;)
You Believe in Double Predestination?!?!
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology
I like to point new believers to GotQuestions.org when they have questions about the Bible, especially when they’re trying to sort out whether any of their previous beliefs about God and Scripture are compatible with true biblical teaching.
The staff of GotQuestions does not write all the articles that appear on the site, but they do review and edit them. This means that some articles are more thorough than others. And though I haven’t seen any articles on the site that clearly contradict one another, some lean in opposite directions when talking about the same issue.
I recently checked on the question What is double predestination?, and I found it lacking. I fully realize that questions arising from God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility will never find universal understanding among Christians until we are clothed with the imperishable, so I don’t expect even those I agree with on most other issues to always embrace what I believe is a biblical understanding.
Even still, it is important to dialogue about this and other important issues, if not to convince, to at least get our positions out on the table and allow each of us to reevaluate our beliefs and come out with a firmer understanding and a kinder heart towards our brothers and sisters with whom we disagree.
To be fair to GotQuestions, their intent is not to produce a book chock full of theological terms and proofs for each question they receive. So each argument for or against something can only be as strong as a few paragraphs will allow. The argument against “double predestination,” however, is surprisingly weak, and I intend to make a case for the doctrine.
A Case for “Double Predestination”
First, we need to define double predestination. I’m not a fan of the term, but no matter what you call it, it isn’t going to sound positive.
The article says, “Double predestination is the belief that God creates some people whose purpose in existence is to be sent to hell.” That’s more or less true, but it could be stated differently, especially since the focus is on hell and not on God. For the purposes of argument, let’s say it this way: “Foreordained reprobation (Latin meaning unapproved, condemned) is the belief that God creates some people prepared for destruction in order to demonstrate the riches of His mercy to those He has chosen to love Him.”
Whether my definition is better or not is irrelevant if it isn’t supported by Scripture. Here is the main Bible passage in question, as brought up by the article:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (Romans 9:22).
Here is their commentary on the verse:
Many people think this verse teaches that God has made certain vessels for His wrath. But this is not the point of the verse. Reading above [Romans 1:18-32], mankind has already experienced God’s wrath. Mankind has fitted himself for destruction. It is God who endures these vessels—vessels who have prepared themselves for destruction because they would not leave their sin and turn to God.
The author points out that Paul has already mentioned that mankind is under the wrath of God according to Romans 1:18-32. That is correct. But Paul has a chain of thought that runs from Romans 2:1 through 9:21. You have to take Romans 9:22 in its immediate context before trying to make a generalized statement putting it under the umbrella of Romans 1. The author has ignored the immediate context.
Look at the two preceding verses:
But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:20-21).
The author denies that God has made certain vessels for His wrath, yet in the verse immediately prior, the Bible says God makes “one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use.” The whole point of Paul’s argument stems from the question, “Why have you [God] made me like this?” (i.e. predestined to wrath).
While I can totally affirm that we are responsible for the actions we do and choices we make and therefore we deserve wrath, I have to take it in the order of priority that Scripture gives it, and that priority is not “Mankind has fitted himself for destruction.” It is that God has prepared some vessels for destruction beforehand.
Here’s how the article concludes:
Look at the next verse: Romans 9:23, “And he did so in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory.” Notice that God elects certain people beforehand for His glory. In other words, before the foundation of the world God chose certain people to be His children in order that He would be glorified (see Ephesians 1:4). It does not say that God chose people to damnation or predestined people to wrath. The Bible never speaks about a double predestination where God elects or predestinates some to hell, others to heaven. Those who are under God’s wrath are in that position because they have rejected God. Those that have the righteousness of God are in that position because God has chosen them to be His children.
Again, the author is not following the argument of Romans 9:23. It says, “And he did so…” This is referring to God and what he has done with the reprobate. God prepared some vessels for dishonorable use (destruction) and some for honorable use (salvation). Instead, the author tries to argue that yes, God prepared the elect for salvation, but He did not prepare the reprobate for destruction.
But the passage does not allow for that kind of linguistic gymnastics. If He prepared the one, He prepared the other. This is the most natural reading of the passage. If He did not prepare the one, as the author claims, He could not have prepared the other. How he can say “before the foundation of the world God chose certain people to be His children…” and deny that God chose certain people for destruction, and then claim that is what this passage says, is beyond me.
God prepared some for destruction. God prepared some for salvation. To deny the former, affirm the latter, and claim it squares with the passage is failure, if not refusal, to understand the passage in its own terms and is ultimately inconsistent.
One of the last sentences says, “The Bible never speaks about a double predestination where God elects or predestinates some to hell, others to heaven.” Aside from this passage, which most clearly does affirm double predestination, there are many others, including:
The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble (Proverbs 16:4).
For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thes. 5:9).
For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do (1 Peter 2:6-8).
We ought not to pick and chose which verses of Scripture we like merely because they can be warped to fit our preconceived ideas. In this article, I have neglected to discuss at large man’s responsibility, but I do affirm it.
The author states near the end of his article, “Those who are under God’s wrath are in that position because they have rejected God.” In his opinion, he cannot make this affirmation and also affirm that God has prepared some for destruction. He believes the two statements conflict and has chosen the man-centered statement over the God-centered one.
I can affirm both. Not because I fully understand the workings of our God, but because the Bible affirms them both as true. God is sovereign. He sovereignly ordains all that comes to pass, including the reprobation of the wicked. But God’s sovereign ordination does not remit us of any responsibility of our actions. And anyone who makes the argument that this is illogical or doesn’t fit with the Bible hasn’t read and understood Romans 9.
I want to dialogue. Some pastors and theologians I really respect don’t agree with me on this, so I’m not out to argue and accuse, but learn and debate. What are your thoughts on this?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
“Not because I fully understand the workings of our God, but because the Bible affirms them both as true. ”
Exactly. (Deut 29:29) I believe pushing it further results in the supra/infra-lapsarian argument.
I think of it in terms of someone with millionaire stepping into a city of poverty, and graciously gifting some poor family with a million dollars. It’s obvious that family is now wealthy because the millionaire gave them money. What is also obvious, but usually ignored, is that the poor neighbors would still be poor for whatever reasons they were poor before. They would NOT be poor “because the millionaire DIDN’T give them money”.
Same way with salvation. The lost are lost because they’re lost sinners. The saved are saved because God graciously saved them.
I didn’t agree with double predestination when I was a Presbyterian, either.
In this analogy the millionaire is a stranger with no relationship with these people and no responsibility to them. God CREATED us. He knows us intimately. He sees our hearts. He knows our joys and our sorrows. A wealthy person handing out money generously to some strangers and not others could never work as an analogy for me. God made us. Before choosing Him we were sinners who were in rebellion because of the fall. We were BORN this way. It wasn’t a choice we made. I’m really struggling with this concept.
Bob,
Thanks for weighing in. Do you have any Bible passages to support your position? I only find analogies like yours helpful if I find evidence for them in the Bible.
[...] “Do You Believe in Double Predestination?” by Andrew Wincl in the SBC Impact blog, discusses the virtues and vicissitudes of the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. http://sbcimpact.org/2011/04/29/you-believe-in-double-predestination [...]
John Calvin said,
(3:21:5) “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 predestined to life or death.”
(3:21:7) We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by just and blameless but at the same time, incomprehensible, judgment.”
It is clear from his writings that John Calvin taught there were a chosen few whom God predestinated to become His children.
He taught that all others were created or predestined to go to hell (damnation). Calvin believed that God decreed this before the foundation of the world. Some call this detestable teaching the doctrine of double predestination.
Calvin’s teaching on the eternal “divine decree” is not found in the Bible. He devised this philosophical concept from the writings of Augustine. His logic knew that not all would be saved.
Calvin logically constructed the idea that if God determines everything, then God must have willed or decreed this damnation of the lost from the foundation of the world. His teachings seek to support this premise.
My 2cents, Blessings!
Ron & Bob,
I appreciate your comments, but as I mentioned in my post, I want to dialogue.
Your stories and assessments are welcome, but please interact with the text (e.g. Romans 9) instead of telling me how you like to think about it or that this is a “detestable doctrine”.
It may seem totally obvious to you, but to me it sounds like mere human reasoning uninformed by Scripture.
On second look, I realize I was harsh and my words probably did more to kill dialogue than foster it. I’m sorry. Please allow this addendum.
Bob,
I’ve heard that story too. But I think the story doesn’t get to the heart of the issue: Why are the people in poverty in the first place? I think we have to look at Romans 9 since it is the most explicit (though I did give some other passages) to determine if God “decrees” that some will go to eternal destruction. Could you interact a little with Romans 9?
Ron,
I’m glad to see your have a pretty good understanding of the issue at hand. Thanks for the quotes from Calvin. I actually haven’t studied Calvin’s writings, but I have learned from many who have.
You said that Calvin believed this doctrine is found in the Scripture. And even if he was influenced by Augustine, it would appear that Augustine believed it was there too. They may be right, they may be wrong. But I have provided some Scriptures that I believe touch on this subject. What is Romans 9 teaching us here?
Romans 9:22(Holman Christian Standard Bible)
“And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?”
Paul’s writings have to be taken as a whole; he provides the best commentary on his writings by explaining that God’s wrath comes on the sinner (wicked) because of their own willful disobedience …”But because of your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed”(2:5).
These “vessels or objects of wrath” are so because they refuse to repent. We know this for certain because the verse indicates that God has “endured” their resisting with patience (longsuffering).
This reminds me of 2 Peter 3:9 … that He is longfuffering, not willing that any should perish.
Ron,
I don’t think I’ve suggested that the people God has ordained to destruction never do anything that fits with that end. So arguing that they are judged because of their wickedness doesn’t address the question of “Why?”
The verse you reference, Romans 9:22, says that God desired to display his wrath, not forgiveness, in enduring with much patience. Romans 9 points to God’s choice before we do anything (Jacob & Esau). That’s why Paul speaks of someone raising the question, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” If Paul isn’t arguing that God ordained the wicked to destruction, why would someone even ask this question?
Secondly, you have to take Peter as a whole. God does desire that all men be saved, but take into account 1 Peter 2:8, “They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”
I don’t think you’re accounting for these passages.
I Peter 2:8 …is a great verse pointing out disobedience and destiny. The sinner stumbles because he disobeys the message [rejecting the Gospel and refusing to respond, it becomes a stone of stumbling], therefore his destiny is destruction. However, there is no contradiction because our loving, holy, and sovereign God knew exactly what they would freely do.
I’m not a Calvinist, but I suppose most Calvinists must hold some form of double-predestination since the logic of their position demands it.
Augustine declared, “As the Supreme Good, he [God] made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those who he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace” (Enchiridion, 100).
I see no verse in the Bible where God predestines one to hell.
Spurgeon said, “I cannot image a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners it is not their duty to repent of their sins”….”who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my brethren! May the Lord save you from the charmer, and keep you ever deaf to the voice of error (cited by Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, 155-56).
I do not believe in a double predestination.
Blessings
Ron,
I think you’re taking an unnatural reading of 1 Peter 2:8. As they were destined to do, is obviously prior to the action itself (hence the “to do,” which is future).
You are assuming that God destined them to destruction based on their future actions (which betrays a kind of determinism), but it all goes back to the point where Paul is adamant that God’s choice was prior to any good or evil conduct on behalf of the individual.
If 1 Peter 2:8 isn’t clear enough, consider Jude 4, “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
I think Augustine has got it right on this one. The problem with the Spurgeon quote, who himself was a Calvinist, is that 1) a view of “double predestination” does not necesarrily lead to someone saying sinners don’t have to repent, and 2) those who have been predestined to death have not done anything to not deserve their own destruction. Either way, we have to deal with the truth of Scripture over Augustine or Spurgeon.
Andrew,
Double Predestination Calvinists have moved too far from the truth of an all-loving God and seem to indicate that He (God) hates the non-elect. William Ames (The Marrow of Theology)indicates that God hates the non-elect and wills that they should not have eternal life (pp154-156).
So do you see DP Calvinsts as being hyper-Calvinists; or does that depend?
Ron,
You ask a good question and it is one I have struggled with. There have been times when I wondered if I was a “hyper-Calvinist” because I am basically a determinist and I hold to “double predestination”.
I’ve never heard “hyper-Calvinist” used in a positive way, so I ask if that label belongs to a specific doctrine or to an outworking of a doctrine? Is the difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist like one seeing the glass half full and the other seeing the glass half empty? Both recognize the liquid is at the half mark, but they react differently. I may be a determinist, but I’m not a fatalist. Is that the difference?
John Piper, from what I’ve seen, is not considered a hyper-Calvinist, but he does hold to double predestination (I don’t know if he’s a determinist, but it wouldn’t surprise me). R.C. Sproul is most certainly a determinist (and probably believes in double predestination). Yet I don’t hear either of these two being called hyper-Calvinists.
Since the discussion has been focused on whether or not God foreordains people to death, the love of God hasn’t been given a good workout here. The Bible says, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” so the love aspect is there too. This discussion has been primarily focused on the second part (Esau I hated), but I don’t want to imply the first part (Jacob I loved) is null. The first part is the most exciting part, which is why we have multiple passages (e.g. Ephesians 1) dedicated to the positive side of election and fewer (e.g. Romans 9) dedicated to the negative side.
I’m sure that most Calvinists who try to make a case for double predestination are not trying to minimize the love of God. If anything, they take it as a given and try to make a case for the second piece of the argument.
I think this is a side bar, but based on interviews I’ve seen with Rob Bell, I think he believes the only alternative to his view on God, heaven, and hell, is a Calvinistic determinism that he finds distasteful. He cannot come to grips with Romans 9.
When asked if he thought he could be wrong, he said,
“Of course… Sometimes the question simply is, ‘Well, if that’s true, we’re all actually really screwed.’ We will have far larger problems than some pastor from Grand Rapids saying some stuff, if in the end God turns out to be something other than love or goodness, and love doesn’t win and we don’t have a choice” (emphasis mine).
People of my faith do not believe in double-predestination.
Nor did the Jews of Jesus’ time. Nor the Jews of today.
The Eastern Orthodox don’t belief in it, nor the Anglicans, nor the Episcopalians. It is not a doctrine of Judaism, or of the early Church, or of those who adhere to strict orthodox Christian teachings from ancient Church.
When was the first time that ‘double-predestination’ was taught as a ‘doctrine’ and by whom ?
Christiane,
It’s very difficult to deal with blanket statements. The Jews didn’t expect a suffering Messiah (and still don’t), so whether “the Jews” (not one? not the majority?) believe it or not isn’t very helpful.
What faith do you profess? If you claim Augustine in your spiritual heritage, at least one person believed in double-predestination.
You’ve given no evidence of the proof of your claims, or, more importantly, the relevance of them.
I have argued from Scripture (mostly Romans 9) that this doctrine is Biblical. Though it may not have been worded the way I word it, the concept is there. In the same way that the Trinity did not originate with Tertullian, “double-predestination” did not originate with Augustine.
Hi ANDREW,
I know my comment was very general. And I do know that our two traditions do not handle terminology in the same way, so communication is ‘a challenge’. Sorry if I was more clear.
This is where I come from in my tradition:
“If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema. . . .
If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.”
So basically, we cannot believe that it was God who forced Judas to betray Our Lord, but we do believe that it was God who impelled St. Paul to convert and to do the work of Christ for the Church.
We do not see God depriving anyone of grace or a chance of salvation, and we do believe that all who choose to come to God have done so by accepting God’s grace to them, and acknowledging God’s will that they be saved, and that they choose to persevere until the end;
nor do we see God forcing men to commit evil acts which then lead to their condemnation.
I hope that helps a bit. It’s a complex issue, even in my Church. As far as Augustine goes, he did warn about claiming to know the Mind of God in these matters.
Calvin and others have recognized the challenge of wording with this theme. Many Calvinists try to avoid using the word “cause” because we associate “cause” with “guilt”. We do not consider God to be guilty of being evil, since God is good. Yet we believe Judas could not have done anything other than to betray Jesus. That’s not to say Judas didn’t consciously decide to betray Jesus or that he betrayed Jesus against his will. So I’d say that the first “anathema” does not accurately describe the belief it condemns. If it is used to condemn Calvinism, Augustine must also be anathema.
The second is likewise confusing. Matthew uses the word “called” more like “invited,” whereas Paul uses it more like “chosen.” The second anathema doesn’t really distinguish which sense is being used and appears to switch between the two. Still, the part about being “predestined to evil” is clear enough, but I believe that is what Paul is addressing in Romans 9. His response is “Who are you to talk back to God?” Likewise, if someone says those who believe in “double predestination” are anathema, my response would be the same: “Who are you to talk back to God?”
What I don’t understand is that Catholicism teaches that you cannot be sure of your salvation “If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.”
How could a person be so unsure of his own salvation but so certain of everyone else’s damnation?
Hi ANDREW,
“How could a person be so unsure of his own salvation but so certain of everyone else’s damnation?”
You are speaking of two different situations from my point of view: the first is a person’s position as a member of the Church, and the second is a person’s final eternal salvation. ‘Anathema’ would be not a part of the Church. But ‘damnation’, my Church does NOT claim to know the mind of God in these matters, so we do not judge anyone’s final end, as only God can judge the heart.
Think of it this way, you know that you ‘disfellowship’ certain groups and people in the Southern Baptist Church, because they are not agreeing with certain standards or doctrines. But ‘disfellowship’ is not the same as saying that those individuals are ‘going to hell’. It DOES MEAN that the people who are dis-fellowshipped are not spokes-persons for the Southern Baptist faith, nor are they communicants at the Lord’s Supper with Southern Baptists.
In my faith, Andrew, we do not judge the eternal damnation or salvation of any human being, for his or her final judgment. We also know that we are called in our faith to ‘persevere until the end’.
We cannot not know the Mind of God in these matters; and we do not despair of the Mercy of God for any human soul that He has created.
By pronouncing this curse, the church may not be saying they know the final state of someone, but they are making a call on their current state, not merely “dis-fellowshipping” them.
1 John 5:13 says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” We may not be able to know the whole counsel of His will, but we should at least take Him at his word that we can know that we have eternal life.
I ask you this: Can the official teaching of the Catholic church be in error? Can they ever make a mistake? Can they ever go against Scripture?
Andrew,
Last post and I’m out … the bottomline for me is … how can non-elect sinners be held accountable for not trusting in a Savior in whom there were never (unconditionally) chosen?
Blessings for the journey …
“[H]ow can non-elect sinners be held accountable for not trusting in a Savior in whom there were never (unconditionally) chosen?”
Is your question not a paraphrase of Romans 9:19, “…Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?“
Andrew,
I see no connnection, sorry.
In the next verse, Paul rejects the objector’s question of … “who can resist His will” by saying “But who are you, a mere man, to talk back to God” (v.20).
So to do you see in scripture that God forces free creatures to love Him? Is forced love really love?
Ron,
There’s a difference between constraint and necessity. You are suggesting that God’s foreordination of these events results in constraint upon an individual, whereas I’m arguing for a necessity.
Secondly, your question was basically, “How can God hold someone responsible for rejecting Him if He didn’t choose him as one of the elect, since it would be impossible for him to believe?”
This is the same question Paul is addressing, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Paul’s answer is basically, “God can do what He wants because He’s God. It’s His right to make one person for glory and one person for destruction.”
Even though God has ordained what will come about, we don’t experience it like some kind of constraint. God’s foreordination does not deny the fact that we act in accordance with our will and nature. The elect follow God because He has enabled them to do so. The non-elect don’t follow God because they are unable to do so. AND both the elect and the non-elect follow and reject God because they WANT to. My position doesn’t deny that.
DOES GOD PERMIT CHOICE ?
Actually, He commands that WE choose, in Deuteronomy 30:19
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day,
that I have set before thee
life and death, the blessing and the curse;
therefore choose life,
that thou mayest live,
thou and thy seed”
The complexity of determinism/free will remains with all of its difficulties in discussions and debates,
but there are some Bible verses that help us to understand the strange paradox that although God is sovereign, yet by His own command, He has permitted us to have ‘choice’.
This paradox is a mystery that we cannot fathom completely.
Christiane,
I have not denied that God commands us to choose. I have merely said that choice was predetermined by Him. The Scripture says in Romans 9:18, “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
If Paul is arguing here that we are the ones who determine our fate, why would he make this argument against the assertion that God is injust? Why wouldn’t he just say, “We all have a choice. It’s not God’s fault you didn’t choose Him”?
Should we choose to believe either “free will” or “predestination” only, we make God a man of fallible destiny. Men would be able to argue with God after death and, if God be true, He would have to allow men that option if only one or the other exists. However, I do not choose to believe both exist simultaneously to settle a long enduring argument, I choose to believe both can and do exist because God is eternal. It’s like arguing what day Christ will return and I am perfectly confident that it is not May 21, 2011.
Brother Andrew…. always an interesting topic!
Southern Baptist seminaries are split on this antinomy, and I don’t see any new earth being moved by either camp. You have great teachers and godly men like Dr. Yarnell and Dr. Mohler approach Romans 9 from differing contexts to arrive at their conclusions for or against DD. Personally, I believe DD is simply a straw set of terms used in an attempt to convince readers to follow a system. We should as Romans 9 dictates…”not” follow a system, or so much defend a “system”, but in a more appropriate manner use what we can of systems in order to follow Christ. Sometimes we have to abandon the non-biblical language to endeavor in that pursuit.
There remains a great mystery in why God chooses some and not others, while at the same time we pretend to hold God hostage by “choice” on why the “not others”. We do not pretend to hold God hostage on those he chooses quite as vehemently. Our pride seems to want those that are not cleansed by the blood of Christ to have a part in His kingdom somehow. We are bizarre fallen creatures!
May God teach us that “His hate” is more perfect than “our intent to love” any day of the week.
Blessings,
Chris
Andrew,
Just as the Trinity cannot be explained by mortal beings, neither can Double Predestination be explained, though both are true. Our minds produce a stream of though and ideas in time and space. When we put them in order on paper it complicates only what can be understood in the eternal. We are not eternal and we make God like a man so we can conceive these things in our time and space minds. There are certain things that books cannot contain and the eternal is uncontainable.
When I am told a box is 6″ wide X 1′ tall X 2 1/2′ long I can create a picture in my mind of that box even though I do not see it. That is because I am use to imperial measurements. If those same measurements were given to me in metric, my mind would remain blank because metric measurement is something I cannot easily relate to without experiencing it. For me, metrics and eternal things are similar. I know they are there, I just think I (we) cannot understand many things of God because He is eternal.
Great post.
I found this article helpful from RC Sproul:
http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html