Double Predestination

[Imalive]

Let's start by establishing what Reformed Theology actually teaches about and means by Double Predestination.
Here is an explanation by R.C. Sproul


“Double” Predestination
by R.C. Sproul

“A horrible decree… .” “Most ruthless statement… .” “A terrible theological theory… .” “An illegitimate inference of logic… .” These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.


The “Double” of Predestination

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the “double” aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God’s sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.

The use of the qualifying term “double” has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term “double” has been set in contrast with a notion of “single” predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

Viewing double predestination as a distinction from single predestination may be seen in the work of Emil Brunner. Brunner argues that it is impossible to deduce the doctrine of double predestination from the Bible. He says:

The Bible does not contain the doctrine of double predestination, although in a few isolated passages it seems to come close to it. The Bible teaches that all salvation is based on the eternal Election of God in Jesus Christ, and that this eternal Election springs wholly and entirely from God’s sovereign freedom. But wherever this happens, there is no mention of a decree of rejection. The Bible teaches that alongside of the elect there are those who are not elect, who are “reprobate,” and indeed that the former are the minority and the latter the majority; but in these passages the point at issue is not eternal election but “separation” or “selection” in judgment. Thus the Bible teaches that there will be a double outcome of world history, salvation and ruin, Heaven and hell. But while salvation is explicitly taught as derived from the eternal election, the further conclusion is not drawn that destruction is also based upon a corresponding decree of doom.1​

Here Brunner argues passionately, though not coherently, for “single” predestination. There is a decree of election, but not of reprobation. Predestination has only one side—election. In this context, double predestination is “avoided” (or evaded) by the dialectical method. The dialectical method which sidesteps logical consistency has had a pervasive influence on contemporary discussions of double predestination. A growing antipathy to logic in theology is manifesting itself widely. Even G. C. Berkouwer seems allergic to the notion that logic should play a role in developing our understanding of election.

It is one thing to construct a theology of election (or any other kind of theology) purely on the basis of rational speculation. It is quite another to utilize logic in seeking a coherent understanding of biblical revelation. Brunner seems to abhor both.

Let us examine the “logic” of Brunner’s position. He maintains that (1) there is a divine decree of election that is eternal; (2) that divine decree is particular in scope (“There are those who are not elect”); (3) yet there is no decree of reprobation. Consider the implications. If God has predestined some but not all to election, does it not follow by what Luther called a “resistless logic” that some are not predestined to election? If, as Brunner maintains, all salvation is based upon the eternal election of God and not all men are elect from eternity, does that not mean that from eternity there are non-elect who most certainly will not be saved? Has not God chosen from eternity not to elect some people? If so, then we have an eternal choice of non-election which we call reprobation. The inference is clear and necessary, yet some shrink from drawing it.

I once heard the case for “single” predestination articulated by a prominent Lutheran theologian in the above manner. He admitted to me that the conclusion of reprobation was logically inescapable, but he refused to draw the inference, holding steadfastly to “single” predestination. Such a notion of predestination is manifest nonsense.

Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: “Now tell me your theology without the dialectic so 1 can understand it!” Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner’s view of predestination the only way to avoid “double” predestination is with the use of “double-talk.”

Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.

The much greater issue of “double” predestination is the issue over the relationship between election and reprobation with respect to the nature of the decrees and the nature of the divine outworking of the decrees. If “double” predestination means a symmetrical view of predestination, then we must reject the notion. But such a view of “double” predestination would be a caricature and a serious distortion of the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

Yes. It's either double predestination or no predestination.
Single is made up cause ppl dont like and understand it. And if you believe single you say there's free will, cause there's free will to reject and not reject is accept.
I have become a double predestinatationist lol who believes in free will.
Jude was predestined. The son of perdition. And that was because of his own will and character.
An enemy of Mine did that.

Lately I read a discussion from some Dutch ppl who arent saved and they said to a JW that Jude is in heaven cause God should be thankful he did His will. And pharo too. The cuties were just offered up for this task by God.
That kind of nonsense you get if you dont believe free will.

And if God would have not created satan because of what would happen then He would have prevented free will, which He apparently doesnt want. They want to sin so they may.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

John 6
[44]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.
The greek word translated "draw" in verse 44 is the same greek word used in Acts where Paul and Silas are grabbed by the mob and dragged through the streets.
So, look at verse 44 and read it like this:
"For no one can come to me unless the Father drags them to me..."

 

[MennoSota]

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




.

LOL, no abandonment. Do you know what the sola's are? I'm beginning to wonder.

 

[Imalive]

John 6
[44]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.
The greek word translated "draw" in verse 44 is the same greek word used in Acts where Paul and Silas are grabbed by the mob and dragged through the streets.
So, look at verse 44 and read it like this:
"For no one can come to me unless the Father drags them to me..."

Lot was dragged out of Sodom.

 

[Josiah]

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

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


Again, read 1 John 2:2. And don't hate it, deny it, and delete the words you hate and replace them with the opposites.


No, OBVIOUSLY, just because Christ died for all of course does not mean all are justified. You TRIED to make some false paradigm you yourself know is false. I realize universalism came out of Calvinism, but you basing your question on Universalism is absurd since you and all Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox reject it. Those justified are so because Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide applies, as ONE united and inseparable truth (the Chief Article of Protestantism). Eliminate any aspect of that (as Universalism does and as you tried to in your silly question) and justification doesn't apply. John 3:16 does not say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so all are saved regardless of whether they have faith." Thus, obviously, we can hold that Jesus died for all (and thus 1 John 2:2 is NOT lying and need not be twisted inside out and upside down as Calvinists must do) but that does not mean that all are justified. You had to deny the Chief Article and become a Universalist to frame the question to me as you did, to hold that if 1 John 2:2 is true then ERGO all are justified.


NO Lutheran here is teaching Universalism (that came out of Calvinism), and NO Lutheran here is denying predestination of the justified. Lutherans here are just rejecting what atpollard posted nearly all Calvinists have now also rejected: DOUBLE predestination, the "speculation" of one man in the 16th Century that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery Scripture presents." Just as all the Reformed in this thread have indicated, but you. Lutherans reject that.... just as it seems nearly all Calvinists now do; atpollard and others indicating the Reformed are now essentially Lutheran on this ('its now just a matter of semantics').


It is an illogical and silly ploy of some hyper-Calvinists to insist that if 1 John 2:2 is believed then Universalism must be believed. The ploy mandates their abandoning Protestantism and it's chief article. Just as it is a constant, illogical, silly ploy of hyper-Calvinists to insist that if they can show Arminianism is false, ERGO hyper-Calvinism is true. What an absurd, illogical position! Truth is, BOTH are in part wrong.... both are what all the Calvinists here but you have essentially admitted, both are "logical constuctions" that are "speculations" that "go beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery Scripture presents." And as the other Reformed here have admitted (just not you), most Reformed have realized this and are now essentially Lutheran on this point ("its now mostly a matter of semantics"). And yes, there has been a side point where the Reformed here (except you) are distancing themselves from Limited Atonement (another part of TULIP); they aren't buying the illogical ploy that if 1 John 2:2 is actually true then all are saved because faith is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. Your old, old Calvinist ploy here is illogical and wrong.



- Josiah



.

 

[Imalive]

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




.

The thinges of Dordrecht says double predestination.
For other theological questions feel free to ask the expert, me. :;-D:

 

[Imalive]

John 6
[44]For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.
The greek word translated "draw" in verse 44 is the same greek word used in Acts where Paul and Silas are grabbed by the mob and dragged through the streets.
So, look at verse 44 and read it like this:
"For no one can come to me unless the Father drags them to me..."

Lets call it forced will then. Tbh I dont believe free will. Free will is for Romans 8 ppl.
Force them to come in. My house must be full.

 

[MennoSota]

Lot was dragged out of Sodom.

Was the same, exact greek word used?
It is a fallacy to imagine that any sin filled human willfully runs to God.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


Again, read 1 John 2:2. And don't hate it, deny it, and delete the words you hate and replace them with the opposites.


No, OBVIOUSLY, just because Christ died for all of course does not mean all are justified. You TRIED to make some false paradigm you yourself know is false. I realize universalism came out of Calvinism, but you basing your question on Universalism is absurd since you and all Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox reject it. Those justified are so because Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide applies, as ONE united and inseparable truth (the Chief Article of Protestantism). Eliminate any aspect of that (as Universalism does and as you tried to in your silly question) and justification doesn't apply. John 3:16 does not say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so all are saved regardless of whether they have faith." Thus, obviously, we can hold that Jesus died for all (and thus 1 John 2:2 is NOT lying and need not be twisted inside out and upside down as Calvinists must do) but that does not mean that all are justified. You had to deny the Chief Article and become a Universalist to frame the question to me as you did, to hold that if 1 John 2:2 is true then ERGO all are justified.


NO Lutheran here is teaching Universalism (that came out of Calvinism), and NO Lutheran here is denying predestination of the justified. Lutherans here are just rejecting what atpollard posted nearly all Calvinists have now also rejected: DOUBLE predestination, the "speculation" of one man in the 16th Century that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery Scripture presents." Just as all the Reformed in this thread have indicated, but you. Lutherans reject that.... just as it seems nearly all Calvinists now do; atpollard and others indicating the Reformed are now essentially Lutheran on this ('its now just a matter of semantics').


It is an illogical and silly ploy of some hyper-Calvinists to insist that if 1 John 2:2 is believed then Universalism must be believed. The ploy mandates their abandoning Protestantism and it's chief article. Just as it is a constant, illogical, silly ploy of hyper-Calvinists to insist that if they can show Arminianism is false, ERGO hyper-Calvinism is true. What an absurd, illogical position! Truth is, BOTH are in part wrong.... both are what all the Calvinists here but you have essentially admitted, both are "logical constuctions" that are "speculations" that "go beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery Scripture presents." And as the other Reformed here have admitted (just not you), most Reformed have realized this and are now essentially Lutheran on this point ("its now mostly a matter of semantics"). And yes, there has been a side point where the Reformed here (except you) are distancing themselves from Limited Atonement (another part of TULIP); they aren't buying the illogical ploy that if 1 John 2:2 is actually true then all are saved because faith is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. Your old, old Calvinist ploy here is illogical and wrong.



- Josiah



.

Josiah, you have to ignore scripture and turn off your own mind in order to hold your position.
Scripture is clear. You are simply confused.

 

[Josiah]

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


.

Josiah, you have to ignore scripture and turn off your own mind in order to hold your position. Scripture is clear.

Yes, 1 John 2:2 is clear. Yes, you must delete what it says and replace the words you delete with the opposite to make your position credible. Same is true for SO many Scriptures. Scripture is clear: Jesus died for all sins. And Scripture is clear: that does not mean all are justified since not all have faith. Your question is illogical, unbiblical and silly.


OBVIOUSLY, just because Christ died for all of course does not mean all are justified. You TRIED to make some false paradigm you yourself know is false. I realize universalism came out of Calvinism, but you basing your question on Universalism is absurd since you and all Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox reject it. Those justified are so because Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide applies, as ONE united and inseparable truth (the Chief Article of Protestantism). Eliminate any aspect of that (as Universalism does and as you tried to in your silly question) and justification doesn't apply. John 3:16 does not say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so all are saved regardless of whether they have faith." Thus, obviously, we can hold that Jesus died for all (and thus 1 John 2:2 is NOT lying and need not be twisted inside out and upside down as Calvinists must do) but that does not mean that all are justified. You had to deny the Chief Article and become a Universalist to frame the question to me as you did, to hold that if 1 John 2:2 is true then ERGO all are justified.


NO Lutheran here is teaching Universalism (that came out of Calvinism), and NO Lutheran here is denying predestination of the justified. Lutherans here are just rejecting what atpollard posted nearly all Calvinists have now also rejected: DOUBLE predestination, the "speculation" of one man in the 16th Century that "goes beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery Scripture presents." Just as all the Reformed in this thread have indicated, but you. Lutherans reject that.... just as it seems nearly all Calvinists now do; atpollard and others indicating the Reformed are now essentially Lutheran on this ('its now just a matter of semantics').


It is an illogical and silly ploy of some hyper-Calvinists to insist that if 1 John 2:2 is believed then Universalism must be believed. The ploy mandates their abandoning Protestantism and it's chief article. Just as it is a constant, illogical, silly ploy of hyper-Calvinists to insist that if they can show Arminianism is false, ERGO hyper-Calvinism is true. What an absurd, illogical position! Truth is, BOTH are in part wrong.... both are what all the Calvinists here but you have essentially admitted, both are "logical constuctions" that are "speculations" that "go beyond Scripture" in order to "remove the mystery Scripture presents." And as the other Reformed here have admitted (just not you), most Reformed have realized this and are now essentially Lutheran on this point ("its now mostly a matter of semantics"). And yes, there has been a side point where the Reformed here (except you) are distancing themselves from Limited Atonement (another part of TULIP); they aren't buying the illogical ploy that if 1 John 2:2 is actually true then all are saved because faith is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. Your old, old Calvinist ploy here is illogical and wrong.


Back to the issue, which is DOUBLE predesitnation. See posts 121 and 124



- Josiah



.

 

[psalms 91]

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




.

I agree with your stance against universalism, I do not believe all are saved nor do I believe in OSAS so on this we agree

 

[Imalive]

Was the same, exact greek word used?
It is a fallacy to imagine that any sin filled human willfully runs to God.

Don't know. Can't find it. It was Hebrew.
But his wife also got dragged out and it didn't save her, cause she looked back.
And if those miracles would have happened in Sodom it would have stayed. Which has nothing to do w the subject, but it always gives me hope for Holland.

 

[MennoSota]

I agree with your stance against universalism, I do not believe all are saved nor do I believe in OSAS so on this we agree

So Christ didn't die for all the sins of the world? The "all" doesn't mean all? What does it mean?

 

[MennoSota]

Don't know. Can't find it. It was Hebrew.
But his wife also got dragged out and it didn't save her, cause she looked back.
And if those miracles would have happened in Sodom it would have stayed. Which has nothing to do w the subject, but it always gives me hope for Holland.

smh

 

[Imalive]

Hey Calvin believed free will!
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/did-john-calvin-believe-in-free-will/

 

[Imalive]

smh

Lot wouldn't simply have gone out himself out of free will, force was needed, but he did cooperate. The sons in law didn't want to be dragged out and the angels wanted to. Rahab. Her family had to stay in her house. Noahs sons in law went in the ark. God made it very easy for Lot thanks to being Abrahams surrogate son, but he had to cooperate. He wasn't completely dragged against his will.

 

[MennoSota]

Lot wouldn't simply have gone out himself out of free will, force was needed, but he did cooperate. The sons in law didn't want to be dragged out and the angels wanted to. Rahab. Her family had to stay in her house. Noahs sons in law went in the ark. God made it very easy for Lot thanks to being Abrahams surrogate son, but he had to cooperate. He wasn't completely dragged against his will.

smh

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

So Christ didn't die for all the sins of the world? The "all" doesn't mean all? What does it mean?

Just to play along, Christ died for the sins of "all" the Elect, and moved in their hearts to produce saving faith. For the rest, what part (if any) would you say God played in their damnation?

 

[Imalive]

smh

Great to see you agree. I just read it. Sodoms depravity. Lot was called righteous. Dont ask me why. Lol hed just give his daughters to em. What a jerk. Anyways accoding to the Bible Lot was righteous and not totally depraved.

 

[MennoSota]

Just to play along, Christ died for the sins of "all" the Elect, and moved in their hearts to produce saving faith. For the rest, what part (if any) would you say God played in their damnation?

He justly judges humanity as law breakers. That is God's role. He is the Sovereign Judge in His Creation.