" [Romans 8:29] means that God foreknew that He would offer redemption to the Gentiles. Although they used to be considered uncleaned by the Jews, however, after Christ's atonement, the Gentiles can choose to be conformed to Christ. They are also justified by faith in Jesus.

Also, take note that Jesus during his ministry never spoke about God chose individuals to be redeemed.

When seen in context, Scripture interprets Scripture well, by itself.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Predestination of individuals is totally unscriptural. So is double predestination .

If we interpret Bible in context, God did not choose individuals to redeem. Ephesians chapter 1,2,3 explain predestination in 70 verses: It is corporate predestination, which means God offered redemption to Jews first, and then the Gentiles -- which together means everyone. God offers to redeem all, but in the context of the Scripture, each one must decide whether to repent and turn to Him. Predestination is so misunderstood because people are so awed by words such as "He predestine us" and fail to see context.

Ephesians was written to Gentile Christians. Speaking as a Jew, Paul identified with his people by using the adverb 'we' and 'us' to say how God first chose the Jews:

[Eph 1:4-11] just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ... having been predestined according to the plan of him …. (12) in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, ...(13).. Weren't the Jews the first to hope in Jesus?

Then when referring to the Gentiles, the apostle used the adverb "you" and "you who were Gentiles":

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth …... Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and “uncircumcised” ….. excluded from citizenship in Israel… (Eph 2:13) ..... For He... has made the two groups one... His purpose was... in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross… (3:18)... This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ."

Before Jesus atonement, the Gentiles did not have access to Jehovah. But after Christ’s atonement, both Jews and Gentiles have access to God. This move has been pre-planned or predestined by God. Predestination just means to pre-plan something. More important is what did God pre-plan?

We know that initially Israel was the chosen people of God. After Christ's atonement, the apostles initially thought that God chose to save the Jews only. After Peter's vision, however, the Gentiles were allowed to believe too. But as more Gentile Christians started to outnumber the Jewish believers, the Jews resented it and insisted that Gentiles should observe Sabbath and circumcision. Jews also claimed that God had suddenly decided to offer redemption to the Gentiles after Israel rejected Jesus, implying that Gentiles were less favored. Refuting such allegation, Paul said that God does not show favoritism between the circumcised and uncircumcised [Galatians 2:6].

In Ephesians, the apostle refers to Gentiles as the Elect [Eph 1], thus placing them on equal footing as the Jews (who are chosen). Elect or chosen is a status, it does not mean being chosen to be saved individually.

In the beginning -- before the foundation of earth -- God chose the Jews, but now the Gentiles are also part of the Elect. "Before the foundation of the earth" just means "initially". It is unfortunate that some people are so awed by the words "before foundation of the earth" and "predestination" because they do not interpret in context.

In Romans 9:11, God said He loves Jacob and hate Esau. God was referring to these 2 persons only, specifically, so how does this extend to chosen - and not being chosen - of everyone else? How does Romans 9:11 become a blanket statement ??? Seriously.

In Romans, Paul as a Jew saluted Israel's heritage, but he went on to say the new order is here, things have changed, get used to it.

Romans 9:18-23: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .... " While the Jews were shocked that God offered redemption to Gentiles, Paul said that God could choose to have mercy on Gentiles. It does NOT mean that God has mercy on some particular individuals and choose them. In the larger context of the Scripture, each one has to decide to repent and turn to God.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son... He who predestined, He also justifies" [Romans 8:29] means that God foreknew that He would offer redemption to the Gentiles. Although they used to be considered uncleaned by the Jews, however, after Christ's atonement, the Gentiles can choose to be conformed to Christ. They are also justified by faith in Jesus.

Also, take note that Jesus during his ministry never spoke about God chose individuals to be redeemed.

When seen in context, Scripture interprets Scripture well, by itself.

The problem with the idea of "corporate election" is the nature of the atonement itself. Someone only gets to be in the Kingdom of God because Jesus paid for their sin. What does paying for sin entail? It entails enduring the wrath of God.

There are only two positions on the atonement. It is either specific to the elect or its universal.

If you say it's universal (meaning Jesus paid for the sin of every single human being that ever lived) you run into quite a few problems.

1. If Jesus paid for my sin and I end up in the lake of fire to pay for my own sin; that's 2 people enduring the wrath of God for one person's sin. That's not justice.

2. If I end up in the lake of fire for "unbelief". Unbelief is not the unpardonable sin; so therefore would have been a sin Christ also covered. We know "unbelief" is not the unpardonable sin, because everyone at some point and to some degree is in a state of unbelief.

3. Universal atonement gives God no precedence wherewith to condemn just about anyone. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin very specific to the time and place of Jesus's earthly ministry. The Jewish leaders knew He was the Messiah. Nicodemus tells us this when he says to Jesus "We know you have come from God because no one could do what you do unless God was with him." With that statement right there; Nicodemus declares condemnation upon the entire Sanhedrin. They knew who Jesus was. They knew He was the Messiah. They then stated that He performed the miracles He did by the power of Satan. To witness in the flesh what Christ did, knowing He is the Messiah and claiming He does these things by the power of Satan. THAT is blaspheming the Holy Ghost!

4. Universal atonement makes Jesus a liar because He said that "All that the Father gives me will come, and I shall lose nothing but shall raise it up on the last day."

5. Universal atonement would make a portion of Christ's atonement ineffectual; unless of course you are one of these people who believes no one ends up in the lake of fire.

6. Universal atonement ultimately makes man the agent of his own salvation.

So consequently, the only conclusion you could logically draw that does not present you with all these issues is that election is indeed specific to individuals.

 

[twin1954]

Faith in Christ comes by revelation not by experience. God has, in infinite wisdom, chosen the foolishness of the preaching of the Gospel, which is the power of God to them that believe, to reveal Christ and their need of Him.

I have known some who sat under the preaching of the Gospel for several years without hearing it. But one day they did hear, because God in sovereign mercy, revealed Christ in the Gospel to them, and believed.

Matthew 11:25-27 (KJV) 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him].

 

[sdowney717]

It looks like double predestination is the idea that God chooses who will be saved and He chooses who will not be saved.

And single predestination could mean God chooses who will be saved, but He does not actively choose that others will not be saved.

If God does not chose a person to be saved, then they wont be because you can not believe in Christ unless God grants that you know Christ.

No one knows God and Christ unless Christ wills that they know Him.

Luke 10
21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”