[Transcript represents full sermon's text]

       Last fall, we went over Ephesians chapter 1, and in doing so, we obviously came across the whole subject of predestination. And when I did that message, or a couple messages, I did not spend a great deal of time discussing that concept, so I wanted to take today's message and further elaborate on it. I think that it's obviously an area of concern for some Christians in that they do not quite understand it. And then there's also the fact that there's varying opinions on it. So I want to take the time to go over that and take a look at it.

       Now, to get started, why don't we go ahead and read the passage in Ephesians chapter 1. And of course, there's actually two different sections. Let's go ahead and start in verse 3 for the first one. Paul says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” Now I'm going to jump down to verse 9 for the sake of time: “making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory” (ESV). So those are the two areas there in Ephesians chapter 1, where the word predestined is mentioned.

       Back when I did the original message, I said that predestination means to pre-determine. We could also say foreordain or pre-plan. What it means is that God had a plan in place from before the foundation of the world to have people in Christ. So the question becomes, in trying to understand this concept, is ‘how is it that God had this plan in place before the foundation of the world?’ And are the people individually selected before the foundation of the world? Or, Is a group selected? How did this whole plan thing work? Within Evangelical Christianity, then, there are basically four different understandings one can take to try to understand a passage like Ephesians chapter 1 and the concept of predestination. Let's go over those four and I'll just provide some thoughts.

       The easiest thought process and the most common probably would be the perspective of the Calvinist. So, the Calvinist believes that God has pre-planned everything that happens in the world with meticulous detail. Every good thing that happens, and every bad thing that happens (like the fall of Adam and Eve, everybody's sin—all of it, Jesus on the cross, The Millennial Kingdom, Jesus's Second Coming before The Millennial Kingdom), all that stuff is pre-planned in meticulous detail. Now, logically speaking, or I guess philosophically speaking, it is sound. It does work from a logical perspective to follow the line through that if God has done that. It makes good logical [philosophical] sense that everything happens because God has willed it to happen. And this is where we come into everything being God's will in effect. Even bad things are ultimately God's will under a Calvinist perspective, because after all, he pre-planned it. As far as election goes, from a Calvinist standpoint, God pre-selects (because he predetermines everything), those who are going to believe in him. And it's called double predestination, because God also (because he controls all the details) has to choose also who is going to go to hell, who's not going to believe in Jesus. So it’s double predestination: he chooses, elects those who will go to heaven, and he elects those who will go to hell. And there's not a reason for it. From our vantage point and looking at Calvinism, it's arbitrary. We don't know why.

       Let's consider the second approach that somebody can take, and that would be the Arminian approach. So under this theory, God looks into the future before the foundation of the world and sees who is going to believe in Christ, choose Christ freely by free-will. Those who make that choice, God before the foundation of the world based on that preview, is then able to elect those who will. So under the Arminian mindset, then, it's almost as if the future is open, like God runs a test run of the future and lets the future play out. And then, with God standing back and observing the future play out, he makes his decisions based on that. It's not that God foreordained it all—but it kind of is because once God sees the future and then elects those who will believe in him, it's like the future is ‘locked in place’ at that point before the foundation of the world. This is interesting because it's kind of a preliminary form or a more basic form of the third option, which I'm going to discuss in a second. This option might make more sense under a Platonic view of God, where God is outside of time and God sees past, present, and future as ‘present.’ I've not really delved into that thought process too much, but in Calvinism, obviously, he's also outside of time. I should state that.

       As far as Arminianism goes, what are some philosophical ramifications or challenges? Well, God looking into the future could be problematic because he isn't interacting with things. So in that initial look forward way back before the foundation of the world, he's looking at the free-will choices that people make. And a concern that some may have when thinking about that is that what God does through his decisions obviously affects the choices that humans make. So in other words, if God before the foundation of the world is looking into the future to see what human free-will choices people make, how does that work? Because does he look into the future with also his interactions or does he look into it in a way that only shows the human interactions? I mean, it kind of seems a little odd because you have the concept in when you're thinking about time where everything affects everything else. It seems strange, if you will, that God would be able to look into the future and see those free-will choices people would make when he himself interacts with people in their circumstances. Now, maybe somehow he does that considering his actions. I don't know, but just wanted to point that out.

       The third perspective would be the Molinist perspective, and it's very similar to the Arminian perspective in that under this mode-ology, God has multiple universes he runs, just like in Arminianism [where he runs one], he does the test run where he lets all these universes play out, perhaps an infinite number of universes, and it's where people make free choices in each of these universes. Then he decides, based on all the vast array of universes, which one he's going to choose to represent reality, to have actually play out. It'd be like if a movie director made 20 different movies with characters doing different things—same characters perhaps—but doing different things. And then he selects, “Well, I'm going to go with movie number 17. That's the one we're going to choose to send to the theaters.” So that's what this is like. Under a Molinistic perspective, God chooses the universe that best suits his will, his purposes, his glory—that which brings him the most glory. So that's the one he allows of the infinite number to play out. But again, like Arminianism, he chooses those who will, he pre-elects before the foundation of the world those within that universe, who have selected Christ by free choice. And that's the great ‘apparent’ advantage in Molinism, is you have meticulous control because God's chosen the universe [and thus knows everything that’s going to happen], but you also have free-will because everyone within that universe made the free-will choice [to believe]. And in fact, all events except what God causes happen were made of free-will choices, not just accepting Christ.

       The final option, which is probably the least prevalent in Evangelical Christianity, would be called Open Theism. With Open Theism, the way that works is it is not linear-based or entirely linear-based like the first three concepts are. What I mean by that is it doesn't view time as a straight, one-way street timeline. Really, what the Open Theist would say is that time is in the process of ‘becoming.' As we move into the future, time creates itself. In other words, the future doesn't exist yet. There is no future. There's only now and the past. Even the past technically doesn't exist because it's over. Under the Open Theist mindset, an Open Theist would say that before the foundation of the world, God had a plan in place that whoever believed in Christ in the future would become part of the group of believers with the benefits that Paul talked about in Ephesians chapter 1. You would have those who freely choose to believe in Christ in the future gain forgiveness of their sins, gain the riches, and the blessings that are part of that. They become part of the group that God pre-planned. So God pre-planned the idea, but he didn't pre-plan those who would individually believe in him because that [result] was still waiting on free choice decisions.

       Depending on which Open Theist you would ask, does God know the future? Well, God would know all the infinite possibilities, all the different little ways the future could go. So in effect, God knows the future because he knows all the different pathways that things could go to the billionth, trillionth, whatever, zillionth power. Every different little thing in the world, kind of like Calvinism, that could happen (or is going to happen under Calvinism), God could know all the different variations of what could happen. [This is called Neo-Molinism within Open Theism.] Now some Open Theists would say God does not know the future [This is called Traditional Open Theism]. He just doesn't know. He has to wait until people make their free-will choices. God, I guess, does not consider all the meticulous possibilities [because it is believed it cannot truly be known what those possibilities would be]. That would be the two different views there. Under the Open Theist mindset, stuff like the cross, perhaps, stuff like The Second Coming, The Millennial Reign (if one believes in The Millennial Reign), those things would be prefixed by God as stuff that is definitely going to happen. Hasn't happened yet, because the future doesn't exist yet. But there's stuff that would be prefixed to happen by God, and he will bring them about as time progresses, while at the same time respecting people's free-will.

       That's a brief summary of those four positions one can take when trying to understand this predestination thing. And of course, I've talked about these in the past, but I want to provide just a quick summary again. So the Calvinist believes everything is meticulously preplanned by God. The Arminian believes that at least initially before the foundation of the world, things were open and then God locked things back then based on people's free-will choices. The Molinist is like, and some people aren't going to like this, but the Molinist is sort of an Armenian 2.0 because God looks at all the different possibilities and then picks the world, locks that world in place, and it has to be whatever happened in that world that comes to pass. But because it is meticulously foreknown [what will happen] in that world, it's also like Calvinism. Really, Molinism is sort of like a mix between Calvinism and Arminianism. The Open Theist finally would say that because free-will exists, because there is free-will, free-will choices have not been made yet. And based on what free-will choices people do make depends on which versionality of God's knowledge will come into manifestation because God knows all possibilities.

       As this is based on free-will choice, it means prayer as well would have an impact under the Open Theist mindset. Whereas under the other three, maybe under Molinism and Arminianism, you could say prayer has an impact. But everything under the other three is locked down because of God's sovereignty. Under Calvinism, everything's predetermined. Whether you pray or not, that's predetermined. So Calvinism is the least friendly of the four when it comes to free-will. But with Arminianism and Molinism, maybe you pray God knew you were going to pray. There might be a little more wiggle-room there, but Open Theism would be the most friendly towards free-will and saying that people really can change the future. They really can change God's mind through prayer. They can have an effect on the future. They can prevent Satan from doing things that he would have accomplished had they not prayed. People can make good free-will choices. They can make bad free-will choices.

       One analogy we could use to close this out—and there is one more thing I want to talk about after this analogy—one more theory pertains to Ephesians 1 that I think is interesting. But an analogy we could use is like a student at college. Let's say a student goes to a four-year college, and they've predetermined that they're going to graduate in, let's just say, on May 21st four years into the future. Let's say that the university has that date already known, and that that is the graduation date for those who have started at this point, four years in the future.

- So under the Calvinist mindset, everything that college student does, the classes they take, the professors they have, the meals they eat, the friends they make—all those things are predetermined by God. It's God's will. That's under the Calvinist belief.
- Under the Arminian, it's like God looked into the future to see what would happen, but then locked it in place. So all that stuff is still technically locked in place as foreknown by God, but the Arminian would argue there was free-will involved, at least in some of those decisions.
- The Molinist would say, “Well, there was free-will involved throughout the college student's journey from the beginning to the graduation. But God chose the world that best accomplishes his glory.” Assuming that God chose the world where the college student graduates on May 21st, four years from now, that is locked in place. And so by that person's free-will choices within the world that God chose—it’s kind of one step back from Arminianism—that’s what's going to happen because it has to happen because that's the world God chose.
- The Open Theist would say, “Well, the May 21st graduation date,” and this is under this analogy, so bear with me, that “that is fixed. That's definitely going to happen because we're using that date as something that's fixed.” But what professors that student has, what classes they have, where they eat, even what friends they have, all that hasn't been determined yet. All we know is that the student is going to graduate on May 21st in four years. But the free-will choices leading up to that and the other categories have not been decided yet. So it's up to the student to make those choices, what classes they take, professors, where they eat, even what friends they have. All that's fixed is that graduation date. That's kind of the way it would work. God would know every possibility under that, but the person has to make the free-will choice in each matter.

So that's breaking it down between the four options.

       Taking this roundabout back to Ephesians 1, and I want to pull up, I'm going to pull it up just so I have it in front of me. The other thing, there is another theory on, and this isn't as far as the four options we just talked about, this isn't a fifth option, but this is another way to understand Ephesians. And that would be that in this passage, verses 1 through 14, a few might say, and I've seen one particular person talk about this. I don't know the minister well. I'm not going to say his name because I don't want to recommend him because I don't know him. I don't know his teachings besides this. So I'm not going to throw out a name. But one particular thought process on this passage is that it is talking about the Jews first, and then when you get down to verse 13, Paul switches to talking about the Gentiles. Now, why is this significant? Well, because if we go reread it, it is if Paul is talking about the Jewish believers who believed in Christ, the Jewish people, it kind of re-shines it in a totally different perspective. End of verse 4, verse 5 in the ESV Bible:“In love he predestined us [the Jewish people] for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” Verse 4: “even as he chose us [the Jewish people] in him before the foundation of the world.” So you can kind of see what's going on here. It's redefining this word predestined to be talking about God's dealings with the Jewish people.

       So then, why does this seemingly make sense? Well, if you get down to verse 13, Paul says, “in him you also.” So he's talking then to the Ephesians. So it's like he's saying, we the Jews have had this predestination thing going on, but you also, the Gentile Ephesians, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. He's saying that you Gentiles have come into the predestination package that was meant, I guess, for the Jews. If you get to chapter 2, we see that Paul then talks about verse 11. “Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (ESV). So you can kind of see that line of thinking that's seeping in there, where a few think that, well, this chapter one is talking about Jews versus Gentiles, and that's the true meaning behind predestination, that God predetermined that the Jewish people would have this, that, and the other, and then the Gentiles are also incorporated into that. Now, logically, thinking about that, it does make sense.

       But is Paul in chapter 1 talking about the Jewish people? And see, that's the issue, in my opinion, is he does not come out and say that. Unless there's some type of Jewish form of writing from the first century (because Paul was Jewish), that we, in the 21st century, people like myself, maybe scholars—people like that did these Bibles, or at least these two, I don't know about this one—so maybe scholars, people that worked on Bibles, maybe they could answer that, whether this was a form or a style, I guess, of Jewish writing, where they would talk about this versus that for a while before revealing what it is. I don't know. But it seems plausible, but because the text, because Paul does not come out and say that manifestly, clearly in chapter one, I think we have to pause with that. I don't know that we can say for sure that's what's going on here. So it is an interesting theory.

       The other thing, though, that is sort of a problem for this theory of Ephesians 1 talking about the Jewish people first, is that when you go over to Romans 8 in verses 29 and 30, let's go ahead and tap over there real fast. I don't want to drag this out too long. Paul says it to the Romans, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (ESV). The problem with that interpretation we just discussed is it doesn't fit for the Roman text, because Paul clearly in Romans 8 is not talking about the Jewish people when he talks about predestination. It would not make any sense at verse 29 for Paul to switch gears and be talking about the Jewish people. “For those whom he foreknew [the Jewish people] he also predestined…” and on and on. It doesn't fit. It doesn't fit in the context of this chapter. So while it works very well for Ephesians 1—granted, this is a different book in Romans, maybe Paul was thinking about predestination in a different way when he was writing to the Romans—but see, it doesn't flow well between the two books.

       And that's why we have to be careful with that understanding. Could be possibly true, but there's also, in my mind, significant concern due to the Romans 8 passage that that's why I didn't present it as the way I was reading the text on the intro in Ephesians 1. That's why I didn't present it that way, because I'm not fully convinced that Paul is talking about Jews versus Gentiles. But that's one to chew on as well, so there's a lot to chew on.

       Anyway, I definitely enjoyed this brief discussion, if you will, and doing the Ephesians series as a whole, I think we learned things, and I think obviously we were reminded of important things. And that's why we do this, is we want to be reminding ourselves of what God tells us in his word, but we also want to be trying to learn new things as well. So I hope everyone has a good spring and summer, and takes use and enjoys the weather that should accompany those. And, of course, we need to remember that the Lord Jesus Christ could return at any time in The Rapture of the Church, and we always want to be ready for that, whenever that may happen.

- Daniel Litton