single or double-predestination

CCWoody · Sep 9, 2005

Yeah, I've read Pink's Sovereignty of God (Unabridged). I remember this chapter. I believe that it supports what I have been saying here.

cygnusx1 said:
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman]God's decree of Reprobation contemplated Adam's race as fallen, sinful, corrupt, guilty. From it God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His Sovereign grace; the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity. In determining to destroy these others, God did them no wrong. They had already fallen in Adam, their legal representative; they are therefore born with a sinful nature, and in their sins He leaves them. Nor can they complain. This is as they wish; they have no desire for holiness; they love darkness rather than light. Where, then, is there any injustice if God "gives them up to their own heart's lusts" (Psa. 81:12).[/font]

Notice that Pink states that "Reprobation contemplates Adam's race as fallen." IOW, Adam's race is already logically considered to be fallen WHEN God determines whom to Elect and whom to Reprobate. You can see this in the next sentence. "From it [Adam's fallen race] God purposed to:"

Election ~ save a few as the monuments of His Sovereigtn grace.
Reprobation ~ determine to destroy [the rest] as the exemplification of His justice and severity.

Notice that both Election and Reprobation are considered by Pink to be the eternal ends of the fallen race of men. There is no mention of actively hardening anyone or softening them. These actions on the part of the LORD may be in accordance to what he has elected or reprobated man to, but they are not the means of either. Election and Reprobation are considered to be nothing more than the ends to which God has [Pre]destined man. Hence, we can and should assert a double-predestination.

But, not necessarily the kind of double-predestination mentioned in the OP. As I said, I need more information before I could vote.

cygnusx1 said:
Jer 6:30Reprobate silver shall [men] call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.

anyone have the relevant meaning on this word as used by God. ?

I was aware of this verse. I find it interesting that certain men are Reprobated BECAUSE God rejected them. Of course, this does beg the question: rejected from what. Well, in light of our discussion, they would be rejected for salvation. I do note that this is not a passive choice, but an active one. God considered men and rejected them in the same way that he considered other men and chose to save them. Again, a kind of double-predestination asserted, though no mention of hardening anyone.

Of course, if we consider that the fallen race of man is Reprobated, "rejected," then we must consider that Reprobation is not an eternal decree, but only a temporary one for out of this "reprobated" mass God will Elect. In that regard, I would have to resoundingly say that there can only be a single predestination. However, I do not believe that historically the word Reprobation has been used in this sense.

I could be wrong, but I think that if I am, Pink and I are in the same boat.

cygnusx1 · Sep 9, 2005

CCWoody said:
Yeah, I've read Pink's Sovereignty of God (Unabridged). I remember this chapter. I believe that it supports what I have been saying here.

[/font]

Notice that Pink states that "Reprobation contemplates Adam's race as fallen." IOW, Adam's race is already logically considered to be fallen WHEN God determines whom to Elect and whom to Reprobate. You can see this in the next sentence. "From it [Adam's fallen race] God purposed to:"

Election ~ save a few as the monuments of His Sovereigtn grace.
Reprobation ~ determine to destroy [the rest] as the exemplification of His justice and severity.

Notice that both Election and Reprobation are considered by Pink to be the eternal ends of the fallen race of men. There is no mention of actively hardening anyone or softening them. These actions on the part of the LORD may be in accordance to what he has elected or reprobated man to, but they are not the means of either. Election and Reprobation are considered to be nothing more than the ends to which God has [Pre]destined man. Hence, we can and should assert a double-predestination.

But, not necessarily the kind of double-predestination mentioned in the OP. As I said, I need more information before I could vote.

I was aware of this verse. I find it interesting that certain men are Reprobated BECAUSE God rejected them. Of course, this does beg the question: rejected from what. Well, in light of our discussion, they would be rejected for salvation. I do note that this is not a passive choice, but an active one. God considered men and rejected them in the same way that he considered other men and chose to save them. Again, a kind of double-predestination asserted, though no mention of hardening anyone.

Of course, if we consider that the fallen race of man is Reprobated, "rejected," then we must consider that Reprobation is not an eternal decree, but only a temporary one for out of this "reprobated" mass God will Elect. In that regard, I would have to resoundingly say that there can only be a single predestination. However, I do not believe that historically the word Reprobation has been used in this sense.

I could be wrong, but I think that if I am, Pink and I are in the same boat.

Hi woody
fascinating study!
I can see both elements , yet as far as memory serves me , God only hardens men for a specific purpose .There are several places where God is said to harden men , but there does seem to be a goal in mind (not damnation) but a specific purpose. ie, God hardened the Jews to open the door for the Gentiles .

Also , I think the point in Romans 9 is that we are all taken from the same lump ....... I take that to mean fallen mankind (clay) , rather than God merely making vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath with no seeming relationship.

My anology ( OK it isn't perfect , but it does make a point)

... it is more like I have built TWO houses , one in London , it is huge but derelict , a real ugly , unfit to live in dwelling.
Then I have built another house , in Northampton , this is a small dwelling but this is a Palace , and it is a thing that is pleasent to the eye.
yet , that is not the end of it , I built that palace from the materials of the old house , revamped , reshaped , and re-designed.
Now , men find that something of a wonder and difficult to believe!

Btw , Pink is a Supra , so am I , yet Pink stresses that men are considered as fallen , prior to God's choice

CCWoody · Sep 9, 2005

cygnusx1 said:
Hi woody

cygnusx1 said:
fascinating study!
I can see both elements , yet as far as memory serves me , God only hardens men for a specific purpose .There are several places where God is said to harden men , but there does seem to be a goal in mind (not damnation) but a specific purpose. ie, God hardened the Jews to open the door for the Gentiles .

I can agree with that.

cygnusx1 said:
Also , I think the point in Romans 9 is that we are all taken from the same lump ....... I take that to mean fallen mankind (clay) , rather than God merely making vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath with no seeming relationship.

Yes, I agree. God has considered fallen man for his decrees of election and Reprobation. Unfortunately, my brother cygnus, this is not Supralapsarianism, but Infralapsarianism (or historically called Sublapsarianism).

cygnusx1 said:
My anology ( OK it isn't perfect , but it does make a point)
... it is more like I have built TWO houses , one in London , it is huge but derelict , a real ugly , unfit to live in dwelling.
Then I have built another house , in Northampton , this is a small dwelling but this is a Palace , and it is a thing that is pleasent to the eye.
yet , that is not the end of it , I built that palace from the materials of the old house , revamped , reshaped , and re-designed.
Now , men find that something of a wonder and difficult to believe!

Btw , Pink is a Supra , so am I , yet Pink stresses that men are considered as fallen , prior to God's choice

I'll have to think about the analogy.

And, while it does seem to wiggle my noodle that Pink was a Supra (though his assertion on Reprobation doesn't seem to suggest that), from what you've said so far, you ain't. You may think you are, but practically speaking from your use of the potter & clay, I don't see it. You are free to prove me wrong.

Gisbertus Voetius · Sep 9, 2005

As stated in the Canons of Dort, First Head (Chapter 1) Article 15 [1]:

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

cygnusx1 · Sep 9, 2005

CCWoody said:
I can agree with that.

Yes, I agree. God has considered fallen man for his decrees of election and Reprobation. Unfortunately, my brother cygnus, this is not Supralapsarianism, but Infralapsarianism (or historically called Sublapsarianism).

I'll have to think about the analogy.

And, while it does seem to wiggle my noodle that Pink was a Supra (though his assertion on Reprobation doesn't seem to suggest that), from what you've said so far, you ain't. You may think you are, but practically speaking from your use of the potter & clay, I don't see it. You are free to prove me wrong.

hi woody , as I understand it , infralapsarians and supralapsarians both see man as before the fall .That is , they both view the order of decrees prior to the fall.
And they both see reprobation as both Sovereign (no-one is not elect because of works) and condemnation as judicial.(none perish who don't deserve to)

The infras see election as being something akin to plan B!

yet , the supras see the permission of God to decree the fall and ruin of man (reprobation) as serving the purpose of saving the Elect , not the other way around! which means the Fall was a means to a higher end .......... salvation in Christ.

as i have stated earlier , this is my position , that God planned the fall (which is the foundation of the decree of reprobation) to establish the Decree of Salvation in Christ , which is predominant and preeminent in God's mind and plan.

addenda , I think my view is nearest to Robert Redmonds

Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.
Robert Reymond, himself a supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian view:
Reymond's Modified
Supralapsarianism[font=Arial,Helvetica]

Elect some sinful men, reprobate rest
Apply redemptive benefits to the elect
Provide salvation for elect
Permit Fall
Create

[/font]Notice that in addition to reordering the decrees, Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme, unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men. (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 489). Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly leveled against supralapsarianismthat the supralapsarian has God damning men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

Gisbertus Voetius · Sep 9, 2005

"Just why God saves some and leaves others to perish is a mystery. It is not unjust, for God owes no man anything. Rebrobation is an act of God's justice just as predestination is an act of His grace. In both God manifests His virtues."
(De civ. XIV, 26)

ST. AUGUSTINE

BBAS 64 · Sep 9, 2005

Gisbertus Voetius said:
"Just why God saves some and leaves others to perish is a mystery. It is not unjust, for God owes no man anything. Rebrobation is an act of God's justice just as predestination is an act of His grace. In both God manifests His virtues."
(De civ. XIV, 26)

ST. AUGUSTINE

Good Day, Gisbertus

Welcome to CF!!

I like that quote.... as it is in my sig

Peace to u,

Bill

Gisbertus Voetius · Sep 9, 2005

Thank you kind sir!

As you are well aware, Augustine did not view the decree of predestination as preceeding original or actual sin nor does he place the decrees after these but original sin does logically preceed the gracefulness of predestination.

Most importantly, he does view original sin as the grounds for reprobation. So it is original sin that condemns and it is actual sin that determines the verocity of the punishment.

Rom. 9:11, 12 (. . . for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, `The elder shall serve the younger.' Even as it is written, `Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.')

CCWoody · Sep 10, 2005

cygnusx1 said:
addenda , I think my view is nearest to Robert Redmonds

Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.
Robert Reymond, himself a supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian view:
Reymond's Modified
Supralapsarianism[font=Arial,Helvetica]

Elect some sinful men, reprobate rest

Apply redemptive benefits to the elect

Provide salvation for elect

Permit Fall

Create

[/font]Notice that in addition to reordering the decrees, Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme, unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply as men. (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 489). Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly leveled against supralapsarianismthat the supralapsarian has God damning men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is implicitly infralapsarian.)

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

You know, I think that Reymond is all messed up in his terminology. I can agree with this:

Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin.

Under Supralapsarianism, God is said to Elect and Reprobate without any consideration for fallen man. IOW, they are already considered damned without any regard to any sin. (WHY ARE THEY DAMNED, THEN!) THEN, God logically is said to ordain a fall for the securing of the Reprobate in their fate. Unfortunately, you cannot say that Reprobation is the fall, as have some here with this definition.

Under Infralapsarianism, the Reprobate are already logically seen as fallen individuals. They are damned with specific regard to the sin which they will commit.

However, notice that it says that: "Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners." Well, to be honest, that is NOT Supralapsarianism at all.

From your link, this is Supralapsarianism:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained.

To be quite honest, Reymond's view is simply incoherent at best. Any view which specifically views men as sinners is NOT Supralapsariansim.

Anyway, here is my view and logical order (not a temporal order):

T - Create man and permit his fall.
U - Unconditionally Elect some
L - Provide a means for the Atonement of the Elect
I - Irresistible call elect to Salvation
p - Preserve the Elect unto Glory.

Please note that in the economy of the Trinity, Redemptive pre-eminence is preserved to be Father (Elect), Son (Atone), Holy Spirit (Call). I believe this is the proper order. It is also, interestingly enough, TULIP theology.

Hmmmm!

cygnusx1 · Sep 10, 2005

CCWoody said:
You know, I think that Reymond is all messed up in his terminology. I can agree with this:
Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin.

Under Supralapsarianism, God is said to Elect and Reprobate without any consideration for fallen man. IOW, they are already considered damned without any regard to any sin. (WHY ARE THEY DAMNED, THEN!) THEN, God logically is said to ordain a fall for the securing of the Reprobate in their fate. Unfortunately, you cannot say that Reprobation is the fall, as have some here with this definition.

Under Infralapsarianism, the Reprobate are already logically seen as fallen individuals. They are damned with specific regard to the sin which they will commit.

However, notice that it says that: "Reymond's view deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God is contemplating men as sinners." Well, to be honest, that is NOT Supralapsarianism at all.

From your link, this is Supralapsarianism:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained.

To be quite honest, Reymond's view is simply incoherent at best. Any view which specifically views men as sinners is NOT Supralapsariansim.

Anyway, here is my view and logical order (not a temporal order):

T - Create man and permit his fall.
U - Unconditionally Elect some
L - Provide a means for the Atonement of the Elect
I - Irresistible call elect to Salvation
p - Preserve the Elect unto Glory.

Please note that in the economy of the Trinity, Redemptive pre-eminence is preserved to be Father (Elect), Son (Atone), Holy Spirit (Call). I believe this is the proper order. It is also, interestingly enough, TULIP theology.

Hmmmm!

That is strange you should come to that conclusion woody , I know for a fact that A W Pink is Supralapsarian , yet he also views God's choice of men (before the fall , not just as men .......... I will make millions for hell and millions for Glory ) ........ but instead as fallen ...... they are actually contemplated as fallen.Election is by Grace , mercy can only be in view if there is contemplation of the elect as fallen.

As far as I know the order of the decrees were debated precisely because some implied God made men sinners in order to damn them , which apart from being dispicable , it is hard for anyone to accept such a view.

Yet why did God permit mankind to fall (which is the ground of reprobation) ?
and here is the answer , which I believe is of the essence of Supralapsarinaism , and I don't ever recall it being stated by infralaps .

Romans 9 Verse 22. "What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

Verse 23. "And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."

CCWoody · Sep 10, 2005

cygnusx1 said:
That is strange you should come to that conclusion woody , I know for a fact that A W Pink is Supralapsarian , yet he also views God's choice of men (before the fall , not just as men .......... I will make millions for hell and millions for Glory ) ........ but instead as fallen ...... they are actually contemplated as fallen.Election is by Grace , mercy can only be in view if there is contemplation of the elect as fallen.

As far as I know the order of the decrees was debated precisely because some implied God made men sinners in order to damn them , which apart from being dispicable , it is hard for anyone to accept such a view.

Yet why did God permit mankind to fall (which is the ground of reprobation) ?
and here is the answer , which I believe is of the essence of Supralapsarinaism , and I don't ever recall it being stated by infralaps .

Romans 9 Verse 22. "What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction."

Verse 23. "And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory."

Well, I quote Romans 9 from time to time. It causes me NO bile. But, don't take my word for it that Supra's damn man without ANY regard for sins. Just look at the information you provided in your link:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained.

I reject that view. If we say that Romans 9:22 views these vessels of warth as being yet unfallen, then we must say that God resolved to create men to hate and then provide for himself a good reason to hate them. I think this is a rather odd view, don't you? I mean, what is the basis of God's hatred and wrath upon a man if he doesn't already contemplate them as fallen? I can't think of any reason. Therefore, in order to justify his hatred for a man, God forces his fall.

Does this really make any sense?

cygnusx1 · Sep 10, 2005

''Under Supralapsarianism, God is said to Elect and Reprobate without any consideration for fallen man''.

this is both true and false .......... for Reprobation has not ONE side but TWO!

considering why God would choose Jacob over Esau ....... neither sin nor good works is the answer , only God's Grace (emphasis on Grace!)

yet within the decree of reprobation there is also condemnation .......... now why does God condemn the reprobate ?
Because of their own sin. It has nothing to do with an arbitrary descision by God , it is simply Divine Justice.

cygnusx1 · Sep 10, 2005

CCWoody said:
Well, I quote Romans 9 from time to time. It causes me NO bile. But, don't take my word for it that Supra's damn man without ANY regard for sins. Just look at the information you provided in your link:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained.

Click to expand...

If they are talking about the ground of Election ....... then they are correct , if they are talking about the ground for damnation then they are wrong.

I reject that view. If we say that Romans 9:22 views these vessels of warth as being yet unfallen, then we must say that God resolved to create men to hate and then provide for himself a good reason to hate them. I think this is a rather odd view, don't you?

Click to expand...

Very odd , and I would be surprised if any man alive could swallow it .

I mean, what is the basis of God's hatred and wrath upon a man if he doesn't already contemplate them as fallen? I can't think of any reason. Therefore, in order to justify his hatred for a man, God forces his fall.

Does this really make any sense?

Click to expand...

I think there is a real problem with a philosophy that merely reverses the actual events that do take place , and build a case for God's will.
Yet scripture does give us sufficient reason to say that the Fall did not take God by surprise , and that God willingly permitted it , and more besides , God decreed the backdrop of sin and judgment to shine His Grace upon the elect.
I do believe that the elder was made (Esau viewed as the decree to reprobate) in order to serve the younger (Jacob , the decree to save)

CCWoody · Sep 10, 2005

cygnusx1 said:
CCWoody said:

If they are talking about the ground of Election ....... then they are correct , if they are talking about the ground for damnation then they are wrong.

Click to expand...

Why it is both:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained.

It says eternal life and rejection (reprobation). It is why I reject Supralapsarianism.

cygnusx1 said:

I think there is a real problem with a philosophy that merely reverses the actual events that do take place , and build a case for God's will.

Click to expand...

cygnusx1 said:

Yet scripture does give us sufficient reason to say that the Fall did not take God by surprise , and that God willingly permitted it , and more besides , God decreed the backdrop of sin and judgment to shine His Grace upon the elect.
I do believe that the elder was made (Esau viewed as the decree to reprobate) in order to serve the younger (Jacob , the decree to save)

Click to expand...

Neither position accuses the fall of taking God by surprise.

The case of Jacob and Esau is often cited by Supralapsarians to make their case:

Rom 9:11 GB
(11) For yer the children were borne, and when they had neither done good, nor euill (that the purpose of God might remaine according to election, not by workes, but by him that calleth)

Here is the Geneva note from my Bible on the verse:
God's decree which proceeds from only his good will, by which it pleases him to choose one, and refuse the other. (8) Paul does not say, "might be made", but "being made might remain". Therefore they are deceived who make foreseen faith the cause of election, and foreknown infidelity the cause of reprobation.

Now, I can fully agree that the purpose of God according to Election being made might remain. Since this passage speak about both children, we must also consider that Esau was not Elected. He was reprobated without any regard to any good or evil that he had done. However, if you will remember, I asserted that election and reprobation was made with regard to the fall. This passage says nothing about the Fall, but only of individual works. And, though I had previous spoken about Reprobation being made according to fallen individuals, I want to clarify that I did not mean individual acts for or against God, but individually with regards to the Fall. IOW, every man is individually guilty of the fall.

Anyway, I think this is a difficult passage and lapsarian order not a light subject. I think it easy to get turned around. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.

Imblessed · Sep 11, 2005

CCWoody said:
Anyway, I think this is a difficult passage and lapsarian order not a light subject. I think it easy to get turned around. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.

I must say, your guys' conversation is fascinating, and enlightening.

CCWoody, I apologize that my "poll" was badly written. It is plain that I do not understand single and double predestination as well as I had thought(not that I thought I had it figured out, but I did think I understood it ok...)

I'm still at a loss to understand the people who "seem" to want to follow God, but get it all wrong. Perhaps it is simply a matter of pride and people thinking that surely they can "work" their way into heaven, or not accepting that we are all, deep down, truly depraved. Given the right circumstances, I believe that we(as a people) are truly wretched(at least those that God has not regenerated), it's just that society has "ingrained" in us a sense of right and wrong for so long, we've convinced ourselves that we are basically good. At any rate, the issue I have with this seems to not have so much to do with "my" concept of single or double predestination after all........ maybe someday I'll get it.......

cygnusx1 · Sep 12, 2005

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect) vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22) were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall, so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with "double predestination." The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to "double predestination" and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4). But more often, the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. (There's an even more sinister form of "double predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.) This view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Though all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary ramification of supralapsarianism.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/salvatio.htm

CCWoody · Sep 12, 2005

cygnusx1 said:
The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion.

Exactly, my fine brother cygnus. Imblessed, you do not need to apologize. As you can see, the term can range anywhere from the forms of double-predestination in which I believe all the way to extreme forms labeled hyper-Calvinism. As such, I needed clarification in order to vote how you are using the term.

Imblessed said:
I'm still at a loss to understand the people who "seem" to want to follow God, but get it all wrong. Perhaps it is simply a matter of pride and people thinking that surely they can "work" their way into heaven, or not accepting that we are all, deep down, truly depraved. Given the right circumstances, I believe that we(as a people) are truly wretched(at least those that God has not regenerated), it's just that society has "ingrained" in us a sense of right and wrong for so long, we've convinced ourselves that we are basically good. At any rate, the issue I have with this seems to not have so much to do with "my" concept of single or double predestination after all........ maybe someday I'll get it.......

Jer 17:9 GB
(9) The heart is deceitfull and wicked aboue all things, who can knowe it?

***Romans 3: 10-12, 23 -- As it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
***Romans 7: 18 -- For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
***Romans 8: 5 - 8 -- For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
***1 Corinthians 2: 14 -- But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

And IF these Scriptures are true, then a natural Man, acting by God's Permission, will:

NEVER seek God (because No Man naturally seeks God, Romans 3); NEVER do good (because the Doing of Good is not present in his native Wants, Romans 7); NEVER perform any God-pleasing action whatsoever (Because he never wants to please God, Romans 8); and NEVER even understand what he ought to do (because he cannot even understand the idea of doing anything God-pleasing, 1 Corinthians 2).

These verses SHUT THE DOOR on the idea that a natural Man will ever Will to do any God-pleasing action by God's Permission. The natural Man never, ever Wants to perform any God-pleasing action, and so if he acts by God's permission, he never, ever Will.

When natural Men act by God's PERMISSION, they ONLY PERFORM GOD-OPPOSING ACTIONS. That is all they Want to do, so that is all that they ever Will to do.

Therefore, saving faith in Christ always involves a profound change in a man's heart. It is not merely professing to the truth of something. Conversion unto salvation is an unbelievable Gift from God: God has granted repentance unto life (Acts 11:18); God exalted Christ to give repentance to Israel (Acts 5:31); God opened a door to faith to the Gentiles (Acts 14:27); The Lord opened Lydia's heart (Acts16:14); even when we were dead God made us alive (Ephesians 2:1,5).

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ [has been] born of God...

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily I say unto thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the Word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Imblessed · Sep 12, 2005

cygnusx1 said:
SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect) vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22) were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall, so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with "double predestination." The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to "double predestination" and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4). But more often, the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. (There's an even more sinister form of "double predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.) This view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Though all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary ramification of supralapsarianism.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/salvatio.htm

thanks cyg! That really cleared up alot.....

CCWoody,

I guess what my OP was indicating was double predestination via "equal untimacy".

This is what I understood double predestination to mean.....

But more often, the expression "double predestination" is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. (There's an even more sinister form of "double predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.) This view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 142).

Elect · Sep 12, 2005

Imblessed said:
Just wanted to know what the prevailing view is around here.

Does God choose the Elect and simply pass over the rest, allowing them them to do their own thing? Or does God actively keep the reprobate from salvation?

Since God is sovereign in all things, then I will have to go with -Double

Even the reprobate are fulfilling the purpose of God.

CCWoody · Sep 12, 2005

Imblessed said:
CCWoody,

I guess what my OP was indicating was double predestination via "equal untimacy".

This is what I understood double predestination to mean.....

Oh, then, in that case, if your poll were still open, I would be voting single predestination. It is not that I don't believe in a double predestination, it is just that I don't believe in the doctrine of equal ultimacy.

cygnusx1's reference citation said:
(There's an even more sinister form of "double predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.) This view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Though all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary ramification of supralapsarianism.

And, while I'm not certain that equal ultimacy is a form of hyper-Calvinism (I just don't have enough information), I am settled in my mind that equal ultimacy is not the correct expression of double Predestination. What can I say, but I'm Infralapsarian, not Supra. I'm specifically precluded from equal ultimacy.

I believe that God actively Elects to save and I believe that he actively chooses to pass by others. Both Election and Reprobation are settled by the eternal decree of God. Beyond that, since I don't see much more in Scriptures, I am unwilling to peer into the secret counsel of God.

single or double-predestination

Do you believe in single or double predestination?

Single Predestination

Double Predestination

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Jacob the twister.....

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Active Member

Jacob the twister.....

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Jacob the twister.....

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

Jacob the twister.....

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

It is God that Justifies

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency