Double Predestination

Ah, but that is exactly the case Calvinists are making. We have rejected God and were driven out of His favor. He owes none of us anything but, out of grace, chooses to draw some back. We're all on our way to reprobation without any action from God. If he does not choose to draw us to himself, then we will never come to him and if we never come to him, we will die in *our* sins. It is the grace of God alone and not anything in ourselves - not even an ability of one good work of *choosing* God, we cannot even do that much.

 

Your language betrays your error. We all begin as reprobates. God does not "elect" some of us to be that way. Among all of us reprobates, God elects SOME to regenerate.

How can God NOT be ultimately responsible for sin? But calling God the author of sin assumes that sin is "something" that God created.

I know this is difficult to grasp, but "sin" is not something that exists, as if one could create it. It is the absence of God, or anything that is in disagreement with God. So if God creates a being with self-will, and then withdraws His spirit from that being, that being is by definition sinful, because it is not powered by a Spirit that is in agreement with God.

When God withdrew His Spirit from Adam (and consequently from all the generations afterward), He condemned the world to be in the sin of Adam by nature, because we are all born lacking the Spirit of God.

Again, God doesn't "elect" some to go to hell. He doesn't have to. We are all born headed for hell, pedal to the metal. God mercifully "elects" some to His kingdom. Saved people are the EXCEPTION to the rule.

To which God replies (as He did through Paul)...

Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

These statements betery the very things you are trying to deny. You say God does not "elect" any as reprobates, but later, He does do something to make them that way" "withdraw His Spirit", and thus "condemn the world to be in the sin of Adam". So basically, HE did in one sense elect all to bereprobate, but when you factor unconditional regeneration in, basically, whoever He planned to eave in the reprobate state was "elected to reprobation". And this not even dealing with this whole "we did not start out innocent" issue, for if whatever Adam was, we are, and Adam fell because "God withdrew His spirit", then basically, we did all start out innocent (especially if all were foreknown before then), and God made us fall. So then our "guilt" then is not any real culpability for any real choice any could have helped (including even Adam), but just a pronouncement God makes by fiat, just to have a reason to condemn most.

The argument more complex and difficult because Calvinist will not admit that their position is supralapsarian and double predestinarian, based ultimately on the premise of "God is sovereign and can do what He wants", "who are you to ask why does He find fault, for God makes vessels of wrath", etc. So they teach this in practice, but then spend the whole time denying the labels, (theugh they describe what the label denotes perfectly) and arguing "we do not believe this and that"; "man did it to himself". "he can believe if he wants to", etc.

And for the millionth time, Romans 9 is not answering an objection to reprobation! (Nobody was thinking of that back then, and it was the Jews who opposed being hardened while the gentiles were brought in!)

 

You obviously missed my point entirely.

God told Adam that the day he ate of the fruit, he would die. Adam disobeyed God. Either God lied, or Adam "died" that very day.

Obviously, God did not lie. Obviously, and Adam did not die physically. Therefore Adam died spiritually. God withdrew His spirit, leaving Adam without the Spirit and in the flesh. Adam was spiritually dead, and so would be all the generations that followed Adam.

Whose fault was that? It was Adam's fault.

The only way you can twist that is to say that "God elected everyone to be reprobate" because He knew what Adam would do. Strictly speaking, that is true (Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.) but it doesn't let Adam off the hook for being the person who sealed the fate of mankind.

Of those reprobates -- which is EVERYONE WITH NO EXCEPTIONS -- God has elected some on which to have mercy. That is not the same thing as electing SOME to be reprobates. Everyone is spiritually dead to begin with, and nobody is "elected" that way (except in the sense that God created everything knowing how this would work out).

I can't speak for all, but several of us have stated clearly that we have no problem with double predestination. If God created Adam with the knowledge and expectation that Adam would sin and curse the human race, then God is ultimately responsible for the fact that we are born spiritually dead and fit for hell. I think I have an idea as to WHY God might do something like that, but it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. I assume God did what He did according to His own good pleasure and purpose, and that's all the explanation any man needs. I will not be so arrogant as to say that I know what God must or must not do in order to be true to His character. I pray only that He reveal Himself to me as He sees fit that I might know Him better.

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

If that isn't obvious to you, nothing I say will matter.

 

OK, He withdrew His spirit after they sinned. I thought you were saying that His withdrawing of His spirit was what CAUSED them to sin. This also partly in response to something you or Ian recently said somewhere (but I can't find right now) that Satan fell because God withdrew His spirit. I was going to jump ont aht, but a lot was going on at the time, so I passed. But I guess that could have meant He withdrew after He sinned, but it looked llike the person said that caused his sin in the first place.

still, if He concluded all in sin just to save SOMe, then He did basically elect the rest to be reprobates.

I guess I am still used to some of the other Calvinists, who used to post here more before you and Ian began holding the fort, who insistently denied double predestination and supralapsarianis. (and even the word "reprobation" in favor of the more passive "preterition". Still, my point in all of that is you might was well just admit that God elected many to reprobation instead of bringing up this whole thing that it was all their own fault, etc. The bottom line is, that's what God wanted for them; they were ultimately helpless in the matter, and as per your reading of Rom.9, it was God's right to trap them in that state as "vessels of wrath".

The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one. Before one jumps to the clay "vessels", let's for once look more at the second part of v.20 (the beginning of Paul's answer to this question): "Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have you made me this way'?". Made them what way? Predestined to Hell? Sinners who "chose to sin in Adam" (legally charged with the choice of a 'federal head') and are "allowed to go the way their 'totally depraved' nature takes them"? Helplessly unable to repent, yet "held responsible" to repent and left in that state? Passed over for "saving grace" and therefore doomed to suffer the eternal "justice" for their sins? Most Calvinists I argued with deny with a passion that God "makes" anybody that way (since they, through their federal head, really did it to themselves somehow). Yet the next verse clearly does credit God as "making" these "vessels" the way they are. And even to those who do confess God "makes" the reprobates that way, still, once again, none of the above concepts are what was being discussed! (A reader would have no reason to even assume they were any of those things in the first place!). So you just can't say "Paul was answering the objection to God's unconditional election and preterition process"!
The focus is on "children of promise" as opposed to "children of the flesh". God has declared that there are two groups: Physical Israel (which is in the same spiritual status as the rest of humanity) and spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28, 29). The more pertinent question is " Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law He gave us, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are? Didn't He create us as His people? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?" HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?" He as "the Potter" sovereignly laid out a plan, involving two categories of people; the first had a purpose, but this purpose is not the salvation of the individuals in the group, but to pave the way for the second. It's this second group one must be apart of, and who are we to question this plan? (This still says nothing about a person's inability to cross from one group to the other. This also would be analogous to modern unbelievers saying "Why are you saying one has to be a born-again Christian to be saved?". "Why does God find fault with me as I am? I'm a good person! I am a 'child' of his since he created me! He made me this way (by his own will), so he should understand!" But to them too, it's not "children of the flesh" who are counted, and not by our own self-justification!). All of this is apart of the theme or "long argument" Paul is making throughout the whole book of Romans.

 

What you are probably recalling is that I mentioned R.C. Sproul speculated that satan rebelled because God withdrew His spirit from satan. I am still looking for that book so I can quote Sproul properly. I don't claim to know if what Sproul suggests is true or not, but I do know that God is sovereign even over satan, since satan can do nothing without God's permission (i.e. satan had to ASK to "sift Peter", and satan could not touch Job without permission).

I have more to say in response to your post but I have to run for a while...

 

I honestly don't know how you can see it otherwise. The whole context is that these two groups are God's pottery made from the same lump. Some vessels are prepared for destruction and some vessels are prepared for glory. The point of the passage is that God has a perfect right to do this.

You object because you (wrongly) draw from that text to mean God is saying He took some neutral clay and used it to make some evil people and some good people. (You later try to make this symbolic of spiritual and physical Israel, but that's way out in left field.) But that's not what the text says, and that is plainly not how it works, since nobody is born fashioned as a "good" vessel.

Look again at the preceding verse...

21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

This does not read: "from the same neutral lump of clay to make one honorable vessel and another dishonorable." That's what you are saying, not what the text is saying. It does not say "from the same lump I made some bad vessels and some good ones." The text says, "from the same lump to make one vessel for [the purpose of] honor and another for [the purpose of] dishonor?"

The SAME LUMP is sinful, spiritually dead clay. God made - and has the right to make - from this same lump some vessels He will NOT save, but instead, intentionally endure with longsuffering because he's prepared them for destruction. And other vessels He will show mercy and save, because He has prepared them for glory.

Now the question is, if God made both from the same lump of spiritually dead clay, then man naturally says (from fleshly reasoning), why do you still find fault? I remain sinful because you are not willing otherwise. To which the answer is clearly "Yes, you're right -- nobody resists My will. I AM ultimately responsible for your destiny, but I have the right to do whatever I wish with my creation. I have the right to PLAN to prepare you for destruction, and simply endure your evil for a while in order to display my power to other vessels I've PLANNED to show mercy and prepare for glory. And you have no right to talk back to me about this matter, since I am sovereign over all my creation."

That's still "double-predestination" in one important sense. In the grand scheme of things, God did predestine -- before He even created Adam -- who would receive mercy and who would not.

 

"way out in left field"? That was the main issue of the day, and we do see Jews getting that offended at that idea, not yours. Once again, no one was thinking of such a hypothetical scenario back then. (Once again, why would anyone Paul was writing to assume they were such, and people generally wouldn't care if someone else was the vessel of wrath.) This issue of "I remain sinful because you are not willing otherwise" is what has come up with the rise of Calvinism, and thus you read it into the text, and whenever someone asks you that question, BINGO, there's your magical answer.
But you said it was not a "neutral" vessel of clay. However, remember the other key statement "Before they were yet born and did any good or evil" this decision was made. Even your closing comment "In the grand scheme of things, God did predestine -- before He even created Adam --...". An unborn entity is neutral. In Paul's analogy, a clay vessel conveys neutrality. He may not say

but then he also doesn't say "From one BAD lump I choose to make some good". Note your own quote, "...MAKE another for [the purpose of] dishonor", just as "one...for the purpose of honor". The good or evil clearly comes later.

So in that scenario, yes, God could do that, and then still silence the helpless "vessel of wrath", but it contradicts the rest of what scripture teaches about God's love, justice, purity and genuine outreach (good will) for people. His "expecting" man to repent is then just a cruel pretense, because really, he planned to trap these people in destruction anyway.

All of this comes about because the Calvinist tries to explain too much in order to emphasize God's sovereignty and comprehend "the grand scheme of things": how predestination, foreknowledge and election work. Why don't you just leave those things to God, and stop trying to explain it like that and then tell everyone else just to leave that to God when they question it? Leave the "how"s to God, not just the "why"s.

 

Paul's answer assumes that we are made from a bad lump. Nobody would argue, "Why did you make me this way?" If he were made from a good lump as a good man.

My own quote is perfectly consistent with this and scripture. The scripture does not say that one vessel is made (to be by nature) dishonorable and another (to be by nature) honorable. It says that out of the same lump one is made for the purpose of dishonor and another for the purpose of honor.

Then it goes on to say that God endures one and has mercy on the other. One does not need to have mercy on a vessel that is made honorable by nature, therefore one cannot conclude that God makes "good vessels" and "bad vessels" from the same neutral lump of clay. The lump itself is flawed, thanks to the sin of Adam.

 

I don't quite get your references to "by nature". I have not said anything about anyone being good "by nature". But if it was already a "bad" lump, then it wouldn't make sense to speak of MAKING what is made from it "bad".
And the act of "making" some honorable IS the "mercy" being discussed (or at least apart of it, or their receiving the mercy is what defines them as vessels of mercy), so there is no redundancy.

 

This is very simple.

From one lump ->
1. vessels of dishonor/wrath
2. vessels of honor/glory

1. God endures the vessels of dishonor
2. God has mercy on the vessels of honor

Mercy == compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power

You can't have mercy on a vessel that is made from a neutral or good lump of clay because a vessel made from good or neutral material doesn't need mercy. Mercy is by definition given to someone who is an offender who deserves worse than what he/she receives.

So both the vessels of dishonor/wrath/destruction and vessels of mercy/glory start out from the same undeserving raw material. The vessels of mercy -- the elect -- were not MADE any better than the vessels of wrath until God had mercy on them and saved them.

The only difference between the two groups of vessels is that GOD CHOSE SOME on which to have mercy and whom He would eventually glorify, and chose simply to ENDURE the others, which were prepared for destruction.

If you still don't get it, I give up.

 

Apparently, if we are to take Romans 9 the way you do, where God assigns people to wrath before they were born and even yet did good or evil, then, yes these "neutral" vessels who are "spared" such a divine prerogative, can be said to be "shown mercy". Actually, you are right that "mercy" is defined in terms of "compassion", but the definition of "compassion" is not necessarily related to "an offender". The other definition you mentioned was simply "to one subject to one's power", and another definition I see is "as exercised to the poor". So this too would go along with the fact that the clay is simply "subject to God's power", as you said. It is beneficience; not necessarily pardon from a moral/legal offense.
So this does not prove that the clay started out evil; only that God was beneficient to some of it, (for whatever reason).

 

Wow, do you dance that well naturally, or did you have to learn it?

 

Don't dance at all. But simply research the scriptures, and what the words actually mean in the original.

 

Right. Like how the definition of "mercy" is "benificence".

 

you know somethings about romans 9 that say that God predestinated the believers. He knew what our choice would be but he did not hand pick. For God is not willing that any should but that all should come to repentance. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved!

I'm only a 2-3 point Calvinist depending on what you think the points mean.

 

God does not make a worded portrait of Himself as being a Divine Monster selecting some for Heaven and Hell. This is only the fabrication of Augustine and friar John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

But, the Lord does have a right and can maintain His Divine justice in knowing that Pharaoh would in the end reject Himself--He then used Him to show His mighty power in making him release the Israelite people of God from Egypt.

Hebrews eleven pictures both Jacob and Esau as patriarchs under the Old Testament economy of the Law. You Calvinists will have to tip your crown to Esau when you find him enjoying the felicity of God's holy Presence in Heaven.

Are there any other O.T. saints who you are going to eject from Heaven on the basis of Hebrews chapter eleven? Why are you inclined to reject just brother, Esau? It just might be to patch up your erring view in theological matters.

Regards,
Berrian, Th.D.