Single Predestination

[ivdavid]

From tracing the origins of the calvinist-arminian divide, I'm seeing one of the key root issues is the calvinist doctrine of predestined reprobation/condemnation of non-elect man. Without this, a case can be made for the reconciliation of calvinism and arminianism - and if single predestination is shown to be logically and scripturally consistent, i'm presuming both camps should be happy to embrace it without any reluctance.

I'd like to think I'm familiar with most of the common arguments on this topic and I'll try not rehashing any of those. My personal goal is to debate and share my persuasion of what I see in Scriptures to be the uniting truth of God's single predestination of man to salvation - but no such predestination of man to condemnation before any of man's works of good and evil. And this is so without compromising on any of the attributes of God that calvinism or arminianism uphold.

 

[ivdavid]

Single Predestination seems to be shortchanged on grounds of being logically inconsistent. There is a sense of forced parallelism in that God must do the inverse to the non-elect of what he decrees to do to the elect - but is such parallelism and inverse of premises even logical?

True Premise:
‘If God predestines an individual for salvation before the ages, then God has willed him to be saved from that point in time’.
Does this however logically imply:
‘If God does not predestine an individual for salvation before the ages, then God has willed him not to be saved from that point in time’ ??

 

[Reformed1689]

Single predestination is a logical inconsistency. Some calvinists try to flower it up and say God simply just passes over individuals and lets them remain in their sin, but there is a problem with that. The problem is that is still an active choice by God to not draw that person.

 

[Particular]

The idea of single or double predestination is one that is created by men. God just tells us that He predestined. Some are chosen to be found in Christ. Some are left in their trespasses and sins. God chooses not to redeem them. As Supreme King, God makes that choice and our judgment about that choice is empty whining.
Truth is that those who remain in rebellion will never concede. Those who are dragged to surrender (drawn) are brought their against their natural will. However, upon being redeemed they realize how blind and foolish they have been. Repentance and renewal begin and continue unto eternity. Our freedom is our dependence on Christ. We move from slavery to sin to slavery to God. Our ears are pierced.

 

[Scott Downey]

Revelation 13
6 Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every [d]tribe, tongue, and nation. 8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The verse that says, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world in Revelation 13, shows that the fall in Eden must have been preordained by God, as Adam was not yet born and therefore had not yet sinned to need a savior. The worlds foundation would have been the creation of the earth, and Adam was not in existence yet, before there was any sin in the universe.

Revelation 17
6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
7 But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. 8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

It is implied in Rev 17 that the names of those God saves were all of them written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. And with that Ephesians 1 and 2 confirms. The beast worshippers marvel after the beast and conform their life into following him as their names were never written down in the Book of Life from the beginning. Because of this they were marked out for condemnation, simply by not being recorded in the Book of Life.

The names of the saved were written down before they were born, before they had done anything either good or bad. The reason for this is so that God's calling according to election, as in His choice of who would be saved would be true.

 

[ivdavid]

Some calvinists try to flower it up and say God simply just passes over individuals and lets them remain in their sin, but there is a problem with that. The problem is that is still an active choice by God to not draw that person.

And single predestination avoids this problem by stating God could choose to still draw the non-elect man, simply not in the same way He does His elect.

The elect are the children of promise (Rom 9:8). God has promised in Himself to save the elect by working out life in them from beginning to end for His Holy Name's sake.
He makes no such promise towards the non-elect. But here's the logical fallacy the calvinists are quick to commit - they wrongly assume that non-elect man not being promised salvation is equivalent to God not desiring or providing any means of salvation at all to them.

Which is why I go back to my question - why are the calvinists inferring the inverse of a true premise as true itself?
True premise:
"If it is raining, then I carry an umbrella."
Incorrect inverse inference:
"If it is not raining, then I do not carry an umbrella."
(I could still end up carrying an umbrella when it's sunny)

True premise:
"If God promises salvation to elect man before the ages, then God unconditionally desires and acts for him to be saved from then onwards."
Incorrect inverse inference:
"If God does not promise salvation to non-elect man before the ages, then God unconditionally desires and acts for him to be condemned from then onwards."
(God could still conditionally desire and act for him to be saved, right?)

 

[ivdavid]

The idea of single or double predestination is one that is created by men. God just tells us that He predestined.

How is this created by men again? God tells us that He predestined, yes - and we search in Scriptures for whether God predestined some men to salvation alone or whether He also additionally predestined some men to condemnation. Is this searching of Scriptures to know about God a creation of men?

As Supreme King, God makes that choice and our judgment about that choice is empty whining.

Oh, absolutely. If God did make that choice, we have no room to judge nor whine. What is being debated is not if God is right in doing so - of course, He's right in everything He does and He is Holy and Sovereign in doing so if He so chose to. But we are each striving to be faithful to Scriptures - and there's a debate on how we understand God's revelations.

To reiterate, if God had predestined condemnation upon men from before the ages, leaving them no means of salvation in a Savior but only an inevitable facing of His wrath at the end - God is absolutely Just and Good in that, for this is exactly what He does with the non-elect angels.

But He has revealed other plans for non-elect man - and we simply have to receive this revelation without judgement too. Single Predestination is yet to be proven inconsistent with Scriptures while I could prove how double predestination has logical contradictions - beginning with God's revelation of His desire for all the wicked, non-elect too, to repent and live. What attribute of God are we sacrificing or nullifying in upholding Single Predestination?

 

[ivdavid]

The names of the saved were written down before they were born, before they had done anything either good or bad. The reason for this is so that God's calling according to election, as in His choice of who would be saved would be true.

Completely in agreement. Single Predestination upholds your entire post in interpreting Revelations as well as other similar passages.

What most calvinists do is enforce parallelism - if God elects some and writes their names in the Book of Life, then the remaining non-elect automatically fall into the opposite extreme of having their names written in the 'book of death' before the foundations of the world itself. But this need not be so.

Why couldn't God have promised salvation to the elect, while He simply made no such guarantee to the non-elect. He still could conditionally desire their redemption and accordingly could give them means and opportunities for it - which they self-determine to fall away from, without enduring in faith to the end. These prove themselves unworthy of God and are turned over to their own evil, even in cases hardened into their own destruction.

 

[Particular]

How is this created by men again? God tells us that He predestined, yes - and we search in Scriptures for whether God predestined some men to salvation alone or whether He also additionally predestined some men to condemnation. Is this searching of Scriptures to know about God a creation of men?


Oh, absolutely. If God did make that choice, we have no room to judge nor whine. What is being debated is not if God is right in doing so - of course, He's right in everything He does and He is Holy and Sovereign in doing so if He so chose to. But we are each striving to be faithful to Scriptures - and there's a debate on how we understand God's revelations.

To reiterate, if God had predestined condemnation upon men from before the ages, leaving them no means of salvation in a Savior but only an inevitable facing of His wrath at the end - God is absolutely Just and Good in that, for this is exactly what He does with the non-elect angels.

But He has revealed other plans for non-elect man - and we simply have to receive this revelation without judgement too. Single Predestination is yet to be proven inconsistent with Scriptures while I could prove how double predestination has logical contradictions - beginning with God's revelation of His desire for all the wicked, non-elect too, to repent and live. What attribute of God are we sacrificing or nullifying in upholding Single Predestination?

Adam chose to disobey God. Adam fell into the well of sin from which he could not save himself nor Eve who fell with him. All the offspring of Adam's race were born in the well with no means of escape.
God is just and right if he chooses to leave all of Adam's race to die in their sins. This is a predestined reality for all humanity because of Adam's sin.
God, however, chooses to save some from the well of sin and pluck them out. These whom God saves are predestined to be saved from before the foundation of the world.
Some call that double predestination. God has no term described for this reality. It is simply the process God has chosen. And no amount of human whining will change what God has chosen to do.
Therefore, the entire bickering between single or double predestination is a moot point with me. God simply does as he wills and we live with that choice as created beings.

 

[ivdavid]

God, however, chooses to save some from the well of sin and pluck them out.... It is simply the process God has chosen. And no amount of human whining will change what God has chosen to do.

Whining, bickering? Harsh words to describe someone who sees God's revelations differently. Nobody's questioning God's choices or process - I'm questioning your and other calvinists' interpretation of what God has revealed. No man is infallible. Wouldn't you want to know what I've based my beliefs on - have you considered the possibility that calvinism simply got this one doctrine terribly wrong? Is it moot to try and edify one another through considerate discussions?

Again, it is true that God shows unconditional mercy towards the elect alone. Can it be inferred from just this that the non-elect are shown NO mercy at all? Logically, what stops God from showing conditional mercy towards them? Why can't God conditionally pull out the non-elect from the well too, giving them a new heart and giving them the Holy Spirit, where they eventually turn back to the mud after being washed and fall away?

The elect have the sure-mercies of David, but can't the non-elect have a conditional mercy that they must self-determine to endure in through faith? If king Saul had been obedient to God, what stops God from considering establishing his kingdom forever?

 

[37818]

. . . an active choice by God to not draw that person.

That thinking disallows God's provisions to draw everyone and everyone is allowed to resist.

Titus 2:11, ". . . For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, . . ."

Acts of the Apostles 7:51, ". . . Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. . . ."

Romans 2:11-16, ". . . For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; ) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. . . ."

Revelation 22:11, ". . . He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. . . ."

Revelation 20:15, ". . . And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. . . ."

Our interpertation what ever it maybe, will not change the sovereign will of our God. Proverbs 21:30, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD."

What ever the truth is, is what I want to believe. But alas none of us can believe what one fails to understand.

 

[Particular]

Whining, bickering? Harsh words to describe someone who sees God's revelations differently. Nobody's questioning God's choices or process - I'm questioning your and other calvinists' interpretation of what God has revealed. No man is infallible. Wouldn't you want to know what I've based my beliefs on - have you considered the possibility that calvinism simply got this one doctrine terribly wrong? Is it moot to try and edify one another through considerate discussions?

Again, it is true that God shows unconditional mercy towards the elect alone. Can it be inferred from just this that the non-elect are shown NO mercy at all? Logically, what stops God from showing conditional mercy towards them? Why can't God conditionally pull out the non-elect from the well too, giving them a new heart and giving them the Holy Spirit, where they eventually turn back to the mud after being washed and fall away?

The elect have the sure-mercies of David, but can't the non-elect have a conditional mercy that they must self-determine to endure in through faith? If king Saul had been obedient to God, what stops God from considering establishing his kingdom forever?

ivdavid, I have very much considered the doctrine of soteriology. I grew up with Arminian teaching. It was through extensive reading of the Bible that I came to my understanding. It was after this that someone labeled me a Calvinist...even though I haven't read any of John Calvin's writings.
So, if you imagine I am harsh and you don't like my use of terms, I can live with that. I once was a whiner and got upset with people who seemed to be denying all humanity the chance to be saved. I was ignorant to the fact that Reformed theology is actually very missional and has spread the gospel throughout the world.
So, yeah, I have thought long and hard on the subject of salvation.

 

[Reformed1689]

That thinking disallows God's provisions to draw everyone and everyone is allowed to resist.

I don't believe that is what the bible teaches.

 

[Particular]

Whining, bickering? Harsh words to describe someone who sees God's revelations differently. Nobody's questioning God's choices or process - I'm questioning your and other calvinists' interpretation of what God has revealed. No man is infallible. Wouldn't you want to know what I've based my beliefs on - have you considered the possibility that calvinism simply got this one doctrine terribly wrong? Is it moot to try and edify one another through considerate discussions?

Again, it is true that God shows unconditional mercy towards the elect alone. Can it be inferred from just this that the non-elect are shown NO mercy at all? Logically, what stops God from showing conditional mercy towards them? Why can't God conditionally pull out the non-elect from the well too, giving them a new heart and giving them the Holy Spirit, where they eventually turn back to the mud after being washed and fall away?

The elect have the sure-mercies of David, but can't the non-elect have a conditional mercy that they must self-determine to endure in through faith? If king Saul had been obedient to God, what stops God from considering establishing his kingdom forever?

Upon reading this again, I see that you focus on mercy, but never mention grace.
God is merciful, for a season, to all humanity. If he were not merciful, all humanity would be dead. But, God is merciful to the redeemed and the damned, the sheep and the goats, while we walk this earth.
The difference is not in mercy, the difference is in grace. It is grace, unmerited favor, that God extends to the elect, by his choice. God does not extend this saving grace to the damned. His unmerited favor is withheld, by His choice. We have no idea why God chooses to extend saving grace to some, but not to all. This is where God shows no obligation to reveal his reasoning for his choice. We must simply accept that he chooses according to his own unrevealed purpose.
All humans are shown mercy for a season, but grace is extended only to the elect.

 

[ivdavid]

That thinking disallows God's provisions to draw everyone and everyone is allowed to resist.

But does God overcome such resistance at any point at all? For without God overcoming the flesh's natural resistance, how exactly are people regenerated or saved?

 

[ivdavid]

So, yeah, I have thought long and hard on the subject of salvation.

The idea was not to question your credentials. In fact, it was the opposite - to state that none of us have intellectual immunity that we merit by anything we do. For all of us are blind apart from God's grace in revealing His truths to us. And God being the great leveler, I suppose we owe it to each other to hear and consider what God might be revealing to each one from Scriptures. What if God is drawing us to deeper truths and away from certain blind-spots through this other interpretation? At any rate, I'd still appreciate being patiently corrected by you if you see the error of my ways better than me.

I once was a whiner and got upset with people who seemed to be denying all humanity the chance to be saved.

I understand that that's where you're coming from. It just so happens I come from a very different starting point. As I mentioned earlier, I really am not in this for what man is owed or how he's treated. The focus is entirely on God and His attributes/processes that He chooses to reveal in Scriptures. I simply am being faithful to the written Word as I see it - if God says He does something a certain way, then that's what I'd believe and give as explanation of my faith. Just as you've read the Bible and come to the independent conclusion that so happens to coincide with calvinism, I've done the same to arrive at Single Predestination. Now it's just up to us to share our respective persuasions with evidence.

 

[ivdavid]

The difference is not in mercy, the difference is in grace.

Since I see mercy itself as God's grace (for even His mercy is unmerited favor), I don't think I'd draw distinctions from this per se.

God does not extend this saving grace to the damned.

And this is what I'm challenging. I agree that the non-elect finally end up as the damned without the guaranteed saving grace that was promised to the elect - but where in Scriptures does God state that He damns them before any evil they have done and without any scope of redemption provided? God's election of grace does not factor in any of man's good or evil (Rom 9:11) in order for God to remain completely sovereign and impartial. And God expresses His desire for all to repent and live (Eze 18, Matt 23:37) - isn't this in direct contradiction with predestined reprobation?

I see myself having to defend Single Predestination by explaining Romans 9, why God would sovereignly want to grant self-determinism to the non-elect, how He has provided them means of salvation, and how there is limited atonement in a genuine universal offer of salvation.

What the calvinist must explain is the contradiction in God desiring the non-elect to repent and live after predestining them to condemnation, the contradiction of preaching the Gospel to the non-elect and God's desiring them to obey it, and the Hebrews 6,10 passages of falling away.

 

[S0l0m0n]

But here's the logical fallacy the calvinists are quick to commit - they wrongly assume that non-elect man not being promised salvation is equivalent to God not desiring or providing any means of salvation at all to them.

I don't see the 'logical fallacy' to a very plain meaning derived directly from Scripture:

Romans 9:20-23 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? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 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: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
​

Unless I am mistaken, I see many things here that are only made for damnation.

I think the 'logical fallacy' only happens with too much Sophistry; based mostly on speculation, and a lack of Scriptural support.

 

[S0l0m0n]

The elect have the sure-mercies of David, but can't the non-elect have a conditional mercy that they must self-determine to endure in through faith?

Your question looks like a re-wording of a type of 'free-will' salvation; arguing for an 'elect' individual to obtain their salvation. It's not harmonious with Calvinism and is yet another level of Arminianism.

'they must self-determine': Then man does not have total depravity?

'to endure in through faith': The personal ''Holiness' movement? As you are arguing that man must 'self-determine' it. Or, they can 'lose their salvation'?
​

It's all so ambiguous despite being over-loaded with terms. I'm not sure as to what you are arguing for.
The 'non-elect' will always be the 'non-elect'.

 

[Scott Downey]

Since a fallen man is locked into sinfulness, and God says the soul that sins shall die, then they can never have eternal life, unless Christ is their saviour who takes away their sin.
The wrath of God abides on those who do not believe, their sins remain and they die in their sins.

You will find people who strongly dislike any kind of calvinist thinking will also not like whatsoever any kind of electing grace resulting in some being predestined even if it is just singular predestination. They just reject that, you see it all on all the forums and hear it in what they say. You can not bring the various sides into agreement through any kind of logical thought.

I have even heard preachers claim that unbelieving people goto hell with their sins fully forgiven- fully paid for because of what Christ did on the cross, which is a heresy. Unbelievers sins remain on them.

But if you do not believe then Christ says you die in your sins, which means there is no forgiveness, you do not have the atonement of your sins.
There is a lot of emotional baggage tying people up in false doctrines.

People who are of the world die in their sins.

John 8:23-24 New King James Version (NKJV)
23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”