Featured Single Predestination

I do not see the desire of God as exactly same thing as His will, so no problem for me in Him being "inconsistent" as some seem to be saying!

 

We've already discussed most of the points you've raised here - I shall anyway go through all of them, either briefly replying or providing a link to where it's been discussed. And to progress toward conclusions, let's break it up into individual points/posts just so it's simpler for all of us to keep track of.

Your main argument here above is that if God desired the non-elect to repent and live, He would have accomplished that -> We observe from Scriptures that the non-elect will not enter the Kingdom in eternal life -> Therefore God has not desired the non-elect to repent and live.

What you're missing out on is that God can 1) desire for the non-elect to self-determine to walk according to His desires, 2) exhort them to do so and yet 3) sovereignly decree to allow/permit man's self-determinism to stand without being overruled though He very well can (which He clearly manifests in His promised salvation in the elect). This is such a plain simple truth that you most probably interpret all over Scriptures except somehow for predestination?

By your argument, if God desired man not to sin, He would have accomplished that -> We observe from Scriptures that man sins -> Therefore God has not desired man not to sin?

On the other hand, as per my argument, 1) God does desire to reign as King over Israel (1Sam 8:7), and 2) He does exhort them to self-determine according to His desires (1Sam 8:9), and 3) God does sovereignly decree to let their self-determinism stand even though it's against His present desires (1Sam 8:22).

Do you still stand by this argument or can we conclude that it's possible God could have sovereignly allowed for the non-elect's self-determinism to stand?

 

Luk 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing(2), remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will(1), but thine, be done.

Quickly to clarify semantics, at least the kjv and esv translate 2 different words as the same word 'will' in English. For the purposes of our conversation, I would suggest distinguishing them as 'desire/will1' (Matt 9:13 ESV) and 'counsel/will2' (Acts 20:27 ESV). How they're related is best seen in Eph 1:11 - where again unfortunately the word Will stands for Desire, adding to the confusion.

So what I read being said here is that God's Desire (perceptive/prescriptive will1) is different from His Counsel (decretive will2) - and I completely agree. The inconsistency raised is in how God can Desire against what He Himself has sovereignly Counselled/decreed? How can God desire inconsistently after and against His own immutable counsel (Heb 6:17 kjv)?

 

How do you read Matt 23:37 then? The word specifically used to describe God there is how often He Desired/willed1 to gather them under His wings.

And how do you read Eze 33:11? Again, the same word used to express Desire (Hos 6:6).

 

I am contesting the premises -
1. God did not sovereignly choose some men for salvation - God sovereignly chose some men for promised salvation.
Rom 9:8 - the elect are children of the Promise to be blessed in salvation and life. We know God's promises are immutable and so we paraphrase it as 'chosen for salvation' because God's promise of salvation would anyway amount to God's salvation infallibly.

2. The paraphrasing above amounts to an incorrect premise here. It should actually be God does not choose all men for promised salvation. This still allows for God to offer conditional salvation that is not promised/guaranteed to the non-elect, which leads to -

3. There is definitely the conditional possibility offered by God Himself outside of His single predestined election - and that is through faith in Christ that non-elect man is desired, commanded, exhorted unto by God. God accordingly gives a non-elect person a new heart unto repentance once and sanctifies him initially by Christ's blood - which if he did self-determine to endure in to the end, he would be saved. But he self-determines to fall away in unbelief, returning to the mud after being washed and fails the conditional possibility provided by God, thereby being completed for destruction through possible hardening.

What specifically would you disagree with here and we could discuss those...

 

I don't agree with your conclusion because God chose simultaneously who would live and not live. Scripture is clear of this, if you don't want to accept this then you diminish God's soveriegn control.

Again it makes no sense to conclude the fate of the elect as predestined but not the non-elect by refusing to save them from eternity at the moment He decided who he was going to intervene upon and save.

God decided the outcome of both parties before anything was created.

 

You don't agree with me because..of what you believe and I don't? Isn't that obvious - why assert the same premise that we're essentially debating over? I don't believe in double predestination for the reasons I've stated above - how do you reconcile them? You don't believe in single predestination for the reasons you've mentioned and I'm sharing how I reconcile them - how do you consider these? We'll have to engage with specific arguments to proceed towards conclusions.

If Scripture is clear - then how are there inconsistencies raised as per your interpretation? Which part of Scripture are you referring to? Romans 9 has been interpreted as per Single Predestination which makes for consistent reading - what do you find inconsistent there? What of the Scriptural references I've raised - how do you interpret those as per your belief system?

Secondly, how is it diminishing God's sovereign control when it is God who sovereignly decrees to allow man's self-determinism? Was God's sovereign control diminished when He allowed for the old covenant to fail?

It makes sense to a whole lot of other people - anyway, the onus is not on Scriptures to explain its purposes in order for us to accept them. Scriptures cannot be broken and whatever it states we must accept whether or not we fully comprehend how it exactly works out. Double predestination makes some claims that are directly refuted by Scriptures - rather than hold on to it just because it 'makes sense', shouldn't we be studying scriptures anew to see where it leads us?

Just to get you started, double predestination claims God does no supernatural work in the non-elect towards salvation - Scriptures records God granting the non-elect a new heart at least in the case of king Saul and Heb 10 mentions those who fall away were sanctified initially by Christ's blood. This is what I see as a direct contradiction with Scriptures - how do you see it?

 

Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-39, 2Pet 2:20-22, 1Sam 10:6-10

 

I see no purpose to continue in discussion with you as I see God has chosen to harden you to the truth, blinding you through the agency of Satan. So no matter how much truth I present you will always interpret your views into scripture because your leaning on your own understanding and not looking at scripture as a whole.

You diminish God's Soveriegn control over His own fixed plan and process of everlasting salvation along with undermining the purpose of Jesus' visit. Trying to force a conclusion of scripture to say what it does not.


I will stand by what I have revealed to you that is scripturally backed being that Only those who Jesus died for are those granted by God to be saved(Matt 26:28, Heb 2). Jesus was only sent to help the elect who are Abraham's offspring granted his same Faith which is authored (hebh12:2) and gifted (eph 2:8)by God

Only those who Father gave to Jesus are those whom belong to Him and are those Jesus laid His life down for to atone and purchase in order to redeem, garanteeing security as a child of God.

There is no such thing as conditional salvation. All those who are in Christ are no longer under condemnation romans 8:1 and no heavenly call is revocable romans 11:29. So anybody who God calls inwardly cannot revoke God's offer and will be secured in salvation.

If you had any desire in being persuaded you would not be so ingrained in the lies you hold to then consistently resist what I am saying. Such tells me that you have already made up your mind sense I know I am not the only one you have come across to defend double predestination.

Another reason your self-determined fate makes no sense besides God already deciding what will happen to them by not setting them aside to be spared. is because not all live mentally capable to perceive God's existence and are not presented the Gospel to disobey yet are left under God's wrath because although they can't percieve God or are able to have a choice toward the Gospel they are still spiritually dead and enslaved to sin at conception in the womb. How can the unborn, mentally incapable and the very young youth who die early self-determine there fate being unable to make a choice yet are left by God under wrath if God did not already by his choice predetermined there purpose and destination while holding even them culpable.

We can know this because all those appointed to salvation,believed and all those who are purposed to believe are those who are set apart in the womb in order to be inwardly called by the Spirit through the Gospel. Everyone else are already decided upon of there purpose to glorify God through Wrath.

 

Ouch. I guess double predestination allows you to have such remarkable insights into God's present real-time workings, walking away dusting your sandals instead of desiring to persuade a brother of what you've perceived to be his errors. Anyway, you're not obligated to continue any discussions and I take no personal offence. After all, Luke 7:35. And none of us are the wiser apart from God. Peace.

 

Being saved allows me to have such insight, wisdom and understanding being taught by the Spirit.

Remember what Jesus says in John 15:15
""No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

You ignore that God only provides salvation unconditionally to those He sent His Son to die for(Hebrews 2:16) by His permission of which I proved scripturally in my previous posts .

The non-elect were not put into existence for this purpose but God reveals there purpose: to make His power known in order to make the riches of His glory known.

God having control over His creation, while He is knitting his creatures together and breathing in them a immortal spirit, He set apart many unto Himself to live through the Testimony of Jesus , many others not chosen from eternity to be set apart and inwardly called he has fitted for destruction in order to have mercy on many.

As Romans 9:22-23 state yet you like others fall into this category:
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?”

Physical peace I will be towards you as is commanded by Jesus to live in non-violence toward my enemies but spiritual peace will not be granted, as a good soldier of Christ I will defend the truth.

 

I am your enemy? Are you of the belief that one who doesn't believe in Calvinism isn't a believer in Christ? Is Wesley not a believer in Christ? If you believe so, I will gently nudge you away from such grave errors. If that's truth, why didn't Whitfield or Bunyan hold the same? Don't you agree with Romans 14?

Like i said, I've had the benefit of experience to not take your vitriol personally. But don't you find it disconcerting yourself that you fit right into the pattern of zealots who'd take a self-righteous stand, thinking their dogmatism stands testimony to their faithfulness instead of actually engaging with specific arguments. You'd rather type several posts just to have the last word and pass ad-hominem attacks than to explain your faith?

Nobody's forcing you to discuss here - but if you must reply, why don't you progress the discussion by engaging with the specific points raised instead of the presumptive speculation over another's profession of faith? Discuss scripture, not people. This is not the choir you're preaching to on this debate forum. I wish more than just physical peace to you

 

Self-righteous stand?
I don't presume to be able to save myself, I am only saved because God from eternity granted me that outlet.

I am not a Calvinist, I only hold to what can be confirmed in scripture. wesley along with calvin were not set apart unto salvation. Both upheld a false Gospel believing that Jesus suffered divine wrath in my place and practiced violence regardless if any of them held to some truths, they were not wholehearted in all that Jesus taught.

 

I have already stated my case backed with scripture and such is sufficient enough towards those being saved and are already saved, I will not be sucked into a never ending discussion and waste my time trying to persuade someone who I can tell , God has not chosen to yield. You are way to ingrained because you have already chosen to embrace what you believe and will not be persuaded and it is not because I have not disclosed enough information. But it is because you reject what truth I have stated, not wanting to accept that God has already decided beforehand who will be saved and who will be damned.

Logically, the doctrine of reprobation is necessarily true if the following premises can be established: 1) God sovereignly chooses some men for salvation; 2) God does not choose all men for salvation; 3) there is no possibility of obtaining salvation apart from God's sovereign election thereunto. In other words, if God has chosen infallibly to save some, and has cut off any other means of salvation for all others, he has effectively made a choice concerning every person that has lived; he has chosen either to save him or to cut him off from all hope of salvation.

To which scripture reveals yet you reject

 

Agree or disagree with this viewpoint?
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

 

Agree or disagree?
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

 

We do that ourselves, so why would it not be possible for God?

 

I agree with his reasoning, not with his conclusions.

Where he reasons - "Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination....(3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects", - I reason further where Brunner stops. In effect, a fleshing out what Sproul considers as a consistent possibility.

"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."
Sproul here commits the same calvinist error - God's providing of paths to salvation aren't the same as what man self-determines to walk in. And we're discussing God's decrees before factoring in any of man's self-determinism in predestination. Hence, as per God's decrees before any man's good or evil, all salvation is not ultimately based on particular election.

Num 23:19 ?

Where do we do this ourselves without being hypocritical liars? Where has one counselled to obey God and then desire the opposite after that without proving himself to be inconsistent and wrong?