Single Predestination

[ivdavid]

You must believe Jesus lied, and little children go to Hell too.....
Revelation 20:15, ". . . whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. . . ."

Is this the only reason you are inclined to believe all begin with their names written in the book of life? Don't you find it dangerous to build an entire theological interpretation from simply something Scriptures have been quite conspicuously vague about? Just to get this clear - your primary motivation here is to simply ensure an interpretation that little children don't go to hell and nothing else?

Again, I too am inclined to believe that little children are always saved though I do not have absolute Scriptural validation for it. And I think that's perfectly fine for God to remain intentionally silent over it - for we are capable of corrupting this to extremes had God made a conclusive revelation. If Hitler's mother had smothered him when he was a child, would he be in paradise? Do babies remain babies in all eternity or will they have grown versions - and if so, will we have the same empathy towards their perceived innocence while they were toddlers even in their grown versions?

And most importantly, if we do conclude that all babies absolutely go to heaven when they die and this is God's absolute truth - what stops an ignorant parent from wanting to avoid risking the baby growing up, being found to be unfaithful and so having their names removed from the book of life? What if this parent reasons it's better for the child to be assured salvation while it has it and determines to kill it? And taken to its extremes, wouldn't it then be logical never to have any children at all - for it is better that that man was never born at all (Matt 26:24)?

No, God forbid. I embrace the ambiguity because now it gives us incentive to raise children in a godly way and pray over their salvation through faith in Christ as the most assured option. Again, the ambiguity gives me enough room to not micro-analyze if dead children are elect or non-elect - instead it allows me to look at it the other way around. I simply assume that God so happens to pick from only the elect when He determines babies to die. This way, I avoid all theological contradictions.

 

[ivdavid]

If humans are born in sin, they are sinners. If they are not elect, they are not in the Lambs Book of Life. Therefore, not all humans start out in the Lambs Book of Life. If they did, they would all be born sinless, which is Pelagianism.
So, retract your statement that all humans are first found in the Lambs Book of Life or accept you have a Pelagian view.

I do not myself believe that all humans start out in the Lamb's Book of Life - but I don't quite follow this logic.
"If <all humans start out in the Lamb's book of life>, they would all be born sinless" ?
Why must this be so? You must believe that some humans(elect) do start out in this book of life before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8) - are these then born sinless? And since they're not, why must the rest be any different and why then must this amount to pelagianism?

I'd rather argue against this on the grounds that God could never have entered a name into the book only for it to amount to a correction later in blotting it out - God needn't have written it in the first place then before the foundation of the world.

 

[ivdavid]

Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism.

Yes, I've read this too. Accordingly I hold to the consistent theological framework of unconditional election unto salvation for the elect and the simultaneous qualified arminian conditional offer of salvation to the non-elect (Option 3). Sproul didn't explore the specifics of this in his article - he simply lets it pass because Brunner rejects it. This thread expands on Single Predestination as the only viable interpretation that serves to reconcile calvinism and arminianism while being logically consistent and scripturally faithful.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, I've read this too. Accordingly I hold to the consistent theological framework of unconditional election unto salvation for the elect and the simultaneous qualified arminian conditional offer of salvation to the non-elect (Option 3). Sproul didn't explore the specifics of this in his article - he simply lets it pass because Brunner rejects it. This thread expands on Single Predestination as the only viable interpretation that serves to reconcile calvinism and arminianism while being logically consistent and scripturally faithful.

So you believe that some are “predestined” to salvation and others choose to believe? Is that a fair summation of your view?

 

[37818]

Is this the only reason you are inclined to believe all begin with their names written in the book of life

Names are written in the book of life.
Why are they written if only to be blotted out?
God knows who is He is going to save and not save.
Names are blotted out do to sin! Exodus 32:33, first reference. The lost perish because their name is not in the book, Revelation 20:15.
There are two reasons I can think of that they can be in the book. My understanding is the provison of salvation for all men, 1 John 2:2. The only other would be for what I am being falsley accused, Pelagianism.

Don't you find it dangerous to build an entire theological interpretation from simply something Scriptures have been quite conspicuously vague about?

What the Scripture is not vague about: Names are blotted out. And the sole reason the lost perish is their name is not in the book. Being born again, permanently prevents one's name from being blotted out, Revelation 3:5, 1 John 5:4.

Just to get this clear - your primary motivation here is to simply ensure an interpretation that little children don't go to hell and nothing else?

Jesus was clear. "Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Mark 10:14. ". . . Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . ." -- Matthew 18:3. ". . . Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . ." -- John 3:3! Now Nicodemus hearing this asked, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

Understand the requirement to receive the gift of salvation. Children do not have to do anything for it!

There is a requirement to be born of God, 1 John 5:1; 1 John 3:23; John 1:12-13. It has to be obtained as a totally free gift, Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 6:23.

Otherwise it is nonsense. 1 Corinthians 1:18-23.

And most importantly, if we do conclude that all babies absolutely go to heaven when they die and this is God's absolute truth - what stops an ignorant parent from wanting to avoid risking the baby growing up, being found to be unfaithful and so having their names removed from the book of life?

In Psalms 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Revelation 21:8, ". . . all liars . . . ."

What if this parent reasons it's better for the child to be assured salvation while it has it and determines to kill it?

Irrational nonsense, Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Again, Jesus was clear. "Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Mark 10:14.

I hold the view Christ as LORD God was always Lord of His creation. As man Christ died to be Lord of both the saved and the lost, the living and the dead, Romans 14:9-11. To be either one's Judge or our Savior, Romans 8:34.

 

[Particular]

Names are written in the book of life.
Why are they written if only to be blotted out?
God knows who is He is going to save and not save.

Since God knows, then there is no need to write them in the Lambs Book of Life.

Names are blotted out do to sin! Exodus 32:33, first reference. The lost perish because their name is not in the book, Revelation 20:15.
There are two reasons I can think of that they can be in the book. My understanding is the provison of salvation for all men, 1 John 2:2. The only other would be for what I am being falsley accused, Pelagianism.

By declaring they are in the book, but are removed because of sin, you declare that all humans are born sinless and thus original sin is non-existent. Your position is a Pelagian position.

I hold the view Christ as LORD God was always Lord of His creation. As man Christ died to be Lord of both the saved and the lost, the living and the dead, Romans 14:9-11. To be either one's Judge or our Savior, Romans 8:34.

You view removes God's omniscience as He initially thinks all humans are sinless and in the Book of Life, yet when humans choose to sin they are then removed. God is, in your view, at the mercy of man's decisions before He can be gracious. It also places man in the position of possibly living a sinless and perfect life in which they do not need a Savior and in fact they are their own savior.
Ultimately your position is a form of legalism where grace is a secondary issue and is predicated upon the works of men.

No doubt you will complain.

 

[ivdavid]

So you believe that some are “predestined” to salvation and others choose to believe? Is that a fair summation of your view?

Almost. The elect are predestined to salvation before any man's good or evil while the non-elect's destinies are not commented on at the time. The same means of salvation is provided to the non-elect too - they cannot repent with a hardened heart, and so God shows conditional mercy upon the non-elect to give them a new heart and His Holy Spirit until they self-determine to fall away from the faith, which they always do in the flesh. Hence God proves that the flesh profits nothing and only God is good in working out and preserving perfect redemption in the spirit as seen in His elect.

So a fair summation would be that I believe the elect are predestined to salvation while the non-elect, regenerated the same way as the elect and given the genuine offer of salvation through faith in Christ, are required to self-determine/choose to continue in the faith to the end, which they inevitably fall away from.

 

[Particular]

Almost. The elect are predestined to salvation before any man's good or evil while the non-elect's destinies are not commented on at the time. The same means of salvation is provided to the non-elect too - they cannot repent with a hardened heart, and so God shows conditional mercy upon the non-elect to give them a new heart and His Holy Spirit until they self-determine to fall away from the faith, which they always do in the flesh. Hence God proves that the flesh profits nothing and only God is good in working out and preserving perfect redemption in the spirit as seen in His elect.

So a fair summation would be that I believe the elect are predestined to salvation while the non-elect, regenerated the same way as the elect and given the genuine offer of salvation through faith in Christ, are required to self-determine/choose to continue in the faith to the end, which they inevitably fall away from.

If they are non-elect, can they make themselves elect by their own will and effort?

 

[37818]

In the forum rules . . .

3. A member cannot prescribe a belief system for another member on this forum.

4. A member cannot declare that another member holds a belief other than that member has affirmed.

 

[ivdavid]

Understand the requirement to receive the gift of salvation. Children do not have to do anything for it!

I'm not arguing here - I'm trying to understand your position better.

Your quoting John 3:3 implies these children must be born again to not go to hell, right? Isn't that a requirement? And consequently you do realize this triggers a set of contradictions, don't you - because all children cannot be born again for that would permanently prevent their names from being blotted out even if they grow up to be a hitler later.

The other alternative that seems to be your interpretation is that you're somehow focusing on the words "man" in John 3:3 and are thinking this is what "men" need to do as a requirement but not "children"? This seems like an outlandish interpretation and I'll be quick to discard this if you confirm this is not so - for then you'd have to accept teenagers and women too have no such requirements, right?

Names are blotted out due to sin!

Your quoting Psa 58:3 would imply that all the babies who are born in sin would have their "names blotted out due to their original sin", right? But weren't you arguing that these babies do not go to hell because their names are not blotted out yet? What am I missing here in what seems to be a direct contradiction?

I'm more inclined towards a scenario where the book of life has the names of the elect that can never be blotted out. Possibly it also begins with the names of the non-elect but those will be blotted out when they fall into God's condemnation because of their own evil. And God determines for only the elect children to die young, thereby no children going to hell as children.

Irrational nonsense, Genesis 9:6,

I lost your points in this part of your post. How does your quoting Romans and Mark there directly relate to what was being discussed?

Again, I totally agree this is irrational nonsense - but can you guarantee that there is no possibility for an abuse of doctrines? The catholics so abnormally prioritized infant baptism because they believed a baby who possibly died young could never go to heaven unless they were baptized. And how does Gen 9:6 deter such an irrational parent from 'sacrificing' their own eternal life to ensure their child remains saved?

 

[ivdavid]

If they are non-elect, can they make themselves elect by their own will and effort?

Nope. Again, the idea in Single Predestination is not to be saved from being non-elect, it's to be saved from self and sin. God provides them the means of salvation so that they could be non-elect and saved if only they self-determined to persist in the repentance and faith they were once gifted. So why would the goal be to make themselves elect?

 

[Particular]

Nope. Again, the idea in Single Predestination is not to be saved from being non-elect, it's to be saved from self and sin. God provides them the means of salvation so that they could be non-elect and saved if only they self-determined to persist in the repentance and faith they were once gifted. So why would the goal be to make themselves elect?

It seems to me that you are teaching that they can they make themselves non-elect by their own will and effort. In other words, all humans are saved at birth, but they can unsave themselves by their willful actions.

You state:
"they could be non-elect and saved if only they self-determined to persist in the repentance and faith they were once gifted."

Ultimately your comment comes off as works and legalism rather than grace.

 

[ivdavid]

In other words, all humans are saved at birth, but they can unsave themselves by their willful actions.

Those are not my words. I don't believe all humans are saved at birth. They are born into condemnation and can be saved only by God's grace from beginning to end.

The process itself is not different between the elect and the non-elect. Just as the elect are hardened in their hearts, the non-elect too are hardened in their hearts. Just as the elect are regenerated to repentance, the non-elect too could be regenerated to repentance by God giving a new heart. Just as the elect are saved through faith in Christ enduring to the end, the non-elect too are offered salvation through faith in Christ enduring to the end. The only difference between the elect and the non-elect is whose nature is operative in the persevering to the end - God's nature is operative in preserving the elect's born-again spirit as guaranteed by God's promise whereas the self-nature is operative in falling away in the non-elect's flesh. I've elaborated in Post #70

Ultimately your comment comes off as works and legalism rather than grace.

This is a common refrain within calvinism - to call salvation through faith alone in Christ alone as legalism if such faith is found in the non-elect. Now, I don't believe any of the non-elect ever continue in their faith - but from God's perspective, if they were to self-determine to put all their faith in Christ alone, that would never have amounted to legalism but simply obeying what He commanded.

I agree faith is a bit paradoxical because it does get categorized as a work (John 6:29) and yet it is against the Law of works (Gal 3:12). It's because the nature of faith is to do a negative work - essentially acknowledging that I can do no good work of my own self to redeem myself. And this leads to trusting another person's positive work to do in and for me what I myself should've done but couldn't. The person doing the positive work gets all the glory, and faith in the non-elect cannot be credited to their flesh because by its very definition, it is the denying of the self-nature to trust in Christ's nature. And such faith and repentance itself was worked out by irresistible grace with no contribution of the flesh. So when done right, faith in the non-elect wouldn't oppose sola gratia - but none of the non-elect ever choose to do right.

 

[Particular]

Those are not my words. I don't believe all humans are saved at birth. They are born into condemnation and can be saved only by God's grace from beginning to end.

Indeed, we are conceived as corrupt in nature.

The process itself is not different between the elect and the non-elect. Just as the elect are hardened in their hearts, the non-elect too are hardened in their hearts. Just as the elect are regenerated to repentance, the non-elect too could be regenerated to repentance by God giving a new heart.

If someone is regenerated, it is by God's elective will. Non-elect cannot be regenerated. Here then is your first departure from grace to works salvation.

Just as the elect are saved through faith in Christ enduring to the end, the non-elect too are offered salvation through faith in Christ enduring to the end.

No. This is a non-biblical assertion on your part. It removes grace and instills human will as the means of salvation.

The only difference between the elect and the non-elect is whose nature is operative in the persevering to the end - God's nature is operative in preserving the elect's born-again spirit as guaranteed by God's promise whereas the self-nature is operative in falling away in the non-elect's flesh. I've elaborated in Post #70

Your argument is not one of grace, but of works as the means by which a person determines their destination.

This is a common refrain within calvinism - to call salvation through faith alone in Christ alone as legalism if such faith is found in the non-elect.

Faith cannot be found in the non-elect. Faith is a gift from God to the elect whom He has saved by grace.

Now, I don't believe any of the non-elect ever continue in their faith - but from God's perspective, if they were to self-determine to put all their faith in Christ alone, that would never have amounted to legalism but simply obeying what He commanded.

You have negated your own argument with this paragraph. Why then argue what you don't believe?

I agree faith is a bit paradoxical because it does get categorized as a work (John 6:29) and yet it is against the Law of works (Gal 3:12). It's because the nature of faith is to do a negative work - essentially acknowledging that I can do no good work of my own self to redeem myself. And this leads to trusting another person's positive work to do in and for me what I myself should've done but couldn't. The person doing the positive work gets all the glory, and faith in the non-elect cannot be credited to their flesh because by its very definition, it is the denying of the self-nature to trust in Christ's nature. And such faith and repentance itself was worked out by irresistible grace with no contribution of the flesh. So when done right, faith in the non-elect wouldn't oppose sola gratia - but none of the non-elect ever choose to do right.

You seem to believe that faith is a human characteristic in all humanity that is driven by human will. I reject such a belief as non-biblical.
Faith is solely a gift from God to those whom God makes alive with Christ.
By grace God elects to save those chosen from before the foundation of the world. By grace God gives the gift of faith so that the elect will believe that His atonement has made them alive with Christ. (Ephesians 2:1-10)

Ultimately, you are arguing a similar legalism to that which Paul condemns in his letter to the Galatians. Such a view is unsupportable in scripture and thus I find no value in it. It is works based, not faith based and I, like Paul, condemn the view as false teaching.

 

[Scott Downey]

Yes, faith is a gift that God gives.
The non elect simply don't have a genuine faith, they can be just like Judas Iscariot who did not believe in Christ as GOD come in the flesh, even though he had a share in the ministry and would have seen miracles.
Experiencing Holy Spirit of God miracles, which includes partaking in the Holy Spirit as He works in the lives of people also did not help the jews to believe in the exodus, as the Holy Spirit did not regenerate them to contain such a faith, and Jesus says you don't put New Wine, (Holy Spirit) into old wine skins (the old nature) as it will split (be destroyed)
Jude
5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

 

[ivdavid]

Let's take it one at a time...

If someone is regenerated, it is by God's elective will. Non-elect cannot be regenerated.

I'm stating my first premises here -
1. Regeneration is the giving of a new heart and renewing of the mind. Also described as opening of hearts and minds.
2. Any person who is renewed unto repentance must necessarily have been regenerated - for a hardened heart cannot repent.
3. A person can only truly repent through the knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ.
4. The elect can never fall or turn away - they are perfectly preserved.
5. The elect have unconditional sure mercies - God never takes it away.

Consequently, valid inferences are -
A. From 5), if God takes away His mercy from a person, then he is non-elect.
B. From 1) and A), if a person has God's mercy taken away after being given a new heart, then it is equivalent to proving the non-elect can be regenerated.
C. From 2), 3) and 4), if someone who has been renewed unto repentance through the knowledge of Jesus Christ falls away, then it is equivalent to proving the non-elect can be regenerated.

This is how I arrive at this conclusion. Which premise or inference do you find incorrect?

 

[Particular]

Let's take it one at a time...

I'm stating my first premises here -
1. Regeneration is the giving of a new heart and renewing of the mind. Also described as opening of hearts and minds.
2. Any person who is renewed unto repentance must necessarily have been regenerated - for a hardened heart cannot repent.
3. A person can only truly repent through the knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ.
4. The elect can never fall or turn away - they are perfectly preserved.
5. The elect have unconditional sure mercies - God never takes it away.

Consequently, valid inferences are -
A. From 5), if God takes away His mercy from a person, then he is non-elect.
B. From 1) and A), if a person has God's mercy taken away after being given a new heart, then it is equivalent to proving the non-elect can be regenerated.
C. From 2), 3) and 4), if someone who has been renewed unto repentance through the knowledge of Jesus Christ falls away, then it is equivalent to proving the non-elect can be regenerated.

This is how I arrive at this conclusion. Which premise or inference do you find incorrect?

You speak only of mercy, not grace.
All religions speak of mercy. Islam prays for God to grant mercy. Jews pray for God to grant mercy. Buddhists and Hindu's pray for mercy. Mercy alone is temporary as there is a time when the Judge will no longer hold off sentencing for sin. In that moment of sentencing the only one who is not condemned is the one to whom God's grace is extended.
To the one who receives grace no mercy is needed. God views this person in Christ and Christ has paid the price for their sin.
Your emphasis on mercy belies your dependence on human works to continually receive mercy. But, you fail to understand grace as the means of salvation. Therefore you teach legalism. Such a teaching is contrary to scripture.

 

[ivdavid]

You speak only of mercy, not grace.

Rom 9:15 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.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Isn't this in the context of salvation?

Like I already said in Post #17, I see mercy itself as God's grace because it still is unmerited favor. I often use them interchangeably too since mercy is a more forensic term associated with the guilty, which we all are.

I use the term mercy not intentionally to distinguish it from grace but simply because it's there in the Bible.
Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

Should I quote this differently fearing you'd rail against legalism when I make reference to an everlasting covenant having sure mercies?

To the one who receives grace no mercy is needed.

Why do you make it mutually exclusive? Where in Scriptures is there any evidence to prove this assertion? And why are you splitting hairs on two basic terms and drawing out entire theological systems based on just this?

Isn't mercy described as making one faithful (1Cor 7:25)? Isn't mercy described as things accompanying salvation of a royal priesthood (1Pet 2:10)? Where are we going with this?

Have it your way, I'm willing to engage with anything you raise - but this is a dialogue. Why don't you respond to the questions I raise as you raise your own questions? Like I've mentioned before, nobody has intellectual or theological immunity here, especially in a debate forum.

And if the word mercy is tripping you up, ignore B) and simply evaluate C) for me then and tell me which premise or inference you find to be incorrect?

 

[ivdavid]

Your emphasis on mercy belies your dependence on human works to continually receive mercy.

This requires some highlighting. Is it your belief that mercy is somehow merited? Or that it is somehow based on the works of the person being judged instead of the sovereign judge alone? Because I don't.

In fact, this is the first time I've heard the phrase "human works to continually receive mercy" - what does this mean? Could you give examples of what these works look like - because I'm thinking if someone does the expected works, he wouldn't need mercy. It's only those who've failed at the expected works who'd be at the mercy of the Sovereign King and Judge (Rom 11:32).

 

[Particular]

This requires some highlighting. Is it your belief that mercy is somehow merited? Or that it is somehow based on the works of the person being judged instead of the sovereign judge alone? Because I don't.

In fact, this is the first time I've heard the phrase "human works to continually receive mercy" - what does this mean? Could you give examples of what these works look like - because I'm thinking if someone does the expected works, he wouldn't need mercy. It's only those who've failed at the expected works who'd be at the mercy of the Sovereign King and Judge (Rom 11:32).

You once again ignore grace. Why is that?

To your point. God is merciful to even the wicked. He chooses not to immediately judge. This is because His plan for sinners is not yet completed. When the day of the Lord comes, his mercy will end, not only for humanity, but also for the fallen angels.

Grace is the means of salvation. Why do you ignore it?