Orders will be processed after the Christmas Holiday.

Podcast: Does God Choose Who Will Be Saved? (Robert Letham)

August 29, 2022 by: Crossway

This article is part of the The Crossway Podcast series.

Predestined for Adoption

In today's episode, Robert Letham talks about predestination, God’s sovereignty, free will, and how it all fits together.

Systematic Theology

Systematic Theology

Robert Letham

This single-volume systematic theology seeks to provide a clear and concise articulation of the Reformed faith, rooted in historical teaching while addressing current challenges in the life of the church.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSS

Topics Addressed in This Interview:

00:51 - Faith Seeking Understanding

Matt Tully
Dr. Letham, thank you so much for joining me today on The Crossway Podcast.

Robert Letham
I’m pleased to be here.

Matt Tully
You’re a well-known professor of systematic and historical theology, you’ve written many books on theology, and you’ve lectured on Christian doctrine around the world for decades, so I was surprised to learn, as I was researching for this interview, that you studied politics at the University of Exeter in the mid-1960s. Were you at that point thinking that you might go into some kind of career in politics?

Robert Letham
I was active in politics in my teens. I was a member of one of the two major political parties and active in it. So yes, I had certain designs on that, but obviously God had other purposes in store.

Matt Tully
What were the specific experiences or situations that God used to redirect you toward studying theology?

Robert Letham
I suppose I just had a conviction that I was called to preach the gospel I suppose. That’s basically the baseline.

Matt Tully
Did you grow up in a Christian home?

Robert Letham
Yes. My parents were long-standing Christians.

Matt Tully
What role would you say that theology played in your upbringing?

Robert Letham
I suppose it inevitably plays a big role because it affects everything people do—commitment to church and all that kind of thing. My father preached quite a bit. So yes, it pervaded, I would say.

Matt Tully
Would you say that your parents were pretty intentional about catechizing you in doctrine, or walking through in an organized way, systematic theology?

Robert Letham
No, they weren’t Presbyterian and they weren’t Reformed. Probably in this country, and certainly in England, there is not the kind of intense, systematic methodology (if you use that particular word) in upbringing that probably there is in the USA.

Matt Tully
Today we’re planning on discussing the doctrine of predestination, and in particular from a distinctly Reformed or Presbyterian perspective. I wonder if you could remember back when you think you first encountered and recognized the Reformed doctrine of predestination in your own life?

Robert Letham
I suppose it’s from reading in Scripture. You come across it very clearly in the writings of Paul and elsewhere in the Gospel of John From that you can detect it right across the whole Bible. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—which tells you there is God, and there are all other entities, each of which, in some way or another, he brought into existence. Therefore, all that there is is utterly dependent upon God.

Matt Tully
Would you say that your first introduction to this doctrine was primarily through reading through Scripture itself and not from a class or from a book you had read?

Robert Letham
Yes. Absolutely. Which is certainly the best way in terms of introduction because you then see how it’s grounded and how it’s located in the overall context of biblical revelation, rather than working it out from logic or some kind of—

Matt Tully
Some kind of system. That’s one of the obvious or common critiques that we might hear about systematic theology is that it’s this rationalistic approach to thinking about God that is maybe often detached from the witness of Scripture itself. Would you say that’s a fair critique of how systematic theology is sometimes done?

Robert Letham
Sometimes done, maybe. Certainly, there has been a rise in analytic theology, and there’s a danger there. But generally, no, it’s a complete caricature. Systematic theology, effectively, is the orderly understanding of the holistic content of biblical revelation on a theoretical and meta-theoretical level. It answers questions like, What does the Bible teach on this, that, or the other, and how are these things related to each other? What are the interrelationships? And indeed, what are the entailments of those things? Given the overall teaching of the Bible on this or that, what does that entail as a follower and as a consequence? It’s thinking clearly, consistently, and faithfully about the whole of biblical revelation. As Augustine originally said and was taken up by Anselm, “It’s faith seeking understanding.” If we have saving faith, we want to understand what that faith is about. The argument that systematic theology is something irrational is contrary, first of all, to the way God made us, and secondly, to the way God intends us to conduct ourselves as believers. Systematic theology, in fact, provides the means for the church to defend itself against heresy and false teaching, to preserve the gospel and to hand it down to the following generations.

Matt Tully
With all of that said and embracing all of that as true, do you nevertheless find that you have to be on guard for yourself, that you don’t allow the logical system in which you are doing this theology to override what Scripture clearly says?

Robert Letham
You can’t really set up a logical system that is in any sense independent of Scripture. You’re in danger there if you do because if you’re engaging a proper scientific approach to not only the Bible but to anything, you need to allow what you are concerned about—what you’re investigating—to dictate and shape the way you think and the way you follow it through. Consequently, systematic theology is and should be, as I say, the thoughtful, orderly reflection upon the whole of biblical revelation—using our mind. Jesus says we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our strength, and with all our mind. To deny that is to ultimately deny the gospel, because God expects us to use our minds. Paul wrote his letters, as Peter said, some things difficult to understand. He didn’t dumb it down; he didn’t condescend and speak in a patronizing manner. He said some very difficult things which are very difficult to understand and require extensive thought if we are to get them clear.

09:03 - A Simple Definition of Predestination

Matt Tully
Let’s turn now to a doctrine that I think many Christians would say is difficult to understand and requires careful thinking—that doctrine of predestination. I wonder if you could just start us off by defining that word in a sentence or two.

Robert Letham
When talking about the Bible, it’s really summed up in Ephesians 1—that God works all things together according to the counsel of his will. In other words, God is the Creator, and he continues to sustain and govern his creation. In other words, he’s in charge; there’s nothing outside of his authority. Otherwise he would no longer be God, and we would be in a very dire situation if that were so. In fact, everything—all things—are under his authority. If you want to sum that up, it means that God, being sovereign, governs and ordains all that comes to pass in his creation, including in human history.

Matt Tully
How does that definition of predestination relate to the doctrine of election?

Robert Letham
That’s a subset of it, in the sense that election relates to salvation, to deliverance from sin. And more than that, in fact, it means that God chose for himself a people to be in union with him. He chose us, Paul says in Ephesians 1, “in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him.” Prior to creation and prior to the existence of the universe, God determined that he would have a people of his own in relation to him. So it has something to do with us, but it also has something relating to God himself because he chose us in Christ. In Ephesians 1:3–14 there’s a recurrent phrase—in him, in Christ, in the one he loves—and it covers the entirety of salvation, from before the creation to Christ’s redeeming us by his blood and to the future. Consequently, he chose us in the same Christ who has redeemed us by his blood, and that is Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, who is one with the Father from eternity, but has taken human nature, so he’s also man. It tells us that before God created, the very first thing he determined was to take human nature into union with himself in Jesus Christ. That he would not, as it were, be God by himself in isolation, but he would create us to be in Christ united to him.

12:44 - What about Free Will?

Matt Tully
I think one of the obvious questions that arises from a discussion of predestination—and in particular, even election, as you’ve just described—is the question of free will. What are the implications for this doctrine on this idea of free will that we all sort of are born with some sort of implicit understanding of what that means. And culturally there’s a lot of talk about free will at times. How would you see those two concepts coming into contact with one another?

Robert Letham
What has happened, of course, is that humans have sinned in Adam. They have violated God’s requirement. Since God is life itself, that means it’s a choice for death. We have God’s promise of forgiveness and of eternal life and of union with Jesus Christ. The question is, of course, that because of the choice which Adam made for death—which was exactly what it was, to turn away from God, the wages of sin is death—human nature has been effected all the way through so that we are by nature averse—thoroughly averse—to having anything to do with God. We want to suppress it. Faith, therefore, is a gift of the Holy Spirit who enables us to believe. I think the point is this: we do not have the ability by nature to trust in Christ and to believe. God gives us to us. He changes the whole orientation of our will so that we freely believe. It is an act of our will, of which we freely believe. Some would say, What about the others who don’t believe? Isn’t that unfair? The point is they are equally freely choosing not to have anything to do with God in accordance of the nature which we all have inherited from Adam. In answer to the fact of whether or not that is fair, no one ever is going to be left apart from God to face the consequences of it against their will. There is no one who will wish or want to have faith in Jesus Christ who will ever be turned away. There will be no one—not a single person—whose will will be violated as a consequence. If people live their life apart from God and happily do so, it will be a violation of their human rights if some other outcome came.

16:07 - The Trinitarian Nature of Election

Matt Tully
In your systematic theology, you emphasize the Trinitarian nature of election. For those who are maybe less familiar with the doctrine and even less familiar with the idea of the Trinity and all its outworkings in our theology, why would you say it’s important to highlight that Trinitarian dynamic when it comes to this doctrine?

Robert Letham
Because God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three are eternally distinct, but they are indivisible. There’s one indivisible being. We use the word “persons”, but it’s not to be understood in the same way as human persons, which are self-contained, independent entities. There’s you, me, and your next door neighbor. We go our own way, we’re different ages, and we live different lengths of time. No, they are one indivisible being. In creation, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters, and God said, “Let there be light.” In the incarnation, the Father sent the Son, conceived by the Holy Spirit. At the crucifixion, the Son offered himself up through the eternal Spirit to the Father. We have the Bible; it’s in Scripture. If the Holy Spirit was off here doing his own thing and the Father was over there, you would really have three Gods. They work together inseparably but in their distinctive ways. In election, Paul gives thanks to the Father who chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, having already said that he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. When Paul uses the word pneuma, or its derivatives (Spirit), unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary, it’s invariably a reference in some way or another to the Holy Spirit. If you read Ephesians 1 and read through Ephesians—here’s just one example. Bearing in mind that the word theos (God) is usually used by Paul and other New Testament writers for the Father, Lord for the Son after his resurrection, and the Spirit (pneuma), you’ll see that underlying everything which Paul says is constant reference to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It’s there in everything he writes—Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Peter, and so on.

Matt Tully
So it’s not that our Trinitarian God was uniquely operating as a Trinity in this one doctrine; it’s that he is always in every case operating in his tri-unity, in distinct roles, and this is just one where we see it come to the surface in Scripture?

Robert Letham
The three work together without separation and without division; they are one being. But yet, only the Son became incarnate, though he was sent by the Father and conceived by the Spirit. Only the Spirit came at Pentecost, though he was sent by the Father and the Son. There are distinct works attributed to a particular person, but we have to bear in mind that all three are equally and integrally involved in each and every one of them, because that’s who God is. He doesn’t sort of hive himself off into various parts to do this, that, or the other.

20:14 - An Arminian Perspective on Predestination

Matt Tully
You presented what some might call a Reformed, or even Augustinian, perspective on the doctrine of predestination and election. Obviously, this view has been adopted by many Christians in various traditions and denominations through the centuries. I wonder if you could put your Arminian hat on for a minute—

Robert Letham
I don’t think I have one.

Matt Tully
But if you did and you put that on, make the best case you could make for an Arminian perspective on this issue. And then I would love to hear you put your Reformed hat back on and respond to that case.

Robert Letham
Arminius actually studied under Theodore Beza at Geneva who was the successor to John Calvin, and he modified the doctrine of election. After he studied with Beza he went to Rome, then into the Netherlands, and became professor at Leiden, rather controversially.

Matt Tully
You mention that as a way to say that he was very familiar with Calvin’s doctrine. He understood that perspective through and through.

Robert Letham
Yes. He was an able man. There aren’t actually many who follow Arminius today; they are more influenced by Wesley and the Wesleyan tradition. He had a conditional view of election. He argued that God chose those for salvation whom he foresaw would believe in response to the gospel. In other words, whereas Calvin and the Reformed in general—Luther as well and Augustine—would argue that it is God who foreordained us to salvation in Jesus Christ and he also ordained the means to salvation too (they would hear the preaching of the gospel, they would respond, and so on), Arminius held that God, as it were, looked ahead to the future, saw who would believe and respond to the gospel, and decided to choose them. That had a number of ramifications to it. It supposed, for example, that those who heard the gospel and responded would have in themselves some kind of residual power and ability and inclination to believe, whereas the Reformed following Augustine held that the effect of sin is such that the natural person is actually resistant to the gospel. It also implied that God does not so much choose anyone to salvation, but he rubber stamps those who choose him. He foresees and we choose him, rather than he chooses us and we, by his grace, respond. Moreover, because it’s conditional, it raises questions which Arminius and his immediate followers (the Remonstrants) felt unable to answer—whether those who believed would actually persevere to the end. They said we can’t really decide that. Because of that, they could not come up with the idea that you could be sure of ultimate salvation, because there was also the danger that a true believer might fall away. It’s summed up by someone whom I’ve not been able to trace the origin of this. Paul Helm, in one of his books, quotes it, and I see it came from previous sources. They’re saying that a Methodist or an Arminian knows he’s got religion, but is afraid he’ll lose it. A Calvinist knows he can’t lose it, but rather doubts whether he actually has it.

Matt Tully
That raises a good question in that is the net result of that distinction really the same, practically speaking? An Arminian is worried they might lose it and they have that lack of assurance, but a Calvinist lacks assurance in the sense that they’re always questioning, Do I have it to begin with?

Robert Letham
I think with the Arminian position it’s inherent in the doctrine. If election is conditional, so then perseverance becomes inevitably questioned. You don’t really have the theological underpinning to support assurance of final salvation. The problem which was particularly in Reformed circles was generated by a rather unhealthy focus upon oneself, because, obviously, if we try to examine ourselves too much, we’ll end up rather perplexed and shaken. Calvin described it as plunging into a labyrinth from which there seems to be almost no escape. In faith we trust in Jesus Christ, not in ourselves. We know what his promises are to those who believe. There’s a problem if we try to focus upon our own belief and our own understanding and experience of the Holy Spirit rather than upon Jesus Christ. It’s important that some aspects of that is done, obviously, because you can’t have assurance of salvation if you say you believe in Jesus Christ but you go out and start raping and murdering and stuff like that. In other words, if you commit and live in serious sin, it’s a direct contradiction of everything you would profess with your lips. So there has to be sanctification. There has to be obedience. It is right that you reflect upon that fact. But the focus, however, is to be on Christ. I would think that there is some commonality in that sense, as you point out, but I think that on the one hand the doubt about whether you will persevere flows from a prior theological commitment. Whereas the questioning of whether you are actually a true believer stand from a rather unhealthy focus on introspection.

27:52 - What about Reprobation?

Matt Tully
Some theologians and pastors through the centuries have argued that while election to salvation is an active choice on God’s part, reprobation is a passive passing over, with the implication being that God doesn’t actively choose people to be lost in the same way that he chooses people to be saved. Do you think that’s a valid distinction?

Robert Letham
It probably is because there’s a kind of tension there because we know that God does not desire the death of the wicked, but rather that he turn from his wickedness and live. Peter says, “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). So there is a desire for such people for repentance. But on the other hand, we have to bear in mind Jesus in the Gospels—in Matthew 11, for example—he gives thanks to the Father. He says, “I thank you, O Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the understanding, and have revealed them to babes.” “These things” are things related to what he had done—his miracles, his signs—and what he taught, which he rebukes the people in the previous passage because they had rejected it. They had rejected him, though they should have known him because they had the background of God’s revelation in the Old Testament. He had hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to babes. It’s difficult for us and I think we have to be very cautious here. He certainly did not bring about a situation which would change their hearts and minds so that they were responsive. It’s their responsibility for it and they are accountable to him for their unbelief and their rejection. But it’s not something for which he stands by wringing his hands in despair. He gives thanks to the Father for concealing these things and revealing them to babes. Then, almost in the same breath, he goes on to say, “Come unto me all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” It’s exactly the same speech (Matt. 11:25–30). All of these elements are brought together and combined in the words of Jesus himself. And, of course, while they are virtually impossible for us to get our heads around, they will forever be an antinomy, which is a kind of tension between what is apparently contradictory but is, in fact, resolved in the mind of God and, of course, in the words of Jesus himself.

Matt Tully
That’s one of the things that I, personally, have grown to love and appreciate about “Reformed theology.” It does recognize and even appreciate and value the tensions of our faith and the mystery that can sometimes be at play. I wonder if we could actually dig into one counter-example to that. What would a so-called hyper-Calvinistic view of predestination look like, where we don’t want to embrace this mystery.

Robert Letham
For example, I quoted 2 Peter 3. A hyper-Calvinist would say that when Peter says, “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance”, he’s referring to any of his elect.

Matt Tully
So you read in that concept that Peter’s not really bringing up.

Robert Letham
That’s right. They would argue that to say that God is not willing that anyone should perish—Adolf Hitler or your next door neighbor who is nice and kind but is an atheist—is logically contradictory to the doctrine of election. The question there is whether logic trumps biblical revelation. You really have to hold both of these things. Spurgeon said you believe in sovereign election and you believe in human responsibility equally. “Chosen in him before the foundation of the world”, “Come unto me all who are weary and heave laden”—those two things hold together, but we may find them difficult from our own perspective to reconcile. But they are both equally to be proclaimed.

33:33 - Pastoral Exhortation

Matt Tully
Maybe as a final question, I wonder if you could put on your pastoral hat for a moment. You served in pastoral ministry in an OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) for over two decades, so I’m sure you’ve had many conversations with parishioners about these topics. What would you say to the person listening right now who has heard all that you’ve said and who acknowledges what Scripture clearly teaches on this, and yet still would have to confess that this feels like a difficult doctrine. It feels scary. It feels like a different picture of God than what they’re used to seeing. Maybe even to them right now it makes God feel almost like a capricious monster perhaps. What would you say to that person as a pastor?

Robert Letham
I would say a number of things. First, if you open your Bible and go to the passages where it speaks of election, it’s almost always there to bring reassurance and it’s there to bring thanksgiving to God. It’s not designed to be the basis of introspection or speculation. In the very passage of Ephesians 1, which we’ve referred to, he says, “Thanks be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Several times he says “to the praise of his glory.” So the whole purpose is to produce assurance and confidence. The second thing is to look at the character of God as it’s revealed in Scripture. He is faithful, loving, just, and good. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, despite the fact that all the various promises that God had given to him were not yet realized and were not yet to be during his lifetime. But he believed God because he knew who he was and what he is like. He is faithful and true and loving. And then you would have to say how can you not believe since Christ is so central? The doctrine of election has to be understood as election in Christ, election in union with him. Right at the heart of it is Jesus Christ—the same Christ who died upon the cross for our sins. So it’s a matter of entrusting ourselves into the hands of God who promised and performed what he promised. And he’s promised us that he will keep us to the very end. Then, we reflect, too, upon the fact of our own sin. We have absolutely no power nor inclination to believe. We cannot maintain ourselves in that position, but he has given us the assurance that he will, through thick and thin and bad times as well as good. And the fact that God is Creator. He is the sovereign creator of the universe who is described in Scripture as beautiful and glorious and loving, and who has purposes for us which are far greater than we can imagine. You would have to place it in the whole context of the whole revelation of God, which brings us back to systematic theology. By lifting particular texts out of the Bible—I think one person says, “A text without a context is a pre-text”—you end up with a distortion. You see it in terms of the character of God, the centrality of Christ, our own helplessness and need, and the promise of salvation and the promise of being kept by the power of God through faith.

Matt Tully
What a good word for us and a wonderful reminder of why not just any individual doctrine but all of them seen together in the light of Scripture is so valuable for us. Thank you, Dr. Letham, for your time today.

Robert Letham
Sure.

Popular Articles in This Series

View All

Podcast: Help! I Hate My Job (Jim Hamilton)

January 06, 2020

Jim Hamilton discusses what to do when you hate your job, offering encouragement for those frustrated in their work and explaining the difference between a job and a vocation.

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.