2. God's Word Does Not Use This Confusing Phrase, Because It Is Unnecessary
Even if this were in some way intellectually accurate (
which I don not believe that it is), why would a conscientious Christian truly concerned for the Church, insist on using such a term which #1) wasn't used in scripture, #2) is a misnomer and decidedly confusing, and #3)and is more often than not, misapplied and misunderstood? The only logical answers I can come up with is either our own ego, our pride, or our recent Church traditions. The truth is, this term is unnecessary, mostly counterproductive, and inordinately divisive
for no good reason. So much so that many theologians who might 'intellectually' believe in what they believe some Reformed theologians mean when using the term "Double Predestination," will defer to call it that. And in my view, rightly so! For there is only one Predestination mentioned in the Bible, and that is the Predestination of Christ and His own. To label God's Sovereign right to choose some (and thu not choose others), a Double Predestination, is I believe to take undue liberties with the word of God.
God could have very easily inspired His prophets to write that the wicked were [
proorizo] or 'predestinated' to be condemned, but He didn't. Was that an oversight, or did God purposely inspire the word used for the ordaining of the wicked to condemnation as a different word? Again, the answer 'should be' obvious. Is it different by coincidence, accident, or is God making a distinction? God knows what He is doing, even when we do not. God says the Elect are those Predestinated, [
proorizo], and those condemned are Preordained [
prographo], and why can't theologians just leave it at that. Why must we invent phrases and adjectives to conjure up new ways to confuse people? Is it a misguided elitist intellectualism, or is it inspired by a sincere desire for most Christians to
come to clarity in truth? Is it to the Glory of God to confuse the many in order to receive praise of a few? As Christians are we, attempting to make a point, at the expense of missing the real point of the gospel?
I'll bet most people are unaware that The Reformers and the Puritans simply called it, "
The Doctrine of Predestination." You would have never guessed by Reformed Theologians today. They called it that because there is one Predestination. There was not this attempt to make election of the Saints and the ordaining of the wicked by their non-election to condemnation, one and the same Predestination. God ordained both, He did not Predestinate both. To which we whole heartily agree. Yes, we confess God chose to save some and not others before the foundation of the world, and this has never been in debate. But He did not predestinate anyone to be condemned, this is never declared in scripture, and we should not declare it 'as' scripture. Unfortunately, many people use the word Predestination as if it simply means God simply decided. As in, God decided to save some, and decided not to save others. But God didn't use the word decided, or ordained, or appointed, because the word Predestination delineates more than that, as illustrated in it's use for only the elect.
So often when we read what many of these theologians who speak of "Double Predestination" write, it is more times than not a mostly Biblical doctrine. But it's truth is hidden in unadvisedly unbiblical clothing. The value of these writings are often overshadowed and obscured by these valueless terms like Double Predestination" and "Double Election." We who believe in Predestination most certainly believe in the destiny of the non-elect being ordained by God from before, because God is sovereign and knows all, but He did not Predestinate them unto condemnation. More than semantics, it is a mindset of what is right and wrong. Playing word games in insisting that, "
if God allowed it, then He Predestinated it," is of no value and is certainly self-serving. It should be self-evident that allowing something to happen is not the same as Predestining it to happen. While it may 'seem' to be valid to speak against the belief that God only determines those who will be saved, upon closer evaluation we understand that "ALL" were to be condemned, and God 'did' determine those to be saved out of them. And in doing this, the rest, by God's immutability, are ordained to remain in their condemned state. God didn't add anything, He didn't put on an extra condemnation, they were all under condemnation for their sin to start with.
We know that the Bible is it's own interpreter, and the scriptures their own dictionary. Thus we can determine what God intends in His use of the word Predestination by where and how 'He' uses it. And in humility and in being honest with ourselves (which is rare these days), when we see that God always uses it in context of Christ and His elect, then why would we use it in context of the condemned? God has not done this, so are we wiser than God, or just plain stubborn?
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/fag/double_predSearch(ctrl+E)
