I revised the previous piece, since I feel this passage is so critical. In this follow-up, which I also revised, I now address "predestination." Before addressing Calvin and Arminius, I examine a statement I advocate: predestination in Scripture concerns sanctification, not justification. I figure there are others who are convicted of this fact, but I have only once read someone say this, and it was in a vague manner. It was the incredible Dr. Howard Henricks, who wrote, “Romans 8 informs me that every believer is predestined to become confirmed to the image of Jesus Christ. If that’s really true, then how much change should we rightfully expect?” (1)
Ironically, I became convicted of Romans 8 not teaching predestination for justification after reading a piece by Dr. James Montgomery Boice, who was a strong advocate for “Calvinist” predestination. Dr. Boice, who is in heaven now, was a minister, scholar, and author. In 1998, I read his book Two Cities, Two Loves, which was insightful. Going back to an even early day, I heard a sermon by him on the radio on one occasion around 1994 before I had gained a conviction concerning the doctrine of predestination. Dr. Boice spent an entire sermon arguing for “double predestination.” As a young Christian, I listened to his argument, taking his points into consideration. I would later learn from Scripture this was a disastrous flaw in his theology. Yet I admire his Christian conviction, and I was blessed by him once in listening to one of his sermons on a Sunday morning as I was getting ready for church.
In the summer of 2010, I read a book where each chapter is written by a different person, most of whom are renowned “Calvinist” ministers and scholars. Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching contains a piece by Dr. Boice, who had passed away a few years earlier. Since he was a prime preacher, I read his chapter intently. In giving an explanation about Romans 10:14-15, Dr. Boice compared it to Romans 8:29-30, identifying both as “theological chains.” Yet his claim was that Romans 8:29-30 moves in a forward direction, while claiming Romans 10:14-15 moves backwards. “Here in Romans 10 we find the same thing. Only now he does not trace the chain forward, as it were—that is, from where we are now (or from the past) to where we are going to be in the future—but rather backward. He says, ‘Here are people who believe. Let’s trace this back and see what the origins of that belief were’” (2).
Rather than reading on at this point, I decided to prayerfully examine the Scripture passage for myself, a Reformation concept I might add, since something about the order of Romans 8:29-30 did not seem to completely click, though it had sounded fine on the surface. Read the passage for yourself. “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30 NIV).
The first sentence gives us our context. Paul is not talking about salvation. He does not in any way mention the sacrifice of Christ. Paul is talking about being conformed to the likeness of God’s Son. This does not happen quickly for people. This is a life long process for a disciple of Christ. This is the work of the Spirit of Christ, who is discussed in the previous passage, and this is called sanctification. Then verse 30 goes backwards! How do I know? Because of what Dr. Boice stated regarding getting to the origin. The origin of thought here is glorification, since God was the One who made glorification possible by what He did on the cross.
The “glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18 NIV) is already present! It has already been deemed by God to His children, because Christ obtained the glory. To God be the glory that human beings share in His glory. Glorification of people is not the end goal. Making His children Christ-like is the end goal. Thus predestination concerns sanctification, and not justification, which is why “ TULIP Calvinists” are incorrect regarding their doctrine of “predestination,” yet the reason that the doctrine of “eternal security” is still correct, in contrast to what Arminians teach.
Speaking of Arminians, I spent a chunk of my Memorial Day (2013) weekend reading writings of both John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. That reading affirmed the fact that when it comes to soteriology, Calvin was beautifully correct and Arminius was tragically wrong about penal substitution, whereas Arminius was beautifully correct and Calvin was tragically wrong about unlimited atonement. I learned in some theology classes at CCU that people usually get lumped into either an Arminian camp or a Calvinist camp, yet this passage shows that practice to be a mistake. Peter states: “Christ died once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God” (I Peter 3:18 NIV). In Book two, chapter 17, of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes a classic piece supporting penal substitution. He properly interpreted the plethora of Scripture which teach that Christ’s death served a specific purpose of being the expiation, which means to take away God’s wrath. From a historical standpoint, Calvin was agreeing with Anselm, and Anselm had it right.
However, Arminianism fails to realize the justice that is carried out with the forgiveness. Jacobus Arminius advocated that Christ’s death and resurrection was more of a general victory over death, and serves as an example of the seriousness of sin which should influence a person to turn to Christ, which will result in that individual being pardoned for sins by God. In a sense, Arminius was going with Abelard, but Abelard had it wrong. The forgiveness of Christ is not a “pardon,” rather the forgiveness results from atonement! Why? Because God is just, and He determined that sin must be accounted for. The atonement is the core doctrine of the Christian faith, and yet it is neglected by many and was missed by Arminius.
On the flip side, John Calvin made one of the terrible theological mistakes in history, arguing for “double predestination,” which is defined as God having determined before creating man who will be saved and who will be condemned, knowing that all people would sin. His argument gave cause for limited atonement. Yet this verse and others in Scripture debunk limited atonement. Calvin was in such horrible error because he missed the fact that predestination has to do with sanctification, not justification. (This is the reason that “eternal security,” which means that salvation cannot be lost, is correct.)
Yet theological stars are reversed as Arminius was on a roll refuting predestination, which can be read in The Works of James Arminius; Volume One. (See “On Predestination; 3. I Reject Predestination for the Following Reasons.”) I find it bizarre that both Arminius and Calvin each wrote what I deem to be a classic piece; Arminius on the fallacy of “predestination” and Calvin on penal substitution, whereas I deem Arminius to have totally messed up on the penal substitution and Calvin to have totally messed up on “predestination.” You might not agree with that statement, but may we all agree that these issues need to be examined. Many Christian schools are neglecting now to have students read the works of either of these men.
If a person is saved, he or she is baptized by the Holy Spirit, and unlike in Old Testament times before the atonement by Jesus, the Spirit will always stay bonded with a child of God! To God be the glory that He has given all people free will to receive His gift of salvation in Christ. And if you chose to believe in Jesus, you are saved from spiritual death, and Jesus will never leave you.
Hunter Irvine
(Revised on 8/24/19)
(1) Howard Hendricks, Teaching to Change Lives
(New York: Multnoman Books, 1987), 55.
(2) Don Kistler, ed., Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching
(Morgan, Pennsylvania: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002), 39.
