https://www.facebook.com/LetGodBeTrue/posts/pfbid02XKh45qSLe9gK8PmEzmrWeEb9VrLnatah4kxGdEBv7eZDfiPcvAjexKvXe1hNGPncl
LGBT
🔥 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭.
Some are chosen for eternal life—others, reprobate. Yet not all elect are converted; and some reprobates may seem converted.
❓ 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟? (II Cor 13:5)
Sing
The
opposite of election is preterition - being passively bypassed by God in his
act of election.
Reprobation*
is the opposite of acceptation/approval.
Election
and preterition are in the realm of eternal salvation; reprobation and
acceptation are in the realm of temporal salvation.
1Cor 9:27 KJT — "But I keep under my body, and bring it into
subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself
should be a castaway." [i.e. adókimos, reprobate].
2Cor
13:5 KJT "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own
selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye
be reprobates?"
-----
*
reprobate: a-dókimos, the opposite of dókimos (approved,
tried.)
-
unapproved, i.e. rejected; by implication, worthless (literally or
morally):—castaway, rejected, reprobate.
Outline
of Biblical Usage
-
not standing the test, not approved: properly used of metals and coins
-
that which does not prove itself such as it ought: unfit for, unproved,
spurious, reprobate; i.e. failed the quality control test.
-----
Author
Sing: The notion that reprobation is nothing more than “non-election” or that
God merely “passes over” the non-elect is a doctrine foreign to the plain
language of Scripture. Are we to imagine that God is merely passive—an
indifferent bystander—when His own word says, “The LORD hath made all things
for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4)? What
else can this mean, if not God’s active ordaining of the wicked to their
appointed end?
If
reprobation is only the absence of election, why does Paul speak of “vessels of
wrath fitted to destruction” (Romans 9:22)? Did God simply “do nothing” to
Pharaoh, or did He raise him up “for this same purpose… that I might shew my
power in thee” (Romans 9:17)? Is the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart a mere lack
of action, or is it the outworking of God’s sovereign will: “Therefore hath he
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Romans 9:18)?
Who is the potter, and who is the clay?
Jude
4 tells us of “certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained
to this condemnation.” Can “ordination” here be honestly explained as simple
neglect? Or does the text not plainly state that the condemnation of the wicked
is decreed? Peter says the same: “which stumble at the word, being disobedient:
whereunto also they were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8). Who is doing the appointing
here, if not God?
Is
not the ultimate end of all things the glory of God—both in the salvation of
His people and the just damnation of the reprobate? “What if God, willing to
shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering
the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the
riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto
glory” (Romans 9:22-23)? If God’s glory is revealed in His grace to the elect,
is it not equally revealed in His justice toward the reprobate?
If
reprobation is merely “passing over,” why does the Lord Himself say, “He hath
blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with
their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should
heal them” (John 12:39-40)? Is this not an active judgment, decreed and
executed by God Himself?
The
tendency to reduce reprobation to a passive reality seems to arise from an
unwillingness to own the full sovereignty of God. Is this not a concession to
the Arminian impulse—to vindicate God in the eyes of men, rather than to let
God be true and every man a liar? The Scriptures do not apologize for God’s
sovereignty. Neither should we.
This
watered-down view of reprobation—that it is nothing more than “passing
over”—betrays a reluctance to embrace the full weight of God’s sovereignty.
Those who hold it seem unwilling to stand on the hard truths of scripture,
preferring instead to grant ground to Arminian sentimentality. But God’s
sovereignty is not up for negotiation. To soften reprobation is to diminish His
glory and to deny that He reigns in the affairs of men, elect and reprobate
alike.
Sing
Do
you also believe the double predestination of the Calvinists, then?
"By
the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting
death."
WCF 3.3
I
read that the Old School Baptists believe in preterition.
"By
the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are
predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ,7 to the
praise of His glorious grace;8 others being left to act in their sin to their
just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice." 1689.3.3.
What's
the opposite of being elected? Being actively foreordained to damnation, or
being bypassed?
You
miss the point; I'm not watering down reprobation, it is putting reprobation in
its proper context.
Someone
rightly commented, "Double predestination does not reflect the character
of God."
You
do believe in the double predestination of the Calvinists!
Author
Sing: Let’s be clear: We are neither Calvinists nor followers of the 1689
Baptist Confession, and we do not hang our convictions on the words of
men—whether Westminster divines or Baptist elders. Our doctrine stands or falls
on scripture alone, not on any confession, for we know that the 1689 is simply
copied from the WCF.
But
on this point, the word of God is not ambiguous. The God of the Bible decrees
and accomplishes all things for His own glory (Isaiah 46:9-10; Ephesians 1:11).
The so-called “character of God” must be defined by what God has revealed, not
by human sentiment or tradition. He is glorified not only in saving the elect,
but also in the damnation of the reprobate: “The LORD hath made all things for
himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16:4)
The
opposite of election is not a passive “bypass” but God’s active purpose: “What
if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with
much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction…” (Romans 9:22)
“For
there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to
this condemnation.” (Jude 4)
God
“leaving” men in their sin is not a neutral act. He hardens whom He will
(Romans 9:18), blinds eyes, and appoints some to stumble (John 12:39-40; 1
Peter 2:8).
This is not “watering down” reprobation—this is rightly putting it
in the blazing light of God’s sovereignty and holiness.
Men
recoil at this because it humbles human pride and exalts God alone. But
the smoke of the torment of the lost ascends forever (Revelation 14:11), and
even hell will redound to the praise of His glorious justice.
So
yes, I believe exactly what the Bible says: God predestinates some to
everlasting life and appoints others to just condemnation, all for His own
glory. If that offends modern sensibilities, so be it. Let God be true, but
every man a liar.
Sing
Thanks. If
the 1689 is just copied from WCF, it's strange that they speak differently on the
subject.
All
the passages you quoted have nothing to do with election/preterition in
eternity.
Now
I know LGBT holds to double predestination.
Thanks.
Author
Sing: Well, brother, after 15+ years, I can only marvel that you’re just now
catching on to where we stand! These aren’t exactly new wrinkles in our
doctrine—if anything, they’re as old as the pages of Romans 9.
As
for the 1689 and the Westminster, the resemblance is about as subtle as a pair
of identical twins wearing matching suits. The fact that some want to paint one
as “kinder and gentler” says more about marketing than theology.
But
let’s not pretend the scriptures have nothing to say about God’s eternal
decrees. The language of “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4)
and “before of old ordained to this condemnation” (Jude 4) doesn’t leave much
room for a strictly temporal view of election or reprobation. If those passages
don’t touch on eternal purpose, I’d be curious to hear what you think does.
And
yes, you’ve correctly observed: we actually believe what these verses say,
without gloss or apology. I suppose it’s better late than never to realize it.
Grace
and peace—and may we all continue to be surprised by what’s been in plain sight
all along.
Sing
Thank
you. Now I know that LGBT holds to double predestination - God ordained some to
eternal salvation and ordained the rest to eternal damnation. I didn't know
before.
=========
https://www.facebook.com/groups/successfulsavior/posts/10165935342807519/
Sing
Do
Primitive Baptists believe in double predestination - i.e. God actively elected
some to eternal salvation and damned the rest to eternal damnation?
Yes,
why?
No,
why?
Thank
you.
Dan
The
trouble with answering this question arises from how people define "double
predestination." In my experience, there are many definitions projected
onto this terminology and they do not all agree with one another. That said,
your definition is not consistent with how I personally use that terminology.
If "God actively elected some to eternal salvation and damned the rest to
eternal damnation" is what you mean by "double predestination"
then I agree with the concept (i.e., active selection unto salvation coupled
with passing over the rest unto damnation). However, I believe the term
"double predestination" is best reserved for the idea that God was as
active in the "selective damnation" of the non-elect as he was in the
selective salvation of the elect. That is what I regard as the proper
definition of that terminology. I do not believe that this statement is true
and would not say that I believe in double predestination as a result. I
believe God selected some and passed over the others, leaving them to their
just condemnation.
To
state that again for clarity, the Primitive Baptists with whom I am in
fellowship do not believe in Double Predestination - the idea that God actively
selected some for damnation in the same way that he actively selected some for
salvation. I believe that God actively chose a people to set his love upon and
save, and that he passed over the others such that they will receive just
condemnation for their sins.
Some
raise a philosophical argument against this seemingly subtle distinction:
"But if God chose to save some, does this not imply that God, in some
sense, also chose those not to save?" This may be philosophically true
"in some sense" but I believe that biblical PREDESTINATION (an ACTIVE
CHOICE of those unto salvation and a PASSIVE CONSEQUENCE of the remaining unto
damnation) is the proper theological position and it should be distinguished
from DOUBLE PREDESTINATION (an ACTIVE CHOICE unto salvation and an ACTIVE
CHOICE unto damnation) which is popular in some forms of Calvinism.
Sing
F Lau
Dan,
Thanks. Please
explain how is my simple definition not consistent with how you personally use
that terminology?
What
the proper use of the term? Thanks.
Dan
Consider
this:
Double
Predestination (SFL) - "God actively elected some to eternal salvation and
damned the rest to eternal damnation" This definition does not make any
assertion about the means whereby the rest were damned. In other words it does
not state whether God actively and directly predestinated their damnation or
whether their damnation was a passive and indirect consequence of election.
Double
Predestination (DS) - "God ACTIVELY CHOSE a people unto salvation and an
ACTIVELY CHOSE a people unto damnation." In this arrangement, there was a
positive, active decree in both directions.
Biblical
Predestination (DS) - "God ACTIVELY CHOSE a people unto salvation and a
PASSIVE CONSEQUENCE of this choice is that all others receive the damnation
they deserve."
To
be clear, I've seen a fair amount of variance in how people define these terms
and that further confuses the matter. I don't doubt that people can find
Christian heavyweights who define the terms in a way that is different from how
I do. Some would say that the way that I have defined Biblical Predestination
is what they mean by Double Predestination because the damnation is a logical
consequence of the salvation and thus also predestinated. I maintain that there
is a distinction between one positive decree and two positive decrees - the
former is biblical and the latter is not, IMO.
As
a result, I believe the definitions I've provided above clarify the salient
differences between the variants of predestination in a way that makes it
easier to understand... at least to my way of thinking.
Make
sense?
Sing
Let
me rephrase; sorry for my poor expression.
Do
Primitive Baptists believe in double predestination - i.e. God actively elected
some to eternal salvation and (God actively) damned the rest to eternal
damnation?
Does
this sound better in English?
God
alone is the author of predestination; He alone is the author of double
predestination. I thought that's obvious. Maybe it's my poor Inglish.
Dan
SFL:
Let me rephrase; sorry for my poor expression.
DS:
No worries. Your English is better than many native speakers. 🙂
SFL:
Do Primitive Baptists believe in double predestination - i.e. God actively
elected some to eternal salvation and (God actively) damned the rest to eternal
damnation?
DS:
I do not believe this and in my experience, I do not believe that any of the
PBs with whom I am in fellowship would affirm this statement. I believe that
election and predestination is an active, direct, and causative decree unto
salvation and does not involve an active, direct, and causative decree unto
damnation. To state that another way: the salvation of the elect is the result
of God's active decree; the damnation of the non-elect is the result of
disobedience to a perfect and holy God. Consider this: If there was no election
and predestination, would God have to do anything decretive to ensure the
damnation of fallen humanity or is this inevitable based on God's holiness and
their sinfulness?
SFL:
Does this sound better English?
DS:
The question is easier to answer in that form because it more closely resembles
what I believe double predestination is.
SFL:
God alone is the author of predestination;
DS:
True.
SFL:
He alone is the author of double predestination.
DS:
I do not believe he double-predestinated anything and so he is not the author
of double predestination.
SFL:
I thought that's obvious. Maybe it's my poor Inglish.
DS:
No worries. Do you believe that God double predestinated both salvation and
damnation? Do you believe the latter was merely a logical consequence of the
former or do you believe that the latter was an active choice like the former?
Sing
Thanks
for your precision.
In
the context of "double predestination", God alone is the author of
both.
That
is what I thought was obvious.
No,
I don't believe in double predestination.
Damnation
is not a logical consequence of being bypassed in the election; it is the
consequence of the active choice of those bypassed in the election, i.e. their
sins are the cause of their damnation.
Dan
SFL:
No, I don't believe in double predestination.
DS:
I see. Then we agree.
SFL:
Damnation is not a logical consequence of being bypassed in the election; it is
the consequence of the active choice of those bypassed in the election, i.e.
their sins are the cause of their damnation.
DS:
I agree with this. The cause of the damnation of the non-elect is their own
sin. That they were not chosen unto salvation merely leaves them in their state
of just condemnation.
Interesting
discussion, difficult to untangle without raising more questions than we answer.
Hopefully, we have not done that here.
