Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

[ivdavid]

There is no SINGLE PREDESTINATION. Calvinists need to make peace with the fact that if salvation is 100% about God choosing some, then the inescapable consequence of God not choosing a fallen man is that that man will not be saved.

You may have misunderstood single predestination there. It never concludes that the non-elect are finally saved. It only holds that they weren't predestined for condemnation before the ages - not that they escape it thereafter.

John Bunyan makes this same point when he says "there is a great difference between my refusing to make of such a tree a pillar in my house - and of condemning it unto the fire to be burned."

 

[ivdavid]

there is no logical inconsistency in the argument, just a different Ordo Salutis for the verses in Scripture.

The logical inconsistency is not in the argument but in the first premises - how is prevenient grace different from regenerative grace that they can be distinguished separately by the arminians?

 

[atpollard]

The logical inconsistency is not in the argument but in the first premises - how is prevenient grace different from regenerative grace that they can be distinguished separately by the arminians?

I am getting outside of my wheelhouse here (since I am not a Wesleyan Arminian), but just spitballing a guess here ...

We all have the empirical example that we are "born again" when we repent and are baptized with water (as was commanded in Acts 2). That empirical example is followed by a promise (and reality) that we will receive the Holy Spirit. Thus from a "human experience" point of view, our salvation is clearly a two part process. Yet scripture promises that all of salvation is of God (Eph 2:8-9), so a Wesleyan Arminian might argue that God grants TWO saving graces ...

• a Prevenient Grace that empowers man to see his sin, enabling man to repent and confess if man so chooses.
• a Saving Grace that indwells those that choose to respond with the Holy Spirit.

Both "Prevenient" and "Saving" grace are "regenerative". The first allows man to come to justification, and the second empowers man to walk in sanctification.

If you want more details, I suggest consulting the writings of John Wesley on the subject. He gave it far more thought than I have.

 

[atpollard]

You may have misunderstood single predestination there. It never concludes that the non-elect are finally saved. It only holds that they weren't predestined for condemnation before the ages - not that they escape it thereafter.

John Bunyan makes this same point when he says "there is a great difference between my refusing to make of such a tree a pillar in my house - and of condemning it unto the fire to be burned."

There are exactly FIVE logical possibilities (setting aside what are or are not Scriptural possibilities) ...

• Single Predestination
  1. God chooses to save all
  2. God chooses to damn all
  3. God chooses some to be saved and the rest can save themselves by their works.
  4. God chooses some to be damned and the rest can save themselves by their works.
• Double Predestination:
  
  1. God saves some and damns the rest.

Now let us examine the scripture for SINGLE PREDESTINATION:

1. Will everyone go to Heaven?
2. Will everyone go to Hell?
3. Can a man be saved by his own efforts apart from God?
4. Can a man be saved by his own efforts apart from God, unless God blocks his salvation?

There are no Biblical forms of SINGLE PREDESTINATION. The very act of choosing some leaves those "not chosen" with no possibility of saving themselves ... thus it destines them (through their own fallen nature) for vessels of wrath. That is DOUBLE PREDESTINATION.

 

[Reformed1689]

There is no SINGLE PREDESTINATION. Calvinists need to make peace with the fact that if salvation is 100% about God choosing some, then the inescapable consequence of God not choosing a fallen man is that that man will not be saved. Romans claims that is the right of the Potter.

I have no problem affirming this.

 

[ivdavid]

There are exactly FIVE logical possibilities (setting aside what are or are not Scriptural possibilities) ...

• Single Predestination
  1. God chooses to save all
  2. God chooses to damn all
  3. God chooses some to be saved and the rest can save themselves by their works.
  4. God chooses some to be damned and the rest can save themselves by their works.

This is a good starting point for a discussion on possibilities. I'd say you've mixed up the concept of predestination and the process of salvation there - i'll explain why and we can work from there.

Predestination is to decree your end destiny or destination pre- anyone's good or evil. And logically there are only 2 destinies - life or death. So again logically, there are only 3 options for God to choose over a person -
1. God decrees end destiny of life before any of his good or evil.
2. God decrees end destiny of death before any of his good or evil.
3. God does not decree anything before any of his good or evil, passing over and reserving to decree after his good or evil.

Would you agree with this so far, just from a logical standpoint?

If so, moving further to the process of fulfilling such predestination in a person -
1. Predestined or Promised Salvation requires God to show unconditional mercy and give a new heart and mind as well as to rebirth him in a new nature so as to assuredly save him.
2. Predestined Condemnation requires God to, at minimum, do nothing at all for he will work out condemnation for himself anyway apart from God working in him.
3. No Predestination of either allows for God to show conditional mercy to him in giving him a new heart and mind, not assuredly saving him by birthing him in a new nature (since God's made no such Promise to do so as with Predestined Salvation above), but providing him the means of Salvation through faith in Christ alone which he must self-determine to endure in to the end. This is to prove that all flesh is unprofitable even when the means for salvation are provided in all sincerity.

Single Predestination holds the above 1. for all the elect and the above 3. for all the non-elect. Where is the logical or Scriptural fallacy - in fact 3. above factors in the Hebrews falling away passages unlike calvinism.

Can a man be saved by his own efforts apart from God?

This is the flaw in your framing the question - Single Predestination never implied that the non-elect are saved, it only says God didn't decree his condemnation pre- his works of good or evil. Do you see the precise nuance here?

 

[Yeshua1]

There are exactly FIVE logical possibilities (setting aside what are or are not Scriptural possibilities) ...

• Single Predestination
  1. God chooses to save all
  2. God chooses to damn all
  3. God chooses some to be saved and the rest can save themselves by their works.
  4. God chooses some to be damned and the rest can save themselves by their works.
• Double Predestination:
  1. God saves some and damns the rest.

Now let us examine the scripture for SINGLE PREDESTINATION:

1. Will everyone go to Heaven?
2. Will everyone go to Hell?
3. Can a man be saved by his own efforts apart from God?
4. Can a man be saved by his own efforts apart from God, unless God blocks his salvation?

There are no Biblical forms of SINGLE PREDESTINATION. The very act of choosing some leaves those "not chosen" with no possibility of saving themselves ... thus it destines them (through their own fallen nature) for vessels of wrath. That is DOUBLE PREDESTINATION.

There is the RCSproul view also, in that God does not determine in exact same fashion the destiny of saved and lost, as He directly determines to intervene and save out His elect from sinful humanity, but bypasses the rest and determines their end result of being in hell, but does not cause them to go there, as they still choose that state by rejecting Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no problem affirming this.

RC Sproul affirmed though single predestinantion I believe!

 

[Reformed1689]

RC Sproul affirmed though single predestinantion I believe!

Actually no. "Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually no. "Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Thanks for that link, as read it years ago, was I right then in the fact that he did not see double predestination as being God directly cousin saved and lost to same extent and in same fashion?

 

[atpollard]

Thanks for that link, as read it years ago, was I right then in the fact that he did not see double predestination as being God directly cousin saved and lost to same extent and in same fashion?

That gets into ...

• Positive-Positive Schema (Double Predestination): God is equally active in His saving of some and His damning of others. God draws the saints towards himself and actively "pushes" the damned away. (rejected by R.C.Sproul)
• Positive-Negative Schema (Double Predestination): God is active in His saving of some, and passive in His damning of others. God draws saints towards himself, and passively leaves the rest to follow their own destructive desires. (supported by R.C.Sproul)

Both are about DOUBLE PREDESTINATION because God is still responsible for who spends eternity in which destination. It was SINGLE PREDESTINATION that poses logical self-contradictions.

 

[atpollard]

1. God decrees end destiny of life before any of his good or evil.
2. God decrees end destiny of death before any of his good or evil.
3. God does not decree anything before any of his good or evil, passing over and reserving to decree after his good or evil.

Would you agree with this so far, just from a logical standpoint?

God could only do one of those for any specific individual, but God could do different choices for different individuals. (Speaking from a logical standpoint).

God could decree (1) for half the people and (2) for the other half.
God could decree (1) for half the people and (3) for the other half.
Etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

That gets into ...

• Positive-Positive Schema (Double Predestination): God is equally active in His saving of some and His damning of others. God draws the saints towards himself and actively "pushes" the damned away. (rejected by R.C.Sproul)
• Positive-Negative Schema (Double Predestination): God is active in His saving of some, and passive in His damning of others. God draws saints towards himself, and passively leaves the rest to follow their own destructive desires. (supported by R.C.Sproul)

Both are about DOUBLE PREDESTINATION because God is still responsible for who spends eternity in which destination. It was SINGLE PREDESTINATION that poses logical self-contradictions.

I think so called Supra/High Calvinism holds with option 1, I agree with Sproul on this!

 

[atpollard]

If so, moving further to the process of fulfilling such predestination in a person -
1. Predestined or Promised Salvation requires God to show unconditional mercy and give a new heart and mind as well as to rebirth him in a new nature so as to assuredly save him.

3. No Predestination of either allows for God to show conditional mercy to him in giving him a new heart and mind, not assuredly saving him by birthing him in a new nature (since God's made no such Promise to do so as with Predestined Salvation above), but providing him the means of Salvation through faith in Christ alone which he must self-determine to endure in to the end. This is to prove that all flesh is unprofitable even when the means for salvation are provided in all sincerity.

Single Predestination holds the above 1. for all the elect and the above 3. for all the non-elect. Where is the logical or Scriptural fallacy - in fact 3. above factors in the Hebrews falling away passages unlike calvinism.

How does a non-elect man obtain a new nature apart from the gift of God?
If God ultimately gives it to him, then how did an OMNISCIENT God not previously know that God would eventually give that person a new nature (making them one of the "foreknown" and "predestined" ... "elect".)

If one accepts (3), the "no predestination" option, then "single" vs "double" predestination becomes moot.

1. Either man can save himself or man cannot save himself.
2. If man can save himself, then GRACE is unnecessary (salvation can be earned by merit).
3. If man cannot save himself, then the decision by God to save or not save someone determines their eternal destiny. Omniscient God must know who God will save; that makes it DOUBLE predestination.

 

[Yeshua1]

How does a non-elect man obtain a new nature apart from the gift of God?
If God ultimately gives it to him, then how did an OMNISCIENT God not previously know that God would eventually give that person a new nature (making them one of the "foreknown" and "predestined" ... "elect".)

If one accepts (3), the "no predestination" option, then "single" vs "double" predestination becomes moot.

1. Either man can save himself or man cannot save himself.
2. If man can save himself, then GRACE is unnecessary (salvation can be earned by merit).
3. If man cannot save himself, then the decision by God to save or not save someone determines their eternal destiny. Omniscient God must know who God will save; that makes it DOUBLE predestination.

How would God work into a sinner temp enternal life, can such a thing even exist?

 

[ivdavid]

God could only do one of those for any specific individual, but God could do different choices for different individuals. (Speaking from a logical standpoint).

God could decree (1) for half the people and (2) for the other half.
God could decree (1) for half the people and (3) for the other half.
Etc.

As confirmation, yes, we're on the same page.
(1) for the elect and (2) for the non-elect is double predestination.
(1) for the elect and (3) for the non-elect is single predestination.

If one accepts (3), the "no predestination" option, then "single" vs "double" predestination becomes moot.

Why does it become moot? As stated above, if you accept (3) for the non-elect alone and (1) for the elect - that is Single Predestination, right? It becomes moot only if you accept it for all people uniformly, but that's not what single predestination holds. Do you still see this differently?

 

[JonC]

Six hour warning - thread will close sometime after 2am EST.

 

[atpollard]

As confirmation, yes, we're on the same page.
(1) for the elect and (2) for the non-elect is double predestination.
(1) for the elect and (3) for the non-elect is single predestination.


Why does it become moot? As stated above, if you accept (3) for the non-elect alone and (1) for the elect - that is Single Predestination, right? It becomes moot only if you accept it for all people uniformly, but that's not what single predestination holds. Do you still see this differently?

Can a non-elect save himself without God? That is what (1) and (3) is proposing as “Single Predestination”.

 

[atpollard]

Why does it become moot? As stated above, if you accept (3) for the non-elect alone and (1) for the elect - that is Single Predestination, right? It becomes moot only if you accept it for all people uniformly, but that's not what single predestination holds. Do you still see this differently?

I agree that (3) for all would make predestination moot.
I agree that (1) for the elect and (3) for the non-elect would be “Single Predestination”.

However, the non-elect must save themselves without God, or their salvation becomes (1). It is an impossibility for man to save himself without God, so Single Predestination is an impossibility. The act of not choosing for (1) people that cannot save themselves means that the non-elect are (2).

 

[ivdavid]

I agree that (1) for the elect and (3) for the non-elect would be “Single Predestination”.

It is an impossibility for man to save himself without God, so Single Predestination is an impossibility.

I've mentioned your flaw in reasoning here twice already on this thread and I suppose this needs to be cleared first before further progress is made.

This isn't a scriptural argument but a logical argument alone -
If I choose green, it will rain.
If I choose red, it will not rain.
We observe it is not raining.
Hence you conclude that I have chosen red.

Do you see the logical flaw in this conclusion? You cannot affirm the consequent as per the rules of logic. It could be not raining even when I had chosen purple or simply not chosen any color at all.

The current argument is presented for comparison likewise over a single person -
If God chooses to predestine salvation, man is saved.
If God chooses to predestine condemnation, man is not saved.
We observe this particular man is not saved.
Hence you conclude that God has chosen to predestine condemnation.

I'm arguing that man can not be saved even when God has simply not chosen to predestine this non-elect man's destiny at all. Therein I have not asserted that man can save himself but merely stated that his condemnation needn't have been predestined. And given that God definitely does predestine salvation for all the elect, it does validate Single Predestination. Do you still see it as an impossibility?

If man can save himself, then GRACE is unnecessary (salvation can be earned by merit).

A lot to unpack here independently - once we agree on the above, we can move on to this. Feel free to continue in a new thread after this is closed.