Double Predestination

[TCassidy]

I simply don't understand why so many Calvinists are inconsistent with Calvin.

Because my faith is not founded on a man but on the word of God.

I just fail to understand why so many "Calvinists" both run from it and are offended by it.

Because it is wrong. "Double Predestination" has nothing at all to do with Particular Redemption. "Double Predestination" is one of the errors of Hyper ("High") Calvinism. (Hyper means to go above or beyond.)

It appears that It was the teaching of Calvin.

Some may perceive it to be a teaching of Calvin, but I disagree with that assessment, having read parts of "The Institutes" in both Latin and French. (I have never read The Institutes all the way though as I lack the interest to do so.)

It is the teaching of many that were classically referred to as "high Calvinists."

Yes, "High" or "Hyper" Calvinists. Those who go beyond even Calvin in their doctrine.

I am not sure why those obsessed with the discussion of Soteriology seem so focused on John Calvin and his writings. Those of us who are Particular Baptists don't get our doctrine from his writings nor do we consider his writings to be infallible nor inerrant.

We disagree with much of what Calvin believed and wrote about. We disagree with infant sprinkling. We disagree with Presbyterian Church Government. We disagree with his views of Church/State. We disagree with his (and most of Christendom's in that day and age) use of force or threat of force to get people to reject heresy and accepted what the inquisitor considered "orthodoxy."

So why keep bringing up Calvin? Let me give you an example of how ludicrous it is to keep bringing up Calvin.

You are a Christian. You follow Jesus. Wonderful. I have a neighbor down the street who is Hispanic. His name is Jesus (Hay-soos). He is a drunk and a womanizer. Are you, a follower of Jesus, also a drunk and a womanizer? Of course not! Your faith has nothing to do with a guy named Jesus who lives down the street from me, just as my faith has nothing to do with a French former Catholic who lived in the 16th century.

 

[TCassidy]

When Adam sinned, those not predestinated, he just left them where they were.

And this is what those who rail against Particular Redemption fail to understand. Every time the word "predestined," or one of its cognates, is used in the bible it is always in a positive context. It is NEVER used in a negative context, IE predestined to hell, or torment, ect.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because my faith is not founded on a man but on the word of God.

Because it is wrong. "Double Predestination" has nothing at all to do with Particular Redemption. "Double Predestination" is one of the errors of Hyper ("High") Calvinism. (Hyper means to go above or beyond.)

Some may perceive it to be a teaching of Calvin, but I disagree with that assessment, having read parts of "The Institutes" in both Latin and French. (I have never read The Institutes all the way though as I lack the interest to do so.)

Yes, "High" or "Hyper" Calvinists. Those who go beyond even Calvin in their doctrine.

I am not sure why those obsessed with the discussion of Soteriology seem so focused on John Calvin and his writings. Those of us who are Particular Baptists don't get our doctrine from his writings nor do we consider his writings to be infallible nor inerrant.

We disagree with much of what Calvin believed and wrote about. We disagree with infant sprinkling. We disagree with Presbyterian Church Government. We disagree with his views of Church/State. We disagree with his (and most of Christendom's in that day and age) use of force or threat of force to get people to reject heresy and accepted what the inquisitor considered "orthodoxy."

So why keep bringing up Calvin? Let me give you an example of how ludicrous it is to keep bringing up Calvin.

You are a Christian. You follow Jesus. Wonderful. I have a neighbor down the street who is Hispanic. His name is Jesus (Hay-soos). He is a drunk and a womanizer. Are you, a follower of Jesus, also a drunk and a womanizer? Of course not! Your faith has nothing to do with a guy named Jesus who lives down the street from me, just as my faith has nothing to do with a French former Catholic who lived in the 16th century.

I do not agree with all things held by calvin, but his Institutes and his commentaries are worthwile to have and to use though!

 

[Reynolds]

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

Why not lose the name?

 

[Reynolds]

Because my faith is not founded on a man but on the word of God.

Because it is wrong. "Double Predestination" has nothing at all to do with Particular Redemption. "Double Predestination" is one of the errors of Hyper ("High") Calvinism. (Hyper means to go above or beyond.)

Some may perceive it to be a teaching of Calvin, but I disagree with that assessment, having read parts of "The Institutes" in both Latin and French. (I have never read The Institutes all the way though as I lack the interest to do so.)

Yes, "High" or "Hyper" Calvinists. Those who go beyond even Calvin in their doctrine.

I am not sure why those obsessed with the discussion of Soteriology seem so focused on John Calvin and his writings. Those of us who are Particular Baptists don't get our doctrine from his writings nor do we consider his writings to be infallible nor inerrant.

We disagree with much of what Calvin believed and wrote about. We disagree with infant sprinkling. We disagree with Presbyterian Church Government. We disagree with his views of Church/State. We disagree with his (and most of Christendom's in that day and age) use of force or threat of force to get people to reject heresy and accepted what the inquisitor considered "orthodoxy."

So why keep bringing up Calvin? Let me give you an example of how ludicrous it is to keep bringing up Calvin.

You are a Christian. You follow Jesus. Wonderful. I have a neighbor down the street who is Hispanic. His name is Jesus (Hay-soos). He is a drunk and a womanizer. Are you, a follower of Jesus, also a drunk and a womanizer? Of course not! Your faith has nothing to do with a guy named Jesus who lives down the street from me, just as my faith has nothing to do with a French former Catholic who lived in the 16th century.

I guess I keep bringing up Calvin because I am discussing Calvinism. It appears it would be a wise move for Calvinists to change their name and quit calling themselves Calvinists. Might un-muddy the waters a bit.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Uh do you know what a strawman is. The accusation in and of itself is pretty clear. He is accusing me of making an argument I am not making. I get tired of being accused by cals/ reformed/ parts of saying things I have not said nor intended to say by them. I am not the only one.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not lose the name?

it has gained traction for centuries, so is well accepted as a term to denote certain beliefs. I tend to say also reformed/particular Baptist!

 

[Yeshua1]

I guess I keep bringing up Calvin because I am discussing Calvinism. It appears it would be a wise move for Calvinists to change their name and quit calling themselves Calvinists. Might un-muddy the waters a bit.

What muddies the weater here is many use reformed/Cal;vinist to mean same thing, but actually does not!

 

[TCassidy]

Uh do you know what a strawman is.

Yes.

The accusation in and of itself is pretty clear.

Yes, but all it is is an accusation. Now you need to back it up with evidence.

He is accusing me of making an argument I am not making.

Then explain that.

I get tired of being accused by cals/ reformed/ parts of saying things I have not said nor intended to say by them.

Then present that with evidence to support it.

I am not the only one.

Who else?

 

[TCassidy]

I guess I keep bringing up Calvin because I am discussing Calvinism.

And that is your error. Equating "calvinism" with John Calvin.

It appears it would be a wise move for Calvinists to change their name and quit calling themselves Calvinists.

I have tried and am still accused of being a follower of John Calvin rather than being an Historic Particular Baptist.

Might un-muddy the waters a bit.

I didn't muddy them. You do so by trying to equate "calvinism" with John Calvin. The two do not equate any more than "following Jesus" equated to walking behind my Hispanic neighbor Jesus.

 

[TCassidy]

Why not lose the name?

Why don't you stop (mis)using it?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Both single and double predestination, as taught by Reformed/Calvinists, are not in the Holy Bible, and therefore false doctrines. John 3:16 clearly is against any such teachings, as are many other Bible passages.

 

[steaver]

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.

Except for Adam. He is the exception to Calvinism. Adam was given the choice to live or die as set before him. Adam could have chosen to live and reject the forbidden fruit. Adam is the only one who had the power to override God's sovereign will. Thus, God was not always Sovereign in the way Calvinist portray His sovereignty. Was it God's sovereign will that Adam should choose life, or death?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

It's just a shorthand for believing in the Doctrines of Grace.
This is from the Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith.
III:3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34], to the praise of His glorious grace [Ephesians 1:5-6]. Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice [Romans 9:22-23; Jude 4].

 

[Reynolds]

Why don't you stop (mis)using it?

I am not misusing it. What is the sub forum called? Why is it called that? Who was Calvinism named after?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Except for Adam. He is the exception to Calvinism. Adam was given the choice to live or die as set before him. Adam could have chosen to live and reject the forbidden fruit. Adam is the only one who had the power to override God's sovereign will. Thus, God was not always Sovereign in the way Calvinist portray His sovereignty. Was it God's sovereign will that Adam should choose life, or death?

Adam is the only one who had the power to override God's sovereign will

Which "God" do you have in mind here? Surely not the God of the Holy Bible? Forget how "Calvinism" portrays God's Sovereignty, the Word of God, the Holy Bible is very clear that God IS always 100% Sovereign, and NO human has ever, or can ever "over-ride" this! What you are suggesting is blatant heresy.

 

[Reynolds]

And that is your error. Equating "calvinism" with John Calvin.

I have tried and am still accused of being a follower of John Calvin rather than being an Historic Particular Baptist.

I didn't muddy them. You do so by trying to equate "calvinism" with John Calvin. The two do not equate any more than "following Jesus" equated to walking behind my Hispanic neighbor Jesus.

Calvinism is named for John Calvin. Your Hispanic neighbor Jesus (Hesus) is irrelevant.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It's just a shorthand for believing in the Doctrines of Grace.
This is from the Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith.
III:3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34], to the praise of His glorious grace [Ephesians 1:5-6]. Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice [Romans 9:22-23; Jude 4].

show me from the Bible, where and how God can be "glorified" in the damnation of lost sinners? The Bible very clearly says in places like Ezekiel 18, that God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (18:23). What this confessions does, is to make God into a monster!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

What some Reformed really believe about the God of the Holy Bible: (like the "confession" mentioned in #54)

"One student asked Dr. Gerstner, “How can I be happy in heaven if I’m aware that one of my loved ones is in hell?” Dr. Gerstner responded: “Don’t you know that when you are in heaven you will be so sanctified that you could look at your own mother in hell and rejoice in the display of the justice of God.”

Does anyone know where in the Bible this is taught?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

show me from the Bible, where and how God can be "glorified" in the damnation of lost sinners? The Bible very clearly says in places like Ezekiel 18, that God "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (18:23). What this confessions does, is to make God into a monster!

Romans 9:22-23; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; Revelation 16:5-7.