Week 5-Predestination-Foreknowledge and Double Predestination

Some object to the concept of predestination by arguing that God predestines the elect because he knows in advance that they will come to Christ by their own free will. As seen in the previous lesson, however, that notion is blatantly unbiblical. No one has the ability to even cooperate with God’s grace. Several biblical passages, however, do speak of God’s “foreknowledge.” While God certainly knows the future (he determines it!), the biblical concept of foreknowledge is something different. The term is used, not of knowing events, but of knowing people. God tells us that he knew us before we knew him. As God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart” (Jer. 1:5). Indeed, the major Greek lexicon (BAG) states that “foresight” or “prescience” is not even a possible meaning for “foreknowledge” in passages such as Romans 8:29-30. And in the Great Chain of Salvation in this passage, it should be noted that only those who were foreknown are called by the Holy Spirit—not everyone. Rather, foreordination (choosing) is always meant in the Greek when this term is used of a man with God as subject, as in 1 Peter 1:20, where God “foreknew” Jesus as savior before creation—God appointed Jesus as savior, that is. The “foreknowledge” view of predestination is not an explanation of the biblical teaching, but rather a denial of it.

Up to this point, we have already seen that predestination cannot have been conditioned by faith, as man would never have faith on his own. It is God who gives faith. Our predestination was not on the basis of anything good or cooperative in us-- it was simply for God's good pleasure. God controls who does and does not believe. Those whom God has predestined to eternal life believe; the rest do not. But what of those who do not? Has God chosen that they not believe?

1. The Bible teaches that God has chosen or predestined some sinners—his elect—to inherit eternal life.

2. The Bible also teaches that God has predestined other sinners—some call them the reprobate—to condemnation.

This predestination to judgment is not one in which God actively works sin into the hearts of the reprobate. As Luther argued, God does not have to place “fresh evil” (Luther’s term) into anyone’s heart—there’s enough there already! God works actively to save his elect, changing their hearts to make them love him. But he does not work actively to turn the reprobate against him—they do that on their own. God does harden hearts, but in the sense of handing them over to their own sinful desires—as Paul discusses in Romans 1. God need do nothing—they already have enough rope to hang themselves. As the Bible tells us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so too it mentions that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Both are true—God gave Pharaoh what he wanted—freedom—and Pharaoh used it to destroy himself.

Paul discusses this question in Romans 9. In Romans 9-11, Paul is answering an objection raised against the gospel. Paul said in Romans 8:39 that God promises that nothing can separate the elect from God's love. But, the objection comes, “What about God's promises to Israel?” Most Jews do not believe, yet they were the chosen people of God! “It is not as though God's word had failed,” Paul writes, “for not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Here Paul begins his first explanation of why some Jews believe Christ and others do not. In chapter 10, Paul will explain that the gospel was offered to the Jews, but that they had rejected it. In chapter 11, Paul will discuss God's future plans for Israel—that God will work among the Jewish people in the future. Thus, Paul answers the problem in three ways: human responsibility (ch.10), God's future grace (ch.11), and in chapter 9, God's sovereign predestination.

9:6-9 In the past, God has chosen some and rejected others. God did this with the children of Abraham. Abraham had two sons—Ishmael and Isaac. Yet God rejected Ishmael; it was Isaac who was chosen by God. God's promise has not failed, but it did not apply to all descendants of Abraham—only to the line of Isaac.

9:10-13 God worked this way with Isaac's twin sons, as well. Even though Esau was born first, Esau was rejected. Paul stresses that God chose the younger (Jacob) before either twin was born or had done anything good or bad—God's choice was not based on anything good in Jacob. God loved Jacob. God hated Esau.

9:14-18 In Moses' day, God chose some for mercy and hardened others, too. God hardened Pharaoh to display His power before the earth. God owes compassion to no one. He owes no one mercy. Sinners deserve justice, that is, punishment. The fact that God shows mercy to one and not to another is not unfair, because neither one deserves mercy. Ultimately, salvation does not depend on man's desire or decision, but on God's choosing to show mercy.

9:19-21 Paul deals with an objection that is never raised against Arminians, but which was raised against Paul: How can God blame people for not believing if He controls who does or does not believe? Paul doesn't answer—he rebukes the question as being impenitent. God is God. God created people, and He can do whatever He wants with them. It is the Potter's prerogative to do what He wants with the clay.

9:22-24 Up until this time, Paul has been speaking about God's choosing and rejecting in the past, but now he applies it to the present. Today, God has called some Jews and Gentiles (some of each) to become vessels displaying God's glory. God has also prepared other Jews and Gentiles for destruction in order to demonstrate before the world God's wrath and power. Here is a double predestination: God, without regard to human desire or effort, has chosen some for glory (election) and others for wrath (reprobation).

In the end, what makes the difference between one sinner believing & his next-door neighbor not believing? After all else is said & done, the difference lies in God, not in man (See Rom 11:4-10; 1 Pe 2:8-9). God saw two men in rebellion committing spiritual suicide, and chose to rescue only one. The fact must stand: God is not an equal opportunity Savior. God shows some a degree of undeserved grace that He does not show to others. But the majesty of grace is that God has shown grace to anyone! All of history is the process of God's preparing two peoples to display His character—one to display God’s mercy, the other to display God’s justice. At the end of history will come the Grand Demonstration of the good and perfect, merciful and just character of Almighty God.

****But the majesty of grace is that God has shown grace to anyone***

While I certainly appreciate the sentiment of the above statement, I think it is a strange way of speaking about God. It seems very anthropocentric to me.

Imagine the most loving, kind, compassionate, giving person who ever lived.

Now multiply that goodness time a billion.

We would still be describing an ogre when compared to the God of the Bible.

This is the God who already planned, before all of creation, to suffer and die for His creatures.

To say that it's (paraphrase) amazing that He has shown grace to anyone, (while certainly high-lighting the evil of man), seems to make God out to be somehow stingy.

This predestination to judgment is not one in which God actively works sin into the hearts of the reprobate. As Luther argued, God does not have to place "fresh evil" (Luther's term) into anyone's heart-there's enough there already! God works actively to save his elect, changing their hearts to make them love him. But he does not work actively to turn the reprobate against him-they do that on their own.

Passive Predestination? I don't think so.

By using the term "they do it on their own" this paragraph argues that the reprobate have free will while the elect do not.

Hmmmm...good point.

I don't think the author is arguing the reprobates have free will while the elect doesn't. I believe the author is saying, unless their nature is changed, the reprobates will always rally against God. This doesn't mean this rallying isn't within God's control.

(Off Topic)

Between the Lines,

I like your tag...

"Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

I've been thinking alot about how to get this same idea across to people using different terminology. My concern it that "personal relaionship" is a over-used and time worn phrase. I believe it has been in steady use since B Graham popularized it in the 50s (guessing here). I think some people switch off when they hear it.

What I've come up with is the term "interactive" as is "Do you have an interactive relationship with Jesus?" I like the idea because it gets across the fact that Biblical Christianity is a relationship with a real, living person (not just someone you've only read about) but I'm not sure of the phrase.

Any thoughts?

(I've posted this to you because, having read your tag, I know you've given some thought to this very issue.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.