Featured Single Predestination

I don't follow this reasoning - then in what sense was Rom 9:11 meant if not for God not foreseeing man's actions though He very well could have. If you're arguing semantics, I'm more than willing to alter the language - but as to the implications itself, God did not treat any of man's good or evil as a GIVEN during His election of grace. If you disagree, then how do you read Rom 9:11?

 

That's the argument of the JWs to prove Jesus is not God

We hold that God can willingly set aside His own attributes, even be set a little lower than the angels for a time, without denying His own sovereignty or contradicting His nature as He so pleases. God is no less God if He can and yet sovereignly chooses not to do what He very well can. God is omniscient and yet He is no less God if He sovereignly chooses not to exercise it according to His own purposes - or else how can one explain Mar 13:32?

 

That comes across as rude - i thought we were doing so well. If you don't have time to engage with every argument, nobody's forcing you to stay here and discuss. But we are equals here, none required to be approved and validated by a superior other. I have maintained I will answer your every question, but courtesy demands the same likewise. Why do you get to hold your inconsistencies without having them explained?

And? What was your conclusion - does God factor in man's good or evil as a GIVEN or not during His election of grace? A simple yes/no would suffice at this point.

I thought I did just that earlier -

What part of what I've written earlier has been confusing -

 

The passive view would be the majority reformed position, as believe that is what the Confessions hinted at, but allowed for either viewto be held as legit!

 

Did not set aside his attributes, but the divine right to exercise and use them!

 

Sinful Humanity has nothing good in and of themselves to even offer to God, so hence all of His grace!

 

Question is did God determine Himself and cause them damnation, or bypassed them, electing to withhold his saving grace?

 

I'd say we mean the same thing and wish not to get lost in the semantics. We could go on arguing whether God needs any rights to be Himself when He's ultimately sovereign - but I get what you mean and let's agree on that. I do not believe Jesus lacked any of His attributes as God while in the flesh, He merely chose not to manifest them as per the Father's sovereign purposes.

This needn't be limited to only Jesus - even the Father is no less God when His attribute is to be merciful and yet He chooses not to show mercy at times as per His sovereign purposes. Not manifesting these attributes all the time makes Him no less God because these have no moral violation or inconsistency within Himself. Which would not be the case with His moral attributes such as His righteousness and holiness.

 

And how did God factor in the fact that everyone is innately evil without factoring in the future EVIL of Adam(a person) that led to the fall?

Again, I really don't care much for man and his self-determinism. I must deny double predestination because the necessary implications are that God does not desire the non-elect to repent and live AND that God does no supernatural work conditionally in the non-elect towards salvation - both of which I find going against Scriptures, apart from making His nature inconsistent. So focusing on His glory alone as revealed in the Bible, I have found single predestination to simultaneously hold all truths and even act as a common middle ground between the calvinists and the arminians to unite over.

 

God intended that the Cross of Christ would save out a peculiar people unto Himself, so he did not intend to have all saved....

 

Then why desire them to repent and live? And what of the Hebrews and 2Pet falling away passages?

These are the 2 main reasons from Scripture why I am convinced calvinism has got this particular doctrine alone terribly wrong. Claiming to be logically consistent, it falls short - it factors in an individual's evil at the same instant of God's election of grace when Scriptures clearly reveal God doesn't factor in any man's good or evil. I've already raised my points on God's desire for the non-elect to repent and live and the Hebrews falling away passages on separate threads and so far none have explained the contradictions within calvinism. There's zealous debating until an inconsistency is pointed out at which point I'm mostly snubbed with ad-hominem attacks. Are these signs of holding to the truth? I appreciate those who step back and take time to reconsider their position - I am in no hurry to pressure anyone into believing anything. But is a basic level of honesty without guile too much to expect?

 

I don't believe God ever needs a plan B either - but we do have to go where logic and Scriptures take us.

Before "Let there be light" doesn't conclude much more than being before human time - but there are several things happening in God's mind sequentially, all before human time, before the foundations of the world. What we're specifically focusing on is Rom 9:11 and God's sequential partitioning of moments in His mind as before and consequently after any man's good or evil.

God never said He decreed the brothers to sell Joseph into slavery before any of their good or evil. God instead says He did factor in their evil to then turn it for good. Of course, all this is before human time but still after their own evil in God's mind (unless someone erroneously wants to argue for God determining to cause their very evil). However, this is not what God says with respect to His election of grace - He particularly qualifies it as being before any man's good or evil. This necessarily means He hasn't factored in Adam's sin in His mind at the moment of electing His people. He could very well complete His election and the very next instant foresee and decree all things until the end of time factoring in man's evil, but it just can't be at the same moment. If it were so, we'd be going against Rom 9:11 and Scripture cannot be broken.


It would've been so much simpler if Scriptures had stopped with just the passages pointing to justification by faith alone - but James does link works with faith and then we need to interpret what that correlation exactly is, whether evidential or causative. Similarly, it would've been simpler if God said He'd determined everyone's fate with no offer of salvation given to the non-elect - He's done it before with the non-elect angels and revealed it, so this wouldn't be impossible to accept in man given the precedent. But God does reveal His desire for non-elect man to repent and live and He does reveal His supernatural works in them towards salvation for a time until they fall away.

If we have to reconcile all this together, at the moment of His election of grace, God must've known there would be an inevitable fall but without factoring in Adam's or anyone else's acts of evil / unbelief. IOW, God must've known about the fall based on Himself and not any man's acts. And we could explore trails there (karl barth's creational entropy settles it for me personally) - but we still need to hold Rom 9:11 to mean what it says.

 

if God does not offer even the beginnings of the path to salvation to the non-elect given His predestined condemnation, how does the calvinist read God's desire for them to repent and live?

 

Well it is double predestination from eternity

But God is both active and passive in his double pre decision because He is the source of righteousness yet not the source of sin, He intervenes yet also chooses not to directly intervene by his own hand while retaining full soveriegn control. allowing culpable choice to take place of our own wills knowing full well we are not created by Him as His equal thus we have vulnerabilities that God does not have(The ability to sin and be tempted into it.)

So while God is actively ensuring salvation of those He predestined to form with the ability to percieve and recieve Him being set apart in the womb unto the heavenly call through the Gospel.

He also is actively forming and hardening others not predestined unto salvation thus not set apart in the womb to either not have the conscious ability to know God and the testimony before death and or is hardening those consciously able to perceive God(Romans 1:20) yet not perceiving the Testimony of Yeshua thus disobeying the Gospel of there own will .(2 thess 1:8)

But is passive towards both groups regarding sin being not the source of our sin nor tempter of it.

So God may passively allow the saved to sin but by active intervention through loving discipline and scourging prevent our devotion toward it.

While allow passively by lack of intervention of the unsaved to remain enslaved to sin and spiritually dead devotedly by actively preventing one through an early death ,mental incapability but also not percieve the testimony by hardening
so that although having eyes and ears they can not understand to be healed.

So God is actively ensuring and preventing salvation while not being the source or tempter of our sin.