# Books from a single predestination position?



## thistle93 (Oct 13, 2012)

Hi! I am looking for some books that explain or discuss predestination from a single view. Meaning that God is active in the predestination of the elect (effectual grace) and passive in reprobation of the non-elect (passes them over and leaves them to themselves). This means God is completely responsible for the elects salvation and the non-elect is completely responsible for their own damnation. While I think there are a few passages that could lead one to a double view of predestination I believe the tenor of the whole Bible leans much more to a single view. Two books that I know of that promote the single view is Sproul's "Chosen By God" (though he refers to it as a form of double predestination though distinguishes that it differentiates from the hyper-calvinists double predestination because God is only active towards elect and passive to the reprobate) and Shedd's "Dogmatic Theology". Thank you! 

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## KMK (Oct 13, 2012)

thistle93 said:


> This means God is completely responsible for the elects salvation and the non-elect is completely responsible for their own damnation.



This is the Reformed view of predestination. The double-predestination view does NOT state that the predestination of the elect and the predestination of the reprobate are symetrical.

See this article by Sproul: "Double" Predestination by R.C. Sproul

From the article:



> In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
> In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Oct 13, 2012)

This was a really helpful thread on the Double/Single debate within the reformed community.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/predestination-double-single-73838/

As far as your question goes,I would recommend Boettner's book on Predestination,he would be in the single camp,as would MOST but not all reformed believers.

This would be a good selection of those in the Double camp (courtesy of Brandon Adams post-excellent choices)

The Grand Demonstration - Jay Adams
Predestination - Gordon Clark
God & Evil: The Problem Solved - Gordon Clark
The Sovereignty of God - A.W. Pink (full, unedited version)

P.S. after the fact I noticed that you started the thread I recommended,so I guess,there you go,your own thread is the best one on the subject.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 13, 2012)

KMK said:


> thistle93 said:
> 
> 
> > This means God is completely responsible for the elects salvation and the non-elect is completely responsible for their own damnation.
> ...



LBC 3.3
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, g to the praise of His glorious grace; h *others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation*, to the praise of His glorious justice. i

WCF 3.3
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and *others foreordained to everlasting death*.g

I just thought the differences between these two confessions was noteworthy. The WCF does not have a problem saying that the "others" are "foreordained" while the LBC steers clear of the use of the word "foreordained." I wonder why it looks as though the LBC framers chickened out on saying God foreordained the reprobate. Evidently, they made a choice. Curious. It almost seems like the WCF and the LBC don't completely agree.

Granted, the predestination of the elect and the predestination of the reprobate are not symmetrical, but I do believe predestination still occurred for both because God didn't pass over the reprobate by accident. Rather, he passes over them on purpose. So then, God predestines the reprobate to remain in their volitional state of wickedness for which they are _completely responsible_.

With all this said, we still haven't gotten any closer to a book recommendation (except for Brian's post).


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 13, 2012)

Let me also commend Dr. Sproul's article, and teaching generally on this topic.
Intervening for mercy (of the elect) versus passing by to receive justice (the reprobate) are not symmetrical processes.
So, it's not quite right to refer to "double" predestination as if they were.


----------



## KMK (Oct 13, 2012)

sevenzedek said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > thistle93 said:
> ...



I agree that the LBC is weaker than the WCF in this area. They chose to follow the wording of the first London Confession of Faith. Instead of 'chickening out', however, their motivation might have been to avoid the confusion over 'double-predestination' taught by WCF 3.3. The distinction between "predestinated unto everlasting life" and "foreordained to everlasting death" are highly nuanced. 

And given that the Baptist Catechism of 1693 follows the wording of the WSC Q 7, "The Decrees of God are his Eternal Purpose, according to the Counsel of His Will whereby for his own Glory, he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass," supports that explanation. To accuse Benjamin Keach and William Collins et al 'chickening out' is uncharitable at best.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 14, 2012)

KMK said:


> To accuse Benjamin Keach and William Collins et al 'chickening out' is uncharitable at best.



Please forgive me. 

To say that they chickened out was an unwarranted comment. I should have been more precise in what I was aiming at with my careless statement. I would add that it probably came off quite arrogant as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the LBC framers are much more learned and calculated than I. Thanks for pointing out my error.

How embarrassing.


----------



## KMK (Oct 14, 2012)

No problem. It is frustrating at times that there is not more historical data surrounding the framing of the LBC. If Baptists of the 17th were weak on the subject they made up for it with A. W. Pink!


----------

