Double Predestination

[Saved-By-Grace]

Yes.

any Scripture references?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Those He came to save were those of His own flock, His own sheep!

is the κόσμος in John 3:16, only the "elect"?

 

[1689Dave]

any Scripture references?

“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:14–24)

 

[atpollard]

Here is the main Calvinist, John Calvin ...

A false premise.
The new Reformers were called "Calvinists" by the Lutherans as a derogatory term intended to reflect that they followed John Calvin rather than the Bible. The truth was that the new wave of reformers believed that the Lutherans had retained too much of Roman Catholic teaching that was still contrary to scripture. The term "Calvinist" gained traction and eventually became roughly synonymous with both "T.U.L.I.P." and Reformed Theology in the mind of common people, so it eventually lost its original negative connotation and became more of a descriptive shorthand.

A more accurate source of general Reformed Theological beliefs would be found in places like the Synod of Dort or the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession of Faith or the 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith. John Calvin was one of only many Reformed Theologians throughout the years and is certainly not "the main Calvinist".

 

[atpollard]

There is NO Double Predestination given to us in that Confession.

Could you define "Single Predestination"?

Typically, the only consistent logical possibility for Single Predestination is that God chooses (predestines) some for salvation, and the rest have the free will to earn or not earn their own salvation/damnation (not predestined).

There is one other Single Predestination logical possibility, but it makes no biblical sense:

• God chooses (predestines) some for damnation, and the rest have the free will to earn or not earn their own salvation/damnation (not predestined).

Typically, the only consistent logical possibility for Double Predestination is that God chooses (predestines) some for salvation, and leaves the rest to earn their own damnation (allows).

There are three other Double Predestination logical possibilities, but they make no biblical sense:

• God chooses (predestines) some for salvation, and actively chooses others for damnation (also predestines) ... this makes God the source of sin.
• God chooses (predestines) all for salvation and none for damnation ... Universalism.
• God chooses (predestines) none for salvation and all for damnation ... no one is saved

Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith
... some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to eternal life ...
Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation ...
[God chose who is in which group = Double Predestination]

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:14–24)

I don't see it anywhere here? What I do see, is that God "endures with much longsuffering" with those who are "vessels of dishonour". Why? because He wants them also to repent and believe and get saved! Where in this passage is anything about "double predestination"?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

A false premise.
The new Reformers were called "Calvinists" by the Lutherans as a derogatory term intended to reflect that they followed John Calvin rather than the Bible. The truth was that the new wave of reformers believed that the Lutherans had retained too much of Roman Catholic teaching that was still contrary to scripture. The term "Calvinist" gained traction and eventually became roughly synonymous with both "T.U.L.I.P." and Reformed Theology in the mind of common people, so it eventually lost its original negative connotation and became more of a descriptive shorthand.

A more accurate source of general Reformed Theological beliefs would be found in places like the Synod of Dort or the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession of Faith or the 1644 Baptist Confession of Faith. John Calvin was one of only many Reformed Theologians throughout the years and is certainly not "the main Calvinist".

His name is John Calvin, those who are "Five Point Calvinists" are supposed to follow his teachings, if they don't, then they should get their name changed, or else they are misusing his name! As we can see from Calvin's own writings, he never believed in any "limitation" of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which, for anyone to believe, is a vulgar doctrine! How dare men try to reduce what God Incarnate has done on the cross for the entire human race.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Could you define "Single Predestination"?

Typically, the only consistent logical possibility for Single Predestination is that God chooses (predestines) some for salvation, and the rest have the free will to earn or not earn their own salvation/damnation (not predestined).

There is one other Single Predestination logical possibility, but it makes no biblical sense:

• God chooses (predestines) some for damnation, and the rest have the free will to earn or not earn their own salvation/damnation (not predestined).

Typically, the only consistent logical possibility for Double Predestination is that God chooses (predestines) some for salvation, and leaves the rest to earn their own damnation (allows).

There are three other Double Predestination logical possibility, but they make no biblical sense:

• 
  
  
  • God chooses (predestines) some for salvation, and actively chooses others for damnation (also predestines) ... this makes God the source of sin.
  • God chooses (predestines) all for salvation and none for damnation ... Universalism.
  • God chooses (predestines) none for salvation and all for damnation ... no one is saved.

Baptist 1689 Confession of Faith
... some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to eternal life ...
Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation ...
[God chose who is in which group = Double Predestination]

Calvinistic/Reformed "predestination" is unbiblical rubbish, and you know where rubbish belongs...

 

[Scarlett O.]

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?

I am using the word passive by the very definition that the author of the quote used it and defined it.

He said, "God is thus active in salvation (God saves) and passive in damnation (God leaves sinners free to sin without interference from Him).

How grateful to God I am that He DID interfere with me. I was a sinner once. A 9-year-old, but a sinner none the less. Had I died that day, I would have went to hell, because I knew what sin was and that I indeed did sin.

But God interfered with me. He drew me to him and used His Holy Spirit to explain things to me very clearly. I was a sinner headed to hell just like all those people in hell now. No difference. What if God had not interfered with me?

Of course God could have robotically forced Cain to be saved - but is that really salvation?

God did indeed interfere with Cain. Jesus interfered with the rich young ruler and the mob that he fed the loaves and fishes to who rejected his teachings. God saves, God draws, Christ paid the price and is the door, but mankind MUST believe, confess, and trust. Otherwise, Christians are nothing more than Stepford beings.

The author of the statement made it clear in his definition of passive that it means that God never gives the "sinner" a second thought. I don't find that in the Bible.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I would like to see anyone who believes in the Reformed/Calvinistic teaching of predestination, deal with John 3:16-18. I am convinced that this teaching is at variance with the Word of God.

 

[atpollard]

His name is John Calvin, those who are "Five Point Calvinists" are supposed to follow his teachings, if they don't, then they should get their name changed, or else they are misusing his name! As we can see from Calvin's own writings, he never believed in any "limitation" of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which, for anyone to believe, is a vulgar doctrine! How dare men try to reduce what God Incarnate has done on the cross for the entire human race.

If you would have read my post instead of just quoting it to respond, you would be better informed on the subject.

1. His name was "Jehan Cauvin" (he was French) 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564.
2. The five points and the acronym T-U-L-I-P appear to be first outlined in the Counter Remonstrance of 1611.
3. The acronym T-U-L-I-P was first used by Cleland Boyd McAfee as early as circa 1905.
4. "Calvinists" are properly called either "Reformed" or "Particular Baptists". It is generally the semi-Pelagians that like to talk about "Calvinists" and distort our Biblical interpretations for mass hatred of various strawman caricatures.

If Jesus blood on the Cross purchased salvation for the entire human race and NOTHING must reduce that in any way ... AS YOU ARGUE ... then Universalism is the only possible conclusion to be drawn. Otherwise it is YOU that are arguing that the blood of Christ shed on the cross is rendered ineffective by the will of sinful men. You testify that Jesus actually saved no one and merely bought everyone a chance at salvation.

We Reformed argue that not one single drop of Christ's precious blood was waster or ineffective. Jesus died for each and every sin that God intended to die for, that every sin that Jesus died for was in reality paid in full with no permission from any man sought or required by a Holy and Sovereign God. That all of God's sheep are forgiven and those who remain in their sins retain the guilt of their own sins. God does not unjustly demand payment for the same sin twice.

The blood of Jesus was SUFFICIENT to cover every sin of all mankind, but the blood of Jesus was applied by God only to the sins of those whom God foreknew. Perfect Justice, perfect Mercy and perfect Holiness all preserved with nothing wasted.

I feel sorry for those who cannot see this in scripture. It is a thing of divine beauty and balance.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

If you would have read my post instead of just quoting it to respond, you would be better informed on the subject.

1. His name was "Jehan Cauvin" (he was French) 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564.
2. The five points and the acronym T-U-L-I-P appear to be first outlined in the Counter Remonstrance of 1611.
3. The acronym T-U-L-I-P was first used by Cleland Boyd McAfee as early as circa 1905.
4. "Calvinists" are properly called either "Reformed" or "Particular Baptists". It is generally the semi-Pelagians that like to talk about "Calvinists" and distort our Biblical interpretations for mass hatred of various strawman caricatures.

If Jesus blood on the Cross purchased salvation for the entire human race and NOTHING must reduce that in any way ... AS YOU ARGUE ... then Universalism is the only possible conclusion to be drawn. Otherwise it is YOU that are arguing that the blood of Christ shed on the cross is rendered ineffective by the will of sinful men. You testify that Jesus actually saved no one and merely bought everyone a chance at salvation.

We Reformed argue that not one single drop of Christ's precious blood was waster or ineffective. Jesus died for each and every sin that God intended to die for, that every sin that Jesus died for was in reality paid in full with no permission from any man sought or required by a Holy and Sovereign God. That all of God's sheep are forgiven and those who remain in their sins retain the guilt of their own sins. God does not unjustly demand payment for the same sin twice.

The blood of Jesus was SUFFICIENT to cover every sin of all mankind, but the blood of Jesus was applied by God only to the sins of those whom God foreknew. Perfect Justice, perfect Mercy and perfect Holiness all preserved with nothing wasted.

I feel sorry for those who cannot see this in scripture. It is a thing of divine beauty and balance.

2 Peter 2:1 very clearly says, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction"

"bought" is in the Greek, ἀγοράζω, which is the very word that is used for the "purchase" on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ, as in 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23; Revelation 5:9, 14:3-4, etc. Yet here in Peter we read that these who will end in destruction, were also "purchased" by Jesus Christ, but they refuse to acknowledge this, and therefore will be damned. Very clear and simple text, showing not universal salvation, but universal redemption. But, unless the sinner "repents and believes", they cannot be saved. This is what the Bible teaches for those who will listen and learn, and not imposes their own theories into the Word of God. If you care to read Luke 22, you will see that even Judas took the Lord's Supper, after Jesus said to the 12, "this is my blood shed for YOU", which included Judas. Matthew Henry and John Gill, both Reformed, acknowledge the fact that Judas did actually partake of this Supper. If Jesus' death was not to include Judas, then He would have waited for Judas to have left the room, and then given the bread and wine to the other 11. But His timing and actions show that He intended Judas to be present, so that all should know the truth about His universal redemption.

 

[TCassidy]

His name is John Calvin

Actually his name was Jean Calvin which was his preferred spelling as an adult, but he was born Jehan Cauvin, which was the provincial spelling (Frankish) of the area where he was born (Picardy).

You try to lecture us on a subject you know nothing about, then prove you know nothing about it by not even being able to get his name right.

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually his name was Jean Calvin which was his preferred spelling as an adult, but he was born Jehan Cauvin, which was the provincial spelling (Frankish) of the area where he was born (Picardy).

You try to lecture us on a subject you know nothing about, then prove you know nothing about it by not even being able to get his name right.

Getting his name right is not evidence that anyone does not understand how he taught doctrine. Sorry.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't see it anywhere here? What I do see, is that God "endures with much longsuffering" with those who are "vessels of dishonour". Why? because He wants them also to repent and believe and get saved! Where in this passage is anything about "double predestination"?

Why does Jesus not pray for them in his high priestly prayer?
“I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine.” (John 17:9)

 

[TCassidy]

those who are "Five Point Calvinists" are supposed to follow his teachings

Wrong again. The "Five Points" were published at the conclusion of the (Second) Synod of Dort in 1619, 84 years after Cauvin was dead. I doubt he, having been dead for 84 years, had anything to do with the Five Points!

 

[TCassidy]

Getting his name right is not evidence that anyone does not understand how he taught doctrine. Sorry.

Not knowing he had been dead for 84 years at the time the Five Points were formulated proves how little he actually knows on the subject.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Wrong again. The "Five Points" were published at the conclusion of the (Second) Synod of Dort in 1619, 84 years after Cauvin was dead. I doubt he, having been dead for 84 years, had anything to do with the Five Points!

I do know history! The point that I am making is, that those who say they are Five Point Calvinists, are being false to their cause, since Calvin did not believe in the L, of T.U.L.I.P. Therefore they could only be Four Point.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Not knowing he had been dead for 84 years at the time the Five Points were formulated proves how little he actually knows on the subject.

there you go again, TC, and by your own words show your ignorance on what I do and do not know! It is always better to ask!!!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Why does Jesus not pray for them in his high priestly prayer?
“I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine.” (John 17:9)

Did you know that the "them" here refers to His Disciples, and not the "elect"?