Strength for Those Suffering with Christ: The Doctrine of Calling - Part 2. Romans 8:28
We are in Romans 8. This might have been one of those passages Peter talked about when he said there's some hard things to understand in Paul. This is a difficult section and I think it's difficult because so many people have heard what I think is sort of the surface or superficial interpretation of the passage. If you read it a certain way it's easy to think this is talking about some sort of predestination passage in the typical approach of 5-point Calvinism. So many people have heard that and heard those kinds of definitions of the terms election and predestination that when they come to this passage and they read those words their brains have sort of been front-loaded with those definitions. What I'm hoping to do as we go through this section is try to unload those definitions and flush them out of our minds because the key terms that we see here, especially foreknowledge, election, and calling, all have to do with the plan of God for His people.
In the Old Testament, those terms had to do with the Old Testament collective people of God in terms of Israel. They were the elect or choice ones. You remember last summer we talked about the doctrine of the Magnum bar. We'll be getting back to that again because there was this one ice cream bar that I was eating in Israel last summer that had in Hebrew on it the same word that's used for elect. It's usually translated elect or select in the Scripture. I asked our guide, "What does this mean?" He said, "Choice almonds." The emphasis was on choice, a qualitative thing, not a selection process or election process with this picture of God somewhere in eternity past making a decision that He is going to create the human race and, knowing they will fall [or determining in Calvinism], He decides that he will select some for salvation and the rest are doomed to eternal judgment and condemnation. That's the double-predestination view. Not all Calvinists take that view. That's sort of the high Calvinist, supralapsarian view, depending on the order in which you place God's thinking logically, whether he thinks about determining the fall before He chooses to save some. I'm not going to get into all of the intricacies of supra-lapsarianism, infra-lapsarianism, and "Labrador retrievers".
We're going to get into just the terminology that's used in the Scripture so we can think about it a little more clearly, a little more precisely. That's why last time I took the time to give sort of a fly-over or overview of the chapter, especially the last half from verse 17 on to show that what the apostle Paul is doing in verses 18-39 is to help us to understand or to challenge us as believers to press on, to suffer with Christ, and to be joint-heirs with Christ. So the theme of suffering is introduced in verse 17 and then it is expanded upon in relationship to the believers' future glorification with Christ, starting in verse 18. When we come to that well-known favorite promise of Romans 8:28, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose", we have to locate that within this context.
Context is everything. It shapes our understanding of these words. As we come to Romans 8:28 I want to review a few things I said last time but I want to move forward into some other things we need to understand. ((CHART)) First of all the verse starts with that verb oida, we know, which is an interesting word choice for the Apostle Paul here. oida has an odd etymology in terms of its grammar and syntax but it's one of two words that are used in Greek for knowledge. The other word is the word I've transliterated at the bottom of the paragraph there, ginosko has the idea of coming to know something where oida has the idea of something that is intuitive. When it refers to God it refers to His omniscience, that which is known intrinsically to God. For human beings its either referring to intuitive knowledge of something we've already come to know, everybody has come to understand. It's a perfect tense, which means it's completed action, so it's referring to something that is already known. It was learned or acquired knowledge in the past and it is a first person plural, which emphasizes 'we' as opposed to 'you'. Paul is including himself along with his readers in this understanding of this basic principle of Romans 8:28.
Now if you look at the section we're talking about Paul has significantly shifted to using a first person plural pronoun, starting back as early as verse 16, "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God." He's including himself with his audience that they're all children of God. I pointed out this is the Greek word teknon which indicates all believers are adopted into God's Royal Family. Then in verse 17, he says, "If children, then heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed, we suffer with Him.." So he's still using that first person plural. Verse 18, he talks about that fact that "the suffering of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Those glories related toward us in terms of the character of Christ being manifest in us. I pointed out that concept of glory is often a circumlocution, which is a fancy word for saying something in another way, a word substitution, which means His Essence. So the essence of God, the character of God is revealed in us.
Now that's important because in Romans 8:29 we're told that we are "predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ." Predestination doesn't mean choosing someone to go to heaven or to go to hell. Predestination, as we're going to see in a couple of verses has to do with God's plan, God's destiny for the believer. Not God's destiny for some human beings and not others, but God's pre-determined plan to conform believers to Christ. That is our preset destiny. God wants us to be conformed to Him and therefore the glory of God, in terms of His essence, will be manifested in us. Remember Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." We know from reading that that the glory of God refers to His character, His essence. So we fall short of that essence but that essence related to His image and likeness is going to be manifested in us.
As human beings we were originally created in the image and likeness of God and that image was defaced and corrupted by sin and in the process of sanctification, that likeness, that character of God, which is the same as the character of Christ, is being reformed and developed within us. As we go through these verses I'm just pointing out the number of times we have the word 'we'. Romans 8:22 says, "For we know.." Romans 8:23 says, "We also have the first fruits of the Spirit.." Verse 24 and 25 say, "For in hope we have been saved but hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it." And then 'we' is used in verse 26, "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness, for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words." So the whole context here is developing the idea that there is a commonality here between Paul, the apostle, and his audience. This is a shared common truth.
So it's introduced in Romans 8:28 that we know something. In English we might translate it by putting a colon after something, leaving out that, which is indirect discourse stating a principle that is known. The principle is stated so you get the idea this was a universal truth accepted and known by all believers. I'm now going to re-order the text to go into the word order we find in the Greek text for emphasis. "We know to those who love God." This phrase is thrown at the beginning of the verse because Paul is encouraging those who want to be joint-heirs with Christ back in verse 17. It's not that this doesn't apply to carnal believers or to believers who just aren't going anywhere in the Christian life but Paul, as well as the Apostle John as well, often when they are talking to believers they assume that if you're a believer you're going to want to excel and push toward maturity. They're not accommodating to those who are failures.
They're encouraging every believer to press on. While these truths, in some sense, apply to all believers Paul is really focusing on one category: those who love God. I pointed this out the last time that there are two views on this. One view is that this passage only relates to that class of Christians that are obedient to God, only to those who love God. It doesn't apply to anybody else. But you see the problem with that view is that when Paul goes on to define those who love God, it defines them with this appositional phrase that they're the ones who are "the called according to His purpose".
Now that phrase is now placed within a series of steps from the foreknowledge of God to glorification in verse 29, showing that those who are the called are also the ones who are justified, no more and no less. They're the ones who are glorified, no more and no less. Now all believers are "the called". Only some believers are really pursuing spiritual growth and spiritual maturity and so this applies especially to them.
Paul is thinking in terms of that special group who are faithful and growing. That's the second interpretive option. Both are true in some sense. He's emphasizing one to the exclusion of the other. He's not saying that this doesn't apply to every believer. It does in some sense but primarily he's focusing on just the ones who are going somewhere. He's focusing on the movers and he's not focusing on the sitters. He's just focusing on that one group. He doesn't say the others weren't called. He's just not emphasizing them. So the second option is that this passage refers to all believers whether growing or not, whether faithful or not, whether walking by the Spirit or not. It's primarily focusing on that class of Christians who are obedient to God.
We know this because throughout Scripture, those who love God are those who are obedient. Those who are disobedient don't love God so the phrase "those who love God" is a restrictive term. Now all believers are called but not all of the called are pressing on but they have the potential to press on, the potential to grow. That's why Paul is focusing on this because he is trying to motivate and challenge all believers to be obedient so they can suffer with Christ so they can be joint-heirs with Him. The New Testament passages like John 14:15 and 21 emphasize the fact that love is exhibited in action, in obedience. Love is not an emotion. There may be an emotional kind of love but love is an action. It is obedience to God. It is doing what God says to do. John 14:21, "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me." The one who is disobedient isn't demonstrating love. John 15:10, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." Once again, obedience and love go hand-in-hand. 1 John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." How do we demonstrate love? Keeping His commandments.
Now, as we look at the text in terms of the word order, we read, "And we know that to those who love God, all things work together for good." I pointed out last time that the "all things" references the suffering that's mentioned starting in verse 17. "If we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him." Verse 18, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Then we get into the issue of the groaning of creation, which is under a bondage of corruption in verse 21 and 22, "For we know that the whole creations groans and suffers the pains of childbirth." Verse 23 talks about how we ourselves groan within ourselves waiting eagerly for the adoption as sons, the redemption of the body. So the "all things" relates to the negative features, adversities, the problems, the suffering that we go through in this life.
Now the way it is structured in the best Greek text. Remember I pointed out last time that this isn't even an issue in the debate between the majority text and the Nestle-Aland text. If you have a New King James Bible you will see in a footnote, it will say, "The NU text says.." The NU are both upper case. The N stands for the Nestle-Aland text, which is one of the critical texts of the Greek New Testament. The U stands for the UBS4 text so that's what that's referring to. That's the group of texts that believe that the oldest is the best. They usually go with three or four North African manuscripts agreeing together. They automatically agree with that, even though every other manuscript has another reading. But this doesn't even relate to that issue at all. It is simply that there are a couple of North African texts from the late 3rd to the early 4th century that have the reading of God as the subject, God causing all things to work together for good. God showing up as the subject of the verb shows up only in three or four manuscripts and only two major ones. It's easy to explain that some scribe wanted to clarify things so he inserted God because it appears that God would be the One who performed this. So "God causing all things to work together for good" would be the implication. But there are many times in Scripture where we have certain statements made that are impersonal. It's not saying that the all things are actively causing their own outworking to good but that it's stated that way. It's an idiom of everyday speech.
This morning I was working through, in preparation for some things coming up in Romans 9 and relating also to predestination and election issue, volition and free will, I was working through Exodus in the passage which is dealing with the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.
Sometimes in two verses next to each other, sometimes in three verses next to each other, it's stated different ways. One verse says Pharaoh hardened his heart. Then the next verse says Pharaoh's heart was hardened and then the next verse says God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Well, which is it? What it is is that God is the ultimate cause of everything in the universe. He allows everything. But you also have the way you talk in everyday language about things. Pharaoh has a volition and he hardened his heart. His heart was also hardened and we'll talk about that simply because of the way he responded to his circumstances. Then ultimately God is overseeing this, bringing about His plan and His purposes in the history of Israel but that doesn't mean God is overriding Pharaoh's volition.
But you have three different ways in which the language operates. One is sort of passive: Pharaoh's heart was hardened but we're not saying he didn't do anything or make any choices. That's just the way which people talk. That's the idiom of language. What hardened it? Well he went through difficult times and that's how he responded. It's also true that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The point I'm making from using that as an illustration is simply that we use language idiomatically all the time. Sometimes you have to understand that you can't take an idiom or the normal way of speaking where we take an active verb or passive verb and express it passively or we take something that is personal and speak about it impersonally. These are just the way in which language is used.
So the best texts state, "We know that all things work together for good." That's not saying the things aren't actively working in everything. It's understood. God is the One doing this and bringing about the results for the good. So "all things" refers to the suffering. That seems to be the subject because the topic of these previous verses are these things of adversity that we're facing. So it's just a common use of language for Paul to say, "These things will work themselves out to good." The assumption is that because God has a plan and a purpose which Paul unfolds in the next few verses. So he says, "To those who love God all things work together for good." Then he further defines those who love God as those who are called according to His purpose.
This is where we came last time to talk about this whole issue of "calling" and locate that within the context of a lot of modern, theological debate. Calvinism, especially high Calvinism, five-point Calvinism, has been on the resurgence for the last thirty or forty years. There are different theories I've heard for this. Of course, Calvinists will say it's because it's Biblical and more people are just getting back to the text. I don't agree with that. I think it's because Calvinism is an extremely tight theological system for people who love rigor and details and hyper-logic, they fall in love with this system of Calvinism. But it's an integrated system and it has flaws. If you grant the assumptions of Calvinism then you have to grant, like any other system, its conclusions. I don't grant the assumptions because the assumptions are often flawed in terms of their view of the sovereignty of God and the volition of man. I think Calvinists have a very low view of God. Their view of God's sovereignty is narrow, not wide. Of course they say the opposite but for a sovereign God to be able to oversee and superintend all of the volition of mankind indicates the superiority of God.
But if God is Calvinist-presented, if God has predetermined each and every solution and every decision, then that conception of God's Omnipotence and Omniscience is narrow. My view of God's Omniscience is much broader. In Calvinism God cannot know what will happen unless God has first pre-determined what will happen. So in strict Calvinism, God does not know all of the knowable, all of the potential, all of the possible, He only knows what will happen. In my view of the Omniscience of God, God knows all of the knowable. When Jesus made statements about Sodom and Gomorrah and Capernaum and Bethsaida, that if they had only responded to the grace that was given them, things would have been very different. He knows what might have happened, what could have happened under other conditions. God's knowledge is extensive; it is not narrow and restricted only to that which He has pre-determined.
In Calvinism what they do is take foreknowledge and they make it a causative element. God causes certain things to happen and that's why He knows they could happen. We'll get into that a little more but that's sort of the set-up. Last time I gave you some quotes from Calvinists and I want to give you some more tonight so you can hear what they're saying.
These quotes are from a book. I first read this book probably forty years ago before I went to seminary trying to think my way through these issues. It's called The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented by David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and Roger Nicole. This first came out in 1963. In their introduction, sort of a summation of these things, of the effectual call in the irresistible grace section, they say, "As was shown above [in their previous discussions on election and limited atonement] the Father before the foundation of the world [in eternity past] marked out those who were to be saved and gave them to His Son to be His people." So in high Calvinism, before there's even a decree for a fall, God decrees to save some and to condemn others. That's supra-lapsarianism.
"At the appointed time", they go on to say, "the Son came into the world and secured their redemption." In five point Calvinism, limited atonement means Jesus only died for those who were first chosen, the elect. Redemption only secures the salvation of those God chose. Everybody else is passed over. They continue, "But these two great acts, election and redemption, do not complete the work of salvation." Now they're going to talk about its application. They say, "Included in God's plan for recovering lost sinners is the renewing work of the Holy Spirit by which the benefits of Christ's obedience and death.." Notice they have two categories. Obedience which saves you. Christ's active obedience is soteriological. Not just His death on the Cross but His active obedience in life. According to them, what saves is not just Christ's death on the Cross; it's His obedience in life. "The renewing work of the Holy Spirit by which the benefits of Christ's obedience and death are applied to the elect." [It can't be applied to anybody else.] "It is with this phase of salvation [the application by the Holy Spirit] that the doctrine of irresistible or efficacious grace is concerned."
See in historic theology, efficacious grace is a Calvinist term. It doesn't mean to them that God the Holy Spirit takes your faith and makes it efficacious for salvation. That is not a historic definition of efficacious grace. Efficacious grace is, and always will be, a Calvinist term. Therefore you can't redefine it to be something else. It means that God the Holy Spirit graciously calls internally only the elect. "Simply stated, this doctrine asserts that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ." See, that's the classic definition of efficacious grace. No one else uses the term but Calvinists. It doesn't mean to make your faith effective for salvation. It means that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners who He personally calls to Christ. He inevitably applies salvation to every sinner whom He intends to save and it is His intention to save the elect." He doesn't apply this to anybody else, only to the elect and it is irresistible. In other words when the Holy Spirit begins this work you don't have anything to say about it. Your volition can't say, "Well, I'm not going to believe in Christ." You can't do that. It's irresistible grace and it's always effects its results which is why it's called efficacious grace.
They go on to say "The gospel invitation extends a call to salvation to everyone who hears its message." Now that's what I called last time the external invitation to believer and unbeliever alike. "It invites all men without distinction to drink freely of the water of life." See it's a free offer but they're not free to respond so it's a moot offer. "It invites all men without distinction to drink freely of the water of life and live. It promises salvation to all who repent and believe but this outward general call extended to the elect and non-elect alike will not bring sinners to Christ." They're saying, "You can offer salvation to all sinners but it won't bring any to Christ unless they're elect." It's not going to bring anybody else to Christ. Why? "Because men are dead in sin and under its power." Even the elect are dead to sin and under its power. The gospel call can't do anything, they say.
"Consequently the unregenerate will not respond to the gospel call in repentance and faith." They can't respond whether they're elect or not. "No amount of external threatenings or promises will cause blind, deaf, dead, rebellious sinners to bow before Christ as Lord and to look to Him as the One for salvation. Such an act of faith is contrary to man's lost nature." Therefore the Holy Spirit must do something. We all agree that the Holy Spirit does something. What He does is the matter of contention. "Therefore, the Holy Spirit to bring God's elect to salvation extends to them [only the elect] a special inward call in addition to the outward call named in the gospel message." So there's an outward gospel message to all but it can't save anyone or bring anyone to salvation at all. That's what they've just said. Only the inner call can do that.
"So through this special call the Holy Spirit performs a work of grace within the sinner which inevitably brings him to faith in Christ." Inevitably. That means you can't resist it. The unregenerate person receives this inner call. His volition doesn't matter. He can't resist it. That's why it's called irresistible grace. And it automatically and inevitably will bring him to faith in Christ. They go on to say, "The inward change wrought in the elect sinner enables him to understand and believe spiritual truth." Read that carefully. What is the nature of that inward change? Is it just knowledge, the ability to understand the gospel? Look at where they're going to go with this. That's regeneration. That's what they mean by an inward change.
"The inward change wrought in the elect sinner enables him to understand and believe spiritual truth. In the spiritual realm he's given the seeing eye and the hearing ear." They're not just limiting this to just understanding the gospel message. That's what I would say. The Holy Spirit acts on all who hear the external call to enable them to understand the spiritual issues. What they're saying is that the Holy Spirit only acts on the elect. It's not just knowledge; it's not just understanding. There is a change wrought within them. They say, "The Spirit creates within them a new heart or a new nature." That's regeneration but they haven't believed yet. See regeneration in high Calvinism comes before faith. They can't believe because they're spiritually dead. How can a dead person believe, they say. They have to be made alive first and then they can believe.
So they say, "The Spirit creates within them a new heart or a new nature. This is accomplished through regeneration or the new birth by which the sinner is made a child of God and is given spiritual life." Now we understand that. We can all agree to that basic definition that regeneration means a sinner is made a child of God and is given a spiritual life. It's just that they put it before he believes. They go on to say, "His will is renewed through this process so that the sinner spontaneously comes to Christ of his own free choice." But they believe that the reason he comes to Christ of his own free choice is that he's given a new nature that predetermines that he will respond to the gospel by faith." Do you see that? Anybody want clarification? I want to make sure you understand what Calvinists are saying. This is the best way to do it.
"His will is renewed through this process so that the sinner spontaneously comes to Christ of his own free choice." But he's already regenerate. He's regenerated before he ever believes because their view is that he can't believe until he's regenerated. "He's given a new nature so that he loves righteousness and his mind is now enlightened so that he understands and believes the Biblical gospel. The renewed sinner freely and willingly turns to Christ as Lord and Savior. Thus, the once-dead sinner is drawn to Christ by the inward supernatural call of the Spirit who through regeneration makes him alive and creates within him faith and repentance."
See faith is meritorious, they believe, and they think it's given to the person so that they can respond to the gospel. God does everything. There's no room for human volition. They only have free choice after they're regenerate. And they're regenerate and they can only exercise choice in the gospel after they've been given new life. I quoted these two reformed theologians last week, Berkhoff talking about external calling. He was just simply recognizing there's an external call but no one can really respond to it, he says. They can only respond to the internal call which affects regeneration. John Gerstner says, "The call is to whomever will, which only applies to the regenerate."
You didn't read that in the little footnote when it says "whosoever will", there's a little asterisk there in their Bible and the footnote says, "only the elect"? I'm being facetious. "Whosoever will" only if you're elect. So the call, they say, is always to the regenerate, never to the unregenerate. Then I also had this quote from Millard Erickson last time, "Salvation consists of three steps. The first step of salvation is effectual calling. The effectual calling brings about conversion and regeneration." He, too, has conversion before regeneration.
Not all Calvinists are the same. You have low Calvinism, high Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism. Those are different strengths of Calvinism. But all of this relates to the doctrine of calling. So let me just highlight a few things on what the Scripture says about calling. In the Scripture, calling or the called refers to the overall process by which unjustified sinners come to understand the plan of salvation and God's invitation to them to receive salvation in Christ. I'm just emphasizing here that it's an invitation. When I give an invitation, or explain the gospel on Sunday morning, that is an invitation to all. It's an external invitation, a summons or a calling to respond to the gospel.
When we have the phrase "the called" it refers to those who have responded to the gospel by putting their faith alone in Christ alone. While there are others who were invited, those who rejected it are no longer consider to be "the called." In Matthew 22:1-14 we have the parable of the wedding feast. Invitations go out to one and all but only a few respond. The ones who did not respond are no longer the invited ones because they didn't show up. The ones who showed up in the banquet hall are the invited ones. They're the called ones. Others were invited but they didn't show up so they're not considered the called anymore.
The most well-known use of this word 'called' or kletos is where it says "many are called but few are chosen." We'll come back to this again because the word chosen there is for the elect. So many are called. Why would God invite someone that wasn't chosen or elect? It's a conundrum. They have a problem about this in Calvinism. That's why they have to say, "Well this is just the external call. The elect refers to the internal call." But that phrase in the text refers to those who actually showed up. Matthew 22:1-14, just to be clear, is talking about an open invitation, "many are called, few are chosen [those who show up]".
In over fifty uses in Paul's epistles the word group has a more restrictive or technical use referring to those who have responded to the gospel. The called ones are anyone who believes in Jesus. They were the called ones. The others failed to respond. The ones who responded are the ones who completed the process and relates the purpose of the calling. Every one of these terms relates to God's future purpose, not a past action. That's what I want to emphasize. It all relates to God's purpose or plan. We'll see that when we get into some text in a minute.
So point three is that the calling or the invitation for those who respond is effectual because they responded. Not because they were elect but because they responded and believed the gospel, they are saved. They are regenerate because they believe. Those who refuse to attend, though invited, are irrelevant to the invitation because they haven't shown up at the banquet. This is related to Matthew 22. Since they did not fulfil the invitation they cannot be referred to as "invited ones".
Now another way in which the word calling is used is in secular Greek in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The word group also had the idea of commissioning someone. In the Old Testament, the Greek word kaleo is used to translate the Hebrew word chara in the sense of service and dedication and this conforms to our sense of a commissioning. For example, "I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness." This has the idea of why God calls Israel as a nation. They're commissioned to be an example of righteousness to the nations. It doesn't have the sense of "I have called you" in the sense of a name, which is what we have in Isaiah 43:1, "But now, thus says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are Mine!" It's an identification usage there. In Isaiah 41:2 it's talking about Cyrus. God's going to raise up Cyrus to bring the Jews back to the land and he's referred to in another passage as the anointed one. The verse says, "Who has aroused me from the east Whom He calls in righteousness to His feet." It's a commissioning. The calling is related to purpose. It's not related to salvation. It's related to the fact that God had a purpose for raising up Cyrus. That purpose was for the Jews to return to the land from the Babylonian Captivity. So there the word calling has this idea of commission or focusing them on a purpose.
It's used the same way in the New Testament where it's calling every believer to serve in the body of Christ. Ephesians 4:1 says, "Therefore I the prisoner of the Lord implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called." The calling here refers to the purpose for which we were saved. We have a calling. We have a purpose. God did not save us just so we could go to heaven. There was a purpose in that calling. We are saved for a righteous purpose. The New Testament also uses it as it did in the Old Testament for just indicating the identification of a name, when they are called saints. It's just a name. That's just the nomenclature. Same thing in 1 Corinthians 1:2, "To the church of God which is at Corinth to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling." That's the naming of something.
Let's go back to Romans 8:28. "And we know that to those who love God all things work together for good, to those who are the called according to a purpose." We are to conform to a purpose. God had a purpose in calling us. So that purpose is future. The idea of our calling is to accomplish something, to bring something about. There is a purpose that God has. So what I'm pointing out is that the calling is oriented to a purpose.
Predestination is also related to conformity in the future to the character of Christ. These terms are not looking at something God did in the past but the purpose for which this has happened, that God has a plan and a purpose which he's taking us toward. The word prothesis used here is from the verb protithemi and the verb has to do with a plan, a proposal, an intended act. prothesis means setting something forth, a presentation, a plan, a purpose. It means a person resolves to do something so it has to do with this idea of a future plan. It's used in some interesting passages such as Romans 9:11.
Now this is the passage where it talks about Jacob I love, Esau have I hated. This is not talking about the individual, eternal destiny of Jacob and Esau. It is talking about God's corporate plan for the descendants of Jacob, Israel, versus the descendants of Esau. It's not talking about their eternal destiny plan but God's plan and purpose for them in history. So Romans 9:11, having talked about just before that the twins in the womb, Paul says, "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to choice would stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls." God chose that the path of blessing from Isaac to Abraham would go through Jacob. It's not a soteriological plan or choice. It's that God chose that through Jacob God would develop his plan for Israel, not through Esau.
God chooses people for different purposes and roles all the time. That has nothing to do with their eternal destiny. So election is according to the purpose of God within His plan, not in terms of the end results of a person's destiny, in terms of heaven or hell. Ephesians 1:11 uses these words again, that we're predestined according to purpose. So God sets up the destiny, predetermines our destiny in Christ, to be conformed to Christ, according to His plan or purpose. It's not this Calvinistic idea that God is determining who will be saved and who won't be saved. Ephesians 3:11 uses the word again, "This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Now where I'm going to go with this is that our election is corporate, just like election in the Old Testament is corporate and it's election in Christ. Those who are in Christ share in Christ's election and His destiny. We get there by making a volitional response to the gospel to believe it. Then when we're in Christ and we share those blessings and that destiny. Now calling is always related to that purpose as I stated earlier. So we have passages like Galatians 5:13, "For you were called to freedom, brethren." It's not talking about you've been called to heaven as opposed to the lake of fire. It's talking about God's plan and purpose for the believer who is in Christ.
The believer in Christ is called to liberty. We're to serve one another. Ephesians 1:18, "That the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling." The hope of His calling is our future destiny to rule and reign with Christ, which is then defined in the verse, "The riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." Our future inheritance. Ephesians 4:4 says, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling." Hope is a future term. Calling has to do with our orientation to God's future plan and purpose. Colossians 3:15, "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which you were called in one body and be thankful." So peace is part of why we were called. 1 Thessalonians 4:7 says we're called for holiness. 1 Peter 2:21 says, "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps." We're called to imitate Christ. 1 Peter 3:9 says we're called to inherit a blessing. None of this is related to calling to go to heaven versus calling to go to the lake of fire. It has to do with our purpose as believers in the body of Christ.
Now this brings us to a critical passage in John 6. The key verses although there are others that you'll hear Calvinists cite for efficacious grace or irresistible grace is in John 6:37, 44, and 65. In verse 37 Jesus says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." In other words you can't come to Jesus unless the Father gives them to Jesus, the Calvinists say. John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." That verse is taken out of context and everything is loaded up on that one verse. They assert it's saying you can't come to the Father, no matter how much you want to be saved; you can't come unless the Father draws you. That drawing from the Father is irresistible.
Then they'll take the word helkuothat is used for drawing and is used of hauling your fish into the boat. See the fish was hauled in against his will. Or someone was hauled off to jail. See, they're taken to jail against their will. They import a secondary text as a primary meaning and say it means you are drawn against your will. That's not what the context says. The next verse makes it very clear and we'll get to that in a minute. The other verse is John 6:65 which says, "And He was saying, For this reason I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." So it doesn't matter what you want to do. The Father makes the decision and you're irrelevant to it. That's their basic position.
Now when you look at this you really have to look at the context and how some things are used within the Scripture. First of all, this is in the middle of the bread of life discourse. Jesus is talking about that He is the Bread of Life and the source of life. In the context of John, chapter 6, there is a disagreement that breaks out as the people start to challenge what Jesus is saying. But there are two groups of people in front of Him. There's the group that is resistant to the gospel and to Jesus' claim to be the Messiah and the group that has responded to His claims to be the Messiah. So there are unbelievers and believers there. Verse 24 says, "So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples they themselves got in to the small boats and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Then Jesus begins to confront them in verse 26, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled." The only reason you're coming to me is because you think I'm the federal government and I'm going to feed you, putting it into modern terms.
So then they asked him in verse 28, "What shall we do so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus told them they must believe in Him who sent Me. We're going to see here that several times through this chapter Jesus emphasizes they must believe. He does this in John 6:29, 35, 40, 47, and 64. He's contrasting that some of them do not believe because Jesus knew who were the believers and the unbelievers. This is the context where Jesus says, "Of all that the Father has given Me, I should lose nothing." Who is it that Jesus describes in this phrase? This is really interesting so I think I need to come back and review this next time. Who is Jesus talking about? Is he talking about church age believers today? No, he's not. He's talking about the people in front of him who were Old Testament saints who believed in Him. They had already believed the gospel. They were Old Testament believers and now they're responding to Him as the Messiah. Now how can I say that? Because this phrase is not just used here in John 6 but several times in Jesus' priestly prayer in John 17 and following.
In John 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, "Father the hour has come, glorify your Son as the Son has also glorified you. As you have given Him authority over all flesh that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." Now that sounds like it would be all believers of all ages? Right? In John 17:6, Jesus said, "I have manifested Your name to the men you have given me." Jesus is talking about present tense reality. Jesus is the One who personally manifested His name to those whom God gave Him. That's not something He's doing in the church age. That's something He did personally in the incarnation. Jesus is talking about only those who God gave Him who were from the body of Old Testament saints in Israel. He says, "And they have kept your word." It can't be anybody future because there were people in the future who didn't keep His word but these are those who kept His word. It's a limited group. It's the ones Jesus personally manifested Himself to and they kept His Word. They were obedient to Him. That limits it to an historical interpretation.
He says in verse 20, "I do not pray for these alone but also for those who will believe in Me through their word." Who are the ones who will believe in Him? That's us. He makes a distinction by verse 20. These are those who have been given to Him. Those who will believe from their word are a second group. That's a future group. So when Jesus is talking about this group who have been given to Him through the Father, it's this group of Old Testament saints who have to respond to this new claim that Jesus is the Messiah and they are making that transition during that particular age. So Jesus here is talking about those who are responding to His Messianic claim.
Now the last part of this is John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him." Now if you isolate that it's easy to come up with the Calvinist idea of this internal call but that's not what's going on here. The next verse says, "It is written in the Scripture, and they shall all be taught by God." How are they drawn to Christ? They're being taught by Isaiah. In the next verse Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13 stating that the way in which men were drawn was through Old Testament Scriptures, through the Word of God. That's how God draws. It's not an internal draw or an internal call. It's talking about the external call that comes through the announcement of the gospel through the Scriptures. So the drawing of John 6:44 is understood only as the external call of the gospel, the gospel invitation. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him." And He draws him through being taught the Word of God. That's how we're drawn. This doesn't have anything to do with the internal call of God the Holy Spirit. That's just read into the passage.
So, wrapping it up, in conclusion, "calling" in the Scripture is not a reference to irresistible grace or efficacious grace or the efficacious call or whatever you want to call it. But it is a term referring to those who have responded to the gospel and are now oriented to a future plan and purpose of God in relation to their destiny with Christ. That's the call. The "called" are those who have responded to the call of the invitation and are now identified with Christ and, therefore, are sharing His destiny, that predestined destiny that we have with Christ in the Millennial kingdom. So with that, we've completed Romans 8:28 and we'll come back and look at Romans 8:29 and 30 next time.