Is Double Predestination Biblical?

[Eternally-Grateful]

Objectivity - the quality or character of being objective : lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias

Interesting this would be said of another chatroom.

 

[David1701]

If we are actually born of God, we DO receive Him.

Yes, I know.

 

[David1701]

I'm guessing @David1701 meant to say, "accept"—not "receive". There is a difference.

No, I said what I meant - "receive". The Bible does say that we receive Jesus, following being born of God.

John 1:12,13 (V.W.)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those believing into His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Rescued One]

.

 

[atpollard]

What do you mean by lack of objectivity? I am trying to go back through some posts to see what was up in that chatroom

This forum (CCC) is heavily REFORMED in its outlook … not a good or bad thing, just a statement of fact that the majority of posters here (and the most prolific posters here) advocate for Reformed Theology (pro-Calvinism/TULIP).

The other forum (BAM) is heavily ANTI-REFORMED in its outlook … not a good or bad thing, just a statement of fact that the majority of posters there (and the most prolific posters there) advocate against Reformed Theology (anti-Calvinism/TULIP).

If you post Pro-Free Will here or Pro-TULIP there, you will be met with an overwhelming, vocal and strenuous one-sided disagreement with your position [no matter how many verses you present or how well you exegete them].
That is “what was up in that chat room” (and why I claimed the two sites are the antithesis [opposites] of each other).

 

[David1701]

This forum (CCC) is heavily REFORMED in its outlook … not a good or bad thing, just a statement of fact that the majority of posters here (and the most prolific posters here) advocate for Reformed Theology (pro-Calvinism/TULIP).

The other forum (BAM) is heavily ANTI-REFORMED in its outlook … not a good or bad thing, just a statement of fact that the majority of posters there (and the most prolific posters there) advocate against Reformed Theology (anti-Calvinism/TULIP).

If you post Pro-Free Will here or Pro-TULIP there, you will be met with an overwhelming, vocal and strenuous one-sided disagreement with your position [no matter how many verses you present or how well you exegete them].
That is “what was up in that chat room” (and why I claimed the two sites are the antithesis [opposites] of each other).

With most of this I agree; however, I must take issue with your qualification that one-sided and strenuous disagreement with ensue, no matter how many verses are presented, or how well they are expounded.

The qualification that I've made bold, I found to be true on B.A.M.; however, what I have also found is that the anti-Reformed are, in general, unwilling and/or incapable of competent exegesis (there are exceptions, but, in my experience, those are few and far between); in fact, many of their "arguments" are emotionally based, which is why they often end up being insulting and, sometimes, blasphemous.

Incidentally, B.A.M. was, originally, mostly disaffected, anti-Reformed posters, from a third forum. One of B.A.M.'s founders had used "sock puppet" accounts, on that third forum, to pretend to be "Calvinists" whom his real account had persuaded that "Calvinism" was wrong. Root and fruit...

 

[atpollard]

1. With most of this I agree; however, I must take issue with your qualification that one-sided and strenuous disagreement with ensue, no matter how many verses are presented, or how well they are expounded.

The qualification that I've made bold, I found to be true on B.A.M.; however, what I have also found is that the anti-Reformed are, in general, unwilling and/or incapable of competent exegesis (there are exceptions, but, in my experience, those are few and far between); in fact, many of their "arguments" are emotionally based, which is why they often end up being insulting and, sometimes, blasphemous.

Incidentally, B.A.M. was, originally, mostly disaffected, anti-Reformed posters, from a third forum. One of B.A.M.'s founders had used "sock puppet" accounts, on that third forum, to pretend to be "Calvinists" whom his real account had persuaded that "Calvinism" was wrong. Root and fruit...

Let's try to turn this conversation back to DOUBLE PREDESTINATION as I touch on your various points (with which I cannot strongly disagree), just to DRIFT back on-topic.

I have encountered three sorts of responses to a "TULIP-centric" discussion like "PREDESTINATION in general and DOUBLE PREDESTINATION in particular.

1. On "CCC" ... where most of the posters are some shade of PRO-TULIP ... the conversation will typically revolve around some nuance between what God PERMITS and what God COMPELS. The conversations will be sprinkled with terms that "real people" don't use in everyday life that will need to be either explained, looked up, or just exclude the non-technical jargon observer.
2. On "BAM" ... where most of the posters are some shade of ANTI-TULIP ... the conversation will almost immediately RUN (not walk) away from PREDESTINATION [except for perhaps a single poster that will state that is an EVIL doctrine by fiat and refuse to offer any real explanation]. The majority will attack anything and everything else about TULIP ["Total Depravity is contradicted by the OT commands", "Election is conditional upon our accepting the gift", "Jesus Atoned for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD!" ...]. Then the most prolific posters will offer walls of text attacking the person of John Calvin and quotes from "the Institutes" - like it was the 'Book of Mormon' for 'Calvinism'. After all "How can TULIP, created by the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrances be true when CALVIN MURDERED SERVETUS!"
3. However, even ANTI-TULIP sites like "BAM" are easier to deal with than the third sort of "Christian Forums" out there. I will spare anyone even referencing them by name, but I will use my personal descriptor "Heretic Central" [HC]. At "HC", the goal is to make all "christians" of all beliefs feel welcome to share their "personal revelations". So a discussion on PREDESTINATION will immediately invite rebuttal and debate between those "christians" that believe in the pre-incarnate existence of the soul, those that believe in reincarnation of the soul until divine ascension to our personal godlike status, those that believe in Universal Salvation of all people ... such mundane questions as "TULIP vs Free Will" are drown out in such a sea of "christianity" and an issue like "DOUBLE PREDESTINATION" is utterly incomprehensible.

So back to DOUBLE PREDESTINATION:

• CCC: Hard Determinism = God determines ALL THINGS - God is the ONLY cause!
• CCC: Soft Determinism = God causes salvation and allows reprobation - passes over, but not the source of evil - Sovereign compatibalism
• BAM: Foreknowledge = God empowers ALL, and MAN freely chooses to accept or reject the gift - FREE WILL compatibalism
• HC: There are as many answers as there are paths to your personal god.

 

[civic]

Just for the record there are a couple of Arminians at the other place . Tibiasdad and Dizerner have been Arminians for well over 40 years. There are a few others too but most here would be unfamiliar with them. Just sayin. Ok back to your regular scheduled program my friends. I think but I'm not 100% sure I still have a few of them in the calvinist camp. Like I said before when I was a calvinist that Arminians are our brothers in Christ and now I hold the reverse to also be true.

 

[Tambora]

I never studied it before. Now I want to know.

All my studies of it conclude it is not biblical.

 

[Rescued One]

All my studies of it conclude it is not biblical.

Aren't you saying that is your conclusion? What do you base your conclusion on?

 

[David1701]

Let's try to turn this conversation back to DOUBLE PREDESTINATION as I touch on your various points (with which I cannot strongly disagree), just to DRIFT back on-topic.

I have encountered three sorts of responses to a "TULIP-centric" discussion like "PREDESTINATION in general and DOUBLE PREDESTINATION in particular.

1. On "CCC" ... where most of the posters are some shade of PRO-TULIP ... the conversation will typically revolve around some nuance between what God PERMITS and what God COMPELS. The conversations will be sprinkled with terms that "real people" don't use in everyday life that will need to be either explained, looked up, or just exclude the non-technical jargon observer.
2. On "BAM" ... where most of the posters are some shade of ANTI-TULIP ... the conversation will almost immediately RUN (not walk) away from PREDESTINATION [except for perhaps a single poster that will state that is an EVIL doctrine by fiat and refuse to offer any real explanation]. The majority will attack anything and everything else about TULIP ["Total Depravity is contradicted by the OT commands", "Election is conditional upon our accepting the gift", "Jesus Atoned for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD!" ...]. Then the most prolific posters will offer walls of text attacking the person of John Calvin and quotes from "the Institutes" - like it was the 'Book of Mormon' for 'Calvinism'. After all "How can TULIP, created by the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrances be true when CALVIN MURDERED SERVETUS!"
3. However, even ANTI-TULIP sites like "BAM" are easier to deal with than the third sort of "Christian Forums" out there. I will spare anyone even referencing them by name, but I will use my personal descriptor "Heretic Central" [HC]. At "HC", the goal is to make all "christians" of all beliefs feel welcome to share their "personal revelations". So a discussion on PREDESTINATION will immediately invite rebuttal and debate between those "christians" that believe in the pre-incarnate existence of the soul, those that believe in reincarnation of the soul until divine ascension to our personal godlike status, those that believe in Universal Salvation of all people ... such mundane questions as "TULIP vs Free Will" are drown out in such a sea of "christianity" and an issue like "DOUBLE PREDESTINATION" is utterly incomprehensible.

So back to DOUBLE PREDESTINATION:

• CCC: Hard Determinism = God determines ALL THINGS - God is the ONLY cause!
• CCC: Soft Determinism = God causes salvation and allows reprobation - passes over, but not the source of evil - Sovereign compatibalism
• BAM: Foreknowledge = God empowers ALL, and MAN freely chooses to accept or reject the gift - FREE WILL compatibalism
• HC: There are as many answers as there are paths to your personal god.

I agree with all of this.

I would come under Soft Determinism.

 

[Tambora]

Aren't you saying that is your conclusion?

Anything that anyone says here will be their conclusion.

What do you base your conclusion on?

I start with the OT biblical definition of "elect" because that's where Jesus and Paul tell us to look for truth.

John 5:47​

(47) But if you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe my words?”​

​

Luke 16:31​

(31) He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”​

​

Acts 17:11​

(11) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.​

In the scriptures Jacob/Israel was elect, God's chosen people.
Did being "elect" mean that every single descendant of Jacob/Israel was predestined to be saved?
No.

John 1:11​

(11) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.​

(12) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,​

 

[Rescued One]

Anything that anyone says here will be their conclusion.



I start with the OT biblical definition of "elect" because that's where Jesus and Paul tell us to look for truth.

John 5:47​

(47) But if you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe my words?”​

​

Luke 16:31​

(31) He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”​

​

Acts 17:11​

(11) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.​

In the scriptures Jacob/Israel was elect, God's chosen people.
Did being "elect" mean that every single descendant of Jacob/Israel was predestined to be saved?
No.

John 1:11​

(11) He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.​

(12) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.​

I don't see your conclusion. Those who believe were given faith by God. Those who don't believe are followers of Satan.

 

[atpollard]

I agree with all of this.

I would come under Soft Determinism.

Me too.

 

[Dave]

I believe that the term "predestined" speaks of God positively causing something and does not encompass God's total sovereignty over everything like the term "ordained", or "providence" does. God ordains everything, and providentially governs everything, but predestines is a term that describes that which He positively causes. There is a 'positively allows' as part of His eternal decree. This is not the Arminian belief that God reacts to man, hence the "positive" part.

Sometimes the term predestined was used loosely by the likes of Calvin and few others, but as far as I can tell, it wasn't meant to teach that God positively caused evil, or sin, but rather the term predestined in those instances was trying to stress that God's sovereignty encompasses even sin and evil. It's unfortunate, because there are lots of unnecessary accusations made from those few instances. I would think that those who genuinely believe in double predestination would fall into the hyper Calvinist camp. I haven't read the thread, just my two cents.

Dave

 

[Tambora]

I don't see your conclusion.

Hmm.

Those who believe were given faith by God. Those who don't believe are followers of Satan.

Some of elect Israel believed what Moses and the prophets wrote, some of elect Israel did not believe.
Being "elect" was no assurance they would all be believers.

 

[makesends]

I never studied it before. Now I want to know.

You will get conflicting answers because the issue depends on what "predestination" means and involves.

I'm struggling with this topic. Double predestination does concern hell. My parents and siblings weren't Christians. That bothers me.

My view on this is a bit different from most, because my view of the human mind is a bit different from most. We often, even when we don't realize we are doing so, back away from things that are hard for us to take. Yet, we are governed, to some extent, anyway, by simple logic, 'rules of non-contradiction' and so on.

I believe absolutely in logic. Not to say that MY logic is absolutely right, but that logic itself is trustworthy. As far as I can tell, since, as John 1 says, "All things were made by him" —that is, that there is nothing besides him that is not a result of his creating—, and since God is omniscient, then what he created he did so on purpose. I can't escape that truth, hard though it be. But that purpose is also logically good, since it would be boring for the almighty to create something for the purpose of mere meanness or destruction.

Double-predestination means different things —implies different things— to different people. Logically, I have to accept that God intended to create 'the reprobate' (a word for those ultimately condemned to hell). But I don't have to accept that his reason for creating them was only because he wanted to send them to hell. In fact, knowing what I do about him, I have to believe that he had another, a good, reason for making them, even if I don't know what that reason is.

But we know several reasons why he made them. They, like the rest of us, and like trees and buildings and dirt, are made for God to use to bring about his original reason in making Adam. He is making us into a place for himself to dwell, and for "him to be our God" and we his people. This is not simply what he demonstrated with the Children of Israel and the tabernacle and later the temple. Those were mere preambles to what we have now. These people who are lost forever, as you have demonstrated, matter to us. They impact us, they are part of what causes us to become what we are going to be when we see ourselves as the members of Christ we will be in Heaven.

Further than that logic, we also have, written in Scripture, the more than magnificent fact that through them God demonstrates his supreme purity and justice, for his own glory, shown to us, the objects of his mercy.

CS Lewis describes the things we indulge in and consider of value now in this life vs the things we miss or give up, in this life —how they will be seen in the next, when we finally see God as he is, and know him as we are known. It's not just that in comparison those things fade away, but that we see the real nature of what was good and what was useless. The only GOOD is from God, and it is lasting. I think we can count on that. I wish I could find the quote for you.

If the following is any comfort, still, please remember it is not doctrine at this point, but my conclusions.

God lets nothing good go to waste. I'm not saying that you will see your loved ones in Heaven, but that (I have to conclude) you will see, in Heaven, what was good about them, that you loved.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Hmm.


Some of elect Israel believed what Moses and the prophets wrote, some of elect Israel did not believe.
Being "elect" was no assurance they would all be believers.

Amen,

This was a separate covenant. part of the larger covenant between God and Abraham. Salvation was not assured to anyone who fell under the covenant.

 

[makesends]

Tambora said:
Hmm.
Some of elect Israel believed what Moses and the prophets wrote, some of elect Israel did not believe.
Being "elect" was no assurance they would all be believers.

Amen,

This was a separate covenant. part of the larger covenant between God and Abraham. Salvation was not assured to anyone who fell under the covenant.

Then, it seems to me self-evident that this 'elect' —Israel, as @Tambora said— is not the same elect as those God created for the purpose of making for himself a people in Heaven. Thus, Tambora's jumping from one to the other, as though the eternal loss of some of 'elect Israel' implies the eternal loss of some of the 'elect' saved, doesn't follow.

 

[brightfame52]

I agree with all of this.

I would come under Soft Determinism.

Me hard determinism