Aaron Shelton

Another Look, Predestination and Free Will

Dr. Andy Woodring

03/21/12 Shelton, 2

Introduction

!When evaluating predestination and free will, the first thing that comes to a scholar’s mind is Calvin and Arminius. These two men have began one of the greatest debates in all of Christianity that has continued on beyond their time into todays culture.

What do they stand for? How are Christians today supposed to take these two seemingly incomparable views on predestination and free will? I will attempt to answer these questions beginning with an evaluation of and , including the five points of predestination. I will then briefly discuss my stance on free will and continue with a thorough evaluation of Romans 9 in regards to predestination. I will then conclude with what I believe to be the core issue of debate between Calvinism and

Arminianism.

The “isms,” What Calvin and Arminius Taught

! Both Calvin and Arminius taught the doctrine of predestination. This shows us that both sides find the thought of predestination biblical, yet, they differ in their definition of predestination. Arminius protested to the Calvinistic position on predestination with five points. They consist of free will, conditional election, universal atonement, resistible grace, and the perseverance of some saints. He believed that

God’s role was to save the ones who repent and believe. This allows the concept of free will where people ultimately have the choice to reject or accept the saving grace of Shelton, 3

God. It also opens the possibility of losing one’s salvation and being eternally lost. As for Calvinism, their five points include total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of all the saints. This stresses the sovereign choice of God in human salvation rather than free will. Calvin states that those who are saved are chosen by God and are elect. That grace is irresistible and those who hear the gospel call will answer. This also leads to his belief that once a person is saved, they cannot lose their salvation. I think Mark Driscoll sums up these differences the best by saying,

!“Admittedly, both the Arminian and the Calvinistic camps are very broad and !include many nuanced positions that I am unable to fully explore in one chapter. !Furthermore, while there are extremists on both teams, including Absurd !Arminians and Cruel Calvinists, generally speaking, the two teams hold much in !common, such as belief in the ; human sinfulness; the death, burial, and !resurrection of alone for salvation; the need for personal faith in Jesus to !be saved; and eternality of both heaven and . Godly servants of Jesus have !been associated with both teams. (Driscoll, 74)

Now that we have a functional idea of what each side represents, I think we can now dig deeper into what free will and predestination really means.

Free Will

!Free will is the Arminian idea that we have free choice in whether or not we accept or reject Christ, without any interference by God whatsoever. A common objection to election1 is that if it is true, we don’t have any choice in whether we accept

1 Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure. Shelton, 4

Christ or not. A proper response from us would be “... to affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willing decisions in accepting or rejecting Christ.” (Grudem, 289) Our choices are voluntary because they consist of what we want to do, and in that sense are “free.”

However, they are not absolutely free. This goes back to the issue of God’s providence and that he can sovereignly work through our desires so that our choices come out as he ordained. This can still be understood as a real, free choice as he ordains it to be so. Grudem concludes his defense of Calvinistic election with this statement, “If God makes us in a certain way and then tells us that our voluntary choices are real and genuine choices, then we must agree that they are.” (Grudem, 289) Scripture is our ultimate definition of what something is or is not. When we begin to look at it outside of its context and attempt to explain without analyzing the text, we come up with false doctrine. “An absolute ‘freedom,’ totally free of God’s control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself. If that is what someone means by ‘free will,’ it is inconsistent with Scripture to say that we have free will.” (Grudem, 151) I think Ephesians 1:11 is a great testament to this, “In him [God] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” (Ephesians 1:11, ESV)

For me, this defines what “free will” truly is and helps us see that we are free in the best way a creature of God could be free. We are able to make willing choices, choices that have real effects on the world we live in.2

2 Concepts adapted from Wayne Grudem’s, Biblical Doctrine. Shelton, 5

Predestination

! Thomas Aquinas once said that “there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause.” (Raitt, 193) Aquinas is saying that free will is a byproduct of predestination. Therefore a proper understanding of predestination is going to be essential to understand free will in greater depth. To do this we will analyze one of the greatest passages regarding this topic, Romans 8-9. It talks about God’s predestination of the elect, the sovereign choice of God, and his control over creation. We will begin by reading Charles White’s evaluation of the

Calvinistic interpretation of this passage and see some of his objections.

!“Calvin's five different mistakes follow his exposition of Romans 9:6-24. First, !from vv. 6-13 Calvin concludes that both Ishmael and Esau are damned; second, !from vv. 14-15 he finds that God's essential nature is arbitrary; third, from vv. !16-18 he reasons that God completely controlled Pharaoh and made him disobey !the Lord's commands; fourth, based on vv. 19-20 he asserts that no one can hold !God's saving or damning actions to an objective standard of justice; and fifth, he !believes vv. 21-24 teach that God creates some people for the express purpose !of damning them. ” (White, 32)

White begins by saying that Calvin ignored the second possible definition to “election” which would include the entire offspring of Abraham, which he claims is the correct usage here rather than God choosing to save or damn them. He goes on to say that

Calvin assumes that “...God's undisputed passing over of each of these brothers in favor of the younger means that the former were damned is belied both by Romans 9 and by the rest of Scripture.” (White, 32) Second, White claims that Calvin Shelton, 6 misconstrues Paul’s quote of Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:15 and then makes nonsense of the point Paul is trying to make. White argues that rather, this Hebrew idiom is an intensification like the one found in Genesis 2:17 to show God’s mercy and compassion.

Third, White argues that “Calvin treats God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart as if

Pharaoh's character and actions in this life were completely shaped by God, and that

God had preordained Pharaoh's eternal destiny in hell.” (White, 40) White counters this idea by showing that the writer of Exodus used the “Lord hardening his heart” as a scribal practice of “...assigning to God actions which later texts reveal to have other, more proximate causes.” (White, 41) This is supported with evidence in Amos and 2

Samuel. Fourth, White argues that Calvin misinterprets Paul’s use of the potter and the clay analogy. “He thus misunderstands Paul's point and argues from these verses that no one can hold God's dealings with humanity to his standard of justice.” (White, 43)

He goes on to argue that Paul’s imagery is closest to Isaiah 45 in which the true point in

Paul’s example would be to show that God sovereignly assigns to each the place in salvation history and none may question that role. Last, Calvin interprets vv 21-24 that

God elects some to salvation and others to reprobation. White counters this statement by saying that God intends all to be saved and that those who haven’t is a result of their lack of faith.3 Therefore, White blames all of Calvin’s mistakes on historical plausibility and that he misinterprets the Old Testament quotations and ultimately misses Paul’s main point. This is a standard Arminian response to Romans 9 in light of predestination.

Now we will study a different take on the meaning of predestination.

3 Adapted from White’s ’s Five-Point Misunderstanding of Romans 9: An Intertextual Analysis. Shelton, 7

!When we look at passages like Ezek. 33:11, 1 Tim. 2:3-4, 2 Pet. 3:9, and John

3:16-17 we don’t see a God who sees delight in the death of the unrepentant. Instead, we see a creator who loves every sinner. Arminians would interpret these verses at face value. Calvinists would say that the “all” refers to all the elect and that “world” does not mean “all people” but rather “people from all nations.” But which is right? We can reason through this question by following the thought process in Scripture. To begin, we see the Bible is very clear that the good news of Jesus’ person and work is to be proclaimed to everyone. (Isa. 55:1, Matt. 11:28, Acts 16:31, Acts 17:30, Rev. 22:17)

Despite God’s desire for all to be saved, both sides of the camp can agree that not all people are saved and that some are going to hell. Arminians and Calvinists agree that the Bible declares that some sinners reject Jesus and are morally responsible for their own sinful rejection. (Isa. 65:2, John 5:40, John 12:46-48, Acts 7:51, Rom. 2:4-5, Rom.

10:21, Heb. 10:26-29, John 3:19) Furthermore, the Bible teaches that everyone is in the same condition as those who sinfully reject God’s offer of salvation through Jesus.

This means that we are all totally depraved. We are totally sinful and our entire person is marred by sin. “This includes the mind,4 the will,5 the emotions,6 and the physical body.7 Subsequently, everyone is a sinner whose inclination is to live for the glory of anyone and anything other than God8 and is altogether incapable of doing even “good”

4 Eph. 4:18

5 Rom. 6:16–17

6 Titus 3:3

7 Rom. 8:10

8 Ps. 29:2, Rom. 3:23; 11:36; 16:27 Shelton, 8 things for the purpose of pleasing and glorifying God.9” (Driscoll, 79) The Bible is quite clear that our sin is so pervasive that when left to ourselves, no one would ever pursue or choose Jesus. (Gen. 6:5; Gen. 8:21, 2 Chron. 6:36, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20; 9:3, Ps.

58:3) This logically leads to the question, are we able to choose God? The Bible says that every person without exception turns his back on God. “As sinners, we are not prone to properly diagnose the depth of our sin; thus, some sinners speak of our condition in less stark terms, as if there is a vestige of goodness in us that can simply choose God of our own free will.” (Driscoll, 82) Concluding this line of logic, Driscoll leaves his readers with this last statement, when “understanding our desperate condition as sinners, the question is not how can a loving God send anyone to hell but, rather, how can a just and holy God allow anyone into heaven?” (Driscoll, 84) Driscoll then uses Romans 8:28-10:1 to show how God graciously allows people into heaven.

!Paul starts with a description of God’s sovereignty as working out all things for the glory of his name and good of his people. When he says this, he reveals the truth that God is bigger and more powerful than sinners and their sins. And that in his ultimate redemptive good, he works all things for good. Paul then grounds our hope in the fact that the goodness of God will ultimately rule in the doctrine of predestination by saying, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30, ESV) This lines up a

9 Matt. 7:17-18, Rom. 8:7-8 Shelton, 9 series of truths about salvation. First, God foreknew10 us. “Yet foreknowledge does not mean that God simply looked down the corridor of history and saw who would choose him, which in turn compelled him to choose them. God is eternal, and thus the concept of God gazing into the future as we do is nonsensical.” (Driscoll, 85) Second, God predestined the elect to be made like Jesus. This means that God chose, in advance, that some people would be granted eternal life through Jesus. This results in predestined people increasing in holiness, like Jesus. Third, God doesn’t only predestine people for salvation but also evangelism. Fourth, predestined people who are regenerated through the gospel are then justified in the sight of God because of the substitutionary death of Jesus in place for their sins. Fifth, those who are predestined are all brought to saving faith in Jesus at some point in their life.11 Paul then goes on to rightly worship God for his love shown in his work of predestination. Paul thus establishes that God is sovereign over all of history as well as sin, while he is also loving and good to save some non-deserving sinners. This leaves great hope for those who are elected and predestined.

10 Arminius asserted that God foreknew “from all eternity those individuals who would through his preventing [i.e., prevenient] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere . . . [and] he likewise knew who would not believe and persevere.” Likewise, John Wesley speaks of foreknowledge, saying, “Salvation begins with what is usually termed preventing [i.e., prevenient] grace; including the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him.”

11 Adapted from Mark Driscoll’s Predestination section of Religion Saves. Shelton, 10

Conclusion

! To conclude, I think that the true issue regarding these doctrinal disputes resides in how one defines grace12 and faith. answered the statement “God foresaw that you would have faith, and therefore he loved you.” with this finesse saying,

“What did he foresee about my faith? Did he foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on him myself? No; Christ did not foresee that, because no

Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his hear and say, ‘I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit.’” I feel like a true understanding and foundation in grace and faith would shed light into the rest of these discrepancies and give both sides ample reassurance in their newfound doctrine.

12 The idea of prevenient grace found in Arminianism is not found in the Bible. This view allows for a belief in Christ apart from regenerating grace which Paul denies in Rom. 3:10-18. It also suspends the work of God on the will of man and undermines the emphasis found in Rom. 28-38. Grace, then, is Shelton, 11

Works Cited

Driscoll, Mark. Religion Saves. Wheaton,IL: Crossway Books, 2009. Print.

Grider, J. "Arminianism." Believe. MB Soft, 02 Feb 2006. Web. 21 Mar 2012.

Grudem, Wayne A., and Jeff Purswell. Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings Of The !Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan , 1999. Print.

Klooster, . "Infralapsarianism, Sublapsarianism. Advanced Information." Believe. MB !Soft, 09/Feb/2006. Web. 21 Mar 2012.

Raitt, Jill. "St. Thomas Aquinas on Free Will and Predestination." Historical Theology. !188-95. Print.

Storms, Sam. "Arminians and Prevenient Grace." Enjoying God Ministries. Enjoying !God Ministries, 2012. Web. 21 Mar 2012.

White, Charles. "John Calvin's Five-Point Misunderstanding of Romans 9: An !Intertextual Analysis." 28-50. Print.

Wright, Conrad. "Edwards and the Arminians on the Freedom of Will." Harvard !Theological Review. 242-61. Print.