Featured Single Predestination

Completely in agreement so far

We differ here for several reasons.

Firstly, your phrasing seems biased when you describe it as God choosing not to predestine salvation specifically. Under single predestination, it's actually God choosing not to predestine either salvation or condemnation for this non-elect man. Your conclusion logically would just as equally be - "God's choice to not predestine condemnation for him, means that he will not be saved". This sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? And that's because you still read in monergism into the non-elect too whereas single predestination confines it to the elect alone. What could probably help you understand better is to apply calvinist doctrines to the elect and the arminian freewill doctrines to the non-elect.

I've listed out all premises, observations and conclusions of Single Predestination here for our reference -
1. If God predestines a man unto salvation, that man is assuredly saved.
2. If God predestines a man unto condemnation, that man is assuredly not saved.
3. If God does not predestine either, then God has decreed man to self-determine his destiny through faith.
4. If man self-determines to endure in faith to the end, then man is saved.
5. If man self-determines to not endure in faith to the end, then man is not saved.

6. We observe from Scripture that God predestines all the elect unto salvation.
7. Hence from #1, we conclude that all the elect are assuredly saved.

8. We observe from Scripture that none of the non-elect self-determine to endure in faith to the end.
9. Hence from #5, we conclude that all the non-elect are not saved.

We'll have to discuss the nuance in the word "cannot" later and I would either say "God will not assuredly save him" or "God has not predestined him for salvation" - but these qualifiers apart, you'd see we arrive at the same conclusion in #9 - that he will indeed not be saved.

God didn't catch him = didn't predestine unto salvation (or condemnation) applies #3.
Man decided not to fly to safety = man self-determined not to endure in faith applies #5.
#3 AND #5 => #9 (he is not saved)

I don't see what the problem is here - why do you think I'm not concluding that such a non-elect person is unsaved?

What we're actually debating is not whether the non-elect is unsaved but what factors led to him being unsaved. Double Predestination applies #2 as what led to his not being saved. Single Predestination applies #3 and #5 sequentially for the same. We could continue debating the Scriptural merit of #3 (I'm assuming you're fine with the other points?) - but what do you find logically inconsistent in this single predestination system?

 

When you say "At the moment in eternity past when God predestined...", we're talking specifically about the logical order of God's decrees than actual human time. And predestining is defined as decreeing the end destiny before any of man's good or evil. But in the case of man self-determining his own destiny, it by definition is after his own good or evil as seen in faith or unbelief. Here itself, we have 2 different moments of time in God's mind divided before and after man's good or evil - how do you then say both their destinies were determined at the same moment?

So given the truths that we know, I can agree with you that their destinies are certain outcomes but how are they equally predestined if God Himself has not equally predestined them? One's destiny could theoretically be determined only either by God or by man - and if God has chosen not to do so for the non-elect (as per single predestination), then how can man determine his destiny before his good or evil (=predestine) at the same moment of time God predestines for the elect? For double predestination to be true, God must actively decree the non-elect's destiny too before any of their good or evil. This is the contradiction that supralapsarianism seeks to avoid by conceding that double predestination must entail this implication.

 

What do you mean by "no possibility" here - are you referring to God's provision or man's self-determination? Is it impossible as in man flying because God made no provision of wings or is it impossible as in a child choosing greens to chocolates? I see it as the latter and not the former.

It's right there in the list of premises, right?
3. If God does not predestine either, then God has decreed man to self-determine his destiny through faith.
4. If man self-determines to endure in faith to the end, then man is saved.

It's either #1 predestined to salvation as the path for the elect OR it's #3 and #4 sequentially as the path for the non-elect. Man choosing not to walk down this path does not render the path itself non-existent, right? The means are provided, man rejects it. Where's the disconnect - I'm happy we've gotten so far on this topic and am ready to keep clarifying until we understand each other, irrespective of whether we agree on conclusions or not.

 

Like i said, you're running into issues only because you're mixing up predestination and the process of reaching what's been destined. In this active-passive schema, God is still active in predestining the non-elect's end but the process is in Him being passive and letting them follow their own desires and condemn themselves as has been actively predestined by God. The moment you hold God not actively predestining, you're arguing for single predestination, for the only other agent is now man who cannot by definition pre-destine.

 

I'm all for analogies but if this is your depiction of single predestination, I believe you have misunderstood significant parts of it.

Firstly, single predestination does not hold salvation possible apart from Christ - if riding on the Good Ship is the only way to cross the ocean and reach the other shore, then that is the condition laid out for the non-elect too. Requiring him to swim across would probably be the law of works and not the law of faith. Here, one is saved as long as he gets on the ship and stays on the ship.

Secondly, he was invited to ride on the Ship - for was not the Gospel preached to the non-elect too? And he could get on to the ship only the same way the elect got on - with a new heart given by God's grace in place of his hardened heart and being initially sanctified by Christ's blood. The difference is he wasn't promised he'd assuredly reach his destination as the elect were promised. If you will, there were VIP passes prepared from before containing the names of only the elect who'd be protected in staying on the ship until they reach the other shore. The non-elect had to self-determine to stay on the ship which as long as they did, would ensure their reaching the shore too. But all the non-elect self-determine to jump out of the ship to start swimming backwards, inevitably and certainly drowning. Spiritually speaking, the promise of the ticket is in the rebirth of the elect denying their self-determinism.

In this analogy of single predestination, the non-elect man very much is given a chance of reaching the new land but dependent on his self-determinism alone, having all other provisions of God.

As seen from above, it's not a case of man missing wings but the child having to choose greens over chocolate - and such self-determining would only be to believe in the Good Ship and desire the new land, requiring no other self-works. Faith in Christ would lead to their denying the self but they love and desire their own evil more than the new land. Even after being washed once unto repentance, they wish to return to the mud denying the Lord that bought them.

Given that we're discussing the Scriptural merits of Single Predestination now, does it mean we've moved on from discussing the logical merits of it? I'd begun there first intending to show that it is a logically consistent system unlike the 'married bachelor' contradiction. And sure, we'd now be discussing if God conditionally gives new hearts and sanctifies the non-elect desiring them to repent and live too - but are there any purely logical contradictions that still need to be addressed?

 

There a couple of issues that I've disagreed with in past posts that are still being argued by you without having addressed it. I've been answering all the questions you've raised and it would help conclude easier if it works both ways.

1. If God predestines a man unto salvation, that man is assuredly saved.
3. If God does not predestine either, then God has decreed man to self-determine his destiny through faith.
4. If man self-determines to endure in faith to the end, then man is saved.
5. If man self-determines to not endure in faith to the end, then man is not saved.

You've been arguing that "GIVEN it is impossible for man to do #4, God's active predestination of the elect in #1 just as much determines with certainty the fate of the non-elect at that same moment in God's mind". And I've been arguing that by the very definition of predestination, you are not GIVEN what is possible or impossible for man to do just yet since God does not factor in any of his good or evil then.

Now I do agree that if God had Himself decided to withhold the provisions of salvation necessary for the non-elect to even be able to self-determine rightly, then it can be a GIVEN since God Himself has rendered salvation impossible for them by not even providing the Good Ship or the wings/greens in the first place - (this would throw other inconsistencies as to why God would desire their Gospel obedience but that's another discussion then). However I see from Scriptures that God has provided these and consequently it's down to man's self-determinism which by definition cannot be a GIVEN at the same moment God predestines the elect.

You needn't agree with the Scriptural merits of God's provisioning now but for the logical argument, - considering that Single Predestination itself holds God to have provisioned regeneration of a new heart and Christ's sanctification through faith:

• How do you see the outcome of man's possible or impossible self-determination in #4 and #5 as a GIVEN at the same moment of God's predestining in #1 before any of man's good or evil (faith or unbelief)?

For your position to be true, you'd have to argue that there is no valid path provided by God for the non-elect to even self-determine rightly into salvation. And I'm arguing that a valid path has been provided which none of the non-elect self-determine to walk down to the end. I've asked this before -

• Does man's choosing not to walk down this path to salvation that God provides, render the path itself non-existent?

As to the path itself and what the non-elect must do -
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

God by His conditional mercy gives a new heart and washes them unto repentance once, and exhorts them to endure in the faith to the end to be saved. Which of these do you see differently?

 

No complaints there at all

I too believe that man with his darkened mind is incapable of seeing the path apart from God enlightening him with the knowledge of the truth - don't you see God doing so in Heb 6:4, 10:26?

And secondly, why must this be an act of predestination - what stops God from choosing to show conditional mercy factoring in man's evil, and not necessarily only before any of his good or evil?

I too believe that man is incapable of continuing to walk down that new path by his own self-determinism, if that's what you meant. I still see the help of God in His exhortation and conditional mercies that do not violate the non-elect's own self-determinism unto salvation or condemnation. But that's the whole point of laying out this path - so that every mouth may be stopped and all the non-elect be held guilty under the failure of their own self-determinism given all the conditional mercies of God.

Your comment within the parenthesis, however, is again inconsistent. God is omniscient and He can foreknow what man would self-determine as a possibility or an impossibility - but God reveals He chose not to foresee any of man's good or evil, possible or impossible self-determination while He predestines the elect. So why must it or how can it be predestined too?

Absolutely, I believe this too. The object of one's faith is the GIFT of God, right? Or do you see self-determined faith as a work? By definition, faith at best can only be a negative work where one doesn't do anything himself but instead trusts another to do something for him.

When we both agree on the same ABCs, where lies the actual cause of disagreement?

 

If God has predestined some to salvation then it is also and automatically true that He predestined the rest to damnation.

 

Why so? In fact, we just concluded that it needn't necessarily be so from a purely logical perspective as per single predestination.

My not choosing something does not mean I've chosen the opposite - it just means i haven't chosen anything. John Bunyan best described it as - not choosing to use a certain tree's wood to make a pillar in your house doesn't mean you chose to burn that tree in the fire at that same moment.

 

No. Not choosing a thing is still a choice. Personally I hold the view what God predestines is what for those whom He saves. ". . . conformed to the image of his Son, . . ." Now the destination of the lost is what was made for the Devil and the Devil's angels (Matthew 25:41). People who refuse or fail to hear the gospel are not choosing the gospel. Also they cannot choose what they have not heard (2 Corinthaisn 4:3-4). I am of the point of view little children's names are in the book of life (Revelation 20:15) until such time it is removed. Not because little children are sinless but because Christ died for the whole world (1 John 2:2).