Double Predestination

[Revmitchell]

So GOD didn't choose to make us alive while we were still dead in sins, because of His love and to show off His grace through His handiwork (us) according to a pre-existing plan?

[Eph 2:4-10 NIV] 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
​

Let me get my "Arminian Highlighter" (Sharpie) and fix that.

Strawman

 

[atpollard]

Strawman

Evasion of the point.

 

[Revmitchell]

Evasion of the point.

No no, pointing out that you have used a strawman argument and therefore your point is invalid is not evasion.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Are you a Calvinist? If so, maybe you can elaborate on what Calvin meant.

I know you're not asking me, but I feel moved to comment.
I'm sure it's been explained here about 100 times, but the term 'Calvinist' has become a description of someone who believes in Particular Redemption, even if he disagrees with Calvin's teaching on everything else, or has never heard of him before. In the same way, people who believe in General Redemption are called Arminians even if they think the name has got something to do with Armenia.

I refer to myself as a Calvinist, although I disagree with Calvin on paedobaptism, Presbyterianism, burning Servetus and probably a shed load of other things. I am also no great expert on Calvin and have only read snippets of the Institutes. But I do believe in Particular Redemption.

Therefore don't ask me about Calvin, but feel free to ask me about Particular Redemption.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The orthodox Reformed view of Double Predestination is that all men are responsible for their own sin (God forces no one to sin) but that God chose to save some and, as an inevitable consequence, also chose to leave some in their self-created state of "lost" (reprobate is the term we like to use for those not chosen by God for salvation). God is thus active in salvation (God saves) and passive in damnation (God leaves sinners free to sin without interference from Him).

How on EARTH can God be active in salvation and passive in damnation? To save IS to free from damnation.

God passively lets sinners sin without interference from Himself? Blech!!

Cain and Abel were both sinners. Abel is a member of the roll call of the faithful in Hebrews 11 - ergo, we would call him "saved" or righteous however you understand that to work for Old Testament people. In other words, Abel will be in heaven.

Somewhere, somehow God was "active" in Abel's life - drawing him to Himself. Abel understood that and somewhere, somehow that we are not told of followed God.

God also drew Cain to Himself. He actively told Cain how to be "accepted". Not my words, the Bible's words.

• God warned Cain of sin in general and its threat.
• God warned Cain of his specific sins.
• God gave Cain the way of escape - "Do what is right; you must be the master over sin."

That doesn't sound passive to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

I ran up on a quote of Calvin tonight in my reading.

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3.21.5. ↩︎

Why do so many modern Calvinists become offended when Arminians use the term "double predestination"? Calvin plainly states and embraces double predestination in this quote. He refers to it multiple times as "predestined to reprobation."

This is a tough thing to fully comprehend, but Dr Sproul does a nice job explaining this in some detail!
"Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

 

[Felipe Rios]

I guess I see a slight difference maybe, but I don't exactly understand it.
Would It be accurate to say Calvin believed in double predestination?

That what he said in that quote, didn't he?

 

[Yeshua1]

I ran up on a quote of Calvin tonight in my reading.

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death."

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3.21.5. ↩︎

Why do so many modern Calvinists become offended when Arminians use the term "double predestination"? Calvin plainly states and embraces double predestination in this quote. He refers to it multiple times as "predestined to reprobation."

Also, please remember that there are different type of calvinist, as some are like myself, holding to covenent theology and 5 point sof Grace, but not into infant baptist, nor the church layourt calvin was!

 

[TCassidy]

Given the above statement of Calvin, why do those who proudly identify as "Calvinists" come off the rails in uproar when any non-Calvinist says Calvinism embraces "double predestination"?

The problem lies in the different understanding of the Sovereignty of God. I have tried several times to explain it as simply as I can but for some reason those who have an irrational hatred of what they (wrongly) call "Calvinism" don't seem willing or capable of understanding.

God is Sovereign. Period. If He is not Sovereign, He is not God. So, being Sovereign, everything that happens happens in His will. But His will is not unilaterally simplistic. His decretal will is absolute. What He decrees will come to pass without exception. But there is also His permissive will. He permits the sin and consequences for sin in mankind. It is not His will that man sin, and suffer the consequences, in the causative sense, but He allows it as a lesson for mankind regarding the consequences of sin.

And that is what Dr. Reymond is saying in the above quote, and it is what John Calvin is saying in the OP quote. All that happens falls under the Sovereignty of God, but we must have a deeper understanding of His will in order to understand that His will is two fold, that which He decrees to come to pass and that which He allows to come to pass.

When we come to understand the difference between His decretal will and His permissive will, the confusion goes away.

 

[TCassidy]

That what he said in that quote, didn't he?

No. It is not what he said.

 

[TCassidy]

That doesn't sound passive to me.

I think you may have misunderstood what is meant by "passive."

Was God incapable of saving Cain? Or was Cain's will stronger than God's?

Could God have saved Cain if He wanted to (active)? Or did He allow (passive) Cain to reject His direction?

 

[TCassidy]

No no, pointing out that you have used a strawman argument and therefore your point is invalid is not evasion.

Yes, it is. Your charge is without supporting evidence. Just you saying so is not evidence. Support your charge by pointing out what about his post causes you to believe it is a straw man argument.

 

[Reynolds]

I know you're not asking me, but I feel moved to comment.
I'm sure it's been explained here about 100 times, but the term 'Calvinist' has become a description of someone who believes in Particular Redemption, even if he disagrees with Calvin's teaching on everything else, or has never heard of him before. In the same way, people who believe in General Redemption are called Arminians even if they think the name has got something to do with Armenia.

I refer to myself as a Calvinist, although I disagree with Calvin on paedobaptism, Presbyterianism, burning Servetus and probably a shed load of other things. I am also no great expert on Calvin and have only read snippets of the Institutes. But I do believe in Particular Redemption.

Therefore don't ask me about Calvin, but feel free to ask me about Particular Redemption.

Why would you call yourself a Calvinist? Why identify with Calvin and his many errors?

 

[Reynolds]

That what he said in that quote, didn't he?

The way I read it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why would you call yourself a Calvinist? Why identify with Calvin and his many errors?

Calvinism is the accepted theological term to denote one who holds to the truth of Bilbical election/predestination of the saints.

 

[Yeshua1]

The lord has no need to determine to elect the lost to hell, as the result of the fall of Adam is that all of us were already headed down that pathway willingly. None of us on our owqn can get saved, so that is why he needed to "step in" and have His chosen ones to be saved out for Himslf now.

 

[Reynolds]

The problem lies in the different understanding of the Sovereignty of God. I have tried several times to explain it as simply as I can but for some reason those who have an irrational hatred of what they (wrongly) call "Calvinism" don't seem willing or capable of understanding.

God is Sovereign. Period. If He is not Sovereign, He is not God. So, being Sovereign, everything that happens happens in His will. But His will is not unilaterally simplistic. His decretal will is absolute. What He decrees will come to pass without exception. But there is also His permissive will. He permits the sin and consequences for sin in mankind. It is not His will that man sin, and suffer the consequences, in the causative sense, but He allows it as a lesson for mankind regarding the consequences of sin.

And that is what Dr. Reymond is saying in the above quote, and it is what John Calvin is saying in the OP quote. All that happens falls under the Sovereignty of God, but we must have a deeper understanding of His will in order to understand that His will is two fold, that which He decrees to come to pass and that which He allows to come to pass.

When we come to understand the difference between His decretal will and His permissive will, the confusion goes away.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate your patience in explaining it. As I have said, I respect the Doctrine of Calvinism. I simply don't understand why so many Calvinists are inconsistent with Calvin. I can understand John Macarthur. Unless he has changed, he straight up owns double predestination. To be honest, I don't hate double predestination. It is man receiving the judgment of sin. I just fail to understand why so many "Calvinists" both run from it and are offended by it. It appears that It was the teaching of Calvin. It is the teaching of many that were classically referred to as "high Calvinists."

 

[tyndale1946]

I understand what you are saying and appreciate your patience in explaining it. As I have said, I respect the Doctrine of Calvinism. I simply don't understand why so many Calvinists are inconsistent with Calvin. I can understand John Macarthur. Unless he has changed, he straight up owns double predestination. To be honest, I don't hate double predestination. It is man receiving the judgment of sin. I just fail to understand why so many "Calvinists" both run from it and are offended by it. It appears that It was the teaching of Calvin. It is the teaching of many that were classically referred to as "high Calvinists."

Well I heard an Old Line Baptist preacher put it this way, some say God predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal damnation... Well he said they are half right, he predestined those to eternal life, who were chosen by the Father and given to his Son in eternity... When Adam sinned, those not predestinated, he just left them where they were... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand what you are saying and appreciate your patience in explaining it. As I have said, I respect the Doctrine of Calvinism. I simply don't understand why so many Calvinists are inconsistent with Calvin. I can understand John Macarthur. Unless he has changed, he straight up owns double predestination. To be honest, I don't hate double predestination. It is man receiving the judgment of sin. I just fail to understand why so many "Calvinists" both run from it and are offended by it. It appears that It was the teaching of Calvin. It is the teaching of many that were classically referred to as "high Calvinists."

Again, just shows that Calivinsm does not mean having to accepting all things held to by John Calvin himself!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well I heard an Old Line Baptist preacher put it this way, some say God predestined some to eternal life and some to eternal damnation... Well he said they are half right, he predestined those to eternal life, who were chosen by the Father and given to his Son in eternity... When Adam sinned, those not predestinated, he just left them where they were... Brother Glen

yes, as predestination refers to just the Elect in christ and how God relates to them....