Probably the strongest statement you’ll find anywhere in Scripture dealing with Predestination is found in the 9th chapter of the letter written by Paul to the Romans. In that particular text, Paul deals with the election of Jacob rather than Esau and not only does this text speak heavily to the matter of predestination in general; it also speaks of the controversial question of whether predestination is double. So lets take some time to look at the 9th chapter of Romans seeing if we can understand what the Apostle says in it. I’m going to begin in (Ro 9:9-14)!

Now hear when Paul seeks to illustrate his understanding of Divine election, he uses for purposes of illustration, he uses the example of two men. Now I think it is significant that the two that he chooses are brothers and not only brothers but they are twin brothers. They have the same family, the same background, the same physical location, everything that could possibly be the same is the same. I heard a brother say, “they are in fact WOMB MATES!” then his consideration of these two men, he labors to point out that one is preferred over the other before either is born. Now that statement, “before they were born” raises the statement of God’s foreknowledge. The most popular view of predestination that rejects the Augustinian view is that view we call the “FORKNOWLEDGE” of election.

This view says that predestination simply means that God from all eternity looks down through the tunnel of time and knows in advance what people will do and on the basis of that FOREKNOWLEDGE chooses them. Now, I’m sure you noticed that chapter 9 of Romans speaks very sharply to this question. We read that though the twins were not yet born and had not yet done anything good or evil. Let’s look at that phrase. Paul does not say here, that God does not know what they were going to do or that he had known what they were going to do. Simply declares that the twins hadn’t been born yet and they hadn’t done anything. So from that we can see that all the text is teaching is that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was made before they were born.

Now the FOREKNOWLEDGE view would agree that God’s predestinating choice was made at the foundations of the earth, before anybody is born. Everyone agrees that predestination is accomplished in the mind of God before people are born. However, the FOREKNOWLEDGE view is made before people are born, but in light of what God knows they will do after they are born. Now this passage doesn’t say anything about that in this passage. This passage is silent about this question. Really and truly, if ever in Biblical context there was an awkward silence here it is. What I’m getting at is this; if Paul had any desire to make clear that the electing, predestinating actions of God were done with the future actions of man … This would have been the place to say it! In other words, if the Biblical view is what these folks who have the Foreknowledge view seeks to hold, that is that God always chooses in light of future actions and decisions, why doesn’t the Bible ever say that? It never says it anyplace in the Bible. And you would think if it ever had the opportunity to say it, here it is. On the other hand is it not said here, but Paul takes the time to say, though the choice was made before they were born, before they had done any good or evil. Think about it, we must ask the question, why does he include that last statement? If his purpose was to communicate a Foreknowledge view of election the addition of these words would certainly confuse the people who hold that view or it should. Ok, let’s go on further. The twins were not yet born and hadn’t done anything good or evil, now what’s Paul’s concern here?

(verse 11) “that the purpose of God according to election might stand…” In order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand. The emphasis in the passage is on God’s purpose. What Paul is saying is the reason why the decision is made before they’re born and before they have done anything good or evil is that it is God’s purpose that will stand.

Do you see that the flavor of this passage is totally opposed to the concept of a Foreknowledge view of predestination. Do you see that? What other reason could we give for the Apostle laboring the fact they hadn’t done any good or evil. Not only they hadn’t done it in space and time, but they hadn’t even done it by implication in the mind of God. So from God’s perspective there is no good or evil taken into consideration here. The reason that Paul says it this way is so the purpose of God might stand, according to His choice, not because of works, but because of Him who calls. The Foreknowledge view says that God looks out in the future and sees that some people make the correct choice and others the incorrect choice. So then the Foreknowledge view is based on a good work. This is the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian view … its so clear from this passage. What Paul is saying here it is clearly not because of human works, but because of Him who calls. The bottom line is that the Arminian position makes the final decision for salvation dependent on a human choice and not on a Divine action. It would appear to me that Paul is annihilating that position as strongly as he could do it. When Paul wrote these words, there wasn’t an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian position that I know of … its not spoken of … so Paul wasn’t making some apologetic against those positions that came along latter. He was just dealing with the truth. So in a sense its even stronger, because the truth of being all God is very clear, there is no human works in what Paul is speaking about. What Paul is saying is that the credit for your calling is to be given to God. To God alone is the Glory! Now in order that this purpose might stand and it be not of works but because of Him that calls.

(verse 12) “It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” This was before they were born. The reason why God made this choice was to demonstrate the supremacy of Him and His purpose. Then of course the verse so many stumble over. (verse 13) “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” I’ll come back to that verse in a moment, because I know that provokes all kinds of problems. It has to do with hating, or hatred … as Christians we think that must be a mis-translation or something. Let me come back to that. Look at (verse 14) “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” Verse 14 is a rhetorical question. Remember last time we showed there is no in-justice with God. So how does Paul answer his own question? He uses the most powerful form of emphasis that he can … some have said it should be translated, “MAY IT NEVER BE!” God forbid! If this is saying could there ever be in-justice with God? Absolutely not! It’s so strong that it’s unthinkable. Now I want you to think about something. Why do you suppose the Apostle Paul ask this rhetorical question? Paul’s a teacher and when teachers teach they know going into their lesson there’ll be difficulty with the students understanding. A good teacher anticipates his opposition. When I teach I sort of know what you might scratch your head about that I bring forth, it almost always works out that way. I know most of the time where the problems will arise. I’m sure Paul as a teacher with what he’s spoken is anticipating a protest. Let’s face it; the things he said so far are not something that takes place in our everyday understanding. It’s like trying to understand how there was never a time that God didn’t exist, God is an uncaused Cause. These things are alien to the natural man and also we know that even most Christians have a problem with these concepts. So Paul knows and anticipates a protest. That’s why he says, because of what they may be thinking, is there any unrighteousness with God. Could God do something that was wrong or not just? Why does he go through all of that? Because he anticipates that people with say, you know what they’ll say. Say it for me. THAT’S NOT FAIR! So my question again to you is why does he anticipate that objection? I’ve already cited some reasons, but to be more formal, I have to believe that Paul being of an Augustinian persuasion, of course Augustine came much later than Paul, but I’m just reinforcing Augustine’s position. In any case, because Paul has this position, he’s had experience teaching the doctrine of predestination where every time the subject is mentioned the initial response of people is “THAT’S NOT FAIR!” I feel very confident that’s why the Apostle Paul raises this rhetorical question. Think about this now … nobody ever raises this question about the Arminian view.

You know why? Because it’s humanistic and fits mans mentality. When you study the Arminian view, you find it’s designed in such a way that it isn’t a problem.

If you’re like me and believe in the Augustinian view like Paul espoused. Then you should take comfort that the same question that are raised in our view of predestination are the same ones that Paul had to deal with. Is there unrighteousness with God, because on the surface it sounds like it. When you talk about a Divine sovereign choice before anyone has done good or evil, without considering their future actions. This is strictly due to the sovereign purpose of God. That God’s sovereign purposes might be seen by grace and not by human works, and then the obvious question that will be asked is, “how can that be fair?” Then Paul’s says, “is there unrighteousness with God?” And his answer, May it never be so, absolutely not!

And remember he says to Moses, (verse 15) “…I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Let’s just speculate here. If I was the Apostle and I was teaching an Arminian Foreknowledge view of election and I had these objections to deal with, what would I fall back on? If I was going to pull the plug on any charge of God being unfair. I would say, wait a minute, God is not unfair or unjust. Remember even though His decision is done before anyone has done good or evil, its to a view of their future choices. Yet, Paul didn’t do that, instead he falls back on what? He falls back on the Divine prerogative to exercise “Mercy on who he will have Mercy.” The whole point of the passage is that some people receive a measure of mercy that others do not. That’s why he quotes Moses, that’s the final point of his argument. Again, no one receives in-justice at the hands of God that’s why Esau is not selected as an object of Divine mercy. Yet, that is not an in-justice against Esau, because Esau even before he is born is known by God as a fallen person. Because when God does His electing always does it in light of the fall. God only chooses fallen sinners for salvation. All of God’s choices for salvation presuppose the need for salvation. Otherwise, there would never be a thing as election. It would be a waste of time to elect people who don’t need salvation. So the whole process of election is to the view of a fallen human race. When God considers the whole world, He knows the whole world is fallen and He knows if He just gave justice, what would happen? If God would only exercise justice to a fallen race, everyone would perish. But God chooses to grant mercy to some. Jacob received mercy, Esau received justice. Now is there anything wrong with that? Now we say that isn’t fair, what we mean by that is it isn’t equal. That’s true. I think what lurks in our mind is if God is going to be gracious where we have two men who are guilty and they’re under the sentence of death and God is gracious to this one, shouldn’t He be gracious to the other one? Is it fair for the governor to grant executive privilege to one prisoner and not to another? It surely isn’t equal. But again, this person receives grace, and this one receives justice. Actually the one who receives justice has nothing which he has any rights to complain about, there’s nothing unjust about it. And God reminds us that it is His right to grant His mercy on who He will grant His mercy. If He grants mercy to one He is not obligated to grant it to the other one. Remember, if we ever think that God is obligated to be merciful, what does that mean? It means we’re not thinking about mercy anymore, because mercy by definition is not obligatory. Mercy is something that God does voluntarily. He’s not bound to do it, He’s not required to do it, He does it out of the sheer goodness of His heart. And we can never say to a merciful God … this can be scary … We must never say to God, God you aren’t merciful enough. I hope that none of us here will ever say to a merciful God, God you aren’t merciful enough. That would be blasphemous to charge God that He was not merciful enough. That charge implies that there is sin in God that God has not done what He should have done. Think about this, who are you to say to your creator that by whose mercy you draw every breath you breathe …That He has been lacking in mercy. And so he says to “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Now the “cue degra” the verse that I think should in all honesty end Arminianism forever.

(verse16) “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” To say it in more plain words, “So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy.” How much plainer can it be! But man’s humanistic nature is so strong that he can’t receive it, even though it’s written. Just to be fair, the Arminians will love that. The Arminian view does not say that it depends all upon man and not on God. The Arminian view says without mercy there would be no salvation and that’s true. But they say it also depends on our choice. It depends both on God’s grace and our choice. That we must exercise our will besides Divine activity in order to be saved. Election depends upon human choices in the Foreknowledge view. And what does Paul say, “No it doesn’t!” How can they say otherwise, it’s so clear, the Word of God says, it doesn’t depend on man’s will or his physical exertion, it depends on God’s mercy.

Then he goes on to say in (verses 17-18) “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Now that is a hard saying. Let’s take a look at that for a moment, I mentioned earlier I would come back to ”Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated.” What does it mean that God hates Esau? When we use the word hate, we think of an attitude that comes from a posture of malice and the sermon would forbid us to hate people. We are called to love even our enemies. Is there anyway that the Bible uses that word without that sinister connotation? Well we know there is a hatred of sin. But do you remember David in the Old Testament where he said I hate my enemies with a perfect hatred? Now there is such a thing as Holy Hatred, A hatred of wickedness but it doesn’t say hate the sin but not the sinner. It doesn’t say Jacob I have loved and Esau’s sin I have hated. I went back and read a lot of data on this and how Malachi used it … this is where Paul is quoting it from and also studied the word hate, hatred and how its used. My findings tell me this is called antithetical parallelism used in a Hebrew mode. And what’s happening in this passage is the absence of this special Divine favor, where God is giving a gracious Divine favor, a loving action to one where he withholds to the other. It doesn’t mean that God has this terrible feeling of malice toward Esau, but God does hold this particular Divine favor from Esau. Jacob is given a gift that Esau doesn’t get. But now this raises the question if Predestination is double. Many people say, I believe in predestination, but I can’t stand double predestination. Many have said that double predestination isn’t Biblical. The reason I believe that many can’t stand this doctrine is because they believe this would make God predestinate people to sin. So you have many people who believe in election, including theologians, but they don’t believe in the other side of election. They don’t believe that God predestinates anybody to be damned. Let me tell you what I know about this from my studies and listening to CD’s that talk about it. There are two different views of double predestination that have been presented throughout church history. The first one is called “Equal Ultimacy” it’s also been called the symmetrical view of predestination. This means that predestination has two sides to it, Election and Reprobation, salvation and damnation. And the way that God works on both sides is in a symmetrical way and that He works in the life of Jacob and He works in the life of Esau. The Bible also talks about Positive Decrees. A Positive Decree would look like this. In the case of the elect God so predestines certain people like Jacob to be saved and God insures their salvation by unilaterally intruding into their lives and creating faith in their hearts. In the case of the reprobate, God also predestinates their damnation that He intrudes into their lives by creating evil or unbelief in their hearts. So there is a positive action in the lives of both people. Creating faith in the heart of one man and unbelief in the heart of the other. That’s called the symmetrical view or Equal Ultimacy. Now that view has been overwhelmingly rejected by Augustinians and Calvinist. That is not the Augustinian view, some people call it hyper Calvinism. R.C. Sproul said that was an insult to John Calvin to say that view was hyper Calvinist, he said it should be called anti-Calvinist. Hyper Calvinist means super Calvinist and he said that Calvin wouldn’t appreciate that label. Anyways, lets look at the Augustinian view. It would say that predestination is definitely double, because not everyone is saved.

So there are two sides to it, some people are elect and some are not. So the way that theologians talk about this is Positive/Negative. What that means is in the case of the elect God does intrude into their lives and create faith. Now, in the case of the rest of mankind, he lets them to themselves. He doesn’t create evil or unbelief in their hearts, He passes over them, letting them to their selves. So we say God’s activity is Negative or passive. So, here in the case of the reprobate, God lets them on their own, lets them do what they want to do. He doesn’t create fresh evil in their hearts, God isn’t coercing them to damnation, He is simply passing them over, leaving them to their own devices.

But then the question that comes up here in Ro 9 is why then did Paul say here in (verse 18) “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” ”So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.” The classical example of God hardening is that of Pharaohs heart in the Old Testament. This is a difficult one, but when we speak about hardening we have to distinguish between active hardening and passive hardening. Some call it direct hardening or indirect hardening. There are two ways that God can harden the heart of Pharaoh. He could come down and intrude into Pharaohs life and create evil in the heart of Pharaoh. God could do that in order to make Pharaoh sin. But if He does that, then what? How could God being Just and Righteous force Pharaoh to sin and then punish him for that sin? That would make God the author of sin which is an absolute no – no. There is another way Pharaoh could have his heart hardened. Pharaohs a sinner and all of us are sinners, but all of us to some degree have our sins checked. We have our sins checked and restrained by certain oppositions around us which keeps us from being UTTERLY DEPRAVED. Now if I were to ask you to write on the board the wicked people who ever lived? I can guarantee that certain names would appear. Hitler, Stalin, Pharaoh, Edi Amein; what do these people have in common. All of them were heads of state. All of them had almost unlimited authority. In Stalin’s case there was no one in the Soviet Union that could question his authority. Adolf Hitler, enjoy absolute authority in the Third Reich. When men have certain powers where they go beyond normal restraints, their ability to sin increases, because the restraints are few and far between. You know the saying, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Why, because absolute power gives one freedom to do whatever he wants without fear of the police or public opinion or anyone else. Keep in mind that Pharaoh was the most powerful authority figure in the ancient world. He didn’t have to answer to anybody; the only thing that would keep Pharaoh in toe would be the restraining power of God. So if God want to harden Pharaohs heart, does he have to create fresh evil there? All He has to do is remove His hand and give Pharaoh all the space he needs and that’s how Pharaohs heart is hardened. That in itself is an act of Divine judgment that would be a just act of Divine judgment upon Pharaoh. The Gospel does the same thing in the lives of the reprobates, the more people who hear the Gospel and freely reject it the more their hearts are hardened. We also see in this account that Pharaoh hardens his own heart, all God does is remove the restraint. So Pharaoh is responsible for the hardening of his heart. So we see in the concept of election all men are fallen, all men are wicked, God gives mercy to some as in the case of Jacob and the others He leaves to themselves. So they receive justice and the elect receive mercy so that God may be honored and that Gods purposes might stand. In this teaching so far it’s been mostly what Paul has spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and I’ve also brought in comments from men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin and others. So to be complete in this study of predestination, it would be proper to hear what our Lord Jesus Christ has to say. It’s possible that some of you may still be concerned with what was taught. Or, possibly you may even disagree with men like Augustine, Luther or Calvin far be it from us to stand in disagreement to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. In this regard I would like you to turn to (Joh 6:65) “And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.” (MKJV) The words “no one” some translations read “no man” another words “no person” that statement if we apply the categories of logic to it, this statement is called a “universal negative.” What that means is that it is all inclusive. What Jesus is saying that there is no human being who, and whatever He’s going to say to him, can come to Him unless it is given to Him from the Father. This is an absolute, it’s a negative absolute. Now the next word is also crucial to our understanding. It is the word “can” … “no man can” now the word “can” in the Greek is less ambiguous then in our language.

The reason is that in our language the word “can” is often mistaken for what other word? May … that’s right. We have all been corrected when we were children in school. We would put our hand up and say teacher can I sharpen my pencil. She would always say, I’m sure you can, but you also may that would also be a good opportunity for her to teach us the difference between can and may. As you probably know by now the word may suggest permission and the word can has to do with ability. So going back to our verse, its saying that “no man has the ability…” to do something. If I were to say that no one can fly, I’m saying no one has the ability to fly. In this scripture, what is it that no one has the ability to do? What is Jesus talking about here? He’s saying no one can come to me. So according to that statement, Jesus is saying that there isn’t a person alive that has the ability to come to him, is that true? Would that say that some could? No! No man can come to him, no one has the ability. The Scripture says, “…no man can come to me, UNLESS! Now we see a clause that’s called an exceptive clause. Unless introduces and exception. In studying, I find this is called a “necessary condition.” What is a “necessary condition”? It’s a prerequisite, where something has to happen before something else can happen. So Jesus is saying that there is a necessary condition that must be met before anyone can come to Him. Now, what is it that He identifies in this verse that is the necessary condition that has to exist before anyone can come to Him? Unless the Father gives it to Him. Other translations say “Unless it is granted by the Father.” Another translation says unless the Father enables him. All those words don’t mean the same thing. To grant means to give permission, to give means to give a gift and to enable means to empower. So there is a certain ambiguity about what that necessary condition is. This can get kind of tricky because a necessary condition doesn’t mean a sufficient condition. What I mean about that is to have a fire you must have oxygen, that would be a necessary condition, but until you have a piece of paper and a match the oxygen by itself won’t be sufficient. See what I mean? So all this verse is teaching (John 6:65) is in terms of man’s natural ability none of the human population has the ability to come to the Lord Jesus Christ unless the Father does something. And we’re still not sure exactly what it is that the Father God does. By that verse we’re not sure that even if the Father does it that will guarantee that people will come to Jesus. So we don’t know what the nature is of this necessary condition. (verse 65) indicates that this is not the first time He said this to them. Where He says, “… this is the reason, or this is why I said unto you …” So He’s indicating that He had already told them this, so lets see if we can find where He said this before. If we look earlier in the chapter we have another universal negative in (verse 44).

This verse talks about a necessary condition and man’s moral ability. Let’s read that verse. “No one can come to me, unless the Father which sent me draw him:” Does that sound familiar? (Repeat the verse above) Now its not so ambiguous. Here the necessary condition that Jesus spells out is that the Father draws someone. Now would you agree at this point that what the Lord Jesus is teaching is that it would be impossible for anyone to come to Him unless the Father draws them? One thing to be fair I must mention is that the Arminian or Semi-Pelagian also would agree that there is some kind of necessary condition that God must supply, God must draw people. This is where the debate rages, because the Augustinian versus the Arminian disagree with what it means to draw someone. The basic Arminian/Semi-Pelagian approach to this is that nobody can come to Jesus unless the Father entices him or woos him. Again, that’s tied into some kind of prevenient grace or the influence of the Holy Spirit to woo or entice. So the word draw here in Joh 6:44 is interpreted by the Arminians/Semi-Pelagian to woo or attract. Its like honey draws bees and light draws moths, so the Holy Spirit draws people, but its still resistible, but those who respond to the wooing and enticement are then redeemed and those who don’t respond are then lost. Now the Augustinian interpretation of the verse says that draw means more than to woo or entice. Now let’s see how this Greek word for draw is used elsewhere in the N.T. Now if you would turn to (Jas 2:6) we’ll see how that word is translated elsewhere. Most of you have KJV bibles and it doesn’t translate the Greek properly there. The actual Greek text reads thus: “But you dishonored the poor one. Do not the rich ones oppress you, and they DRAG you to judgment seats?” I’m going to ask you to tell me which word is used in this verse that is exactly the same Greek word that is used in Joh 6.

Does anybody have a guess … DRAG. Now let’s use the Arminian version. But you have despised the poor. Do not the rich oppress you, and woo you into court. Let’s look at another one. (Acts 16:19) ”But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.” Again, I don’t have to ask you which word is the same Greek word … yes you are right the word Dragged is the same Greek word translated draw in (Joh 6:44). Again if I substitute the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian word woo or enticed. “… They seized Paul and Silas and woo and enticed them into the marketplace to the authorities.” I think you can all see that this text is showing an act of force in DRAGGING Paul and Silas into the marketplace. It makes you wonder why the translators used the word DRAW instead of DRAG? Whenever we have doubt of a precise meaning of a word in the Scripture, the first thing that we do is go to the Greek and after we go to the Greek we’re still dependant upon the science of linguistics and lexicography. That gives an understanding of the meaning of that term at the time it was use in the writing of the document. You probably remember when we did that exegesis stuff that’s some of what we did. Most folks who go into it this way will all agree that the most highly respected linguistic and lexicographic source for Greek words is Kittlel’s theological dictionary of the New Testament. Now this word being translated draw is defined by Kittel as meaning “to compel by irresistible authority.” So the meaning of that word translated draw should be to “compel” So if our best Greek linguistic and lexicograful experts say that the meaning is compel, why would these translators use the word draw? Especially when they translate the same word “DRAG” elsewhere? From what I’ve learned about is that most of the time the translators go by the context, but the theology of the translators also play a role. This is just a guess the translators might have thought it would be offensive if they translated that verse where it would say that “no man can come to me, unless the Father drag him.”

Well I won’t say much more about that, but I do know that the translators are not arbitrary in what they do and are super careful in translating words from the Greek. However its possible in this case they somehow felt “draw” was better than “drag”. And I’ll leave it there. So the lesson here is you have to search some of these things out in your studies. I would have to say that the force of this verb in this verse (John 6:44) is the force of Divine compulsion. In other words its going to take a power/force from the Father to make that person come to Jesus. I would think that verse alone would end the debate on whether man can on his own could chose Jesus Christ. There shouldn’t be anymore argument, fini, over, done. So here we have Jesus saying that “no man can come to Him, unless the Father compel him” and here we have pure Augustinian theology of coursed said much earlier than Augustine said it.

If that’s not sufficient we can even look earlier in Joh 3. This is where John describes the encounter that Jesus has with a Pharisee a theologian whose name was Nicodemus. And in (verse 3) “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, UNLESS (what does that word indicate? What’s coming? A necessary condition) unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” So what has to happen according to Jesus before a person can see the Kingdom of God? He has to be born again. Now listen to me very carefully, REGENERATION comes before one can see the Kingdom of God. I ask you, is that a legitimate interpretation of this passage? This verse says, no one can see it at all unless they are born again. Nicodemus is a bit confused and he says. “… how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, UNLESS a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Joh 3:4-5) So regeneration is a prerequisite for entering and seeing the Kingdom of God. S.P. and Arminians have people choosing the Lord Jesus Christ before they are regenerate. This Foreknowledge theology has people in their human nature cooperating with prevenient grace responding to this wooing and enticing when the Holy Spirit is not yet in them having regenerated them. So the bottom line is that the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian position has people who are not yet regenerated/born again seeing and choosing the King of the Kingdom of God. This is how strong humanistic doctrine is to go against the clear Word.

The Biblical doctrine and the axiom of the Augustinian position goes like this. Regeneration precedes faith. Regeneration is seen as a necessary condition for seeing the Kingdom and coming to faith. Paul also teaches this in Eph 2 “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;” We were dead and then tells us ”For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” And so we see Faith which is the gift of God and is the result of the Spirits work of regeneration in us. So its really God Himself that supplies the necessary condition to come to Jesus. That’s why the reformed people call it Sola Gratius! By Grace alone that we are saved! Now Jesus says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” Jesus said Nicodemus, why should this surprise you, don’t you understand the fundamental point of man’s fallen nature that what is born of the flesh is flesh and else where he tell us, the flesh profits … what? Nothing! Now, if we believe that God woos and entices us to Christ Jesus and all we have to do in the flesh (prior to our regeneration) is cooperate or assent to that, assuming we can cooperate and assent to that. To the end we enter into the Kingdom of God and are redeemed forever and we’re doing that while we’re still in the flesh, then I would ask you, what would the flesh profit? “EVERYTHING!” Your eternal salvation.

Paul speaks about this in (Ro 8:5-8) “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither is able to be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” Now Paul tells us something here about man’s moral inability in the flesh. He says that man in his fallen state in the flesh is enmity or hostile to the Lord and the law of God. And he doesn’t obey the law of God and he is not subject to the law of God neither (and this is important) indeed CAN HE BE! He doesn’t have the ability. So man in the flesh just cannot obey the Law of God. Then verse 8 says “…they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” I might add if only God wooed us to the Lord Jesus Christ and left it to us to make the final decision, I can’t think of anything that would please God more then that we would respond positively to that enticement and to that wooing. But the Apostle tells us here in Ro 8 there is nothing that man can do in the flesh to please God. Now here’s the crushing point (verse 9) “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, (how do we know if someone is in the Spirit? Repeat first phrase – here comes the crucial word) IF (what does if indicate … a necessary condition) so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Now how many regenerate people have the Spirit of God dwelling in them? All of them! So if you are regenerate, then you are no longer in the flesh and if you are in the flesh you are not regenerate. So when he is speaking of those in the flesh, He is speaking about unregenerate people. And its unregenerate people who can not please God, who can not obey God or be subject to God.

The last part of (verse 9) “Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” And He goes on to say, “if any man does have the Spirit of Christ, then he does belong to Christ.” So the crucial prerequisite for salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit which is the necessary condition for faith to be present. That’s why the first step of our justification, that which quickens us from spiritual death and that which enables us to come to Jesus is the gracious work of God the Holy Spirit. And can never be the fruit of the flesh. Amen!