Greg Koukl (STR) Explains Predestination and Election

Predestination in Romans 8 and the Meaning of Foreknowledge

Back at you here. Let's go to Ken in Lake Hills, Texas. Ken, welcome to the show. Hello, Ken. Hi, how are you? Okay, buddy, how are you? I'm doing pretty well. Where is Lake Hills in Texas? Oh, okay. All righty.

Glad to have you on board. What's on your mind?

Well, I'd just like to have your understanding, know your understanding of the biblical doctrine.

Of predestination in a nutshell. Okay. Well, predestined means to destine something to happen before it happens. I mean, if you just look at the particular parts of the word, that's what predestined means.

It's to determine something is going to take place before it takes place. Now, it depends on what it is that the word predestined is being applied to in the Bible, because it is in the Bible. I'm looking at Romans 8 right now, 28, 29, 30.

Actually, it appears there a number of times. So, a lot depends on how the word is applied in the text. So, are you okay with that definition of predestination, the one I just offered as a starting point?

Okay. Now, here's what I'm looking at. I'm just, for example, we have to take individual texts in order to see what it means in the context. Okay. Verse 28, famous passage in Romans. We know that God causes all things to work together for good.

All right. Now, there's more, but I just want you to notice that this is a function of knowledge that is something we can be confident of, we can be certain of, and that God is acting in a certain way to accomplish an end.

God causes all things to work together for good for those who love God to those who are called according to his purpose. So, notice that God is the active agent here, he's causing something to happen to a group of people, those who love him, and that group of people have been called to a purpose.

Okay. Okay. So, then it keeps going, and this is important. We have to keep reading instead of just citing the passage because it does indicate what that purpose is. For those whom he foreknew that he knew beforehand, is the point.

Those who he knew beforehand, how could he know them beforehand? Okay. We can get to that in a minute. He also predestined, there's our word, to become conformed to the image of his son. Okay. That's the goal.

So, what he predestined those whom he foreknew, in this case, to, is to be like Jesus, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren, next verse, and those whom he predestined, that he predetermined something would happen, that would be that they would be like Jesus, he also called.

Oh, wait a minute, that called is in the verse up above. He said called according to his purpose. So, the calling is based on his predestination regarding them to be conformed to Christ. Are you following me so far?

Yes. Okay, good. And those whom he called, he also justified, and those whom he justified, he also glorified. So, in this passage, it seems what God is predestining is that the ones that he knew beforehand, in some sense, he called and destined beforehand to make them like his son, which is the glorification that is talked about in verse 30, and there's a sequence of events that take place.

Justification, they're called, they're justified, and they're glorified. So, there is one biblical characterization of what is in view with God predestining.

Does that make sense to you? Yes, the contradiction that I'm having problems with.

Okay, what would be the contradiction? You mean in this passage?

Well, no, not in the passage, but overall. No, no, that's all right. No, I basically laid out.

What the passage means, and it seems—would you say, before we go further, that this passage seems to speak in a fairly straightforward way? Yes, it does. Okay, good. And the concern—you mentioned contradiction, maybe it's just a concern,.

We'll see—is what? Well, if predestination is the biblical doctrine that God, in his sovereignty, chooses certain individuals to be saved, then that which basically said God's desire is that all would be saved and come to repentance.

So, if his desire is for all to be saved, then in his sovereignty, he could choose others to be saved as long as they made that choice for him. Does that make sense?

No, I understand the concern entirely. So, let's just say, okay, I'm with you on the First Timothy passage. So, what we have is a contradiction. Now what?

I think so. Now what?

How do I reconcile that? All right, so that's a good question, because what we want to do is try to reconcile it, okay? We want to try to reconcile it. Now, when I went through this passage in Romans, I went through quite a number of verses, I mean, they're all connected together, obviously, and we parsed it out in a very careful way, and then I asked you, is this clear?

And your answer was yes, and I think it is fair that it is clear, okay? So, now we have another passage, a sentence that seems to contradict, okay? Now we have to make a decision. Which apparent meaning has the most force to it, and which apparent meaning is the most flexible?

If we're trying to reconcile the two, okay, then have we misread the Romans 8 passage? Is there a different way that we could read Romans 8 that would make it sound like he did not predestine anything to happen at all, but he leaves it up to the individuals to decide?

Do you think there's any room there for that? I don't think so either. I don't think so either. So, maybe the difficulty is an assumption we're making about the Timothy passage, that he desires all men to be saved.

Okay, so let me, it seems like there are, if this is a fair way to put it, there are two desires that are conflicting here. There is a sovereign desire God has to save some, Romans 8, and he does that by predestining in the series that we described, and in another sense, he also desires to save all.

So, God desires to save some, God desires to save all. That would be the contradiction, right?

Yes, absolutely.

The apparent contradiction. Okay, so now the question is, is it possible for God to desire something in more than one way? Okay, so a contradiction is, strictly speaking, is A cannot be not A at the same time and in the same way.

Okay, so, and I've used this illustration before, if we said that Napoleon was a small man, and he was not a small man, that would appear to be a contradiction. But if we meant that he was small in stature, but he was not small in influence, then that wouldn't be a contradiction, correct?

Correct.

Okay, so if it turns out that the senses of God wanting are not the same in each case, then there wouldn't be a contradiction. I agree with you, by the way, that the Romans passage seems very, very straightforward, and if we are going to say that what God ultimately desires with regards to salvation is that all people be saved, and we don't qualify it at all, then what we have to do is we've got to find some different way to read Romans 8, or else we've got a contradiction.

And it seems really hard to unravel Romans 8 in any other way than what it obviously seems to say, because you've got about six verses there that is hammering away at the same concept, okay? So I want to draw your attention to 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, and here's what it says, and this is God's will, even your sanctification, that you abstain from sexual immorality.

So God wills that people abstain from sexual immorality, okay? Now, can people violate that will? Violate God's will, yes. Yes, of course. They can disobey. So there is a sense of God's will that can be disobeyed, and there is a sense of God's will—well, like Daniel says, he does all things according to his will on heaven and on the earth, okay?

Or James will say, if God will will it, I will go to this city or that city, okay? So there's a sense in which the will of God can be spoken of in an inviolable, sovereign sense, and the will of God can also be in a violable—in other words, okay?

When we read Romans 8, does this give the impression that this is just something that might happen, or is this something that God, by his sovereign purposes, is securing? The predestination passage I read.

The latter. I agree. I think it's hard to read it any other way, but when we read 1 Timothy, it says, God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. Is that how it puts it? For there's one God and one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus.

Do you think, is that something where God is expressing his sovereign will? He sovereignly desires all men to be saved. Or is it maybe reflecting his moral will? A will that he has that could be violated.

I agree, and I'll tell you why. Because if it was his sovereign will that all men be saved, guess what? All men would be saved. All people would be saved. Here it says that all aren't saved, only those whom he foreknew and called for the purpose of ultimately glorifying them, and he is responsible for that being done.

That's what it means when he says he predestined it. In the 1 Timothy passage, he's expressing something he wants, but men could disregard it, can violate it, just like sexual immorality. So I think the answer, the way to resolve the apparent contradiction, is to say that the notion of God's will in each case is different, just like Napoleon being small in stature but not small in influence.

The Romans 8 passage is talking about God's sovereign will that he will guarantee to accomplish. That's the predestination part. But in the 1 Timothy passage, it's talking about God's desires that can be violated and thwarted, or else everyone would be saved, which we know they're not.

So it must be his moral will that's in view there. So there is no contradiction then when we see the concepts being used differently. Here's the way I'd combine them. God morally desires everyone to turn to him, but in his sovereign sense, he is going to rescue some that he guarantees are going to be a bride.

Well, it doesn't talk about the bride for Christ, sure, but that's what it amounts to. We'll just say he will guarantee we'll be made like Christ eventually, because he is going to guarantee that. Does that make sense?

Yes. Okay, so understood in that sense, there's no conflict, and that's what we're after. One way of looking at this, treating Romans as the sovereign will and 1 Timothy as his moral will, removes the contradiction and also maintains the integrity, that moves the apparent contradiction, and maintains the integrity of the passages.

But if you did it the other way, you try to have the defining passage be the 1 Timothy passage. I don't know what you're going to do with the Romans passage without doing radical violence to it. In a situation like this, and this is the way I approach these, Ken, as I try to find the solution that makes the best sense of both passages together without doing severe violence to either one, or doing the least amount of apparent violence.

And the solution I offered you, I think, accomplishes that really well. It does no violence. It does no violence to the Romans passage,.

Does no violence to the Timothy passage. Just a follow-up. Sure. So how does the Great Commission fit into this? Four nos. He's chosen those who will be saved.

Okay. The Great Commission, do you remember exactly how it's worded?

No, I have to look it up. Okay. It says,.

Go unto all the world and make disciples, baptizing, teaching, etc. All that I've commanded you. Okay. So the Great Commission is a disciple-making commission. So there's no contradiction between the Great Commission and God's sovereign act of predestining some people to salvation.

Those that are predestined to salvation, we are to make disciples out of them, so there's no conflict. But I think the question maybe could be put, then what is the point of evangelizing? And that's probably what you're getting at.

Yes. Okay. So here's a very important procedural point, all right? And a lot of people don't see this, or they don't adhere to it. Okay. We have to let the passage that teaches here in Romans what it teaches be the main guide.

Okay. It does raise other questions, but what we can't do, and I'm not saying you're doing this, but boy, have I seen a lot of people do this. They say, well, then what's the value? What's the point of evangelism if that's true?

Therefore, that verse doesn't mean that. Well, wait a minute. The verse does mean that. We just went through it step by step by step by step, and because we have a concern that is a legitimate concern and a question that maybe we can't answer.

I think we can, but maybe let's say we can't. It doesn't change the force of Romans 8 or any of the other passages, and I have seen this time and time again. It really frustrates me, Ken, the what about, what about, what about, what about, what about.

And if I can't answer all the what abouts, then the people who raise the what about, and again, I'm not saying you're doing this, but the people who raise the what about feel completely justified in ignoring the passage.

Wait a minute. You have to start with the teaching of the text. Once the teaching of the text is in place and reasonably justified by the text, then we ask the what abouts. We say, well, how does this fit in?

And the answer is that even though there is a sovereign purpose of God that he has established and will accomplish, there are still actions we must take for that purpose to be fulfilled, okay? And I can give you a bunch of examples, okay?

So was the predestined plan of God to have Jesus go to the cross and to pay for the sins of the world?

Yes.

Yes, absolutely. However, when Jesus was an infant and King Herod was going to try to kill him, what did the angel tell Joseph to do?

To take the child to Egypt.

To go to Egypt. Why? To protect the child. Wait a minute. He can't hurt the child. The child is predestined by God to go to the cross 33 years later. You know, let the soldiers come in and take every whack they want.

They can't hurt the child. God has predestined him. Of course, that wasn't the way God worked. God said, take the child. So there is this close interplay between all of these means and things that we do, even though there's a plan of God that God has given himself to accomplish.

And in the text, there's not the slightest bit of contradiction hinted at in that passage. Jesus also—there were people who picked up stones to stone him in his ministry, and he just passed through. He just disappeared or went somewhere.

They didn't do it. Why? Because his time wasn't—why don't you go up to Jerusalem? No, it's dangerous to go to Jerusalem. So I'm going to stay here in Galilee, and then I'm going to go up in my own good time.

Okay? Why didn't he just say, hey, I'm going up. Nobody can hurt me. It's not my time yet. No, all of these things are involved. And I've actually collected a whole bunch of circumstances in the Bible where these things are the case.

In the Old Testament, it's filled with them. So you have battles. I'm in 2 Chronicles right now. So, okay, the Lord's going to give these into your hand. Go up and form an ambush. Wait a minute. Why do I need to form an ambush?

Aren't you going to kill these guys? You're going to give them into my hand. Why do I have to form an ambush? Because that's the means God ordained to accomplish the end he also ordained. And again, all through the Bible, we see these things.

Okay? And that's the mystery between the human action that God has ordained to accomplish the sovereign ends that God has also ordained. So when it comes to evangelism, we do evangelism, because that's part of the process.

Okay. All right? I'm good with that. Thank you so much. I'm so glad to hear that. Thank you, Ken. All right, you have a great day. Okay, you too, buddy. I appreciate the call. Bye-bye now. Bye-bye. All right, so there you go.

That's great. Ken was really a great call, and I'm glad I got to do this. Partly because I care about this issue, not just the theological thing, but the methodology of it. I haven't eaten yet today, so Amy's laughing at me.

Are you laughing at me? No, you're laughing. What, did Kyle just burp too? Yeah, he did it, but he didn't do it on the air. I'm the one who sounds like an idiot. All right, so because it's not just the theological thing that concerns me, it's the methodology, and I have confronted this—encountered this, not confronted—encountered it so much.

The what about, what about, what about. Well, what about this? Well, what about that? Well, what about evangelism and sovereignty of God? What about, you know, and what about God desires all to be saved?

Okay, well, look it. There's two passages. One's in 1 Timothy, the other one's in 2 Peter, and actually in 2 Peter, I think something else is going on there, because I think he's talking about the church.

He's waiting for the church to come in, you know, and God is not slow about his promise, but he is long-suffering, not wishing that any should perish, but all that come to repentance. By the way, something's missing there.

Not willing that any—what? There's an object missing. Any what perish, and all what come to repentance? Well, when you look at the entire chapter, the chapter, the whole book, the whole book is being addressed to believers, and he's not just saying any human being, although that's what we often will subconsciously put, but all human beings, we subconsciously put there, but he's talking about any of the ones he's talking to, members of the church.

And so, by the way, it must be that too, or else you have a ridiculous circumstance. Peter is talking about the claim that the second coming has tarried. Where is he? You said he's coming. He hasn't come yet, so he's never going to come.

And then Peter says, God is not slow according to his promise, as some count slowness, but long-suffering, not wishing that any something should perish, but all something should come to repentance. If he means not wishing, willing that any human would perish, but all humans would come to repentance, Jesus will never return.

If he's waiting for everyone to become Christian, he's never going to return, because everyone's not going to become Christian. It must be a limited group. He's waiting for some group to all come in to the fold, and then he'll return.

He's waiting on those members that are chosen for the church, but haven't come into the church yet, because the entire book he's talking to the church. He's talking to believers, all you. Every single reference is to those people.

I charted every proverb and proverb pronoun in there. But in any event, so that to me is a little different case. There he's talking about believers and the bride of Christ coming in in second Peter, but it's not so obvious in first Timothy.

Wishing all to come in. Well, he does want all. He doesn't want anybody to sin. He wants all to be forgiven after a fashion, in a sense. But if that means in the ultimate sense, in his sovereign sense, then his sovereign purposes will be accomplished, and everyone will become a Christian, and universalism will be the fact of the matter.

But we know that's not the case. We got Revelations 20. Lots of people don't make it, and there's no second chance. It's ordained for man to die once, and then come the judgment. So now what? So it can't mean that.

It must be making a reference to God's desires, God's will, if you will, that is in a different category than God's desires of a sovereign sort. So God has desires that cannot be thwarted, and God has desires that can be thwarted.

The first would be, we could call that his sovereign purposes. The second, we can call that his moral designs. The Ten Commandments are the will of God for us to obey, but we can thwart that. It's our job to fulfill his moral will, and guess what?

We don't. I mentioned 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, and this is the will of God. Even your sanctification, i .e., for example, part of your sanctification that you abstain from sexual immorality. And God is the judge.

I mean, I don't have it right in front of me. I'm just going kind of from memory, because I've gone over that passage so many times. Go everywhere, preach Christ's Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, then it's the first and second Thessalonians.

So 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, not lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God, and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in this manner, because the Lord is the avenger and all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.

By the way, I actually haven't read this whole passage in quite a while. This is a solemn warning. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, do not be deceived. For no one who does the following things, and there's three sexual things there, including fornication, and I think adultery, and homosexuality, you're not going to inherit the kingdom of God.

You're living like this, you're living like hell, you're probably going to go there. That's kind of what he's saying. And strong here in 1 Thess 4, don't live a sexually sinful life. God's watching. But guess what?

People do live a sexually sinful life. It says it's God's will. This is what God wants. But this is a kind of wanting by God that can be disobeyed, because the fulfillment of this desire of God is not up to God, it's up to us.

That's on us. But there are other things that are the design of God that are not up to us. They are up to God. Got a great example of that. And this has to do with the word foreknowledge, and I just got a couple minutes here, but I don't want you to miss this, because the word foreknowledge came up in the Romans 8 passage too.

Those whom he foreknew. That is not omniscience. God is not knowing that we're going to decide something. It doesn't say those whose decisions he knew beforehand. He knew the people beforehand. Therefore, foreknowledge, in the sense that's used there, is a synonym for election.

Those whom he foreknew, he predestined. I elected, and so therefore I established this end to be accomplished. And I established that beforehand. And here in 1 Peter, according to those who are chosen, verse 1, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with his blood.

How did he get sprinkled with his blood? By believing in him. So they're choosing, according to the foreknowledge, not omniscience, but foreknowledge of God, to be sprinkled with his blood by believing in him.

That's the only way you get sprinkled with his blood. I'm adding that, but that's built in. Okay. Now, wait a minute, you're playing games with foreknowledge there. No, I'm not. Look across the page. Same chapter, verse 19 and 20, he talks about that we were redeemed with the precious blood of a lamb, unblemished, spotless, the blood of Christ.

For he, watch this, was foreknown before the foundation of the world. But now he's appeared in these last times for the sake of view. So Jesus was foreknown, and the plan of him, does that mean that God just knew that Jesus was going to die?

No, God planned it. It was a plan he put in place. So foreknowledge here is not omniscience. It isn't knowing in advance. It's a synonym for God's sovereign plan. According to the foreknowledge of God, we were chosen, verse 1 and 2, according to the foreknowledge of God, Jesus was chosen to sacrifice himself.

That is God's plan, his sovereign purposes in both cases that he fulfills, not us. Moral will, we fulfill. Sovereign will, he fulfills. Predestination, foreknowledge, chosenness, all part of sovereign will.

There it is in the text. It strikes me as pretty straightforward. Okay, that's good for now. Something to think about. Greg Cokel here at Stand to Reason for Stand to Reason. Give them heaven. Bye-bye.