Double Predestination

Quickened · #1 (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 10:36 AM

I may be in need of correction!

Somehow along the way I came to the understanding that Double Predestination infered or stated that God had predestined individuals to hell. I was under the assumption that this was a form of Hyper Calvinism.

But it was brought to my attention that Calvin seemingly held to double predestination.

I got the response that stated "So Calvin was wrong on the doctrine that bears his name?" (in reference that DP was hyper Calvinism)

Where did i go wrong in my thinking?

Jimmy the Greek · #2 (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 10:45 AM

You might benefit from discussion in these earlier threads:

Sproul On Double Predestination

Double vs Single Predestination

Whitefield · #3 (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 10:49 AM

Chapter 4 of Zachius - The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted might help guide your investigation.

***NaphtaliPress*** · #4 (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 04:38 PM

Paul does not have posting privileges for the pool, but the moderators thought this was useful to pass along from him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prufrock

........
Calvin did hold a doctrine of double predestination; in fact, he held the most explicit such teaching of the major reformers. For instance, from Institutes III.xxi.5:

Quote:

We call predestination God's eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death.

Calvin, of all the reformers, was probably the most free in encompassing both eternal life and death within the scope of predestination; connected with this is also his disallowance of the distinction between God's active and permissive decree with reference to the fall of man. (It should be noted that, notwithstanding, Calvin still maintained that God was not hereby the author of sin, nor was there compulsion in the sin and damnation of any). Nor is this to say that other reformers did not, in their formal definitions, include the ordination to death within the scope of God's eternal decree. Vermigli grants this, but prefers to restrict the term strictly to a soteric function. Likewise, Bullinger, when pressed in formal definitions, is willing to include both in the one decree of God (though this is uncharacteristic in his emphases):

Quote:

The predestination of God is the eternal decree of God, whereby he has ordained either to save or destroy men; a most certain end of life and death being appointed unto them. The fourth sermon in the fourth Decade

This should not be confused with Hyper Calvinism; hyper-calvinism will certainly (generally) involve this teaching, but there is absolutely not a one-to-one correspondence. So long as we, in our double-predestination, still maintain that 1.) God is not the author of the sinfulness of sin; 2.) God does not infuse a compulsion or necessity in man as the cause of his sin; 3.) The preaching of the gospel and a response in faith is yet necessary unto salvation, and thus the preaching thereof is most necessary; 4.) Though election is unconditional, and faith and repentance are granted unconditionally, nevertheless the administration of the Covenant of Grace is conditional; 5.) No man is actually justified until faith; 6.) Knowledge of this predestination does not lead to a fatalistic resignation or antinomianism, but to an earnest endeavor to godliness and attendance upon the means of grace; and 7.) Our assurance or knowledge of salvation and reprobation do not come from conditions we find within ourselves, but through faith in Christ -- so long as we maintain these along with our double predestination, we have no need to fear being considered hyper-Calvinists, but stand firmly within orthodoxy.

With Lance (Whitefield) I would recommend that work of Zanchi, but at the same time I would caution against relying upon it as a guide to understanding Calvin's teaching. There is certainly diversity in their formulations.

Scott1 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-09-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Westminster Confession

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, 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.[17]

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending 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.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

There is deep mystery in this, but those God passes by do get justice, eternal punishment for their sin.

What's "unjust" is that God gives mercy to some who do not deserve it.

In the case of those who get mercy, God intervenes to do something not deserved. In the case of those who get justice, He allows them to receive what they love and deserve.

Quickened · #6 (**permalink**) 04-10-2009, 09:59 AM

Thank you gentlemen for your posts here and thanks Chris for posting Paul's response in here. It is quite useful! This gives me some stuff to chew on for the time being.

**KMK** · #7 (**permalink**) 05-07-2009, 10:22 PM

I found this awesome quote from Poole on Luke 2:34:

Quote:

Luke 2:34,35 Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against.

Quote:

Christ will be the occasion of many people's damnation, even all that reject and oppose him, and believe not in him; and the cause of many people's salvation, even all that shall be saved. Commentary on Luke 2:34,35

Poole sees that election and reprobation are not parallel.