Double Predestination Questions

[ralphinal]

I have two questions about double predestination that I would love answers to.

First, if God wills the salvation of all men (1 Tim 2:4), why would he allow someone to be born knowing that he would never give them the gift of faith, or enough grace to be saved, or whatever mechanism you see for salvation? Is this not God contradicting himself?

Second, what keeps someone from committing every sin possible? If I am going to hell no matter what, why should I even try? Further, if I am going to heaven no matter what, I will repent in the end anyway.

I might be missing something

 

[Spirithound]

The first question is a really good one, and I’d like the answer too.

I think the answer to the second one might be that we don’t know whether we are part of the elect or the reprobate, so we really should make the effort to “seem” elected…

 

[Steadfast]

I have two questions about double predestination that I would love answers to.

First, if God wills the salvation of all men (1 Tim 2:4), why would he allow someone to be born knowing that he would never give them the gift of faith, or enough grace to be saved, or whatever mechanism you see for salvation? Is this not God contradicting himself?

Second, what keeps someone from committing every sin possible? If I am going to hell no matter what, why should I even try? Further, if I am going to heaven no matter what, I will repent in the end anyway.

I might be missing something

I am not sure that most Calvinists would agree that God “wills the salvation of all men” in anything more than a prescriptive sense.

See this for a treatment.

To my mind it seems a convenient sophistry.

 

[ralphinal]

I am not sure that most Calvinists would agree that God “wills the salvation of all men” in anything more than a prescriptive sense.

See this for a treatment.

To my mind it seems a convenient sophistry.

Ok. So man can alter God’s will or plan? Is this not true free will?

That link you sent was informative, but it ignored that verse as well.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I have two questions about double predestination that I would love answers to.

First, if God wills the salvation of all men (1 Tim 2:4), why would he allow someone to be born knowing that he would never give them the gift of faith, or enough grace to be saved, or whatever mechanism you see for salvation? Is this not God contradicting himself?

Second, what keeps someone from committing every sin possible? If I am going to hell no matter what, why should I even try? Further, if I am going to heaven no matter what, I will repent in the end anyway.

I might be missing something

To play devil’s advocate…in regards to the second question, Calvinists would most likely say that if you’re attitude is one of “I will commit every sin in the book because I’m elect anyway” it’s probably evidence that they’re not elect since the elect will live godly lives (or at least try to) from their regeneration onward.

As to the first question, they would say if God truly willed, as in actively, that all men be saved then all men would be saved. They would say “all men” refers to “all classes/nations” but not “all men, women, children, of all times and places.”

 

[notsmart]

To play devil’s advocate…in regards to the second question, Calvinists would most likely say that if you’re attitude is one of “I will commit every sin in the book because I’m elect anyway” it’s probably evidence that they’re not elect since the elect will live godly lives (or at least try to) from their regeneration onward.

As to the first question, they would say if God truly willed, as in actively, that all men be saved then all men would be saved. They would say “all men” refers to “all classes/nations” but not “all men, women, children, of all times and places.”

TU,

Do you think for a Calvinist who holds to double pre-des run the risk of ailenation of the forgiving Jesus if they fall into sin?
I mean, lets say I hold this view I am elect, and I do my best to be holy and practice virtue, but I really mess up one day.
Will I be plauged by guilt thinking I was lying to myself the entire time thinking I was elect?
At what point do I ask what makes me any different than anyone else? Therefore why would I say I am elect to begin with?

 

[Steadfast]

Calvinists distinguish between a prescriptive and a decretive will. The former is the plan, the latter is the command or rule.

Only one of them can be denied, I think it’s the latter.

Examples are given at the website I cited, for example, God has commanded us not to murder and yet, according to plan, brought about the death of Christ. This doesn’t excuse the actions of those men who were instrumental in bringing it about, but neither does it make God a liar when He commands men not to commit murder since the command is always in contradiction to the dictates of the fallen nature.

The idea then is that God has decreed that all men repent and believe the Gospel but has planned only that the elect will.

So, again, Calvinists would not usually just baldly agree that God wills the salvation of all men. He has decreed that they believe and be saved, but has purposed from eternity past only to save the elect.

I am uncomfortable with this not because of what it entails but because, like so much Calvinism, it is flat rationalism, it is a human effort to explain what cannot be explained and effectively bleeds of all mystery a doctrine that has been given for the comfort and wonder of believers: i.e. that God has purposed to save His people in Christ and that His Word is sure.

A far better way to deal with the question of why some are saved and some not is, I think, in terms of Law and Gospel. This way does not sidestep the very clear Scriptural fact of God’s election of some, but it doesn’t try to take it apart, rather it sees in terms of the universal condemnation of all men by the law and the universality of that grace by which believers are actually redeemed, without, again, attempting to think God’s thoughts after Him.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU,

Do you think for a Calvinist who holds to double pre-des run the risk of ailenation of the forgiving Jesus if they fall into sin?
I mean, lets say I hold this view I am elect, and I do my best to be holy and practice virtue, but I really mess up one day.
Will I be plauged by guilt thinking I was lying to myself the entire time thinking I was elect?
At what point do I ask what makes me any different than anyone else? Therefore why would I say I am elect to begin with?

I know that there are many Calvinists who never have this problem if they fall into sin and repent. It’s probably a minority that do. But when it does become a problem it’s a huge problem.

Anytime you are looking to an improved moral life as evidence of salvation you’re going to run into big problems. For one thing, our best actions, if analyzed honestly, will be exposed as having had sin involved in them somehow. Secondly, there are millions of non-Christians who can show improved lives, yet we know from Scripture that they are dead in their sins. So for the Calvinist who says “I was this way yesterday and today am not” runs the risk of realizing that they’re still sinners and that can throw huge doubts on one’s assurance.

If their pastors remain theologically consistent with their views of election, they can offer no comfort because they cannot objectively tell a troubled conscience that they’re elect. “I don’t know” would be the only honest answer they could give. They can’t look to the atonement for assurance, because that only applies to them if they’re elect. If they’re not it doesn’t mean anything. You need to figure out whether you’re elect first.

 

[notsmart]

You are such an asset to this forum! I was wondering about the risks of this theology since I heard of it, but I could not put my finger on exactly what I was so concerned about, this really pins it down.

Thanks!

I know that there are many Calvinists who never have this problem if they fall into sin and repent. It’s probably a minority that do. But when it does become a problem it’s a huge problem.

Anytime you are looking to an improved moral life as evidence of salvation you’re going to run into big problems. For one thing, our best actions, if analyzed honestly, will be exposed as having had sin involved in them somehow. Secondly, there are millions of non-Christians who can show improved lives, yet we know from Scripture that they are dead in their sins. So for the Calvinist who says “I was this way yesterday and today am not” runs the risk of realizing that they’re still sinners and that can throw huge doubts on one’s assurance.

If their pastors remain theologically consistent with their views of election, they can offer no comfort because they cannot objectively tell a troubled conscience that they’re elect. “I don’t know” would be the only honest answer they could give. They can’t look to the atonement for assurance, because that only applies to them if they’re elect. If they’re not it doesn’t mean anything. You need to figure out whether you’re elect first.