Cage Staged Calvinism

[Reynolds]

It is a "stage".
When people are allowed to understand these truths they get very excited and want to tell others.
They go and interact and many times they get attacked.
They dig in and counter attack.
It takes time to understand that a person can only see the truth when the Spirit of God allows them to.
A similar thing takes place in understanding the providence of God.
You get understanding looking at the teaching of scripture.
When you get a flat tire in the rain, you at first do not remember that all things that you studied,instead you get annoyed.
Later it comes to mind that that very delay was ordained by God.

My biggest problem with general Calvinism is:
1. Ambiguity
2. Calling all who want concrete clarification of the ambiguity "ignorant".

High Calvinism does not share those two faults. High Calvinists are not ambiguous. They do not play word games to avoid the most controversial areas of the doctrine. They do not continually level the accusation of ignorance.

The most obvious example of this in general Calvinism is the elaborate and quite comical show you put on when the term "double predestination" is applied to you.
A high Calvinist fully embraces D.P.
Your show to try to avoid D.P. is a sad circus act.
(Not YOU in particular, but general Calvinists)

 

[JonC]

Why would God overcharge Christ for those whom he did not plan to save?

Maybe it was not a business transaction.

 

[Iconoclast]

My biggest problem with general Calvinism is:
1. Ambiguity
2. Calling all who want concrete clarification of the ambiguity "ignorant".

High Calvinism does not share those two faults. High Calvinists are not ambiguous. They do not play word games to avoid the most controversial areas of the doctrine. They do not continually level the accusation of ignorance.

The most obvious example of this in general Calvinism is the elaborate and quite comical show you put on when the term "double predestination" is applied to you.
A high Calvinist fully embraces D.P.
Your show to try to avoid D.P. is a sad circus act.
(Not YOU in particular, but general Calvinists)

Good comments Reynolds,

when you speak of double predestination, could you offer which verses you are thinking of?

Also, do you have any thoughts on the biblical term preterition when it comes to election? Thanks.

found this simple explanation
What is the doctrine of preterition?

 

[JonC]

My biggest problem with general Calvinism is:
1. Ambiguity
2. Calling all who want concrete clarification of the ambiguity "ignorant".

High Calvinism does not share those two faults. High Calvinists are not ambiguous. They do not play word games to avoid the most controversial areas of the doctrine. They do not continually level the accusation of ignorance.

The most obvious example of this in general Calvinism is the elaborate and quite comical show you put on when the term "double predestination" is applied to you.
A high Calvinist fully embraces D.P.
Your show to try to avoid D.P. is a sad circus act.
(Not YOU in particular, but general Calvinists)

I never understood why Calvinists often reject "double predestination ". They will say it is because God did not actively decree condemnation but (to borrow from Jonathan Edwards) this is false in the decree of an omniscient God to create.

 

[atpollard]

I never understood why Calvinists often reject "double predestination ". They will say it is because God did not actively decree condemnation but (to borrow from Jonathan Edwards) this is false in the decree of an omniscient God to create.

I can illustrate with a scripture verse why I reject SOME versions of Double Predestination:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." [John 6:44 NASB] ​

Under the 'Positive-positive' version of Double Predestination, the argument would be made that God DRAWS (to irresistibly pull like a fish drawn in a net) the 'elect' to Christ to be saved and God in exactly the same manner PUSHES (irresistibly repels) the 'reprobate' away from Christ. A theological consequence of Positive-positive Double Predestination is that God becomes the direct CAUSE of damnation (which contradicts scripture). Thus I, and many others, reject (positive-positive) Double Predestination.

Under the 'Positive-negative' version of Double Predestination, the argument would be made that God DRAWS (to irresistibly pull like a fish drawn in a net) the 'elect' to Christ to be saved and God simply leaves the 'reprobate' free to follow their own heart, their own desires, and their own, natural fallen nature ...

• [Romans 3:9-18 NASB] 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
• [John 3:19-20 NASB] 19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

A theological consequence of Positive-negative Double Predestination is that God becomes the direct CAUSE of election (which scripture teaches) and the reprobate are RESPONSIBLE for their own sins and choose not to come to Christ (which scripture also teaches). Thus I, and many others, accept (positive-negative) Double Predestination. As an aside, the WCF uses two different words in the description of God's treatment of the 'elect' and the 'reprobate' precisely because scripture does not teach that God is equally responsible for placing the righteousness in the elect and the sin in the reprobate.

 

[JonC]

I can illustrate with a scripture verse why I reject SOME versions of Double Predestination:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." [John 6:44 NASB] ​

Under the 'Positive-positive' version of Double Predestination, the argument would be made that God DRAWS (to irresistibly pull like a fish drawn in a net) the 'elect' to Christ to be saved and God in exactly the same manner PUSHES (irresistibly repels) the 'reprobate' away from Christ. A theological consequence of Positive-positive Double Predestination is that God becomes the direct CAUSE of damnation (which contradicts scripture). Thus I, and many others, reject (positive-positive) Double Predestination.

Under the 'Positive-negative' version of Double Predestination, the argument would be made that God DRAWS (to irresistibly pull like a fish drawn in a net) the 'elect' to Christ to be saved and God simply leaves the 'reprobate' free to follow their own heart, their own desires, and their own, natural fallen nature ...

• [Romans 3:9-18 NASB] 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." 13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; 14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; 15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, 16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, 17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." 18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
• [John 3:19-20 NASB] 19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

A theological consequence of Positive-negative Double Predestination is that God becomes the direct CAUSE of election (which scripture teaches) and the reprobate are RESPONSIBLE for their own sins and choose not to come to Christ (which scripture also teaches). Thus I, and many others, accept (positive-negative) Double Predestination. As an aside, the WCF uses two different words in the description of God's treatment of the 'elect' and the 'reprobate' precisely because scripture does not teach that God is equally responsible for placing the righteousness in the elect and the sin in the reprobate.

With some versons, I would agree.

Jonathan Edwards was considered my some a moderate Calvinist because of his view of predestination. If I take that position then by the act of creating men whom God through omniscience knew would perish their distruction became decreed - not that they should perish but they would.

The idea is one of a potter creating vessels with different purposes- some for wrath and some for grace. Both vessels serve God's purposes and neither conquers God.

 

[atpollard]

With some versons, I would agree.

Jonathan Edwards was considered my some a moderate Calvinist because of his view of predestination. If I take that position then by the act of creating men whom God through omniscience knew would perish their destruction became decreed - not that they should perish but they would.

The idea is one if a potter creating vessels with different purposes- some for wrath and some for grace. Both vessels serve God's purposes and neither conquers God.

It IS a tricky road to negotiate. Frankly, I find it one that I have to trust what Scripture says above my personal emotions. If it were simply up for a vote, I would prefer Libertine Free Will with Arminian Synergism and eternal annihilation for the lost. I can't really say that the idea that God creates people that he knows will be damned ... or the concept of Eternal Conscious Torment ... or the thought that God saves some and chose not to save others ... fills me with "warm and fuzzy" feelings. However, scripture really does appear to speak clearly about certain things.

Ephesians 2 goes into some detail about how God does all of the saving when it comes to dead men.

Romans makes it clear that the POTTER really does have the final say over His clay and that all of the vessels that He creates serve His purposes.

So my choice is to either accept that Scripture and God are correct, or to decide that I know better than God how he should do things.

 

[JonC]

It IS a tricky road to negotiate. Frankly, I find it one that I have to trust what Scripture says above my personal emotions. If it were simply up for a vote, I would prefer Libertine Free Will with Arminian Synergism and eternal annihilation for the lost. I can't really say that the idea that God creates people that he knows will be damned ... or the concept of Eternal Conscious Torment ... or the thought that God saves some and chose not to save others ... fills me with "warm and fuzzy" feelings. However, scripture really does appear to speak clearly about certain things.

Ephesians 2 goes into some detail about how God does all of the saving when it comes to dead men.

Romans makes it clear that the POTTER really does have the final say over His clay and that all of the vessels that He creates serve His purposes.

So my choice is to either accept that Scripture and God are correct, or to decide that I know better than God how he should do things.

Good post. I agree.

I think one problem in these types of forums is traditionalism. Some seem to choose a theological system (whether right or wrong) that they like for one reason or another. This system in turn drives their interpretation. If a passage does not quite fit they force through their theological meat grinder.

We have to allow our theology to be shapped by Scripture rather than the other way around. Sometimes it means condessing I do not understand why God did something, but I can accept Scripture telling me He did.

 

[Reynolds]

Good comments Reynolds,

when you speak of double predestination, could you offer which verses you are thinking of?

Also, do you have any thoughts on the biblical term preterition when it comes to election? Thanks.

found this simple explanation
What is the doctrine of preterition?

Verses on double predestination would be the same verses for election.

God is not limited. He is not incapable at saving all. He is not a lifeguard pulling as many drowning men as he can from the sea. He could pull all drowning men from the sea. His choice to not save is a choice to damn.
I see preterition as a doctrine to try to avoid owning the consequences of double predestination.

 

[Iconoclast]

Verses on double predestination would be the same verses for election.

God is not limited. He is not incapable at saving all. He is not a lifeguard pulling as many drowning men as he can from the sea. He could pull all drowning men from the sea. His choice to not save is a choice to damn.
I see preterition as a doctrine to try to avoid owning the consequences of double predestination.

Before I answer this fully allow me to ask you a question.
When you are in the grocery store,you go over and select five pieces of fruit.
You look the fruit over and you pick out the five pieces of fruit that you want.
When you go up to the cashier she wants to charge you for every piece of fruit in the case because she suspects that you could afford to buy them,but you did not choose them,just the five pieces.
Would that be okay?
Did you intend to not pick every piece of fruit?
Or did you select those you wanted based on your own purpose?
You could have bought all, you could have bought one, or none at all.
Being you could have bought all, why should you not pay for all?

 

[Reformed1689]

Verses on double predestination would be the same verses for election.

God is not limited. He is not incapable at saving all. He is not a lifeguard pulling as many drowning men as he can from the sea. He could pull all drowning men from the sea. His choice to not save is a choice to damn.
I see preterition as a doctrine to try to avoid owning the consequences of double predestination.

I actually tend to agree with this. It is an active choice to not select some. I don't understand why those who hold to the doctrines of grace tend to try and gloss over it.

Does God choose some? Yes. Does he make a conscious choice to not choose others? Yes. Does that mean He damns them? No. They are damned because of their sin. He chose not to save them.

 

[Reynolds]

Before I answer this fully allow me to ask you a question.
When you are in the grocery store,you go over and select five pieces of fruit.
You look the fruit over and you pick out the five pieces of fruit that you want.
When you go up to the cashier she wants to charge you for every piece of fruit in the case because she suspects that you could afford to buy them,but you did not choose them,just the five pieces.
Would that be okay?
Did you intend to not pick every piece of fruit?
Or did you select those you wanted based on your own purpose?
You could have bought all, you could have bought one, or none at all.
Being you could have bought all, why should you not pay for all?

God made all the fruit. He owns all the fruit.
God makes man and then arbitrarily chooses or refuses to choose His own creation for redemption? (I am fine with that, but it's double predestination. Some predestined to be chosen, by defacto the others pre destined to not be chosen equaling damnation.)

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reynolds,

Hello Reynolds, let's look now;

Verses on double predestination would be the same verses for election.

To study any area, we need to see if scripture teaches what we are suggesting as a doctrine.
I do not see any verse indicating an election to damnation.
Election is a positive work of God. It is something God does.

This is in dispute because the verses speaking of election are speaking of an action towards people by God.

God is not limited.

?

He is not incapable at saving all.

I do not think this statement will stand examination

He is not a lifeguard pulling as many drowning men as he can from the sea.

That image is not correct, I agree.

He could pull all drowning men from the sea

No...there is no "He Could "here.
God is infinite in His perfect and Holy Godly wisdom.
His plan and purpose cannot be improved upon.
3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )

.

His choice to not save is a choice to damn.

What verse are you thinking of where it suggests God makes a choice to damn?
who says it is a choice, an active choice to damn?
Men are born dead, in sin, Dead in Adam. God does not have to do anything toward the unbeliever, because being born dead in sin, they will go into second death in their sins, unless God has purposed to save them
Election is a positive calling to a multitude of sinners, to be saved by the Son.
God has decreed that the wages of sin, is death. he does not have to actively reprobate persons. They will all be rejected at the White Throne judgment.

I see preterition as a doctrine to try to avoid owning the consequences of double predestination.

While I understand what you are saying, those who believe this is the biblical teaching are not trying to avoid anything. They just do not see it clearly taught in scripture.

It would not bother me at all if double predestination can be shown to be taught in scripture itself. At first, i thought it was, but that was based on logic, not scripture. The three or four verses used to not demand that teaching.

 

[Iconoclast]

Reynolds,

God made all the fruit. He owns all the fruit.

Yes indeed. As Creator and has Redeemer, He owns the rights to all men;

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

jn17;
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

God makes man and then arbitrarily chooses[/QUOTE]

God does not do random, or arbitrary. he has perfect knowledge and wisdom.

[QUOTE]or refuses to choose His own creation for redemption?

God does not save all persons. It was never His intention to save all.
God cannot and will not save one more, or one less person.
The number of the saved is fixed and certain.



.

Some predestined to be chosen,

yes

by defacto the others pre destined to not be chosen equaling damnation.)

There is no verse using predestined in this way.
. Predestination is spoken of conforming all the elect to the image of The Son.

for example...I see no verse saying some men are predestined to being conformed to satan

 

[Reynolds]

"Reynolds,





No...there is no "He Could "here.
God is infinite in His perfect and Holy Godly wisdom.
His plan and purpose cannot be improved upon.
3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )

4.______These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
( 2 Timothy 2:19; John 13:18 )

.

.

I think the entire discussion hinges on the "He could." We both fully agree his purpose and plan is perfect and can not be improved upon. He is absolutely sovereign. He could make His perfect plan whatever He chose to make it. We can not change His plan. I am in no way saying that saving everyone would be a better plan. God chooses who to save. Likewise he chooses who to leave. The choice/decree/decision not to save guarantees damnation. Jesus Christ Himself sitting on the great white throne will decree the sentence of damnation.
I don't see how "double predestination" can be avoided.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think the entire discussion hinges on the "He could." We both fully agree his purpose and plan is perfect and can not be improved upon. He is absolutely sovereign. He could make His perfect plan whatever He chose to make it. We can not change His plan. I am in no way saying that saving everyone would be a better plan.

It is good we agree here

God chooses who to save.

Agreed

Likewise he chooses who to leave.

I do not see one verse that says He chooses to leave..
Again, did you pick 5 pieces of fruit, or did you choose to leave 4,389 pieces?

The choice/decree/decision not to save guarantees damnation.

No. Sin without a High Priest and a perfect propitiation, mediator and surety guarantees salvation. Men are fully responsible before God.

 

[atpollard]

Ladies and gentlemen, you see “Positive-Positive” vs “Positive-Negative” Double Predestination debate playing out before your eyes.

Positive-Positive Double Predestination:

The choice/decree/decision not to save guarantees damnation.

Positive-Negative Double Predestination:

God has decreed that the wages of sin, is death. he does not have to actively reprobate persons.

 

[Reynolds]

Does God save the non elect? No.
Does He save the Elect? Yes
He chose to not save the non elect.

Are all men guilty? Yes?
Do any deserve salvation? No.
If man has no factor in determining whether or not he is saved, then God made that choice. A choice to not rescue is a choice to damn to eternal Hell.

We can talk about fruits etc. and still come to no agreement. The example I will give will be no more decisive but is the opposite side of the coin.
Two babies are in a crib in a burning house. The fire was caused by faulty electrical. Their Father is perfectly capable of rescuing both. He chooses to rescue one and leave one to certainly die. The Father choosing not to save the child was also a choice to condemn the child to death. Though electricity may be the direct cause, choosing to not intervene is no less a cause of the baby being consumed by fire.
You can not separate the action of choosing not to save from its consequence of damnation.

 

[kyredneck]

"Ever and anon the non-Cal cries, why doth He still find fault?" Quote @Aaron

 

[Iconoclast]

Does God save the non elect? No.
Does He save the Elect? Yes
He chose to not save the non elect.

Are all men guilty? Yes?
Do any deserve salvation? No.
If man has no factor in determining whether or not he is saved, then God made that choice. A choice to not rescue is a choice to damn to eternal Hell.

We can talk about fruits etc. and still come to no agreement. The example I will give will be no more decisive but is the opposite side of the coin.
Two babies are in a crib in a burning house. The fire was caused by faulty electrical. Their Father is perfectly capable of rescuing both. He chooses to rescue one and leave one to certainly die. The Father choosing not to save the child was also a choice to condemn the child to death. Though electricity may be the direct cause, choosing to not intervene is no less a cause of the baby being consumed by fire.
You can not separate the action of choosing not to save from its consequence of damnation.

God can do what He wants with His own.
There are verses saying He set His love on His own.
I see no verse saying He stopped anyone who desired to repent and believe.
I do not see Noah fighting to keep people out of the Ark.
I do see God cutting ungodly people off, as apart from Christ They have no claim on His mercy.