The Doctrine of Double Predestination in Peter

[Sola_Fide]

Jesus doesn't know the day nor the hour of His return and He's still God so that kind of undoes your point.

That said, I'm not even sure what your point is. If Jesus picked ahead of time who would choose to accept Him and who wouldn't, how is that "forgetting" anything and/or how is that any kind of temporal restriction?

Ah, so now we have the argument that Muslims usually go to when they they try to discredit the deity of Jesus. Jesus veiled some of His glory at the incarnation. That is why He could say that he He didn't know the hour.

[Sola_Fide]

Do you not realize how you (and perhaps Gunny) are tripping over yourself here? I said that Jesus could pick who would choose Him (pure Calvinism) Gunny calls that a temporal constraint, you agree and call predestination Arminianism? Really?

We might be tripping at the same time but coming together. Who knows?

[Christian Liberty]

Because it's unbiblical.

Well, I get that you think that, and I realize why you think that. But I'm not sure why Sola would disagree with it, which was the point of the question.

[Sola_Fide]

Well, I get that you think that, and I realize why you think that. But I'm not sure why Sola would disagree with it, which was the point of the question.

I'm just really sensitive to what the Bible says about the limited atonement. Any retreat on this article of faith and I think you lose Christianity altogether. Some of the language you used is what Amyraldians would use when trying to bend on limited atonement.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm just really sensitive to what the Bible says about the limited atonement. Any retreat on this article of faith and I think you lose Christianity altogether. Some of the language you used is what Amyraldians would use when trying to bend on limited atonement.

I'm not trying to bend on it. What I'm saying is that God was powerful enough to save everyone in the world through Christ's sacrifice alone, but he decided to save only the elect. This seems like literally the strongest stance you could take on this issue.

[jmdrake]

Ah, so now we have the argument that Muslims usually go to when they they try to discredit the deity of Jesus. Jesus veiled some of His glory at the incarnation. That is why He could say that he He didn't know the hour.

Actually I feel you are taking the Muslim position and I've felt that before. I say a sovereign God can limit Himself. It's like Michael Jordan agreeing to play you in basketball while only using one hand. He'd probably still beat you. If you are saying "veiling some of His glory" = "self limiting His own power" then we are saying the same thing. A sovereign God can self limit.

[jmdrake]

We might be tripping at the same time but coming together. Who knows?

LOL. Yeah. Anything is possible.

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you not realize how you (and perhaps Gunny) are tripping over yourself here? I said that Jesus could pick who would choose Him (pure Calvinism) Gunny calls that a temporal constraint, you agree and call predestination Arminianism? Really?

No, Yeshua choosing those who would ultimately choose Him is something that I actually believe. He foreknew those who would be drawn to Him, those He foreknew he Preordained to become the sons of God. How you worded it this time is what I actually believe.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not trying to bend on it. What I'm saying is that God was powerful enough to save everyone in the world through Christ's sacrifice alone, but he decided to save only the elect. This seems like literally the strongest stance you could take on this issue.

I think the strongest (and most Biblical) case you could make is that the ransom purchase of the atonement was sufficient and efficient for God's people only. You don't even have to get in to the debate about how powerful it was or how it could have saved this one but didn't. In the book of Hebrews it says that the atonement perfects all those who are being made holy. That's all you need right there.

[Sola_Fide]

Actually I feel you are taking the Muslim position and I've felt that before. I say a sovereign God can limit Himself. It's like Michael Jordan agreeing to play you in basketball while only using one hand. He'd probably still beat you. If you are saying "veiling some of His glory" = "self limiting His own power" then we are saying the same thing. A sovereign God can self limit.

But even as Jesus was in the incarnated state and said what He said, Yahweh was still in heaven knowing everything (and directing everything). God knowing everything yet not knowing everything is a contradiction. God being all-powerful yet not being all-powerful is a contradiction. Contradictions don't exist.

[Christian Liberty]

I think the strongest (and most Biblical) case you could make is that the ransom purchase of the atonement was sufficient and efficient for God's people only. You don't even have to get in to the debate about how powerful it was or how it could have saved this one but didn't. In the book of Hebrews it says that the atonement perfects all those who are being made holy. That's all you need right there.

I was responding to the whole comment by Jmdrake that was mocking us by talking about the droplets of blood and so forth. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. Are you saying Christ couldn't have saved the non-elect even if he had wanted to? Because that's a quick road to heresy

[jmdrake]

Well, I get that you think that, and I realize why you think that. But I'm not sure why Sola would disagree with it, which was the point of the question.

I said that in part tongue in cheek because that's SF's typical response. But yeah, I do find it unbiblical but for different reasons. The same Jesus who cried over Jerusalem saying He longed for them to come to Him but they would not arbitrarily deciding He wanted the majority of the world to go to hell? Nonbiblical and nonsensical. I can see why the idea that Jesus' death wasn't enough for everybody, even the lost, is a problem for you because it cheapens the life and death of Christ.

[Christian Liberty]

I said that in part tongue in cheek because that's SF's typical response. But yeah, I do find it unbiblical but for different reasons. The same Jesus who cried over Jerusalem saying He longed for them to come to Him but they would not arbitrarily deciding He wanted the majority of the world to go to hell? Nonbiblical and nonsensical. I can see why the idea that Jesus' death wasn't enough for everybody, even the lost, is a problem for you because it cheapens the life and death of Christ.

I think there's some bad exegesis here but at least I get where you're coming from. I'm not really sure what Sola is objecting to with me. I think he's seeing Arminianism where it does not exist.

[Sola_Fide]

But yeah, I do find it unbiblical but for different reasons. The same Jesus who cried over Jerusalem saying He longed for them to come to Him but they would not arbitrarily deciding He wanted the majority of the world to go to hell?

Why don't you read Luke 13:31 right now and see what it says. I promise you that it does not say what you just said it says here.

[jmdrake]

No, Yeshua choosing those who would ultimately choose Him is something that I actually believe. He foreknew those who would be drawn to Him, those He foreknew he Preordained to become the sons of God. How you worded it this time is what I actually believe.

That's how I worded it the last time.

Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.

And I don't believe that. What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice. I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe. But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved. You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into.

[jmdrake]

Why don't you read Luke 13:31 right now and see what it says. I promise you that it does not say what you just said it says here.

You're right. It doesn't.

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."



That said, Luke 13:34 says exactly what I said it says.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

I know you interpret it differently, but so what?

[Sola_Fide]

You're right. It doesn't.

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."

Sorry. 13:34.

[jmdrake]

Sorry. 13:34.

That's cool. To err is human.

[Sola_Fide]

You're right. It doesn't.

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."



That said, Luke 13:34 says exactly what I said it says.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

I know you interpret it differently, but so what?

34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

This was not a statement of Jesus longing for someone and them not coming, it was a statement of judgment against the religious leaders of Jerusalem.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's how I worded it the last time.

no, the word "then" implies sequentialism or temporality. that word was in your first statement, it was not in your second.

Well God could have Jesus to die for everyone and then pick and choose who would be predestined to accept that sacrifice.

And I don't believe that. What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice. I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe. But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved. You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into.

[GunnyFreedom]

And I don't believe that. What was preordained is the sacrifice for that choice. I once remember you putting your believe in multiverse theory with God only actualizing one universe. But there's no reason why God couldn't actually every possible universe where at least some people are ultimately saved. You still have God's foreknowledge but you also have free will with "choice" determining which part of the multiverse you fall into.

Paul is clearly talking about the people who would be saved here, and not the sacrifice of Messiah:

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [NASB]

[Sola_Fide]

Paul is clearly talking about the people who would be saved here, and not the sacrifice of Messiah:

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [NASB]

I absolutely agree. This is the problem with saying that only Jesus' sacrifice was predestined. It's not supported by the text. The text says that real people are predestined. Real people are called. Real people are justified. Real people are glorified. The grace of God is set on real people, not simply an amorphous "group" or only on Jesus himself.

[jmdrake]

This was not a statement of Jesus longing for someone and them not coming, it was a statement of judgment against the religious leaders of Jerusalem.

That's your misinterpretation of it. Jesus clearly said How I have longed to GATHER YOUR CHILDREN like a hen gathers her chicks. It's simply wrong to say Jesus was only concerned about the coming judgement against the religious leaders.

[jmdrake]

no, the word "then" implies sequentialism or temporality. that word was in your first statement, it was not in your second.

A) No it doesn't. The word "then" is also used as an "if then" clause as in "if" this is true "then" that is true.

B) If you want to take this out of time remember that according to the Bible Jesus was slain "from the foundation of the world". So from God's point of view Jesus died for everyone before anyone was created.

C) If God chose to act temporally, being God, He could do that and still be God. "When the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His son."

God doesn't stop being God by working in a particular way. It's wrong to say that He must work in a particular way, but it's also wrong to say He can't work in a particular way.

[jmdrake]

I absolutely agree. This is the problem with saying that only Jesus' sacrifice was predestined. It's not supported by the text. The text says that real people are predestined. Real people are called. Real people are justified. Real people are glorified. The grace of God is set on real people, not simply an amorphous "group" or only on Jesus himself.

The problem for you in accepting Gunny's interpretation is that it links justification with sanctification and makes no distinction between the two.

[jmdrake]

Paul is clearly talking about the people who would be saved here, and not the sacrifice of Messiah:

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [NASB]

And the mechanism of how He did that? Providing for the sacrifice that He knew they would accept. It's like I have a picnic where kosher Jews are invited along with Southern Baptists and on one table I have all kosher food and on the other table everything has pork in it. My making the provision that I know one group will choose and another will not is not making the choice on their behalf.

[Brett85]

Yes Gunny. And if He sees the end from the beginning, then He knows the events that have taken place and the events that will take place. This logically implies that the future is a fixed one. This why God's omniscience logically implies predestination. Arminians who affirm omniscience yet deny predestination are woefully inconsistent.

I don't know of any Arminians who deny predestination. Arminians just don't believe that predestination is based on unconditional election.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't know of any Arminians who deny predestination. Arminians just don't believe that predestination is based on unconditional election.

I know they believe that . That's what I said in that post. It is an impossibility. God cannot know all things, and those things not come to pass infallibly. Omniscience logically implies predestination. If God knows the future, then the future is a fixed one.

[Sola_Fide]

That's your misinterpretation of it. Jesus clearly said How I have longed to GATHER YOUR CHILDREN like a hen gathers her chicks. It's simply wrong to say Jesus was only concerned about the coming judgement against the religious leaders.

It's simply wrong? No it's not. Jesus is not saying he's longing that people would come to Him and they were not coming. He's saying that judgment is coming against the leaders of Jerusalem because they have prevented the prophets from reaching their flock.

34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate.

[jmdrake]

It's simply wrong? No it's not. Jesus is not saying he's longing that people would come to Him and they were not coming. He's saying that judgment is coming against the leaders of Jerusalem because they have prevented the prophets from reaching their flock.

Now you are changing what you said. At first you claimed the judgement was only on the religious leaders. That's provably false. But more importantly Jesus longed to "gather their children" but they (the leaders) were not willing. Now, here's the part that totally destroys your argument. They were not willing! Jesus longed for something to happen but His longing was resisted by HUMAN will! Point, set, match.