It has been said that there are two ways in which man formulates his
theology. Either he embraces a man-centered theology (anthropocentric), or
he holds to a God-centered theology (theocentric). If one wants to remain
consistent with the truth taught in the Bible, that is, what God reveals to
his creatures concerning himself, though it may come as a shock, one has no
alternative but to choose a God-centered theology. For God declares that all
things are done for His purpose and His glory. So it must follow that the
source by which we find this truth will remain consistent with its own
affirmation. However many have distorted their theology so as to center the
purposes of God around man; as if man were the absolute object of God's
love. This inconsistent position facilitates improper worship and inhibits
the due veneration that belongs to Him and Him alone. I have come to
recognize, however, that many neither have the time nor the patience to
study tedious disciplines in theology which exuberate such a dichotomous
nature to which many have deemed a topic like this to be of secondary
importance. Therefore I have chosen to write my final paper on this topic to
show the importance and impact it has on the believer, namely, proper
humility and adoration. This paper, however, will serve only as a mere
introduction and will hopefully provide some thought provoking insight to
this controversial issue.

"The question which of these systems is true is not to be decided by
ascertaining which is the more agreeable to our feelings or the more
plausible to our understanding, but which is consistent with the
doctrines of the Bible and the facts of experience." [1]

Subsequent to the fall of man, God has chosen to reveal himself to his
creatures in such a way that it can not be accepted by the creature unless
God has changed his heart of the creature because the Gospel remains foolish
to him unless he possesses the Spirit of God.[2] For by nature man cannot
even confess that Jesus is Lord but by the Spirit of God, nor is he able to
hear Christ's words that he may have life.[3] If we assume now that a man
does possess the Spirit of God and has been born from above, the man then
enters into a lifelong quarrel with the old man and the new man?. The
Apostle Paul speaks of this concept as the struggle between the flesh and
the Spirit; for the two run contrary to each other and remain at war until
death. He articulates the struggle that goes on inside a believer that one
could hardly deny; namely, "...but what I hate, that I do."[4] So it is no
wonder that the man of faith who endeavors to "study to show himself
approved" will encounter some extremely difficult concepts in the Bible that
run contrary to his carnal thinking. The resistance that comes from knowing
that God is sovereign over all things, even the free choices of man, in my
opinion, demonstrates the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit rather
adequately. Now that the position is taken that there are remnants of the
natural man still alive and well in the heart of the believer, it follows
that the opposition to the Reformed doctrine of Predestination is warranted.

Let me start off by identifying the three main categories that, for
the most part, all Christians would have to place themselves in. The first is
called Pelagianism. This belief system was has its roots in the fifth
century where a British monk named Pelagius was engaged in a vicious debate
with the Bishop of Hippo, Aurelius Augustine. The conflict began when
Pelagius was reading a famous prayer penned by Augustine that said, "Give
what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt." This is a simple
utterance of a confession on behalf of Augustine that merely portrayed his
reliance on God for everything, including his righteous deeds. Nevertheless,
Pelagius was not concerned with the second part of the prayer (for God has
the sovereign authority to command whatever he desires); rather his
disagreement came from first part. "He [Pelagius] could not conceive that
the power to obey the commandment must come from the same source as the
commandment itself." [5] This aroused Pelagius to contention against the
notion that man was unable to obey the command of God in and of himself.
Consequently, Pelagius then raised this question: Is it necessary to have
the grace of God in order to obey His commands? Which led him to believe
that if God commanded his creatures to fulfill certain commands, then it
must follow that man is able to comply, even be holy and righteous. Could
God actually command men to perform acts that they were unable to perform?
Why then does He still find fault and blame us [for sinning]? For who can
resist and withstand His will?[6]

The second and most widely accepted point of view in our day is called
Semi-Pelagianism, also known as Arminianism. Though many would not consider
themselves Arminian, they remain this way nonetheless. This is a less
militant view of Pelagianism and adheres to a more biblical stance than that
held by Pelagians. Unlike Pelagius, however, he affirmed that the Grace of
God was necessary for the salvation of men, but man was able to reject the
Gospel call. He says, "In the very commencement of his conversion, man
conducts himself in a purely passive manner; that is, though, by a vital
act, that is, by feeling [sensu], he has a perception of grace which calls
him, yet he can do no other than receive it and feel it. But, when he feels
grace affecting or inclining his mind and heart, he freely assents to it, so
that he is able at the same time to with-hold his assent."[7] In other
words, Arminius presumed that there one thing left up to man in his fallen
state in order to achieve salvation, namely, to accept God's grace found in
the sacrifice of Jesus. This we will see, in my opinion, is not what the
Bible teaches.

The third point of view according to salvation is the Augustinian
view. This perspective is taken from the legendary Aurelius Augustine of
Hippo. With a deep and profound knowledge of the Scriptures, Augustine
concluded that man in his fallen state is completely incapable of even
making the choice to accept Gods grace, but God altogether makes the
election of who to distribute His grace to. With respect to the condition of
man after the fall of Adam, he often pointed to Romans 3:10-12 "There is
none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none
who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become
unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one". Hyperbole, I think
not. Stated another way, man does not posses the ability, nor have the
natural proclivity toward God in any respect whatsoever. This verse is the
foundation to the Biblical truth that will be considered in this essay.

I want to take the time to show Scriptural proof that will highlight
and exemplify the foundation for the doctrine of Predestination. First I
want to note that the word Predestination is a biblical word offered in
several epistles by the Apostle Paul. The book of John also will provide us
with the words of Jesus on the matter of free will; which will present the
necessary revelation. Also Paul writes quite extensively in the 9th chapter
of the book of Romans that will serves as the culmination for this study.

We find the Apostle Paul stating in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 1 that
"while we were dead in our sins, He made us alive". Then in verse 5 repeats
the same thing by saying "while we were dead in trespasses, He made us
alive". I don't think the apostle was referring to anything done on the
person's part, that is, according to the flesh, that is, by free and
autonomous choice on behalf of the sinner. Then Paul goes on to state an
incredibly popular verse, 2:8 "For by Grace you have been saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God, not of works, lest
anyone should boast". The Arminian might interpret the Apostle Paul by
saying "For by faith you have been saved, through grace, and this is
partially on your behalf (only one percent according to a leading
evangelist) but the glory is God's because he initiated it". Dr. Robert
Reymond has adequately stated
that:

Man contributes nothing that is ultimately determinative of his
salvation-not good works (Eph. 2:8-; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5) because he has
none that will commend him savingly to God's favor (Isa. 64:6; Rom.3:10-18,
23), not faith (Acts 11:18; 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; Phil. 1:29) because he has
a mind that 'does not subject itself to the law of God [this is depravity],
neither is he able to do so [this is inability]' (Rom. 8:7; 1st Cor. 2:14),
not the exercise of will (John 1:12-13; Rom. 9:16) because his unregenerate
will is in bondage to sin (Rom. 6:17, 19, 20; 7:14-25) and is dead toward
God. (Eph. 2:1)[8]

Now I would like to draw your attention to the 6th chapter of the book
of John where Jesus is giving a discourse to some of the people of that day
on one of the popular seven I am's; i.e. The bread of heaven. In verse 65 we
have the Lord stating "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to
Me unless it has been given to him by the Father". The focus here is the
word can. In other words, Jesus says that no man possesses the ability, nor
has the authority in and of himself to come to Him unless something is
administered (given) to him to do so. Here we have the source of why this
doctrine even exists. Not only this, but this is a repetition of 44th verse.
There he says, "No one who can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me
draws him". The Greek verb that is translated draw is the word helko, which
literally means, to draw by inward power or to pull in[9]. Interestingly
enough we have that verb used on behalf of Jesus referring to one coming to
Him, namely, the preference is of the One drawing. It has been noted that
the Fathers drawing is with respect to the outward call of the Gospel. That
is, the Father draws everyone equally and shows no partiality. However this
notion is falsified by the second half of the verse. Jesus states that "No
one can come to Me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up on
the last day." Notice that the same people who are drawn are the same who
are raised up. Unless we are universalits, we must conclude that who the
Father draws He also raises. Dr. James White observes, "The identity of
those raised on the last day to eternal life is absolutely co-extensive with
the identity of those who are drawn. If a person is drawn, he will also be
raised up to eternal life. Obviously, then, it cannot be asserted that
Christ, in this context, is saying that the Father is drawing every single
individual human being."[10]

Now we should ask ourselves, why would Jesus even make this statement
at all? Why would He feel that need to mention this; or why would this be a
factor in which he is responding to the Jews about He Himself being The True
Bread that comes from heaven? What purpose should the Holy Spirit have in
revealing such a truth to his creatures? These are quite the good questions.
Let's look at it this way: Certain truths are evident by particular reports
made throughout the entire Bible which illustrate the truths behind the
truth, i.e. God's purpose and intention in the affair; similarly to the
matter of Joseph and his brother's[11]. In the same manner, we find Jesus
making frequent statements in regard to principles to reveal the truth about
ambiguous subjects, such as this one. If our Lord never made this
proclamation, it would be safe to suppose that it would be up to the person
to make the choice to come and eat of "The Bread of Life". But evidently
this is not so, Jesus is clearly showing that God's grace is> not given to
all, lest it not be considered grace. John Calvin has put it this way, "If
this grace were bestowed on all without exception, it would have been
unseasonable and inappropriate to have mentioned it in this passage; for we
must understand that it was Christ's design to show that not many believe
the Gospel, because faith proceeds only from the secret revelation of the
Spirit"[12]. If it is God who gives people to Christ, then where can we
boast? It is true, however, that God allows us to reap and sow what He has
ordained and facilitated. The great Charles Spurgeon has said "...We
certainly find the Lord to be all in all, but we find no hint that the use
of means must therefore be dispensed with. The Lord's supreme majesty and
power are seen all the more gloriously because He works by means. He is so
great that He is not afraid to put honor on the instruments He employs, by
speaking of them in high terms and imputing to them great influence."[13] He
has chosen us to participate in His redemptive plan, yet never to take away
the glory that is due to Him and Him alone.

During this discourse Jesus even affirms this by saying, that the
flesh profits nothing. If we take seriously what Jesus says about the flesh
profiting nothing, and then add to the Semi-Pelagius view, we have a serious
contradiction. If we, in our flesh, have the ability to make our own choice
concerning our own salvation, that is, to come to Jesus, then not only does
the flesh profit something, but in accordance to our salvation, the flesh
profits everything! This examination of the words of Jesus would be in favor
for Augustine's view. It is one thing to disagree with the forefathers of
our faith, them being Calvin and company, but far be it from us to oppose
the Words of Jesus.

If we examine the idea of free will, we may have a better
understanding of what Jesus and others really mean. Free will is defined as
the ability to make free choices (Edwards). No one will dispute that.
However there is a difference in free will and liberty. Before the fall of
man, Augustine defines us as having liberty and free will. After the fall of
man, man retained his free will, yet lost his liberty, that is he is still
able to make decisions. Originally, we were created with the ability to
choose good and evil. Though the Bible teaches that after the fall of Adam,
man did indeed lose something; this is defined as the loss moral ability. It
is written that in Romans 3 that no one seeks after God. And elsewhere in
Romans 8:7 that the mind set on the flesh (those who do not possess the
Spirit of God, not those acting according to the sinful nature) is hostile
toward God, for it cannot subject itself toward God. And I ask, how then can
we accept God if we, in our flesh, are hostile toward Him? Likewise,
Augustine explained that man doesn't have the ability to make spontaneous
decisions; that is without any prior inclination or disposition, which is a
logical impossibility, it is an effect without an cause. We must ask
ourselves, if we make choices apart from any predisposition, can we even
make a choice at all. Likewise, it is thought that our wills are innately
neutral and we have the ability to choose between good and evil. But, as
Augustine emphasized, the only time when we were truly free to do this was
before the fall, because then and only then we were not truly inclined
toward the parasite (evil), but the host of that evil (good). This idea of
neutrality is falsified because the Bible does teach us that we are inclined
toward the other, which is evil. It even goes as far as saying that we are
dead in sin and willing slaves to sin. We are described as those who love
the darkness. The end result is this: that all choices are made with some
prior inclination even down to the minutest decision. If I choose a larger
cup of coffee in the morning, I am doing so with a moral implication
involved in it. If I chose to sit in the front of the movies, I am doing to
that I might see the movie better, so that I get more for what I paid for,
so that I may feel better about how I spent my money, which in turn results
in a moral predisposition in the decision making. Consequently, we are not
able to make decisions apart from our morale. Equally, we must always make a
decision based on the condition of our heart. The Bible teaches that God is
not concerned with our outward actions; He is concerned at what the motive
was during that action. So if we do not even have a motive in that which we
choose, then how can God hold us accountable for making a choice with no
motive at all? So in the end, it is clearer of what Jesus is saying. He
makes the proclamation that man is dead in His sins and is powerless to
accept Him unless the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart to then give us the
motive of wanting to please God, not in our flesh (Adams original sin).

Let's move over to the most dynamic example of Predestination which
should, in my opinion, put an end to all criticism. The book of Romans is
the greatest theological work that will ever be produced. It has influenced
the greatest minds in the history of Christendom. To get a better
understanding of the Bible, one only has to look as far as the book of
Romans. If we examine the content in this book, we will gain a profound
understanding of what God has been trying to tell us since Moses penned the
book of Genesis. The 9th chapter will be the focus of our attention. Verse
10-16 says, "And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even
by our father Isaac for the children being not yet born, neither having done
anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might
stand, not of works, but of him that calls), it was said unto her, The elder
shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I
hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid. For he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it is not of him
that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that hath mercy". First, we
must recognize that the flesh is incapable of hearing Gods wisdom without
being instantly disturbed by numerous questions, and without demanding a
healthier explanation. Therefore we find that the Apostle whenever he treats
of some elevated topic of ambiguity always anticipating the skeptics'
refutation; for when men hear anything of what Scripture teaches respecting
predestination, he always become uncomfortable. Now, we know that Paul was
unfolding the election of Israel and where they are in light of the Gospel,
but he also consciously gives us the greatest illustration of God's doctrine
predestination.

I want to now draw your attention to verse 11. Notice the added
parentheses; this is to say that Paul was adding something to draw our
attention to. Clearly he is writing on the selection of two individuals. Not
only that, but the individuals were brothers, and to make an even clearer
distinction, they were twins. This clears the air for any idea of partiality
concerning race, sex, geographical position, and so on. Paul is making
crystal clear that God made a selection according to nothing more than His
good pleasure. Likewise he mentions more than once that it had nothing to do
with works, which eliminates the idea of God foreseeing their efforts. No,
but Paul does loquently culminate this discourse by quoting Exodus 33:19
saying "For he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I have compassion", and goes on to say that "So
then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that
shows mercy" as highlighted. Therefore, how is it then that anyone could
conceive of any proposal other than of the one that the Apostle Paul makes
so apparent. If we somehow conclude that God is not fair in this event, then
we are no longer thinking about Grace any longer. If it were unjust to elect
some to show compassion on and the other leave to themselves to perish in
their own sinfulness, then that would mean that God would be unjust. But,
non-justice is not injustice. To say that God were obligated to show mercy
to all is to not recognize the objective of mercy altogether. It is clear
that God has chosen to show His love and mercy on who He has decided in the
council of His sovereign will. I quote James Montgomery Boice, "Let us
assume the opposite: Gods love is regulated by something other than his
sovereignty. In that case God would be regulated by this other thing
(whatever it is) and would thus be brought under its power. That is
impossible if he is still to be God. In Scripture no cause for Gods love
other than his electing will is ever given. It is always that 'he destined
us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of
his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us
in the Beloved'"[14]. This is what the Apostle Paul was saying when he said
in Romans 11:5-6, "So too at the present time there is a remnant (a small
believing minority), selected (chosen) by grace (by God's unmerited favor
and graciousness). But if it is by grace (His unmerited favor and
graciousness), it is no longer conditioned on works or anything men have
done. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace [it would be
meaningless].?"[15]

God is a just God, and if He were to declare His justice on all men,
that would be perfectly fine in His righteousness. But He shows mercy, and
in that, He shows it on whom He decides to show it. For it is written in
Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times
things which have not been done: Saying, 'My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure". I would like to add that the
same arguments I receive every time I approach this issue with another
brother, are the same ones the apostle Paul distinguishes and rebuttals is
scripture. For in the conclusion of this teaching he says "...who are you, O
man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder,
"Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a
right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use
and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His
wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of
wrath prepared for destruction?" (Romans 9:20-22).

I want to say this in conclusion that the Bible always and forever
will speak for itself; it is God's word that will eternally stand[16]. We
must look through the eyes of the Lord if we are to be able to see ourselves
as we really are. There always has been and always will be those who would
rather disagree with what the Bible has said on certain issues than to
neglect their feelings and traditions and acquiesce to its authority. They
cry, "What reason is there to do anything if God has already foreordained
all things that happen?" My response would be, if you don't respect God
enough to submit to his Sovereignty and accept His Authority, that is, to do
all for His good pleasure, and if you need some reward to serve the King of
Kings who has eternally saved your soul,you know nothing of His love, mercy,
and justice. For it is by this doctrine can we truly know who is born of
God, because only the one who is born from above can accept a doctrine that
offend the mind and insults the flesh.

Lastly, with respect to R. C. Sproul's assertion to the Pelagian
Captivity of the Church, I agree with A. A. Hodge when he said, this "new
theology, asserting the narrowness of the old, is discarding the
foreordination of Jehovah as a worn-out figment of the schools, discredited
by the advanced culture of today. This is not the first time that the owls,
mistaking the shadow of a passing eclipse for their native night, have
prematurely hooted at the eagles, convinced that what is invisible to them
cannot possibly exist."[17]

_____
[1] Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, Hendricks Publishing; Reprint 2001.
vol. 2. p. 356.

[2] John 3:3, 1st Cor. 2:14.

[3] 1st Cor. 12:3, John 8:43.

[4] Gal. 5:17, Rom. 7:15.

[5]Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. 1997. History of the Christian church. Logos
Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA.

[6]The amplified Bible, containing the amplified Old Testament and the
amplified New Testament. 1987 . The Lockman Foundation: La Habra, CA.

[7] The Works of James Arminius: The London Edition, 2:721 (17.17)

[8] Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith,
(Thomas Nelson: 1998), p. 380.

[9] TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Authorized Version,
Ephesians Four Group. Greek Dictionary (electronic ed.).

[10] White, James R., The Potter's Freedom, (Calvary Press Publishing:
2000), p. 160.

[11] Genesis 50:20

[12] John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John in The Comprehensive John
Calvin Collection (Ages Digital Library, 1998).

[13] Spurgeon, C. H., The Soulwinner, (Whitaker House: 1995), p. 23.

[14] Boice, James Montgomery, Foundations of the Christian Faith, (Inter
Varsity Press: revised 1986), p. 337.

[15]The amplified Bible, containing the amplified Old Testament and the
amplified New Testament. 1987 . The Lockman Foundation: La Habra, CA.

[16] Matthew 24:35.

[17] Hodge, A. A., Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, p. 158.