Do ALL Calvinists believe In Double Predestination?

[JesusFan]

Oh come on Siberian, your giving me a head ache with this crud.....I was hoping for one of our educated clergy to distill it down to english for me:smilewinkgrin:

Think easiest way to show the differences between the Supra/Infra "mindsets" is:

IF you believe that God actively decreed ALL things to come to pass, that he is determinite in just what happened and will happen, first cause agent so to speak Supra

In this model, God determines heaven/Hell, double predestination happens, Falls of satan/Adam ordained of/by God, yet somehow he did not author the Sin...

Infra model

God has determined predestination towards His own elected ones. permissive/passive on non elect, He allows them to go where their "natural bent" takes them

Did not cause Falls of satan/Adam, but he was active in determining what would be the result from such actions, decreed that there would be some elected to eternal life in Christ, by the Cross!

So basically one sees God deceeing/causing determining all things after the pleasure of His divine Will! has basically A Will Supra

basically God has 2 Divine Wills determintive/causing permissive/allowing Infra
other God decreeing after the fact so to speak!

 

[mandym]

I believe in the second position concerning those who reject Christ due to sin/unbelief...

Why do many Arminians here hold and post that unless one holds to active double reprobabtion its "not consistant?" Either God directly causes both, or directly causes neither ssalvation/loss?

Who are these Arminians? I have not seen any yet.

 

[webdog]

God did. He is holy and all sin must be punished. That's why Jesus Christ paid for our sins on the cross. Adam sinned and we all come from Adam. (rom 5) This is all different from choosing for salvation. In other words, take election totally out of the picture for a moment. What do you have? you have people that are sinners and will go to hell for their sins. Now, add election back in and you have God choosing for salvation. Damnation is the default ending for people.

It's really not different. For monergism to truly exist it must apply equally to reprobation. You can't say God chooses who will be saved but doesn't choose who will be damned...it's a staple of inconsistency.

Also, you stated "God did". Is it really your position that God, before the advent of anything decreed to create men, some of which He would send His Son to die for, present the Gospel to, and save...yet also decreed the majority of this creation He would not send His Son to, present the Gospel to and leave them utterly helpless as you cannot truly repent? How is God active with the "elect"...but then just throws up his hands to the non and state "oh well, I'll leave them to themselves since they did not choose something I never gave them the ability or means to choose"?

 

[allinall]

I will ask you this Allinall because Im a fairly new Christian....What is meant by "supra-infra mindset" ? Are you speaking of a fatalist or that God's opnipitance requires that his hand is in everything. Frankly both the Westminster Confessions & the 1689 Confessions of Faith distance God from any involvement with sin, so how can somebody claim either direct or indirect involvement? Here is where I get seriously confused.

Supralapsarianism - infralapsarianism -- You don't want to know. It's just terms used for theological thoughts. It's basically man trying to determine God's mind set when He made His eternal decree. The order of things in thought etc. It's a waist of time in my mind. I agree with Dabney in that regard. http://www.pbministries.org/R. L. Dabney/Systematic Theology/chapter18.htm

The Westminster got it right. I believe Calvin is misread by some today. God is still sovereign over everything. That part is correct.

What I believe is important to understand is that the word "predestine" is only used with the elect in scripture. I believe that God "ordains" all things, but "predestine" is used with a more specific meaning in scripture. You will never see the word "predestine" with those who are reprobate in scripture. In my mind "predestine" speaks of God's effectual will (cause), while 'ordain' is used in a much more broad context and allows for both God's effectual will (cause), and His permissive will (allow). Under the title of ordain God providencially governs everything. And all these things were worked out from the foundations of the world. Salvation is an act of God (predestine), while damnation, is an act of justice towards men who by their own will rejected Him (ordained-allowed). This is all within God's eternal decree from the foundations of the world. God remains completely sovereign in all of it. Those who reject Him hold all the responsibility for their guilt.

Turretin (V1. vii. i) makes the following remark:

'Two extremes are to he avoided. First, that of defect, when an otiose permission of sin is ascribed to God. Second, that of excess, when the causality of sin is ascribed to him. Between these extremes, the orthodox hold the mean, who contend that the providence of God extends to sin in such way that he does not involuntarily permit it, as the Pelagians say, nor actively cause it as the Libertines assert, but voluntarily ordains and controls it'.

Dave

 

[convicted1]

It's really not different. For monergism to truly exist it must apply equally to reprobation. You can't say God chooses who will be saved but doesn't choose who will be damned...it's a staple of inconsistency.

Also, you stated "God did". Is it really your position that God, before the advent of anything decreed to create men, some of which He would send His Son to die for, present the Gospel to, and save...yet also decreed the majority of this creation He would not send His Son to, present the Gospel to and leave them utterly helpless as you cannot truly repent? How is God active with the "elect"...but then just throws up his hands to the non and state "oh well, I'll leave them to themselves since they did not choose something I never gave them the ability or means to choose"?

Those first two lines were what I said, but you said it mcuh better!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

Hi Dave, Have you considered Book 3, Chapter 21 of Calvin's Institutes? It seems very clear to me that Calvin believed strongly in double predestination (in the equal ultimacy sense).

http://www.calvin500.com/john-calvin/quotes-by-calvin/

“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.”

I think this pretty much settles it.....

 

[JesusFan]

http://www.calvin500.com/john-calvin/quotes-by-calvin/

“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.”

I think this pretty much settles it.....

Key phrase"In JUST punishment for their sins"

God ordained/decreed what would be the result of those who disobey him....

Not that he directly sent them there!

IF you are Arminian think of it as sort of a "corporate" election of body to hell, and by being a sinner disobeying rebellion against God getting placed in there!

 

[webdog]

Key phrase"In JUST punishment for their sins"

God ordained/decreed what would be the result of those who disobey him....

Not that he directly sent them there!

IF you are Arminian think of it as sort of a "corporate" election of body to hell, and by being a sinner disobeying rebellion against God getting placed in there!

But that is the inconsistency. If He justly punishes the reprobate He must logically justly award the elect which would demand "merit of their own"

 

[Rippon]

But that is the inconsistency. If He justly punishes the reprobate He must logically justly award the elect which would demand "merit of their own"

No. It's not inconsistent. God mercies some and hardens (passes by,reprobates) the rest.They receive justice. All of the elect are not rewarded for any "merits"! That's rubbish. They receive mercy --not justice.

 

[Skandelon]

God did. He is holy and all sin must be punished.

That is not in dispute. The dispute is the concept that God is somehow not actively or directly responsible for the Total Depraved nature of mankind from birth, when as you have stated here, "God did" ... He actively decree the judgement of God upon all mankind to be born in such a condition, if indeed such a condition exists for all mankind from birth. Thus, the concept of God merely "passing over" or "permitting" their condemnation is non-sense....He must have condemned them in Adam from birth by his active decree of judgement for their sin.

The question is, was this judgement necessary? Since Cals (at least most of them) acknowledge the sufficiency of Christ's atoning work for all men's sin, then the answer would be 'no,' it wasn't necessary. Thus, God could have not chosen to condemn all mankind to a state of hopeless condemnation from birth (Total Depravity), but for some reason we cannot know, He didn't (within the Calvinistic system).

 

[jbh28]

It's really not different. For monergism to truly exist it must apply equally to reprobation. You can't say God chooses who will be saved but doesn't choose who will be damned...it's a staple of inconsistency.

It's not inconsistant. People are not naturally in any "neutral" state. Without election, all go to hell. God actively chooses to save some. You say that logically it means he choose not to save others. True, but that doesn't mean he choose them for hell as they were already on their way there. Choosing for salvation is to move one from the path of hell to the path of heaven. All the rest are remain on the path of hell.

Also, you stated "God did". Is it really your position that God, before the advent of anything decreed to create men, some of which He would send His Son to die for, present the Gospel to, and save...yet also decreed the majority of this creation He would not send His Son to, present the Gospel to and leave them utterly helpless as you cannot truly repent? How is God active with the "elect"...but then just throws up his hands to the non and state "oh well, I'll leave them to themselves since they did not choose something I never gave them the ability or means to choose"?

their lack of ability lies in themselves. What you are asking is why does God choose some and not others. I have no idea. I only know what the Bible teaches and it doesn't tell us that. People sin of their own volition. People are saved because God saves them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's not inconsistant. People are not naturally in any "neutral" state. Without election, all go to hell. God actively chooses to save some. You say that logically it means he choose not to save others. True, but that doesn't mean he choose them for hell as they were already on their way there. Choosing for salvation is to move one from the path of hell to the path of heaven. All the rest are remain on the path of hell.

their lack of ability lies in themselves. What you are asking is why does God choose some and not others. I have no idea. I only know what the Bible teaches and it doesn't tell us that. People sin of their own volition. People are saved because God saves them.

But you see JBH, you darn Calvinists have made God into a veritable monster by not allowing everyone to go to heaven.... therefore your Calvinistic Theology is mean spirited. Far better for God to allow all access but they have to do it by a work IE Claiming Christ as their Lord & Savior. Thats the golden key to salvation. Why cant you understand it

 

[webdog]

Keep erecting them strawmen, they are easy to blow down...

 

[jbh28]

Keep erecting them strawmen, they are easy to blow down...

who were you speaking to?

 

[webdog]

Isn't it apparent? Your posts don't lack substance, some on the otherhand...

 

[convicted1]

What do YOU believe about predestination?

Here is sounds like you don't believe in it at all, as if the term is not even in the Bible.

Oh, I am a BIG believer in predestination, just not in the way my DoG Brethern do. Christ was foreordained to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth....Rev. 13:8. God foreordained the plain of salvation to save those who would believe. God never chose to "pass over" anyone, as you and others have purported. God chose to save those who would believe, and those who would not(I did not say could not) believe to punish them in torment. But they do this according to their own choosing.

Do YOU believe that hell was made for m the human race?

 

[Luke2427]

Oh, I am a BIG believer in predestination, just not in the way my DoG Brethern do. Christ was foreordained to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth....Rev. 13:8. God foreordained the plain of salvation to save those who would believe. God never chose to "pass over" anyone, as you and others have purported. God chose to save those who would believe...

and then of necessity PASSED OVER those who would not. You believe this as much as I do. you just haven't thought it through yet.

Do YOU believe that hell was made for m the human race?

Yes, along with the devil and his angels.

I made these brownies for the football team.

Oh, then you did not make them for the cheerleaders?

Yes, for them too. Just becaus I made them for the football team does not mean that I made them ONLY for the football team.

God made hell for the devil and his angels.

That does not mean that he made hell ONLY for the devil and his angels.

The Lake of Fire was most assuredly made for humans- and it is worse!

 

[Luke2427]

Keep erecting them strawmen, they are easy to blow down...

Drive-by post.

One that speeds in, attacks with ambiguity and runs away without facing confrontation.

It is one that hurls unfounded accusations- it claims something without making a case for it.

It is designed to antagonize and insult.

It has no substance- just claims without warrant.

 

[preacher4truth]

Drive-by post. One that speeds in, attacks with ambiguity and runs away without facing confrontation. It is one that hurls unfounded accusations- it claims something without making a case for it. It is designed to antagonize and insult. It has no substance- just claims without warrant.

I totally agree with you and support you on that. "Strawman." His favorite word. Typically used when he's losing, which is often, or when he can't substantiate his claims, or when he can't and refuses to answer direct arguments that prove him on thin ice theologically, so, like you say in a sense, he tucks tail after a smart aleck response.

Keep thinking brother.

(Note, I didn't call ya son this time) :laugh:

 

[Jerome]

"Strawman." His favorite word. Typically used when he's losing, which is often, or when he can't substantiate his claims, or when he can't and refuses to answer direct arguments that prove him on thin ice theologically

Yep:

That is a strawman.

this is another strawman

Strawman. . . .Try again.

This whole post is straw man.

It is also # Straw Man Argument

some straw man constructed from a total ignorance of theology which you possess

This is straw man!

When will you cease naming your straw man after me?

etc. etc. etc.