Romans 9 and Predestination-Part 3

Welcome miscreants to our much maligned study of Romans 9! : )

Just in case you are a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion I suggest you check out Part I and Part II (Romans 9:6-13) for proper background. In Part III we are going to pick up where we left off and follow Paul’s reasoning through verse 18:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:14-18)

Considering what Paul just explained about the election of individuals in Romans 9:6-13, he knows a natural question will arise out of his readers. If God freely chose Jacob over Esau regardless of how good or bad they would be, then is God “just” or “righteous” in choosing the eternal destiny of one over another? (Romans 9:14)
Ask yourself: Would this controversial question over God’s justice arise out of God’s choice of a nation, or out of God’s choice over individuals? Paul knows he is introducing a truth that will be scandalous to the natural mind of men, so he anticipates the heated objection that will come up.

In Romans 9:15, Paul answers the objection in a very peculiar way. He quotes God’s words to Moses in Exodus 33:19: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Theologians call this a “verbal theophany” which God concludes in similar language in Exodus 34:6, 7.

But how does this verse satisfactorily handle the objection brought up in Romans 9:14? It seems Paul is reasoning in an almost circular way, saying, “God can save whomever he pleases, because God can save whomever he pleases.” Paul may be saying that, for what it means to be God is that He is a Sovereign King who can decree what He wills when He wills according to His good pleasure. But Paul may be saying a little more than that when we look at Exodus 33:18-19 in context.

Moses is interceding on behalf of transgressing Israel when he asks God:

“Please, show me your glory.” And God said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” (Exodus 33:18-19)

Moses asks for God’s glory, and as a result what God proclaims to be a manifestation of His glory is His free sovereign prerogative to “show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” In other words God seems to respond: “Moses, if you want to see my glory, goodness, and name manifested, then observe my sovereignty in election.” We alluded to this in part II where we saw our election is clearly tied to God’s glory in the church. God’s glory is most clearly seen by us when we behold the mystery that He sovereignly bestows grace on sinful wretches who have no deserving of it.

Romans 3:23 directly ties “unrighteousness” with the “falling short of the glory of God”, not just law breaking (Romans 3:22-23). By deduction we can conclude that to be righteous would be to attain or display the glory of God. This confirms the great function of the law to display God’s glorious character, rather than a rulebook for legalists.

This is the heart of God in election: His glory.

God must act in defense of His own glory. He would cease to be God if He did not. In the election of persons, God has His highest glory in view and it would be unrighteous of Him to pursue anything less (Isaiah 48:11). As John Piper is fond of saying, “God is not an idolator. He puts no one above Himself.” So if God is acting in election for the full esteem of His name and glory then He is acting rightly, or righteously, according to His character. This reasoning is how Paul puts the charge of “unrighteousness with God” in Romans 9:14 to rest.

Along with this God centered revelation, comes a shocking bolt to any remnants of pride we may have for acquiring our gift of salvation in Christ.

Romans 9:16 is the death blow for any argument that would posit that a free will choice is the basis of one’s election in Christ. It was a devastating blow to my long held presuppositions when I began to study it. Romans 9:16 remained there, as an irritating thorn in my long held Arminian perspective until I began to grapple with it’s ordinary meaning.

The implications are clear. A person’s election for salvation is not based on any choice originating within their hidden will or any action of outward physical exertion. Saving faith does not naturally arise in the mind, heart, or affection of mere men any more than a diamond would naturally arise out of a sewage dump (Jeremiah 13:23).

Our election is God’s only prescribed medicine for the fallen Adam nature we all inherited (Romans 5:12). 

We can’t get frustrated here and just throw our hands up and say, “In the end, what we believe about Romans 9 doesn’t really amount to a hill of beans!” No,the very eternal throne of God’s sovereignty and glory is what is at stake here with our intepretation of passages like Romans 9:16. 

The prince of preachers, Baptist minister CH Spurgeon, said of this passage:

If it be as God wills, then Jehovah sits as sovereign upon his throne of glory, and all hosts obey him, and the world is safe; if not God, then you put man there, to say. “I will” or “I will not; if I will it I will enter heaven; if I will it I will despise the grace of God; if I will it I will conquer the Holy Sprit, for I am stronger than God, and stronger than omnipotence; if I will it I will make the blood of Christ of no effect, for I am mightier than that blood, mightier than the blood of the Son of God himself; though God make his purpose, yet will I laugh at his purpose; it shall be my purpose that shall make his purpose stand, or make it fall.” Why, sirs…I shrink with solemn awe and horror from that doctrine which makes the grandest of God’s works—the salvation man—to be dependent upon the will of his creature whether it shall be accomplished or not. Glory I can and must in my text in its fullest sense. “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

Dead men cannot muster up one inch of obedience and faith to warrant God’s grace, so it must be accomplished through God’s mercy and grace (Eph 2:3, 2:5, 2:8-10). We bring nothing to the table except a deep abiding need for mercy. Regarding our salvation, God’s perfect merciful will has the final say. This is a consistent thread in Scripture and is not confined to Romans 9 by any means (see John 1:12-13, Philippians 2:12-13).
Most importantly, consider the words of our own Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in John 6:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes I will never cast out (John 6:37)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sends me draws him (John 6:44)

No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father (John 6:65)

No human being in the world has the natural spiritual or moral ability to come to Christ on his own unless God Himself gives him an inclination to do so. If we think Romans 9:16 is still strange it is because we mistakenly think God owes us anything, and we forget we deserve a sinner’s hell even on our best days (Romans 3:11-18).

John Newton used to tell a humorous story of a good woman in his church who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, “Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards.”

So it is with us. Unless God chose us, we would have never chosen Him.

In Romans 9:17, Paul brings up the OT arch enemy of God, Pharaoh, to display and preserve the free election of God on individuals.

Even in the midst of Pharaoh’s hardened heart God carried forth his purposes to make his name great. Paul’s quotation of Exodus 9:16 in Romans 9:17 brilliantly displays this. In mercy (Exodus 33:19) and in hardening (Exodus 9:16), God’s sovereign freedom is the means by which He declares the glory of His name. Pharaoh’s repeated insults of God inevitably set the stage for awesome displays of God’s power throughout the Exodus narrative.

Whether the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was a passive or active hardening by God is of little effect. The Reformed view holds that all men will ultimately harden their heart towards God’s purposes apart from the restraining grace of God. God didn’t work “fresh evil” in the heart of Pharaoh, for Pharaoh’s fallen heart was already manifestly evil. God did choose to not work grace or regeneration in the heart of Pharaoh though. 

Here the Arminian usually constructs a straw man of the Reformed view in order to publically tear it down. They would opine that the Calvinist view would make God guilty of evil. What our precious free will friends fail to understand is that though God works all things according to His will (Ephesians 1:11), He does not work all things in the same exact way. He can work in man or around man to accomplish making His name great. Still, we can’t escape the fact that God promised Moses He would harden Pharaoh’s heart long before the evil ruler actually ever hardened his own heart in the narrative (Exodus 4:21). God’s own mysterious hand is indeed in the first act of resistance by Pharaoh in some way.

Men are not “merely pawns” as the Arminian intepretation of Calvinism would assert. They are really evil people who make really evil choices according to their nature (Romans 5:12-21).

To us, God’s election is a strange way to show there is no unrighteousness or injustice in God (Romans 9:14). But Paul’s view of God’s righteousness is this: God’s own commitment to preserve the honor of His name and display His glory (Ezekiel 36:22-27). God’s election of some and not others is righteous and just, for when God chooses unconditionally those who He will have mercy on He is acting out of full allegiance to His own name.

To keep the reader from assuming that such treatment by God was only relevant to Pharaoh’s day and age Paul draws the universal principle from his argument and applies it to all men: “(God) hardens whomever he wills, and he has mercy on whomever He wills.” (Romans 9:18)

We don’t deserve any better treatment than Pharaoh, but praise God for His mercy!

God’s election of individuals is indeed righteous because it is the way He intends to get the most glory for His name. If there were a better way to exalt Himself He would have done it.

Paul knows there is still some serious tension between man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty in all this election talk. In part IV, our final installment of the series covering Romans 9:19-24, Paul will attempt to answer a final objection. Namely, if God is in control of man’s destiny in such an absolute way why does He still find fault with man?

Keep it classy. Grace and peace!


Romans 9 and Predestination-Part 2

This little three part series has quickly morphed into a four part series. I encourage you to tough it out and delve into the Scriptures brought up here on your own, for there is no way I can do justice to all of the material that is warranted for this study.

Part I covered Romans 9:1-5, our focus for part II will be on Romans 9:6-13. Romans 9:6 puts a distinguishing mark between Israelites to answer the question of whether God has been unfaithful to them. So Paul’s argument goes:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Paul brings up God’s sovereign choice of Isaac over Ishmael. Consider Galatians 4:22-30 in the thought of Paul to help interpret Romans 9:7-9 for us. When reading the Galatians passage we find Paul is making a distinction between those born of the Spirit or the elect (Isaac), and those born under flesh and the law (Ishmael). This is not a general distinction between physical and national identities but rather a distinction between those who are lost and those who are saved.

Ishmael’s mother was an Egyptian. So in the mind of the typical Jew that may have automatically excluded him from the covenant. So to fortify his argument and close a potential loophole Paul brings up Isaac’s twin sons born of the same Jewish womb (Genesis 25:23). In verses 10-13, God’s choice of one individual (Jacob) over another (Esau) cannot be due to any distinguishing marks between the two (Jewishness or righteousness). Before the two were ever born God had made His sovereign free elective choice.

A common statement the Arminian makes about God’s election is that God simply foreknows what we will do or believe, and He has chosen us because we have chosen Him. The Arminian polemicist should be applauded for effectively turning the plain meaning of “chosen” or “elect” on it’s head. But in Romans 9:11 Paul outrightly rejects the possibility of God’s foreknowledge of good works as being any basis of His election of a person for salvation. God did not make His choice based on what the boys would do (“not because of works”), but because of His own sovereign purpose.

Remember, we are finding a solution to the problem raised in 1-5. It’s found overtly in Romans 9:11, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue not because of works but because of Him who calls…” Contrary to what the Arminian interpretation would claim, this is clear salvation language, similar to the language in Romans 9:24, 2 Timothy 1:9 and Romans 8:28-30. When God “calls” us in election, we can’t debate whether we would choose to answer it. There are two very different calls in Scripture, Romans 9 references the inward call that applies to the believer’s responsive heart (as does Romans 8:28), not the general public gospel call which should be proclaimed to all men (Matthew 22:14 shows this general call, the “chosen” in this verse actually confirms the Reformed view). This is the effectual calling of God that takes place in the heart of the called/elect that always reaches it’s desired end: their salvation and God’s glory. Look also at the goal of election according to Ephesians 1:3-6

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

He predestined us by His will to the praise of His glorious grace. Later in Ephesians 1:11-12 it is shown we are predestined by His will so that we “who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory.” Our election is the sovereign means by which God intends to get glory and honor for Himself. He would not leave such an awe-inspiring overarching purpose alone in the hands of wicked men, rather He has an invested and active interest in acquiring His glory (Isaiah 48:9-10).

God’s allegiance to His own glory in His free election of men will become more crystallized in Part III, as we observe Romans 9:14-18.

In Romans 9:11, Paul is hammering home his point to any doubter of God’s covenant faithfulness to the Jew. This is his explanation for why “it is not as though the word of God has failed (for the Jews).” In effect, he’s saying with verses 6-13: “God is doing exactly what he has purposed to do. His word has not failed! He is a KING who has accomplished and fulfilled his promises to His sovereignly chosen people. His election stands for many individuals in Israel, though not for all of ethnic Israel.”

Romans 9:13 is a citation from Malachi 1:2-3 “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” “Love” is probably likened to “choice” here and “hate” to  “rejection”, rather than referring to affection and animosity. But that debate has little bearing on the passage for us. Because Malachi 1 references the descendants of Jacob and Esau, the Arminian interpretation holds that “Jacob” and “Esau” are only used as the representative heads of two nations: Israel and Edom. But Paul mentions neither Israel or Edom in verses 6-13, rather his focus is on the election of Jacob over Esau as individuals not representative heads (as the statement in Romans 9:6 indicates). God’s election of Jacob did have far reaching national implications that resulted in historic privileges, but it began with God’s grace towards an individual that had eternal implications. Jacob experienced God’s sovereign favor in his life, Esau experienced God’s rejection. Both deserved rejection. But praise God, one received grace and the messianic promise of Christ was preserved by God.

Consider the common Arminian interpretation. Ask yourself: why would Paul try to answer the problem of the unbelief of so many in Israel (v.1-5) by appealing to their national identity(6-13)? Is Paul really that random and absurd in his reasoning? The Arminian interpretation interrupts the flow and unity of Romans 9 as a coherent chapter. It says Paul begins with a concern about the salvation of his kinsmen (v.1-5), jumps to a tangential tirade about Israel’s elect “nationhood” (6-13), then randomly hops back to the salvation of men, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 9:24).

The Reformed view holds that Paul’s concern with the electing purpose of God in the salvation of men is the unifying thread throughout the whole ninth chapter of Romans.

As we have progressed it has become increasingly untenable to continue to try to hold the corporate view of Israel in Romans 9. Let’s try to apply another nail to that coffin.

When we interpret scripture with scripture we find that when Paul refers to people as “children of the promise”, “children of God” or “offspring” as he has in Romans 9:7-8, he is speaking of those individual Jews or Gentiles in Christ, not the nation of Israel in theocratic terms. For example, Galatians 3:29:

“in Christ, you are Abraham’s offspring (or seed), heirs according to the promise”

and later in Galatians 4:28:

“Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise.”

In the New Covenant, Christians have become the “elect” people of God, and such language is no longer restricted to an ethnic nation of Israel. Paul is applying the general OT principle of election specifically to individual believers now.
In part III, Paul is going to answer the inevitable objection he knows is arising in the hearts of his readers: If God freely determines man’s eternal destiny before man can have any input on the matter, is God unrighteous or unjust? The reason Paul uses for postulating He is not is shocking to the senses of natural man.

Stay tuned and stay classy. Grace be with you.

Bryan Daniels

Romans 9 and Predestination-Part 1

I guess we’ll just go ahead and jump headlong into the theological fray. No matter, our impact won’t even be a lonely raindrop in the ocean of far more superior scholarly works. In the coming days I’ll try (imperative word) to tackle Romans 9:1-24.  It will be a three four part “series” for the sake of blog brevity. It won’t be nearly a final word on the matter, but I do want to encourage everyone to observe that there are at least good reasons to take the Reformed view seriously regarding Romans 9. Of course the invitation is open to all for any comments, encouragements or critiques throughout.

There are billions of resources out there if you would like to do a much more thorough and technical study of Romans 9. I recommend thoughtfully perusing what you may find here. If you are a Greek geek you may want to try John Piper’s excellent book on the matter, “The Justification of God.” As far as this blog is concerned, what follows are just some cursory observations about a highly controversial set of passages from a guy with no formal theological training. Yet none of this material is wholly original, I’ve stood on the backs of much wiser men for all of the grammatical and historical context. Read and proceed with caution.

Let’s begin with Romans 9:1-5:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Paul is rending his heart wide open here. He is heartbroken over his nation’s rejection of Christ. Even with all the national benefits of being God’s choice ethnic people, for some reason many of them have remained in their unbelief.

In Romans 9:1-5 there is a provocative question raised by Paul. Namely, why are so many in the elect nation of Israel cut off from Christ? Paul is clearly concerned about the salvation of his Israel brethren, specific individual Israeli brethren. Paul does not desire to be accursed because Israel has forfeited it’s national (or theocratic) privileges by its rejection of Christ, rather Paul is anguished because so many people in the Jewish nation are forfeiting salvation and eternal life by their rejection of Christ.

If we forget the backdrop of verses 1-5, then the rest of chapter 9 will hold no coherence for us whatsoever.

Remember, context is king when interpreting Scripture. The whole reasoning behind verses 6-13 are that they are the answers to the concern Paul raised in verses 1-5. What’s the concern? Namely this: Why has the overwhelming majority of Israel with all it’s historic privileges (covenant, prophets, law, patriarchs, etc.) rejected Christ and now has fallen short of the covenant promises? Has the word of God failed? Paul gives a succinct answer in the next verse, Romans 9:6:

“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” 

Paul makes a very important distinction here between the merely ethnic Israel (circumcised in the flesh)  and the true spiritual Israel (circumcised in the heart).

Verse six is an important key to unlocking the meaning of chapter 9. Those of Arminian (free will) persuasion usually apply verses 6-13 to the collective national election of Israel, not the salvation of individual Jews. This is done in order to restrict election or predestination to nations rather than individuals. While listening to sermons on Romans 9 I’ve heard many Arminian preachers assert with vehemence, “These verses (6-13) have absolutely nothing to do with salvation!” Of course, this doesn’t make the predestination of individuals any easier to swallow for them in verses like Romans 8:28-30 or Ephesians 1:4-10, but it is doubtful those verses will be brought up in their handling of Romans 9 anyways.

Consider again the problem posed in verses 1-5 (why are so many in Israel in unbelief and going to hell?), and the response Paul gives to that problem in verse 6: Many Israelites of the flesh are not the true spiritual elect of Israel. Paul introduces similar language about the elect in Israel in Romans 2:28-29 and later in Romans 11:7:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened…

Given the fact that Paul’s deepest concern in verses 1-5 is about individual Jews condemned in their unbelief, verses 6-13 cannot be talking about Israel in collective or vague general terms. Verses 6-13 are not talking about a distinction of elect Israel with the rest of the world, but rather distinctions within Israel, between those are individually elect and those who are not (Romans 9:6).

In part I, I have been purposefully repetitious regarding my main argument. If we can grasp these two major points here the rest of Romans 9 will begin to fall into place for us:

1. The nature and significance of Paul’s problem in Romans 9:1-5: Why are so many who are of Israel accursed and apart from Christ?

2. Paul’s introductory answer to that problem in Romans 9:6: There is a distinction between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. There is distinction between those of the flesh and those who are truly saved.

With those two points established it becomes clear Romans 9 is speaking not about corporate identities, but eternal destinies. To inject a corporate understanding of verses 6-13 makes Paul’s entire argument disjointed and incoherent.

In Romans 9:6-13, Paul tries to answer the next important question that comes by implication, “What then is the distinguishing mark of those who are saved/true Israel?” In part II, we will find the answer he gives has everything to do with God’s free electing mercy and little to do with man’s free will.

Grace be with you all.

Bryan Daniels

Baby Bedtime Prayers and God’s Sovereignty

I sometimes wonder if the Nike Marketing Group has had a hand in influencing the modern American church’s gospel message. There is a certain level of “Just Do It” fervor in the sermons and Sunday school lessons of evangelical churches.

In our zeal to get God’s work done we tend to lead and end with an exhortation for every man, woman and child to go “invite, tell, contextualize, evangelize, and do whatever you can” to get the gospel out. Just do it, just do something, because doing anything with a Christian flavor is better than nothing!

There may not be anything wrong with this.

In a sense this can be a very biblical exhortation (Colossians 3:23). A little bit of Bible study can quickly show us that the Great Commission is the last charge Christ made to all who would claim to be His followers (Matthew 28:19-20).

But a little bit of truth with no context can be a dangerous thing; If we preach the gospel mission as mainly an emphasis on doing, trying, and moving for God, an ungodly deduction could be made in the mind of the listener: “If I don’t move, God can’t. God is dependent on me. God is impotent to get glory if I don’t go get it for Him.”

If we are not careful, in our mind the cosmic tables can be turned. And in a very real sense I can believe with all my heart not that I desperately and daily need God above all else, but that now that I’m a Christian:

“God needs me.”

Jesus is the antidote for this natural man-centered bent of our heart’s. When He spoke and acted, Christ placed the emphasis of evangelism back at His Father’s feet:

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” (Matthew 9:36-38)

Here is how modern evangelicalism has rendered this verse in so many ways: “The harvest is plentiful and the laborers are few; therefore GO! Can’t you see? The lost need you! God needs you! The world needs you now! It’s your destiny!”

But this isn’t how Jesus appeals to the blind and hurting world he saw around him. He was driven to tearful compassion for His shepherdless sheep, and the response He wanted us to have was not to hastily run out and use any means to reel them in (JUST DO IT!). The first compassionate biblical command Jesus gave us for a world going to hell with out a Savior was to

“Therefore, pray.”

This seems so counterintuitive to our über busy lives and the works based gospel we have quietly submitted to in the name of church attendance and behavior modification.

Jesus knew without divine unction and calling, mankind could do nothing of eternal value for mankind. Without the Father first preparing vessels for His glory, the sending out of laborers would be in vain. And as a result, all meaningful evangelism efforts must be rooted in humble fervent prayer before the Father asking Him to graciously give what we can never produce:

A harvest of souls.

Revival doesn’t necessarily begin in big tents or rousing services, it begins with us in our prayer closet on our knees tearfully pleading for the Sovereign Ruler to have mercy on us (2 Chronicles 7:14). It is not first about doing, it is first about depending.

I believe this is true even for those seemingly hum drum daily routine prayers we unload hastily at the end of a busy day.

The way a person prays may betray their true theology.

In my bedtime prayer with my son I don’t appeal directly to his will (or his inherent ability to turn to God), I appeal to the God of Justice and Mercy to make Himself known to him based on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. In reality, almost every parent I know prays for their child this way, regardless of the theological system they claim.

In a word, I pray God will make him willing (Psalm 110)

Would anyone be motivated to pray for another’s salvation otherwise?

If I am not convinced that God can accomplish my son’s salvation and prepare him for an apprehension of grace, what motivation for prayer is there?

This is a weighty privilege and responsibility for parents. Our supplications can be one of the many tiny levers that has helped set the great wheel of God’s sovereignty into motion for our child’s salvation. In prayer, we place our child’s destiny into the caring hands of the merciful Father, for God forbid these precious ones be left up to their own fallen devices.

I know there is tension and mystery on the subject of human responsibility and divine sovereignty. His sovereignty does not negate our responsibility, but rather should motivate and empower it. The God who can be trusted on as a loving Father, can also be depended on to carry out his purposes as a powerful King.

So I pray over my son every night. Standing on the undying promises of a King who can never be thwarted (Eph 1:11):

“God you make Josiah a man of God, You make him a man after Your own heart…You give him a heart of flesh to know You and fear You, and You save him by Your grace.” (Ezekiel 36:26-36).

I know without the Holy Spirit moving on his little heart he will have no inclination to repent and believe the gospel in his lifetime (Eph 2:3-5).

At the conclusion of our bedtime prayer Josiah looks up at me as I say “In Jesus Name.” And he always responds with a hearty drawn out, “Aaaaamen!!!” or, as the word means, “So be it!”

A three year old knows his utter dependence on the Father’s mercy. Let us find that same childlike dependence in prayer, and our interceding and going and preaching will not be with vain appeals of man-centered movement, but with the Father’s blessing and divine power.

Bryan Daniels

%d bloggers like this: