Double Predestination

[Josiah]

“Double” Predestination
by R.C. Sproul
(continued)

The Double-Predestination Distortion

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

Interesting you'd by-pass the Reformed Confessions, Calvin, and all Calvinists.... and cling to one Reformed person because he's "modern." Hum.....

And I think you've already admitted that the Calvinist view here is "speculation" and that it "goes beyond Scripture" and was invented to "remove the mystery in Scripture." You seem to present a lot of conditional phrases (turned into questions)..... worded so as to suggest something.... then appoint yourself to answer it.... then assume that God (being as smart as Calvinists) ERGO must agree with the 'answer' Calvinists give to the 'questions' Calvinists ask. And bingo: DOGMA! Unique, new and distinctive.... very obvious (except that no Christian in over 1500 years came up with it and nearly all Christians today disagree with it).

You obviously believe in "DOUBLE Predestination" (although MennoSota does not - so one of you isn't Reformed) since you speak of "DISTORTIONS" of it (meaning "it" does exist). But then you seem to go to enormous, pressed efforts to make two predestinations actually one so that there's a double predestination but only single predestination.

You speak of what you "loosely describe" as "hyper-Calvinism" (I hope that's not offensive to Reformed since you insist that "uber-Calvinist" is) that must exist, yet RC Sproul (a 'modern' Calvinist) rejects. Perhaps it DID exist? Among whom? Where they Reformed or Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican or what?

It seems to me that if you are trying to say (well, you have said) that the modern, typical difference between the Calvinist view (typically called Double Predestination) and the Lutheran one (typically called Single Predestination) the is simply one of semantics (being actually the same thing) then I'm glad to hear Calvinists have become Lutheran on this, but I doubt that's true. In part because then Limited Atonement (indeed 4 of the 5 parts of TULIP) are irrelevant - they are no longer needed to support Double Predestination (they aren't needed to support Single Predestination) and there's no reason for the dogmatic insistence that Jesus did not die for all, God does not will all to be saved, Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world, Gpod does not love the world - NONE of those central, defining dogmas of Calvinism have significance if there's no predestination of the condemned; seems to me if the "hyper" Calvinism (which no longer is Calvinism it seems) is gone (and there's been a move toward Lutheranism) then 4 of the 5 points of TULIP went out the window with it.


But I think you have a valid point, and I think you have been unusually frank in admitting it (a point MennoSota has not): This central defining point of (at least old) Calvinism is speculation, based on Calvinists framing conditional questions to themselves and then answering it themselves in the only way that seems 'logical' to themselves, it's a construct based entirely on what seems "logical" to man and not on Scripture, Tradition, the Councils, the Creed or anything prior to John Calvin. That, in turn, necessitated the other distinctives (LIMITED atonement, for example) since Double Predestination mandates those other "logical" constructs to create a "neat" system (atlthough it does require spinning a lot of Scriptures 180 degrees from what they state). A "logical speculation" that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery" found in Scripture.... I guess that's just one of the reasons I find this disturbing.

I realize that some Calvinists (I think this includes you, it even more likely includes MennoSota) see Lutherans (and all non-Calvinists, which means all Christians prior to John Calvin) as ... well..... not so smart. They are stupid to let Scripture stand, to simply bow to what God says (even if we can't wrap our brains around it), and that if we were smart, we could invent speculations that move beyond what God said to remove the mysteries we find in Scripture. Okay. But again, that's EXACTLY what Protestantism rejected in Catholicism, and the times Catholicism did this, the result didn't conflict with Scripture as boldly as this (old, now abandoned and replaced) Calvinist view - with it's denial that God loved the world, God desires all to be saved, Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world.... I think you can understand how one who respects Scripture might find a WHOLE LOT more problems with Double Predestination (and the other distinctive, new dogmas to make it consistent) than with say the Assumption of Mary or Transubstantiation or Purgatory - all things Calvinism rejects because they are late speculations that go beyond Scripture to remove mysteries in the Bible, that ADD to what the Bible (and all Christianity before it) never states. Maybe Lutherans just respect Scripture more? Maybe they just embrace the Sovereignty of God more? Or maybe Lutherans just think less of their own selves (and their ability to tell God what He really should know). Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Perhaps Calvinists regard that as ... well.... not smart (at least as they)? Perhaps the more Calvinist approach would be, "What makes sense to me is the foundation of all smart theology." ???? Perhaps just very different starting points..... Perhaps.... But then I see the Calvinist rubric as a full return to that of Rome: different new speculations-made-dogma but the same attitude, same rubric, same result. maybe?



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

H.A. Ironside:

It has been pictured in this way. Here is a vast host of people hurrying down the broad road with their minds fixed upon their sins, and one stands calling attention to yonder door, the entrance into the narrow way that leads to life eternal. On it is plainly depicted the text, "Whosoever will, let him come." Every man is invited, no one need hesitate. Some may say, "Well, I may not be of the elect, and so it would be useless for me to endeavor to come, for the door will not open for me." But God's invitation is absolutely sincere; it is addressed to every man, "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely" (Rev. 22: 17). If men refuse to come, if they pursue their own godless way down to the pit, whom can they blame but themselves for their eternal judgment? The messenger addressed himself to all, the call came to all, the door could be entered by all, but many refused to come and perished in their sins. Such men can never blame God for their eternal destruction. The door was open, the invitation was given, they refused, and He says to them sorrowfully, "Ye will not come unto Me, that ye might have life." ... [But some will say], "I am going inside: I will accept the invitation; I will enter that door," and he presses his way in and it shuts behind him. As he turns about he finds written on the inside of the door the words, "Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

H.A. Ironside, In the Heavenlies (Ephesians), pages 27-28

The illustration distinguishes the cause of salvation into two perspectives: the perspective of man, and the perspective of God. The idea is that from our perspective, we use our "free will" to choose to be saved. And from God's perspective, God uses his sovereignty to choose who will choose salvation.

The point of the illustration is to defend against the the objection to Calvanism that if predestination is true, then not everyone who wants to be saved can be saved. This illustration counters this by arguing that everyone who wants to be saved can - because everyone who wants to be saved was predestined to be saved. It attempts to reconcile the notion that anyone who wills to be saved can be saved, with the notion that God chooses who will be saved.

 

[hedrick]

As to Reformed beliefs, the majority of Reformed today hold traditional confessions sort of loosely. Starting with the early 20th Cent it's clear that the idea of God choosing some people to be damned was thought to be a problem. Hence in 1903 "declaratory statements" were appended to the Westminster Confession in the US. I've seen similar statements in the Australian Presbyterian Church:

"First, with reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin."

In my opinion this rejects limited atonement, and moves very close to single predestination, whatever that is.

However I think it's clear that this was not Calvin's view. The more conservative Presbyterian churches often hold to Calvin's view. R C Sproul is from that wing, so although he's "modern" in the sense of having lived recently, he's probably not "modern" in the sense that another poster meant it.

In some sense the difference isn't in what we think happens, but what we think God intends. If we believe in omnipotence in the form that has become traditional in the West, then if God doesn't elect someone, they will end up damned. The difference is in God's intent. Calvin said a couple of places that God has specifically chosen for those people to be damned, and set things up so they will be. The more moderate view is that while God knows they will be damned, he didn't start off with the goal of damning them, nor set things up specifically to do so. Calvin's considers that a cop-out. If God's actions make it inevitable that someone will be damned, he thinks it's only right to say that this is part of God's plan, and like all of his plan, is intended for the benefit of his people.

Luther started out much closer to Calvin. However by the end of his life he had come to the view that this is way too close to making God the author of evil. So while he agrees that we're helpless without God's grace, and God chooses to bestow it only on some people, Luther refuses to draw the (obviously logical) conclusion that he intends to damn the rest. There are two reasons one can give for not drawing the logical conclusion:

* We can't see things from God's viewpoint. An inference that may seem obviously logical to us may not actually be true, for reasons we don't know.
* Scripture asserts that God wants all to be saved. We shouldn't go beyond Scripture.

Calvin agrees that we shouldn't speak where Scripture is silent. However he finds a few passages such as Rom 9:18 where Scripture seems to speak explicitly about God intentionally damning people. Having chosen to follow those out, he then has to interpret has way around a substantial number of passages talking about God wanting all to be saved.

In my view, it's best to start with the preponderance of Scriptural evidence, and see if the few passages like Rom 9:18 can be understood in a different way. I believe they can be.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=63]hedrick[/MENTION] [MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

As to Reformed beliefs, the majority of Reformed today hold traditional confessions sort of loosely. Starting with the early 20th Cent it's clear that the idea of God choosing some people to be damned was thought to be a problem. Hence in 1903 "declaratory statements" were appended to the Westminster Confession in the US. I've seen similar statements in the Australian Presbyterian Church:

"First, with reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin."

In my opinion this rejects limited atonement, and moves very close to single predestination, whatever that is.

However I think it's clear that this was not Calvin's view. The more conservative Presbyterian churches often hold to Calvin's view. R C Sproul is from that wing, so although he's "modern" in the sense of having lived recently, he's probably not "modern" in the sense that another poster meant it.

In some sense the difference isn't in what we think happens, but what we think God intends. If we believe in omnipotence in the form that has become traditional in the West, then if God doesn't elect someone, they will end up damned. The difference is in God's intent. Calvin said a couple of places that God has specifically chosen for those people to be damned, and set things up so they will be. The more moderate view is that while God knows they will be damned, he didn't start off with the goal of damning them, nor set things up specifically to do so. Calvin's considers that a cop-out. If God's actions make it inevitable that someone will be damned, he thinks it's only right to say that this is part of God's plan, and like all of his plan, is intended for the benefit of his people.

Luther started out much closer to Calvin. However by the end of his life he had come to the view that this is way too close to making God the author of evil. So while he agrees that we're helpless without God's grace, and God chooses to bestow it only on some people, Luther refuses to draw the (obviously logical) conclusion that he intends to damn the rest. There are two reasons one can give for not drawing the logical conclusion:

* We can't see things from God's viewpoint. An inference that may seem obviously logical to us may not actually be true, for reasons we don't know.
* Scripture asserts that God wants all to be saved. We shouldn't go beyond Scripture.

Calvin agrees that we shouldn't speak where Scripture is silent. However he finds a few passages such as Rom 9:18 where Scripture seems to speak explicitly about God intentionally damning people. Having chosen to follow those out, he then has to interpret has way around a substantial number of passages talking about God wanting all to be saved.

In my view, it's best to start with the preponderance of Scriptural evidence, and see if the few passages like Rom 9:18 can be understood in a different way. I believe they can be



.

Emphasis mine and not original



My Reformed brother, I think you are on to something (I often do).....

As I noted (and was rebuked for it), it DOES seem that Calvinism traditionally, confessionally, historically held to DOUBLE Predestination. A FEW still do (I called them "uber-Calvinists" - for which I was strongly rebuked and told they are to be called "hyper-Calvinists" a distinction largely lost on me), I was essentially told to ignore 400 years of Calvinism, ignore the Institutes and the Confessions, and listen INSTEAD to MODERN Calvinism which I was told was essentially the Lutheran position ("just a matter of semantics."). I'm glad that Calvinists mostly have come over to the Lutheran side on this (I genuinely am) and rebuke no one for that... but then all the flames of the Lutheran position ("shallow" "ignorant" "HATES Scriptures" "rejects God's sovereignty" "just Arminianism") should stop (I mean if we're now held as essentially right, "just a matter of semantics"). What's so bad about just saying, "these days, we've mostly come over to the Lutheran side on this." Understand my pov?


I also agree with you, friend, that once THE distinctive dogma of Calvin is removed (DOUBLE Predestination), all the other new Calvinists dogma invented to support it kinda become moot: above all, Limited Atonement (which, btw, the same 2 Calvinist pastors told me has also largely been abandoned) is moot, no longer needed, and Calvinism can return to historic Christianity there. Really - the distinctive of TULIP itself crumbles because all these inventions aren't needed to support the distinctive dogma that's now abandoned.... Lutheranism doens't need them for the same reason that Calvinism no longer does: No DOUBLE Predestination. (I got to admit, "Limited Atonement" always bothered me more than Double Predestination - although they are entirely inseparable and interdependent). Understand my perspective?

Calvin agrees that we shouldn't speak where Scripture is silent. However ....

IMO, there is the rub - pretty much the whole enchilada.

IMO, Lutheranism approach the divine and the divine Word with a lot of reverence and humility (and a deep and practical sense of the sovereignty of God). Luther said that humility is the foundation of all sound theology. Lutherans are fond of saying God gets the last word. Lutheranism has no sense of needing to "fix" what God has revealed, no need to make God make sense (even at the cost of directly contradicting a lot of Scriptures), of interjecting "speculations" (as atpollard put it) that "go beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the Mystery" that Scripture indicates. There's no sense that God is subject to the sense or reason or conjectures or speculations or philosophy or concepts of materialism that happen to be in vogue at the time or happen to a certain man. IN FACT, the Reformation was born out of a rejection of that, born out of a protest that medieval Catholicism couldn't leave well enough alone, couldn't keep its mouth shut, but felt compelled to "fix" the Bible, "remove" the Mysteries, dogmatized it's new speculations.... and came up with Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Indulgences, etc. You know, the very things some "Calvinists" have insisted we do - suddenly ADD the speculations that go beyond Scripture to remove the Mystery (fix Scripture, make God conform to our ways of thinking). I think the rubric is something that bothers Lutheranism because it's what Protestantism protested. Lutheranism is okay with paradoxes, mysteries, Law/Gospel dynamics in part because they are okay bowing before God, granting God sovereignty, holding that any "problems" are on our end (God doesn't need fixing, we do). See my perspective? Again. if after 400 years, some Calvinists have come to the Lutheran attitude here, then I rejoice not for the sake of Lutheranism, obviously, but for the sake of truth).


Thank you for your insight; it is most helpful. I pray you are right.... and that our Reformed brothers and sisters "see" that.



- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

As to Reformed beliefs, the majority of Reformed today hold traditional confessions sort of loosely. Starting with the early 20th Cent it's clear that the idea of God choosing some people to be damned was thought to be a problem. Hence in 1903 "declaratory statements" were appended to the Westminster Confession in the US. I've seen similar statements in the Australian Presbyterian Church:

"First, with reference to Chapter III of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his saving grace on all who seek it; that concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God’s eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God’s gracious offer; that his decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin."

In my opinion this rejects limited atonement, and moves very close to single predestination, whatever that is.

However I think it's clear that this was not Calvin's view. The more conservative Presbyterian churches often hold to Calvin's view. R C Sproul is from that wing, so although he's "modern" in the sense of having lived recently, he's probably not "modern" in the sense that another poster meant it.

In some sense the difference isn't in what we think happens, but what we think God intends. If we believe in omnipotence in the form that has become traditional in the West, then if God doesn't elect someone, they will end up damned. The difference is in God's intent. Calvin said a couple of places that God has specifically chosen for those people to be damned, and set things up so they will be. The more moderate view is that while God knows they will be damned, he didn't start off with the goal of damning them, nor set things up specifically to do so. Calvin's considers that a cop-out. If God's actions make it inevitable that someone will be damned, he thinks it's only right to say that this is part of God's plan, and like all of his plan, is intended for the benefit of his people.

Luther started out much closer to Calvin. However by the end of his life he had come to the view that this is way too close to making God the author of evil. So while he agrees that we're helpless without God's grace, and God chooses to bestow it only on some people, Luther refuses to draw the (obviously logical) conclusion that he intends to damn the rest. There are two reasons one can give for not drawing the logical conclusion:

* We can't see things from God's viewpoint. An inference that may seem obviously logical to us may not actually be true, for reasons we don't know.
* Scripture asserts that God wants all to be saved. We shouldn't go beyond Scripture.

Calvin agrees that we shouldn't speak where Scripture is silent. However he finds a few passages such as Rom 9:18 where Scripture seems to speak explicitly about God intentionally damning people. Having chosen to follow those out, he then has to interpret has way around a substantial number of passages talking about God wanting all to be saved.

In my view, it's best to start with the preponderance of Scriptural evidence, and see if the few passages like Rom 9:18 can be understood in a different way. I believe they can be.

The difference is in God's intent. Calvin said a couple of places that God has specifically chosen for those people to be damned, and set things up so they will be. The more moderate view is that while God knows they will be damned, he didn't start off with the goal of damning them, nor set things up specifically to do so. Calvin's considers that a cop-out. If God's actions make it inevitable that someone will be damned, he thinks it's only right to say that this is part of God's plan, and like all of his plan, is intended for the benefit of his people.

Hmmm I do agree a bit w him.
He could have had someone kill Judas so he wouldnt have been born. But that He doesnt do. He picked him as a disciple. That only made his sins worse.
He could have kept the devil away. He could not let Satan deceive so there comes a great delusion, so those who hate Him will fall for it.
He could have let Cain die in the whomb so he'd go to heaven and all those ppl wouldnt have been destroyed in the flood. Then He'd be a killer. A satanist told me that, that if all babies go to heaven the most christian thing would be to kill them all. Gosh I have weird conversations on forums.
Thats what I would think, protect them so they cant sin or think: oh if I create this angel he's gonna sin. Lets not do that. So that is not how God thinks. Thats actually humanism and loving evil ppl who don't want Him.
Derek Prince said life is a test. He wants only those in heaven who overcome sin and who love Him.
If they hate Him and do evil He uses them for the good of those who love Him to perfect them.
He used the murderers to kill Jesus and then to save them. He used those brothers from Joseph to save them all.
Somebody saw God making Adam and Eve and the angels telling Him to not do it, but He did anyway.
I have struggled w that. Why make people? The consequence is that a lot go to hell. Apparently He's more interested in those that do want Him than to protect the ones that don't. He's also righteous and hates evildoers.

 

[MennoSota]

That's the same. If noone could say yes or no noone could get saved.

Does this mean a mute person can never be saved?

Imalive, your entire position depends on humans making a decision. Grace is not needed at all in your view. All that is needed is a person that says "I will take that one!"
It's as if Jesus is holding out some candy and saying, "If you say please I will give it to you. If you don't say please, I will keep the candy."
That kind of salvation is never taught in the Bible. You make man far, far too important and you cheapen God's sacrifice to be mere candy to be either accepted or rejected.

 

[MennoSota]

Interesting you'd by-pass the Reformed Confessions, Calvin, and all Calvinists.... and cling to one Reformed person because he's "modern." Hum.....

And I think you've already admitted that the Calvinist view here is "speculation" and that it "goes beyond Scripture" and was invented to "remove the mystery in Scripture." You seem to present a lot of conditional phrases (turned into questions)..... worded so as to suggest something.... then appoint yourself to answer it.... then assume that God (being as smart as Calvinists) ERGO must agree with the 'answer' Calvinists give to the 'questions' Calvinists ask. And bingo: DOGMA! Unique, new and distinctive.... very obvious (except that no Christian in over 1500 years came up with it and nearly all Christians today disagree with it).

You obviously believe in "DOUBLE Predestination" (although MennoSota does not - so one of you isn't Reformed) since you speak of "DISTORTIONS" of it (meaning "it" does exist). But then you seem to go to enormous, pressed efforts to make two predestinations actually one so that there's a double predestination but only single predestination.

You speak of what you "loosely describe" as "hyper-Calvinism" (I hope that's not offensive to Reformed since you insist that "uber-Calvinist" is) that must exist, yet RC Sproul (a 'modern' Calvinist) rejects. Perhaps it DID exist? Among whom? Where they Reformed or Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican or what?

It seems to me that if you are trying to say (well, you have said) that the modern, typical difference between the Calvinist view (typically called Double Predestination) and the Lutheran one (typically called Single Predestination) the is simply one of semantics (being actually the same thing) then I'm glad to hear Calvinists have become Lutheran on this, but I doubt that's true. In part because then Limited Atonement (indeed 4 of the 5 parts of TULIP) are irrelevant - they are no longer needed to support Double Predestination (they aren't needed to support Single Predestination) and there's no reason for the dogmatic insistence that Jesus did not die for all, God does not will all to be saved, Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world, Gpod does not love the world - NONE of those central, defining dogmas of Calvinism have significance if there's no predestination of the condemned; seems to me if the "hyper" Calvinism (which no longer is Calvinism it seems) is gone (and there's been a move toward Lutheranism) then 4 of the 5 points of TULIP went out the window with it.


But I think you have a valid point, and I think you have been unusually frank in admitting it (a point MennoSota has not): This central defining point of (at least old) Calvinism is speculation, based on Calvinists framing conditional questions to themselves and then answering it themselves in the only way that seems 'logical' to themselves, it's a construct based entirely on what seems "logical" to man and not on Scripture, Tradition, the Councils, the Creed or anything prior to John Calvin. That, in turn, necessitated the other distinctives (LIMITED atonement, for example) since Double Predestination mandates those other "logical" constructs to create a "neat" system (atlthough it does require spinning a lot of Scriptures 180 degrees from what they state). A "logical speculation" that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery" found in Scripture.... I guess that's just one of the reasons I find this disturbing.

I realize that some Calvinists (I think this includes you, it even more likely includes MennoSota) see Lutherans (and all non-Calvinists, which means all Christians prior to John Calvin) as ... well..... not so smart. They are stupid to let Scripture stand, to simply bow to what God says (even if we can't wrap our brains around it), and that if we were smart, we could invent speculations that move beyond what God said to remove the mysteries we find in Scripture. Okay. But again, that's EXACTLY what Protestantism rejected in Catholicism, and the times Catholicism did this, the result didn't conflict with Scripture as boldly as this (old, now abandoned and replaced) Calvinist view - with it's denial that God loved the world, God desires all to be saved, Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world.... I think you can understand how one who respects Scripture might find a WHOLE LOT more problems with Double Predestination (and the other distinctive, new dogmas to make it consistent) than with say the Assumption of Mary or Transubstantiation or Purgatory - all things Calvinism rejects because they are late speculations that go beyond Scripture to remove mysteries in the Bible, that ADD to what the Bible (and all Christianity before it) never states. Maybe Lutherans just respect Scripture more? Maybe they just embrace the Sovereignty of God more? Or maybe Lutherans just think less of their own selves (and their ability to tell God what He really should know). Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." Perhaps Calvinists regard that as ... well.... not smart (at least as they)? Perhaps the more Calvinist approach would be, "What makes sense to me is the foundation of all smart theology." ???? Perhaps just very different starting points..... Perhaps.... But then I see the Calvinist rubric as a full return to that of Rome: different new speculations-made-dogma but the same attitude, same rubric, same result. maybe?



- Josiah

Josiah, you are not letting scripture speak. If you did, you would not be arguing with @pollard.
The semantics and labeling you are doing is just a smoke screen for avoiding God's truth.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
Can you define "Limited Atonement" for me?

(I thought that it had almost nothing to do with 'Predestination', but you keep coming back to it as critical to Double Predestination.)

 

[atpollard]

Since I have been criticized for the narrow scope of only referencing R.C.Sproul in the opening posts, let me offer something on the Predestination by the 19th Century 5 point Calvinist Charles Spurgeon:

A Sermon
(No. 241)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, March 6th, 1859, by
the
REV. C.H. SPURGEON
at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called."- Rom 8:30

THE GREAT BOOK OF GOD'S DECREES is fast closed against the curiosity of man. Vain man would be wise; he would break the seven seals thereof, and read the mysteries of eternity. But this cannot be; the time has not yet come when the book shall be opened, and even then the seals shall not be broken by mortal hand, but it shall be said, "The lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and break the seven seals thereof."

Eternal Father, who shall look
Into thy secret will?
None but the Lamb shall take the book,
And open every seal.

None but he shall ever unroll that sacred record and read it to the assembled world. How then am I to know whether I am predestinated by God unto eternal life or not? It is a question in which my eternal interests are involved; am I among that unhappy number who shall be left to live in sin and reap the due reward of their iniquity; or do I belong to that goodly company, who albeit that they have sinned shall nevertheless be washed in the blood of Christ, and shall in white robes walk the golden streets of paradise? Until this question be answered my heart cannot rest, for I am intensely anxious about it. My eternal destiny infinitely more concerns me than all the affairs of time. Tell me, oh, tell me, if ye know, seers and prophets, is my name recorded in that book of life? Am I one of those who are ordained unto eternal life, or am I to be left to follow my own lusts and passions, and to destroy my own soul? Oh! man, there is an answer to thy inquiry; the book cannot be opened, but God himself hath published many a page thereof. He hath not published the page whereon the actual names of the redeemed are written; but that page of the sacred decree whereon their character is recorded is published in his Word, and shall be proclaimed to thee this day. The sacred record of God's hand is this day published everywhere under heaven, and he that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto him. O my hearer, by thy name I know thee not, and by thy name God's Word doth not declare thee, but by thy character thou mayest read thy name; and if thou hast been a partaker of the calling which is mentioned in the text, then mayest thou conclude beyond a doubt that thou art among the predestinated-"For whom he did predestinate, them he also called." And if thou be called, it follows as a natural inference thou art predestinated.

Now, in considering this solemn subject, let me remark that there are two kinds of callings mentioned in the Word of God. The first is the general call, which is in the gospel sincerely given to everyone that heareth the word. The duty of the minister is to call souls to Christ, he is to make no distinction whatever-"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The trumpet of the gospel sounds aloud to every man in our congregations-"Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." "Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man" ( Pro 8:4). This call is sincere on God's part; but man by nature is so opposed to God, that this call is never effectual, for man disregards it, turns his back upon it, and goes his way, caring for none of these things. But mark, although this call be rejected, man is without excuse in the rejection; the universal call has in it such authority, that the man who will not obey it shall be without excuse in the day of judgment. When thou art commanded to believe and repent, when thou art exhorted to flee from the wrath to come, the sin lies on thy own head if thou dost despise the exhortation, and reject the commandment. And this solemn text drops an awful warning: "How shall ye escape, if ye neglect so great salvation." But I repeat it, this universal call is rejected by man; it is a call, but it is not a attended with divine force and energy of the Holy Spirit in such a degree as to make it an unconquerable call, consequently men perish, even though they have the universal call of the gospel ringing in their ears. The bell of God's house rings every day, sinners hear it, but they put their fingers in their ears, and go their way, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise, and though they are bidden and are called to the wedding ( Luk 14:16, 17, 18), yet they will not come, and by not coming they incur God's wrath, and he declareth of such,-"None of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper" ( Luk 14:24). The call of our text is of a different kind; it is not a universal call, it is a special, particular, personal, discriminating, efficacious, unconquerable, call. This call is sent to the predestinated, and to them only; they by grace hear the call, obey it, and receive it. These are they who can now say, "Draw us, and we will run after thee."

 

[hedrick]

Limited atonement means that Christ died only for the elect. Of the 5 TULIP points, it's the one that Calvin doesn't explicitly teach.

 

[MennoSota]

Limited atonement means that Christ died only for the elect. Of the 5 TULIP points, it's the one that Calvin doesn't explicitly teach.

Did Christ die and atone for all humanity's sin?
If yes, then all humanity is justified.

 

[Josiah]

Limited atonement means that Christ died only for the elect. Of the 5 TULIP points, it's the one that Calvin doesn't explicitly teach.

.... but is a DISTINCTIVE, DEFINING point of Calvinism, invented to support the central point of DOUBLE Predestination (and inseparable with it).

http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2010/01/practical-implications-of-limited.html Limited Atonement (an defining dogma of Calvinism, part of TULIP), claimed by Calvinists to be "self-evident and logical to all" but no one before the followers of Calvin ever realized this, was invented to support classic, "hyper" original Calvinism's Double Predestination. After all, Calvinists insist, how can Jesus died for those who don't have faith? The same logic as, "how can people not get a sun tan when the sun is shining for all?" The sun MUST not be exist for most, the sun is in the sky ONLY for a few and doesn't exist for most as proven because not all have a nice sun tan. Calvinists STRESS how logical and smart they are.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Did Christ die and atone for all humanity's sin?
If yes, then all humanity is justified.

Only if you deny the central doctrine of justification of Protestantism: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE inseparable doctrine (the defining doctrine of Protestantism). Yes, if you abandon Protestantism and eliminate the "Sola Fide" aspect, then yes - universalism would be taught, but it is taught by NONE of Protestantism because by definition a Protestant is not one that eliminates the "Sola Fide" aspect. Yes, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus might well equal universalism but no Protestant teaches or believes Sola Gratia - Solus Christ (but NOT Sola Fide) and thus no Protestant believes in universalism.


See posts 99, 102, 107, 121, 124


- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

.... but is a DISTINCTIVE, DEFINING point of Calvinism, invented to support the central point of DOUBLE Predestination (and inseparable with it).

Just a small point of technicality, but all 5 points of Calvinism were written in direct response and as a refutation on 5 points of Arminianism. The followers of Arminius published a document arguing exactly the opposite of TULIP.

1. (T) People are not born sinful (Pellagianism)
2. (U) Our salvation is based on what we do (Synergysm)
3. (L) Jesus died for all sins.
4. (I) People choose to have faith or not to have faith (Faith is not a gift from God).
5. (P) Salvation can be lost.

So they were not created to support Double Predestination.

 

[atpollard]

Here they are:

The five points of Arminianism (from Jacobus Arminius 1559-1609) are in contrast to the five points of Calvinism. The Arminian five points are

• Human Free Will--This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.
• Conditional Election--God chose people for salvation based on His foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.
• Universal Atonement--The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.
• Resistable Grace--The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.
• Fall from Grace--The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

Only if you deny the central doctrine of justification of Protestantism: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE inseparable doctrine (the defining doctrine of Protestantism). Yes, if you abandon Protestantism and eliminate the "Sola Fide" aspect, then yes - universalism would be taught, but it is taught by NONE of Protestantism because by definition a Protestant is not one that eliminates the "Sola Fide" aspect. Yes, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus might well equal universalism but no Protestant teaches or believes Sola Gratia - Solus Christ (but NOT Sola Fide) and thus no Protestant believes in universalism.


See posts 99, 102, 107, 121, 124


- Josiah

You use the Solas. I don't think you know what they mean.

Did Jesus atone for all humanity's sin and justify them?

 

[Imalive]

Does this mean a mute person can never be saved?

Imalive, your entire position depends on humans making a decision. Grace is not needed at all in your view. All that is needed is a person that says "I will take that one!"
It's as if Jesus is holding out some candy and saying, "If you say please I will give it to you. If you don't say please, I will keep the candy."
That kind of salvation is never taught in the Bible. You make man far, far too important and you cheapen God's sacrifice to be mere candy to be either accepted or rejected.

It is taught. Jesus said it. Come to the waters of Life whosoever wants.
Choose whom you will serve He said to the Israelites. Return to Me. You did not want.
People will be judged according to their deeds.
And He also says you can't come to Me because it is not given to you by My Father. It says the false teachers were long before doomed.

Only 'you can't come unless it has been given to you' and dismissing the rest
means: I dont want to give it to you. I dont want you to get saved.
'Come drink for free whosoever wants' means: I want you to get saved.
If the reason ppl do not get saved is because He doesn't want it, then He should not blame them on judgement day.
If He doesnt want them because they don't love Him and reject His offer and don't trust Him (Romans 9), that is the reason. Only a wicked person would blame God and say they can't help it.

Seen from our side it doesnt matter why or who God predestined. All that matters is that we choose and resist the devil and just trust Him and know He's good.
We are not God, so we must pray for all men. Women not? What a weird translation.

Free will texts:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-free-will/

If you just pick some texts you like to fit your doctrin you dont get the whole picture.
'God loves everyone. Everyone can get saved.'
John the baptist: brood of vipers, who gave you a wink to escape judgement?

And the 'candy' is free and all can have it if they want. It only costs you your life, but that you can better not say to a fish if you want to catch it.

 

[Josiah]

Only if you deny the central doctrine of justification of Protestantism: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE inseparable doctrine (the defining doctrine of Protestantism). Yes, if you abandon Protestantism and eliminate the "Sola Fide" aspect, then yes - universalism would be taught, but it is taught by NONE of Protestantism because by definition a Protestant is not one that eliminates the "Sola Fide" aspect. Yes, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus might well equal universalism but no Protestant teaches or believes Sola Gratia - Solus Christ (but NOT Sola Fide) and thus no Protestant believes in universalism.


See posts 99, 102, 107, 121, 124


- Josiah


.

You use the Solas. I don't think you know what they mean.

Did Jesus atone for all humanity's sin and justify them?

You are abandoning Protestantism and its chief article. You do so by separating the Solas, by separating faith from Christ and grace, then deleting it. You then have something that is NOT Protestant (or biblical). AGAIN, if one is not a Protestant and thus eliminates the third part (faith), then yes - Christ justified all and all are saved. But I won't join you in that rejection of Protestantism and its chief article, I hold that Grace - Christ - Faith are inseparable for the justified. For the UNJUSTIFIED, faith is absent and that's why justification is absent for them.


Did Jesus die for the sins of all humanity? Yes, it's exactly what the Bible declares (see 1 John 2:2, etc., etc., etc. - you know, some of those verses uber/hyper/traditional/confessional Calvinists must spin 180 degrees so that they state the opposite of what they state). Does this mean that ergo all humans are justified? No, because you are wrong: justification is NOT Sola Gratia - Solus Christus, it's Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide.

No one here is promoting universal justification..... and the Lutherans here at not rejecting Election of the Justified.... the issue is the title and sole issue of this thread: DOUBLE Predestination, the central defining dogma of Calvinism. See posts 99, 102, 107, 121, 124.



- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

You are abandoning Protestantism and its chief article. You do so by separating the Solas, by separating faith from Christ and grace. AGAIN, if one is not a Protestant and thus eliminates the third part (faith), then yes - Christ justified all and all are saved. But I won't join you in that rejection of Protestantism and its chief article, I hold that Grace - Christ - Faith are inseparable for the justified. For the UNJUSTIFIED, faith is absent and that's why justification is absent for them.

No one here is promoting universal justification..... and the Lutherans here at not rejecting Election of the Justified.... the issue is the title and sole issue of this thread: DOUBLE Predestination, the central defining dogma of Calvinism. See posts 99, 102, 107, 121, 124.



- Josiah

I like your conclusion Josiah but my problem lays with seperation of everything, you do this in almost every discussion and many times things cannot be seperated without changing what is meant and proper doctrine. Dont know if this is the case here but I for one will not discard things that I think are important to a discussion no matter how much you protest.

 

[Josiah]

I like your conclusion Josiah but my problem lays with seperation of everything, you do this in almost every discussion and many times things cannot be seperated without changing what is meant and proper doctrine. Dont know if this is the case here but I for one will not discard things that I think are important to a discussion no matter how much you protest.

The Protestant doctrine of justification (narrow) IS Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. And it IS one, inseparable, whole teaching. That's just the reality, friend. If one aspect is deleted, then it's no longer the Protestant doctrine of justification; that's just the reality. You may protest my unwillingness to "separate" (delete) one or more aspect, but friend, that RADICALLY CHANGES the doctrine to something classical/traditional Protestantism doesn't hold, believe, teach or confess. Deleting a third of the doctrine CHANGES it, my friend: that's why I "protested" pulling it out (you call it "separating" it).

Historically, that was done (in the 17th Century by some Calvinists) and Universalism resulted, but NEVER has Universalism been regarded as Protestant (by itself or anyone else). Why? Because it rejects the chief, keystone, defining doctrine of Protestantism: Justification, which we hold is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as ONE doctrine. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in his shall not perish but has everlasting life." Eliminate any one of the 3 parts to that (God's grace, Christ as Savior, faith) and you've CHANGED the verse. Follow me?

MennoSota as TRIED to imply that because all Christians prior to Calvin and most since (atpollard states this includes most Calvinists) rejected Double Predestination, they THEREFORE must hold to universalism (ALL humans are justified and saved). He is wrong. And he is wrong because he's (probably unknowingly) is rejecting the chief article, justification. Only Universalists (which comes out of Calvinism and which is NOT considered Protestant) hold that all humans are saved (regardless of faith) and that movement is rejected by all Protestants (and Catholics and Orthodox); Universalism came out of Calvinism but was rejected by Calvinism and all of Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy.


See post 124


Back to the topic....



- Josiah




.