Predestination and Free Will

Predestination and Free Will

When I was saved I was discipled by a Calvinist. All the Scripture he showed me was interpreted from that basis. The explanations seemed reasonable to me. I became a strong advocate of Calvinism. I was wrestling with the doctrines of limited atonement and universal reconciliation. Which one was right. It seemed that it had to be one or the other. When I moved to California in 1957, my pastor presented the idea of corporate election and predestination. That was the first breach in my Calvinistic armor.

The idea of corporate election and predestination had one major flaw which the Scriptures did not seem to support. God’s foreknowledge was the basis of His election and predestination. Since God knew everything as though it were in the present, and His election and predestination were based on His foreknowledge, and since He knew everyone who was foreknown or predestined, then God’s predestination had to be individual just as His knowledge was.

At this time of my life, my theology influenced my attitudes on prayer. If God knew everything, and He did. And if God predestinated everything, and He did that too. Then everything that I prayed was foreknown and predestinated. If I didn’t pray, that was predestinated too. I ended up having a lousy prayer life. The only reason I prayed, I argued, was because God commanded it in His word. However, there was no zest in my prayer life. I sensed this was wrong but didn’t know what to do about it. I realized that Christ was zealous in prayer, and Paul was zealous in prayer. Therefore, I suspected, something was wrong with my prayer life.

During this troublesome period, my wife and I visited her parents in Illinois. Her father had a large library of theological books. I was browsing through his books and found one titled, How Can God Answer Prayer?1 I began reading it immediately. It changed my life. He had four answers based on four different suppositions. The one which disrupted my preconceived ideas undermined the immutability of God with Scripture I had never read. I found that there was a vast amount of Scripture which showed that God changed His mind – even repented. Since that time, I have studied this issue for thousands of hours. This essay is a synopsis of the results of my studies.

First we must see the origin of my preconceived ideas. Immutability means unchanging. This is the basis for many of the tenets of Calvinistic doctrine. But, where did the idea of immutability come from? The answer, in the sense of influence, is Plato. Plato (427-347 BC), the great philosopher of Athens, has been the major influence on philosophical thought for about 2,400 years.

Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (354-430), had been thoroughly educated in philosophy. By Augustine’s time, Plato’s thought had permeated almost every school of philosophy. Philosophers, then and now, take the approach that truth can only be attained by reason. This is called rationalism. Since Augustine was steeped in this rationalistic thought, it influenced his ideas about God. He incorporated Plato’s idea of immutability into his theology after his conversion. Through Augustine, Plato has influenced Christian theological thought for about 1,600 years.

Plato honored his mentor, Socrates, in his writings by making him the main character of his dialogues. It is through Plato that we have an idea of the philosophy and thought of Socrates. Plato developed the thought of Heraclitus, Xenophanes, and Parmenides into his thesis of the immutability of God. We can understand Plato’s theoretical idea of the immutability of God by using this rationalistic syllogism:

The perfect does not change.

God is perfect.

God does not change.

Plato himself explained immutability this way in, “A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus.”

Is it not true that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. . . . It is universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art or both admits least alteration by something else.... But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state.... does he change himself for the better ... or for the worse and to something uglier than himself? ...for the worse if he is changed . . . the gods themselves are incapable of change. . . . Then God is altogether simple and true in deed and word, and neither changes himself nor deceives others.2

This rationalistic view of God was later adopted by Augustine.

Augustine’s theology influenced the Reformation through an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. Augustine and Luther had a great influence on John Calvin. Elements of Calvin’s theology have been foundational for most evangelical theologies since the reformation. God addressed this rationalism in 1 Corinthians.

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1:19-21). [My emphasis.]

Because of this Greek philosophical influence, Augustine thought the idea of a mutable God was an absurdity. Augustine was able to accept the Catholic faith only after Ambrose (340-397), Bishop of Milan, allegorized the Old Testament Scriptures which revealed a mutable God. Ambrose spiritualized the offending Scripture passages of the Old Testament in his sermons. When Augustine heard these sermons, he was able to accept the Christian God. He wrote,

For those absurdities which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit.3

Certain absurdities had hindered Augustine from believing in the Word of God. Augustine believed that God was immutable. To him it was absurd to believe in a God who could change his mind. How did Augustine know that this was absurd? The force of his own reasoning concluded that it was absurd. But his reasoning was permeated by Platonic rationalistic philosophy. After hearing Ambrose, Augustine was able to make the rationalistic judgment that the Bible was a rational authority. Augustine only turned to the Scriptures after the absurdities were “expounded properly.”

Although Augustine later developed a high regard for Scripture, first he used non-Scriptural rationalistic thinking to form his ideas about God’s attributes. Then, he attempted to find support for his ideas in the Scriptures. His primary presupposition was the immutability of God. The doctrine of immutability influenced his doctrines of predestination, foreknowledge, and intemporality of God. Augustine, subsequently, had great influence on Calvin. This influence of Augustine over Calvin is attested by many writers. For example, Warfield wrote, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers – for the Reformation was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of Augustinianism.”4

Neoplatonism and Manichaeism5 had a great influence on Augustine. These philosophers believed God could not be mutable and retain his perfection. Augustine accepted this philosophical thought as true and attempted to prove this doctrine using Scripture. How could God change his will or character from one time to the next in order to adjust to a changeable mankind? In On the Morals of the Catholic Church, Augustine explained the “ridiculous” Old Testament doctrines.

We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt or crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a little corner of it. These and such like are the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of children . . . and in those by whom these passages are literally understood. . . . And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.6

Augustine agreed with the Manichaeans that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal interpretation of Scriptures, what had to change? Augustine’s answer was that the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine, the plain narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical methods. The Manichaeans believed the Old Testament revealed a God who was mutable or could repent. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable, this idea of a repenting God was a source of ridicule for the Catholic Church. Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret Scripture rather than refute the Platonic philosophy.

Augustine did not learn that God was immutable from a study of the Scriptures? No! Under Platonic influence, Augustine used his reason to see an immutable God in his mind. Although he received this concept of an unchangeable or immutable God from the Platonists, he incorporated it right into his Christian theology without change.

Augustine only utilized Scripture in his defense of the immutability of God as a secondary proof. His main defense was rationalism.

Those things which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way has traced out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler intellect are not able to comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and so may deserve to know. . . . Accordingly that God is unchangeable.7

Notice! Augustine maintained that reason traced out the doctrine of immutability.

Augustine said all things which happen are caused by the immovable God. After perusing the Bible we can confidently declare – it does not speak of an immovable God. In fact, the opposite is true. The God of the Bible, our God, is moved by our prayers, our suffering, and our actions.

Augustine was also influenced by Plotinus,8 a Neo-Platonic philosopher. The concept of atemporality – God being in the state of Eternal Now – was reinforced by Plotinus. We see this influence in Augustine’s exposition of the Eternal Now. Let’s examine a few of Plotinus and Augustine’s parallel thoughts. They believed there was no past or future, only present. Plotinus wrote:

one sees eternity in seeing a life that abides in the same, and always has the all present to it, not now this, and then again that, but all things at once, and not now some things, and then again others. . . . there will be no “was” about it, for what is there that was for it and has passed away? Nor any “will be,” for what will be for it? So there remains for it only to be in its being just what it is. That, then, which was not, and will not be, but is only, which has being which is static by not changing to the “will be,” nor ever having changed, this is eternity.9

Augustine duplicated his thought in this statement:

For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence.10

Plotinus said the eternal did not have a “was” (past) or a “will be” (future) but only an “is” (present). Since God exists in an eternal state, according to Plotinus, the past, present and future should be viewed as existing in that present state at the same time as the present. Augustine concurred. He said that God exists in an eternal present in which the future and the past are comprehended as existing now.

They both believed there was no change in the Eternal Now. Plotinus wrote: “which is static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed”11 Augustine similarly stated: “but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness”12

The concept of immutability again played a crucial role in the development of the doctrine of atemporality. For God to be immutable, the future could add no knowledge to what God already knows. For Plotinus and Augustine, this unchangeableness is present in the eternal.

Modern theologians have denied the basis of their rationalistic theology and even criticized the philosophers by whom they have been influenced. For example, Robert Morey, who “has earned degrees in philosophy,13 theology and cult evangelism,” wrote this in his chapter on “The God’s of the Philosophers.”

Since it was God who created the world with its space-time limitation, He Himself is not limited by space or time, but greater than both. Since He made the space-time universe, it does not make or control God. To say that the creation is greater than the Creator is absurd. This is why Christians have always said that God is eternal in the sense of “timelessness” not “endless time.” To say that God exists in “endless time” is to make time ultimate over God. It would make God depend on time for His own existence. This would make Time a higher god than God!14

We must evaluate this short statement. First, it is rationalistic thought which maintains that space and time were created when God created the world. Morey probably got this from the math of the new physics. The Bible always portrays God in space and time, yet it never alludes to space-time exerting any control over Him. Second, pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle were the ones who maintained that God was in a state of timelessness. Third, just because God does things one thing at a time, doesn’t make time “ultimate over God.” The Bible described God doing things in sequence, one day at a time in the creation account. That put no limitation on Him. We are slaves to time because we need to sleep, eat, and eventually we die. God faces none of these. Time is no burden to God. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:8).

The only thing that counts in true biblical theology is God’s word. Therefore, we must look at the biblical evidence. The foundation of the Calvinistic view of predestination is immutability. Is God immutable? Is He impassible – not influenced by our problems? Does God ever change? The question is not, does God change in His attributes. He doesn’t. He is omnipotent. He is always holy. God is light. God is omniscient. God is love. He has many other attributes that do not change. But, again, that is not the question. The question can be stated a number of ways: Does God ever repent? Does God change His mind? Does God think something will happen, and then it doesn’t? Does God show emotion? Does He change in any way in the state of His being? I believe the answer to all these questions is yes. These ideas, instead of degrading God, cause us to appreciate and glorify Him. He does do the things asked in these questions, but the most significant fact for me concerns His supposed impassability – He suffers. In other words, He has passion. This is the opposite of having no passion – impassability.

God suffers! What comfort that gives me. Our God is touched by our sufferings. God suffers because of us, with us, and for us. For instance, in Hosea 11:1-4,8,9 it says,

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and burned incense to carved images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from their neck. I stooped and fed them. . . . My people are bent on backsliding from Me. Though they call to the Most High, none at all exalt Him. How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I set you like Zeboiim? My heart churns within Me; My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of My anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror.

Then, we observe Him as the loving husband, in Hosea 1:2; 2:5,13; 3:1; and 6:4-7.

The LORD said to Hosea: “Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land has committed great harlotry by departing from the LORD.” 2:5 “For their mother has played the harlot; She who conceived them has behaved shamefully. For she said, ‘I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.’” 2:13 “She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, and went after her lovers; but Me she forgot,” says the LORD. 3:1 “Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the LORD for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans.” 6:4-7 “O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away.”

But we have been influenced by the Greek philosophy that has permeated Christianity. You may think, a perfect God can’t suffer. But, it is true. When tragedy strikes, when pain pierces deep – we are not the only ones who suffer. God suffers longer and deeper than all of us put together. Where did this idea, the idea that God can’t suffer, come from? It came from philosophy, not the Bible.

When I was attending the University of Illinois, a wonderful Christian friend of mine was pastoring a small country church while he was at school. He was taking a course of study that required some units in philosophy. One day he came home. I’ll never forget that day in 1952. In his philosophy class that day, they had such a fixation on Aristotle that he came in singing, “Praise God for Aristotle, from whom all blessings flow.”

In addition to the material by Plato, Christian theology has also been influenced by Aristotle’s book, Metaphysics. That pagan philosopher, Aristotle, was born in 384 BC. Listen! “There must be something which, existing in full actuality, produces motion without being moved. That something cannot be otherwise than it is in any respect.” This line of reasoning led to the doctrine of the impassability of God. This means, nothing can affect God. He continued,

It is clear from the foregoing argument that there is some essential individuality that is eternal and immutable and distinct from perceptible things. . . . this individuality must be unaffected by anything and unalterable .... [and finally, after making some comments about the divine mind, he wrote,] what it thinks of is what is most divine and most worthy of esteem. And in this It is unchanging, because any change would be for the worse, and would be a kind of motion.

Although this philosophy flies in the face of God’s word, it became the intellectual basis of church doctrine. It continues to this day. They say, “God can’t feel and can’t change.” Because of this, He can’t love, can’t suffer, and can’t be influenced. However, the Bible says frequently – He does love; He does suffer; He is influenced by prayer; and He does repent or change. In fact, we know He loved the world so much that He gave Himself. He doesn’t make us ascend out of our pain in this life. On the contrary, He descends into it, shares it with us, and strengthens us through it. What a God! Look at the following passages: “Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Heb 5:8). “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate” (Heb 13:12). “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example . . . Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth; Who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously” (1 Pet 2:21-23). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Pet 3:18). “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin” (1 Pet 4:1).

In addition to these, we must realize that God was in Christ. John 1 says the word was in the beginning with God and was God. Christ was God. He came down here to suffer more intimately with us and then for us. Notice Hebrews 1:1-3:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

According to Romans 5:8, this almighty God, “demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Again, in Hebrews 2:9-18 it shows that He suffered for us.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: “I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.” And again: “I will put My trust in Him.” And again: “Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.” Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Therefore, we must conclude that the impassability of God is not found in the Bible. It is only found in rationalistic thinking influenced by Greek philosophy.

Immutability is discussed more frequently by modern theologians. It is similar to impassability. It means unchanging. There are some portions of Scripture which say God does not change. For instance, Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the Lord, I do not change; therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.” But this just means He is not going to go back on His promise to David. That’s what Psalm 132:10,11 shows, “For Your servant David’s sake, do not turn away the face of Your Anointed. The Lord has sworn in truth to David. He will not turn from it: ‘I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.’”

Some Scripture shows God’s anguish over Israel’s ungodly behavior. God was speaking about Israel and Judah like this in Jeremiah 3:8-10:

The Lord said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, [‘She will]15 return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the Lord.

God thought or said16 that Israel would return to Him. He expected Israel to return. But Israel grieved Him again. She did not return.

In a similar manner, God spoke of Israel in Isaiah 5:1-4:

Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes. But it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?

God was grieved by their response to His graciousness. He expected good fruit, but there was none. God did all He could do with free agents. “What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?” They rebelled. Further, the New Testament shows us that the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph 4:30).

Finally, some of God’s actions with Hezekiah are related in 2 Kings 20:1-6. God emphatically told Hezekiah that he was going to die.

In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’” Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years.’””

Hezekiah prayed, and the Lord responded. This certainly is not the impassable, immutable God of Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, and Calvin.

There are some portions of Scripture which genuinely say God does change His mind. Here are some of the most obvious ones. In Genesis 6:5-7, God shows His passion and mutability. The AV stated it well:

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented17 the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

The NIV translated it this way:

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”18

Either way you translate it, the mildest translation shows God was grieved. He was sorry that He had created man. It caused the impassible God to have intense feeling. It was the cause for the immutable God to change His mind. This didn’t just happen once. It happened repeatedly.

What does it mean when this word <j*n~, nacham, repent, is used for God’s actions? Calvinists like to call this action an anthropomorphism or and anthropopathism, but is our God such a poor communicator that He would continually use a figure of speech which showed He repented, was grieved, or changed His mind, if the opposite idea was the truth? Of course not! My God is the greatest communicator! This Hebrew word, in any of its translations, undermines the rationalistic idea of immutability derived from Greek philosophy. As I had to, we must all jettison our preconceived ideas and return to God’s word for an understanding of His nature and works.

Three more passages should lay the ideas of impassability and immutability to rest. Numbers 14:22,23,26,27 says,

Because all these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not heeded My voice, they certainly shall not see the land of which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who rejected Me see it. . . . And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, How long shall I bear with this evil congregation who complain against Me? I have heard the complaints which the children of Israel make against Me.

Then, in Psalm 78:38-41 it says,

But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them. Yes, many a time He turned His anger away, and did not stir up all His wrath; For He remembered that they were but flesh, a breath that passes away and does not come again. How often they provoked Him in the wilderness and grieved Him in the desert! Yes, again and again they tempted God and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Later, God expressed His passion. In Jeremiah 15:6, God even said, “I am weary of repenting!” In these passages we not only see that God changed his mind ten times (mutability), but He was weary (passion) of repenting.19

God’s repentance when He changed His mind after Moses prayed in Exodus 32:9-14 shows us something about God’s foreknowledge. We understand from Titus 1:2, “God, who cannot lie,”20 that God does not lie. Since He does not lie, could He have told Moses that He was going to destroy the nation when He knew He was not. No! On the other hand, if God changed His mind because Moses prayed, He did not lie.

God made many contingent promises. He even stated in 1 Samuel 13:13,14 that He would have established Saul’s kingdom forever.

And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. “But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.”

Saul had disobeyed, and his kingdom was not established at all. Instead, in 1 Samuel 16, Samuel anointed David.

Does this mean that God does not know any of the future? Of course not. God knows the future of the events He predetermines. In fact, that is what the Scriptures show us. For instance, He said in Romans,

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (8:29-32).

In Isaiah 46:9-11, God shows us how He can declare what is going to happen in the future. He makes it happen.

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure, calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.”

He makes a similar statement in Ephesians 1:11, “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works [the]21 all things [taV pavnta] according to the counsel of His will.” The specific all things He is referring to is the body of Christ of verses 10 and 23, “that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things [taV pavnta] in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth – in Him (1:10); “which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all [taV pavnta] in all” (1:23).

This has to do with our eternal security, since “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, [to] be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (1:4,5). He chose the body of Christ to be holy and blameless before Him making it sure by His predestination. It doesn’t say He chose us as individuals to be saved. It says He chose us in Him. Because we are in Christ, we are chosen. Christ is the elect one. We become members of the body of Christ by believing. Once we believe – we are part of the predestined corporation.

My conclusion is: We are not foreknown as individuals, chosen as individuals, or predestined as individuals. According to John 1:9, everyone has been enlightened by Jesus Christ, “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” The father has drawn everyone who will listen, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (John 6:44,45). The Son draws everyone. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself [pavnta" eJlkuvsw proV" ejmautovn]” (John 12:32). The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ. “But when the Helper comes . . . the Spirit of truth . . . He will testify of Me” (John 15:26). It is up to each person to respond to the call of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Since God did not predestinate individuals to be saved, we must be sure we take the opportunities to present the gospel of grace to everyone. We should pray for boldness to open our mouths to present the mystery just as Paul did in Ephesians 6:19, “Pray . . . for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel.”

Problem Passages

In Romans 9, the predetermination has nothing to do with salvation. It only concerns service.

10,11 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)

God has always chosen His own special ways to bring redemption. He used Jacob, not because he had done any good works, but because He chose to. He did not use Esau, although he had not done any evil, again, because He chose to. He has the right to choose individual people for service to bring the promise. God can do this and be perfectly just, because God can have mercy on whomever He pleases. Therefore, we have no right to question God, for God can do whatever He wants to with His creation. The Jews had no right to question God’s authority to use anyone He pleased to bring the message of redemption. In fact, God endured those who were fit for destruction and demonstrated His riches on the vessels of mercy by calling a new group from Jews and Gentiles. This group is the “us” of verse 24, referring to Christians. Therefore, the Gentiles gained righteousness though they didn’t pursue it. This was possible because Jesus Christ made God’s righteousness available by His faithfulness culminating in His death (Rom 3:21-26). However, Israel didn’t attain to righteousness because they sought it by the works of the law instead of faith. In fact, they stumbled over true righteousness (Rom 9:30-33). So, the answer to the question, “How could God have abandoned Israel?” is clear. God can do as He pleases. He chose Israel. Now He has decided to choose a group from Israel and the Gentiles based on the righteousness of faith. If Israel misses out, it’s her fault.

These concepts are illustrated frequently in this chapter. Ishmael was rejected. He was the child of the flesh. He was the child of the flesh because Abraham and Sarah took it into their own hands to produce the promised seed apart from God. Abraham went in to Hagar, and she conceived. This does not mean Ishmael couldn’t become a believer. He could have been saved, but he was not a man of faith. He persecuted Isaac (Gal 3:28,29). We see then that Ishmael becomes the personification of a child of the flesh.

In verse 11, we see that God’s principle as recorded in Hebrews 10:9 is, “He takes away the first that He may establish the second.” This seems to be the basis of His purpose according to election. It’s not of works but is based on His calling. This election is not to salvation. It is for God’s purpose. I think that His primary purpose is the provision of salvation by our Savior.

12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”

To begin with, even though Jacob consistently duped Esau, Esau never really served Jacob. In fact, almost the opposite was true. How then was this prophecy true? We must look at the quotation’s context. “And the LORD said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger” (Gen 25:23). Notice, it explicitly says, “Two nations are in your womb.” God was not dealing with the individuals here. He was dealing with two nations. Israel was His chosen people. Edom (Esau) was not. In the future, Edom will be the servant of Israel.

13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

This verse is like the previous one with one great exception. This reference is from the last book of the Old Testament. This was about a thousand years after Jacob and Esau were born. When we look at the context of Malachi 1, we see that He is again talking about the two nations. It doesn’t mean He loved everyone in Israel or hated everyone in Edom, for we find repeatedly how wrathful He got with Israel and destroyed some among them. Therefore, this love and hate was not against the individual men Jacob and Esau, but towards the nations. It was recorded after the nations had been in existence for a long time.

We must consider another point. This hate is not necessarily absolute. In Luke 14:26, the hate is certainly relative. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” I think the hate in Malachi and Romans 9:13 is also relative. It may relate to God’s sovereign choice among the nations.

14,15 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

There is no unrighteousness with God. He always conducts Himself in a just way. Now He shows us how He conducts Himself. He shows us that the Jews can’t restrict Him to the only option they think He must take, always treating Israel as the top nation. God shows that He makes His decisions based on His clearly defined principles. The fifteenth verse shows that He can display His mercy to anyone He desires. Israel cannot put restraints on Him. In this passage, you can’t escape the issue of selection. God has mercy on whomever He pleases. The point here is, was God unrighteous to choose Jacob as the one to receive favored status as a nation? The Jew would naturally answer, “No!” But, putting ethnic advantage aside, why? Because God has the right to show mercy to whomever He pleases. If He wants to choose one for service but not the other, He can do that. He chose Jacob but not Esau. The Jews liked that decision. Esau could have “willed” or “run” as much as he pleased. He could have been saved or have been the most godly man who ever lived. And Jacob could have been a rat (And he was.), but Jacob still would have been chosen. Paul’s point here is, God chose Israel as a favored nation above all others, not because of her worthiness or goodness above others, but simply because He has the right to select one and not the other.

God has the complete freedom to do as He desires. His principle for salvation is laid out when Paul completes this section on Israel’s place by summation in Rom 11:32, “For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.” Further, we see that His desire is to save everyone, not just Israel. When we consult Exodus 33:19, “Then He said, I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” we see from the context that this quote was a response to Moses because Moses had “found grace in My sight, and I know you by name.” Moses had pleased God by his obedience and intercessory behavior. I think the passage should be translated, “I will have mercy on whomever I want to have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I want to have compassion.” Again, we see from Romans 11:32 that for salvation, He wants to have mercy on everyone.

16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Have you ever considered what is not of the willing or running one? What is of the mercy showing God? It could be His stated purpose. It could be the provision of salvation. It could be the act of election for a purpose. It could be the concept that He wants all to be saved. But it is not talking about being saved. The principles of salvation for the covenant people were laid down by God in Genesis 17 and later in the law. The principles of salvation for this dispensation are laid out in Paul’s epistles and the later part of Acts. The circumcision epistles do not apply to us in the area of salvation. Both sets of principles are of God who shows mercy. But, although the methods of salvation are different for the different dispensations, the means of God’s grace is the same. It is the death of His dear Son. 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”

First we must read the context of this statement from Exodus 9:16. We see that the magicians could not stand before Moses. They may have died in this plague while God protected Pharaoh and raised him up for God’s stated purpose. Therefore, I don’t think God raised Pharaoh up to become the king of Egypt just to knock him down. He seems to have raised him from the infection of boils and also strengthened his resolve in the face of these awful plagues so He could continue to show in him His power and punish him for his unrepentant heart. Other expositors agree with this idea.22

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

God hardens people? Some believe that God elects some to be saved but reprobates the rest – actually actively consigns them to hell. Now is that what this verse is teaching? Let’s look at an illustration. Let’s put a lump of moist clay and a lump of hard wax on the window sill of the south side of the building in the hot sun. Now, the sun graciously shines down with its sunlight on a nice sunny Colorado afternoon. If we come back a couple of hours later while the sun is still well up in the sky, we’ll find a hard rock like lump and a puddle of wax. It was the same sunlight that hardened the clay and melted the wax. This is like the rain of Hebrews 6:7-8, “For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briars, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.” Now let’s think about these two illustrations. Did the sun harden the clay in the sense that it made the clay be the kind of substance that would harden, or was the sun the cause for the clay to harden? Similarly, was the rain the reason one portion of ground brought up briars and the other useful herbs? Do you see the difference? Was the sun the thing that made the clay hard? Was the sun the thing that made the wax melt or soften? Or was it the sun that made the clay do what clay innately does when heat warms it up? Did the wax do what wax does innately when it gets warm?

You may ask what the Bible means in Exodus 3:19 and 4:21 when it reports God speaking to Moses, “But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand” (3:19). And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go” (4:21). Pharaoh is an example of how God shows mercy. God didn’t let the pestilence kill him. Verse 18 could be a conclusion: God has mercy on whomever He wills (Jacob and Pharaoh) and hardens whomever He wills (Pharaoh). But this is not a hardening against salvation. Individual salvation is not an issue here. But let’s get back to Exodus 3:19 and 4:21. Here God is speaking to Moses before Pharaoh ever had a chance to harden his own heart. What did God tell Moses? He said, “I am sure (he) will not let you go.” What does that mean? “The king of Egypt has a heart like a lump of clay. I know that is what his heart is like. I know this guy’s heart. It’s not the waxy type. It’s like a lump of clay.” Many expositors agree with this interpretation.23 In other words, when we see the event with Pharaoh, and God says, “I am going to harden Pharaoh’s heart,” we look at it as the occasion. Pharaoh’s heart is hardened. God is going to harden it. What does He mean when He says I’m going to harden that heart? He means, “I’m going to be the cause of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened, like the clay. We must always consider 1 Timothy 2:4 when we look at this account. God even wanted Pharaoh to be saved. In addition, we must always remember that God does not cause anyone to sin (James 1:13-15). God’s actions are reflected in Psalm 18:25-26, “With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful; With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless; 26 With the pure You will show Yourself pure; And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.”

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

This question is similar to the previous questions from self righteous Jews who were hassling the believers in Rome. If we look at this question more closely, we must ask, “Can anyone resist His will?” If you mean His counsel (boulhv) then the answer is, no one can. But if you mean who can resist His will (qevlhma)? Everyone does. Unbelievers resist and all are not saved. Believers resist and all are not sanctified (1 Th 4:3), even though that is His will. However, no one can prevent His counsel (boulhv) from happening. He is going to bring His counsel, (boulhv), to pass. That’s the word found in this passage. According to 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness but is longsuffering toward us, not counseling (boulovmeno") any to perish but all to have room for repentance” (My translation.). No one has resisted His counsel. He has determined that the plan of salvation would be accomplished, and it was. Paul doesn’t seem to answer the question directly, but I think the illustration in 9:20,21 really does.

20 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?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Paul was alluding to Isaiah 64:8, “But now, O LORD, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand.” He also directly quoted from Isaiah 29:16, “Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; For shall the thing made say of him who made it, ‘He did not make me’? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, ‘He has no understanding’?” But in addition to these passages, I believe he was looking more to the context of Jeremiah 18:1-11.

The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words. 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter? says the LORD. Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the LORD: Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

When the potter (God) tried to make the clay (Israel) into a vessel of honor, it marred in his hand. Would that be the potter’s (God’s) fault or the clay’s (Israel’s). Was the clay (Israel) resisting? When it was made into another vessel, one which didn’t have the honor that the first vessel would have had, was that the potter’s (God’s) fault? Absolutely not! Further, we see that repentance is the vital issue from God’s view. This is illustrated in 2 Timothy 2:20,21,

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.”

22 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.

When God desired “to make known what is possible with Him” (Weymouth), we find that He endures with the vessels of wrath which fitted themselves to destruction. The participle, fitted (kathrtismevna) can be either a middle or a passive. I have translated it as a middle considering the middle concept in the material of Acts 13:46,48,

Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had ~~been appointed~~ disposed themselves (h\san tetagmevnoi) to eternal life believed.

Acts 13:48 And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

It is hard to read Acts 13:48 as a verse for predestination in the context of the thirteenth chapter. Luke is describing the dramatic events at Antioch which center around the rejection of the gospel by the Jews (45) and the acceptance of it by the Gentiles (46-48), The point of the passage is to castigate the Jews for rejecting Christ and praise Gentiles for accepting Him. For Luke to slip a predestinarian commentary in on this scene would work against the mood he is trying to create. “Oh, that’s why the Jews rejected the gospel and the Gentiles accepted it. They were predestined to do so. It really wasn’t their fault.” That’s the kind of conclusion we could make from this kind of interpretation. But Luke is trying to fault the Jews. This would work against his purpose for writing about this event.

We read in Acts 13:48, “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” The phrase, “had been appointed,” is the Greek periphrastic pluperfect (h\san tetagmevnoi). This can be either middle or passive in meaning since perfect participles only have one form to express the passive and the middle (reflexive) meaning. I think it has a middle meaning here. When we see the word used in the aorist, which has different forms for the middle and passive, its normal use seems to be in the middle. Acts 28:23 looks as though it would be active when you read the New King James translation, but when we look at the Greek, it’s a middle. Also, in 1 Corinthians 16:15, the word is active in the Greek, but the meaning of the thought is definitely middle.

If we took the meaning of the clause in 1 Corinthians 16:15 and used it in Acts 13:48, we would have, “As many as had devoted themselves unto eternal life, believed.” This verb, tavssw, can have a number of meanings. Bauer’s second American edition and Moulton and Milligan give the following meanings: to classify, place or station something in a fixed spot, appoint to or establish in an office, to put someone in charge, assign, be classed among those possessing, devote, order, fix, determine, allot, pay, tell, arrange, or agree. I think dispose fits just fine in the ideas related by all these words.

What word fits in the context of Acts thirteen without forcing anything? We find from verse 46 that the Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. This is a reflexive middle idea. The statement we’re dealing with is the corresponding statement about the believers. They had devoted themselves, disposed themselves, arranged themselves, or classified themselves unto eternal life. Certainly, ordained, of the King James Version, is too strong. There is no reason to consider this a passive with the context of the previous middle (reflexive) concept of verse 46. Therefore, this portion should be translated, “As many as had disposed themselves to eternal life, believed.”

But, we don’t really need a middle or weak verb meaning here. We can accept the strong meaning of the New King James Version, “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Just as the Jews pushed the word of God away from themselves in verse 46, the Gentiles rejoice and are glad and believed, in verse 48. This could mean that the ones who believed were the ones who had been appointed (passive) to eternal life by their own continuance in the grace of God (43). This would account for the process implied by the pluperfect. They were not the ones who thrust eternal life from themselves. They were the ones who rejoiced in it. So, their own response to the gospel had the effect of ordaining them to eternal life.

Theologically speaking, this could show the divine-human nature of conversion. Left to himself, no one would seek God. But a positive response to the gospel sets powerful forces in motion. The Holy Spirit continues to draw the person to Himself. A chain reaction is set in motion. As the person continues to yield (in contrast to those like the Jews of Luke 7:30), the Holy Spirit draws more powerfully. The person could always back out at this point, but God is on the move on the person. Therefore, to see this as passive activity is no problem as long as it includes an active yielding. Thus, the interpretation of the entire passage yields a theologically middle concept. So, verse 48 could be passive because it views the belief as more than simply the person’s response. God is at work too. Now this theology has nothing to do with the passage itself. This passage fits this theology without sacrificing the context, grammar, or language. This respects both context and language. Context is always the most important thing to consider when interpreting a small portion of scripture.

23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.

The best commentary on this verse is Romans 8:28-30,

And we know that He works with those who love God, with those who are the called according to His purpose all things for good [My translation]. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The corporate body of Christ was fitted for glory. As we believe and become part of His body, we then become glorified. God not only works with Israel but with us too. He did not foreknow individuals. He foreknew and elected Christ, Israel, and the body of Christ. When we trust in Christ, the Holy Spirit identifies us with Christ. We then become part of His predestined purpose. Once we are saved we are predestined to be conformed to Christ’s image. It does not say we are predestined to be saved. This verse is excellent to show our security. It is predestined. Our salvation is not. Ephesians 1:4-14 is similar to this passage.

2 Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

The typical Calvinistic view of this verse was presented by one theologian in this way: “Probably the central passage on election to salvation is 2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . . Here it will be seen that election was from the beginning; that it was to salvation, and that it was through or by means of two things: sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”24 Is this the meaning of the passage? I believe strongly that this is not the meaning.

When we read the context of this passage, starting with the fourth verse of the first chapter through the twelfth verse of this chapter, we see that this was written in relation to the rapture and the tribulation. God inspired Paul to write this for comfort. God did not choose the members of the body of Christ to go through the tribulation, but to be saved from it. When it says, “because God from the beginning chose you for salvation,” it is referring to the rescue of the body of Christ in the rapture before the man of sin is revealed at the beginning of the tribulation (2 Th 2:3). We have access into the body of Christ “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Once we are in the body, we know we will be saved from the tribulation. Other parallel passages say they are “to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Th 1:10), and “God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Th 5:9). The wrath to come is the wrath of Luke 21:23, “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.” The people are Israel. It is their trouble, “Alas! For that day is great, so that none is like it; and it is the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer 30:7). Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 has nothing to do with our salvation from sin. It is referring to the rapture.

Jude 3b,4 I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some say it’s certain that it’s not the will of God for every man and woman to be saved. That’s because there are some “who long ago were marked out for this condemnation.” If there are any appointed to condemnation, then it cannot be His will that these same men should be saved. But, is this true? Who were these men in Jude 4, “who long ago were marked out for this condemnation”? Did God reprobate25 them before the foundation of the world? When we first look at Jude 4, the evidence seems clear that some were marked out “long ago for this condemnation.” But we must look at some of the words in this verse more closely.26

Were these men marked out before the foundation of the world? The phrase “long ago” is one word in the original. It can mean long ago, but it can also mean the relatively short time prior to a man’s forgiveness of his sins. Further, it can also be as short a time as the same day.27 In our text we can see that the time was somewhat short because Jude is referring to the men who Peter wrote about in 2 Peter.28 We can see they addressed their letters to a similar group of believers.29

What is “this condemnation” to which Jude is referring? Peter used the words, “swift destruction.” Since I believe Jude was writing to the same group Peter had written, they knew the verdict Peter gave. Jude was referring to Peter’s verdict. However, Lenski believed Jude explained what it was.30 It doesn’t matter whether Jude explained or Peter had written it. They still stood condemned for their actions. Their verdict [krivma] was marked down by Peter. Peter predicted that there would be false teachers of this sort. Anyone who committed this sin against God would suffer the same verdict. Therefore, I conclude that these men were not ordained to this punishment, but those who fit Peter’s prophecy know they are written down for “swift destruction.”

1 Bierderwolf, William E., How Can God Answer Prayer?, The Winona Publishing Co., Chicago, Ill., 1906.

2 Plato, Republic I, Loeb Classical Library, Book II, pp. 191-197.

3 Augustine. St. Augustine's Confessions I, Loeb Classical Library, Book VI, p. 285.

4 Warfield, B., Calvin and Augustine, Presb. & Reformed Pub. Co., 1956, p.22.

5 Latourette, Op. cit., pp. 95,96. Beaver, R. P. et. al., Eerdman's Handbook to the World's Religions, p. 113. Mani (216-276), a Persian prophet born in Mesopotamia, founded this sect. He was influenced by Zoroastrianism, ancient Babylonian beliefs, and Judaism, as well as Christianity. The Cologne Codex confirmed Arabic traditions that Mani was raised among a Jewish-Christian Baptist group. One of his writings, The Living Gospel, proclaimed Mani as the Paraclete foretold by Christ.

6 Oats, W.J., “On the Morals of the Catholic Church,” Basic Writings of Saint Augustine, New York: Random House Publishers, 1948, p. 327. My emphasis.

7 “Concerning the Nature of the Good,” Basic Writings of St. Augustine, New York: Random House, p. 440.

8 Eerdman’s Handbook to the World’s Religions, pp. 45-48. The Neo-Platonist, “Plotinus (about 205-269) made a journey to the East and returned with an arsenal of monistic ideas against the rapidly-growing Christian church in the Roman Empire. To claim the Greek philosophical heritage he included some ideas from Plato; his system of contemplation was identical with the yoga of Hindu monism. Plotinus failed to rally the Roman Empire against Jesus Christ, but he was rediscovered and introduced through the back door many centuries later.”

9 Plotinus, Ennead, The Loeb Classical Library, Book III, p. 305.

10 The City of God, Modern Library, Random House, Book XI, p. 364.

14 Robert Morey, Battle of the Gods, p. 50. Augustine wrote in, The City of God, Book XV, p. 515, “The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain.” All these dogmatic statements were driven by his philosophical presuppositions. Scripture contradicts many of his statements.

15 My modification of the New King James is based upon the Hebrew. Also confer the following translations: ASV, And I said after she had done all these things, she will return unto me; but she returned not: and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Darby, And I said, after she hath done all these things, she will return unto me; but she returned not. And her sister Judah, the treacherous, saw it. NASB, And I thought, “After she has done all these things, she will return to Me”; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. NIV, I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. NRSV, And I thought, “After she has done all this she will return to me”; but she did not return, and her false sister Judah saw it.

16 The Hebrew word is rm^a)w`, “and I said”. Some translate it, “and I thought”.

17 The Hebrew word is <j#N`Y]w~ way nachem, Niphal of nacham. It was translated repent 41 out of 108 times it was used in the AV. The modern translations use the word relent to soften the idea when it refers to God. But, relent has the idea of giving in. That gives me the idea that God gives up, as in a wrestling match. That sounds too demeaning to me.

18 My emphasis to show the translation of <j*n~ , nacham, repent, and God’s passion.

19 Look up repent in your Strong’s. You’ll be amazed how many times God repents.

20 oJ ajyeudhV" qeoV", Robertson, Word Pictures, “The non-lying God.”

21 In this sentence, I added this definite article [the] in front of all things because the Greek had taV pavnta all things with a definite article. When all things has a definite article it is not referring to a universal all things but the all things limited by the context.

22 Rotherham translated this passage in his The Emphasized Bible as follows: “For now might I have put forth my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence, and thou shouldst have secretly disappeared from the earth; but indeed for this very purpose have I let thee remain, for the purpose of showing thee my might, and that my name may be celebrated in all the earth.” Adam Clarke translated this, “But truly, on this very account, I have caused thee to subsist, that I may . . .” Forster and Marston said in God’s Strategy in Human History, “The context of Paul’s reference is, after all, that of God’s general dealings (‘raising up’ or ‘making to stand’), not of any specific act of God.

23 Rotherham translated this, “I will let his heart wax bold, and he will not suffer the people to go.” Further, he wrote, “That Hebrew grammars distinctly avow occasion or permission to be sometimes the sense of verbs which ordinarily signify cause can be verified by a reference to the Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius, . . . After stating that the verbal form . . . called piel denotes intensity and repetition, this grammar adds: ‘It often takes the modifications expressed by permit, . . . . Of this, a good example is found in the verb shalach, ‘to send.’ Notice its modification with reference to the raven and the dove in Gen. VIII. 7,8. Noah sent them ‘forth’; that is he simply ‘let them go.’ So with regard to hayah, ‘to live’; in piel, ‘to cause to live.’ Moses said that the midwives (literally) ‘caused the male children to live’ (Ex. 1.17) – plainly, ‘permitted them,’ ‘refrained from putting them to death.’” There are other examples of this usage. Cf. The Emphasized Bible, p. 919. The reference most similar to our text is Psalm 81:11,12. “But My people would not heed My voice, and Israel would have none of Me. 12 So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart, to walk in their own counsels.” Here, we see that the result of letting them have their own stubborn heart was to walk in their own counsels. Rotherham quotes Kalisch: “As the external, often accidental, occasion of an event is mostly more obvious, even to the reflecting mind, than its primary cause or its true (often hidden) originator, it has become a linguistic peculiarity in most ancient, especially the Semitic, languages, to use indiscriminately (the occasion) rather than (the cause) so that the phrase, ‘I shall harden the heart of Pharaoh’ means: ‘I know that I shall be the cause of Pharaoh’s obstinacy; my commands and wonders will be an occasion, an inducement to an increasing obduration of his heart.” Also consult Forster and Marston, God's Strategy in Human History, pp. 160-175.

24 Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 394.

25 Berkhoff, Systematic Theology, pp. 116, defines reprobation, as “. . . that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice. . . . As such it embodies a twofold purpose: (a) to pass by some in the bestowal of regenerating and saving grace; and (b) to assign them to dishonor and to the wrath of God for their sins. . . . The positive side of reprobation is so clearly taught in Scripture as the opposite of election that we cannot regard it as something purely negative, Rom. 9:21,22; Jude 4.”

26 I’m indebted to R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude, pp. 597-615, for many of the thoughts on this passage.

27 pavlai, Pilate, referring to Christ in Mark 15:44, “he asked him [the centurion] if He had been dead for some time, pavlai.” In 2 Pet 1:9, pavlai means old, “has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.”

28 2 Pet 2:1 “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in [pareisavxousin, future] destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” 2 Pet 3:3 “knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts.” Peter uses three futures to describe these men. Jude uses an aorist [pareisevdusan past tense].

29 2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

30 Lenski, loc. cit. “Jude’s words are, however, quite plain: Peter wrote down the verdict of these men in advance, and Jude says what it is, namely this: ‘godless, changing the grace of our God into excess and denying our absolute Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’ The supposition that a verdict names only the penalty is unwarranted. In modern courts the judge names the penalty, but the jury brings in the verdict of guilt. When there is only a judge he does both. Here the verdict states the guilt. Peter wrote down in advance both the guilt and the penalty, the latter as ‘perdition’ in 2:1,3 and as ‘the blackness of the darkness’ in 2:17.”