# Two questions. Concerning double predestination and pentecostal theology.



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 6, 2010)

I am currently studying double predestination and I currently take a more passive view on double predestination. Meaning, I currently hold to that we were all once dead in sin and because God has actively elected some to salvation, he has passively elected others to eternal damnation. However, this seems to be in conflict with Romans 9. Any thoughts on reconciling the two? I, however, do not want to continue to hold to the passive view if it is not biblical. I desire to gain more knowledge of both sides that I may rightly worship God, in light of this theology. So, for arguments sake, I am on the fence and desire to find what is more biblical. 

My second question is concerning pentecostals and calvinism. I already have my own idea on this particular issue and I don't want to "poison the well" so to speak by stating my current view, so, I will simply ask the question to hear your own ideas on it. 

Is it possible to reconcile calvinism and pentecostal theology?

I have never met a calvinist pentecostal, so I am curious as to why you think this is rare, not possible, or difficult to reconcile these two theologies together.

Thanks.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Jun 6, 2010)

First I would say that anything other than "double predestination" is biblically inconsistent and illogical. If God chooses some for salvation He, at the same time, chooses others for condemnation. This is not passive but active. He mercy's whom He wills and He harden's whom He wills (Rom. 9:18)

Second, could you clarify what you mean by calvinist and pentecostal. One could consider themselves a calvinist if they hold to the "5 points", even though that would not be in its fullest sense. Also what do you mean by pentecostal? There are those Reformed folk who hold to a continuationist (which I would consider as non-confessional might I add) understanding of the miraculous sign/revelatory gifts who would not consider themselves pentecostals. 

Please clarify


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 6, 2010)

Sorry, I meant to clarify the pentecostal point.  Thanks for pointing it out. Those practicing gifts; such as tongues, revelation, prophecy. I know a lot of calvary chapels believe the gifts continue, but are still calvinists in such, that they agree with the five points. I guess that is my main concern. I know believing in eternal security does not make you a calvinist, but to push my point further, I have never met a practicing pentecostal who believes in eternal security. Then again, I am only 23. lol

So why do the majority of practicing pentecostals reject eternal security? Hmm.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Jun 6, 2010)

Kassie_Blair said:


> Sorry, I meant to clarify the pentecostal point.  Thanks for pointing it out. Those practicing gifts; such as tongues, revelation, prophecy. I know a lot of calvary chapels believe the gifts continue, but are still calvinists in such, that they agree with the five points. I guess that is my main concern. I know believing in eternal security does not make you a calvinist, but to push my point further, I have never met a practicing pentecostal who believes in eternal security. Then again, I am only 23. lol
> 
> So why do the majority of practicing pentecostals reject eternal security? Hmm.


 
I've never known many CC's to be supportive of calvinism. Most of the ones that I've come across are very anti calvinism.

As far as the sign/revelatory gifts (miracles, tongues, prophecies, etc) are concerned there are basically three major camps: 

1) Full blown pentecostals who place personal revelation and spiritual gifts over and against scripture 

2) Continuationists who believe that the gifts are still valid for use in the church today, though they have significantly changed; and 

3) Cessationists who believe that the gifts served a purpose in validating the message of the Apostles and passed away with their era and the completion of scripture (this is the historic reformed confessional position).

Do a search on the PB (upper right hand corner) and you will find numerous conversations about these gifts and the various positions taken. You will never find anyone advocating position 1 on here but there is much discussion between 2 and 3.


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 6, 2010)

I am cessationist, but my mom's side of the family are continuationists as well as KJV onliest. I am just curious as to why the two theologies coexisting within a church is so rare. Or at least, my experience tells me it is rare. That is why I asked the question. Lots to think about.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 6, 2010)

There is a distinction between double predestination and equal ultimacy. You should research the terms and see if perhaps what you're talking about is equal ultimacy.

As for calvinistic pentecostal/charismatic (some distinctions in those terms as well), there are some. Wayne Grudem is probably the best-known among them. Having been a charismatic in the dim past, my admittedly biased view is that the reason they in the majority reject eternal security (another problematic term) or the doctrines of God's sovereignty is that the whole attractiveness of continuationist error is that it affords humans some degree of control and a quasi-gnostic access to privileged insight. Arminianism and full- or semi- pelagianism fit into that mindset much more easily than acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of God.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 6, 2010)

I suspect there are some people who practice tongue-speaking, etc., who do hold to 'eternal security' which isn't quite the same thing as the "P" in the Calvinist "tulip". If "eternal security" is taken to be the doctrine of "once saved, always saved", which is often taught in non-reformed evangelical churches, then I see no bar to tongue-speaking. Where the "once-saved, always saved" doctrine is taught outside the context of a more full-orbed Reformed doctrinal structure, it can lead to antinomianism - which also isn't uncommon in tongue-speaking circles. 

I would argue, though, that in churches that can properly be called Reformed (i.e. confessional churches), where the doctrine of perseverance of the saints is correctly taught, there are very, very, very rarely any tongue speakers. Non-cessationists, perhaps, though that too should be rare in confessional churches (it's a contra-confessional position).


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 6, 2010)

Yes, equal ultimacy is what I meant. So I currently hold to double predestination. However, in light of Romans 9, equal ultimacy seems to have an argument if taken a face value. So I suppose my real question is, how are we to interpret Romans 9? Is it speaking about equal ulitmacy when it mentions God hardening the pharaoh's heart and when it mentions making a vessel for dishonorable use. Thank you so much for helping me clarify terms. I would thank you for your post, but I don't know how lol.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jun 7, 2010)

Kassie_Blair said:


> Yes, equal ultimacy is what I meant. So I currently hold to double predestination. However, in light of Romans 9, equal ultimacy seems to have an argument if taken a face value. So I suppose my real question is, how are we to interpret Romans 9? Is it speaking about equal ulitmacy when it mentions God hardening the pharaoh's heart and when it mentions making a vessel for dishonorable use. Thank you so much for helping me clarify terms. I would thank you for your post, but I don't know how lol.





> Romans 9:22-23: What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath *prepared* for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which *he has prepared *beforehand for glory—



Some would argue, in holding to the position you are describing above, that this passage does make a differentiation. The first prepared is in the passive (some argue for middle voice, but doesn't seem likely in a context of a potter and clay analogy); while the second prepared is in the active voice, with God as the agent being emphasized.

The passive in v.22 does not deny that God is the active preparer, necessarily, though. But there is clear switch in emphasis "vessels of wrath prepared..." and "vessels of mercy, which He prepared..." What is the purpose for the switch if we view God as acting in the same exact way in both situations? Which, as I understand it, would be the argument for God's passivity in one part of double predestination.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 7, 2010)

Arthur Pink's book _The Sovereignty of God _has an excellent chapter on the doctrine of reprobation/double predestination. The entire book is very much worth reading.

Re the other question, I don't think you can reconcile "Pentecostal theology" and Calvinism, in that the typical Pentecostal thinking is so Arminian and dispensational. I say that as someone who is grateful to pray in tongues and has experienced other 1 Corinthians gifts. We tend to see Grudem and Piper ( and to some extent LLoyd Jones and Iain Murray, who are technically cessationists) as articulating our minority viewpoint, and we tend to no longer use the word Pentecostal or Charismatic. We reject the "my gift" mentality, the mentality that "I spoke in tongues therefore I got the Holy Spirit and now I am filled and you are not filled", and all the end time prophets with new revelation out there ( plenty of them). We do think many in the Reformed community lack an active hunger and prayer life for God to pour out the Holy Spirit on us, and are maybe too satisfied with a remnant and instead need to be praying for revival.


Hard to pin down the continuist calvinists exactly...sort of like the split P's, so much variety.


----------



## Caroline (Jun 7, 2010)

It depends on how one defines 'pentecostalism'. I think there are some good Calvinists who are not cessationist and have somehow worked out a compromise in their minds about it. I don't agree, but I don't think that is the end of the world either.

However, at it's root, Pentecostalism is not about tongues and prophecy. Reformed churches too often take the overly benign view that these Pentecostal churches are sort of like Reformed, but just with a few unfortunate habits (like tongues), and they go after those habits. I don't even bother to argue about tongues with Pentecostals. The issues are deeper than that. The primary error of Pentecostalism is that it views God and Satan as being equal (or nearly equal) in power. God is viewed as being stronger than Satan, but His power is all bound up and you have to release it. On the other hand, Satan weaker, but he is active and needs no assistance. So the Pentecostal believes it his or her religious duty to bind Satan and release God to work, and without this human interference, God will fail and Satan will prevail. Most of their time is spent coming up with new and better formulas for releasing the power of God and/or defeating Satan. 

And so, Calvinism and Pentecostalism are not and never will be compatible. In fact, the very point of departure is over the question of the sovereignty of God. Tongues, prophecy, waving banners, Jericho marching, shouting, pleading the blood, etc, etc, etc are all just tools in the Pentecostal quest to release God to work and to conjure up the Spirit.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 7, 2010)

Caroline, that was excellent. I think you really hit it. It's all about sovereignty.


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 7, 2010)

Wow, this was super helpful. Thank you. My mom's side of the family believe in practicing revelatory gifts and they loathe Calvinism. Essentially I wonder how to talk to them. I have tried a few times, but I was testing the waters with them. So a better place to start is to address Satan's power vs. God's power. I never thought about it that way. Awesome!


----------

