Double Predestination

[Josiah]

If you claim to believe in Single Predestination

I affirm ALL the Scriptures any Reformed reference in terms of Election. I believe that Jesus IS THE Savior and, as the Creed puts it, "The Author and Giver of Life." Thus, the first part of what MennoSota write (and you agreed IS the topic here) is correct.

I do not agree that God equally and proactively in the same sense chooses most to fry eternally in hell .... I disagree with the Calvinists who have posted, written and told me that essentially God "gets off" on this and is "gloried" by this, that it is His hearts desire and will that that most eternally fry in hell..... that ERGO God did not so love the world that He gave to them; I disagree with "God only loved the Elect and to them ONLY did He send His only begotten Son...." "God desires the most men fry eternally in hell...." you know, the Calvinist conjecture, which I think you've largely confessed is a "logical" conjecture of a man, not something God ever stated.

Another point: I'm not opposed to questions. I AM opposed to some sinful, fallen, broken, limited, ignorant man designating himself to answering it and then requiring God agree in order for God to be as smart as he is. Why? Well, in part because I believe in the sovereignty of God - not human conjectures, not man's brains, not "logic" based on an unknown amount of information. You, my esteemed friend, may ask valid questions.... it does not mean I (or anyone) has the dogmatic answer (especially when the two offered are both so unbiblical - as the other "side" so dramatically and undeniably proves over and over and over again). Calvinists (well, some) and Arminianists (well, some) have new and EQUALLY "logical" answers to the questions THEY asked based on what they think they know, and they both INSIST all MUST choose one or the other conjecture because no other is possible, and they both go one to prove the other's conjecture very unbiblical and ERGO (their favorite word) THEY are right. Maybe both are wrong.... at least in part? Maybe neither has all the information necessary to answer the question (even if they had the smarts to do it if they did)? Maybe GOD is the sovereign rather than the conflicting conjectures of 2 men? Maybe God wants us to be stewards of the mysteries of God rather than correctors of God charged with making God "logical" to men and making God make sense to fallen, puny humans? Maybe there can be wisdom in bowing before God.... in believing God just may know more about this than 2 men.... in believing that God actually meant what He said in the words He chose to inspire?

You simple hate the words and choose to redefine them.

No, I don't hate words such as "all" and "world" and "desire." I embrace them. And words such as "elect" and "chose" and "Savior" and "gift." And see no reason to delete and replace them because the words God inspired seem to make God illogical and not as smart as John or Jakob. I think you are getting to the problem: BOTH 16th Century "logical" constructs each equally "hate the words" and "choose to redefine them" - different words, but equally so. Why? Because what God stated doesn't seem logical to some fallen, broken, sinful, limited, puny, ignorant man... it can't be so.... so "all" must mean "few"..... etc., etc. If one permits God to be sovereign (rather than the brain and conjectures of self).... if one accepts God inspired the right words.... then, well, we could have a mystery here (as in the Trinity and Two Natures, etc, etc., etc., etc., etc.) but hey, God is smarter than self, God knows more than self, God is the sovereign one (not self). Maybe?


Let's be nice, lol.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqrIOchEN8



- Josiah





.

 

[atpollard]

I do not agree that God equally and proactively in the same sense chooses most to fry eternally in hell .... I disagree with the Calvinists who have posted, written and told me that essentially God "gets off" on this and is "gloried" by this, that it is His hearts desire and will that that most eternally fry in hell..... that ERGO God did not so love the world that He gave to them; I disagree with "God only loved the Elect and to them ONLY did He send His only begotten Son...." "God desires the most men fry eternally in hell...." you know, the Calvinist conjecture, which I think you've largely confessed is a "logical" conjecture of a man, not something God ever stated.

R.C. Sproul, who just died, was a pretty influential LIVING Reformed Theologian and defender of "Calvinism". Did you read what he wrote? I posted it to the first few posts. Neither Sproul nor I nor do any non-Heretic Calvinists believe that God "equally and proactively in the same sense chooses most to fry eternally in hell". That is Positive-positive double predestination and is REJECTED by those "uber-Calvinists" who created "TULIP". For almost 500 years, Calvinism (Reformed Theology) has taught Positive-negative Double predestination. You can read about it in the first few posts or google it for yourself.

I am tired of repeating the same thing, you don't seem to be listening. Nobody but a few thousand fanatics world-wide believe what you keep objecting to. Hypercalvinism has nothing to do with John Calvin, scripture or Reformed Theology. It is a cult that real Calvinists are tired of being accused of believing.

I leave you to get the last word ....

 

[Josiah]

You simple hate the words and choose to redefine them.


.

No, I don't hate words such as "all" and "world" and "desire." I embrace, affirm and believe them. And words such as "elect" and "chose" and "Savior" and "gift." And see no reason to delete and replace them because the words God inspired seem to make God illogical and not as smart as John or Jakob.

I think you are getting to the problem: BOTH 16th Century "logical" constructs each equally "hate the words" and "choose to redefine them" - different words, but equally so. Why? Because what God stated doesn't seem logical to some fallen, broken, sinful, limited, puny, ignorant man... it can't be so.... so "all" must mean "few"..... etc., etc. If one permits God to be sovereign (rather than the brain and conjectures of self).... if one accepts God inspired the right words.... then, well, we could have a mystery here (as in the Trinity and Two Natures, etc, etc., etc., etc., etc.) but hey, God is smarter than self, God knows more than self, God is the sovereign one (not self). Maybe?


.

Friend,

At 32 minutes, this is much longer than the attention span of most (LOL) but..... perhaps you are trying to say Lutherans are right here (LOL)? That you agree with "the third option?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqrIOchEN8


I'd love to see the Scriptures that flatly state Dr. Biermann and single predestination are wrong (or heretical as another charged), the exact contradiction to the words in the Scriptures, how he obviously "hates" the words of Scripture and turns them 180 degrees so that they mean the opposite of what is stated.



- Josiah



.

 

[hedrick]

• Positive-Positive Double Predestination is exactly what you describe ... God chooses, equally, some to be saved and some to be damned. Reformed Theology, John Calvin and Calvinism all reject this. It is a heresy. It is contrary to scripture.

Calvin is quite clear in book 3 chapters 21 and 23 of the Institute that God chooses equally some to be saved and some to be damned. Where they differ is that he intervenes to save people, while the damned are damned through for their own fault. But he specifically chooses people to be damned through their own actions.

 

[Josiah]

Calvin is quite clear in book 3 chapters 21 and 23 of the Institute that God chooses equally some to be saved and some to be damned.

... a position popularly called "Double Predestination." It's what MennoSota has proposed (but doesn't want LABELED that but what atpollard indicated is that).

I think "Single Predestination" is different. I'm kind of hoping atpollard will have the time and fortitude to watch that 32 minute video.... and see how he sees Single Predestination to be specifically contrary to the words in Scripture OR if he actually largely agrees with Lutheranism rather than Double Predestination (or considers the difference one ONLY of "semantics" as he earlier theorized).

 

[atpollard]

Calvin is quite clear in book 3 chapters 21 and 23 of the Institute that God chooses equally some to be saved and some to be damned. Where they differ is that he intervenes to save people, while the damned are damned through for their own fault. But he specifically chooses people to be damned through their own actions.

Does Calvin claim God's choosing of the 'damned' is done in the same active way as Calvin claims God chooses the saved?
That is what you and Josiah are implying.
I claim that there is a difference between positive-positive predestination and positive-negative predestination that you are ignoring.
(two chapters is a lot to search for the context of a loose paraphrase).

 

[hedrick]

Does Calvin claim God's choosing of the 'damned' is done in the same active way as Calvin claims God chooses the saved?
That is what you and Josiah are implying.
I claim that there is a difference between positive-positive predestination and positive-negative predestination that you are ignoring.
(two chapters is a lot to search for the context of a loose paraphrase).

The choosing is equally active. But not the way the choice is carried out. There's no negative of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Having chosen to reject someone, God simply leaves them alone, to fail on their own. Calvin wants to be clear that people's failure is their own fault, since there's an obvious moral issue if God makes someone fail. However his understanding of Rom 9:18 comes very close. "it seems good to God to illuminate some that they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish" (Commentary on Rom 9:18) However despite occasional statements like this, Calvin consistently wants to make it clear that people do in fact choose to reject God, and thus that they are responsible for their own damnation.

I should note that personally I disagree with this understanding of Rom 9:18. I don't think Scripture teaches that God arranges for anyone to be lost. Election is used in several different ways, but when it speaks of eternal destination I think it's always positive. That leaves lots of questions, which I'm not prepared to answer at the moment.

 

[Imalive]

Calvin was an unrepentant murderer. It's false teaching.
I hate it more than Stravinsk hates Paul.

one illustration from John Wesley of the image of a false god conveyed through the doctrines of Calvinism: “One might say to our adversary, the devil, ‘Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men” Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the ‘fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but ‘the smoke of their torment,’ because it is God’s good pleasure, ‘ascendeth up for ever and ever.’”

 

[Albion]

Calvin was an unrepentant murderer.

This isn't true, and people should stop saying it, even if they have no sympathy for his theology.

 

[Imalive]

The choosing is equally active. But not the way the choice is carried out. There's no negative of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Having chosen to reject someone, God simply leaves them alone, to fail on their own. Calvin wants to be clear that people's failure is their own fault, since there's an obvious moral issue if God makes someone fail. However his understanding of Rom 9:18 comes very close. "it seems good to God to illuminate some that they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish" (Commentary on Rom 9:18) However despite occasional statements like this, Calvin consistently wants to make it clear that people do in fact choose to reject God, and thus that they are responsible for their own damnation.

I should note that personally I disagree with this understanding of Rom 9:18. I don't think Scripture teaches that God arranges for anyone to be lost. Election is used in several different ways, but when it speaks of eternal destination I think it's always positive. That leaves lots of questions, which I'm not prepared to answer at the moment.

'and to blind others that they may perish'

If you believe that and a person is blind, you do nothing about it and they can go to hell.
Paul says the god of this world, satan, blinded them.
It also said God blinded them, but He just allowed satan to do it. Sin and pride blinds. He gives them over if they keep resisting Him. Romans 9 says He rejected them because they didnt trust Him but their own works. Pride. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Then Calvin says they attribute to salvation by being humble. Fine. God tells His ppl all the time to humble themselves and if they do He gives them grace. To humble yourself is to admit that you cant work your salvation and need God. Calvin makes from humbling yourself and listening to God a work. He totally flips it around.
But anyway, what we do in church is bind those demons that blind someone and then they can make a choice and get saved. Happens all the time.
Paul said in Romans 11 that God blinded them but he was gonna save some and make em jealous. So then he'd go against Gods will if that was Gods will. Gods will is that none perish. The devil wants ppl to perish.

And that lie that ppl cant make a choice. Then why did God say to them they had to choose who they would serve? Get saved. Repent. Save yourself from this wicked generation Peter says in Acts 2.

 

[atpollard]

Friend,

At 32 minutes, this is much longer than the attention span of most (LOL) but..... perhaps you are trying to say Lutherans are right here (LOL)? That you agree with "the third option?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAqrIOchEN8

I'd love to see the Scriptures that flatly state Dr. Biermann and single predestination are wrong (or heretical as another charged), the exact contradiction to the words in the Scriptures, how he obviously "hates" the words of Scripture and turns them 180 degrees so that they mean the opposite of what is stated.

- Josiah
.

You had me watch that in another thread, but I watched it again.

"Every time a person comes to faith, God has worked a miracle." - Dr. Biermann

Is there any way to avoid the fact that any time a person dies in their sin, God has not worked a miracle?

 

[atpollard]

One general comment. It was stated on another thread that Lutherans do not follow Martin Luther as their ultimate authority, they follow Jesus and his scriptures. The same statement needs to be made with respect to John Calvin and Reformed Theology. The writings of Calvin are interesting and influential, but they are not authoritative. The Westminster Confession of Faith is authoritative for Prebyterians (as the Book of Concord is to Lutherans).

I am not a Prebytrian, so I find the much simpler Hiedelberg Catechism to be closer to my personal Reformed beliefs.

I believe John 6:44
No one can come to Me (Total Depravity = dead in our sins)
unless the Father who sent Me (Unconditional Election = God saves)
draws him; (Irresistable Grace = God cannot fail)
and I will raise him up on the last day. (Perseverance of the Saints = Jesus will finish what he starts)

That's T.U._.I.P. from just one verse.
Limited Atonement is something I have no interest in arguing over. Jesus died for whatever sins HE chose to die for, I don't remember his asking my opinion. I understand the arguments for both sides, but frankly there are no scriptures that really settle the issue one way or another, so it must be non-essential for our salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, the quote from MennoSota is Double Predestination and in terms of the end result,a correct statement of fact for Reformed Theology (Calvinism). At the bema seat at the final judgement, when the sheep are separated from the goats, God chooses to pardon the sheep and punish the goats.

You do realize that the term uber-Calvinist is extremely offensive and you are constantly using it to smear mud on the name and reputation of genuine Calvinists (Reformed Theology). It is not a very honest, charitable or productive way to conduct a conversation or a debate.

Double Predestination takes two distinct forms (that someone with no fancy theology degree is explaining this to people who claim lots of fancy degrees boggles the imagination).

• Positive-Positive Double Predestination is exactly what you describe ... God chooses, equally, some to be saved and some to be damned. Reformed Theology, John Calvin and Calvinism all reject this. It is a heresy. It is contrary to scripture.
• Positive-Negative Double Predestination is what is taught by Reformed Theology, John Calvin, Calvinism and scripture. All men are born fallen and in sin. Our sin nature makes us natural enemies of God. God reveals his JUSTICE by allowing fallen men to freely choose to sin and punishing them for their sin. That is the "negative" of Positive-negative because our damnation requires no special effort on God's part. However, God in his mercy chose to predestine SOME to salvation. This is the "positive" of Positive-negative, because salvation requires a special work of intervention on God's part.

Single Predestination really makes little logical or biblical sense. One could argue that some are irresistibly drawn by God to salvation and everyone else has the free will to choose or reject salvation, but that is a VERY hard case to make from scripture and I doubt that is what you really believe.

If God saves some and the others are not capable of self-choosing salvation, then the reality is that Predestination is Double, not Single.
So can some people choose salvation without being drawn by God?

I have stated my position repeatedly.
Man is born in sin. God is just in damning all humanity to hell. God elects to extend unmerited favor (grace) to whom He wills. God chose those whom he wills to extend unmerited favor before the foundation of the world.
Now, since I find no instance in the Bible where God uses the term "double-predestination" I therefore consider it an unuseful term to define God's work of grace. As Imalive says, it just complicates things.
In reading the article by Sproul, he presents the same position as I hold, though he muddies it by adding a double to his term. I find the term double-predestination unnecessary and since God doesn't use it it seems God felt it unnecessary as well.

 

[MennoSota]

... a position popularly called "Double Predestination." It's what MennoSota has proposed (but doesn't want LABELED that but what atpollard indicated is that).

I think "Single Predestination" is different. I'm kind of hoping atpollard will have the time and fortitude to watch that 32 minute video.... and see how he sees Single Predestination to be specifically contrary to the words in Scripture OR if he actually largely agrees with Lutheranism rather than Double Predestination (or considers the difference one ONLY of "semantics" as he earlier theorized).

What does your version of Lutheran actually believe, Josiah? You only whine about others and then dive under a nebulous "Lutheran" view. However, as I have pointed out, it is the Lutherans who sponsored the heretical Jesus Seminar. A vast number of Lutheran churches are rainbow churches who deny the deity of Christ. Thus alluding to an undefined Lutheranism is merely a means of never stating your particular belief.
Now, do us a favor and state YOUR belief, not your denominations cut and paste. Articulate your belief using your own words and only your own words. It's time to man up.

 

[MennoSota]

'and to blind others that they may perish'

If you believe that and a person is blind, you do nothing about it and they can go to hell.
Paul says the god of this world, satan, blinded them.
It also said God blinded them, but He just allowed satan to do it. Sin and pride blinds. He gives them over if they keep resisting Him. Romans 9 says He rejected them because they didnt trust Him but their own works. Pride. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Then Calvin says they attribute to salvation by being humble. Fine. God tells His ppl all the time to humble themselves and if they do He gives them grace. To humble yourself is to admit that you cant work your salvation and need God. Calvin makes from humbling yourself and listening to God a work. He totally flips it around.
But anyway, what we do in church is bind those demons that blind someone and then they can make a choice and get saved. Happens all the time.
Paul said in Romans 11 that God blinded them but he was gonna save some and make em jealous. So then he'd go against Gods will if that was Gods will. Gods will is that none perish. The devil wants ppl to perish.

And that lie that ppl cant make a choice. Then why did God say to them they had to choose who they would serve? Get saved. Repent. Save yourself from this wicked generation Peter says in Acts 2.

You seem to think God is a passive spirit who is incapable of saving without someone else's help. Sovereignty is non-existent in your position.

 

[Albion]

One general comment. It was stated on another thread that Lutherans do not follow Martin Luther as their ultimate authority, they follow Jesus and his scriptures. The same statement needs to be made with respect to John Calvin and Reformed Theology. The writings of Calvin are interesting and influential, but they are not authoritative. The Westminster Confession of Faith is authoritative for Prebyterians (as the Book of Concord is to Lutherans).

I am not a Prebytrian...

That would be my guess, all right.

 

[Imalive]

You seem to think God is a passive spirit who is incapable of saving without someone else's help. Sovereignty is non-existent in your position.

He chose to use people. He works through His body. He gave authority to the disciples.
He said to Jeremiah if he didnt warn a sinner He would require his blood from his hands.

How could God have saved us if noone would have been willing to give birth to Jesus?

 

[Imalive]

Lester Sumrall saw thousands of ppl fall into hell in a vision and God said: that will happen if you don't preach. That was his calling into the ministry.

 

[Imalive]

You seem to think God is a passive spirit who is incapable of saving without someone else's help. Sovereignty is non-existent in your position.

This is a good one. Calvinism assumes that God doesn't need anyone. He needed Jeremiah or chose to need him, He could have made kids out of stones too, so He made him and foreknew and predestined him to do that.
Abraham, Jacob, the disciples, without them I would never have been saved.

 

[Imalive]

Don't forget Romans 10.

that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”[f] 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”[g]

Israel Rejects the Gospel
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,[h]
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”[j] 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:

“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”[k]

19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:

“I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”[l]

20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:

“I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”[m]

21 But to Israel he says:

“All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.”[n]