Predestination – Being Taught that We may Teach

Table of Contents

Introduction

What is predestination?

God knows all things and has a plan and purpose for everything He created. Predestination is God’s plan for every human person.

How do we know that God has a plan for everything in the universe?

First, we know that God knows all things; see here. Jesus taught us this when He sent out His disciples to preach. He comforted them with the knowledge that God knows all things, even the hairs on their head.

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:28-31)

Second, the Bible goes beyond this when it also speaks of God’s purpose or plan. (Romans 8:28; 9:11; Ephesians 1:11; 3:11; 2 Timothy 1:9) This is also a part of God’s providence.

What is God’s plan for every human person?

God has in His sovereignty decided to save some or election and to leave others in their sin or reprobation. All this is part of God’s larger plan to glorify His Son.

What is God’s plan to glorify His Son?

We read of this in Romans 8:

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 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. (Romans 8:28-30)

This verse is explained below.

Who has God decided to save?

God does not reveal to us the names of those whom He has chosen. He only tells us what kind of people He has chosen.

What kind of people has God chosen to save?

Those who are trusting in Jesus and keeping God’s commands are God’s chosen people.

Is this the only way we can know if we are one of God’s elect?

Yes. Baxter (p219): “To repent is the best way to prove that I am elected to repent.”

How do Christians differ in their understanding of this doctrine?

The issue

who God elects and
why He chooses some and not others.

The Reformed teach that God’s choice is based purely on His own purpose; it is not based on anything outside of Himself. The Arminians teach that God chose those whom He knew beforehand would believe the gospel; see Whedon p344 and Arminius below. Thus election is not purely unconditional as the Reformed understand it. The Lutherans claim to hold a middle ground between these; see Wiedner (p61). These same discussions go back and forth in Roman Catholic circles.

Acts 13

What can we learn about predestination from this chapter?

In this chapter, we have Paul’s sermon to the citizens of Pisidian Antioch. We find Paul’s audience here to be both Jews and gentiles (Acts 13:43-44); some were favorable to Paul’s teaching; others were opposed. In the end, some rejected Paul’s preaching and others embraced it with joy. Luke writes this:

The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, ‘I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'” When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 13:44-52)

Note that Luke identifies those who believed the gospel as having been appointed to do so.

Who appointed them to eternal life?

This text does not specify who did the appointing. From other places, we know that God does this. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

When did this appointment take place?

The text does not answer this question.

Why is this expression important?

It means that our faith in Christ is not something that forms the ground of God’s election. In other words, the reason why God chose Peter and not Judas is not because Peter did something which caused God to choose him. Rather, the teaching of this text is that God’s choice of these persons is the very reason why they came to faith and to receive the gift of eternal life. Thus, faith is the result of God’s election not the basis of it. It’s the elect that believe and no others. Barret writes on this verse: “The present verse is as unqualified a statement of absolute predestination—‘the eternal purpose of God’—as is found anywhere in the New Testament.”

Are there other ways of understanding this text?

Alford translates (p745) this “…and as many as were disposed to eternal life…” He writes:

The meaning of this word disposed must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life: the Gentiles, as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed. By whom so disposed, is not here declared: nor need the word be in this place further particularized. We know, that it is GOD who worketh in us the will to believe, and that the preparation of the heart is of Him: but to find in this text pre-ordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain. The word in the original is the same as in 1 Corinthians 16:15, where it is said that the house of Stephanas “have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,” and in Romans 16:1, where it is said that “the powers that be are ordained of God” in both of which places the agents are expressed, whereas here the word is used absolutely, without an agent expressed.

Thus, in Alford’s reading, this text is more about God’s effectual calling than about predestination. Others, point to the fact that the word here is a passive participle which could be understood as in the middle voice which can be reflexive in meaning. Thus the unbelievers had put themselves into a position of not believing the gospel (Acts 13:46) where the believers had put themselves into a position of believing the gospel.

What are we to make of this interpretation?

Keener writes that the reflexive understanding is “difficult to sustain” in this text. Acts, 1.2101–2102. Thus, we are left to the passive voice which means that some other agent arranged or appointed them to this gift of eternal life. It is true, that this agent is not here specified.

What other interpretation of this text is put forth?

Leighton Flowers notes that the text does not say who appointed these people to eternal life or when this appointing was done. He takes a similar understanding of the word “appoint” here as Alford but holds that it was the Gentiles who disposed or positioned themselves to hear and believe the preaching of Paul. This requires seeing the participle here as in the middle voice as noted previously. He quotes Wilkins who would paraphrase the text, “As many as were open to eternal life, believed.” If God did not appoint the Jews to eternal life Flowers reasons, then it must mean that He did not want them to have eternal life, but this contradicts Luke 19:41-42 where Jesus weeps over Jerusalem’s unbelief and expresses His desire for their salvation. Finally, Flowers insists that we interpret v48 in light of v46.

Does not Paul say in v46 that the reason some did not believe was because they had rejected the gospel and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life?

Yes, this is certainly what we read in Acts 13:46. All we can say about this is that Luke (and Paul) saw no contradiction between these two statements. The fact

that the believers believed the gospel because they were appointed to eternal life and
that unbelievers did not believe because they had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life

were not mutually exclusive statements in their mind. Herein lies the mystery of God’s sovereign decree. What we must never do is use one verse to silence the clear teaching of another verse as Flowers does here.

What about 1 Corinthians 16? Does not the word there mean that the people disposed themselves?

Yes, it does.

Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), (1 Corinthians 16:15)

The last clause is …εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς. Here, the meaning is clearly reflexive since the reflexive pronoun is present, but there is no such indication in Acts 13:48 which would lead us to read it as a reflexive.

What is the word in question here?

The word is τάσσω (see here) which is a perfect, passive participle in this verse, τεταγμένοι. The other places where this word is used in the New Testament are given here (see underlined):

But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. (Matthew 28:16)
“For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” (Luke 7:8)
And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. (Acts 15:2)
“And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.’ (Acts 22:10)
When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening. (Acts 28:23)
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (Romans 13:1)

It would be good as well to study the instances of which διατάσσω (see here) is a near synonym. Altogether, these give us a sense for how this word was understood by the biblical authors. In all these instances, a third party is making arrangements or a determination for someone else which is how we understand Luke in Acts 13:48 as well.

Ephesians 1

What does this passage teach us about predestination?

In the opening hymn of praise to God, Paul writes:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6)

Here we are taught

that we are chosen “in Christ.”
that this choice took place before creation.
that the purpose or objective of this choice was our sanctification and adoption and God’s praise.
that the ground of this choice was simply God’s will.

Start with the first; what does it mean to be chosen in Christ?

A similar thought is found in Ephesians 1:9-11 and 2 Timothy 1:9. The question is how to understand Paul’s comment here. What is the connection between our union with Christ (referenced ~thirty-four times in this letter) and God’s choosing us for salvation?

This has been understood in a variety of ways:

Our union with Christ is the ground of our election. In other words, the reason why God chose some and not others is that some were in Christ and others were not.
Christ is the executor of our salvation. In other words, God chose us “in Christ” in the sense that now Christ is assigned the task of executing God’s plan. He is sent to earth to give His life for us.
Christ Himself is the object of God’s election. In other words, God chose Christ; and since the elect are in Christ, they were chosen as well
Our union with Christ is the goal of God’s election. In other words, we are elected with the goal of our entering into our union with Christ in the future.

Since these ideas are not all mutually exclusive, many Christians accept more than one of these.

Option 1

Explain the first of these options.

The text is understood like this:

Even as God chose us, before the world was created, with the intent that we would become holy and blameless in His sight and be adopted into His family as sons and daughters. He made this choice because He foreknew that we would be in a saving union with His Son, Jesus Christ. Because of this, He loved us and chose to save us.

Why might some Christians disagree with this?

Because it makes the choice of God to be dependent on something outside of Himself. These Christians insist that God’s choice is based purely on His own good pleasure and His own purposes. His choice is not based on the work of Christ which would imply that Christ persuaded or moved God to choose these people for salvation which violates the teaching of John 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 where it is God the Father who makes the choice to save His people. Goodwin writes (p67):

Now this cannot be the meaning neither. We read, indeed, that we have redemption through the blood of Christ: so v7, ‘In whom we have redemption through his blood, and the forgiveness of sins.’ But we nowhere read that we have election through the blood of Christ; no, not in the whole Book of God. Why? what is the reason of it? Because election is the first foundation of our salvation—it is the first act of God’s going forth in intentions to save us, and hath no cause but the ‘pleasure of his will,’ so the text saith, v5; and ‘the praise of the glory of his grace,’ so v6. Hence, therefore, although the merits of Christ are the cause of our salvation, yet they are not the cause of our being ordained to salvation. They are the cause that purchaseth all things decreed unto us; but they are not the cause that first moved God to decree these things unto us; for if they were, there should be a derogation from God’s free grace in the first act of it—he should not be free in it; for merit, you know, hath an obligation in it. Had God chosen us for Christ’s merits, his election had not been of free grace. But having chosen us, and that out of his free grace, he ordained these merits as the cause of our salvation; which being thus a free gift of grace themselves, and the fruit of his grace, and nowise the cause or motive thereof, therefore now salvation, though merited, cometh to be altogether of free grace, because the foundation of it is such. And so you have this second interpretation taken away.

Turretin poses the question: Is Christ the cause and foundation of election? He then argues the negative.

The first controversy concerning election (upon which all the others depend) refers to its cause: whether besides the mere good pleasure of God another impulsive cause out of Himself can be granted, by which He was influenced to form the decree of election. The orthodox maintain that the good pleasure (eudokian) alone has place and think that no other cause can either be given or rightly sought. But the adversaries (who cherish Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism) suppose that others also can come in order: for instance, either Christ and His merit, or the foresight of faith and works. Institutes 1.350.

Was this the how the Arminians read this text?

Yes, they understand “chosen in Christ” as being chosen because God foreknew that they would, by their own personal faith, be in union with Christ. See Miley p262. This meaning cannot be correct, however, because Paul also teaches us, in this same passage, that faith and holiness is one of the goals of election, not the ground of it. In other words, God chooses us so that we will believe and receive eternal life, not because we have believed the gospel. Paul says we are chosen in order that we would be holy and blameless before Him.

Why can’t this text be translated “…just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world because we were holy and blameless before Him?

The original is this: εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ.

First, the word εἶναι is an anarthrous infinitive. These kind of infinitives are not used to give the ground or basis of a decision; see the grammars on this such as Burton (p146). The conjunctions γάρ, διότι, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, ἐπειδήπερ, καθώς, ὅτι, and ὡς are used to give the ground of some choice.
Second, the most common use of an anarthrous infinitive is purpose. It tells the intent of the agent who is making the choice. That is clearly the meaning here. The purpose of God’s choice was to form a people holy and blameless.

Option 2

What about the second option?

Most Christians who read this text have no problem with saying Christ is the executor of God’s decree. There is, however, general agreement that this idea does not adequately explain this text. The text is saying more than this.

Option 3

What about the third option?

This is the best option. Being chosen in Christ means that God the Father has chosen His Son. Since believers are bound together with Christ, they too have been chosen. The text could be paraphrased:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, before the creation of the universe, set His love on His Son and resolved to glorify Him by making Him preeminent over a vast number of brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:29) In choosing His Son, God also chose all those who were in union with Him. Thus, God, the great King of heaven, poured out untold blessing and favor on His Son, and these blessings have flowed down to all those who are in union with His Son. Now God’s purpose in this was that His elect people would be holy and blameless before Him and conformed to the image of Christ.

Witsius writes (p432):

The beginning and first source of all grace is Election, both of Christ the Savior and of those to be saved by Him. For even Christ was chosen of God, and by an eternal and immutable decree given to be our Savior, and therefore is said to be “foreordained before the foundation of the world,” (1 Peter 1:20) And they whom Christ was to save were given to Him by the same decree. (John 17:6) They are therefore said to be “chosen in Christ,” (Ephesians 1:4); that is, not only by Christ, as God, and consequently the elector of them, but also in Christ, as Mediator, and on that account the elected, who, by one and the same act, was given to them to be their Head and Lord, and at the same time, they were given to Him to be His members and property, to be saved by His merit and power, and to enjoy communion with Him. And therefore the book of election is called, “the book of life of the Lamb,” (Revelation 13:8); not only because life is to be obtained in virtue of the Lamb slain, but also because the Lamb takes up the first page of that book, is the Head of the rest of the elect, “the firstborn among many brethren, and joint-heirs with him.” (Romans 8:17, 29)

Mastricht:

It remains to observe that the object of election is the whole mystical Christ, that is, Christ with all His own, from which we are said to be elected in Christ (Ephesians 1:4), just as we are also said to be predestined in Him (Ephesians 1:5), and likewise accepted in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:6), to have redemption in Him (Ephesians 1:7), to obtain an inheritance in Him (Ephesians 1:11), to be called and sealed in Him (Ephesians 1:13); and it is said that God was pleased to gather all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10), that just as we all sinned and perished in the first Adam, so we all are restored in the second Adam (Romans 5:12). Yet this is so, such that Christ considered personally in this election is Himself the Head, the one entirely blameless and righteous (Romans 5:18–19), just as men, as members in Him (Ephesians 1:4), are fallen and miserable. Theoretical-Practical Theology 3.56

Are there other places in Scripture which speak of Christ as God’s elect?

Yes, consider these:

Jesus’ comment in Matthew 12: This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: “BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES. (Matthew 12:17-18) Here Matthew quotes Isaiah 42:1 where Jesus is the Servant and is said to be God’s chosen.
In Luke 9, we have the story of Jesus on the mount of Transfiguration. As this event draws to a close, God speaks from heaven: Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!” (Luke 9:35) Similarly, when Jesus was dying on the cross, the people shouted, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One.” (Luke 23:35)
Peter speaks of Christ as foreknown before the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:17-20) This knowing is not a simple knowledge but a knowledge of love and selection as this word is often used (see the explanation below of Romans 8). Later, Peter speaks of Christ as the Living Stone which was rejected by men but to God was a chosen [ἐκλεκτον] stone. (1 Peter 2:4-6)
Finally, in the gospel of John, John the Baptizer is unsure who the Messiah is. God makes it clear by by sending the Holy Spirit down on this Person in the form of a dove: I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:31-34) Jesus is the One chosen by God to be the Messiah and Savior of the world.

What Scripture teaches us that all Christians are bound together with Christ such that when God chose Christ, He chose all His people as well?

This is a very Pauline idea. Consider Galatians 3:

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. (Galatians 3:15-16)

Here all of the seed of Abraham are reduced down to one seed which is Christ. Christ and all who are in Him are the seed of Abraham. A similar idea is in Romans 5 where all the people of God have been taken out from under Adam and have been brought into Christ. (Romans 5:14-17) Consider also the whole doctrine of the covenant of grace.

Does this not imply that God’s chosen people are in union with Christ long before the worlds were ever created? Paul seems to indicate that we are joined to Christ by our Holy Spirit baptism. (1 Corinthians 12:13)

This is a difficulty with this view. Witsius speaks to it here p67.

Option 4

What about the fourth option?

Here, some have pointed out that the following clauses do point to future realities intended by God. If these phrases are explaining further the “chosen in Christ,” then this option has merit. A paraphrase might be:

Even as God chose us, before the world was created, with the intent that three things would happen. First, that we would come into a saving union with Jesus Christ. Second, that by a process of sanctification, we would become holy and blameless in His sight. Third, that in His infinite love, He would adopt us into His family as sons and daughters.

Thus Mastricht:

Accordingly, this [our being elect in Christ] is not because Christ is the cause of election itself, but because he is the meritorious cause of all saving benefits, which follow election. The elect are ἐν αὐτῷ, “in Him,” not because they existed in Him before election, or they were foreseen as existing in Him, but in order that they would exist, by election, in Christ through faith. Theology, 3.50.

Why do you say that God’s choice took place before the creation of the world?

Because of Paul’s statement: …just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. The foundation of the world is a synonym for the founding or creation of the world.

Why do you say that the purpose or objective of God’s choice was our sanctification, adoption, and God’s praise?

Consider what Paul wrote here:

He writes about our sanctification in these words that we would be holy and blameless before Him.
He writes about our adoption, In love, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.
Finally, he writes of God’s worship, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

Why do you say that the ground of God’s choice was God’s will?

We look at what Paul has written here and try to understand which of these words gives us the ground or basis of why God chose some and not others. We are told:

that God predestined us to adoption in love.
that God predestined us to adoption according to the kind intention of His will
that God gave us this gift of adoption freely.

Based on these expressions, we conclude that God chose some and not others for reasons known only to Himself. It was His own love and His own kind intention that led Him to bestow these gifts on us freely.

What does this mean for our understanding of God’s predestination?

It means that we reject any teaching which bases God’s decision on anything in the person chosen. This is the teaching often called conditional election. It teaches that God chose some and not others based on some condition which He set for them to perform be it faith, repentance, holiness, perseverance, or whatever. God’s choice is based only on His own good will and nothing else.

Romans 8

What does God teach us about predestination in this chapter?

Consider Paul’s teaching:

We read of God’s purpose specifically that God’s calling is in accordance with that purpose;
we read of God’s foreknowledge;
we read of God’s foreordaining;
we read of the goal or ultimate objective of this choice;
we read of those whom God has chosen.

Start with God’s purpose.

In this chapter, Paul is bringing a number of supports and encouragements for those who are locked in a death struggle with sin. This struggle is described in Romans 7:14-25, see here. The support Paul references in these verses is the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26-27) which leads him to the conclusion of Romans 8:28 that God is causing every thing we experience in our life to work out for our good. Paul closes v28 by speaking of God’s purpose or His resolve. He then zeros in on this idea of God’s purpose and finds in this purpose another support and comfort for the struggling saints of God.

What does Paul mean here by foreknowledge?

Simply taking the etymology of the word, it could mean to know something beforehand as when an important announcement is going to be made and someone already knows what that announcement is. Beet, for instance, writes (p243) that “foreknew” means just this and nothing more. The foreknowledge of these people is no different than the foreknowledge God has of all things.

What are we to think of this?

It is likely incorrect. First, the word “foreknew” is not limited to the sense of knowing beforehand. The word can also mean to select or to choose, and this is the meaning we expect when the subject is God. The most obvious example is Matthew 7:23 where Jesus says to the wicked, “I never knew you.” This cannot mean that Jesus had no knowledge of them. Clearly, the meaning is that He had not chosen them and set His love upon them. We find this meaning again in Romans 11:2 where we are told that God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew; i.e. those whom He had chosen or selected. The same is true of Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2.

How are we to understand the word “foreknow” here?

Paul’s meaning here is that of selecting or choosing. Calvin writes (p317):

But the foreknowledge of God, which Paul mentions, is not a bare prescience, as some unwise persons absurdly imagine, but the adoption by which He had always distinguished His children from the reprobate.

Moule writes (p237) that the word, as used here, “can mean nothing short of foredecision—no mere foreknowledge of what they would do, but rather of what He would do for them—those He also set apart beforehand, for conformation, deep and genuine, a resemblance due to kindred being, to the image, the manifested Countenance, of His Son, that He might be Firstborn amongst many brethren, surrounded by the circling host of kindred faces, congenial beings, His Father’s children by their union with Himself.”

Godwin writes (p235) that only the word “predestined” refers to the actual will and choice of God and not the word “foreknew.” This is incorrect.

How are we to understand the word “predestined” here?

This word means to choose beforehand just as the previous word means to know beforehand.

What is the goal or objective of this predestinating act of God?

Paul states that God’s larger purpose is that Jesus would be the firstborn among many brothers. In order to make this happen, God works in the life of His chosen people to mold and shape them into the image of His Son. When this is complete, they are now fit to be Christ’s siblings, and Christ is glorified because He takes the place of preeminence among all these “brothers and sisters.”

Finally, what does this text teach about those who are foreknown and forechosen?

Paul teaches here that God foreknew and forechose a set number of people whom He is now working to conform to the image of Christ. The object of each of these verbs is the same group of people. Elsewhere, they are referred to as God’s elect or God’s chosen people. (Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9) The comfort in Paul’s teaching here is that not one of God’s chosen people will ever be lost. God’s purpose for them will certainly be realized. We find a similar thought in John 6:39. We find this thought expanded in the following verse.

What is taught in verse 30?

Here, the emphasis is on God’s salvation being administered to each one of His chosen people. In the original, the demonstrative pronoun is repeated to make this point:

Greek

NASB

οὓς δὲ προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν

καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν

οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν

…and these whom He predestined, He also called;

and these whom He called, He also justified;

and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Finally, Paul gives the triumphal conclusion: What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? (Romans 8:31) Article 45 of the book of Concord captures Paul’s meaning here:

Thus this doctrine affords also the excellent, glorious consolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfully purposed it [provided therefore] that before the foundation of the world was laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purpose ordained how He would bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation], and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so well and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and might of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, He ordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus Christ, from which no one can pluck us, John 10:28.

Romans 9

What is Paul’s teaching in this chapter?

It is critical to grasp the question Paul is addressing here. It’s the same question that brought so much anguish to Gideon:

Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.” (Judges 6:13)

Israel was the people of God; why was God not acting for their deliverance? Why was God not delivering them from their enemies? We are killed all the day long, the Jewish people could say, we are treated like sheep who are to be slaughtered. (Psalm 44:22) The vast majority of the Jewish people did not submit to Christ as their Messiah King but lived in unbelief and were likely to perish in unbelief. But what then had become of all the promises God had made to His people? Paul states the question very concisely, has the word of God failed? (Romans 9:6)

Why do you say that the Jews were God’s people?

Because God had made them His people by bringing them out of Egypt and by entering into covenant with them at mount Sinai. Paul lists all these privileges in Romans 9:

…who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)

What was Israel expecting God to do for them?

They looked for the fulfillment of God’s promise that He would make them a great nation in the land of Palestine. God had made this promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:2), Jacob (Genesis 46:3), and Moses (Exodus 6:6-8; 32:10) Furthermore, God had promised that David’s dynasty would never end. (2 Samuel 7:13) Living under the heel of the Romans did not seem to be a fulfillment of all that God had promised them.

How does Paul answer this question?

Paul answers this question by correcting the misunderstanding of who God’s people really were. The people of God, who are entitled to receive the blessings which God has promised, are not ethnic Jews but spiritual Jews. Paul then identifies spiritual Israel:

first from God’s perspective (Romans 9),
then from our perspective (Romans 10).

Who are the people of God looking at this question from God’s perspective?

Those whom God has chosen. (Romans 9:6-13)

Who are the people of God looking at this question from our perspective?

Those who confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead. (Romans 10:9)

How does Paul show that it is not ethnic Israel who are the people of God?

He gives two proofs of this fact. First, Ishmael was as much a son of Abraham as Isaac, yet God gave Isaac a place among his people and not Ishmael.

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” (Romans 9:6-7)

In other words, not all ethnic Israel are included in the number of the people of God or spiritual Israel. Furthermore, not everyone who is a physical, biological descendant of Abraham is one of “the children” or one of God’s spiritual Israel. Hence, Ishmael, though he was equally a son of Abraham, is not included in the people of God because God chose Isaac and not Ishmael.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” (Romans 9:8-9)

Here Paul distinguishes between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise. It is only the children of the promise who are entitled to the blessings of God’s covenant.

What is the second proof Paul gives in support of the idea that it is not ethnic Israel who are the people of God but only spiritual Israel?

Paul points to Isaac and Rebekah who had twins, Jacob and Esau. Here too, both children were equally descended from Abraham and yet only Jacob is counted among the people of God. Esau was rejected.

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” (Romans 9:10-13)

What then is the conclusion of all this?

Paul shows that the people of God, who are entitled to receive all the blessings which God has promised, are not ethnic Israel or those who have physically descended from Abraham, but rather those who are the children of the promise; i.e. those who were chosen by God to be His people.

If this is true, then gentiles also can be included among the people of God.

Yes, and Paul makes this point in Romans 9:24.

Why does Paul make the point that God made His choice before the twins were born and had not yet done anything good or bad?

Paul insists on this to show that God’s choice was not based on anything in the ones He chose. In other words, God did not choose Jacob because he had done something which led God to choose him. Nor did God reject Esau because he had done something evil for which he was being punished. God’s choice was based purely on reasons in Himself. This is what Paul means by the next clause: so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand. In other words, God had a plan or a purpose and this purpose was according to His own election or based on His own choice. It was not based on anything meritorious either the twins might do.

What is meant by God hating Esau?

See the explanation here.

Certainly, someone is bound to object to this.

Yes, Paul deals with this as well. He states the objection this way: What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? (Romans 9:14)

How does Paul answer this objection?

First, Paul makes no attempt to defend God. He simply ends in God’s prerogative to do what He will with His creatures. He then gives a quote and an example from the Old Testament.

What is the quote?

Paul quotes from Exodus 33:19:

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:14-16)

Note that the truth of God’s perfect sovereignty is simple stated with no attempt at defending or vindicating the ways of God. In Paul’s mind, God’s ways are just simply because they are God’s ways. No other defense is needed. The people of God are those whom God has chosen and that is the end of the matter.

You said that Paul also gives an example from the Old Testament.

Yes, Paul continues:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Romans 9:17-18)

Pharaoh is an example of someone who God singled out in His sovereign purpose to be one through whom God would make a display of His almighty power and justice. The conclusion is the same as the previous verse, God has mercy on on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. In other words, God is sovereign and that is all the explanation that can be given.

Is this the end of the objection then?

No, Paul states a further objection. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (Romans 9:19) In other words, how can God hold people responsible for doing what He caused them to do? The NLT translates this verse: Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”

How does Paul answer this objection?

Again, Paul simply ends in God’s sovereignty and His right to do whatever He pleases:

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Romans 9:20-21)

Notice again that Paul is not defending God but simply expressing God’s right to do whatever He pleases. God is the Great Potter who molds from one lump of clay a beautiful vase or a bowl for use in the temple and another bowl for use as a toilet. In both cases, the potter has the right to do as He pleases with the clay.

Is Paul teaching that God chose to make Pharaoh a dishonorable vessel?

Yes, Paul teaches that God’s choice has a twofold purpose:

God uses the dishonorable vessels (e.g. Pharaoh) as a display of His terrible wrath and power;
He uses the honorable vessels as displays of the glory of His goodness.

We see that in the next verses:

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:22-24)

Paul says that the vessels of mercy were “prepared beforehand for glory” Explain this.

This means that God actively worked to take sinful people and to sanctify them and thus to prepare them for eternal life in a sinless heaven. The same idea is in Paul’s other letters as well:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)
…for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13)

Paul also says that the vessels of wrath were “prepared for destruction.”

There are three issues here to be explained:

the agent of the preparing;
how this preparation was done;
how we are to understand the phrase willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known.

When Paul says that the vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction, who is the one doing the preparing here?

Paul does not explicitly state who is doing the preparing. The word is κατηρτισμένα which is a participle either middle or passive (see the participle memory forms). If the form is passive, then it mean that God is doing the preparing. If the word is understood as a middle, then the preparing is being done by the vessels of wrath themselves.

What is the correct way to understand this?

Whether this participle is a middle or passive cannot be resolved on the basis of the morphology. The phrase endured with much patience vessels of wrath holds the key to understanding Paul here. This teaches us that God prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction by allowing these vessels to prepare themselves for destruction. In other words, God gave these people space and time to repent. He showed them much patience or longsuffering in bringing them the gospel and calling them to believe it and to turn from their sin.

Pharaoh, for instance, received repeated visits from Moses calling him to obey YHWH and to let the people go. Plague after plague made it clear to Pharaoh who was in charge. Pharaoh’s advisors got the message (Exodus 10:7); Pharaoh refused to accept it.
To the Jews, God sent prophet after prophet. (2 Chronicles 36:15-16; Jeremiah 7:25-26) Then God sent His only, begotten Son to proclaim the good news of the kingdom. (Matthew 21:37-39) Over and over, the offers of the gospel were presented to them, but they rejected it. (Matthew 23:37) I

Now in this rejection, both Pharaoh and the Jews prepared themselves for destruction. God patiently gave them every opportunity to repent, but they refused. All this, was in God’s sovereign purpose and plan.

Why do you say that God makes a display of His goodness through the vessels of mercy?

Because Paul says that God chose to make the vessels of mercy a display of His glory, and God’s glory is His goodness. (Exodus 33:18-19)

How are we to understand the phrase “willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known?”

Here the question pertains to the participle θέλων or willing. Since it is anarthrous, it likely (although not necessarily) has an adverbial nuance. Some have suggested that the adverbial idea here is concessive or making a concession. Others, that the idea is causal:

Concessive:	Causal
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:22 NASB95)	What if God, because He intended to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:22)
The idea is that God was willing to make the vessels of wrath a display of His wrath and power but instead decided to give them an opportunity to repent.	The idea is that God’s intent was to make the vessels of wrath a display of His power and judgment. He did this by giving them space and opportunity to repent so that their unbelief would be all the more inexcusable and their damnation just.

Murray writes on this verse: “In the one case [the causal reading], longsuffering serves the purpose of effective display of wrath and power; in the other case [the concessive reading], longsuffering inhibits the execution of the just desert.”

What is the correct understanding of God’s willing here?

The causal reading is correct. It clearly fits with what Paul has been saying regarding the potter forming one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. For this purpose, God raised up Pharaoh so that he would be a display of His awful power and wrath against sin.

Difficulties

What difficulties lie in the way of our understanding this doctrine?

There are several. One is how we are to understand God’s will that all be saved. On the one hand, there are verses which teach us that God desires the salvation of all men. On the other hand, are texts teaching us that God has chosen to save only a set number of people and that not one of these will be lost.

What are these texts?

See above for the texts which speak of God’s plan to save a set number of people. The following texts teach God’s desire for the salvation of all people:

Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’ (Ezekiel 33:11) “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? … “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.” (Ezekiel 18:23, 32)
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
…who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, (Titus 2:11)
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

How is this to be resolved?

Reformed theology makes a distinction between God’s revealed and secret will. God’s revelation to us is that He desires the salvation of all people and commands that everyone turn from their sin and be saved. This is no different than God desiring that everyone tell the truth, be sexually pure, protect private property, etc. Murray writes (here):

It would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men. The Committee elected by the Twelfth General Assembly in its report to the Thirteenth General Assembly said, “God not only delights in the penitent but is also moved by the riches of his goodness and mercy to desire the repentance and salvation of the impenitent and reprobate” (Minutes, p. 67). It should have been apparent that the aforesaid Committee, in predicating such “desire” of God, was not dealing with the decretive will of God; it was dealing with the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction and that surely respects, not the decretive or secret will of God, but the revealed will. There is no ground for the supposition that the expression was intended to refer to God’s decretive will.

Assuming this understanding, God could desire something in His revealed will that He has decreed shall not come to pass in His secret will.

Yes, this is a difficulty with this solution. Shedd writes (p456):

The phrase “God’s will” is ambiguous. It may mean what he is pleased with, loves, and desires. An example of this is Hebrews 13:20–21: “Now the God of peace make you perfect to do his will (thelēma), working in you that which is well pleasing (euareston) in his sight.” Here, God’s will is something which he desires and delights in. An example of the secret will is found in Romans 9:19: “Who has resisted his will?” Here, God’s will is His purpose or decree to “harden” (or not soften) and is designated by boulēma. What He wills, that is, decrees in this instance, is the sinner’s remaining in sin, which certainly is not well pleasing in His sight. In the holy actions of elect men, the secret and the revealed will agree. God, in this case, decrees what He loves. In the sinful actions of non-elect men, the two wills do not agree. God, in this case, decrees what He hates.

Augustine wrestles (p246) with this:

Sometimes, however, a man in the goodness of his will desires something that God does not desire, even though God’s will is also good, nay, much more fully and more surely good (for His will never can be evil): for example, if a good son is anxious that his father should live, when it is God’s good will that he should die. Again, it is possible for a man with evil will to desire what God wills in His goodness: for example, if a bad son wishes his father to die, when this is also the will of God. It is plain that the former wishes what God does not wish, and that the latter wishes what God does wish; and yet the filial love of the former is more in harmony with the good will of God, though its desire is different from God’s, than the want of filial affection of the latter, though its desire is the same as God’s. So necessary is it, in determining whether a man’s desire is one to be approved or disapproved, to consider what it is proper for man, and what it is proper for God, to desire, and what is in each case the real motive of the will. For God accomplishes some of His purposes, which of course are all good, through the evil desires of wicked men: for example, it was through the wicked designs of the Jews, working out the good purpose of the Father, that Christ was slain; and this event was so truly good, that when the Apostle Peter expressed his unwillingness that it should take place, he was designated Satan by Him who had come to be slain. (Matthew 16:21-23) How good seemed the intentions of the pious believers who were unwilling that Paul should go up to Jerusalem lest the evils which Agabus had foretold should there befall him! (Acts 21:10-12) And yet it was God’s purpose that he should suffer these evils for preaching the faith of Christ, and thereby become a witness for Christ. And this purpose of His, which was good, God did not fulfill through the good counsels of the Christians, but through the evil counsels of the Jews; so that those who opposed His purpose were more truly His servants than those who were the willing instruments of its accomplishment.

Arminius

What was Arminius’ doctrine of predestination?

Arminius teaches that there are four decrees of God. The first is the election of Christ to be the Mediator. The second pertains to the ground rules of salvation; i.e. those who believe will be saved; those who do not will be damned. Third, is the decree to deliver to mankind the grace which is sufficient to lead any person to repent and believe if they so choose. Finally, in the fourth decree, God chooses to save those whom He foreknows will believe the gospel and to damn those who He knows will not. Here are these four decrees in his own words (p247):

I. The FIRST absolute decree of God concerning the salvation of sinful man, is that by which he decreed to appoint his Son, Jesus Christ, for a Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, Priest and King, who might destroy sin by His own death, might by His obedience obtain the salvation which had been lost and might communicate it by His own virtue.

II. The SECOND precise and absolute decree of God, is that in which he decreed to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for HIS sake and through HIM, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as aliens from Christ.

III. The THIRD divine decree is that by which God decreed to administer in a sufficient and efficacious manner the MEANS which were necessary for repentance and faith; and to have such administration instituted (1.) according to the Divine Wisdom, by which God knows what is proper and becoming both to his mercy and his severity, and (2.) according to Divine Justice, by which He is prepared to adopt whatever his wisdom may prescribe and put it in execution.

IV. To these succeeds the FOURTH decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.

What are we to make of this teaching?

First, these four decrees are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This does not mean the doctrine is false; it just means we need to be clear on which truths from Scripture require us to setup the doctrine of predestination this way.

Second, the ideas contained in the first and second decrees is certainly biblical and not in dispute.

Third, the doctrine of sufficient grace, as in Arminius’ third decree, is not taught in Scripture.

The idea in the fourth decree violates the teaching of Ephesians 1, Acts 13, and Romans 9 as explained above.

Flowers

Who is Leighton Flowers?

See here.

What is his understanding of predestination?

He believes that God predestined the way or method of salvation by faith in Christ, not individuals. His doctrinal statement reads:

ARTICLE SIX: THE ELECTION TO SALVATION
We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.

We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.

ARTICLE SEVEN: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
We affirm God’s eternal knowledge of and sovereignty over every person’s salvation or condemnation.

We deny that God’s sovereignty and knowledge require Him to cause a person’s acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.

What are we to make of this understanding of predestination?

It’s difficult to know what Flowers means in article 7. What does he mean when he says that God is sovereign over every person’s salvation or condemnation? Does this not mean that it is God who decides who is saved and who is lost? Flowers then denies that God causes a person to accept or reject Christ. How then is God sovereign over every person’s salvation? Does our salvation depend on the person choosing or the person running or on God who shows mercy?