Double Predestination

This is true.

It is true that "Eve gave in" but she was told by God she was tricked. Her being deceived did not carry the sting of the rebellion of Adam.

That is why sin came into the world through Adam, not through Eve.

Ultimately, sin came, but all sin is formed in rebellion, not trickery.

Speculating that we all would have made the same choice as Adam is perhaps debatable, but such opposition would ultimately fail because "in Adam all die." That is we all were part of the rebellion as part (DNA?) of the first.

This is a good point. Do not the Scriptures state that The Lake of Fire was prepared for the devil and his angels? Was original man to be included?

I raise this question, because man was not included in the statement of the reason for the preparation.

Would that not have impacted the decree statement?

Perhaps not, for "You shall surely die" is the decree given to man.

Therefore, the only decree actually came as an if/then statement.

So, does "knowing they would sin when tested" make the test invalid? Is God righteous in presenting a standard in which testing demonstrates is unachievable and therefore unrighteous?

Does not the Scripture answer such by stating, "While we were yet (still) sinners, Christ died for us"?

Very good.

 

Agreed.

" [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" ( Romans 9:22-24 )

I've seen the word "fitted" explained as being either:

1) Passive, as if men did the "fitting" by willfully sinning, and then God uses those works to judge men for, or
2) Active...as if God did the "fitting" by having or allowing Satan to "herd" ( Proverbs 16:9 ) the non-elect into places and situations where they will sin and then be judged for it.

At this point, I see the first one as being the truth, because of James 1:13-15.
However, and this is where it gets difficult...

" But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; " ( 2 Peter 2:12, speaking of the false teachers ).
" For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." ( Jude 1:4 ).

I then have to modify my position to be like this:
" God afore prepares His children unto glory. God also afore "prepares" the the devil's children to eternal damnation by making them, allowing them to pile up sins in their earthly lives, and knowing an advance their sins, curses them and ordains them to eternal condemnation."

 

In other words, the Lord's making someone to be taken and destroyed does not mean He predestines their sins.
The Lord ordaining someone to a certain condemnation, does not mean that He ordains the sin...only the condemnation.

He predestines the people...not the sin.
Satan is allowed to tempt, and man is allowed to be drawn away by his own lusts and fall into sin.
It's a passive/active reprobation...not an active/passive one, if that makes sense.

To clarify:

Unrepentant mankind is never treated as a robot...
But the Lord, being so far ahead of things and knowing the end from the beginning, saw what unrepentant mankind would do, and then provided for it ( it's the opposite of how salvation is seen by the "Arminian"/"Traditionalist"/"Molinist", and that's the best my finite mind can come up with at this point ).

Even though Hell was created for the Devil and his angels, the Lord enlarged it to accommodate men.
He takes the one He has prepared for glory, and gives them everything they need to be His adopted child.
He takes the other that He has "fitted" to destruction, and gives them everything they need to be His objects of wrath...by refusing to forgive them, allowing them to sin and then judging them for them.

Man is fully responsible for the sin, God is fully responsible for either pardoning or condemning.
At no point is God responsible for sin, but He is completely responsible for salvation and damnation.

At this point, there will undoubtedly be many objections.
Those that believe that God loves all men have the toughest time with this, IMO.
Those that do not, see one of the reasons how this can all be reconciled together.

Since God chooses who to have compassion and mercy on, then it all fits neatly together, as I see it.
He chooses one to salvation, and chooses the other for damnation...knowing they will not repent in and of themselves.

He is righteous, no matter what we think.
We are at His mercy...no matter what we think.

 

" but such was removed from access to humankind when they were dismissed from the Eden."

God gives a list of penalties in scripture, like work and childbirth pain,

How about scripture that supports the punishment of having choice removed or is this just Calvinist Tradition?

 

Quote scripture where he has done this.

Romans 9 clearly states:

22>>>>>What if God<<<<<, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?


If I could double underline, bold circle with 50 arrows pointing at the phrase "WHAT IF"

For any brethren new to the concept of reading. WHAT IF is not a indicator of certainly doing. as in WHAT IF GOD created a huge glazed donut floating in the sky. That does not mean he has a huge donut floating in the sky.


Here is God's own words on being a potter.

Jeremiah

1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD saying, 2“Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will announce My words to you.”3Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. 4But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.

5Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, 6“Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. 7“At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9“Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11“So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’


Clearly lays out that he can CHANGE person. Even when he plans to destroy them IF it turns from evil, he will relent.

 

Much of this I agree, too, yet there is that area of which I am not comfortable to embrace. I suppose when I was younger I did, but not now. Did I drift, or did I mature?

What I don't agree with is that God chooses one too damnation. Rather, I see throughout Scriptures the principle that all are damned already, and God chooses some of the damned to be redeemed.

It follows the three Scriptural principles concerning the believer's redemption. 1) taken (purchased if one likes that term) off of the slave market. (I don't like the term purchased in the sense that Satan was owed anything, rather that the purchase was the authority over all slaves). 2) the removal from ever being able to be returned and sold on the slave market, and 3) the formal adoption as His child, brother of Christ. (again, I use brother, not as a term of equal, but in the term of family belonging)

So, in this single area, I can see the disagreement, and now you can (by the responses) see where my thinking is both strong and weak.

Perhaps a bit different illustration. Many decades ago (1937) in New London, Tx, a near new school blew up. Some 300 children and staff were killed, many unidentifiable. One can read about it from this source: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/natural-gas-explosion-kills-schoolchildren-in-texas

Now, God new such tragedy (calamity) was to occur. He selected those that were to remain alive, but in doing so did He also select those who were to die? Or, did He merely allow the sin to run its course and the wages to be paid?

See, the Scriptures teach it is "appointed" for a person to die. All die. My body will soon cease to function. The wages paid to all, is death.

But the gift - the endowment of God to believers is eternal life.

So, I don't see God as "electing" eternal separation for anyone. I see Him only selecting from all who will die and have nothing but an eternity of separation those of His choosing to be redeemed.

But then others don't, and to me it makes only a slight exercise of my Spirit in disagreement.

I do so appreciate this thread, and the wonderful responses each have contributed. It is a thread that more often the disagreements are only enlarged to map out the landscape and not raising mountains out of mole hills.

 

This is a good point and a very good question!

Does one see the choice removed with the dismissal from Eden, as God, in various places, lists certain penalties as you mention (childbirth, weeds, ...)?

Unless one is not a mainstream believer, all traditional fundamental Bible believers (not just Calvinistic thinkers) have agreement with the statements that Humankind are all sinners, that such sin is paid by both physical death and eternal death cannot be avoided without the direct intervention of God in the work of redemption.

Certainly, some construct some human volition as part of completing the intervention of God, and the camps are generally separated into two, and within the two are factions that further divide.

But the question of choice is found in adopting one of two schools of thought in which neither belongs in total to only one view such as Calvinism.

In very brief terms, it resolves to how one views the "will" or the motivator of human behavior and thought.

Those who consider that the will was damaged but not irreparable will hold to some freedom of choice and volition as the determiner.
or
Those who hold the will was not just damaged but irreparably corrupted will hold to no innate will freedom of choice and volition and therefore the determination is totally by God.

Preaching and teaching then presents one of three views: 1) that one is lifted to make a choice (prevenient grace), 2) one has the innate ability to choose, or 3) one has a corrupt will and a continual searing of the conscious as evil is embraced and made acceptable. This will then is left alone to battle a new will which is provided as part of the package of the "new creation."

How one chooses a scheme they hold as valid is often more about personal preference and intellectual exercise by collecting some random verses and thinking the foundation is not built upon sand.

 

Of course you take the two words out of context. The meaning of the passage is clear. It is rhetorical. It is saying this is what God is doing.

 

Love and Justice are joined hand in hand. A universe without Justice is a universe without LOVE so yes so when God brings about judgement it's still a manifestation of his character of LOVE.

 

Yes God is love. Because God hates sinful actions does not mean he hates people. Because God is LOVE he walks in perfect holiness for LOVE is the perfection of the law. Because God is LOVE he must be just which requires judgment for wrong doing. Because God is LOVE again he walks in righteousness the same as holiness.

 

Wrath and Justice are not the same thing.

This is unbiblical. There ARE people that God hates, not just their sin.

Psalm 5:5
Psalm 11:5
Proverbs 6:19
Hosea 9:15

 

Well what is justice? It can be said to be the carrying out of punishment. Indeed there's even the expression used in common speech, 'Justice was done".

It's true the word "hate" is used but it's used in a metonymy or rather hyperbolic fashion.
I'd kindly suggest one has to rightly divide the word of truth to know the difference. One might even say politically, "I hate Hillary supporters" or the reverse with Trump. Doesn't mean they really hate them in the truest sense.

I've even seen parents who are say exasperated with a rebellious offspring and exclaim or feel that they hate their own kid. Or they hate their mother-in-law. Does that mean they TRULY do? No and their spirit reaches out to LOVE them unconditionally. If God truly did HATE sinners than how could God EVER exhort us to, "Love our enemies, and do good to them which hate us" ?? Obviously he couldn't. In fact he tells us to do it in that verse because HE DOES IT. God doesn't tell us to do something he himself doesn't do but there does come a point where judgement must take place. That still all comes out of God's character of LOVE.

Again scripture states, God is LOVE. Not that he has LOVE but he is LOVE. And in him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5, 1 John 4:8

 

Again, justice and wrath are not the same thing.

And where do you base that? So God says he hates them but he doesn't really?

 

Jesus said we are to hate our families. How are you doing with that?

 

Context...

 

When one addresses the topic of "hate" in the Scriptures, there is more often the assumption that "hate" is set without modification as opposed to love which is modified.

Yet, "hate" is as love, there are degrees of the expression just as there are in the English.

For example, the Love of God is absolute but there are steps of growth the believer must take to acquire the "agape." (2 Peter 1)

God is not "hate," but when expressing His disapproval or disavowing someone or something, there is also the matter of degrees.

For example: Some go to seed on the prophets writing about God not being able to look upon sin. They even accuse God of turning His back (so to speak) upon Christ and make much that is just not supported by Scriptures.

The reason perhaps is misrendering the prophet (Habakkuk) who is questioning how God can use vile folks to punish people He claims are His.

Your eyes are too pure to approve evil,
And You can not look on wickedness with favor.
Why do You look with favor
On those who deal treacherously?
​

God looks upon evil, deals with evil, redeems from evil, ...

As it is with "love" it is with "hate."

Bible states "God loved the creation (world - kosmos) "in this manner, this way, along this line..." and if there is evil abounding it is in this creation. He looks upon evil, He uses evil to His purposes.

I prefer in some ares of the Scripture to use the common term "righteous indignation" so that folks reading a passage that uses the word "hate" (that is moderated) do not take such in extreme measures.

For example: In Malachi 1:3 (repeated in Romans 9:13)

2“I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have You loved us?” “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob; 3but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”​

The Hebrew word "love" can be used to indicate varying degrees of brotherly affection, lover, dear one, one considered precious ...
In the Greek it is the love of esteem and devotion, the pleasure of being around, a discerning and discriminating affection...

The Hebrew word "hate" can also be used to indicate varying degrees of unfriendliness, despise, not look favorably upon, odious, foe...
In the Greek it is the hate of one who detests, repulsed, often used in selecting one over the other in the sense that one is favored the other rejected, ...




Folks, please do not consider that in any manner does God or I condone or approve of evil.

What I am putting forth in this post is the reactionary approach of considering either "love" or "hate" in the extreme is not always how certain passages need to be viewed.

More often such passages rely upon setting aside our own prejudices, our own upbringing, and even our own hurts, betrayals, personal tastes, ... that a correct rendering and presentation be produced. This is extremely difficult, and frankly I have heard abundant presentations that failed in this single aspect.

 

" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalms 5:5 )

His word says He hates the actual worker, not just the work.

Love does not require justice, Rockson...holiness and righteousness do.

Because God is merciful to some and not to others shows that he is love.
Ir also shows that He is willing to show wrath and to make His power over sin and sinners, known to all.

Because He is holy and righteous, He is jealous over those whom He loves.
Because He is holy, He hates sin and the sinners who commit those sins.

That is why Hell was enlarged.

 

I think you better read again what I've said prior. Here it is in purple.

"It's true the word "hate" is used but it's used in a metonymy or rather hyperbolic fashion.
I'd kindly suggest one has to rightly divide the word of truth to know the difference. One might even say politically, "I hate Hillary supporters" or the reverse with Trump. Doesn't mean they really hate them in the truest sense.

I've even seen parents who are say exasperated with a rebellious offspring and exclaim or feel that they hate their own kid. Or they hate their mother-in-law. Does that mean they TRULY do? No and their spirit reaches out to LOVE them unconditionally. If God truly did HATE sinners than how could God EVER exhort us to, "Love our enemies, and do good to them which hate us" ?? Obviously he couldn't. In fact he tells us to do it in that verse because HE DOES IT. God doesn't tell us to do something he himself doesn't do but there does come a point where judgement must take place. That still all comes out of God's character of LOVE."

Therefore I never said it didn't say he didn't hate them. I stipulated the way and manner the word IN CONTEXT was meant to be understood.

 

Sorry but i contend it all flows out of the central truth....God is LOVE. Or can you envision a society that's lovely to be in that doesn't have right things (righteousness) in it? I think not. Justice or judgment sends out a message a LOVE state is going to be maintained. Without justice there is no LOVE.