Argument Against “Double Predestination” and Support for the Tripartite View

[Alfred Persson]

Argument Against “Double Predestination” and Support for the Tripartite View​

Many theologians reject the Calvinist doctrine of “Double Predestination,” which asserts that God has predestined some individuals to salvation (the Elect) and others to condemnation (the Reprobate). These theologians emphasize that scripture affirms God’s desire for all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4) and for “everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), suggesting that salvation is not limited to a preselected group. Despite these clear passages, committed Calvinists often interpret them in a way that aligns with their doctrine of limited atonement and unconditional election, asserting that these texts do not conflict with double predestination.

Centuries of theological debate have failed to definitively challenge the entrenched doctrine of double predestination. However, this doctrine rests on an “unsound inference”: the idea that humanity is divided solely into two groups—the Elect and the Reprobate. This inference is not an explicit biblical statement. A closer look at scripture, supported by early Jewish teachings, suggests a more nuanced Tripartite View that divides humanity into three distinct categories:

1. The Foreordained (Elect) – Those predestined for salvation (Romans 8:29-30).
2. The Contingent (Middling) – Those whose final status depends on their response to God’s grace (Titus 2:11; Romans 2:6-7).
3. The Unyielding (Reprobate) – Those who persist in rejection and disobedience (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Romans 1:21-24).

Historical and Scriptural Roots of the Tripartite View​

The Tripartite View has strong support not only in Christian scripture but also in early Jewish teachings, specifically from the School of Hillel, which influenced the Apostle Paul (Acts 22:3; 23:6). This school taught a view of humanity divided into the Righteous, Middling, and Wicked, as documented in the Babylonian Talmud:

Rabbinic Teaching (Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a):

• Three books are opened by God on the New Year: one for the thoroughly righteous, one for the thoroughly wicked, and one for the middling.
• The righteous are immediately inscribed for life.
• The wicked are immediately inscribed for death.
• The middling are left in suspense from New Year until the Day of Atonement, when their fate is determined based on their deeds.

Rabbi Abin supports this view using Psalm 69:28: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living. Let them not be inscribed among the righteous.” His reasoning:

• The thoroughly righteous are inscribed in the Book of Life.
• The middling have their status determined based on their merit.
• Those who are not inscribed among the righteous are consigned to the Book of the Wicked.

Scriptural Support for the Tripartite View​

1. The Existence of Books for Different Groups (Revelation 20:11-15)

• Revelation 20:12-15 describes the final judgment where multiple books are opened, and the dead are judged by their deeds. The Book of Life, containing the names of the elect, is contrasted with other records. Those not found in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire, implying the existence of a record for those whose names are blotted out or excluded due to unrepentance.

2. The Foreordained (Romans 8:29-30)

• “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…”
• This supports the idea of a group that is chosen and predestined for salvation from the foundation of the world.

3. The Contingent (Titus 2:11; Romans 2:6-7)

• Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.”
• Romans 2:6-7: “God ‘will repay each person according to what they have done.’ To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life.”
• These verses support the notion that individuals can move toward salvation based on their response to God’s grace, highlighting the potential of the Middling to become righteous.

4. The Unyielding (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Romans 1:21-24)

• 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12: “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved…so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
• Romans 1:21-24: Describes those who, although aware of God, chose not to honor Him, leading God to “give them up” to their desires.
• These passages depict the Unyielding as those who resist and reject divine truth persistently, sealing their fate.

Scriptural and Historical Proofs of the Middling Group​

Malachi 3:16-18 affirms a group that stands between the thoroughly righteous and the wicked:

• “Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD…”
• This “book of remembrance” suggests a group whose fate depends on their deeds and devotion.

Revelation 17:8 and Revelation 13:8 imply that the Book of Life was written from the foundation of the world and that those not found in it are destined for judgment. This confirms that there are names that can be added to or blotted out of the Book of Life, supporting the existence of a Middling group whose final destiny is not preordained but contingent on their response.

Conclusion​

The Tripartite View of humanity is rooted in scripture and early Jewish teachings, revealing that:

• The Foreordained (Elect) are those chosen for salvation from the beginning.
• The Contingent (Middling) are those whose ultimate destiny depends on their response to God’s grace and their actions.
• The Unyielding (Wicked) are those who persistently reject God’s truth and face condemnation.

This view challenges the binary construct of double predestination by introducing a more nuanced understanding, one where God’s desire for all to come to repentance (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9) and the potential for change in the Middling are acknowledged. It maintains the integrity of scripture while providing a deeper, more comprehensive approach to divine judgment and human freedom.

 

[Dave...]

That's a straw man argument.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

As far as a I know, Calvin, or any main stream theologian with a reformed view did not teach that God predestines some to damnation. He ordained it, but He did not predestine it. There's a difference. God does not actively cause a person to sin. They are judged on there own merit. Predestine speaks of God being the positive cause. Those who are saved are predestined. Ordain is what I would call an umbrella word. It allows for both predestine and positively allowing man in his natural capacity to take it's natural course. Ordain means God is sovereign over everything, even things that He didn't cause. Predestine speaks of God positively causing something, and also falls under the title of ordain, but does not complete the picture.

So, in conclusion, God did not predestine anyone to hell, nor will you find one passage that says so. He did ordain it, but that does not make Him the positive cause of it. The responsibility lays solely with man for his damnation.

Dave

 

[Alfred Persson]

That's a straw man argument.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

As far as a I know, Calvin, or any main stream theologian with a reformed view did not teach that God predestines some to damnation. He ordained it, but He did not predestine it. There's a difference. God does not actively cause a person to sin. They are judged on there own merit. Predestine speaks of God being the positive cause. Those who are saved are predestined. Ordain is what I would call an umbrella word. It allows for both predestine and positively allowing man in his natural capacity to take it's natural course. Ordain means God is sovereign over everything, even things that He didn't cause. Predestine speaks of God positively causing something, and also falls under the title of ordain, but does not complete the picture.

So, in conclusion, God did not predestine anyone to hell, nor will you find one passage that says so. He did ordain it, but that does not make Him the positive cause of it. The responsibility lays solely with man for his damnation.

Dave

In the two comprehensive definitions that follow, Calvin summarized his doctrine of double predestination:

We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death.58

As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation. Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony of election. Then we hold justification another sign of its manifestation, until they come into the glory in which the fulfillment of that election lies. But as the Lord seals his elect by call and justification, so, by shutting off the reprobate from knowledge of his name or from the sanctification of his Spirit, he, as it were, reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits them.59

Almost everything that Calvin taught regarding predestination is included in these two summaries.
In other writings Calvin presented similar summaries. In the preface to his commentary on the Psalms, he spoke of “eternal predestination by which God distinguished the reprobate from the elect.”60 In refuting the arguments of Pighius, the first of three considerations cited by Calvin is this: “… the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.”61 Finally, we note Calvin’s early summary in Instruction in Faith (1537). The focus is similar to that of Romans 9 and of the final edition of the Institutes:

Beyond this contrast of attitudes of believers and unbelievers, the great secret of God’s counsel must necessarily be considered. For, the seed of the word of God takes root and brings forth fruit only in those whom the Lord, by his eternal election, has predestined to be children and heirs of the heavenly kingdom. To all the others (who by the same counsel of God are rejected before the foundation of the world) the clear and evident preaching of truth can be nothing but an odor of death unto death.… We acknowledge, therefore, the elect to be recipients of his mercy (as truly they are) and the rejected to be recipients of his wrath, a wrath, however, which is nothing but just.62

These summaries make clear that Calvin held to double predestination, that is, to both election and reprobation.


58 Ibid., 3.21.5 (OS, 4:374). “Praedestinationem vocamus aeternum Dei decretum, quo apud se constitutum habuit quid de unoquoque homine fieri vellet. Non enim pari conditione creantur omnes: sed aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinatur. Itaque prout in alterutrum finem quisque conditus est, ita vel ad vitam vel ad mortem praedestinatum dicimus.”

59 Ibid., 3.21.7 (OS, 4:378f.). “Quod ergo Scriptura clare ostendit, dicimus aeterno et immutabili consilio Deum semel constituisse quos olim semel assumere vellet in salutem, quos rursum exitio devovere; hoc consilium quoad electos in gratuita eius misericordia fundatum esse asserimus, nullo humanae dignitatis respectu; quos vero damnationi addicit, his iusto quidem et irreprehensibili, sed incomprehensibili ipsius iudicio, vitae aditum praecludi. lam vero in electis vocationem statuimus, electionis testimonium. Iustificationem deinde, alterum eius manifestandae symbolum, donec ad gloriam in qua eius complementum extat pervenitur. Quemadmodum autem vocatione et iustificatione electos suos Dominus signat, ita reprobos vel a notitia sui nominis, vel a Spiritus sui sanctificatione excludendo, quale maneat eos iudicium istis veluti notis aperit.”

60 Commentaries, pp. 51–57 (OC, 31:29).

61 Eternal Predestination, p. 121 (OC, 8:313).

62 Instruction in Faith, pp. 36f. (OC, 22:46–47). See also the Articles Concerning Predestination: “… upon the same decree depends the distinction between elect and reprobate: as he adopted some for himself for salvation, he destined others for eternal ruin.” In Theological Treatises, p. 179 (OC, 9:713). In his Defence of the Secret Providence of God (1558) Calvin used the term predestination in the sense of “providence”: “But predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things, and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible justice.” In Calvin’s Calvinism, p. 261 (OC, 9:287).

Klooster, F., H. (2009). Calvin’s doctrine of predestination (pp. 25–27). Logos Bible Software.

 

[Alfred Persson]

 

[Dave...]

And yet Calvin also said..."The blame lies solely with ourselves, if we do not become partakers of this salvation; for he calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illuminated by him." (Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet).

Is Calvin also a universalist? You've got to be careful of the many pitfalls in reading into someone's work from that long ago. There are poor translations, there are a misuses of terminology by the reader because the use of terminology itself doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning today as it did in theological circles back then and in certain contexts. Needless to say.

It's important to note that in scripture, predestination has a pregnant meaning. It's speaking of God causing something to happen. God never caused someone to sin. He never caused someone to not believe. He didn't need to. Calvin, with regards to the reprobate, was obviously speaking of God leaving man to himself.

Today, double predestination as it is being presented, means that God caused some to not believe. That's the only logical conclusion one can come to when the same camp also believes that every man has the capacity to believe from his flesh.

All men were not created in a state of neutrality, with God choosing some for damnation and other for salvation. All men were created guilty. God then chose to show mercy on some. The others are left to themselves, willfully rejecting God and fully responsible for it. God ordaining it all. That's probably what Calvin meant by predestination with regards to the reprobate. That God left the reprobate to themselves. He ordained it. Was sovereign over it but did not cause it.

Dave

 

[Alfred Persson]

And yet Calvin also said..."The blame lies solely with ourselves, if we do not become partakers of this salvation; for he calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illuminated by him." (Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet).

Is Calvin also a universalist? You've got to be careful of the many pitfalls in reading into someone's work from that long ago. There are poor translations, there are a misuses of terminology by the reader because the use of terminology itself doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning today as it did in theological circles back then and in certain contexts. Needless to say.

It's important to note that in scripture, predestination has a pregnant meaning. It's speaking of God causing something to happen. God never caused someone to sin. He never caused someone to not believe. He didn't need to. Calvin, with regards to the reprobate, was obviously speaking of God leaving man to himself.

Today, double predestination as it is being presented, means that God caused some to not believe. That's the only logical conclusion one can come to when the same camp also believes that every man has the capacity to believe from his flesh.

All men were not created in a state of neutrality, with God choosing some for damnation and other for salvation. All men were created guilty. God then chose to show mercy on some. The others are left to themselves, willfully rejecting God and fully responsible for it. God ordaining it all. That's probably what Calvin meant by predestination with regards to the reprobate. That God left the reprobate to themselves. He ordained it. Was sovereign over it but did not cause it.

Dave

Only God doesn't contradict Himself. I used bold font to show his opening words. Deny them if you like, I don't see the point. Rather than rush to defend Calvin, rush to defend God.

Lots of error is presented today as Christian that would cause Christ and His disciples to vomit. Rather than focus on the 15th century, focus on the 1st and second. Then you too can defend what was once delivered to the church, and not the odd things that arose later.

If you want to converse with me about predestination, the least you can do is find out what I believe:

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? | End Time News

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? Scripture says divine election is conditioned "according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pt. 1:2): Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood...

endtimenews.net

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

And yet Calvin also said..."The blame lies solely with ourselves, if we do not become partakers of this salvation; for he calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illuminated by him." (Commentary on Isaiah the Prophet).

Is Calvin also a universalist? You've got to be careful of the many pitfalls in reading into someone's work from that long ago. There are poor translations, there are a misuses of terminology by the reader because the use of terminology itself doesn't necessarily carry the same meaning today as it did in theological circles back then and in certain contexts. Needless to say.

It's important to note that in scripture, predestination has a pregnant meaning. It's speaking of God causing something to happen. God never caused someone to sin. He never caused someone to not believe. He didn't need to. Calvin, with regards to the reprobate, was obviously speaking of God leaving man to himself.

Today, double predestination as it is being presented, means that God caused some to not believe. That's the only logical conclusion one can come to when the same camp also believes that every man has the capacity to believe from his flesh.

All men were not created in a state of neutrality, with God choosing some for damnation and other for salvation. All men were created guilty. God then chose to show mercy on some. The others are left to themselves, willfully rejecting God and fully responsible for it. God ordaining it all. That's probably what Calvin meant by predestination with regards to the reprobate. That God left the reprobate to themselves. He ordained it. Was sovereign over it but did not cause it.

Dave

The idea that man is created guilty has always been rejected by the Eastern Church.

 

[Whatever]

Alfred Persson "Scripture says divine election is conditioned “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pt. 1:2):"

You have a false understanding of foreknowledge. You think it means that God looks forward in time and learns things - like who will believe.

But God has perfect Omniscience. He knows the end from the beginning. (Isaiah 46:10)
God knows the end and everything in the middle because He has foreordained it.

Dan 11:36 "Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

 

[Dave...]

Only God doesn't contradict Himself. I used bold font to show his opening words. Deny them if you like, I don't see the point. Rather than rush to defend Calvin, rush to defend God.

Lots of error is presented today as Christian that would cause Christ and His disciples to vomit. Rather than focus on the 15th century, focus on the 1st and second. Then you too can defend what was once delivered to the church, and not the odd things that arose later.

If you want to converse with me about predestination, the least you can do is find out what I believe:

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? | End Time News

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? Scripture says divine election is conditioned "according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pt. 1:2): Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood...

endtimenews.net

Alfred

Can you show me where Calvin or any mainstream Calvinist states that God is Author and finisher of ones unbelief? You're reading into the terminology something that neither of them taught. And you are making you're argument against "Calvinists", not just Calvin.

As I said, I don't know of any Calvinist who believe that God caused someone's unbelief. That's what the term "double predestination" is suggesting today. Calvin may not have meant it in that way, as his works show, but it's an unfortunate opportunity for those who wish to use his name as a straw man to attack.

"The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence." (7:550)"CHS

I will also add this quote by Macarthur.

There is a distinction between God's desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. God does not want men to sin. He hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 45:7); thus, He hates it's consequences--eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest the glory in wrath, chose to endure "vessels...prepared for destruction" for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Romans 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose to elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Romans 1:18-32). Ultimately, God's choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desire."(JMSB)

I know you probably don't want to believe this, but you seem to think that all those who are reformed made an idol out of Calvin and are in some kind of Zombie like state. I would rather discuss what Paul said in the Bible, than Calvin. My beliefs come from the Bible. I only quote people to save time when their views in the matter match mine.

Dave

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Alfred Persson "Scripture says divine election is conditioned “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pt. 1:2):"

You have a false understanding of foreknowledge. You think it means that God looks forward in time and learns things - like who will believe.

But God has perfect Omniscience. He knows the end from the beginning. (Isaiah 46:10)
God knows the end and everything in the middle because He has foreordained it.

Dan 11:36 "Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

There is no verse of Scripture which makes our God's Foreknowledge to be predetermination.
There furthermore is precisely no logical conflict at all between God knowing something before it happens because He can see the future and calling that "Foreknowledge" or "Omniscience".

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Alfred

Can you show me where Calvin or any mainstream Calvinist states that God is Author and finisher of ones unbelief? You're reading into the terminology something that neither of them taught. And you are making you're argument against "Calvinists", not just Calvin.

As I said, I don't know of any Calvinist who believe that God caused someone's unbelief. That's what the term "double predestination" is suggesting today. Calvin may not have meant it in that way, as his works show, but it's an unfortunate opportunity for those who wish to use his name as a straw man to attack.

"The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence." (7:550)"CHS

I will also add this quote by Macarthur.

There is a distinction between God's desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. God does not want men to sin. He hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 45:7); thus, He hates it's consequences--eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest the glory in wrath, chose to endure "vessels...prepared for destruction" for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Romans 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose to elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Romans 1:18-32). Ultimately, God's choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desire."(JMSB)

I know you probably don't want to believe this, but you seem to think that all those who are reformed made an idol out of Calvin and are in some kind of Zombie like state. I would rather discuss what Paul said in the Bible, than Calvin. My beliefs come from the Bible. I only quote people to save time when their views in the matter match mine.

Dave

I have to say here Dave, that this Calvinist doctrine is quite confusing.
Does God allow people to make their own choices or not?
If He allows them to make their own choices then He He is not causing unbelief, Hebis only seeing it occur in the future because He is literally Present in the future.
Is that truly how Calvinist Doctrine sees the issue because my impression has always been that Calvinists teach that if a man is destined to damnation, it is all God's doing. That the man has no choice in the matter because the man cannot come to God on his own. Thus, God preordained that the man would never choose him and be damned.
Or, are you saying that God knows who would and would not choose Him and so leaves those whom He knows will never choose Him in their darkness?

 

[Whatever]

Double predestination.
The Reformed view of double predestination is what we call Double - Negative
The misinformed view of double predestination is Double - Double.

Here is the Double - Negative view from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
3. 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.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

God positively works in the lives of the elect, bringing them to faith and salvation.
God negatively just passes by the rest (who are already sinners) and leaves them to justice.

The error of the Positive - Positive view is this:
For the elect, it is the same view as the Positive - Negative view.
For the non-elect, it has the view that God positively works sin and unbelief in the lives of (neutral) men and then damns them for it.

 

[Whatever]

I have to say here Dave, that this Calvinist doctrine is quite confusing.
Does God allow people to make their own choices or not?

All the problem is because people have the philosophical idea that we are each independent creatures and can make choices free from any other influences. How many passages do you need to break this idea?

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Pro 16:1 The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Pro 16:9 A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

Pro 19:21 There are many plans in a man's heart, Nevertheless the LORD's counsel—that will stand.

Pro 20:24 A man's steps are of the LORD; How then can a man understand his own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.

Joseph to his brothers who sold him into Egypt:
Gen 45:5 But now, do not therefore be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.
They did it, but God had a sovereign plan to use it for good.

Lamentations 3:37 Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, When the Lord has not commanded it?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred Persson "Scripture says divine election is conditioned “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pt. 1:2):"

You have a false understanding of foreknowledge. You think it means that God looks forward in time and learns things - like who will believe.

But God has perfect Omniscience. He knows the end from the beginning. (Isaiah 46:10)
God knows the end and everything in the middle because He has foreordained it.

Dan 11:36 "Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.

That isn't what I believe. You misunderstood what I said completely.

You quote me out of context to allege a pretext, I don't believe God looks forward to learn things. This is what I said, I'll copy paste it from my site:




What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will?

Scripture says divine election is conditioned “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pt. 1:2):

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet. 1:2 KJV)

Scripture also says divine election was not conditioned according to works either good or evil the Elect do:

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. (Rom. 9:11 KJV)

The apparent contradiction has caused controversy in the Church. John Calvin cited Paul to propose Election was by Sovereign choice and not based upon foreknowledge at all, while Jacob Arminius cited Peter to propose Election is conditioned on foreknowledge of “foreseen faith”. Both assume only two classes of people exist, the Righteous and the Unrighteous. Suppose they are wrong, suppose three classes exist: “The Righeous+The Wicked+The Middling People”?

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? | End Time News

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? Scripture says divine election is conditioned "according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pt. 1:2): Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood...

endtimenews.net

 

[Whatever]

There is no verse of Scripture which makes our God's Foreknowledge to be predetermination.
There furthermore is precisely no logical conflict at all between God knowing something before it happens because He can see the future and calling that "Foreknowledge" or "Omniscience".

There is also no passage in Scripture that says God looks into the future like He has a crystal ball or something.

Isa 48:3 "I have declared the former things from the beginning; They went forth from My mouth, and I caused them to hear it. Suddenly I did them, and they came to pass.

This seems pretty close to predetermination.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

It seems that those "things not yet done" are God's counsel that he will do.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

Act 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together
Act 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Determined before = Strongs G4309 proorizō
From G4253 and G3724; to limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine: - determine before, ordain, predestinate.

The Scriptures do not give us an encyclopedic knowledge of everything we wish to know. It gives us hints that we need to study and logically put 2 and 2 together.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The idea that man is created guilty has always been rejected by the Eastern Church.

And they are right. God clearly says we pay for our own sins, not those of others.

They are right about the Filioque also among other things. I might consider myself Orthodox except for icons, can't abide with them. Its too close to idolatry for me, even if one can split hairs and claim its veneration and not worship.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Alfred

Can you show me where Calvin or any mainstream Calvinist states that God is Author and finisher of ones unbelief? You're reading into the terminology something that neither of them taught. And you are making you're argument against "Calvinists", not just Calvin.

As I said, I don't know of any Calvinist who believe that God caused someone's unbelief. That's what the term "double predestination" is suggesting today. Calvin may not have meant it in that way, as his works show, but it's an unfortunate opportunity for those who wish to use his name as a straw man to attack.

"The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometimes, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue: and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw — shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence." (7:550)"CHS

I will also add this quote by Macarthur.

There is a distinction between God's desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. God does not want men to sin. He hates sin with all His being (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 45:7); thus, He hates it's consequences--eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest the glory in wrath, chose to endure "vessels...prepared for destruction" for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Romans 9:22). In His eternal purpose, He chose to elect out of the world (John 17:6) and passed over the rest, leaving them to the consequences of their sin, unbelief, and rejection of Christ (cf. Romans 1:18-32). Ultimately, God's choices are determined by His sovereign, eternal purpose, not His desire."(JMSB)

I know you probably don't want to believe this, but you seem to think that all those who are reformed made an idol out of Calvin and are in some kind of Zombie like state. I would rather discuss what Paul said in the Bible, than Calvin. My beliefs come from the Bible. I only quote people to save time when their views in the matter match mine.

Dave

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Logos Bible Software.


Calvins own words proves I did not misrepresent Calvin.

For a brief time I was a Calvinist. But it was very brief. Scripture genuinely offers salvation to everyone who wants it.

And I do not malign the Reformed. I often have said their scholarship is top notch.

Evidently you want to deny Reformed Theologians exist, categorized as supralapsarians who do profess double predestination.


I'd love to discuss what I believe, have you try to disprove it, but I reject all claims I haven't been totally accurate about Calvin. I did not misrepresent him or the Reformed.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

All the problem is because people have the philosophical idea that we are each independent creatures and can make choices free from any other influences. How many passages do you need to break this idea?

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.

Pro 16:1 The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Pro 16:9 A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

Pro 19:21 There are many plans in a man's heart, Nevertheless the LORD's counsel—that will stand.

Pro 20:24 A man's steps are of the LORD; How then can a man understand his own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.

Joseph to his brothers who sold him into Egypt:
Gen 45:5 But now, do not therefore be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.
They did it, but God had a sovereign plan to use it for good.

Lamentations 3:37 Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, When the Lord has not commanded it?

Thank you for your responses. Allow me to think about this and consult the Church, and I will get back to you.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

There is also no passage in Scripture that says God looks into the future like He has a crystal ball or something.

Isa 48:3 "I have declared the former things from the beginning; They went forth from My mouth, and I caused them to hear it. Suddenly I did them, and they came to pass.

This seems pretty close to predetermination.

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

It seems that those "things not yet done" are God's counsel that he will do.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

Act 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together
Act 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Determined before = Strongs G4309 proorizō
From G4253 and G3724; to limit in advance, that is, (figuratively) predetermine: - determine before, ordain, predestinate.

The Scriptures do not give us an encyclopedic knowledge of everything we wish to know. It gives us hints that we need to study and logically put 2 and 2 together.

LOL...you have kinda opened up a can of worms with that statement. But, regardless, I again thank you for your discourse and will respond after prayer, thought and consul.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

And they are right. God clearly says we pay for our own sins, not those of others.

They are right about the Filioque also among other things. I might consider myself Orthodox except for icons, can't abide with them. Its too close to idolatry for me, even if one can split hairs and claim its veneration and not worship.

Thanks for your response.
Consider Romans 14 when it comes to the Icons.