Steve Paynter
Puritan Board Freshman
I've just read an earlier, but now closed thread, about how to preach double-predestination. However, it left me with some questions. I hope someone can throw some light on my questions / observations.
As I understand it, double predestination does not commit one to what Sproul has called "equal ultimacy" ... right? In other words, the reason that the reprobate end up damned is not as solely dependent upon God as the reason the elect end up saved. In other words, the reprobates are culpable for their sin, and it is their sin that ultimately determines their destiny.
Also, as I understand it, single predestination of the elect to salvation, necessarily involves preterition - the passing over of the non-elect. This in turn means - along with total depravity and original sin, that those passed over in election are necessarily damned. Furthermore, God has ordained all ... so it is right to say that he
has ordained the reprobate (and all of us!) to sin - without, of course, making himself the "author of sin".
The end result is that I cannot really understand the difference between double and single predestination. Is it merely a question of terminology, and whether or not one is prepared to speak "boldly" of God predestining the reprobate to damnation?
The thread I read here, seemed to conflate double-predestination with supralapsarianism. My understanding is that these are unrelated (or, at least, independent) truths. Am I wrong?
As I understand it, double predestination does not commit one to what Sproul has called "equal ultimacy" ... right? In other words, the reason that the reprobate end up damned is not as solely dependent upon God as the reason the elect end up saved. In other words, the reprobates are culpable for their sin, and it is their sin that ultimately determines their destiny.
Also, as I understand it, single predestination of the elect to salvation, necessarily involves preterition - the passing over of the non-elect. This in turn means - along with total depravity and original sin, that those passed over in election are necessarily damned. Furthermore, God has ordained all ... so it is right to say that he
has ordained the reprobate (and all of us!) to sin - without, of course, making himself the "author of sin".
The end result is that I cannot really understand the difference between double and single predestination. Is it merely a question of terminology, and whether or not one is prepared to speak "boldly" of God predestining the reprobate to damnation?
The thread I read here, seemed to conflate double-predestination with supralapsarianism. My understanding is that these are unrelated (or, at least, independent) truths. Am I wrong?
Last edited: