Chapter 7:
Double
Predestination?
What is meant by double predestination? The very mention of predestination by itself sets off red lights in some peoples’ heads. But the idea of “double predestination?” It sounds horrible. It sounds terrifying and confusing! In reality, the term is misleading. In reality, it simply encompasses two concepts. The first concept being election; that from all eternity, before the creation, God chose from the human race, those whom He would redeem, justify, sanctify, and glofiry in Jesus Christ. (Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). According to the New Geneva Study Bible, “The Divine choice is an expression of free and sovereign grace. It is not merited by anything in those who are chosen. God owes sinners no mercy of any kind, only condemnation; so it is a wonder that He should choose to save any of us.”[1]
The second concept that is involved in what is commonly called “double predestination” is the doctrine of reprobation. “This refers to God’s eternal decision regarding those sinners whom He has not chosen for life. In not choosing them for life, God has determined not to change them. They will continue in sin, and finally will be judged for what they have done.”[2]
Thus, the term “double predestination” refers not only to God’s decision to save some, but also to condemn others. This idea of reprobation is actually a natural outworking of the justice of God.
From the very beginning before we pursue a complete answer, we must gain an accurate perspective on 1) God’s Justice and 2) his mercy.
God’s righteousness is inherently connected to his justice. I will follow Berkhof’s definition of justice as “that perfection of God by which He maintains Himself over against every violation of His holiness, and shows in every respect that He is the Holy One.”[3] God’s justice is a natural outworking of His holiness. If man violates man’s law, he is subjected to the ruling authorities, a judgement is passed, and a sentence is pronounced and executed. If a judge who is following an established law decides to abandon the law and not execute justice, he shows himself to be a bad or corrupt judge. The same is with God. If His justice does not prevail all the time (since He sees all things), he proves Himself to be a liar in declaring that He is a Holy and perfect being. If justice is not done, violence is done to the character of God.
God’s mercy is invariably connected with His goodness. In the English Bible, the Hebrew word racham is translated “tender mercy.”[4] The mercy of God is abundant, Deut. 5:10; Ps. 57:10; 86:5. The entire Psalm 136 is devoted to God’s mercy which the poet cried “endures forever.” God’s mercy is his goodness or love shown to those in misery or distress, regardless of their desserts.[5] It is referred to quite extensively in the New Testament as well, 1 Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:4. There is a consideration with regard to God’s justice and His mercy which Berkhof is clear to point out, “The mercy of God may not be represented as opposed to His justice. It is excercised only in harmony with the strictest justice of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.”[6]
What this is leading to is the concept that God is obligated to save no person who has transgressed His law. Thus, if there are five individuals who are all lost and God chooses to save two of them out of His abundant mercy, his Holiness and his justice are in no way violated.
“Therefore He has mercy on
whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”[7]
The strongest argument (if you consider that argument strong) against this doctrine is that it isn’t fair. If God can save some, he should save everyone. But you must grasp the concept that God is not required to save all people even if He is able to save all people. “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” (Rom. 9:18). Once you place upon God the requirement that he save everyone, you have two problems. 1) You are saying that God is not good because even though He could save everyone, He doesn’t, and thus, He is not as good as He could be. When you say that God should save everyone, you are basically saying that God could be better. That is blasphemy. 2) You also demonstrate an immature understanding of what grace actually is. You have caused grace to lose its very beauty because God no longer is choosing to save his creation, but He does it because He has to, thus restricting God. Grace by definition is not required.
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?[8]
As an Arminian struggling with this concept, I seemed to place this great emphasis upon the grace and mercy of God, thinking that this was the only aspect of His holiness. But the truth is that He is also a just God who punishes sin.
I was once having a discussion on this subject with one of my Wesleyan/Arminian professors. He pointed out to me that these sections in Romans Chapter 9 which I was quoting previously were actually referring to nations and that the nations had not been chosen to specifically be saved and that I was misapplying the doctrines that Paul was teaching in that particular chapter. I left his office that day discouraged, asking myself the question, “Is this true?”
I wrestled with these passages very deeply, but then I realized something. First, even if Paul were just referring to nations, he still represented the nations with individuals, and even if he were just referring to nations for salvation, what is a nation but many individuals who are deserving of divine justice? So even then, we think we can impersonalize this section of scripture by pointing out that God is dealing with nations here, but in reality, we are just dealing with a multitude of individuals which is what makes a nation, are we not?
Here, again, our opponents have tried to overthrow election by telling us that it is an election of nations, and not of people. But here the apostle says, “God hath from the beginning chosen you.” It is the most miserable shift on earth to make out that God has not chosen persons, but nations; because the very same objection that lies against the choice of persons lies against the choice of a nation. If it were not just to choose a person, it would be far more unjust to choose a nation; since nations are but the union of multitudes of persons; and to choose a nation seems to be a more gigantic crime-if election be a crime-than to choose one person. Surely, to choose ten thousand would be reckoned to be worse than choosing one; to distinguish a whole nation from the rest of mankind does seem to be a greater extravaganza in the acts of divine sovereignty than the election of one poor mortal, and leaving out another. But what are nations but men? What are whole people but combinations of different units? A nation is made up of that individual, and that, and that. And if you tell me that God chose the Jews, I say, then, he chose that Jew, and that Jew, and that Jew. And if you say he chooses Britain, then I say he chooses that British man, and that British man, and that British man. So that it is the same thing after all. Election, then, is personal: it must be so. Everyone who reads this text and others like it, will see that Scripture continually speaks of God’s people, one by one; and speaks of them as having been the special subjects of election.”[9]
An Examination: Romans 9
In the first 5 verses of this glorious chapter, Paul accounts of the rejection of the Gospel by the Jewish people. He speaks of how privileged the Jews were to have received the promise of grace from God but that even they have rejected the completeness of the offered redemption, Jesus Christ, their true Messiah.
Verses 6-13
Then in verses six through nine, he says,
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.’
What is being communicated here by Paul? Well, taken in context with the first verses of this chapter, it is saying basically, “The Jews were the rightful possessors of the blessings of salvation, which was originally presented to them, but they didn’t believe upon Jesus, the capstone of the Gospel message. But that didn’t stop the message of salvation, because in reality it isn’t the physical descendents of Abraham that are saved anyway, it is the spiritual descendants who believe the gospel by faith who are saved.” Paul is saying that being a physical descendant of Abraham does not guarantee your salvation because in reality, God chose who would inherit it. This is evident in Paul’s next passage regarding Abraham and Isaac.
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’
This is a section of scripture, which is heavily loaded with Calvinistic overtones. Let me explain verse by verse.
“(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls).” This verse says that God had made a decision about the brothers’ lives before they were even born. This was done for the specific reason of showing that God did not watch their actions or read their hearts and then decide what to do, but to show that things happen according to God’s eternal counsel which He decides upon far in advance. This also shows that God did not foresee any righteousness in Jacob, which would qualify him for the promise but disqualify the originally intended recipient of the promise, Esau. Arminians believe that man is elected based on God’s foresight of human decision, but this passage teaches that God does not rely on our decision in order to make His own decision, but that God decided beforehand which brother the promise of salvation would be given to.
“It was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger,’” In Jewish tradition, it was the older son who received the birthright from the father, but in this story, God allows a great irony to take place in that the original recipient is rejected by God, but his conniving brother Jacob, receives the promised inheritance.
“As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’” In order to grasp the fulness of this text, we should travel to the actual passage this verse is quoted from, Malachi 1:2-3. Many have said that the “hate” taking place here is actually a “loving less” than Jacob. But observe the context. Israel has doubted the love that god has for them but God’s opening verse says to them, “I have loved you.”
“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.”
We can see here that this “hate” which God has for Esau’s tribe is more than just a “loved less” but that this is an active outworking of God’s justice. His hatred for Esau was a true hatred, a retributive wrath according with His holy justice. Many read this as a sort of malice, an undeserved, cruel rejection of Esau. This is not the character of God. Indeed, something has compelled God towards hatred of Esau. There is a such thing as a pure and holy hatred (Ps. 139:22). Esau was a lost man, an enemy of God (Rom. 5:10).
This is not to say that God did not love Esau in some sense, for that would go against scripture. It states explicitly that God loves the whole world (Jn. 3:16). That does not mean that God will save all people, however.
God says to Jacob, “I have loved you.” You could have been like Esau. You have transgressed my law just like Esau has, yet through all of your disobedience I have yet to let you go. “You I have loved, Esau I have hated.” No man can stay my hand. No one can tell me what to do or how to do it. You can almost hear him saying as He did to Moses, “Who made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing , or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?” (Ex. 4:11).
Verses 14-15
A good teacher is able to anticipate objections to things he is saying. He is able to tell when he is saying something that people will disagree with. Paul has spent the last seven verses giving the perfect example of God’s sovereign choice of saving some and allowing others to perish. R.C. Sproul points out that if in fact, Paul was trying to teach an Arminian sort of doctrine in this section of scripture, he would never anticipate a sort of complaint from his readers. Arminianism is designed to make sense to people, to appeal to fairness, to exalt human choice. Why would anyone object to Arminian theology? It is pleasant, easy to understand and easy to swallow.
But, Sproul points out in his lecture series What is Reformed Theology, Paul does anticipate his readers’ objection. He foresees that his readers may detect a thread of unfairness in what he is saying. We read: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!” (v. 14) Some versions read “God forbid!” and “May it never be!”
After hearing all of these things about God, it would be a natural reaction in our humanness to say, “That’s not fair! That’s not the God I know. This God He’s talking about is not my God, because this God is unjust.” But Paul uses the strongest possible language to tell his readers that this line of thinking is wrong. Now, if Paul were supporting an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian perspective of election, of all the places in scripture to speak up, this is the place! But instead of saying, of course there is no unrighteousness with God because he actually puts the full choice in our court and elects us according to the decision he knows we will make! Instead to support his argument, Paul uses the strongest possible scripture to support God’s undeniable sovereignty over men with a reading from Deuteronomy 32:4 where God says, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion whomever I will have compassion.”
This means: I will give grace in time and life, to him concerning whom I purposed from eternity to show mercy. On him I will have compassion and forgive his sin in time in life when I forgave and pardoned from all eternity. In doing this, God is not unjust, for so He willed and pleased to do from all eternity, and His will is not bound by law or obligation. (God’s) free will, which is subject to no one, cannot be unjust. God’s will would be unjust only if it would transgress some law, (and that means God would go counter to Himself). This statement seems cruel and hard, but it is full of sweet comfort, because God has taken upon Himself all our help and salvation, in order that He alone might be wholly the Author of our salvation.[10]
Calvin himself points out something crucial about this verse: “By this oracle the Lord declared that He is debtor of none of mankind, and whatever He gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that He can confer it on whom He pleases.”[11]
Do you think God owes anything to any man? If you do, you do not know God as Holy. If you believe this, you do not truly understand God’s justice in destroying all sin, including the sinner. What you think does not truly matter if it is not the truth, based on God’s word, and God’s word says that God may have compassion on whomever He is so pleased to.
Verses 16
Now, Paul comes to his conclusion he has been leading up to. This is introduced by the “So then” which preludes whatever it is that Paul is saying in these verses. “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” Sproul comments on this verse, “It seems that this verse alone should be enough to do away with Arminianism forever.” Paul is making it abundantly clear here, as though he hadn’t already, that it is not man’s decision but that it all depends on God’s decision and God’s decision alone! Paul could not be more clear.
Might I speculate that if Paul was indeed teaching an Arminian sort of foreknowledge view of election in this passage that he most certainly would have left out verse 16?
Verses 17-18
“For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”
Once again, Paul piles on more scripture to show that God may do with all men whatsoever he desires to do with them. If he wants to deliver justice to one man, he can do so. If He wants to make another man holy, who can argue with God’s judgement or mercy?
One thing must be cleared up with regard to this verse, however. There are two forms of double predestination. One is called equal ultimacy. This view says that not only does God predestine saints for heaven and work in their lives in order to bring about that result, but it says that God also works in sinners hearts to bring about unbelief, driving them from the Kingdom of God. This view of equal ultimacy has sometimes been referred to as “hyper-Calvinism.” However, according to Sproul, “That is an insult to John Calvin. This isn’t a higher form of Calvinism. It is sub-Calvinist.” Indeed, It leaves God the direct cause of peoples’ unbelief. This is an evil God, not one worthy of worship.
This verse does, however, at first glance seem to be teaching a type of equal ultimacy. One rule of hermenutical interpretation, however, is that all sections of scripture must be interpreted in light of the rest of scripture, not taken simply by itself. Therefore, let us honestly ask the question of what it means that God hardens peoples’ hearts.
First, we know that God did not create fresh or new unbelief in these peoples’ hearts since that would be God directly causing disbelief. He could no longer hold them responsible for the sin of unbelief since He would be a party to their sin! (James 1:13-15)
Second, we know that Pharaoh is a fallen individual who is resistant to God and undesiring closeness with the Almighty. When anyone follows God or desires Him, it is because God has worked a change in their heart. If Pharaoh’s heart toward God is hard already, God does not need to cause Him to resist since he is already a sinful adversary of the Almighty.
Because of this, I propose that our correct understanding of God’s hardening of man’s heart must fit with two things that we know about God and man:
1) God cannot cause fresh sin or resistance in man’s heart without violating his holy character.
2) Man without God’s grace in any measure is wholly lost, an enemy of God.
Thus, God’s act of hardening must actually be what Paul speaks of in Romans 1:26, “God gave them over…” The hardening occurs when God removes his graceful restraint on someone’s heart, giving them over to the evil which they so dearly love; sin that has always been present in their heart.
This hardening is done with no violation to God’s holy character and is scriptural, being presented by writers of both the Old and New Testaments.
Verses 19-21
“You will say to me them, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have the power over the clay, from the same lump of clay one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”
Paul understands that many of his readers will see something wrong with God judging those whom He has hardened. Because he foresees this objection, he answers his own rhetorical question by appealing to human experience, as though we were the pot and God the potter. We have no right to complain, for God is over all and is allowed to do with his creation whatever He desires (Isaiah 64:8). Truly, the pot has no say.
Also, we must remember the character of the great potter. He is not a malevolent madman. Far from it! He is a loving God. His goodness is from all eternity! All of his decisions are just, and His perfect and wise counsel is forever in all of His actions. We have a perfect and merciful Father who does not make mistakes. Let us take comfort in the work of His hands.
Verses 22-24
“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”
One of the things I hear most often during discussions on this subject is a perfectly valid question: Don’t you think that God would limit Himself so that we could still have free will and that way, it would be true love for us to come to Him?
First, I am interested by the idea that God can limit Himself in the first place! Let’s consider this: is there one instance in the Bible where God lays aside His divine attributes, where God is shown limiting Himself? The only instance I can find of this is in the Gospels when Christ comes in the form of a Child. But even then, he could have called down lightning from Heaven consuming every evildoer on the planet. Therefore, Christ never really sets aside the possibility of taking on the true form of the Almighty Creator.
One question that I always thought was useless until I considered this subject is this: can God create a stone so large that He cannot pick it up? In a sense, that is what this question about whether God can limit Himself is. Can God cease even for a moment from being in control of the universe? No! If He did, we would all perish. In this question, we are the stone. The question is, can God create us in such a way that He will not be able to “violate” us?
Second, why would He want to limit Himself? In light of man’s fallen nature which we’ve discussed a lot so far, it seems that if God limited Himself from drawing men unto Himself that we would have no hope for salvation! He is far more effective at saving the lost as the all-powerful creator than He is as an impotent God who cannot do whatever it takes to save whomever He wills. Therefore, this question is a request for God to cease being God and leave us to ourselves (something man has been trying for at least 8,000 years).
These verses in Romans seem to raise an interesting concept. That the wicked are punished as a means of showing God’s glory to the elect, or “vessels of His mercy” as Paul calls them. As God’s elect, we are given the privilege of seeing God’s justice executed while also understanding our own grave situation. As His chosen, we were once at the edge of that cliff, “hanging as by a spiders’ web” as Edwards once put it. The reprobate perish that we, the vessels of God’s mercy might revel at the great mercy He has shown to us, to the glory of His name! How great and awesome a God, that He would save us when He didn’t have to, when we were on our way to justice at the hands of a Holy and Righteous God! What love!
As a side note, some have said to me that they think Calvinism (or whatever you want to call it) is impersonal because they just feel the idea of God choosing to save some (mercy) and condemn others (justice) is wrong. Actually, Calvinism is far more personal with respect to God and men. In Arminianism you are one of the vast multitude who God has been trying to get, and if you should happen to believe and be saved, they you are one of the elect. In Arminianism God is a failure and His will is not always done. He is a sort of sub-God. But in Calvinism, God condescends Himself and from the foundation of the world said, “This one is mine. I will redeem him and save him. This one is mine.” How wonderful to know that I was in God’s heart before the first star was even created! Upon the cross, Christ actually saved us, and in the moment we believed, we were sealed with the Holy Spirit as a seal that we are God’s. What grace! And not just potential grace, but real grace!
These verses also say that we, the vessels of His mercy, “were prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” How great is our God! In our true gratefulness, let us praise God for loving us and deciding to save us while we were still His enemies!
Is it Double?
We return to the question we have been setting out to answer in the first place, that being: does God predestine some to eternal life and others to eternal judgement?
After looking at Romans 9 in particular, our only answer must be yes. He gives mercy freely to whomever He desires to give mercy, and He judges justly those who are not vessels of His mercy. Those whom He judges, we must remember, deserve to perish, for they have been the enemies of God since they were in the womb (Ps. 51:5).