Featured Single Predestination

Is this the only reason you are inclined to believe all begin with their names written in the book of life? Don't you find it dangerous to build an entire theological interpretation from simply something Scriptures have been quite conspicuously vague about? Just to get this clear - your primary motivation here is to simply ensure an interpretation that little children don't go to hell and nothing else?

Again, I too am inclined to believe that little children are always saved though I do not have absolute Scriptural validation for it. And I think that's perfectly fine for God to remain intentionally silent over it - for we are capable of corrupting this to extremes had God made a conclusive revelation. If Hitler's mother had smothered him when he was a child, would he be in paradise? Do babies remain babies in all eternity or will they have grown versions - and if so, will we have the same empathy towards their perceived innocence while they were toddlers even in their grown versions?

And most importantly, if we do conclude that all babies absolutely go to heaven when they die and this is God's absolute truth - what stops an ignorant parent from wanting to avoid risking the baby growing up, being found to be unfaithful and so having their names removed from the book of life? What if this parent reasons it's better for the child to be assured salvation while it has it and determines to kill it? And taken to its extremes, wouldn't it then be logical never to have any children at all - for it is better that that man was never born at all (Matt 26:24)?

No, God forbid. I embrace the ambiguity because now it gives us incentive to raise children in a godly way and pray over their salvation through faith in Christ as the most assured option. Again, the ambiguity gives me enough room to not micro-analyze if dead children are elect or non-elect - instead it allows me to look at it the other way around. I simply assume that God so happens to pick from only the elect when He determines babies to die. This way, I avoid all theological contradictions.

 

I do not myself believe that all humans start out in the Lamb's Book of Life - but I don't quite follow this logic.
"If <all humans start out in the Lamb's book of life>, they would all be born sinless" ?
Why must this be so? You must believe that some humans(elect) do start out in this book of life before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) - are these then born sinless? And since they're not, why must the rest be any different and why then must this amount to pelagianism?

I'd rather argue against this on the grounds that God could never have entered a name into the book only for it to amount to a correction later in blotting it out - God needn't have written it in the first place then before the foundation of the world.

 

Yes, I've read this too. Accordingly I hold to the consistent theological framework of unconditional election unto salvation for the elect and the simultaneous qualified arminian conditional offer of salvation to the non-elect (Option 3). Sproul didn't explore the specifics of this in his article - he simply lets it pass because Brunner rejects it. This thread expands on Single Predestination as the only viable interpretation that serves to reconcile calvinism and arminianism while being logically consistent and scripturally faithful.

 

Almost. The elect are predestined to salvation before any man's good or evil while the non-elect's destinies are not commented on at the time. The same means of salvation is provided to the non-elect too - they cannot repent with a hardened heart, and so God shows conditional mercy upon the non-elect to give them a new heart and His Holy Spirit until they self-determine to fall away from the faith, which they always do in the flesh. Hence God proves that the flesh profits nothing and only God is good in working out and preserving perfect redemption in the spirit as seen in His elect.

So a fair summation would be that I believe the elect are predestined to salvation while the non-elect, regenerated the same way as the elect and given the genuine offer of salvation through faith in Christ, are required to self-determine/choose to continue in the faith to the end, which they inevitably fall away from.

 

I'm not arguing here - I'm trying to understand your position better.

Your quoting John 3:3 implies these children must be born again to not go to hell, right? Isn't that a requirement? And consequently you do realize this triggers a set of contradictions, don't you - because all children cannot be born again for that would permanently prevent their names from being blotted out even if they grow up to be a hitler later.

The other alternative that seems to be your interpretation is that you're somehow focusing on the words "man" in John 3:3 and are thinking this is what "men" need to do as a requirement but not "children"? This seems like an outlandish interpretation and I'll be quick to discard this if you confirm this is not so - for then you'd have to accept teenagers and women too have no such requirements, right?

Your quoting Psa 58:3 would imply that all the babies who are born in sin would have their "names blotted out due to their original sin", right? But weren't you arguing that these babies do not go to hell because their names are not blotted out yet? What am I missing here in what seems to be a direct contradiction?

I'm more inclined towards a scenario where the book of life has the names of the elect that can never be blotted out. Possibly it also begins with the names of the non-elect but those will be blotted out when they fall into God's condemnation because of their own evil. And God determines for only the elect children to die young, thereby no children going to hell as children.

I lost your points in this part of your post. How does your quoting Romans and Mark there directly relate to what was being discussed?

Again, I totally agree this is irrational nonsense - but can you guarantee that there is no possibility for an abuse of doctrines? The catholics so abnormally prioritized infant baptism because they believed a baby who possibly died young could never go to heaven unless they were baptized. And how does Gen 9:6 deter such an irrational parent from 'sacrificing' their own eternal life to ensure their child remains saved?

 

Nope. Again, the idea in Single Predestination is not to be saved from being non-elect, it's to be saved from self and sin. God provides them the means of salvation so that they could be non-elect and saved if only they self-determined to persist in the repentance and faith they were once gifted. So why would the goal be to make themselves elect?

 

Those are not my words. I don't believe all humans are saved at birth. They are born into condemnation and can be saved only by God's grace from beginning to end.

The process itself is not different between the elect and the non-elect. Just as the elect are hardened in their hearts, the non-elect too are hardened in their hearts. Just as the elect are regenerated to repentance, the non-elect too could be regenerated to repentance by God giving a new heart. Just as the elect are saved through faith in Christ enduring to the end, the non-elect too are offered salvation through faith in Christ enduring to the end. The only difference between the elect and the non-elect is whose nature is operative in the persevering to the end - God's nature is operative in preserving the elect's born-again spirit as guaranteed by God's promise whereas the self-nature is operative in falling away in the non-elect's flesh. I've elaborated in Post #70

This is a common refrain within calvinism - to call salvation through faith alone in Christ alone as legalism if such faith is found in the non-elect. Now, I don't believe any of the non-elect ever continue in their faith - but from God's perspective, if they were to self-determine to put all their faith in Christ alone, that would never have amounted to legalism but simply obeying what He commanded.

I agree faith is a bit paradoxical because it does get categorized as a work (John 6:29) and yet it is against the Law of works (Gal 3:12). It's because the nature of faith is to do a negative work - essentially acknowledging that I can do no good work of my own self to redeem myself. And this leads to trusting another person's positive work to do in and for me what I myself should've done but couldn't. The person doing the positive work gets all the glory, and faith in the non-elect cannot be credited to their flesh because by its very definition, it is the denying of the self-nature to trust in Christ's nature. And such faith and repentance itself was worked out by irresistible grace with no contribution of the flesh. So when done right, faith in the non-elect wouldn't oppose sola gratia - but none of the non-elect ever choose to do right.

 

Let's take it one at a time...

I'm stating my first premises here -
1. Regeneration is the giving of a new heart and renewing of the mind. Also described as opening of hearts and minds.
2. Any person who is renewed unto repentance must necessarily have been regenerated - for a hardened heart cannot repent.
3. A person can only truly repent through the knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ.
4. The elect can never fall or turn away - they are perfectly preserved.
5. The elect have unconditional sure mercies - God never takes it away.

Consequently, valid inferences are -
A. From 5), if God takes away His mercy from a person, then he is non-elect.
B. From 1) and A), if a person has God's mercy taken away after being given a new heart, then it is equivalent to proving the non-elect can be regenerated.
C. From 2), 3) and 4), if someone who has been renewed unto repentance through the knowledge of Jesus Christ falls away, then it is equivalent to proving the non-elect can be regenerated.

This is how I arrive at this conclusion. Which premise or inference do you find incorrect?

 

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Isn't this in the context of salvation?

Like I already said in Post #17, I see mercy itself as God's grace because it still is unmerited favor. I often use them interchangeably too since mercy is a more forensic term associated with the guilty, which we all are.

I use the term mercy not intentionally to distinguish it from grace but simply because it's there in the Bible.
Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

Should I quote this differently fearing you'd rail against legalism when I make reference to an everlasting covenant having sure mercies?

Why do you make it mutually exclusive? Where in Scriptures is there any evidence to prove this assertion? And why are you splitting hairs on two basic terms and drawing out entire theological systems based on just this?

Isn't mercy described as making one faithful (1Cor 7:25)? Isn't mercy described as things accompanying salvation of a royal priesthood (1Pet 2:10)? Where are we going with this?

Have it your way, I'm willing to engage with anything you raise - but this is a dialogue. Why don't you respond to the questions I raise as you raise your own questions? Like I've mentioned before, nobody has intellectual or theological immunity here, especially in a debate forum.

And if the word mercy is tripping you up, ignore B) and simply evaluate C) for me then and tell me which premise or inference you find to be incorrect?

 

This requires some highlighting. Is it your belief that mercy is somehow merited? Or that it is somehow based on the works of the person being judged instead of the sovereign judge alone? Because I don't.

In fact, this is the first time I've heard the phrase "human works to continually receive mercy" - what does this mean? Could you give examples of what these works look like - because I'm thinking if someone does the expected works, he wouldn't need mercy. It's only those who've failed at the expected works who'd be at the mercy of the Sovereign King and Judge (Rom 11:32).