# Double Predestination



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 28, 2011)

Is double predestination (defined as God predetermining some for Heaven and others for Hell) an improper soteriological view?

I have never had a problem with it, but might be missing something.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 28, 2011)

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power
over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and
wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

WCF Chapter 3.7

I don't think that view is improper at all.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 28, 2011)

I have never seen it in Scripture or in the Confession (I could be wrong) where 'predestination' is used towards the reprobate. What Willie quoted states, that he 'passed by' or 'preterition', another part of the Confession says they are 'foreordained', but not predestined. Predestined/-ation seems to be used only referring to the elect of God and salvation, and never towards the reprobate. So I don't think, at least at this time, I could say I believe in 'double predestination'. However, I do believe that God predestines the elect unto salvation, and foreordains the reprobate and/or passes by them not showing His mercy to them.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 28, 2011)

Pastor Barnes,

What would be the difference between predestination and foreordination?


----------



## lynnie (Mar 28, 2011)

Pink treats this very well in _The Sovereignty of God_; he is a strong advocate. Great book. John Piper also believes in double predestination. In my limited experience it is by no means the majority view among 5 pointers though. I personally don't see any other way to view "Jacob I loved and Esau I hated," but not all Calvinists believe that.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree with Josh. 

I was merely saying that Scripture nor the Confession never use 'Presdestination' when referring to the reprobate (to my knowledge). But the thought that I have brought up doesn't matter. God sovereignly planned it all.


----------



## LeeD (Mar 28, 2011)

I read where RC Sproul described the predestination of the elect as God actively working their salvation, but then described the reprobation of the non-elect as God being passive towards them, allowing them to eternally perish.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 28, 2011)

I think the standard Reformed view is that both reprobation and election to salvation are both ordained by God, but not symmetrically. It is similar to good works and sin - both are ordained by God, but certainly not symmetrically.


----------



## torstar (Mar 28, 2011)

Boliver:

I cannot find a way around concluding it exists.

The problem is using it unwisely.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 28, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> I think the standard Reformed view is that both reprobation and election to salvation are both ordained by God, but not symmetrically. It is similar to good works and sin - both are ordained by God, but certainly not symmetrically.


Yes, the equal ultimacy view is what "double-predestination" actually means, that is God goes out of His way to ensure the reprobate remain as such versus simply passing them by and leaving them in their sins. Predestination is always used in the affirmative for the elect. Foreordination is used when speaking of the reprobate. _Foreordination_- God predisposes all that is to come to pass and the conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan. Thus we say _God foreknows because He has foreordained_.

_Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination_. Misunderstandings of these terms have led the uninformed to claim that the related Reformed doctrines are fatalistic.

From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
_If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning_. (*Incorrect*)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical...
_Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning_. (*Correct*)

In other words, the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place.

AMR


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 28, 2011)

AMR, as you well know, this issue isn't that simple. It still involves a determinative action on God's part.

While what you say about foreknowledge is true, it fails to satisfactorily deal with texts like the ones referring to Jacob and Esau. 

Romans 9 "For the children being not yet born, *neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth*; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."


----------



## Reformed Roman (Mar 28, 2011)

The election there is referring to Jacob being elected. Not Esau being elected to hell.

It's complicated and I think far too complex for any of us to really grasp.

I think God is active in his passiveness towards the non elect. I understand that might not make sense,

but you can't say God isn't active in something. God is sovereign, but God actively decided to passively pass by the non elect.

Hopefully that makes sense to at least some of you.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 28, 2011)

As has been pointed out here already by more than myself, God's decree to pass by the reprobate was still determinative, so reprobation is the destiny of the non-elect.




Zach Rohman said:


> The election there is referring to Jacob being elected. Not Esau being elected to hell.



The text clearly speaks of both Jacob and Esau and God's determination toward each. It is not accurate to say the text speaks of one brother and not the other. Jacob I loved but Esau have I hated. God may act actively and passively in each act but act He still does!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 28, 2011)

1. God ordains all that comes to pass.
2. He is described as "enduring with long-suffering" the reprobate.
3. His work towards His children is definitive from end to end. That is, He foreknows (loves), calls, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies them. The Saints glorify Him because He is at work in them to do His good pleasure.

On the basis of revelation, we have much to say as believers how much out of His way He lifts sinners out of the mire and saves them from their sins. Though we know that God ordains the reprobation of men we also know they are morally culpable and responsible for the judgment they receive. Sin and disobedience belongs to rebellious men and they cannot, in any way claim, "God made me this way."

That said, the problem I have with these types of discussions is how they are torn from the redemptive context in which they are introduced. When believers are given the privilege of seeing, in part, the inscrutable ways of God, it by way of direct address. It is not presented in the form of aphorisms or bare propositions that are intended to serve some polemic aim. Rather, God through His Word, addresses us personally and tenderly and says to us: 

"Look to what great lengths I have gone to love you with an everlasting love! Can anything separate you from the love I have for you in Christ?! If I am for you, who can stand against you?!"

God reveals His care for His elect and reveals that care to His elect that they might open their mouths in praise.


----------



## athanatos (Mar 28, 2011)

Grillsy said:


> The text clearly speaks of both Jacob and Esau and God's determination toward each. It is not accurate to say the text speaks of one brother and not the other. Jacob I loved but Esau have I hated.



What is more, God frustrated Edom's plans. Gave him the land of jackals, tore down his cities, hindered their building up (Mal 1). It is a very active demonstration of, what appears to be communicated in the text, how God loves Jacob ("How have you loved me?").

Meanwhile, St. Paul and St. Hebrews both cite him as an example of a hardened heart. St. Paul uses his example in the same context of Pharaoh, of whom it says explicitly that God actively hardened.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 28, 2011)

I love double predestination. If there was triple predestination I'd love that too.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 28, 2011)

*CharlieJ*


> I think the standard Reformed view is that both reprobation and election to salvation are both ordained by God, but not symmetrically. It is similar to good works and sin - both are ordained by God, but certainly not symmetrically.



They aren't "symmetrical" for a start, because although they are both predestined/decreed by God - as are all things - reprobation is of Man's fault and of Man's sin, whereas election is of God's grace. Reprobation is determined by God but powered by Man's sin. Election is determined by God and powered by God's grace.

The reprobate in Hell can't take comfort from the fact that they were reprobated by God and therefore couldn't help being reprobate. God ordains Man's free actions. 

In fact if God wasn't totally sovereign then Man couldn't be free at a metaphysical level and responsible, as the more consistent atheists such as Marxists have found; although Fallen Man is of course ethically bound.

See e.g. Shedd "Calvinism Pure and Mixed" (BoT) 

*AMR*


> Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but foreknowledge is not itself foreordination. Misunderstandings of these terms have led the uninformed to claim that the related Reformed doctrines are fatalistic.



Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the words "foreknow" and "foreknowledge" were reserved in Scripture for God's electing love and are related to the word "knowledge" as it is used in the Bible (KJV at least) regarding the intimate love of a man and wife.(?) 

The word has more to do with God setting His love on someone from eternity than that God knows all things beforehand.

*AMR*


> Predestination is always used in the affirmative for the elect. Foreordination is used when speaking of the reprobate. Foreordination- God predisposes all that is to come to pass and the conditions in such a manner that all shall come to pass according to God's eternal plan. Thus we say God foreknows because He has foreordained.



I think the reason "predestination" is used for the elect and "foreordination" for the reprobate, is because it is _preterition_ or passing over that corresponds to election and which is thus predestined. 

Reprobation is the result of preterition, and salvation/glorification is the result of election.

These things are somewhat mysterious but no less true because of that. It's more mysterious than God predestinating where a rock is going to move or than God moving men about like chess pieces.


----------



## Don Kistler (Mar 28, 2011)

By not predestining some to eternal life, and by "passing over the non-elect" and letting them perish, hasn't God predestined them to wrath? The result is the same, no matter what you call it. We don't need to try to "let God off the hook."

The late John H. Gerstner once quipped when asked if he believed in double predestination, "It's double or nothing."


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes, the equal ultimacy view is what "double-predestination" actually means, that is God goes out of His way to ensure the reprobate remain as such versus simply passing them by and leaving them in their sins.


 
Patrick, please allow me to use your comments as a springboard. I am not suggesting there is anything objectionable in what you have written.

We must be careful to distinguish the decree and its execution. The Reformed undoubtedly teach absolute ultimacy so far as concerns the unconditional decree of all things that come to pass. In the execution of the decree, God does not act in the same way towards all things. Towards sin and to a certain degree towards the reprobate there is active permission (not bare permission or passivity). God uses evil to punish evil. God overrules evil to accomplish good. (He is in fact never passive.) The infralapsarian view has some validity in this connection, that is, in relation to the execution of the decree. It has nothing valid to offer in relation to the decree itself, seeing as it leads theologians to view God as in some sense passive and barely permissive in relation to sin and reprobation.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 28, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the equal ultimacy view is what "double-predestination" actually means, that is God goes out of His way to ensure the reprobate remain as such versus simply passing them by and leaving them in their sins.
> ...


Matthew,

Thanks for the charitable and irenic reply. I agree with you have stated and acknowledge the oft-mistaken view of a passive God as one who is idly sitting by and letting things happen. I also agree with the other comments made pointing out that all God's actions are His determined actions of His own counsel. Had I been more thorough, I would have noted, as you have done, that "_in the execution of the decree, God does not act in the same way towards all things". Thank you for that.

AMR_


----------



## sevenzedek (Mar 29, 2011)

2 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)
9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment

I am definitely no scholar. But I do believe this verse supports double predestination. Logic also supports it. If God does not choose to save some by merely "passing over" them, then His "passing over" them is still a choice. Even if one were to make a case that God did not decide to predestine some for hell, God's "not choosing" is still making a choice. In order for God to not choose something, He must, of necessity, choose to not choose. Therefore, God's not choosing IS a choice to not choose. I think this is John Piper's logic as well.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 29, 2011)

Don Kistler said:


> By not predestining some to eternal life, and by "passing over the non-elect" and letting them perish, hasn't God predestined them to wrath? The result is the same, no matter what you call it. We don't need to try to "let God off the hook."
> 
> The late John H. Gerstner once quipped when asked if he believed in double predestination, "It's double or nothing."


 
I don't think anyone is trying to get God off the hook, but to make sure that Man is on the hook in the formulation of the doctrine of reprobation in accordance with Scripture.

It is "double or nothing" with election and reprobation, as God has also decreed all things down to the most minute and apparently insignificant things, but I don't know if Calvin would have quipped on the subject of reprobation, which he called God's "terrible decree".


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 29, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to get God off the hook



I do not think anyone on PB is, but when I have heard arguments against double predestination it is with the idea of letting God off the hook. In fact this was in view with the discussion yesterday with a prof in class.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 29, 2011)

Don Kistler said:


> By not predestining some to eternal life, and by "passing over the non-elect" and letting them perish, hasn't God predestined them to wrath? The result is the same, no matter what you call it. We don't need to try to "let God off the hook."
> 
> The late John H. Gerstner once quipped when asked if he believed in double predestination, "It's double or nothing."



See now I am against 'double predestination' because of the reasons I stated above, and yet the question is has God predestined them to wrath (the reprobate)? Where in Scripture or the Confession does it say that God 'predestined' them to such things? It doesn't to my knowledge. Yet it does say it concerning the elect. Does this mean that God didn't plan it or that it was outside of His decree? By no means. God certainly foreordained the reprobate. So is God sovereign over reprobation? Certainly. So like others have said...I don't think anyone is letting God off the hook (whatever that means).


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 29, 2011)

> CHAPTER III.
> Of God's Eternal Decree.
> 
> VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.



The Confession teaches that the main reason that predestination including election and reprobation are revealed so clearly in God's Word is so that the regenerate elect can make their calling and election sure.


----------



## Don Kistler (Mar 29, 2011)

When I used the phrase "letting God off the hook," it was because I have dealt with so many who feel like certain doctrines make God look bad (in their eyes) and they have to help Him out of His seeming dilemma. 

Romans 9 speaks of those who are beforehand "fitted for destruction" and those who are "prepared beforehand for glory." Pharaoh and Judas were both raised up just to be cast down. The passages may not use the term "predestination," but 
it's pretty clear, at least to me, that that is what has happened. If God has foreordained everything that comes to pass, then He has pre-determined it, or predestined it, which would include the reprobation of some persons.


----------



## sevenzedek (Mar 29, 2011)

I would think that my statement above and the statements of others saying that God is never passive would be enough to settle the question of double predestination. Perhaps others would be more willing to concede if we called it by another name or remained as silent as scripture is in regards to coining a term. It is true that scripture does not say that the reprobate are "predestined" to hell. If anyone disagrees with the doctrine of double predestination, perhaps they should reconsider whether they believe in any sort of predestination at all because the one view necessitates the other.

Please do not read any malice into these statements. This is simply how my mind understands this issue. The logic of those who disagree with me just escapes me.


----------



## discipulo (Mar 29, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> See now I am against 'double predestination' because of the reasons I stated above, and yet the question is has God predestined them to wrath (the reprobate)? Where in Scripture or the Confession does it say that God 'predestined' them to such things?



Difficult to explain some passages in a different way

John 12:40
Proverbs 16:4 
Romans 9:22 
1 Peter 2:8

A work not to be missed on the matter, dealing with more scholastic (speculative?) works like Beza's tabula predestinationis

and much more is from Richard Muller - Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins.

I am truly thankfull to God for giving the Church such a scholar like Muller.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 29, 2011)

Muller:


> 2.5 Reformed Orthodoxy and the Idea of “Central Dogmas”
> 
> A. The Problem of Presuppositions: Prolegomena and Principia vs. Central Dogmas
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Where in Scripture or the Confession does it say that God 'predestined' them to such things?


 
In dogmatics, "foreordination" is used of God's decrees in general while "predestination" is used of human destiny. Both are unconditional decrees. It is good to point out that the Confession has sought to follow Scripture by confining the term "predestination" to the elect, but "foreordination" amounts to "predestination" when the non-elect are the reference point of the decree because "foreordination" is as unconditional and infallible as "predestination." Granted, there will be certain nuances in "predestination" with respect to the elect which will not be present in the use of "foreordination" with respect to the non-elect. "Predestination" seems to suggest the idea of something personal whereas "foreordination" is impersonal. The elect are God's peculiar treasure, a vessel of honour; the non-elect are rejected, a vessel of dishonour. These connotations in the different terms are worth maintaining, but they do not suggest that the decree of God with respect to the non-elect is anything other than unconditional and infallible.


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Muller:


 
Rich, Is Muller available in digital text somewhere?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 29, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Muller:
> ...


 
Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols.) - Logos Bible Software


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols.) - Logos Bible Software


 
I paid less for the hardcover set. I think I will continue to type it out as required.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 29, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols.) - Logos Bible Software
> ...


 
 Maybe they'll have a special. I think I might have bought it in Prepub. If you ever need me to quickly copy some text for you to save your fingers then let me know.


----------

