thanks Joe,<br><br>I've already checked the Predestination section, it was my first look, but I didn't find what I was looking for. I am actually looking for Augustine's actual writings. The person I am talking with is qouting augustine and saying that he supported single predestination. Personally I can't see that but the qoutes could be taken that way, but they could be out of context. Let me go ahead and post his reply to someone and see what all of y'alls take on it.<br><br>===============================++++++++++++++================+++++++++++++++===================<br>Jari, read the comments by Augustine below. Notice that <br>Augustine's definition of the terms "reprobation" and <br>"predestination" are different. In other words, reprobation<br>is not under predestination.<br><br>==========================<br>"Just why God saves some and leaves others to perish is a <br>mystery. It is not unjust, for God owes no man anything. <br>Reprobation is an act of God's justice just as predestination <br>is an act of His grace. In both God manifests His virtues." <br>(De civ. XIV, 26) ST. AUGUSTINE<br><br>This is pretty clear and straightforth.<br><br>=============================<br><br>Augustine in "A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints"<br><br>http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html<br><br>wrote explaining the different meaning of grace and<br>predestination, "Further, between grace and predestination <br>there is only this difference, that predestination is the <br>preparation for grace, while grace is the donation itself."<br><br>See = predestination refers to preparation of grace (FOR ELECT).<br><br>Augustine in the same book wrote this: "Therefore He chose us <br>by predestinating us."<br><br>This is pretty clear - predestination refers to the elect. <br><br>==========================<br><br>I quote an author Herman Bavinck from "History of the Doctrine<br>of the Decree of Predestination":<br><br>"...Augustine generally views reprobation negatively, i.e., as <br>preterition or dereliction (passing by or abandonment), and he <br>does not as a rule view it as part of predestination, but <br>identifies the latter with election, and subsumes both election <br>and reprobation under God's providence. On the other hand there <br>is a predestination of the means unto salvation. With Augustine <br>predestination or election is always a predestination unto<br>glory. It implies foreordination unto grace... predestination <br>is a preparation for grace... Therefore, in later years many<br>followers of Augustine arrived at the doctrine of twofold<br>predestination: a “predestination unto death” began to be<br>coordinated with a “predestination unto glory.” Nevertheless,<br>the former could not be construed in the same sense as the<br>latter..."<br><br>Notice that Bavinck claims that Augustine thought predesination<br>is *always* a predestination unto glory. And also see that<br>the author says that many followers *LATER* arrived in twofold<br>predestination. In other words, Augustine did not hold to<br>double predestination.<br><br>==========================================<br><br>Theodore Beza was answering the question on whether<br>predestination should be preached, and he argued that yes, <br>the church must preach this doctrine. To me, all of his<br>sentences show that predesination refers to the elect only. <br>I am quoting some of it from "A Brief Declaration of the <br>Table of Predestination":<br><br><br>"...and namely men: whom he hath made after two sorts, clean <br>contrary one to the other (KENTON ADDS - two sorts means elect <br>and non-elect). Whereof (God) maketh the one sort (which it<br>pleased him to choose by his secret will and purpose) partakers<br>of his glory through his mercy, and these we call according to<br>the word of God, the vessels of honor, the elect, the children<br>of promise, and predestinate to salvation: (KENTON ADDS - see<br>predesination refers to elect, and now the rest, Beza is <br>talking about non-elect) and the others, whom likewise it<br>pleased him to ordain to damnation (that he might shew forth <br>his wrath and power, to be glorified also in them) we do call<br>the vessels of dishonor and wrath, the Reprobate & cast off <br>from all good works.<br><br>This Election or Predestination to everlasting life, being <br>considered in the will of God (that is to say) this selfsame <br>determination, or purpose to Elect..."<br><br>Beza did not say reprobate has any part in predestination. <br>Beza was with John Calvin for 16 years.<br><br>===========================================<br><br>Now what about John Calvin himself? My personal opinion is that<br>he is not very clear on whether predestination has two parts in<br>it. Sometimes he seems to imply two parts under predestination,<br>and other times he seems to imply one part. Let me quote some <br>statements from himself.<br><br>http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.txt<br><br>---------------------------<br><br>Chapter 21: OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS <br>PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.<br><br>Question: did he mean to refer "predestinated" to salvation<br>only,<br>or to both salvation and destruction? Could be argued both<br>ways.<br><br>---------------------------<br><br>One part.<br><br>"...find the very origin of the Church, which... could not be <br>found or recognized among the creatures, because it lies hid (in<br><br>both cases wondrously) within the lap of blessed predestination,<br>and the mass of wretched condemnation..."<br><br>"blessed predestination" = elect<br>"wretched condemnation" = non-elect<br>---------------------------<br><br>Two parts.<br><br>"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which <br>he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with<br>regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but <br>some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal <br>damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or<br><br>other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to <br>life or to death."<br><br>Here John Calvin uses "predestination" to apply <br>both elect and non-elect. Interesting.<br><br>----------------------------<br><br>Two parts:<br><br>"The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of <br>life, and adjudges others to eternal death..."<br><br>----------------------------<br><br>My opinion about John Calvin's view - he seems to define the<br>word "predestination" in two parts (election and reprobation).<br>He felt free to use "predestination" to refer to both elect<br>and non-elect. But I want to *STRESS* that no where did he <br>use the word "double" prior to "predestination". <br><br>In other words, I am making the claim that the word "double"<br>is a really new terminology, and also further claim that<br>the Bible does not assert that either.<br><br>===========================================<br><br>Let me explain why many people get confused to the question if<br>reprobate is under predestination or not. I use this website<br>as an example: http://www.mvpca.com/godworks-3.htm<br><br><br>Westminster Confession: “By the decree of God, for the <br>manifestation of His own glory, some men and angels are<br>predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained <br>to everlasting death.”<br><br>(KENTON ADDS - above notice that Westminister Confession use the<br>word "predestined" for elect and "foreordained" for non-elect.)<br><br>Smith writes, “The Westminster Standards use it (Predestination)<br>to refer to just the elect of both men and angels. The word <br>“foreordination” is used of the non–elect men and angels. John <br>MacPherson comments on this usage: It is to be noticed that<br>nowhere throughout this chapter is the term predestination used<br>in reference to evil, while foreordination is used of good and<br>evil alike. Now there is nothing in the words to vindicate such<br>a distinction in their use; but evidently the Westminster<br>divines wished to make it clear that they regarded God’s<br>proceedings in regard to the elect, and in regard to the<br>reprobate respectively, as resting upon entirely different<br>grounds. In the one instance, we have an act of grace,<br>determined purely by God’s good will; in the other, an act of <br>judgment, determined by the sin of the individual.” <br><br>Brakel, W. The Christian's reasonable service, “Predestination <br>consists of two parts: election and reprobation. This is evident<br><br>from texts in which both are mentioned simultaneously. “...<br>vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: . . . vessels of mercy,<br>which He had afore prepared unto glory” (Rom. 9:22–23); “The<br>election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom.<br>11:7); “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain<br>salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Th. 5:9).” <br><br><br>The teacher quote two authors (Smith and Brakel). Smith says <br>the "predestination" is not two parts, while Brakel says two<br>parts. My thinking is like Smith, while Jari's thinking is <br>like Brakel. But poor students! They are gonna be confused <br>when they take this class! Just like DMRN is. (I wish I <br>was joking, but it's true.)<br><br>=======================================<br><br>My argument: Predestination does NOT consist of two parts<br>(election and reprobation). While election AND reprobation <br>are BOTH TRUE AND IS TAUGHT by the Bible, the Bible does <br>not put both under predesination like some authors claim <br>and call it "double predestination".<br><br>Double predestination is unnecessary and confuses people.<br>Away with "double predesination", and leave it at<br>"predestination". John Piper does the same thing. So I <br>say - Period. (Period again up the ceiling - a joke few <br>of you know.)<br><br>Now, I could of course be wrong. And Jari is more than <br>welcome to correct me, but he has a long way to go.<br><br><br><br>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br><br>

By His Grace Alone,
Five Sola