and do thank thee so much for thy sovereign election in the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, how great, how good thou art to unworthy sinners such as we. For thy sovereign grace has stopped us and conquered us, and we owe all praise and honor to thee alone. And Lord, as we take up now the subject of thy decrees, we ask that we may receive a fresh and a deeper insight into them than we ever have received before, and that we may conclude these lectures with a sense of awe that thou art a sovereign decreeing God, and that it may be, Lord, that we may desire to promote in a judicious way, thy sovereign decree, thy decreed of theology to our congregations, to stir up thy people, to comfort them, that they are safe in the hands of their Savior, and that they owe to him all that they have received. And thus, Lord, may it stir up gratitude as well to surrender all back to him. Be with us now in these last two weeks of lectures. Help us, Lord, to cover the material that needs to be covered and to do it in a way that reaches both mind and soul. We pray for Kara and Daryl and their decision to go to Cambodia. We ask, Lord, that thou wouldst use them mightily there and that thou wouldst prosper their way. Make all things well. Guide and bless us, we pray, in Jesus' name, amen. Okay, we approach then entirely, or not entirely, but a somewhat new section now, the divine decree, where we're beginning to speak not so much about the way that God possesses his being from all eternity within himself in terms of his self-sufficiency, and his inner Trinitarian being, but now we're beginning to look at how that inner being begins to move beyond God Himself, so that there might be other than God. Now, it is clear in general terms that the Scripture roots all that is outside of the being and life of God Himself back in God himself. And so we need to understand that all that happens outside of God is rooted in what we are calling here the divine decree. So whenever we move our theology in any direction, we must always keep in the background its foundation, its starting point. rooted in what we hope to present as a healthy thing, a biblical, decretal theology. So we will argue that anything that is considered remotely biblical in theology will always have in context what I just read to you from Hebrews, or rather Ephesians 1.11, that he does all things after the counsel of his own will. Now, the Scriptures not only affirm that, but so does our confessional heritage. For example, the Westminster Divines say that God ordains whatever comes to pass. In fact, No one has ever put together a better basic definition for God's decree than that you can find in Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, Section 1, where we read this simple definition. God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of His will, freely and unchangeably, ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Now in this definition, the decrees of God are spoken of as His ordination. They refer to His eternal determination, plan, purpose. And that plan then is established prior to time, beyond time, beyond all that is temporal. Now, the decree of God, therefore, can be distinguished from the will of God in the sense that the decrees are the consequence of God's willing. God wills, and the precipitate of that will is his decree. That is to say, what he wills to come to pass is his decree. But also, in turn, the decree on the other side must be distinguished from what comes to pass. That's why in theology you often come across this distinction, don't you? The decree and the execution of the decree. So in Ephesians 1.11 says that God works all things according to the counsel of his will. That word counsel there refers to his decree. But there is a distinction in that passage between the counsel of his will and the working of it. He works all things out according to the counsel of his will. And so there you have in one text the distinction between the council, the decree, and the actual working of it out, or its execution. So that is how the Confession brings the doctrine of the decree before us in a scriptural way, a way consistent with Ephesians 1.11. Now, secondly, we need to see that this decree of God belongs to what theologians call the opera ad extra of God. And I make special mention of that because that may at first glance surprise you. I know it did me the first time I was a theological student. I was trying to figure out the odd intra and the odd extra and I put the decree over into the odd intra because I thought it was internal within God from eternity. But we have to remember that the opera odd intra refers to the imminent and necessary relations which the persons of the Trinity sustain to each other. The word opera, of course, means working. So that working which is imminent, which is internal within God, that refers to His begetting of His Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Those are the necessary inter-Trinitarian relations. But in distinction from that, what God wills to come to pass outside of himself, you see, is really opera ad extra. And for that reason, the decrees fall within the scope of the opera ad extra, because they have to do with that that wills to come to pass outside of God himself. Now, it is true, of course, that the decrees are internal to God, and they have to be distinguished, as we've already seen, from the execution of the decrees. In that sense, I suppose you could say they are internal to God. But they are not necessary for God's being. They are not necessary as are the opera ad intra. Without the opera ad intra, God could not be God. Without his decree, God would still be God. So the decrees belong to the opera ad extra. Even though the decree itself is internal to God, it's reflected outside of himself. Now, to make that clear, or to perhaps make it more muddy, what theologians have done, classic Reformed theologians, is they, to distinguish between the decree and the execution of the decree within the opera ad extra, they divided the decree into imminent and eminent. imminent decree, meaning the decree itself, which is inside of God, which He alone knows from all eternity, and imminent, that is, the actual execution of the decree, which is usually then subdivided into creation, providence, and redemption. Yes. Yeah, I will. Okay. Let me just put this on the board. So, you've got the intra-ad-opera, and that would refer especially to the beginning and the procession, looking at the necessary acts of God from within himself, And then you've got the extra ad opera. And you then have decrees, the decree here. And you have the decree that is within God himself, which is imminent. And you have the decree that goes outside of God, and actually works itself out in time, the execution, which is eminent. And then this eminent decree manifests itself in creation, providence, and redemption. Does that make sense? And the eminent eminence is simply used because The prefix in Latin means to be within and eminent to be without. So it's a convenient way of saying, even though all of this relates to what is outside of God, still acknowledging that the decree itself is something internal to God, even though it's not essential to his being. So the decrees then themselves are all involved in what we call God's economical relations. They really belong to the works of God, don't they? They're not intra the way the beginning and precession are. The beginning and precession would be called the ontological relations of God. That is, inter-Trinitarian relations that have to do with his being. Now, where do we get biblical evidence for the decree of God? The biblical evidence is actually exhaustive, and I don't want to overwhelm you with it, so I just picked out several texts to mention briefly, but there's much, much more that could be said here. The fact that there is an overarching comprehensive decree that impinges on everything that takes place is stated in Scripture both by way of illustration at times, and other times by way of principle. An example of illustration you might find in Job 14 verse 5, where we read, seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass. Now, whether that refers to the whole of humanity or whether it refers to one individual, doesn't really make that much difference at this point. The same point is made that within the created order, God has people with whom he has personally decreed determining factors. The factors like exactly how long they shall live and when they shall die. In a similar way, the psalmist says in Psalm 139 verse 16, Thy eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect, and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fastened, when as yet there was none of them. So this is again not simply speaking about divine foresight in general, but of divine foreordination, divine decree. Every part of David was seen by God. and determined by God in His decree. Now, there are particularly in the Psalms a number of passages that bring the decrees in focus before us. I'm just going to give you some of these in addition to the Psalm 139 one I just gave you. Psalm 2, Psalm 31, especially 13 to 15, and Psalm 33, 10 through 12. In his excellent essay, The Eschatology of the Psalter, Gerhardus Voss says that the Psalms are the, quote, subjective reflection of the believer and his experience with God. And so in these Psalms, really what's happening is the believer is contemplating God's decrees and God's purposes. And so the Psalms come to us as an inspired expression of the way in which God's people subjectively apprehend their faith in God through meditating on the decree of God. Now in Isaiah, we find several strong references to decree as well. Isaiah 14, 24 forward, the prophet states simply a general principle when he's speaking as God's mouthpiece says, surely as I have planned, so it will be. And as I have purposed, so it will stand. That is then taken up further in Isaiah 46 with its contrast between God and the idols. And you remember at the beginning of last hour I read this chapter, this portion. Let me just read again verses 8 through 11. Remember this and show yourselves men. Bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is none else. I am God, there's none like me, declaring the end from the beginning. And from ancient times, the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. Yea, I have spoken it. I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it. I will also do it. Now, most books of theology bring this text to the foreground. This is really one of the preeminent proof texts for the doctrine of God's purpose and decree. But then notice how quickly the focus shifts in verses 12 and 13. Hearken unto me, ye stout-hearted that are far from righteousness. I bring near my righteousness, it shall not be far off. My salvation shall not tarry. I will place salvation in Zion for Israel, my glory. What I find fascinating about that is here you have this Bold, bald, comprehensive statement about the sovereignty of God and God's counsel in every area of life, and right attached to it, flowing out of it is this marvelous revelation of the grace of God. So here we have a perfect example of what Calvin so often said, that the contemplation of the decree of God provides the believer sweet meditation about God's redemption. This is exactly what's happening. Isaiah, speaking on God's behalf, declares these wonderful, wonderful decretal aspects of God, and then immediately goes on to say, speaking first person, in God's stead, I bring near my righteousness my salvation shall not tarry, etc. Now when we turn to the New Testament, we find the individualized form of the divine decree rampant in John's Gospel. You find it in relationship to Jesus' declarations about the truly free man in Christ. You find it also referenced to the Lord Jesus himself. He punctuates his exposition of his own significance by saying he's not living his own will, but according to the divine will, the specific timetable of God for his own life. You find it in the Apostle Paul. where he extrapolates to the church that in Romans 8.28, that all things shall work together for good to them that love God. Texts like that, of course, brings together very, very closely. It intertwines really the doctrine of decree and providence. See, God has a telos, to his providence, an end, a goal. But that goal is always in accord with his decree. And so Romans 8, 29, and 30 go on to state as much. Now, of course, when it goes on to state, those whom he predestined he called, whom he called he justified, those he justified he glorified. He's speaking there in the context of those who love God. And so that moves some people, of course, to say, well, the divine purpose is then limited to those who believe, to those who love God. But of course, we know that in the broader structure of Paul's theology, that you cannot have a historical universe that is a kind of half decree, which impinges exclusively on those who love God. It's true, of course, that Paul's attention at certain places, and that's true also in Romans 8.28, is focused narrowly upon believers, but he's the same man who wrote Ephesians 1, verse 11, that God works all things after the counsel of his own will. Ephesians 1, verse 11, by the way, is perhaps the counterpart to Isaiah 46 in the New Testament, as the text most often used by systematic theologians for proof of God's comprehensive decree. And there we are told that the predestinating purpose of God is in the context of God's foreordination of all things. We read that that's good news, again, for God's people. Because in love, verse 4 says, Ephesians 1.4, in love he predestined us, chose us before the foundation of the world, and then comes, verse 11, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. So the predestinating purpose of God is in the context with his full ordination of all things. All things are under His control. So all these texts, and many more, and you can look them up on your own, place before us this notion that the whole of human history, with its center in the work of Christ and the redemption of God's people, is all predicated on divine purpose, divine foreordination, divine decree. which all confirms that wonderful definition, simple definition of Westminster, God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Well, that leads us then to discuss the nature of God's decree. And I've hinted at the first point already, D1 on the outline, that it's comprehensive. And that's a very important truth that we have to guard jealously. The scripture passage here, again, which you would begin with, I would assume would probably be Ephesians 1.11. What is included in God's determinant counsel, according to Ephesians 1.11, is punta, all things. And what is excluded is the idea of mere permission. We don't read in Ephesians 1 that God simply allowed things. It is not simply that God permits, but He actively works all things according to the counsel of His will. And Romans 11, 36 speaks to the same effect. For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Now it's impossible to read a text like that and escape the all-inclusiveness of the divine decree. And yet our minds go naturally in that direction. We begin to ask questions, don't we? But how could God care for the minutia of daily life and decree all of that? How could God have anything to do with decreeing evil? These are big questions. But the Bible doesn't leave us in the dark on these questions either, happily. The first question about the minutia, Matthew 10, verse 29 and 30 is a very powerful proof text. That tells us that the fate of a single sparrow does not lie outside of the Father's will. and that every hair of our head is numbered so everything it almost sounds irreverent but let me say it this way every hair of your head lies in that punta that all things of Ephesians 1.11 and with respect to evil Acts 2.23 and Acts 4.27-28 help us answer our basic questions. We'll talk more about this later, but here's just a summary. In these passages, what we see is a reference to the crucifixion of Jesus, which is clearly spelled out in these passages, and you know them well, as the evil deed of man. And yet, these very scriptures are jealous to point out that this evil deed that Judas committed is involved in the decree and purpose of God. For God ordained Jesus' crucifixion. There's no chance involved in it. God has some connection somehow in His decree, beyond our comprehension. also to evil without himself participating in evil. Or think of Luke 22, verse 22, there it is again. And truly the son of man goeth as it was determined by the father, but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. So, we see precisely in these texts the point that God determines all things and yet our involvement, our unavoidable involvement in His decree does not exclude human agency or human responsibility. So all of this is simply to say that everything is within the sphere of the sovereignty of God. Nothing falls outside of His decree. Secondly, we can say that God's decrees are eternal. Now, we've already looked at the eternity as an attribute of God. We've said that God himself is eternal, Romans 16, 26, and his ontological relations are eternal because he is eternal. But we can also speak of the decrees within the ontological God as eternal. And when we do so, of course, then we're making a distinction again between the decree and the execution of the decree. The execution, of course, is temporal. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says in answer seven, the decrees of God are his eternal purpose according to the counsel of his will, whereby for his own glory he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Ephesians 1-4 again, according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. And yet, even though the decree is eternal, we must distinguish theologically, and I admit it's a narrow distinction, but theologically we distinguish the eternity of God as an attribute from the eternity of the decrees. For God is necessary and necessarily eternal. The decrees are eternal, but not necessary in terms of the ontological being of God. They owe their existence to God's determinate counsel and will. And God could have willed one thing or He could have willed another. And so the eternal decree must not be thought of as being coextensive with the being of God. They are eternal, but not with the eternity with which God himself is eternal. That's the point I'm making. It's basically the same point we made when we talked earlier on in the class about the will of God. Thirdly, the decree of God is immutable and efficacious. Immutable and efficacious. Biblical evidence, let me just give it to you. Psalm 33, 10 and 11. Isaiah 14, 24 and 27. Daniel 4, 35. And of course, Romans 9. especially verse 11 and Hebrews 6, 17. Now these two things are very important to maintain and to keep together. First, there is no change of purpose with God. God does not change his mind. We've looked at that before, that Texts in the Bible that speak of God repenting or changing have to do with reference to the way He's perceived by man in the unfolding of His providence. But in God's mind, of course, He does not change. Second, there is no frustration, no frustration of the decree. To say that the decree of God can be frustrated is to challenge the omnipotence of God. as if God is too weak to bring to pass what He has decreed. Put positively, we must insist then that God always accomplishes, always executes His decree. That's why you have this tremendous disparity in Arminian theology when you say God determined to have his son shed his blood for everyone, and yet God didn't accomplish what he determined because many sinners do not receive his son. So since God is infinite in his wisdom and power, there is no unforeseen contingency which would ever require God to change his decree. Now, if this were not so, the decree of God could never be the source of confident joy and assurance that the New Testament continually presents it as being. If it's possible for the believer to smuggle into his mind the thought that God's decree may change, then the whole decretal theology, the whole notion of predestination is stripped of all its comfort, then I have no assurance that I am safe in my Father's wise decree and covenant faithfulness. After all, then God may be mutable. If He's mutable, I may send myself away from His salvation. So all comfort is removed. Even more importantly here, biblically, the doctrine of the divine decree could not be employed the way it is employed in the New Testament because it's constantly employed, like Romans 8, to give this tremendous comfort that there is security, unfailing security, in God. Fourthly, the decree is unconditional. Unconditional. A conditional or a conditioned decree, we would mean a decree whose execution is conditioned upon factors over which God has no control. So, the efficacy of the decree would then be contingent. But that is not so with God. God doesn't even count a hair of our head as contingent. God executes everything in precise, collaboration with his eternal decree. So the decree itself is not conditioned. We can say something like this. Two events are decreed. The relationship is also decreed. And that relationship may be a relationship of interdependence. One thing comes to pass because another thing must come to pass. But the whole chain, you see, comes to pass by the decree and purpose of God. So what I'm saying is, God doesn't just determine every little isolated incident in your life. But God determines the whole picture, the whole pattern, the whole plan. There's order. There's system, if you will, in the decree. I'm sure all of us have spent more or less time in our lives contemplating that with a great deal of comfort. Contemplating if one or two little events hadn't happened in our lives in the past, we wouldn't have the wives we have. We wouldn't have the wife we have. We wouldn't have the children we have. If we didn't have the children we have, we wouldn't be the kind of preachers that we are. So there's a chain reaction. And for those of you that don't have wives, you can do the chain in your own personal spiritual pilgrimage in all kinds of ways. The fact that you're sitting here this morning is the culmination of a huge chain of events. Hundreds of events have brought you to this point, this very day, and that you're studying for the ministry by the call and the gracious providence of God, which all flows out of his decreto will. All right. Let's look then, too, at the fact that the decree of God is positive, positive. That is to say, the decree is not simply permissive. I spoke about that just a bit earlier on. The idea that the decrees are permissive, which some theologians, especially moderate Calvinists or evangelicals will bring into their theology, is actually introduced into theology to help relieve the difficulty that people feel in thinking of evil as being included in the decree. The idea is that if God is thought of only as decreeing to permit, then somehow God is relieved of the responsibility of evil. He's not the author of evil. Well, of course God is not the author of evil, we agree with that. But, you see, it doesn't solve the problem because there is nothing, even the moderate Calvinists will admit that, there's nothing that transpires in history that does not transpire in accord with the decree of God. So, it doesn't make any sense to simply speak of a decree of permission. In fact, in some ways, it's a contradiction in terms. The decrees are efficacious. If they're efficacious, they're not permissive. And if what comes to pass is not decreed, then we cannot properly speak of God as sovereign. Then God is simply correlative to what is outside of Him. He must cooperate with forces beyond His control. You see, if the decree is comprehensive, and it is not permissive, then what is thought of as being permissive is really determinately decreed. But if what is permitted is not decreed, then the decree is not all comprehensive. You see, then it's determined that it's not possible to determine that something be permitted without determining what is permitted. So, you have an impossible situation in teaching that God decrees everything, but he only permits certain things. Now, it is perfectly true that in the execution of the decree, men must be thought of as free agents. Deformed theology upholds what we call the free agency of man. And in that sense you can say that man does what is permitted in the sense that it runs contrary to the revealed will of God. And yet God permitted it even though it ran contrary to the revealed will of God. But don't use that word permit back in his eternal decree because he does more than permit. So, beyond our comprehension, we have to maintain that God decrees all things, is uncontaminated by sin, and man maintains a free agency within the sphere of the decree. So my human action of sin is not being influenced by God or by His decree whatsoever. I'm doing this completely voluntarily. We'll look at this actually in more detail when we look at providence, look at the so-called aspect of providence called concurrence, how the will of God and the activity of man in sin come together. We'll look at this much more closely there. The point I want to just make here is that the freedom of man and the freedom of God, though they're both real, they're not on the same level. If they're in the same level, the same dimension, then you could say, to the extent that man is free, God is not free. And to the extent that God is free, man is limited. But their wills, you see, don't operate in the same dimension with respect to the decrees. Man assumes full responsibility as an image-bearer of God. And he has to go by the revealed will of God. He is not to look at the comprehensive decree of God and try to figure it out and then live accordingly. He is rather to see that that decree lies behind all things that come to pass. And apart from that decree, we would simply have anarchy in the earth. He is to recognize that. But he is to live by the revealed will of God. Then, sixthly, there is what theologians call unity in the decree. Unity in the decree. Now, up to this point, you've heard me say decree, and you've heard me say decrees in the plural, and you could argue, of course, that if the decrees are conditional, that is, if the decrees are formed in response to factors which develop in the course of time, then we could speak of them in every sense of the word in the plural, because there's a multiple number of decisions that God has to keep on making as he keeps on forming his decree but the decrees are not conditional we've seen and therefore uh... when we speak of the decrees from God's perspective we usually speak of it in the singular because it's one eternal decree on the other hand It's not wrong to use the word decree in plural because we look at it from our perspective and we see, as we see different things coming to pass, as we see the great variety in creation, the rich diversity in human action and reaction, and we look at the complexity of the animal kingdom, it's natural for us to speak in terms of a plurality of decrees because so many things come to pass. But nonetheless, theologically, we ought to, when we think of it from God's perspective, we ought to understand that this is all one in God. There's a unity. There's a unity and a comprehensiveness of God's plan and purpose. And so, theologically, we're better off speaking of the divine, the divine decree, hence the title of this eighth section of my lectures. I've called the divine decree rather than decrees. But we should not press this point too much and look at someone and say, oh, you can't speak of the word decree in plural. We understand when we use it in the plural that we're speaking about different aspects of the decree as they impinge upon our lives and the lives of other people. Finally, the decree of God is teleological. It has a specific ending point, goal, design. You see, if God's decree stands behind and is related to everything that takes place, then there's a multi-faceted purpose in view in that decree. We must never lose sight of that great principle that God has more than one thing in mind. He doesn't ever do just one thing at a time like we always do. And yet, there's a specific telos in Scripture behind the myriads of things God is doing at any given moment. And Paul notes that in two places in particular. Well, more places, but two in particular. First is in Romans 11, 33 through 36, where he's drawing together, you remember, the three profound chapters on predestination and the future of Israel and so forth, 9, 10, and 11, in which he's been expressing the absolute integrity of the outworking of the promises of God among Israel and the Gentiles. And his whole purpose here is to wrestle over the question, has the promise of God failed? Has God forgotten to be kind? You see, then he works his way through these chapters. And he comes to the end and he says, this is the conclusion of it all. He breaks out into doxology. This is the end point. This is the goal. For of him, and through him, and to him, and from him, are all things. To him be the glory. forever. So, all things are from God, all things are through God, all things are to God, and the goal of it all is divine glory. And it's interesting, if you go back to Ephesians 1, how Paul, in a most profound and beautiful way, then ties that divine glory to the salvation of the elect. Ephesians 1, 1 through 14. Remember the refrain that runs through that passage. The election of grace is in order that those who are in Christ might be to the praise of God's glory, to the praise of the glory of His grace. Then he reaches the climax in 11 and 12 and he says, "...in whom we also have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will, that we should be to the praise of His glory who first trusted in Christ." So, God's great goal is doxological of His own glory, and in that goal, He supremely manifests that glory in saving people. and in causing them who first trusted in Christ to live to his praise and his glory. And so in one marvelous long sentence in Ephesians 1, Paul squeezes into one sentence, predestination, plan, purpose, providence, and the submission of the believer to God's ways. and that all as the outworking of divine glory. So all of this is not to destroy hope in the believer, but just the opposite. It's to establish hope in the believer. Divine glory is a specific teleology both of election and reprobation. That's why the Westminster Confession of Faith uses the expression, to the praise of His glorious justice, in conjunction with the reprobate, and to the praise of His glorious grace, with respect to the purpose of election, which is always the focal point of Scripture, that this serves manifestly to the glory of God. Now this leads us then to the doctrine of predestination itself and often you will find in books of theology that very, very little is mentioned about the decree and sometimes nothing and the whole is taken up with predestination. Well, I think what I've just given you, the basic marks I've just given you of the decree is important to grasp the foundation on which predestination functions. So we ought not ignore the decree in our preaching either. But that leads me then to say two general things about the doctrine of predestination. First, let's look at what it is. what it is. Actually, three things I want to say by introduction. What it is. Predestination consists of two branches. Election and reprobation. There's lots of good definitions given in various theologians. I've got in front of me right here Reverend Kirsten's definitions. Let me just read these. The decree of God by which he in perfect sovereignty determined in which persons known to him by name in Christ, he's decided to magnify his mercy gloriously unto their salvation. And also by which means he himself shall bring those persons to salvation. and reprobation, the decree whereby God from eternity in his sovereign good pleasure foreordain in which rational creatures he shall glorify himself by his avenging justice to their eternal punishment in hell." Now what you notice in these definitions is two things that are actually three things that are very important and that is in the definition of election you will notice the focus on the sovereignty of God. God is sovereignly determined. But you also notice the word mercy there. It's merciful. Most theologians actually use the word gracious. Either one is fine. But the point I'm making is election is always sovereign and gracious. No one will ever get to heaven who says, I deserve to be here. It's always a gift of God. And then you notice in Carson's definition of reprobation that it's always sovereign and just. He mentions it as his avenging justice. And of course that justice means that no one will ever come to hell and say, I didn't deserve to be here. It is just. Now, what I'm submitting to you is this. However you define election and reprobation, if it doesn't have these two elements in the definition of election, sovereignty and graciousness or mercy, and it doesn't have these two elements in the definition of reprobation, sovereignty and justice, it's seriously flawed, to say the least. Fred Koester, when he did that nice little book on Calvin's Doctrine of Predestination, which is by far the best thing ever written on it, I think, 95 pages, gives you a summary of it all, and just really well done. He really boils down the work to say, this is what Calvin thought of election. It's sovereign and gracious. This is what he thought of reprobation, sovereign and just. And so you have in both, don't you, the element of God's sovereignty and the element of man's responsibility and God's graciousness. Now, there's one more thing, though, that you notice in Kerrison's definition that not all theologians include, but I think it's very important, and I think it makes it a very good definition, is that God, in His sovereignty, not only determines who the elect will be, but also the means by which they will be gathered in. Now, in my pastoral situation, that is a very, very important addition to this definition. Or, important to add, I should say that, that was wrong, I should say it better. It's important that it's an integral part of the definition. Because otherwise, what people say is, well, if God is sovereign in whom he chooses, and I'm going to be saved, then I'm going to be saved. Makes no difference. But what they're missing is the realization that God not only chooses them, but also chooses the means, and that His normal means is to choose the Word of God preached in the house of God, and so they need to be there. They need to, as Reverend Lemayne used to say, if you want to get wet, you have to go stand out in the rain. If you want to get saved, you have to go to the means that God uses to save people. because that's part of election itself, using the means to bring them in. Now secondly, where to locate it. There's been a long discussion in the history of theology, particularly within Reformed theology, on the precise loci, or the precise locus, that predestination should be placed in. It's been characteristic of Christian theology from Aquinas on and into the early reformers to discuss the whole divine decree as well as predestination within the context of divine providence. That is to link these two together, divine providence as the outworking of the divine decree and to then place that under theology proper, the doctrine of God. And for example, the early Kelvin does this, doesn't he? Discusses the divine decree and divine providence back to back. Beza, his successor, did the same thing in later years. And so they followed the tradition of putting this doctrine within theology proper. However, as many of you know, By the end of his life, Calvin had changed his mind on that, and in the last edition of the Institutes, 1559, he removed his discussion of divine decree from the doctrine of theology proper in Book I to his discussion in Book III of the way in which we receive the grace of Christ. So, you find his discussion of the doctrine of predestination not only there within the context of the work of the Holy Spirit, but actually at the very end of the context of the work of the Holy Spirit, one of the last three chapters of the third book of the Institutes. Now, Calvin is saying, I believe, by the end of his life that he feels the most appropriate place for the church to understand the doctrine of the divine decree is within the context of our understanding of all that is necessary for our salvation. That is to say, if we've grasped all that is necessary for the salvation of those who are dead in trespasses and sins, those who have no resources by which they can save themselves, if that's the place, says Calvin, it will become obvious that the only way in which this salvation can come to us is not because we've chosen or negotiated it, but because God has unilaterally and sovereignly decreed it and administered it. Well, that's, in many ways, a very wise move, we would say, on Calvin's part, because it then comes to a culmination. After you consider all that the Holy Spirit does, it's kind of the ripe fruit of the Spirit's work. And experientially, it's a very good place to put it, isn't it? Because, as Whitfield said, we go first to the grammar school of repentance and faith, the earlier parts of the Ordo Salutis, before we go to the university of election. But, a word of caution is in order here. Not so much caution about where Kelvin places it, as caution about how people have misunderstood where Kelvin has placed it, especially in contemporary literature. What many people are saying today is that Kelvin placed it in soteriology because he wanted to distance himself from any kind of strong view of divine predestination. The way many contemporary scholars put it is like this. You see, Calvin is very different from these cold scholastic divines at the Westminster Assembly who rigidly, fatalistically, deterministically place the doctrine of predestination within theology proper. But Calvin is much more warm. He's got a Christological view of predestination, so he places it at the end of his discussion of the way of salvation in Jesus. Well, this is certainly a misread of Calvin. Anyone who bothers to read Calvin will discover, first of all, that Calvin's doctrine of predestination has not changed one iota in 1559, from what it was back in the 1530s, when he did have it placed under theology proper. And the second thing we must notice, rather than minimize what he said when he discussed predestination in the doctrine of theology proper two decades before, Calvin actually expands greatly his treatment now, actually maximizes the doctrine, and turns it into one of the most thoroughgoing radical expositions of the absolute finality of divine predestination to be found anywhere in Christian literature. In some ways, stronger than those who followed him and who placed it back in theology proper. Why do I mention this? simply for the sake of the historical theological discussion. Yes, I suppose that's one good reason, but also to make the point that too much can be made of this, as if to say, where is the proper place to place it? And, oh, if you don't have it in the proper place, your whole theology is skewed. That's really nonsense. As a matter of fact, I personally believe that it's a both-and situation. Not an either-or situation. Predestination and the decree of God properly belongs in theology proper because God has determined these things from eternity. These are the works of God, opera ad extra, that flow from opera ad intra. So it's a very logical place to put it. But predestination is at the same time intimately wrapped up with a way of salvation. So it's very proper to put it in soteriology as well. Moreover, Scripture itself places this doctrine in both of these areas of theology, doesn't it? Sometimes within the context of the doctrine of God, Isaiah 46, Whom then will you liken me and so forth, and I am this God who has directed all things. Well, that's theology proper. Sometimes in the context of the application of redemption, as we've just seen from Romans 8, 28 through 30. to make it a hard and fast rule that it belongs in one place or another to make a huge difference between the later Calvin and the early Calvin on this is a gross exaggeration and a misread of Calvin. I was looking for an article last week as I was preparing this lecture and I I didn't find it right away. I'm sure I could find it with a little more work. But there is an article written by one of the PR ministers in an early form of Protestant Reformed Theological Journal. It used to be in big sheets. I can see it in my mind. But I remember the article saying something like this. Not only could you put it in theology proper and in soteriology, but you really could put it in almost any loci. any locus of theology. And this article shows that Calvin actually has quite an emphasis in Christology on predestination, and even ecclesiology. And so, really, the author's point, it was either Henko or Herxheimer, I believe, the author's point was that predestination runs as a golden thread throughout all of Reformed theology. Well, having said that, let me then conclude these remarks, these introductory remarks, by saying something about how to handle it. In Reformed theology, There has always been a recognition that the doctrine of predestination is something very high, lofty, supernatural, transcendent, and hence something that we are not altogether privy to, something mysterious, not in the negative sense of the word, but in the sense of awe. We stand before predestination with awe and humility. And consequently, contrary to what is often assumed, the great exponents of divine predestination in church history have always stressed the need to handle this doctrine with great wisdom, with great sensitivity, and with great pastoral insight. And we have confessional proof for that in the conclusion of our canons of Dort. There's just a remarkable statement there about how the preacher should handle this with wisdom, not provocatively, especially the area of reprobation. And of course, we know that Dort took up the question of Maccobius and how he was handling it a bit more crudely and roughly, and they slapped Maccobius' fingers and said, be more careful to handle this doctrine, this holy, lofty doctrine with more of a sense of awe and mystery and more of a sense of compassion. Don't handle it so crudely and baldly. Augustine. early on also noted that in discussion of predestination we should not only convey it, we should convey it, but that it should be fittingly said. And his point was that the spirit of the scriptures as it deals with predestination, the spirit of the scriptures, the pathos of the scriptures on predestination should be our pathos as we preach it from the pulpit. In other words, we shouldn't just preach it as cold propositions. But our theological statement must fit the spirit of the theological statement presented in Scripture. So the propositions we propound and the spirit with which we do it should be married to one another. Now Calvin himself speaks frequently about the care that is required in handling this doctrine. And Calvin cautions us against two errors. The first error is not to follow Scripture as far as Scripture leads us. In other words, to say, well, the Scripture says that, but that's too much for our people to handle, so we won't go into Romans 9, for example. And there are many, many a preacher that takes that approach today. He's never preached a sermon on predestination to his congregation in his lifetime. And yet he claims to be reformed, biblical. And the second error, of course, is that we can go beyond scripture, beyond where scripture takes us. And we'll talk later about some of the possibilities of how we can do that. Now, finally, let me close up this introduction by just giving you a wonderful quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I think expresses how this ought to be handled as pastors. Chapter 3, Section 8, 3.8 of the WCF. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care. that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word and yielding obedience thereunto may from the certainty of their effectual vocation be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, admiration of God, and of humility diligence and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." Now, could you think of a warmer, more pastoral answer than that? And yet, all around us today, modern scholars are saying that Westminster divines were coldly causalistic. It's nonsense. This whole statement I just read to you, breeze of pastoral compassion and warmth. Now, let's look then for a moment at election and reprobation, and then we'll open it up. I'll actually look more at you with reprobation because that's where some of the difficulties in theology present themselves. The thing we need to notice about election, and I put that in the forefront, is that election is always in Christ. The focus of God's decree is obviously the salvation of his people. But what becomes clear is that the election of God's people to salvation is dependent on a more fundamental election, namely the election of the man, Christ Jesus, in whom those he represents, that is, those for whom he acts as substitute, who are also elect. So, in the New Testament narrative, a pattern emerges in which Jesus is constantly presented as the chosen one of God. It is by the Trinitarian choice of His humanity that the Son assumes in the womb of the Virgin Mary and sanctifies throughout the whole course of His life Yes, it's because of the election of this one as substitute redeemer that those who are in him are elect for salvation. So, our election is in Christ. And that's abundantly plain from, again, from the Ephesians 1 passage 4 through 14. Now, Kelvin puts it like this. He says, if you want to understand election, then look at Christ. Christ is the mirror of election. If you want to see how election works, look at Christ. I'll be speaking here not as an articulate systematician, but as an experienced pastor. This is what you do with people who have difficulties with election. who nevertheless seem to be true Christian believers, you help them get a handle on election by taking them to Jesus. You show them that if a believer loves and trusts Jesus Christ, then it is by grasping the fact that I am a believer in Christ that I understand that it's because all things that belong to Jesus Christ include me as He acts on my behalf then they also belong to me, and so that my election is actually in Him. So the first and the most obvious thing that belongs to Jesus Christ is that the very embryo in the womb of the Virgin Mary did not choose itself, did it? The conception that took place in her womb did not arise out of the human will, And so the whole of Jesus' life is predicated on the absoluteness of the election of God. And thus at every point in His life, Jesus manifests Himself as the supremely chosen one. And so all who belong to Him, all who come to Him through faith, all who are brought into Him as the body and He the head, they come too to participate in the blessings of redemption. forgiveness, adoption. They come to participate in the glorious, assuring, comforting doctrine of election. Well, of course, that's all wonderful news. And the more we meditate in this area, we are overwhelmed by the goodness of God here. But when we read the New Testament, then other questions arise as well as to the other side of the equation. What happens here with the reprobate? What do we say about the reprobate? And that leads us then into the whole question of reprobation and the questions that Paul asked in Romans 9. And I think my time is up, so I'm going to stop here and ask for prayer, and then we can stay for any questions you have.