Double Predestination

[JonC]

I am starting this thread as a Calvinist to other Calvinists. All comments are welcome, but the intent is to discuss a division within Calvinism.

Please be respectful of one another. I hate to ask this as it should be self-evident, and hopefully the board is dispositioned to handle a more mature conversation than it has been recently. Let's learn about one another without trying to make enemies of one another.

I believe in the doctrine of "double predestination" - that is, a group of people are predestined to salvation and another group is predestined to perish. I see this as a "decree" by necessity - the necessitu of an omniscient God creating men who would be saved and other men who would perish (Edwardian Calvinism).

Open for discussion.

 

[Reformed]

I also believe in the doctrine of reprobation or double-predestination. The idea that God just passed over those not predestined to eternal life lacks convincing biblical support IMHO.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed]

I know some Calvinists consider this a harsh or even unjust doctrine. What all Calvinists need to remember is that we do not have perfect knowledge. We do not know who the Elect are. All we can do is observe external professions and the way a Christian lives his life. We still proclaim the Gospel to all because it is the means of salvation. It is what God uses to call the Elect to repentance and faith.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

From an Edwardian perspective, if God is omniscient then everything is predestined to unfold as God knew it would unfold prior to Creation. Therefore by the very act of Creation God decreed that all future contingencies would occur as He knew they would occur prior to creation.

A rejection of individual election AND reprobation is a rejection of Divine omniscience.

The idea of God "choosing" is an anamorphic idea (God is never placed in that position) but this is necessary for our understanding.

 

[Dave G]

I believe in the doctrine of "double predestination" - that is, a group of people are predestined to salvation and another group is predestined to perish. I see this as a "decree" by necessity - the necessitu of an omniscient God creating men who would be saved and other men who would perish (Edwardian Calvinism).

I believe that these passages show not only God passing over those who are not His elect children, chosen "in Him" from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ), but that God allows men to be blinded to the Gospel by Satan, the god of this world ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ), and that blinding is said, in some places, to be done by Him ( John 12:37-41, Romans 11:7-11 ).

He's also the "potter", making one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor ( Romans 9:21-25 )..."vessels" of mercy, and "vessels" of wrath.
..and if that seems harsh?

" the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:" ( 2 Peter 2:9 ).

Believers are not condemned, but unbelievers are condemned already ( John 3:18 ).
I believe that unbelief is the evidence of that condemnation, just like faith is the evidence of someone's salvation ( Hebrews 11:1 ).

Another point:
False teachers ( unbelievers who step up to spread false doctrines ) are said to be many things.

1) As "natural", brute beasts, they are made to be taken and destroyed ( 2 Peter 2:12 ).
2) They are "wells" without water, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever ( 2 Peter 2:17 )
3) They are ordained to their condemnation ( Jude 1:4 ).
4) Ever-learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth ( 2 Timothy 3:7 ), because it is hidden from them ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ).
5) Reprobate concerning the faith ( 2 Timothy 3:8 )

Romans 1:28 talks about God giving people over to a "reprobate mind".
Why?
...to do those things which are not convenient ( suitable ).
In other words, God "gave them up, gave them over", to suit His purposes.


..and here some will undoubtedly post harsh criticism:

"and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." ( 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 ).

Side note:

Why would God send strong delusion to a people that He loves, so that a people that has rejected Him would believe a lie, accept the Anti-Christ, take his mark, and then judge them for taking that mark and cast them all into Hell?
It doesn't look to me as if He is not willing that any of mankind perish, but that they all come to repentance.
Rather, it looks to me as if He allowed Satan to blind their minds ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ), even knowing they would never believe because of their hatred of Christ ( John 3:19-20, John 15:18, and others ) and love of sin ( Romans 1:29-32 )


So, God is righteously sending them delusion for hating Him and not welcoming the love of the truth...as any unregenerate man will do.

God is condemning those who do not believe, and refuse to believe because of that hatred of Him ( Romans 9:21 ).
Regardless of the blinding, it doesn't matter.
There is none that seeks God ( Romans 3:10-18 ), not in all his thoughts ( Psalms 10:4 ).

The onus is on man, and God has the right to treat unrepentant, rebellious criminals in any way He sees fit.
He can save some, and cast the rest into Hell, if He wants to.
For all have sinned.


Reprobation:

If God wants to save someone, He does.
If He doesn't, there's no way for them to "climb up some other way" ( John 10:1 ).

Yet, His works were finished from the foundation of the world ( Hebrews 4:3 ).
Only those that were ordained to eternal life, will believe ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ).



Is anyone confused ?
I didn't write it...I'm only telling you what it says.
I don't understand why He decided to do things the way He did, or to allow things to unfold the way He did.

Rather than trying like mad to fit God into a box of my own, I allow Him to define the "box" for me.
I simply accept the words, because they are the words of eternal life ( John 6:66-69 ).

What's more is, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

 

[rsr]

For the adherents of the 1689 confession in the audience: The First London Confession declined to endorse double predestination and the authors of the Second London Confession went out of their way to separate themselves from the Presbyterians and Congregationalists on the topic.

The Westminster and Savoy both affirm that "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."

Not so the Baptists: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice."

My own view is that preterition (leaving the non-elect in their sins) has the same practical effect as predestination to damnation, but the Particular Baptists were very careful in their language not to endorse double predestination.

 

[Rockson]

He's also the "potter", making one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor ( Romans 9:21-25 )..."vessels" of mercy, and "vessels" of wrath.
..and if that seems harsh?

Sorry Dave you fail to go back to the home base passage from which Paul was quoting in Jer 18:8 where it reveals the clay was given a choice what it's destiny would be.

" the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:" ( 2 Peter 2:9 ).

It didn't say he knows how to deliver the elect or reserve the Non Elect. It says the godly or the unjust. So if one is choosing to stay unjust he knows how to make their destinations heaven or hell. Interesting that verse 10 states the unjust ones are self willed in other words insinuating they didn't have to be.

Why would God send strong delusion to a people that He loves, so that a people that has rejected Him would believe a lie, accept the Anti-Christ, take his mark, and then judge them for taking that mark and cast them all into Hell?

That verse in 2 Thess 2 :10 is an idiom similar to what one can see in Ezekiel 20:25 where it states, “I gave them [the Hebrew people] statues that were not good” But then Psalm 81:12 brings balance to this by stating, " So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, that they might walk in their own counsels" (Psa. 81:12) So he basically just let them do what they chose to do.Sorry Dave but one has to read all the scriptures to catch the spirit of what's being said.

I simply accept the words, because they are the words of eternal life ( John 6:66-69 ).

Hold on here! Why would you quote this phrase that Peter stated in John 60:68 when all the context of your post was pointing out the difference between Calvinism and Non-Calvinism.

Sorry but that's why I take with a grain of salt all the rhetoric you good people use in always trying to say a belief in Calvinism isn't necessary to be a Christian and then we see this. I think your Calvinist friends should call you out for this and tell you the implications of what you've implied is clear. Calvinism you have eternal life, and are saved....Non Calvinism you don't.

Knowing you probably won't answer me let me just say to the readers there you go. Do you see how a Calvinist just slips that in there just to give a feel if you want LIFE it must come through the Calvinsitic way?

What's more is, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

Well sorry my friend I highly doubt that.

 

[Reformed1689]

I am starting this thread as a Calvinist to other Calvinists. All comments are welcome, but the intent is to discuss a division within Calvinism.

Please be respectful of one another. I hate to ask this as it should be self-evident, and hopefully the board is dispositioned to handle a more mature conversation than it has been recently. Let's learn about one another without trying to make enemies of one another.

I believe in the doctrine of "double predestination" - that is, a group of people are predestined to salvation and another group is predestined to perish. I see this as a "decree" by necessity - the necessitu of an omniscient God creating men who would be saved and other men who would perish (Edwardian Calvinism).

Open for discussion.

This is unavoidable. Romans 11 should make this crystal clear. If you believe in the Doctrines of Grace and deny this fact, you are being illogical in your beliefs.

Is it a tough pill to swallow? ABSOLUTELY. But God's ways and purposes are not man's ways and purposes. God's Justice is not man's justice.

 

[Reformed]

For the adherents of the 1689 confession in the audience: The First London Confession declined to endorse double predestination and the authors of the Second London Confession went out of their way to separate themselves from the Presbyterians and Congregationalists on the topic.

The Westminster and Savoy both affirm that "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death."

Not so the Baptists: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice."

My own view is that preterition (leaving the non-elect in their sins) has the same practical effect as predestination to damnation, but the Particular Baptists were very careful in their language not to endorse double predestination.

I can accept the language of the 1689 LBCF because supralapsarianism does not negate that the non-Elect are left in their sin to their just condemnation. It just goes the extra step and concludes that both election and reprobation were decreed before the Fall.

 

[Reformed]

So, let me ask about the practicality of Supralapsarianism*. How does this work out in our day-to-day life and what are the extremes we should be wary of? Let me start with extremes Why mention them? Most doctrinal beliefs can be taken to extremes when putting them into practice, leading to imbalance and error. When the doctrine of Election within Calvinism is taken to an extreme it can lead to what is commonly referred to as hyper-Calvinism. Why evangelize outside of the local church if God has already predestined the Elect? Dispensationalism can go off into serious error as in the case of John Hagee who believes that by helping Jews move to Israel, Christians can speed up the prophetic clock. These are just two examples of what happens when we take something too far.

How about practicality? Having a proper view of Election and Reprobation causes us to realize just how marvelous our salvation is. We can take credit for absolutely nothing. We have received mercy and grace to a degree that our finite minds cannot understand and we received it while all we truly deserved was judgment and wrath. To blow our minds even more, God has entrusted to His church the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18). It is our duty and privilege to proclaim the Gospel, which is the means of salvation for the Elect.

The Effectual Call** is not a clinical procedure performed by the Holy Spirit. The path each elect individual travels before they come to faith in Christ is unique to themselves. Some people are raised in the church and can hardly remember a time when they did not believe. Others are rescued from all sorts of sin and perversion that it is not fit to mention. If each one of us were to share our testimonies we would have as many different stories as there are members on this board. The common thread throughout all of them is the power of the Gospel (Romans 1:17).

What other concerns and practical aspects of the Supralapsarian position do you see?

*Supralapsarianism is the theological term for double-predestination. Using one word does make the discussion easier.

**The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing the Elect to faith in Christ in-time.

 

[Dave G]

So, let me ask about the practicality of Supralapsarianism*. How does this work out in our day-to-day life and what are the extremes we should be wary of?

In our day-to-day lives:

It results in a sobriety about our situation as believers...hanging on by the thin, yet very sure thread of God's unmerited favor towards us as His children ( 1 Peter 4:18 ).
The admonitions that God gives to us to be sober, not to be high-minded and to be good to all men, believer or unbeliever, are tied up in the fact that he saves some, and not others.
The reason we are to walk worthy of our calling, is precisely because of the fact that He does not have mercy and compassion to all men.

I'm reminded of these passages when I think on how special a gift has been bestowed on me...to know God and His Son ( John 17:2-3 ):

Romans 11:13-25
Romans 12:3
1 Timothy 6:17-19
1 Peter 4:7-19

Extremes?

Being high-minded.
Looking on unbelievers as if they are less-deserving of God's grace and mercy....we as believers did nothing to acquire it, so there's no point in being "proud" of our gift.

Being very careful that we don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater"...
For example, I've found that not everyone who disagrees with me, should be considered as unsaved.
To me, God has simply not revealed to them the truths of His word, because it is a growth process.

I was a believer before I "discovered" election, etc.
I'm sure there are others I've yet to meet.

God works everything according to His purposes, not mine.

How about practicality? Having a proper view of Election and Reprobation causes us to realize just how marvelous our salvation is.

Exactly.

The Effectual Call** is not a clinical procedure performed by the Holy Spirit.

Not one that we would understand, no.

Scripturally, I understand that it happens the same way on the inside of each and every believer...in its outward working, I think that many people manifest it somewhat differently when it happens, but in the end, we all come into the unity of the faith, someday.
The Spirit works to the glory of God.

The path each elect individual travels before they come to faith in Christ is unique to themselves. Some people are raised in the church and can hardly remember a time when they did not believe. Others are rescued from all sorts of sin and perversion that it is not fit to mention. If each one of us were to share our testimonies we would have as many different stories as there are members on this board. The common thread throughout all of them is the power of the Gospel (Romans 1:17).

The power of the Gospel to us as believers, yes.

I've often thought this...where a person "hears" for the first time, how they react to the good news, etc. can all differ, to an extent.
But one thing is common...they believed God's words from the heart ( Romans 10:8-10 ).
It "made an impact" on them.
One they will never forget.

But it wasn't the preacher's words of man-made persuasion that I often hear these days, it is and always will be the very words of Scripture read or quoted out loud.
God's words of "persuasion"....the preaching of the cross ( 1 Corinthians 1:18 ).


That's what I remember the most about when I came to the Lord.

 

[agedman]

Part of the problem (imo) in coming to terms with such terms as "predestination" is to gain some (partial) understanding of the eternal estate. This is extremely difficult for we have no practiced experience, and so must be left up to that which is eternal and have experience.

Before the "in the beginning" God selected those of His purpose to be eternally in His presence. He did so choosing from the pool of humankind whose destiny was the lake of fire.

So, to a certain point double predestination makes sense.

Where one creates a problem is found in some thinking of the choosing of God is not uncoupled from the word election.

All are predestined. My dogs die because of the consequences of sin. Humans die because of the consequences of sin. God's forgiveness of sin does not remove the consequences of sin, humans still die. But God grants (elects to) eternal life to those of His purpose.

God did not elect some to be lost. Such condition (lost) is connected to being born in sin, being corrupt from the beginning, of having no righteousness. God did not choose the lost. God did not determine the lost. The lost just are.

God merely declared that His Spirit will not always strive with humankind and that the unrighteous will not abide in His presence. John said, "10And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

Therefore, "double predestination" if specific as concerning the eternal place one resides is accurate.

BUT where (imo) many miss the mark is confusing the words predestination and election. To do so is to suggest God "elects" the lost to be lost. Such just isn't found in Scripture.

God elects from the lost, He does not elect the lost.

 

[MB]

I believe that these passages show not only God passing over those who are not His elect children, chosen "in Him" from the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1:4-5 ), but that God allows men to be blinded to the Gospel by Satan, the god of this world ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ), and that blinding is said, in some places, to be done by Him ( John 12:37-41, Romans 11:7-11 ).

He's also the "potter", making one vessel unto honor, and another to dishonor ( Romans 9:21-25 )..."vessels" of mercy, and "vessels" of wrath.
..and if that seems harsh?

" the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:" ( 2 Peter 2:9 ).

Believers are not condemned, but unbelievers are condemned already ( John 3:18 ).
I believe that unbelief is the evidence of that condemnation, just like faith is the evidence of someone's salvation ( Hebrews 11:1 ).

Another point:
False teachers ( unbelievers who step up to spread false doctrines ) are said to be many things.

1) As "natural", brute beasts, they are made to be taken and destroyed ( 2 Peter 2:12 ).
2) They are "wells" without water, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever ( 2 Peter 2:17 )
3) They are ordained to their condemnation ( Jude 1:4 ).
4) Ever-learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth ( 2 Timothy 3:7 ), because it is hidden from them ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ).
5) Reprobate concerning the faith ( 2 Timothy 3:8 )

Romans 1:28 talks about God giving people over to a "reprobate mind".
Why?
...to do those things which are not convenient ( suitable ).
In other words, God "gave them up, gave them over", to suit His purposes.


..and here some will undoubtedly post harsh criticism:

The only criticism from me is the same that you are stating in your 5 points above. Personally I believe these things apply to Calvinism. Which is why I give you objections as you give me. However it seems you see me as destined for destruction. I do not see you the same way. I see you with the potential to be a great Christian. It's my desire for every one to Love the Lord Jesus. In fact I believe you do believe in Jesus but are deceived by the doctrine you hold on to.
I have no deceit in my heart when I tell you the truth.

"and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." ( 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 ).

Side note:

Why would God send strong delusion to a people that He loves, so that a people that has rejected Him would believe a lie, accept the Anti-Christ, take his mark, and then judge them for taking that mark and cast them all into Hell?
It doesn't look to me as if He is not willing that any of mankind perish, but that they all come to repentance.
Rather, it looks to me as if He allowed Satan to blind their minds ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ), even knowing they would never believe because of their hatred of Christ ( John 3:19-20, John 15:18, and others ) and love of sin ( Romans 1:29-32 )


So, God is righteously sending them delusion for hating Him and not welcoming the love of the truth...as any unregenerate man will do.

God is condemning those who do not believe, and refuse to believe because of that hatred of Him ( Romans 9:21 ).
Regardless of the blinding, it doesn't matter.
There is none that seeks God ( Romans 3:10-18 ), not in all his thoughts ( Psalms 10:4 ).

The onus is on man, and God has the right to treat unrepentant, rebellious criminals in any way He sees fit.
He can save some, and cast the rest into Hell, if He wants to.
For all have sinned.


Reprobation:

If God wants to save someone, He does.
If He doesn't, there's no way for them to "climb up some other way" ( John 10:1 ).

Yet, His works were finished from the foundation of the world ( Hebrews 4:3 ).
Only those that were ordained to eternal life, will believe ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48 ).



Is anyone confused ?
I didn't write it...I'm only telling you what it says.
I don't understand why He decided to do things the way He did, or to allow things to unfold the way He did.

Rather than trying like mad to fit God into a box of my own, I allow Him to define the "box" for me.
I simply accept the words, because they are the words of eternal life ( John 6:66-69 ).

What's more is, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

I believe you are wrong.
For one thing I do not restrict God by placing Him in a box. Calvinist do this by claiming God is restricted in what He can or cannot do. All things are possible with God but not with Calvinist. You claim election for your self leaving most out of luck. When Christ said;
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Christ was speaking to His disciples not to every Christian. How ever I do believe Christ chose me as well along with the rest of the world. He drew me by His Holy Spirit and His conviction of my heart. I was convicted many times of my sins before Salvation. Which is why I know that His grace is not irresistible. I didn't want to be a Christian until I was convinced what I was being told me about Him is the truth.

Since I've been coming here I've learned that anyone who believes the truth is saved. There is no perfect doctrine, but if a person believes that Christ died for there sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day is SAVED. This isn't to say that doctrine isn't important not Calvinist doctrine but the doctrine of Christ.. I believe that Calvinist believe as they do because they think them selves more intelligent than those who reject there doctrine. When intelligence has nothing to do with it. You all interpret scripture to fit your beliefs. I don't interpret scripture. I do my best ti take God at His word. His word interprets it self. Yet I'm surprised that no Calvinist believes this. Can one be saved with out believing the whole truth? God only knows. although as long as there is life there is hope
MB
.

 

[Reformed1689]

God did not elect some to be lost. Such condition (lost) is connected to being born in sin, being corrupt from the beginning, of having no righteousness. God did not choose the lost. God did not determine the lost. The lost just are.

Here is the problem. By not choosing the lost, God makes an active choice to not elect. That is not "the lost just are." They are consciously not elected.

 

[agedman]

For one thing I do not restrict God by placing Him in a box. Calvinist do this by claiming God is restricted in what He can or cannot do.

Not accurate. Just as all who accurately teach the Scriptures, Calvinists do not restrict God unless the Scriptures restrict God. For example Galatians 6, James 1, 2 Timothy all have what God cannot do.

All things are possible with God but not with Calvinist. You claim election for your self leaving most out of luck.

Again a mischaracterization, but Calvinists do often quote the reference found in such places as Mark 9, 10, 14. What they do not do is assume such means one can "name it claim it" as some modern charismatic persuaded teach (not stating that you do but showing how something good can be taken incorrectly).

Since I've been coming here I've learned that anyone who believes the truth is saved. There is no perfect doctrine, but if a person believes that Christ died for there sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day is SAVED. This isn't to say that doctrine isn't important not Calvinist doctrine but the doctrine of Christ.

Very good.

I believe that Calvinist believe as they do because they think them selves more intelligent than those who reject there doctrine. When intelligence has nothing to do with it. You all interpret scripture to fit your beliefs. I don't interpret scripture. I do my best ti take God at His word. His word interprets it self. Yet I'm surprised that no Calvinist believes this. Can one be saved with out believing the whole truth? God only knows. although as long as there is life there is hope
MB
.

One of the most difficult areas in us all when painting our thoughts into posts is not becoming overly zealous.

We all smear and drip in areas that perhaps we would not if greater attention were given, and even then inadvertent drips and smears will occur.

If there is a group known for comparing Scripture to Scripture it is the Calvinists. Look at the typical declarations of faith and see the vast number of supporting Scripture given for each statement.

Calvinists and non-calvinists that are presenting a truthful gospel you exactly the same terms and words.

The difference is not in the presentation, but in what is taking place when one comes to be redeemed. It makes no difference as to the redemption, but it does make a difference in understanding HOW the redemption took place.

One can be saved, but they cannot leave out committing their whole heart, mind, soul, strength. They cannot leave out submission to Christ as Lord of all matters concerning faith, practice and eternity. They certainly may not have the understanding or even intellectual capacity to grasp all maters, but that isn't the point, the point is submission of every aspect of their self, the life lived and eternity to the Lord as Lord.

This is not Calvinist doctrine and teaching. It is sound Bible teaching. D L Moody, Billy Graham, Bob Jones, Adrian Rogers, ... were not Calvinists, but they preached the same message of Salvation that Charles Spurgeon, John Piper, and other Calvinists do.

The Biblical message of salvation is not changed, it is the how salvation takes place that changes and is considered on the BB.

This post assumes that all readers understand that the presentation of the RCC, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and such groups do not present the gospel according to the Scriptures but most certainly present a mixed presentation.

 

[agedman]

Here is the problem. By not choosing the lost, God makes an active choice to not elect. That is not "the lost just are." They are consciously not elected.

There are some that consider that God is unfair or unjust in not elected, or at least given a choice. But as Psalm 92 points out, there is no unrighteousness, in justice, wickedness in Him.

God is under no obligation to choose any.

That God does choose "some to believe" presents no unjustness that He does not choose all.

Using the illustration of the grocery, do all bananas get chosen?

Do the bananas have a choice in being chosen?

Are bananas puffed up that they are chosen rather than some other bunch?

How much more worthy are bananas then dust? For humankind are but dust.

Yet, God makes His choice not upon worthy and will, but upon His good pleasure and purpose.

 

[Reformed1689]

Using the illustration of the grocery, do all bananas get chosen?

What does this have to do with my point. Re-read what I said.

Here is the problem. By not choosing the lost, God makes an active choice to not elect. That is not "the lost just are." They are consciously not elected.

What I am saying is God does elect for non-election by making an active choice to not elect for salvation.

 

[agedman]

What does this have to do with my point. Re-read what I said.

Here is the problem. By not choosing the lost, God makes an active choice to not elect. That is not "the lost just are." They are consciously not elected.

What I am saying is God does elect for non-election by making an active choice to not elect for salvation.

My apologies for not presenting a better response.

I suppose from a human perspective such "double election" could gain traction, however God is under no obligation to elect anyone.

For example, one goes to the car dealer but they are not under obligation to select any of the vehicles. That they have a particular one in mind that will fit the purpose they desire does not obligate them in any manner to the cars not selected.

What "double election" folks want is to insert that what God may do for one, then obliges that He do for all. That just is not true.

Jonah got to vacation in the deep, but God doesn't give anyone else that opportunity.

Double destiny is Scriptural, double election is not.

God never "elected" folks to be lost. People were born that way. From all born that way, God selected some to fulfill His purpose. As a "part of the deal" He took ownership of those He selected, title transferred into His name, and care and housing provided for as long as He is alive.

Btw, not all election deals with salvation. There are some who are elected to a purpose readily seen in history. Daniels prophecy about the multi-part giant is an example, for Greece and Roman rule was yet to be fulfilled.

 

[Reformed1689]

I suppose from a human perspective such "double election" could gain traction, however God is under no obligation to elect anyone.

For example, one goes to the car dealer but they are not under obligation to select any of the vehicles. That they have a particular one in mind that will fit the purpose they desire does not obligate them in any manner to the cars not selected.

This, again, is not an equal comparison. I choose not to buy those cars. It is a conscious choice. I also choose a specific car to buy. Another conscious choice.

What "double election" folks want is to insert that what God may do for one, then obliges that He do for all. That just is not true.

That is not what we are advocating at all. Where do you get that?

 

[JonC]

Part of the problem (imo) in coming to terms with such terms as "predestination" is to gain some (partial) understanding of the eternal estate. This is extremely difficult for we have no practiced experience, and so must be left up to that which is eternal and have experience.

Before the "in the beginning" God selected those of His purpose to be eternally in His presence. He did so choosing from the pool of humankind whose destiny was the lake of fire.

So, to a certain point double predestination makes sense.

Where one creates a problem is found in some thinking of the choosing of God is not uncoupled from the word election.

All are predestined. My dogs die because of the consequences of sin. Humans die because of the consequences of sin. God's forgiveness of sin does not remove the consequences of sin, humans still die. But God grants (elects to) eternal life to those of His purpose.

God did not elect some to be lost. Such condition (lost) is connected to being born in sin, being corrupt from the beginning, of having no righteousness. God did not choose the lost. God did not determine the lost. The lost just are.

God merely declared that His Spirit will not always strive with humankind and that the unrighteous will not abide in His presence. John said, "10And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

Therefore, "double predestination" if specific as concerning the eternal place one resides is accurate.

BUT where (imo) many miss the mark is confusing the words predestination and election. To do so is to suggest God "elects" the lost to be lost. Such just isn't found in Scripture.

God elects from the lost, He does not elect the lost.

A lot (almost all) of this is philosophical.

If God is omniscient then everything is predestined (at a minimum) based on divine omniscience. Everything will unfold as God knew prior to Creation it would unfold.

The question, then, is whether this is based on divine omniscience or divine volition (the ordained or decreed argument).

But by the very act of Creating, there is a sense of divine volition. God intentionally created those who will perish, and even they serve God's purposes.