Double Predestination?

Dr. Thomas is originally from Wales. He is the John E. Richards Professor of Systematic and Practical Theology at the Jackson, Mississippi campus of Reformed Theological Seminary. After pastoring for 17 years in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Dr. Thomas returned to the USA in 1996. Where, in addition to his work at the seminary, he serves as the minister of teaching at the First Presbyterian Church in Jackson. And he was telling me that one of his duties is to teach or preach on Sunday in their Sunday evening service there. He's a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, has a Ph.D. from the University of Wales, specializing in Calvin's preaching on the book of Job. That's why he said he was all Jobed out or Jobed up last night. His interests include opera. His wife, though, he tells me, is a big fan of the Atlanta Braves. He's been married to Rosemary for almost 30 years and they have two adult children and he has a dog. And as we found out last night, he has a cat as well. So, Dr. Thomas, come. We hear you gladly. And I also have two grandchildren, which probably should come before the cat and the dog, but only just. And do pray for my wife. The Braves are not doing too well, and it causes some marital stress. My task, as you can see this morning, is a difficult one and a somber one. A double predestination, biblical or heretical. I was given these titles, you understand. Turn with me to Romans 9, that Byron just read for us, Romans 9. Let me pick it up at verse 13. Just as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be, or in the Greek, meganoito, which I think in the King James is God forbid. 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. Now, the 1689 confession in chapter 3 and section 3 says, by the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace, semicolon, which is important, others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation to the praise of His glorious justice. Now some of you don't, maybe most of you don't have the wording of the 1689 Baptist Confession before you and I do want to say something about the grammar of the 1689 Confession and at least to some extent the way in which it deviates, knowingly I would suggest, from the exact wording and punctuation of the Westminster Confession of 1645. Before I do that, however, let me say a couple of things confessionally and doctrinally or doctrinally. First of all, this is chapter three of the confession. Sometimes unjustly and perhaps in rare occasions justly, the criticism is made that the doctrine of predestination or the doctrine of the decree over dominates our teaching and preaching and thinking and conversation. I think that only happens in rare circumstances to be honest but let's notice the obvious shall we that this doctrine of the decree is chapter 3 and chapter 1 is on scripture and chapter 2 is on the doctrine of God or more particularly the doctrine of the Trinity. Predestination is therefore not, in the language of the Confession, either Westminster or 1689, or the London, or the Savoy Declaration. It is not, and let me use a word and then immediately try to explain it, it is not the architectonic principle of Reformed theology. That is, it is not the ground of all theology. The ground of all theology is Scripture. We believe the doctrine of predestination because Scripture teaches it. And we believe the doctrine of predestination only to the extent that Scripture teaches it. Now, we could expand on that, and I won't because of time limitations, but that's an important principle, that the presupposition of all theology is the Scripture, is the Word of God, the infallible, inerrant Word of God, that all of Scripture, every jot, And the title of it is given to us by the inspiration of God, by the out-breathing, by the theopneustic, to use a Greek word, activity of God. That scripture is the product of God's out-breathing. What scripture says, God says. And that's important. This isn't predestination or the doctrine of the decree is not the result of prognostication by ivory tower theologians drunk on the philosophy of Aristotle or Rammus medieval philosophy. That's a whole lot at nine o'clock or so in the morning. You understand. But all of those charges are made and they're made not just in the past, but they are made today. A click of the Internet button would find All of that accusation being made against the Doctrine of Predestination. Secondly, Chapter 3 follows Chapter 2. Now, you understood that. It follows the Doctrine of God. In other words, the Doctrine of Predestination or the Doctrine of the Decree is the Doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Doctrine of Predestination is not A demigod that hovers in the air in abstraction from the character of God as He is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, in particular, the doctrine of predestination is Christ-like. The logic of the order of the chapters of the Confession is telling you that. that the doctrine of predestination is Christlike. Let me put it in a different way. There is no un-Christlikeness in the doctrine of predestination. Whatever we attribute to Jesus Christ is part and parcel of the way we must understand the doctrine of predestination. There is nothing unloving or ungracious about the doctrine of predestination or double predestination that isn't to be found in the very character and attributes of Jesus. We can't and daren't attribute predestination or double predestination to, say, the Father and something else to the Son. All of the attributes and characteristics of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are reflected in the doctrine of predestination and double predestination. Again, that deserves more expansion than I have time for this morning, but it's a crucial point to make. Because you can, and sometimes it is, you can discuss some aspects of the doctrine of predestination in abstraction from the character of Jesus. And in doing so, you are actually flying in the face of the very language of the 1689 Baptist Confession that says, again in section 5, those of mankind that are predestined to life God before the foundation of the world was laid according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will have chosen in Christ. In other words, The choosing or predestinating activity of God is in Christ. It's in relationship to Christ. It's in relationship to the mediator. There is no unchristlikeness in the doctrine of the decree. Now, secondly, and I have What did I scribble this morning? Eight points I want to make. That's the first one. Where it occurs in the language and order of the confession itself. Secondly, and I sort of apologize for this, but I sort of don't. I want you to think for a minute and this is about as as difficult, I think, as theology gets, and it's about as abstract, I think, as theology gets, but bear with me before you bring down the prejudices, bear with me for five, six, seven minutes or so, and then make your judgment, if that's possible, which I don't think it is, but let's try. We have to think for a minute about the logical order of the decrees. We're not talking here about the chronological order of the decrees. We're not talking about the way in which the decrees fall out in space and time. Which comes first? The decree of election or the decree to create? Well, the answer to that is, are you speaking of it logically or are you speaking of it chronologically? Because chronologically, the decree of election comes about before creation. It takes place before the foundation of the world. We're talking about the order in which they happen chronologically in space and time. So creation comes before the fall. Chronologically. Temporally. Or to use the Latin expression, intempore. But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what is the logical order of the decrees. Now, there are four decrees. Only two of them I want to think about this morning, but there are four decrees. One is the decree of election and reprobation. Two is the decree of creation. Three is the decree to permit or to allow the fall to take place. And four is the decree of redemption. Now, some of you and perhaps most of you and I'd be delighted if all of you know the consequences of getting that order correct. Limited atonement, for example, depends on getting that order in the correct way. If you have in the decree of God a decree to make atonement, Logically, prior to the decree to redeem, you've got, in some form or another, a universal redemption, a hypothetical universal redemption, and you've got four-point Calvinism, or you've got Amaraldianism. So, in order to assert limited atonement, one has to assert that the decree to elect comes before the decree to redeem the elect. That's for another day, another occasion. It's Chapter 8 in the Westminster Confession. Don't know what it is in the 1689 Confession, but it's probably five years or three or four or five years down the line. Make a note of it. Come back in. Come back every year, but come back for that one at some other point. But the two decrees that we're interested in now is the decree to elect and the decree to permit the fall, to permit sin. Here's the question. I'm losing you. Let me approach it from a point of view of evangelism. When I read the text, verse 13 of Romans 9, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. You're having a conversation with, it could be another Christian or it could be with an unbeliever. The response could be the same. And you say, God chooses some and He, let's for now use the language, passes by others. And he says or she says to you in response, that's not fair. Now, what is your response to that's not fair? Are you going to say, God is sovereign. He can do whatever pleases Him. Don't you dare question the sovereignty of God. He may choose one, and He may pass by another, and it's an act of pure sovereignty, because He has the right to do that. You're a super ellipsarian. Just hold that in your head for a second, if that's your response. It's not fair. And you say, well, if it's fairness you want, none of us are going to be saved because we are all sinners. not just chronologically, because the fall happens after the doctrine of, after the decree of election, but we're thinking of it now in the logical order of the decrees. Did God, when He chose some and passed by others, did He do so already having logically assumed that they were sinners? If it's fairness you want, we're all going to be damned. From a point of view of the logical order of the decrees. You following? One is an argument from sovereignty. This one is an argument from justice. And they're very different arguments. Supra-lapsarian, infra-lapsarian. Supra, meaning the doctrine of election, is over and above any other consideration, including the consideration of fallenness. God has the right because He's sovereign. Supralubserian. Some argue, I'm not convinced by any means, some argue the 1689 Baptist Confession was Supralubserian. I'm not at all convinced by that, but some do argue that, and there are people on the internet, and it may be you. I don't know who it was that I checked out this morning, but there are some sites out there that argue with passion that the 1689 Baptist Confession is essentially supralepsarian. Now, it is interesting. The language of the Confession is interesting. 33 by the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory. Some men and angels are predestined or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ to the praise of his glorious grace. Others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation. On the surface, and I'm pretty sure it's only on the surface, on the surface that sounds infralubserian. Some of you want it to be infralubserian. With passion, I love the way you actually speak out loud. I'm just not used to this at all. I am absolutely convinced absolutely convinced that the Westminster Confession, although it also appears to some to be infralubsarian, is actually a classic compromise statement. Because it depends on how you read it. If you read this statement, others being left to act in their sin, if that is intempore, that others actually are left in time and space to act out the full consequences of their sin. That could still be a supralepsarian statement. I mean, supralepsarians could still agree to the 1689 Baptist Confession. They just read that statement as a statement in chronology rather than a statement in logic. Infralepsarians will do the reverse. Infralepsarians will say, no, This is a deliberate statement that in the logical order, God is considering their fallenness before he considers election and reprobation. In other words, reprobation is an act, a judicial act and not simply a sovereign act. Now, I told you it was going to be tough. I've had folks say, I've had colleagues of mine who teach at the seminary say, in the biblical studies department, who are deeply suspicious about things that go on in the systematics department, they'll say, you know, that's why we don't like systematic theology, because you talk about stuff like that. You know, that's just, That's just putting logic before the Bible. Actually, they're worse than that. They'll get mean and they'll say, you know, that's just Aristotle. You know, that's just the influence of Ramess theology on 17th century Reformed theology and it's bad. So I will say to them, now if somebody says to you, you're expounding Romans 9 verse 13, Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, and they say that's not fair, what's your response? And they always give an infralipsarian response. Without knowing it, perhaps. But their response is classic infralipsarianism. Now I'm not here this morning to convince you of one or the other, although this crowd is infralipsarian for sure. at least the vocal ones were. If there are any supers here, now's your time. OK. I'm not here this morning to convince you one or the other. I do think that the weight of Romans 9 is not judicial but sovereign. I do think that. Paul could easily have responded to the unfairness or the seeming unfairness of Jacob I loved, Esau I hated by responding in a classic judicial, infralubsarian way. But he doesn't. He responds in a classic sovereign way. God is the potter. And he has the right to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. That's a sovereignty argument. Actually, it's a superlapsarian argument. So, I do think that Romans 9 is difficult to interpret from an infralapsarian point of view. Now, the third thing I want to say is that in the doctrine of the decree of election, foreknowledge is not the ground of the decree. Now, it's quite specific in the third chapter. It's section 2. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, it's not denying foreknowledge. Now, Calvinists sometimes sell the whole shop when they're going after Arminians because of the use of foreknowledge, but God foreknows. We need to remember that. God does foreknow. God does see things before they happen. He does see the person who, you know, makes a decision for Jesus, if I can say that in this context. I mean, He sees that. But that's not the ground of election. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, Arminians, right, are in the crosshairs, or as that which would come to pass upon certain conditions or such conditions. Molinism is in the crosshairs in that second part. Now, let me talk about those two things quickly. First of all, Molinism, you know it as open theism. Louis de Molina was a 15th century Spanish Jesuit, part-time theologian, philosopher, and troublemaker. And he's still troubling us to this day, sadly, and is now known as open theism. There was an episode of Star Trek. Do I have any Trekkies here? Two. I wasn't sure if the Baptists were Trekkies or not, but we've got two. Maybe they're not Baptists. There was an episode of, it was a two-parter. I hate those, you know, they're to be continued. I hate that. You have to wait a whole week to find the resolution. And it's way too complicated to spend a lot of time on. But there was this fellow, he was in his spaceship and he was trying to get to so arrange the circumstances that he could get back in time to the point at which his wife was still alive. And he would do all his mathematics and he would press a button and he would get back, but his wife wasn't alive. He was trying to find the circumstances in which certain decisions were made that this result would be the case. Now God, according to open theism and according to Louis de Molina, has something called middle knowledge. God knows all actual events that will occur. He knows every actuality in the future, but he also knows all possible futures. Yeah. Those things that would come about given certain circumstances. If only, what did they say? If only, Jesus said, If only the gospel had been proclaimed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have believed. Won't you, Bethsaida and Chorazin? Because if the gospel had been preached in Tyre and Sidon, they would have believed long ago. That's a possible future. Right? In other circumstances, this would have been the result. Right? In a certain set of circumstances, this person will choose for Jesus. You know, but you don't solve anything that way, because you still have to say God chooses that future. Duh. Right. You haven't solved anything. You've still got the problem that God chose that set of circumstances instead of those circumstances. In those circumstances, there is, according to Molinism, pure freedom of choice, and you choose Jesus in those circumstances, but God chooses that future, but not that future. You haven't solved anything. You've still got an element of sovereign choice. So that's the end of open theism. It doesn't solve the issue of libertarianism. I knew it was too much for a two-year-old. I knew I was going to fail that one. The other one in the process, of course, is Arminianism. That our response, our determination, our will, And we do have a will. We do make choices. The liberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away. Neither are we automatons. Neither are we robots. We don't live in a purely deterministic world. We are held responsible for our actions. But that choice that we make is a choice that God has actually decreed. And that choice is not the basis and it's not the foundation for God's election. My fourth point is Three particularly important Greek words here, proridzo, ek legesthai, and proginosko in Greek, all of them dealing in some way with predestination or election. You notice in the language of the confession, election is first of all unconditional. We're not talking here about election to privilege. We're not talking about election to service, although the Bible speaks of both. But that's not what we mean when we talk about election. We're not saying that God chooses some people for special blessing. And that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about election here in its soteriological sense. Election to salvation. God chooses some to be saved and others he does not. That's what we're talking about. Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. And you notice, especially there in verse 11, not of works. For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, in temporary that is, in space and time, before they were born, so it's not of works. It is a sovereign, predetermined choice by God, not based on our works. Or because He saw some goodness, or some response, or some inclination, or some movement of the will on our part. And in section 5, in Christ. This election takes place in Christ. Are we elected because we are in him, or are we in Christ because we are elected? Ask it again. Are we elected because we are in Christ? Or are we in Christ because we are elected? It's the second, not the first. It's not. We are elected because we are somehow universally in Christ. That's Bartianism. That's the theology of Karl Barth. That everyone, the whole universe is in Christ. Actually, for Barth, we are all elect and we are all reprobate at the same time. That's the language of dialectic or nonsense. But that's new orthodoxy. That's Karl Barth. No, we are in him. We are in Christ because We are elect. Now, there are some objections here to election. Election doesn't mean that God doesn't love, in some sense, the whole world. Election doesn't mean, even though He loves Jacob and hates Esau, Even within that hatred of Esau, there is still a measure of love in terms of common grace. You can still preach the gospel to Esau. You can still preach the gospel to those whom God has not chosen, because they don't have a little mark on their forehead. You don't know who they are. loves the wicked. He sends the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. He shows them many untold mercies. God will have all men to be saved. 1 Timothy 2.14 God will have all men to be saved. How did John Murray put it? There is a will in God which He has not decretively willed. Wow. There is a will in God which He hasn't decreed. There is the will of God's decree and there is the will of God's precept, we say. You know, don't be fooled and don't be Don't be forced into the corner. That Armenians have more. More people will be saved in Arminianism than in Calvinism. Armenians will sometimes try and tell you that. That you Calvinists are hard and mean and nasty. And you don't believe that many are going to be saved. And in Arminianism, more people are going to be saved. Actually, the very opposite is true. Because in Arminianism, there is no determination by God to save anybody. Calvinists believe that those whom God has elected, he will save. There is a green hill far away outside the city wall where my dear Lord was crucified, who died to save us all. And you know, when we sing that, we actually mean it. All for whom God has sent his son to die for will be saved. Inexorably, infallibly, inscrutably, God saves. That's Calvinism. He actually saves. He not only wills it and decrees it, He has done everything that is necessary to bring it about. Let me say something about reprobation. Let me say, first of all, McShane said to Andrew Boner when Boner said he'd been preaching on hell and McShane said, did you do it with tears? It's a solemn, solemn thing to consider the reprobation of the wicked. the casting into eternal hell forever in full consciousness, that there is a place of torment, a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. that hell exists and it is populated and there are people in it, people that we know and people we love and people who are our family. I speak from experience here. Did you do it with tears? I'm not denying the validity of what we're doing this morning. We're thinking through God's Word. We're thinking God's thoughts after Him. We're trying to extrapolate all that God has revealed to us. We're trying to find where the boundaries are. We're trying to find the edges and not to step any further. And I don't personally think that discussing the issue of the logical order of the decrees is transgressing that boundary. I think that we're entitled to discuss. I think scripture forces us to ask the questions, even if we can't answer the questions. I think scripture does force us to ask those questions. And if we do so with humility and we do so with our eyes upon Jesus, I think we're perfectly entitled to do that. And I refuse to be driven into the corner that what I'm doing is engaging in some arid Aristotelian philosophical debate. No! But we should do so also with tears. Now it's interesting that the word reprobation does not occur in the 1689 Confession and it doesn't occur in the Westminster Confession either. They did not use the word reprobation. It's also interesting that the distinction, and I think it's a very important distinction in the Westminster Confession between predestination and foreordination. They use two different words and they use it very carefully. Predestination for the elect and foreordination for the reprobate or for the damned. Now, the 1689 doesn't do that. It collapses predestination and foreordination into one. These angels and men, section 4, thus predestined and foreordained. It's collapsed, as it were, into one, making then no distinction between the two. The Westminster Confession uses the language to pass by, which looks infrelipsarian. It need not necessarily be so, and I think wasn't intended to be so, but God passes by, and that's a sovereign act. You can't absolve yourself of the sovereignty of God in reprobation. God predestines some, and He passes by others. Now, that's a sovereign act. It still raises the question, why does He choose some and pass by others? But the Westminster Confession says to pass by and then foreordain on the basis that they receive their just desserts as sinners. Now the passing by can be considered in a supralipsarian sense as well as in an infralipsarian sense. But that language of passing by or preterition as we refer to it is not in the 1689 confession and the language in the in the 1689 is almost entirely judicial. Others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation to the praise of his glorious grace. Romans 9 10 and not only this but there was Rebecca also when she had conceived twins by the one man, our father Isaac, for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose according to his choice might 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. Verse 18, so then he has mercy in whom he has mercy and he hardens whom he hardens. Verse 21, or does not the potter have the right over the clay to make from the same lump, whether you consider that lump to be fallen or not in the logical order of the decrees, those of you who are still tracking, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use. Now the question arises, and this is my seventh point, if you're still following. Should we consider election and reprobation equally ultimate? You know, they're mirror images. God chooses some and he reprobates others, and they're mirror images. That would be Van Til, because Van Til is a supraluxarian. He is. That would be Hermann Huxheimer, because he's more than a supraluxarian. And I think the confession, both the Westminster and 1689 confession, the confession veers away from equal ultimacy. I think the way God chooses some to election is different from the way He reprobates others to damnation. And at least on the surface, it looks as though one is a sovereign act of grace and the other is a judicial act. So the confession wants us to see, I think, something other than equal ultimacy. Now, my time is almost gone, so let me make some practical points here. Should we preach double trouble or double predestination? Absolutely. We preach the whole counsel of God. Paul's words to the Ephesian elders, to declare the whole counsel of God. If it's in the Bible, you need to preach it and teach it and believe it. If it's in the Bible, you must believe it. Is Jacob I loved, Esau I hated in the Bible? Yes, it is. It's in the Bible. And you must believe it. And teach it. But you say this is dangerous. Don't you think God knew that? Do you think you know better how to inspire a Bible? Yes, it's dangerous. That's why God gives to the church teachers and preachers and elders and deacons and leaders in the home to teach us and instruct us and warn us and show us where the boundaries are. You go that far and no further. Don't cross that line. Don't go where no man has gone before. That's what the blogs do. They go where no man has gone before. Preach the whole counsel of God. Secondly, and let me give you a quote here from Hodge. We must get this in the balance of other doctrines. It is to all of the doctrines that the granite foundation is to the other strata of the earth, Hodge says. It underlies and sustains them, but it crops out only here and there. So this doctrine should underlie all of our preaching, but should be definitely asserted only now and then. That's Hodge now. The doctrine of God's sovereign election underlines everything. Everything. Every doctrine in scripture, but it only struts out here and there. Thirdly, we must be careful not to cultivate in our Calvinism a form of paralysis and fatalism. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. That is not Christianity. That is Islam. That's fatalism. The will of Allah. That's Islam. That's not Christianity. Christianity teaches our own moral, spiritual responsibility. You are responsible for not believing in Jesus Christ. We preach a free offer of the gospel. My brother is going to deal with this in a minute. All the problems I'm giving you, he's going to solve them all in a second. And we must do so with tears. to preach that those who don't believe in Jesus Christ will be damned. And they will be damned because God passed them by and consigned them to the consequence of their action and sin. And that is a decretum horribile as Calvin says, not a horrible doctrine. That's bad Latin. Horrible in Latin means awesome. I was in the corridor at First Press this week and there was a young boy. He was, I don't know, nine, ten. I said, how's school? We have day school. How's school? Awesome, he said. And I thought, yeah, you're using that right, that word. in the correct way because his bodily language revealed he was in awe of school, which somewhat took me aback. Ice cream is not awesome. We need to keep the word awesome for what it really belongs to. Now, you Americans use awesome way too frequently. God is awesome. And hell is awesome. It should produce within us a spirit of holy terror. Well, my brother's gonna take up all the problems. Let's pray together. Father, we are in awe of all that you have revealed to us concerning yourself. You are the potter. You have the right to do what brings you glory. We would not question it. We thank you for your great heart towards sinners. And we believe that even in reprobation, you do so with tears. You would have all men to be saved. You take no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We pray, O Lord, for anyone amongst us today who is not saved. And we pray that you would bring to their hearts and minds right now that today is the day of salvation. That while they live and breathe, they may yet turn in repentance and faith and embrace the Lord Jesus Christ as he is offered in the gospel. We cannot convince ourselves in this world that we are reprobate and ought not to do so. Father, we ask for your blessing. Teach us to fear your great name. We ask it in Jesus' name. Amen.