Friday, October 12, 2012

“Double Predestination”?

I’ve been taking part in a Reformed and Lutheran discussion group that was started by occasional Triablogue commenter Andrew Clover. One of the Lutheran commenters there brought up the question of “double predestination”.

But the concept of “double predestination” does not exist in Reformed doctrine. It is merely a caricature of the Reformed position.

The editors of Herman Bavinck’s “Reformed Dogmatics” summarize:

The term “double predestination” encompasses both reprobation and election. While Scripture seldom speaks of reprobation as an eternal decree, it does see even in the negative events of history—suffering, hardening, inexplicable disasters—the active sovereign will of God. Believers do not claim to comprehend all this; they do believe that the alternative—pessimism as the fruit of acknowledging the blind will of a chaotic deity—is impossible. Believers are willing to look at the disturbing reality of life; they do not scatter flowers over graves, turn death into an angel, regard sin as mere weakness, or consider this the best of possible worlds. Calvinism has no use for such drivel. It refuses to be hoodwinked. It takes full account of the seriousness of life, champions the rights of the Lord of lords, and humbly bows in adoration before the inexplicable sovereign will of God. This almighty God is also, we believe, our merciful Father. This is not a “solution” but an invitation to rest in God.

Reprobation is, however, not a part of predestination in the same sense and manner as election. We may not consider God’s power as “absolute” in the sense of capricious, separated from his justice. Though sin is not outside the scope of God’s will, it is definitely against it. The decree of reprobation, grounded in God’s will, must be distinguished from its execution, which is realized through human culpability. It is a mistake to consider the decree of reprobation by itself, alongside other decrees; God’s decree is as broad as reality itself and in a single conception encompasses the goal of his glory and the means to reach it. In real life, sin and grace, punishment and blessing, justice and mercy, do not exist side by side but are the common experience of all people. Thus, whereas election and reprobation may culminate in final and total separation, on earth they continually crisscross each other. Neither is the final goal or cause; both are means to the attainment of God’s glory. But whereas God is removed from all wickedness and does not will sin and punishment as such for its own sake, he does delight in the election and redemption of his own.

Predestination finally culminates, therefore, in election. Chosenness exists everywhere in life; the world is not ordered according to the Pharisaic law of work and reward. While Scripture and Reformed theology recognize the significance of secondary causes, these are not the final and most fundamental causes. The many “why?” questions cannot be answered by mortals; we can only rest in God’s sovereign good pleasure. Even in election, it is not correct, strictly speaking, of Christ as its “cause.” With his church Christ is better seen as the object of the Father’s electing love. The salvation of human beings is firmly established in the gracious and omnipotent good pleasure of God. To be elect “in Christ” is to be organically united to his body, the church. Christ was foreordained to be head of the church. Election is the divine “idea,” the blueprint of the temple that God builds in the course of the ages and of which he is the supreme builder and architect. Creation and fall, preservation and governance, sin and grace, Adam and Christ—all contribute to the construction of this divine edifice, and this building itself is built to the honor and glorification of God (Vol 2, pgs 340–341).

20 comments:

  1. Hasn't Triablogue argued in the past for "double predestination"?

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/01/double-predestination.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must have missed that one.

      Delete
    2. Here's what Steve said: There’s a partial asymmetry between election and reprobation. Election is unconditional in the sense that it does not take human merit or demerit into account. By contrast, reprobation has a conditional aspect inasmuch as God condemns sinners. This is not a sufficient condition of reprobation, otherwise everyone would be damned. Hence, reprobation remains a sovereign deed. Nevertheless, demerit is a necessary condition of reprobation. But both election and reprobate are determinate for the fate of the elect and the reprobate.

      Bavinck: The decree of reprobation, grounded in God’s will, must be distinguished from its execution, which is realized through human culpability. It is a mistake to consider the decree of reprobation by itself,...

      That seems essentially the same as what Bavinck said.

      Delete
    3. In addition to the 2006 post, I recently defended double predestination in this post:

      http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-monster-meme.html

      Delete
  2. I don't see how reprobation can have a conditional aspect. Of course, God condemns sinners and only sinners, but then again, God justifies believers and only believers. If condemnation is really a conditional aspect of reprobation, then by parity of reasoning it would appear election has a conditional aspect: saving faith.

    It is also strange that Steve wrote that, as I thought he was a supralapsarian. In any case, I would side with Berkoff when he labels both election and reprobation as unconditional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's simplistic to say reprobation is either conditional or unconditional. My position is more qualified than that. I distinguished between necessary and sufficient conditionality. Reprobation is conditional in the former sense, not the latter sense.

      Election is only conditional by parity of reasoning if, in fact, they are comparable across the board–which is the very issue in dispute. The reprobate get what they deserve whereas the elect get better than they deserve. So election and reprobation are asymmetrical.

      How is that inconsistent with supralapsarianism? IMO, supralapsarianism is about why God decreed the Fall.

      Moreover, even on Clark's defense of the supra view (and Ryan is a Clarkian), Clark defends it by arguing that the order of intention is the mirror image of the order of execution. In a teleological order, we execute our plan in reverse order to the order in which we mentally arrange the chain of events. How is the conditional aspect of reprobation inconsistent with that explanation?

      Delete
  3. Ryan,

    God justifies the ungodly. So if you want to maintain parity: God condemns sinners and God justifies sinners.

    God can justify the ungodly due to nothing in the sinner. But God can condemn the sinner due to his sin. I don't see the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve, just curious about this and some verses and how you would develop your thinking?

    Also, have you gone on the record that you are supra or infra?? Going back to the linked article of August 2012 where you give cogent responses to Ryan and John Thomson I wasn't able to catch up which you were?

    You wrote: "Election is only conditional by parity of reasoning if, in fact, they are comparable across the board–which is the very issue in dispute. The reprobate get what they deserve whereas the elect get better than they deserve. So election and reprobation are asymmetrical."

    Scripture says:

    Jos 7:24 And Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the cloak and the bar of gold, and his sons and daughters and his oxen and donkeys and sheep and his tent and all that he had. And they brought them up to the Valley of Achor.
    Jos 7:25 And Joshua said, "Why did you bring trouble on us? The LORD brings trouble on you today." And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones.


    Looking at that through the lens of one, the Elect, and two, the reprobate, how does that apply to Achan's sons and daughters and the oxen and donkeys and sheep and his tent and "all" that he had? Clearly Achan was of the tribe of Judah so then his children are as well.

    Where are both Achan and his children if the Elect are predetermined and the reprobate are too? Setting aside the harsh treatment his children and animals and property suffered, does this action adhere to asymmetrical double predestination?

    ReplyDelete
  5. WCF III.III says:

    "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."

    So I am don't get how it can be claimed that "the concept of “double predestination” does not exist in Reformed doctrine. It is merely a caricature of the Reformed position." It seems Calvinists are committed to some version of double predestination.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But the concept of “double predestination” does not exist in Reformed doctrine."

    Wow. This is incredibly, terribly wrong:

    "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto eternal life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." (WCF III.3)

    Believe it or not, this is not the strangest thing I've seen here. But it is the strangest thing since Steve stopped defending Michael Sudduth's occultism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never defended Sudduth's occultism.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I understand the decrees of God. I've got "Double Predestination" in quotes because I think that terminology is not helpful in discussion with Lutherans (for example), which I alluded to.

      The term is not helpful. One writer in the original discussion said "To me, the Calvinist version of God seems to be a passive-aggressive bully." There is more going on than that.

      Delete
    3. Another writer in that forum said, "I'm Reformed, but I have to say that I wince when I hear the claim that Lutherans believe in 'consubstantiation.'" A Lutheran writer followed up with the statement, "I was cured of using the term consubstantiation when I analysed the Lutheran position and found it wanting (the term consubstantiation that is)."

      Especially in the context of discussions with other denominations, we ought to get the terminology correct, to the point that it's not affecting people negatively.

      Delete
    4. John Bugay

      "The term is not helpful. One writer in the original discussion said 'To me, the Calvinist version of God seems to be a passive-aggressive bully.' There is more going on than that."

      Well, a "bully" is typically defined as someone who picks on those smaller or weaker than himself. But on that definition, the Lutheran God is a "bully" whenever he punishes the wicked, for the Lutheran God is obviously more powerful than sinful men. So the Lutheran would be well-advised to dial back the rhetoric.

      Delete
    5. Hey Steve, I told him it wasn't helpful. I don't think he liked even that much.

      Delete
  7. Actually, I think this is all a misunderstanding, based on an innocent typo. John didn't mean "double predestination." Rather, he meant to type "double prestidigitation."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The hand is faster than the eye ... now you see it, now you don't!"

      Delete
  8. I don't agree with everything R.C. Sproul says, but here what he, a well known popularizer of Calvinism, has to say about "Double Predestination"

    Double Predestination by R.C. Sproul http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

    Steve has made better and deeper distinctions, but even Sproul says that one can't get away from SOME kind of double predestination if one holds to unconditional election. I think he's right. Even if, John (Bugay) is also right that it's a term that sometimes causes the release of more heat than light. I personally have no problem with the term.

    It's part of Lutheranism to (rightly) want to limit reason to its ministerial role rather than allowing reason to dominate in an unbiblical magisterial role. Lutherans often feel Calvinism violates that principle and is too logical and rationalistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Annoyed. I thought Sproul said this well:

      The use of the qualifying term “double” has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term “double” has been set in contrast with a notion of “single” predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

      Delete
  9. John, with this verse would it be reasonable to conclude that as far as it goes for Satan and his angels, there is symmetry when it comes to their predestination? And, as Steve has developed in the linked articles I referenced above, there is something to be said for asymmetrical predestination in that the Elect get more than the reprobate, the Elect being Elected to Eternal Life?

    Mat 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    ReplyDelete