Dr. Sproul discusses the different kinds of predestination—symmetrical (equal ultimacy) and asymmetrical. The symmetrical view takes the position that predestination is applied to both the believer and the unbeliever—positive, positive. The asymmetrical view considers that the believer is predestined to be with God, but leaves the unbeliever alone—positive, negative.

In the last few weeks, we have been dealing with some of the most difficult, controversial, confounding truths of the Word of God. Paul introduced the doctrines of election and predestination in chapter 8 and has been unfolding this matter to us, and we have dealt with some very weighty and difficult things.

By comparison to what we are dealing with today, all the previous things have been prolegomena, simple introduction—the ABCs of the doctrine of election. We now come face to face with the most difficult aspect of this matter. We will go back over verse 14 of Romans 9, so I will be reading Romans 9:14–23. I ask the congregation to stand for the reading of the Word of God:

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.

This is the Word of God, dear friends, as difficult as it may be. It has been given to us under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, who Himself is the Spirit of truth. It is given to us not to confound us, but for our edification, our instruction, and our training in righteousness. Here we come before the whole counsel of God, and that is also for our comfort. Please be seated. Let us pray.

O Lord, as we seek to plumb the depths and riches of the great mercy and glorious grace by which You have redeemed us, at the same time we bump up against Your justice, Your wrath, and Your power. Though the message of Your mercy is sweet to our ears, we tremble before the message of Your wrath and judgment. Be patient with us, O God, as we seek to understand these hard sayings set forth in Your Word. For we ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.

The Difficult Question of Election

John Calvin, the French Reformer who ministered most of his life in Switzerland, is often seen as the creator of the doctrine of predestination and has been demonized in every quarter for his teaching. But as I mentioned to you earlier in this study, there is nothing in Calvin on predestination that was not first in Martin Luther, nothing in Luther’s view that was not first in Augustine, and nothing in Augustine’s view that was not first in the teaching of the Apostle Paul.

Though Calvin’s name has been linked so frequently to this doctrine, let me pause for a moment and borrow some insight from the Swiss reformer on this matter. Calvin said with respect to the doctrine of election and predestination that it is one of the most difficult doctrines of sacred Scripture and must be handled with great care, great conscience, great caution, and with great tenderness and patience for those who struggle with it. On the one hand, Calvin said that because it is a biblical teaching it ought not to be neglected. It is the Word of God. It is part of the truth of God, and even though we struggle with it, we ought not, therefore, sweep it under the rug and studiously avoid it. We must deal with it. But in dealing with it, we have to do so carefully.

Frequently, because of the radio program Renewing Your Mind, I am invited by radio stations that air that broadcast to do interviews on their local stations. On almost every occasion, they open up the phone lines for people to call in and ask their theological questions. When they have an open line and say, “Call in and ask R.C. anything you want to ask him about theology,” I know before the phones start ringing what will be at the top of the list: predestination and election. Every time someone asks me on the radio about predestination, I want to tell them that I would rather not answer that question, because I would rather say nothing than say too little since you cannot deal with this matter in two to five minutes. It raises too many issues and confounds us at so many points that I would rather just pass until another time. But I cannot get away with that on the radio.

That reminds me of the time I was on television back in the days when Ben Kinchlow was the interviewing host of a show. He asked me if I would answer questions on television for a half an hour where they would have open lines and people could call in, and they did. At the end of the half hour, the phones were still ringing, the switchboard was illumined, and there was a great backlog of calls. He asked, “Would you mind extending this for another half an hour?” I said, “No, let’s go.” We went for another half hour, and at the end of that half hour, the phone lines were still jammed with people wanting to ask their questions. Ben asked again, “Can you continue this one more half hour?” I said yes. He said, “R.C., since there are so many people waiting in line, can you give really quick and brief answers so that we could answer as many people as possible?” I said, “Sure, I’ll try that.” On the very next question, someone called in and said, “Can a person who commits suicide go to heaven?” I said: “Yes. Next caller.” That was way too brief for Ben Kinchlow. He said, “Wait, you have to take some time on this and explain.” That is what happens when we deal with these difficult questions. They take time and caution and diligence.

Double or Nothing

Last week we looked at the rhetorical question that Paul raised to his readers: “What then? Is there adikia”—unrighteousness or iniquity—“in God?” We spent quite some time dealing with Paul’s response, quoting God: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” Then we finished with the conclusion of that particular section, where Paul said, “So then”—that is, in conclusion—“it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” That is where we were when our time elapsed last week. Let us pick it up there now with verse 17.

Paul quotes the Scripture quoting God again: “For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

One of the questions I get frequently regarding the doctrine of predestination is whether I believe in double predestination. There are those communions historically that have tried to wrestle with the teaching of Scripture and say: “Yes, we can’t avoid the fact that the Bible teaches some doctrine of predestination and that God sovereignly elects some individuals for salvation, but we believe predestination is single. Yes, there is a definite group of fallen human beings whom God sovereignly decides to redeem, but that’s as far as election goes. There’s no negative side. There is no biblical doctrine of reprobation where God eternally decrees that certain individuals from all eternity will be consigned to the category of reprobation and have eternal damnation as their destiny.” They argue that predestination is single and single only.

Here is where we face a question of what I call “double or nothing.” Unless God predestinates everyone in the world to salvation—unless God elects every single person—then whether you like it or not, you have to deal with the question of the flipside of election, which is the side of reprobation. If you have some of humanity who are elect, then you have others in the human race who are the non-elect. The non-elect are those whom we call the “reprobate.”

Unless you are a universalist, there is no way to avoid the idea that there is a double aspect to divine predestination. So, yes, predestination is double. You cannot avoid that with mental gymnastics. However, once we affirm double predestination—that there is not only election but also reprobation—then we have to ask the question, What kind of double predestination are we affirming?

Kinds of Double Predestination

Even within the communion of Reformed theology historically, there has been an ongoing debate about the question of double predestination. Both sides agree that predestination is double—that is, that predestination involves both election and reprobation. But there is disagreement on how these sides are to be understood.

Equal Ultimacy

One view, which sometimes is called “hyper-Calvinism,” teaches a symmetrical view of predestination, or equal ultimacy. What does that language mean? What is meant by a symmetrical view of predestination?

You know that something is symmetrical if both sides are equally balanced and configured. A symmetrical view of double predestination would say that in the case of the elect, God from all eternity decreed their election, and in the fullness of time, He intervenes in their lives and creates saving faith in their hearts by His grace. God invades the soul of an elect person and quickens him from spiritual death to spiritual life, brings him to faith in Christ, and redeems him. In a symmetrical manner, the reprobate are doomed from all eternity, and God, in the fullness of time, intrudes into their lives and creates fresh evil in their souls, ensuring their ultimate reprobation and damnation.

This view, equal ultimacy, teaches that just as God works grace by direct intrusion, so He works hardening by creating evil in the reprobate in an equal manner to how He creates faith in the elect. That is not the orthodox Reformed doctrine of double predestination. I do not hold to that view of equal ultimacy or a symmetrical view of predestination.

Positive-Negative Predestination

I hold to what is called, in theological jargon, a “positive-negative” view of double predestination. I am reminded of a story of a seminary student who preached his first sermon as a student at a local church, and he was frightened to see that his homiletics professor was in the congregation. This young man preached his heart out on the consequences of sin, impenitence, and the danger of eternal fire and destruction. After the service was over, he went up to his professor and he asked, “How did I do?” The professor said: “You were communicating clearly. You had a lot of passion, and people were riveted to what you were saying. But you need to learn to be more positive in your preaching.” The student took it to heart, and he stood up before the same people the next Sunday and said: “Last week I talked to you about the dangers of hell if you remained impenitent. My professor cautioned me and said that I need to be more positive with you. So today, the title of my sermon is ‘Unless You Repent, You Positively Will Go To Hell.’”

That is what I mean with the positive-negative schema. A positive-negative distinction in predestination is this: In the case of the elect, God positively intervenes in their lives to rescue them from their corrupt condition. The Holy Spirit changes their hearts from stone to hearts that are alive to the things of God. That is His positive intervention. In the case of the reprobate, God works negatively insofar as He passes over them. He leaves them to their own devices. He does not intrude into their lives to create fresh evil.

In this understanding, you have a mass of fallen humanity, all of whom are dead in sins and trespasses. God intervenes for those who receive His saving grace to rescue them from their sinful condition, and He passes over the rest. Those whom He passes over are not elect. They are the reprobate. But they are judged because of the evil that is already present in them, and that is what is in view in this portion of Romans 9.

Why God Raised Pharaoh

Notice that the first thing Paul says in verse 17 is: “The Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” This sounds—at least at first blush—pretty much like positive-positive, like equal ultimacy, does it not? Let us look at it as carefully as we can.

Paul has already quoted the text where Moses said of God, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy.” Now he quotes in the text where God says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose have I raised you up.” In this case, it is not enough simply to say that God permits Pharaoh to sin. It is not enough to say that the will of God is involved only by way of God’s staying out of the picture altogether and leaving Pharaoh to his own devises. That is an attractive way to handle this text, but I do not think it is sufficient to deal with what is being said.

God says to Pharaoh, “Not only have I allowed you to go unrestrained and unchecked in your willful disobedience of Me, but I have raised you up.” A better way to translate the text here is, “I have appointed you to this task.” The eternal God Almighty raised Pharaoh up, sat Pharaoh in the seat of power over the Egyptians, and gave him power to rule over his own people as well as over the Israelite slaves. God did that. God put him on the throne. God put him in that position of power. Why? For God’s purpose of showing His own power: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”

That happened four thousand years ago, and here we are in Sanford, Florida, talking about the power of God and the redemption of the people of Israel, who were both individually and corporately impotent against the power of Pharaoh. The people of Israel were without power. Luther said they were machtlos, “without any might.”

The power that was invested in Pharaoh was invested in him by the Lord God omnipotent, before whose power the power of Pharaoh was impotent. It is as if God said: “I appointed you to this position not that I can show the world how much power you have, Pharaoh, but that I can show the whole world My power. That’s why I raised you up. That’s why I appointed you for this task, so that I might show My power and by extension, that My people, in their powerlessness, their machtlos, might know where the power of their salvation lies. It lies not in their hands, nor in their running, nor in their willing, but in My will and in the power of My mercy. That’s why I raised you up, for My people’s sake, that they may not entertain the idea that they saved themselves, but so they might know it was only through My power that the exodus could take place.”

Hardened Hearts

Paul goes on to say, finishing the quotation from Moses, that God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and those whom He wills He hardens. Once again, on the surface, it sounds like there is a balance of symmetry between God melting the hearts of the elect and calcifying the hearts of the reprobate. The Bible says, not only here but throughout the exodus account, that God repeatedly hardened the heart of Pharaoh. How are we to understand that?

First of all, Pharaoh and God were both involved, so in a very real sense God was actively involved in the hardening of the heart of a human being. But the question now is, How did God harden the heart of Pharaoh? How does He harden anybody’s heart? He does so not by mere permission, but by a divine decision that we read of again and again, particularly in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, where God deals with impenitent sinners by giving them over to their own sin. In the book of Revelation, when we see the decision of God at the last judgment, the final disposition of the wicked is through this very means. God said, “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Rev. 22:11). For God to do that, He does not have to create any new evil in their hearts. All God has to do to make people more wicked than they already are is to remove His restraints from them. One of the great mercies that God gives to us is that He keeps us from being as sinful as we possibly could be.

We talked earlier on in Romans about our corrupt condition, and I mentioned that Reformed theology uses the phrase total depravity to describe our situation of original sin. It fits the acronym TULIP very nicely, but I do not like the term total depravity because it is misleading. I prefer the term radical corruption, except that the initials for that do not bode well for me.

The problem with the term total depravity is that it suggests we are as bad as we possibly could be—that is, that we are utterly depraved. But think of all the sins that you have committed in your lifetime. You know that, as bad as they were, they could have been worse. You could have committed more, and you could have committed more vicious crimes than you actually have. That could be said of Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, or anyone else. No one who has walked the face of the earth has been as sinful as they could have been theoretically, not because there resided some island of righteousness in their own souls that kept them from utter depravity, but because the restraining power of God is a bridle to us that keeps us in check.

When we abuse God’s patience and longsuffering, our hearts become harder and harder, and at any moment God can remove the restraints and give us over to our sin. From Genesis to Revelation, we see that abandoning a sinner to wickedness is not an act of unrighteousness on God’s part but is a manifestation of His perfect justice. It is as if God says: “You want to sin? Be My guest. Go ahead. I’m not going to strive with you anymore. I’m going to take the wraps off. I’m going to loosen the leash and let you do what you want, because I know that the desires of your hearts are only wicked continually.”

The principle in the Bible is that giving over to sin is itself a judgment on sin, that it presupposes a prior sinful condition before God ever gives one over to it. It is not like God was looking around Egypt for someone He could appoint to resist Moses to prove to His people and the whole world the power of God, and He found a poor, innocent, righteous young man and said, “I’ll take this beneficent and benevolent young fellow who is an able administrator, put him on the seat of power over the Egyptians, and make him as evil as I can make him so that I can get My will done and show My power to the whole world.” That would be sheer cosmic tyranny, and that is not what God did.

God hardened a man whose heart was already hard. Pharaoh could not say before God: “Hey God, what’s going on here? You’re punishing me for the hardness of my heart while You’ve been involved in being sure that my heart gets hardened. That’s not fair.” Yes, it is fair. It is perfect justice for God to give an evil person over to evil.

Who Are You, O Man?

Paul continues, “You will say to me then . . .” He is expecting another objection. He has already heard the objection, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” As soon as he mentions the hardening of Pharaoh, he anticipates the objection people are going to raise: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” We could phrase the objection this way: “God, what kind of a despot are You that You’re going to judge me for doing what comes naturally when I’m only working out this evil disposition You fueled by hardening my heart?” How can God find fault in that situation?

Notice how Paul does not answer that question. Paul does not suddenly slip into Arminianism and say, “The reason He still finds fault is that all the sin from beginning to end is found in man, and all of the reason why some are elect and some aren’t is dependent on what people do with their choices.” None of that happens in this text any more than it did earlier.

“Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” Notice the first response is simply a moral rebuke: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” Before Paul even begins to give an answer to the question, he first calls his reader or the objector to remember who he is and to remember who God is. He is basically saying to people who are constantly carping against God’s sovereignty, “Who do you think you are?”

This is not at all unlike what happened with Job. When Job was the victim of so much injustice at the hands of men and Satan, when he was the epitome of one who was afflicted without relief, he finally raised his fist against heaven and shook it in the face of God, “Why, God?” God answered Job by saying:

Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge? (Job 38:2)

It is as if God said to Job in the midst of his misery: “Job, how dare you. You don’t know what you’re saying. The very question transgresses the border of blasphemy. You’re raising questions about My integrity. The question you are raising is a question that comes not from sound counsel but from the darkness of your own mind.”

Then God goes through that lengthy, relentless interrogation with Job: “I’ll answer your questions, but first you answer Mine, Job. Can you unbuckle the belt of Orion?” No. “Can you draw out the Leviathan with a six-pound test line?” No. “Can you send the birds south in the winter?” No, no, no, chapter after chapter. Finally, Job says: “Behold, I am vile. I will place my hand on my mouth and speak no more.”

What do we learn from that? Even when we struggle, even when we do not fully comprehend the mystery of God’s sovereign determinate will, let it not lead us to blasphemy. Let us remember whose will we are talking about. Going back to the previous question, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” Do not even ask it. At times it seems like it, but what we should understand more clearly than any other item of thought in the Christian faith is the absolute integrity and righteousness of almighty God.

“O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” Again, notice the context. Can Pharaoh shake his fist at God and say, “Why have you hardened my heart?” God could say to Pharaoh: “I do not need to give you an explanation, Pharaoh, because when I started working on you, your heart had no righteousness at all, and so I used you. Yes, I’ve used you for My glorious, holy, merciful, and gracious plan of salvation. You’ve become an instrument in My hand. You’ve become putty in My hand. You’ve come like a piece of clay in the hand of a potter. I assigned you to this task because of your wickedness.”

Power over the Clay

It seems to get worse when Paul says:

Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.

It would be utterly irresponsible for me to tackle this, the hardest portion of the text, in the few minutes that we have left. But let me just set the stage for the difficulty. Some people read this text and say that it refers to God’s act of creation: Just like the potter out of the same lump of clay fashions a vessel fit for honor, a beautiful vase, and another he plans to use for some vile purpose and has no beauty or aesthetic value to it, does the potter not sovereignly have the right out of the same lump of clay to make a good vessel and a bad vessel? If he makes a bad vessel and smashes it when he is all done, can the bad vessel say, “Why did you make me like this; all I’m doing is being what you made me to be”? Is Paul saying in this text that God creates the reprobate evil for His purpose of glory?

I do not have time to explain that now. I am just going to lay that out for you and give you a brief hint of how I will answer that question. The answer is going to be, “No, a thousand times no.” Paul is not teaching that God creates people already wicked. That flies in the face of everything the Scriptures teach us, especially the record of the fall. God creates people good, then they fall.

What we will consider when we deal with this is whether this “same batch” of clay is the original batch of creation or the “same batch” of fallen, corrupt clay, in which case the potter in this metaphor shapes some from that fallen, corrupt clay to be recreated in the image of Christ unto salvation and the rest are molded for the dishonor they so richly deserve. I am only whetting your appetite at this point on that issue. But we will have to wait, God willing, until next we gather together to wrestle with that question. For now, let us pray.

Father, we shrink in horror when we contemplate the possibility that You could righteously have appointed us for dishonor. There is nothing in us that would demand that You give us Your mercy and grace. There is nothing in us that could require that You not abandon us to our own wickedness. The more we think about this, the more amazed we are of the sweetness of Your mercy and Your grace, that You would save a wretch like me. We have nothing in our hands to bring, nothing to commend us except the love of Christ. For that, O God, we thank You. Amen.

This transcript has been lightly edited for readability.