Double or Single Predestination?

I. Introduction - Intro the fall – Redemption – Election

The Bible is made up of 66 books, which are all about God’s plan of Redemption for a fallen humanity. In the beginning God creates everything that is, including man whom he creates in his own image. A simple command is given to them, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In breaking this command, death spreads to all men, all born dead in their transgressions. After the fall in Genesis 3, in verse 15 we already have hints of God’s plan for the restoration of mankind. Until the end of the Bible we see how God deals through mankind to restore men and women to himself through the blood of Jesus, in the end making all things new, God dwelling upon his people, in a renewed creation. 
When it comes to redemption we see in Acts 4:12 that there is salvation in no one other than Jesus. One must confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead to be saved. The Bible teaches that those who do so, were foreknown and predestined to do so. The problem then that arises is that if some were predestined to believe and to be reconciled to God, what must we say about the others? Were they then predestined before the foundations of the earth to be condemned to eternal damnation? 
This doctrine if shown to be true, raises deep questions towards our understanding of God. Why would God create beings for the sole purpose of them being damned for eternity? Why does the proclamation of the gospel as seen in the Bible seem to be universal, when God made the choice right from the beginning not to save them? To study this topic closer we will look at the views of two theologians holding different views and conclude on what the Bible teaches on the matter of double-predestination. 

II. Erickson and the Order of Salvation

I used to say it myself, and I have heard this many times. If God elects some to be saved how can you avoid double predestination?
Erickson explain quite well that the source of many differing views of salvation are rooted in the problem of how this doctrine relates to time. When it comes to God’s decree because he is not bounds by time we need to understand the logical connections. Did God decree to save before or after the decree to permit the fall? 
The view where God decrees election before the fall is called Supralapsarianism. In doing so before the decree to creation and fall, those created are either elected (for heaven) or reprobate (for hell). On the other hand, if God decrees the fall before election, there is no need to predestine those heading for eternal damnation because they are already heading in that direction, and election is only done in a single sense, for those who are going to be saved though the blood of Jesus.  We are now going to with the help of some theologians see which view is the most likely based upon the relevant scriptures.  

III. Grudem – Double Predestination

Admitting that it is one of the hardest doctrines of scripture, Grudem takes the view that God does reprobate (elect for hell as well as heaven), in order to demonstrate his justice. He bases himself on verses like Jude 4, where it says that some were designated for condemnation, Romans 9:17-22, Romans 11:7 where it is said that God can harden the heart of whomever he wills. Peter says of those who reject the gospel, “they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do” (1 Peter 2:8). Grudem argues that it is not that those who disobeyed were destined to stumble but rather that it was the group of people who were destined to disobey.
How do we deal with such a doctrine as reprobation? First we can remember that Jesus gave thanks to God for not revealing things to all men (Mat 11:25-26). Secondly though we still do not like it we see that in reprobation and eternal condemnation God shows his justice, which results in his glory (Rom 9:22). In the scriptures reprobation and election are presented very differently. Election calls for rejoicing and the praises of God (Eph 1:3-6, 1 Pet 1:1-3), as God delights and loves saving us, while reprobation is shown as something that bring sorrow to God, not delight (Ez 33:11). As we see in scripture, God chooses us for salvation, but the blame is placed on the sinner for his condemnation. Election demonstrates God’s grace, while reprobation shows God’s justice. Grudem believes the expression: “Double-predestination” is not the best suited, as it fails to show the difference between election and reprobation, how God feels joy for one and sorrow for the other, one is by his grace, the other by his justice. 

IV. Demarest – Only single predestination

Demarest points out that the ten inferences of God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart in the book of Exodus, would support unconditional reprobation, but he argues that Pharaoh first freely opposed God’s purposes, in this way God was only confirming Pharaoh’s decision and in this way punishing him, and God uses this situation for his good purposes. 
A second point that he makes is concerning divine passives. Strong language can be attributed to God, though sometimes when we read the story carefully it appears God only let these things happen. When Sihon, king of the Amorites refuses to let Israel pass through his territory, Moses says: “God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate” (Deut 2:30), though God’s activity seems quite limited.  
Romans 9:20-23 is one of the most used texts by those advocating double predestination. Demarest mentions the difference in the language for those being prepared for glory and destruction suggesting that sinners prepare themselves for destruction for their own refusal to repent. He argues the point of this passage is not reprobation but rather the delay in judgment and wrath against unbelievers. (p136) 
Another popular verse for double predestination is 1 Pet 2:8. The problem here, going against Grudem’s exegetical choice, Demarest believes that what is appointed is the ruin of those who disobey rather than the disobeying. Appealing to Hebrews 3 which shows some had the choice of avoiding their hardening. Demarest believes even Esau had a choice based on Hebrews 12:17. Esau was rejected by God only after he had rejected divine grace freely offered. 
Demarest concludes then that there is an asymmetrical view of soteriology. “There is an unconditional election to life and conditional election to damnation”. God does not predestine people to sin, but he predestines condemnation as the consequence of sin.

V. My Challenge

I am going to be challenging Demarest’s interpretation of some passages. 
Looking at Demarest objections to double-predestination first concerning Pharaoh, arguing that if you study Pharaoh’s hardening of heart, he was first freely opposing God, and he himself first hardened his heart. God was later only confirming Pharaoh’s decision, and used it for the good of his purposes. He argues that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart could be attributed to God only because he allowed it to happen. But how does that solve the issue when we read the Pharaoh was raised up for the very purpose that he would be hardened so that his power would be proclaimed in all the earth (Romans 9:17-18)? If it would be understood that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there would be no room for the question: “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Concerning Esau, Demarest writes based on Hebrews 12:17 that “Esau was rejected by God only after he had rejected divine grace freely offered”. He could read that verse that way if taken on its own. The verse is not clear enough to conclude on when exactly Esau was rejected. A text that does make it clear is Romans 9:11 “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls”. Cleary we cannot conclude with Demarest that Esau was rejected by God only after he had rejected divine grace freely offered. His rejection was predestined before he was even born. If Demarest was right, why does Paul ask the anticipated question in verse 14? “Is there then injustice in God’s part?” Only a doctrine as troubling as double-predestination would demand for such a question. 
Concerning how he reads 1 Peter 2:8, using greek, Demarest disagrees with Grudem, while Martin Williams argues that: “the desire to emphasize one idea over the other (either ‘stumbling’ or the ‘disobedience’) reflects more one’s theological presuppositions than good Greek grammar. He argues that the neuter relative pronoun (ὃ) not followed by a neutral noun, would refer to the entire preceding thought: the unbelievers stumble over the stone because of their disobedience. So in other words: those who stumble over Christ the stone because of their disobedience to the word were indeed appointed by God to such.  This does not narrow it down any more, but would not exclude that even if the stumbling was appointed for disobedience, the fact that since the fall of man, we were all appointed to disobey. 
Demarest is not alone to point out in Romans 9:22-23 the asymmetry in the grammar of those prepared for wrath and for glory. Those prepared for glory are clearly prepared by God due to the active verb, while as Moo points out, a middle/passive participle is used not tying God so closely to those being prepared for wrath. Moo goes on to say, that there is a strong parallel between God raising up Pharaoh and hardening him (Rom 9:17-18) and the vessels being prepared for destruction, meaning that the vessels on whom God’s wrath rests are prepared by himself for eternal condemnation. 

VI. Conclusion

To conclude on this troubling doctrine of double predestination, I believe that this doctrine is taught in Romans 9. It is not an easy doctrine to accept. But we know that God is more loving and more merciful than any of us. He takes no pleasure in the death of even the wicked (Ez 33:11) and wills that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but we know that in reprobating God demonstrates his justice, and is also able to obtain glory even in those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction Rom 9:21-23.