Do you believe in double predestination?

And does the Westminster Confession advocate double predestination?

Section 3 paragraph 3

By the decree of God for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto eternal life. And others foreordained to eternal death..

And if you believe that, how can you have kids knowing they could be predestined to death and hell.

Thanks.

"Double predestination" can mean multiple things. I subscribe to the WCF. It teaches that God foreordained some to wrath for their sin. This does not mean God ordains the sin itself which originates in the creature. This also does not remove man's will or liberty (3.1).

God's secret council is secret. I did not consider it when having children.

So if some or pre ordained for God's wrath, they have no choice, correct?

So to me, that is the definition of double predestination. Do you disagree?

Thanks.

dermdoc said:

---

Do you believe in double predestination?

And does the Westminster Confession advocate double predestination?

Section 3 paragraph 3

By the decree of God for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto eternal life. And others foreordained to eternal death..

And if you believe that, how can you have kids knowing they could be predestined to death and hell.

Thanks.

---

I am what one would call a 4 point Calvinist. I am strongly reformed in most of my theology but I've never had limited atonement explained in a way that lines up with what I see in the scripture.

I do believe in the predestination of life and death, but I also know that a total commitment to that doctrine would (and I've met 5 pointers who adopt this) eliminate the need for evangelicalism or prayer at all and those facets can't be supported in the Bible. I'd rather get to Heaven and find out that I spent too much time evangelizing people that weren't called than to get heaven, guilty of the opposite.

It puts me in a weird spot where Calvinist would just consider me an Armenian and somebody with a more Armenian view would think I'm a basically a 5 pointer.

Much like politics, neither camp fully captures the whole picture of my theology, but of the available camps, one is a very easy option.

Pro Sandy said:

---

To me, when you say we can't have children because they might be damned to hell, there is no need to engage in conversation. Not starting from the absurd.

Read about covenant children.

---

I believe in covenant children. And I never said we can't have children.

But if you believe in what I posted from the Westminster confession, do you not believe that God could foreordain your child to be damned?

How is that absurd if that is your belief?

Pro Sandy said:

---

To me, when you say we can't have children because they might be damned to hell, there is no need to engage in conversation. Not starting from the absurd.

Read about covenant children.

---

I don't actually see why that's absurd. It seems a rather straightforward thing to consider given the parameters as I understand them.

Shoot, tried to edit and erased my whole post.

It was meant to be

You were flaming my middle of the road approach weren't you?

Was actually agreeing with your Armenian heretical point of view

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

To me, when you say we can't have children because they might be damned to hell, there is no need to engage in conversation. Not starting from the absurd.

Read about covenant children.

---

I believe in covenant children. And I never said we can't have children.

But if you believe in what I posted from the Westminster confession, do you not believe that God could foreordain your child to be damned?

How is that absurd if that is your belief?

---

it is absurd because if anyone believes that not all are saved, then having children has the potential to have a child who isn't saved in the end. Complete free will may result in a child you have not being saved. Single predestination may result in a child you have not being saved. Doesn't seem unique to double predestination.

I don't believe that God would ever compel a person to commit sin.

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

To me, when you say we can't have children because they might be damned to hell, there is no need to engage in conversation. Not starting from the absurd.

Read about covenant children.

---

I believe in covenant children. And I never said we can't have children.

But if you believe in what I posted from the Westminster confession, do you not believe that God could foreordain your child to be damned?

How is that absurd if that is your belief?

---

it is absurd because if anyone believes that not all are saved, then having children has the potential to have a child who isn't saved in the end. Complete free will may result in a child you have not being saved. Single predestination may result in a child you have not being saved. Doesn't seem unique to double predestination.

---

The difference is that in double predestination your child has no choice.

They are preordained to death and hell.

dermdoc said:

---

Interesting that John Piper has stated that he understood that his kids could be preordained to be reprobate. And eternally damned without a choice.

I have a real hard time with that belief.

---

I think we're supposed to have a hard time. Did Piper say somewhere that he's cool with it and it makes total sense?

Look, I am also kind of like a Calvinist lite kind of person. I believe there has to be a way that God chooses and we choose. How that happens I don't really know. I do know that scripture is loaded with examples of God hardening people's hearts for his greater will to be done. And that greater will is far beyond our understanding. How do you reconcile that?

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

To me, when you say we can't have children because they might be damned to hell, there is no need to engage in conversation. Not starting from the absurd.

Read about covenant children.

---

I believe in covenant children. And I never said we can't have children.

But if you believe in what I posted from the Westminster confession, do you not believe that God could foreordain your child to be damned?

How is that absurd if that is your belief?

---

it is absurd because if anyone believes that not all are saved, then having children has the potential to have a child who isn't saved in the end. Complete free will may result in a child you have not being saved. Single predestination may result in a child you have not being saved. Doesn't seem unique to double predestination.

---

The difference is that in double predestination your child has no choice.

They are preordained to death and hell.

---

I think you are making a point without distinction. In all scenarios, except for universalism or no afterlife, a child may be born who will go to hell. Whether it was solely the will of God or their own will is seemingly without distinction.

Did I choose to be saved or did God choose to save me? Regardless I am resting solely in the death and resurrection of Christ. Knowing that God chose me gives me the reassurance I need when I screw up on a daily basis.

Why does God save some and not others? That is a tought question and sometimes the best we can understand is like we see in Job, God is God and we are not.

In arminianism, we could make arguments that if our children aren't saved, it's our fault for not raising them right. Or maybe we can still blame God that he is powerful enough to save but makes salvation dependent on us. But neither those arguments nor saying that it is hard for calvanists to have babies because God might predestined the child for hell really help us understand either perspective.

Just drive by any local OPC or PCA and compare the number of sprinter vans in the barking lot compared to a mainline church. Presbyterians have no issue having large families!

Yes, exactly. It's about who God is.

dermdoc said:

---

Actually my point is about the character of God. It is one thing if we knowingly via our free will reject him imho.
That does not impugn God's character but ours.
It is another if God creates people for the purpose of eternal damnation. And from what I can tell Calvinists believe that.

---

It is easy to make an argument that if God can save us through our free will, but because he didn't reveal himself to them in a convincing manner, then God has the character flaw you are talking about. Some are born in homes where they will learn the gospel, some are born elsewhere and may never hear a convincing argument of the gospel. Does that make God evil?

I'm all for debating TULIP and limited atonement is a very difficult concept, but I dont think arguing about the assumed applications will get us any closer to understanding.

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Actually my point is about the character of God. It is one thing if we knowingly via our free will reject him imho.
That does not impugn God's character but ours.
It is another if God creates people for the purpose of eternal damnation. And from what I can tell Calvinists believe that.

---

It is easy to make an argument that if God can save us through our free will, but because he didn't reveal himself to them in a convincing manner, then God has the character flaw you are talking about. Some are born in homes where they will learn the gospel, some are born elsewhere and may never hear a convincing argument of the gospel. Does that make God evil?

I'm all for debating TULIP and limited atonement is a very difficult concept, but I dont think arguing about the assumed applications will get us any closer to understanding.

---

But He is not actively creating them for death and eternal torment, correct?

There is a huge difference to me.

May I ask how you interpret 1 Timothy 2:3-4?

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

And because of that Scripture, I believe every person who has ever lived, is alive now, and will be alive is presented a choice by God. To accept him via Christ or to reject Him.

Even if they never hear the word Christ. Or the Gospel.

If not, God is a monster. Worse than Hitler who only inflicted temporal punishment and death.

And I know He is good and loves us. And we are created to glorify Him for His delight.

And as for limited atonement, I agree with what the guy writes in the link.
https://conciliarpost.com/christian-traditions/eastern-orthodox/an-ex-calvinists-tiptoe-through-tulip-limited-atonement/

Christ's atonement was not limited in any way. It was for the entire Cosmos. And for every person.

Another article on Irenaeus's view on atonement.

https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/the-atonement-of-irenaeus/

9 And they *sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
Revelation 5:9 NASB1995

https://bible.com/bible/100/rev.5.9.NASB1995

Notice the word "men" and not "elect".

dermdoc said:

---

Notice the word "men" and not "elect".

---

Notice he didn't purchase all men.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Notice the word "men" and not "elect".

---

Notice he didn't purchase all men.

---

Where does it say that? I do not see the word "all" or "some" in that Scripture.

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Actually my point is about the character of God. It is one thing if we knowingly via our free will reject him imho.
That does not impugn God's character but ours.
It is another if God creates people for the purpose of eternal damnation. And from what I can tell Calvinists believe that.

---

It is easy to make an argument that if God can save us through our free will, but because he didn't reveal himself to them in a convincing manner, then God has the character flaw you are talking about. Some are born in homes where they will learn the gospel, some are born elsewhere and may never hear a convincing argument of the gospel. Does that make God evil?

I'm all for debating TULIP and limited atonement is a very difficult concept, but I dont think arguing about the assumed applications will get us any closer to understanding.

---

But He is not actively creating them for death and eternal torment, correct?

There is a huge difference to me.

---

If God is who we say He is, nothing is occurring without at least his consent. Outside the open theist (excuse me if I explain your position wrong), the rest of us believe He at least knows the future and can control it. At a minimum, He is creating life knowing it will not choose Him and go to damnation.

Thats why I say arguing over this application isn't useful. We are arguing over the means, things we can't know in this life, but agree on the conclusion. We are made by God. We are saved by Christ alone. We argue over if it is a work of the Spirit (calvanism) or a work of mans (armanianism) that gets us to salvation.

I know many say that how you view this affects how you view life. I dont know. I'm sure it does, but I've been on both sides. Grew up Methodist, now reformed. I dont think how I interact with others really changes. My love of God has grown when I view it through the reformed lens that it was entirely the work of God and not mine. I have never heard the teachings claimes on the other thread that as reformed we will view the unsaved as the enemy. I dont see how you can get there in reformed teaching as we believe until death that God can do a saving work in their life and us speeding death, if we could affect the will of God, would be seeking to block that potential.

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Actually my point is about the character of God. It is one thing if we knowingly via our free will reject him imho.
That does not impugn God's character but ours.
It is another if God creates people for the purpose of eternal damnation. And from what I can tell Calvinists believe that.

---

It is easy to make an argument that if God can save us through our free will, but because he didn't reveal himself to them in a convincing manner, then God has the character flaw you are talking about. Some are born in homes where they will learn the gospel, some are born elsewhere and may never hear a convincing argument of the gospel. Does that make God evil?

I'm all for debating TULIP and limited atonement is a very difficult concept, but I dont think arguing about the assumed applications will get us any closer to understanding.

---

But He is not actively creating them for death and eternal torment, correct?

There is a huge difference to me.

---

If God is who we say He is, nothing is occurring without at least his consent. Outside the open theist (excuse me if I explain your position wrong), the rest of us believe He at least knows the future and can control it. At a minimum, He is creating life knowing it will not choose Him and go to damnation.

Thats why I say arguing over this application isn't useful. We are arguing over the means, things we can't know in this life, but agree on the conclusion. We are made by God. We are saved by Christ alone. We argue over if it is a work of the Spirit (calvanism) or a work of mans (armanianism) that gets us to salvation.

I know many say that how you view this affects how you view life. I dont know. I'm sure it does, but I've been on both sides. Grew up Methodist, now reformed. I dont think how I interact with others really changes. My love of God has grown when I view it through the reformed lens that it was entirely the work of God and not mine. I have never heard the teachings claimes on the other thread that as reformed we will view the unsaved as the enemy. I dont see how you can get there in reformed teaching as we believe until death that God can do a saving work in their life and us speeding death, if we could affect the will of God, would be seeking to block that potential.

---

Pretty much agree with your attitude but do think every person gets a chance.
Also did not mean to imply that the unsaved were the enemy. Just preordained for death and he'll.
Thanks.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Notice the word "men" and not "elect".

---

Notice he didn't purchase all men.

---

1 Timothy 2: 3-4

This is good and please God our Savior, who wants ALL people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

All Calvinist arguments are inherently nonsensical because of viewing the Bible as the "word of God" instead of Jesus Christ Himself, and viewing the Bible as like the Koran instead of as a holy product of the Church, debated and decided for 3 centuries in councils of Rome and Anatolia.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Notice the word "men" and not "elect".

---

Notice he didn't purchase all men.

---

1 Timothy 2: 3-4

This is good and please God our Savior, who wants ALL people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

---

Also doesn't say Jesus purchased all men with his blood.

Everyone limits the atonement. The Arminians limit the power of the atonement. Most objections to limited atonement at really objections to unconditional election.

I believe that Jesus's atonement is unlimited except by what men refuse to accept.

And as stated above, we will not know until we are in the presence of the Lord.

See you in Glory, brother.