Single Predestination - Part 2

[ivdavid]

Summary from Part 1:

Objective - reconcile calvinism and arminianism by refuting the root divisive error found in calvinist predestined reprobation/condemnation.

Implications of Single Predestination and Defense of Objections:

1. Implication: God does not predestine condemnation over the non-elect at the same time that He predestines salvation over the elect. He simply does no predestining nor promising to the non-elect right then.

a) Objection: It's not logical. If God predestines some to be saved, the others are condemned.
Defense: Logical fallacy to conclude Inverse as True. If God predestines some to be saved, the valid inference is that the others were not predestined to be saved - they could still have the means of salvation provided without the Promise.

b) Objection: Rom 9 states their being completed for destruction.
Defense: While election occurs before the ages, the hardening of the non-elect by God occurs after they have filled their measure of iniquity for which they are completed for destruction.

c) Objection: God is not Sovereign if He does not predestine condemnation too.
Defense: He is still Sovereign if it is His own decree to provide conditional means of salvation and He decrees condemnation after the non-elect fail the conditional of faith.

d) Objection: God indirectly predestines condemnation over the non-elect by choosing to leave them in their default condemnation given the fall while predestining salvation for the elect alone.
Defense: This is the Infra-Supra conundrum. Nobody can be specifically condemned at the time of God's election since His election does not factor in any of man's good or evil.

 

[ivdavid]

2. Implication: God genuinely desires and extends conditional means of salvation to the non-elect.

a) Objection: If God desires them to be saved and none of the non-elect are saved, then God has failed in weakness.
b) Defense: God promises salvation only to the elect and has promised no such assurance of His working in the non-elect through rebirth. He knows the non-elect will not self-determine to continue in faith - He demonstrates this in all fairness for us all to see much like He did with the Old Covenant Law of Works which is not Him failing at all.

b) Objection: All the non-elect are totally depraved. They cannot self-determine to access any means of salvation by themselves.
Defense: Which is why God extends grace to supernaturally give them a new heart unto repentance, enlightens them with the truth of Christ, and gives them the Holy Spirit - all for a time conditionally, until they self-determine to fall back into the mud after being washed.

c) Objection: God does a work in the elect that is not done in the non-elect. The above supernatural regeneration makes no such difference.
Defense: Regeneration is simply removing the hardened heart to convict of sin unto repentance. Rebirth is being made a new creature in Christ by being birthed in the spirit and receiving the adoption as children - this is done in the elect alone.

d) Objection: There is limited atonement for the elect alone.
Defense: Yes, Christ's work on the cross factors in who will endure in faith to the end and only the elect do for whom He atones. This does not preclude the universal offer of salvation through Him on our human timeline - if any of the non-elect had self-determined to endure in faith to the end, Christ would have factored that in too in His atoning work, but God knew and acted on the reality without nullifying the genuine offer.

e) Objection: The wrath of God abides on the non-elect. They will die in their sins. How can they be termed saved then?
Defense: Distinction is made between being saved from the hardened heart of slavery and being saved into the Promised rest, especially in Hebrews 3-4, Jud 1:5. While many Israelites were saved from Egypt, they were not saved into the promised land because of unbelief. Similarly a non-elect person could be saved from his hardened heart of ignorance, but still being in the flesh, he self-determines to fall back in unbelief, now definitively earning God's wrath and dying in their sins with no more sacrifice for sins.

f) Objection: if hypothetically the non-elect are saved through faith, then it is their self-determinism and not God who saved them which is legalism and not by grace.
Defense: faith by paradoxical definition is acknowledging there is nothing the self can do, therein denying self and throwing oneself upon God's grace alone - so when done right, it would still be all unto God's glory.

 

[ivdavid]

Other related points discussed:
1. Defining Mercy and Grace - Does God extend grace to the non-elect. Yes, conditionally, given His supernatural work in the non-elect in Heb 3,6,10, 2Pet2 and king Saul 1Sam 10.

2. Defining heart, spirit, mind etc. - no conclusions. This would require a separate thread for itself.

3. Distinctions between the flesh and spirit - Flesh is our self-nature which we're born into sin with (upholding original sin), and the spirit is God's nature which is perfect within us. As we walk in the spirit, we will do the Father's will and be pleasing to Him - our sinning now is our walking in the flesh.

4. How did Adam fall - is man's will contingent on his nature or not. May require separate thread.

 

[ivdavid]

Points raised against Double Predestination:

1. How are Hebrews 6, 10, 2Pet 2 falling away from repentance and truth with no more sacrifice or renewal possible explained? No conclusive responses yet.

2. What of the contradiction seen in God desiring the non-elect to repent and live which is directly against His own preceding sovereign decree for them to be condemned and destroyed. How can God desire against His own prior counsel/decree? No responses yet.

 

[ivdavid]

If I've missed out on anything in the summary, it wasn't intentional. If any of the points above warrant re-discussing, I can try linking to posts that already have covered ground and discussion can proceed from there, adding to that here.

 

[Yeshua1]

Summary from Part 1:

Objective - reconcile calvinism and arminianism by refuting the root divisive error found in calvinist predestined reprobation/condemnation.

Implications of Single Predestination and Defense of Objections:

1. Implication: God does not predestine condemnation over the non-elect at the same time that He predestines salvation over the elect. He simply does no predestining nor promising to the non-elect right then.

a) Objection: It's not logical. If God predestines some to be saved, the others are condemned.
Defense: Logical fallacy to conclude Inverse as True. If God predestines some to be saved, the valid inference is that the others were not predestined to be saved - they could still have the means of salvation provided without the Promise.

b) Objection: Rom 9 states their being completed for destruction.
Defense: While election occurs before the ages, the hardening of the non-elect by God occurs after they have filled their measure of iniquity for which they are completed for destruction.

c) Objection: God is not Sovereign if He does not predestine condemnation too.
Defense: He is still Sovereign if it is His own decree to provide conditional means of salvation and He decrees condemnation after the non-elect fail the conditional of faith.

d) Objection: God indirectly predestines condemnation over the non-elect by choosing to leave them in their default condemnation given the fall while predestining salvation for the elect alone.
Defense: This is the Infra-Supra conundrum. Nobody can be specifically condemned at the time of God's election since His election does not factor in any of man's good or evil.

There is no way to reconcile Calvinism to Arminianism though, as each view the Fall and atonement means in different ways!

 

[ivdavid]

There is no way to reconcile Calvinism to Arminianism though, as each view the Fall and atonement means in different ways!

Ask yourself, why is that? Because calvinism cannot deny the truth of God's individual predestination of the elect to salvation and arminianism cannot deny the truth of God conditionally desiring the non-elect to repent and live.

The problem arises in an illogical parallelism drawn by both camps. Calvinism incorrectly infers from the above truth that God also predestines condemnation over the non-elect and Arminianism incorrectly infers from the above truth that any man does actually self-determine himself into being saved on the final day.

Since arminianism was in response to calvinist predestined condemnation and its implications, that's being identified as the root which needs to be refuted first, from which we can work reconciliation over all other doctrines. Single Predestination upholds both truths without the incorrect parallelism and therein offers this possible reconciliation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ask yourself, why is that? Because calvinism cannot deny the truth of God's individual predestination of the elect to salvation and arminianism cannot deny the truth of God conditionally desiring the non-elect to repent and live.

The problem arises in an illogical parallelism drawn by both camps. Calvinism incorrectly infers from the above truth that God also predestines condemnation over the non-elect and Arminianism incorrectly infers from the above truth that any man does actually self-determine himself into being saved on the final day.

Since arminianism was in response to calvinist predestined condemnation and its implications, that's being identified as the root which needs to be refuted first, from which we can work reconciliation over all other doctrines. Single Predestination upholds both truths without the incorrect parallelism and therein offers this possible reconciliation.

The truth is where the ultimate basis of salvation is to be found, either in the will of God or of man, so cannot be reconciled!