Single Predestination

[atpollard]

if God does not offer even the beginnings of the path to salvation to the non-elect given His predestined condemnation, how does the calvinist read God's desire for them to repent and live?

I would have to examine a specific verse to give an answer on that specific verse, but for a general answer to a general statement I would question whether God indeed wants (as in it is Gods determined will that it be so) that every person without exception should repent ... and I would turn to this scripture discussion:

[Romans 9:6-13 NASB] 6 But [it is] not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are [descended] from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived [twins] by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though [the twins] were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to [His] choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

• "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." ... God clearly desires His children to repent, but even God states that not all are His children
• "so that God's purpose according to [His] choice would stand ... because of Him who calls" ... Our salvation is not about US, rather it is about GOD'S PURPOSE and BECAUSE of GOD.
  
• "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED" ... God's purpose includes both those called to be His children and those destined for destruction.

[Romans 9:14-18 NASB] 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

• "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." ... God claims an active role in both showing grace to the saved and "hardening" those already unsaved.

[Romans 9:19-24 NASB] 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

• "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" ... God has the right to create some for the purpose of receiving His blessing and some for the purpose of receiving His wrath.
• "And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory" ... God's actions are not about 'fairness', but about making GOD'S GLORY known.

Without a doubt God is not OBLIGATED to give every person a chance at repentance and salvation. It is even POSSIBLE that God does not desire for every person to repent (in the sense that God is willing to lift a finger to make it happen). What remains to be seen from the REST OF SCRIPTURE is whether a strong case can be made that in spite of the fact that God is not obligated and may not actively do anything to save everyone, that the Repentance and Salvation of EVERY PERSON WITHOUT EXCEPTION might be a desire of God.

So you have claimed God desires, and this I have not been convinced of. However, any verses that you find must still be harmonized with Romans 9.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then why desire them to repent and live? And what of the Hebrews and 2Pet falling away passages?

These are the 2 main reasons from Scripture why I am convinced calvinism has got this particular doctrine alone terribly wrong. Claiming to be logically consistent, it falls short - it factors in an individual's evil at the same instant of God's election of grace when Scriptures clearly reveal God doesn't factor in any man's good or evil. I've already raised my points on God's desire for the non-elect to repent and live and the Hebrews falling away passages on separate threads and so far none have explained the contradictions within calvinism. There's zealous debating until an inconsistency is pointed out at which point I'm mostly snubbed with ad-hominem attacks. Are these signs of holding to the truth? I appreciate those who step back and take time to reconsider their position - I am in no hurry to pressure anyone into believing anything. But is a basic level of honesty without guile too much to expect?

God always had his own faithful remnant, chosen and saved out by His grace, Noah, Abraham, 7000 who would not bow to Baal etc...
Jesus is the high Priest for many, not all per Hebrews, and one has to get the truth that all sinned in edam,, all deserve judgment, its act of grace and mercy that any are saved,,,

Do you see God wrong if He has chosen to save some and not all?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe God ever needs a plan B either - but we do have to go where logic and Scriptures take us.


Before "Let there be light" doesn't conclude much more than being before human time - but there are several things happening in God's mind sequentially, all before human time, before the foundations of the world. What we're specifically focusing on is Rom 9:11 and God's sequential partitioning of moments in His mind as before and consequently after any man's good or evil.

God never said He decreed the brothers to sell Joseph into slavery before any of their good or evil. God instead says He did factor in their evil to then turn it for good. Of course, all this is before human time but still after their own evil in God's mind (unless someone erroneously wants to argue for God determining to cause their very evil). However, this is not what God says with respect to His election of grace - He particularly qualifies it as being before any man's good or evil. This necessarily means He hasn't factored in Adam's sin in His mind at the moment of electing His people. He could very well complete His election and the very next instant foresee and decree all things until the end of time factoring in man's evil, but it just can't be at the same moment. If it were so, we'd be going against Rom 9:11 and Scripture cannot be broken.


It would've been so much simpler if Scriptures had stopped with just the passages pointing to justification by faith alone - but James does link works with faith and then we need to interpret what that correlation exactly is, whether evidential or causative. Similarly, it would've been simpler if God said He'd determined everyone's fate with no offer of salvation given to the non-elect - He's done it before with the non-elect angels and revealed it, so this wouldn't be impossible to accept in man given the precedent. But God does reveal His desire for non-elect man to repent and live and He does reveal His supernatural works in them towards salvation for a time until they fall away.

If we have to reconcile all this together, at the moment of His election of grace, God must've known there would be an inevitable fall but without factoring in Adam's or anyone else's acts of evil / unbelief. IOW, God must've known about the fall based on Himself and not any man's acts. And we could explore trails there (karl barth's creational entropy settles it for me personally) - but we still need to hold Rom 9:11 to mean what it says.

the desire of God to have lost sinners repent is not the same as His will that His own elect will get saved.

 

[Yeshua1]

if God does not offer even the beginnings of the path to salvation to the non-elect given His predestined condemnation, how does the calvinist read God's desire for them to repent and live?

Jesus could cry over Jerusalem, pleading with them to turn back, and yet also knew that they would reject him as their messiah and have Rome destroy them AD 70!

 

[Yeshua1]

I would have to examine a specific verse to give an answer on that specific verse, but for a general answer to a general statement I would question whether God indeed wants (as in it is Gods determined will that it be so) that every person without exception should repent ... and I would turn to this scripture discussion:

[Romans 9:6-13 NASB] 6 But [it is] not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are [descended] from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived [twins] by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though [the twins] were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to [His] choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

• "it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." ... God clearly desires His children to repent, but even God states that not all are His children
• "so that God's purpose according to [His] choice would stand ... because of Him who calls" ... Our salvation is not about US, rather it is about GOD'S PURPOSE and BECAUSE of GOD.
  
• "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED" ... God's purpose includes both those called to be His children and those destined for destruction.

[Romans 9:14-18 NASB] 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

• "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." ... God claims an active role in both showing grace to the saved and "hardening" those already unsaved.

[Romans 9:19-24 NASB] 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 [even] us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

• "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" ... God has the right to create some for the purpose of receiving His blessing and some for the purpose of receiving His wrath.
• "And [He did so] to make known the riches of His glory" ... God's actions are not about 'fairness', but about making GOD'S GLORY known.

Without a doubt God is not OBLIGATED to give every person a chance at repentance and salvation. It is even POSSIBLE that God does not desire for every person to repent (in the sense that God is willing to lift a finger to make it happen). What remains to be seen from the REST OF SCRIPTURE is whether a strong case can be made that in spite of the fact that God is not obligated and may not actively do anything to save everyone, that the Repentance and Salvation of EVERY PERSON WITHOUT EXCEPTION might be a desire of God.

So you have claimed God desires, and this I have not been convinced of. However, any verses that you find must still be harmonized with Romans 9.

Paul states to us that not all of Israel was spiritual Israel, as there were those Israelites of the flesh, and those who had faith and trust in Yahweh, true 'sons of Abraham"

 

[ivdavid]

What remains to be seen from the REST OF SCRIPTURE is whether a strong case can be made that in spite of the fact that God is not obligated and may not actively do anything to save everyone, that the Repentance and Salvation of EVERY PERSON WITHOUT EXCEPTION might be a desire of God.

I'm going to be on and off the next few days....I'll simply quickly note that God is neither obligated nor does He have to do anything to actively save anyone to begin with. I'm only saying it's a contradiction for God to predestine condemnation and then desire for those predestined to repent and live.

I'd be fine if God had said there was no Savior for non-elect man just as He had said for the non-elect angels - or there'd even be room for such an inference if God had remained silent. But He actively declares that He does desire that the non-elect repent and live - and furthermore does show He actively gives a new heart unto repentance once in the non-elect.

However, any verses that you find must still be harmonized with Romans 9.

Agreed. I believe they are - shall expand later as I expect it to take significant time.

Do you see God wrong if He has chosen to save some and not all?

No. I'm not focused on man or what is fair to him - I'm focused on God and how His nature is always seen as consistent. He cannot contradict His own counsel/decree to predestine condemnation only to then desire the non-elect to repent and live.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm going to be on and off the next few days....I'll simply quickly note that God is neither obligated nor does He have to do anything to actively save anyone to begin with. I'm only saying it's a contradiction for God to predestine condemnation and then desire for those predestined to repent and live.

I'd be fine if God had said there was no Savior for non-elect man just as He had said for the non-elect angels - or there'd even be room for such an inference if God had remained silent. But He actively declares that He does desire that the non-elect repent and live - and furthermore does show He actively gives a new heart unto repentance once in the non-elect.



Agreed. I believe they are - shall expand later as I expect it to take significant time.


No. I'm not focused on man or what is fair to him - I'm focused on God and how His nature is always seen as consistent. He cannot contradict His own counsel/decree to predestine condemnation only to then desire the non-elect to repent and live.

His desire and His will are not the same thing.... I can what my son to do well, at same time knowing already that he will fail his exam!

 

[ivdavid]

I would question whether God indeed wants (as in it is Gods determined will that it be so) that every person without exception should repent

His desire and His will are not the same thing....

Just so we can all be on the same page, let's agree on semantics - needn't be absolutely perfect but just close enough to have working definitions as used in this context.

God's desires/wants are not the same as God's counsel/determined will [referred here earlier]. God can desire obedience to His law and yet counsel/decree to permit man to disobey. God's desires can be overridden by such counsel of God but God's counsel/determined will/decrees are never thwarted and will surely come to pass.

I can what my son to do well, at same time knowing already that he will fail his exam!

A couple of things here that don't match with what we're discussing... predestination is without factoring in future acts of good or evil - so the equivalent should be the father not factoring in how the son will perform in the future. Also, the sequence/order of the decree or predestination precedes God's process of redemption - so the equivalent should be the father decreeing/determining/permitting the child to fail in his exam without factoring in the son's own future performance and then desiring for the son to do well - is inconsistent here, right? This is the internal contradiction i'm pointing to...

 

[atpollard]

so the equivalent should be the father decreeing/determining/permitting the child to fail in his exam without factoring in the son's own future performance and then desiring for the son to do well - is inconsistent here, right? This is the internal contradiction i'm pointing to...

The father had two sons and determined that the first son would be required to attend school and do homework. The father determined the second son would be free to attend school or just play as he wished and could do homework only if he chose to attend school and felt like doing homework. The father still desires for both sons to do well on the test. Is that an internal contradiction?

 

[ivdavid]

"JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED" ... God's purpose includes both those called to be His children and those destined for destruction.

The way I believe Romans 9 should be read to make for the most consistent interpretation is to not assume the hardening of the non-elect was a predestined act of God. Choosing the elect and consequently the non-elect is a sovereign act of God that precedes all other acts - and His (single) predestination of the elect unto promised salvation too occurs immediately after his election of grace, and before all other acts.

However His hardening of hearts is always contingent on man filling up his measure of iniquity which obviously is after man's acts of evil and not before. To save time on repeating the references, I'm linking to an earlier post - but I'll surely elaborate in discussion here where needed.

The thought pattern in Romans 9 is -
1. Paul expresses sorrow that his fellow jews in the flesh are branches cut off from Christ.
2. But he acknowledges that God did promise the descendants of Abraham salvation.
3. But God's word has not failed because the promise was for the elect children of promise and not every children of flesh.
4. God can and has dealt differently even in the OT between the children of promise and children of flesh - thereby evidencing that God needn't deal with all the jews the same way during that time.
5. Choosing who are children of promise and who are children of flesh was done in a completely impartial manner not being based on anything they themselves have done / would do but completely by God's sovereign election of grace.
6. Moreover, God not only has shown mercy to some unto salvation but He has also hardened others unto destruction for His purpose of showing forth His power and glory - thereby evidencing that God can harden the jews who are now being cut off.
7. And some may question why God hardens someone and yet/still expects them to obey - to which Paul answers that God can do as He pleases with the same lump of clay.
7a. *** this is where we probably diverge in our interpretation - the same lump of clay is not necessarily referring to some base creation material but the generic unprofitable world that is under sin and deserving of condemnation because of their continuous evil as described in Romans 3. From that same lump of 2 equally evil people, God can love and show mercy on one afore-prepared (single predestined) for honorable use. And the other who is not afore-prepared but now fitted/completed for destruction can be hated and either be simply destroyed in their sleep or they can be used as props through hardening to contrast God's power against their increased evil and then destroyed. The key point to note is that this hardening occurs after they have filled up their measure of iniquity, hence fitted/completed for destruction and not before in predestination.

The mix-up for calvinists is in their confusing for this decree of hardening to occur at the same time election occurs because they begin with the incorrect double predestination doctrine. As per Single Predestination, God can genuinely desire all, elect and non-elect, to repent and live and then turn in His wrath through hardening upon the non-elect after they've filled up their measure of iniquity. This isn't feasible as per calvinism who have to maintain God's hatred and hardening throughout from before the foundations of the world - which goes against Scriptures which declare God's desire for the non-elect to repent and live.

 

[ivdavid]

The father had two sons and determined that the first son would be required to attend school and do homework. The father determined the second son would be free to attend school or just play as he wished and could do homework only if he chose to attend school and felt like doing homework. The father still desires for both sons to do well on the test. Is that an internal contradiction?

Not at all. This is what single predestination holds - giving the freedom to the non-elect to determine their destiny by providing the means to it. Double predestination holds that the father determined that the second son would not attend school and not do his homework at the same time that he determined the first son would attend school. How can the father desire the second person to do well on the test after he has already determined against it?

 

[ivdavid]

He also is actively forming and hardening others not predestined unto salvation thus not set apart in the womb to either not have the conscious ability to know God and the testimony before death and or is hardening those consciously able to perceive God(Romans 1:20) yet not perceiving the Testimony of Yeshua thus disobeying the Gospel of there own will .(2 thess 1:8)

How does one explain the inconsistency in God's nature to decree one thing first and then desire the exact opposite? God very well can decree as He pleases - but once He has decreed it, He cannot desire against what He Himself has sovereignly decreed.

God can very well counsel/decree to harden anyone, but He cannot desire them to repent and live after decreeing so. So how do you explain Scriptures that reveal such desires of God?

 

[Yeshua1]

The way I believe Romans 9 should be read to make for the most consistent interpretation is to not assume the hardening of the non-elect was a predestined act of God. Choosing the elect and consequently the non-elect is a sovereign act of God that precedes all other acts - and His (single) predestination of the elect unto promised salvation too occurs immediately after his election of grace, and before all other acts.

However His hardening of hearts is always contingent on man filling up his measure of iniquity which obviously is after man's acts of evil and not before. To save time on repeating the references, I'm linking to an earlier post - but I'll surely elaborate in discussion here where needed.

The thought pattern in Romans 9 is -
1. Paul expresses sorrow that his fellow jews in the flesh are branches cut off from Christ.
2. But he acknowledges that God did promise the descendants of Abraham salvation.
3. But God's word has not failed because the promise was for the elect children of promise and not every children of flesh.
4. God can and has dealt differently even in the OT between the children of promise and children of flesh - thereby evidencing that God needn't deal with all the jews the same way during that time.
5. Choosing who are children of promise and who are children of flesh was done in a completely impartial manner not being based on anything they themselves have done / would do but completely by God's sovereign election of grace.
6. Moreover, God not only has shown mercy to some unto salvation but He has also hardened others unto destruction for His purpose of showing forth His power and glory - thereby evidencing that God can harden the jews who are now being cut off.
7. And some may question why God hardens someone and yet/still expects them to obey - to which Paul answers that God can do as He pleases with the same lump of clay.
7a. *** this is where we probably diverge in our interpretation - the same lump of clay is not necessarily referring to some base creation material but the generic unprofitable world that is under sin and deserving of condemnation because of their continuous evil as described in Romans 3. From that same lump of 2 equally evil people, God can love and show mercy on one afore-prepared (single predestined) for honorable use. And the other who is not afore-prepared but now fitted/completed for destruction can be hated and either be simply destroyed in their sleep or they can be used as props through hardening to contrast God's power against their increased evil and then destroyed. The key point to note is that this hardening occurs after they have filled up their measure of iniquity, hence fitted/completed for destruction and not before in predestination.

The mix-up for calvinists is in their confusing for this decree of hardening to occur at the same time election occurs because they begin with the incorrect double predestination doctrine. As per Single Predestination, God can genuinely desire all, elect and non-elect, to repent and live and then turn in His wrath through hardening upon the non-elect after they've filled up their measure of iniquity. This isn't feasible as per calvinism who have to maintain God's hatred and hardening throughout from before the foundations of the world - which goes against Scriptures which declare God's desire for the non-elect to repent and live.

All of the decrees of God are ordered from eternity past ay the same "time", correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

How does one explain the inconsistency in God's nature to decree one thing first and then desire the exact opposite? God very well can decree as He pleases - but once He has decreed it, He cannot desire against what He Himself has sovereignly decreed.

God can very well counsel/decree to harden anyone, but He cannot desire them to repent and live after decreeing so. So how do you explain Scriptures that reveal such desires of God?

His desires are not the same as His will, as we would wander into the permissive and determined Will of God...

 

[ivdavid]

All of the decrees of God are ordered from eternity past ay the same "time", correct?

We're referring to the logical order of God's decrees in His mind and not as per our human time.

 

[37818]

We're referring to the logical order of God's decrees in His mind and not as per our human time.

This is for us between God's spoken word we know about and our interpretations.

 

[ivdavid]

This is for us between God's spoken word we know about and our interpretations.

Not really. It's not just our interpretation that God knows the end from the beginning and yet Rom 9:11 places God's election of grace before His factoring in human acts of good or evil - both of which occur before the foundation of the world but having a relative sequence to each other qualified by just the word 'before'. How do you see this as our interpretation outside of scriptures?

 

[atpollard]

The mix-up for calvinists is in their confusing for this decree of hardening to occur at the same time election occurs because they begin with the incorrect double predestination doctrine.

This is not really the orthodox Reformed view of Double Predestination. God has no need to harden hearts from eternity past. Only Hypercalvinists believe that God works to force people into hell. Normal ‘Calvinists’ just believe that those not elected have no chance of salvation, so their eternal destiny is no more in question than that of the elect.

 

[atpollard]

Not at all. This is what single predestination holds - giving the freedom to the non-elect to determine their destiny by providing the means to it. Double predestination holds that the father determined that the second son would not attend school and not do his homework at the same time that he determined the first son would attend school.

Is there really any chance that a child will choose School and Homework with no external requirement?

 

[ivdavid]

This is not really the orthodox Reformed view of Double Predestination. God has no need to harden hearts from eternity past. Only Hypercalvinists believe that God works to force people into hell. Normal ‘Calvinists’ just believe that those not elected have no chance of salvation, so their eternal destiny is no more in question than that of the elect.

I wasn't referring to hypercalvinism here. Though the calvinist position does get ambiguously confusing to me when I see someone, possibly taking the side of calvinism, writing the following and you agreeing with it -

He also is actively forming and hardening others not predestined unto salvation...

Am I to read the above as God actively forming but not hardening initially - instead hardening only at a later time when man has filled his measure of iniquity? If so, we are in agreement.


Anyways, I meant that Romans 9 is read by the calvinists as God hating Esau and preparing vessels of mercy and destruction alike from the point of election itself - how then can it not mean God's hardening too from that same point in time? For Romans 9 lays out the parallels of God hardening those who are fitted for destruction, right? If destruction was decreed during election, then how can the hardening that leads to it not be decreed during election itself?