Zobel said:
So you don't believe in free will? "Tree has no choice"?
I agree with Sproul, as do most Baptists:
"I will begin in verse 9 of chapter 9:
For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son." And not only this, but there was Rebecca also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac (for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls) it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Rom. 9:913)
Here, when Paul seeks to illustrate his understanding of divine election, he uses an example of two men for purposes of illustration. It's significant that the two he chooses are brothers, and not only brothers, but twin brothers. That is, they have the same family, the same background, and the same geographical locationeverything that could possibly be the same is the same. They are, in fact, "womb-mates." (Thank you, I get a little punchy after we study predestination for this long.)
In his consideration of these two men, Paul labors the point that one is preferred over the other before either is born. That statement, "before they were born," raises the question of God's foreknowledge.
The most popular view of predestination that rejects the Augustinian view is what we call the foreknowledge view of election. Its basic thesis is this: predestination simply means that God, from all eternity, looks down through time, knows in advance what people will do, and then chooses people on the basis of that foreknowledge.
We notice that chapter nine of Romans speaks sharply to this question. We read, "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad" (Rom. 9:11). Let's just look at that phrase.
Paul does not say that God had not known what they were going to do, nor that He had known what they were going to do. He simply declares that the twins hadn't been born yet, and they hadn't done anything. So, all the text explicitly teaches is that God's choice of Jacob over Esau was made before they were born.
Awkward Silence
The foreknowledge view would agree that God's predestinating choice is done at the foundation of the earth before anybody is born. Everybody agrees that predestination is accomplished in the mind of God before people are born. But the foreknowledge view says that, though God makes the choice before people are born, He makes it in light of what He knows they will do after they are born.
We have silence in this passage with respect to that question specifically, but if ever in biblical content there was an awkward silence, here it is.
What I'm getting at is this: if the Apostle had any desire to make clear that the electing, predestinating actions of God are done with a view to the future actions of man, this would have been the place to say it. In other words, if the biblical view is the foreknowledge view, namely that God always chooses in light of His knowledge of future decisions, then why doesn't the Bible ever say that? It never says it. And if it ever had the opportunity to say it, here it is.
Not only does Paul not say this, but he also takes the time to say that the choice was made before they were born and before they had done any good or evil. We have to ask the question: Why does he include that? If his purpose was to communicate a foreknowledge view of election, the addition of these words would certainly confuse the people of God, wouldn't it?
God's Purpose Will Stand
Let's go on further: "Though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad." What is Paul's concern here? "In order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand" (Rom. 9:11).
The emphasis in the passage is on God's purpose. Paul is saying that the reason the decision is made before they're born, before they've done anything good or evil, is so that God's purpose will stand.
Do you see that the flavor of this passage is totally opposed to the concept of a foreknowledge view of predestination? What other reason could we give for the Apostle's emphasizing this fact that they had not done any good or evil?
Not only had they not done it in space and time, but by implication, they had not done it even in the mind of God. That is, from God's perspective, there is no good or evil taken into consideration. The reason the Apostle gives for having said it this way is "that 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 down into the future and sees that some people will make the correct choice and others will make the incorrect choice. This view suffers from basing election upon a good work: believing.
"This is the work of God, to believe in the one whom He has sent" (John 6:29). In one sense of considering the biblical concept of good works, the supreme good work is to place one's trust in Jesus Christ. But Paul is saying that God's purpose of election is clearly not because of human works, but because of Him who calls.
The bottom line is that the Arminian view, which has various styles, shapes, and forms, makes the final decision for our salvation rest upon a human choice, not upon a divine action. I think Paul is annihilating that position here as strongly as he possibly could by emphasizing that it is not because of works, but because of the One who calls. The accent and the credit for your redemption is to be given to Godto God alone is the glory."
Acts 2:38
