The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum double predestination

Hi everyone, <br><br>I haven't been here in quite a while, things have just been to busy to post. <br><br>I am in a discussion with a group of "Reformers" who are trying to say that single predestination has always been the reformed/biblical view. I am trying to show them that single has always been Arminianism and Double has been the Reformed view. One person in the group has challenged my statement that Augustine, Calvin, Luther were double predestinarians. I am having trouble re-finding qoutes that are from augustine concerning his double predestination. Does anyone have some sources for that? Could you send them my way.<br><br>thanks.<br>five sola<br>

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>

Five-Sola<br><br><br>The way I look at it is if God predestines the elect for salvation, how can anybody deny that double predestination has occurred?<br>After all, God has by the fault assigned the un-elect to their just reward. <br><br>However, in my way of thinking (I could be wrong, it would be the first); I think we are dealing with semantics.<br><br>Tom<br>

I would think it would be that simple but this group I am dealing with is almost saying (they haven't specifically spelled it out this way) that God choose the elect then did nothing else, He didn't have a choice either way for the reprobate. In my opinion this is sloppy thinking because if God did not even consider the reprobate, then they have not been ordained as such (they say they have but that is different than predestinating or doing something) then they are outside God's plan. Something that is not possible.<br><br>

Five<br><br>This group that you are talking about wouldn't be from the Mountain Retreat board would they?

No, it is an email goup I belong to of Deaf Reformed men. Some pastors and elders, some laymen, some interpreters (like myself).<br><br>five sola

Anyway, I had the people at Mountain Retreat say the same things to me.<br><br>Tom

I agree that this is a discussion of semantics. Let that be known from the biginning of this reply!<br><br>the definition of predestination vs. reprobation shows God chosing some and leaving the others to their own innate, wicked ways. The problem I have with double predestination is that it implies God is looking at a neutral individual and labling that person saved or damned. The truth is, though, that there is no neutrality. God knew beforehand not only that He would have His people and those that are not His people, but that we would all be equally totally depraved, and inable without His help to come to Him. Actively He helped (not just helped, but intervened) and saved a people for Himself, and passively, yet still according to His will, did not save those that are not His people. The question comes, though, is the fact that God is not choosing those people to be saved in essence choosing them for damnation? The answer is, [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] maybe, maybe not. God knows! The debate is surely a debate over the definition of reprobation, more than it is whether or not the person is chosen for his/her end. We know that nothing happens outside of the will of God. In the same way that we can say He is not the author of evil, but He is still in control of it, it might even be viable to say that He didn't cause the person to be evil in heart, but he did allow it. Semantics games are no fun, let the truth of the matter rest, and let us forget trying to have an "-ism" for everything! That's a huge temptation in both philosophy, and theology, but when terms are simplified as such, they become connotative words, above and beyond denotative words. Anyways, that's my two bits. <br>troy

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]The question comes, though, is the fact that God is not choosing those people to be saved in essence choosing them for damnation? The answer is, [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] maybe, maybe not. God knows!

---

That's my

In His Grace,

True, you said better what I was trying to say. We know that God is in control of all things, as I stated later in my post. And, He does get the glory from all things. When someone has to say that in essence not doing something is equl to doing the opposite, that is a jump from what is given, and is a logical fallacy. Did God point at individuals one by one and say "heaven ...heaven ...hell ... hell... hell... heaven ... hell ...hell" is something that God only knows, and should be chalked up to one of His mysteries. This is not an important debate in the vast scheme of things, and unfruitful when we make assumptions. In God's decree we are to view what happens as God's plan, this is true, but in the same sense, I disagree with the idea of God ever seeing man as neutral. I don't know if I am in any way clear on what I am saying, but I am thankful for the adminstration here to help my thoughts be clarified with God's glory, and the Cross of Christ always in view. <br>troy

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]When someone has to say that in essence not doing something is equl to doing the opposite, that is a jump from what is given, and is a logical fallacy.

---

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]Did God point at individuals one by one and say "heaven ...heaven ...hell ... hell... hell... heaven ... hell ...hell" is something that God only knows . . .

---

In His Grace,

My representation of God pointing was meant to be satirical, I apologize for using it, it is one of the things I'm tired of hearing from my own Arminian friends. I apparantly have a misconstrued view of the topic of DP. If the argument is whether or not God decreed a person's spiritual state, then I am in full agreement with you. In my experience in talking to DP proponents, they take it to the level that no one is left to themselves in their own sinful state, but that they are made that way by God. I answer that, God didn't make us sinful, but rather we did through Adam's federal headship. I am not assuming a pre-existant human soul, I'm not sure where you read that in what I have said. Also I don't think at all that what I have expressed is fate, but a personal God who changes some hearts, according to the mystery of His will, and doesn't change others, also according to the mystery of His will. If that is what you are saying, then I agree, and I am sorry for any misunderstanding that may have arisen in my writing. Humbly His,<br>troy

GottseiEhre,<br><br>Please understand that my reply and criticisms were directed at the "argument" you posed, which you have stated is not your own. I had thought that the way I had phrased them would be understood "generally" and not personally; I didn't consider that they might be what you embraced at all. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] At least I didn't understand what you wrote as being your own personal belief. So, I not so cleverly used your text as a springboard to put forth a brief apologetic against the errors and for the historic doctrine held by the vast majority of Calvinists. Thus the comments about "fate", etc., were NOT directed at you but were simply written to show the logical end that one would be left with if the biblical doctrine was rejected. I'll try to do better next time. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,<br>

Ah, gotcha! It seems here, and elsewhere (secular art thread), I need to do the same thing! Growing in grace, by grace,<br>troy