This post is the first in a series regarding questions I have been asked to answer for pastoral candidacy at various churches. Some of the questions were theological and some were more “role play,” as in how a given situation would be handled by me if I was their pastor.
This particular question (How Do You Attempt To Explain Predestination And Election?) regarding the Scriptural teaching on Predestination & Election has been a sticky issue for many of the churches and pulpit committees I have met with for consideration. In fact, some churches crossed me off their list, altogether, specifically for my belief on this doctrine.
Below is how I answered this question on the last questionnaire I completed for one church. Tell me what you think.
“The doctrines of predestination and election are glorious truths that the Scriptures teach, do not shy away from and, I believe, every Christian has both the right and the responsibility to grapple with. Without the reality of these doctrines, no one would ever be saved (for salvation is all of God) and evangelism would be a futile endeavor. I do not believe anyone alive can truly understand/comprehend the relationship between God’s sovereign will and humanity’s responsibility, but that it is a mystery to be ultimately revealed in glory. I do believe, however, that the Holy Spirit gives a believer peace with these doctrines, knowing that God is both mercifully loving and righteously just.
Furthermore, I believe that God, in His own sovereignty and under no obligation whatsoever to provide salvation for anyone, unconditionally chose and elected certain individuals for whom He would regenerate, save, and sanctify, and that this election took place before the foundation of the world (Romans 8:28-30; John15:16; Ephesians 1:4-11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; Acts 13:48; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Peter 1:1-2).
God’s election to save certain individuals is not based on any foreseen act or response on the part of those chosen, but is based solely on His own good pleasure and sovereign will (Romans 3:11; 9:11-18). I believe that God’s sovereign election does not contradict or negate the responsibility of every man to repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord (Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; John 3:18-19, 36; 5:40; Romans 9:22-23; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; Revelation 22:17). Nevertheless, since sovereign grace includes the means of receiving the gift of salvation as well as the gift itself, sovereign election will result in what God determines. I believe that all whom the Father calls to Himself will come in repentant faith and all who come in such faith the Father will graciously receive (John 6:37-40, 44; Acts 13:48; James 4:8).
I believe that election should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign but He exercises this sovereignty in harmony with His other attributes, especially His omniscience, justice, holiness, wisdom, grace, and love (Romans 9:11-16). This sovereignty will always exalt the will of God in a manner totally consistent with His character as revealed in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 11:25-28; 2 Timothy 1:9).
I do not believe that God elected some people to Hell, but rather passed them by, leaving them to their own sinful preference, which is self-glorification and a Christ-less life (Matthew 23:37 Romans9:15-15; 10:21; John 3:19-20).”
Hello brother Charles,
Good to have discussions as this. A couple of points –
#1. When you stated “it is my opinion that such people not only misinterpret this qualification”, are you referring to the ‘present tense vs. past tense’ disagreement of interpretations, (as in the only the present state of the man for qualification vs. a mixture of present state and his past to judge his qualificaiton)?
If so, I believe your statement “but that they also fail to take the other qualifications into consideration…” does not accurately represent the ‘present tense qualifications only’ interpretation in that the remaining list of qualifications you cite as not being taken into account are precisely the argument used in reaching the ‘present tense only’ interpretation.
These cited are present tense qualifications. And as the qualification ‘being a man of only one wife’ is in this same list, this same context, without any indication of it being an exception through language (or otherwise) as being in both a present tense and a past tense, I believe the correct interpretation of this doctrine is that this qualification is likewise to be interpreted as being in the present tense only.
#2. Do you believe lust is adultery of the heart? If so, does the qualification for pastor apply only to external adultery (foreignication)? Or perhaps only to technical adultery (while being married)? Or perhaps when only involving actual divorce? Or perhaps it is just divorce and not adultery that disqualifies. If so, is there any scripture which supports such a technicality? In my opinion such a technicality would be needed without the direct intervention of God to keep us from such sins of our past life. Sins which would disqualify just about everyone – if adultery as defined by Jesus is involved.
Finally, Charles, Do I understand your position correctly that divorce is a special sin which continues to (practically not positionally) judge and condemn (disqualify) a man even after he is reborn and begins his new life in Christ. In other words, God may forgive his sin but He doesn’t forget it, and likewise instructs us not to forget it?
So far, I can’t find any biblical support for this doctrine.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tom
Hey Charles, if you are confused it is my mistake I meant to post the above comment to your email on qualification for leaders.
I’m all for God’s grace, and I do agree that the qualifications for church leadership are “primarily” present tense, but that doesn’t mean that everything else is off limits.
But then we need to define or determine what “present tense” means. Scripture certainly does teach that we will reap what we sow, even if we sowed it before our conversion.
If we’re going by present tense meaning “today” and “at this present moment,” then a person who was a rapist yesterday morning but repented last night after getting saved is qualified for ministry in church leadership today, according to your definition of “time.”. Or, a person who is already saved but sinned by murdering someone a week ago, yet confessed and repented of it yesterday evening would, therefore, be eligible for present tense church leadership today, according to your definition.
You see, regardless of which side you take, if you say that sins committed before salvation are off limits with regards to church leadership eligibility today, then you’ve got some serious problems. In my two examples above, you would say that that those two people would qualify for church leadership (purely from a present tense standpoint) because they are not “presently” in that sin or that state of being. But that seems faulty, wouldn’t you agree.
That’s why I say you need to take other things into accountability, like being above reproach. You are forgiven of your pre- and post-conversion sins by God and other Christians, but that doesn’t mean your reproach has been wiped away.
I’m all for grace and giving people a second and third (etc.) chance, but where do we draw the line? It’s not as though people who got divorced and then got saved can’t minister in the church whatsoever. I just think we need to look at it a lot more seriously than so many churches do today.
It’s for reasons like this that God hates divorce. It muddies everything.
——–
Lust of the heart is different than actually committing physical adultery, yes I believe that. We are forgiven of all our sins (past, present, and future), but that doesn’t mean we simply ignore sins because, hey, God said He forgave those and so should we. Not at all. There is quite a difference in being positionally sinless in God’s eyes and reaping what we sow here in this life. We still are responsible.
Hey Charles,
Let me clarify. By present tense I was referring to post
salvation history (sanctification or lack thereof). For example, in your first scenario the man
who had committed rape would reap what he had sown even after conversion, as
often happens when people meet the Lord in prison. But his lack of eligibility for church
leadership would not be due to his pre salvation sin, but to lack of enough
time for sanctification. Likewise, in
the second scenario the man would be judged on his post salvation history
(murder), not his pre salvation history.
When you say “You are forgiven of your
pre- and post-conversion sins by God and other Christians, but that doesn’t
mean your reproach has been wiped away” wouldn’t that statement be applied
all across the board for every sin?
Isn’t sanctification leaving the past behind as Paul stated in
Philippians? How is this to be done if a
man bears a reproach by the very brethren he needs for encouragement,
edification, exhortation, support and fellowship? This is not a discipline
action mind you, but an ongoing hindrance to sanctification. Remember, God not only forgives our sin, He
forgets it as well (if I recall scripture correctly). If we hold a man in reproach for pre salvation
sin – are we following God’s example or not?
I know where you’re coming from, Tom. From your perspective then, it is all just a matter of “time.” There needs to be enough “time” in between the divorce and the church leadership ministry. But how much “time” is enough? Using my example, what if the rapist and/or murderer got saved, started reading and studying the Scriptures diligently, learned and matured, and was being discipled. If this is the case, about how long until he is eligible for church leadership? If you can’t pick an amount of time, then that’s pretty subjective. If you can pick an amount of time, then that is fairly legalistic. I’m all for grace and forgiveness (I’ve got enough to be forgiven of myself), don’t get me wrong, but these are all issues that need to be worked through for each person individually, for each local church, and for the body as a whole.
Hi Charles
Here’s a couple of the reasons I don’t believe the doctrine of T.U.L.I.P. is biblical.
#1. The doctrine of unconditional elections violates the second greatest commandment.
Follow this – Jesus (God) came to fulfill the law –
which same will not pass away until all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18). This
includes the second greatest commandment, on which – along with the first (you
shall the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind) ‘DEPEND THE WHOLE LAW
AND THE PROPHETS’ – Matthew
22:40.
And sinse Jesus stated He spoke only what the
Father told him and He (Jesus) is the image of the Father and came to to do His
will, God the Father has and will fulfill this second greatest commandment
through His Son.
I believe it must first be understood that the
second greatest commandment has nothing to do with justice deserved. It is a
commandment to show mercy.
So it is agreed that God the Father has no
obligation to show mercy to those who need mercy.
But here is the point – God
the Father through His Son commands men to extend mercy to those who meet only
one criterion – they need mercy. And if it is within our power to extend mercy
we are to do so.
Luke 10:36-37 >
‘Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell
into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
The lawyer understood the commandment was to love.
But he was asking in effect, ‘who am I to love’? In other words, what criterion
am I to use in judging who my neighbor is? Jesus simply gave him this criterion
and nothing more. And the criterion given was this – that the man who needed a
neighbor was helpless to save himself. Notice in the parable that nothing is
said of who or what the injured man was or why he was there. Whether he was
deserving of what happened to him or even what his reaction might have been to
the love (mercy) extended by the Samaritan.
Jesus purposely left the one in need of love
annonymous and without any other condition the lawyer could grasp onto to show
love. This is the only condition that required the commandment to be obeyed.
This was the only condition put forth that required love (mercy) to be extended.
Now the Samaritan was not a neighbor because he was
successful at saving the man, he was a neighbor because he loved the man, and
this love was expressed in his attempt at saving the man. God judges the heart
and motivation of an action or attempt, not whether our attempts at love were
accepted or rejected due to free will. The Samaritan would still have been a neighbor (and
fulfilled this second greatest commandment) if the helpless man had awoken and
rejected the Samaritan’s offer of love and salvation. The only way to violate
the commandment is to ignore it as the priest and levite did. To ‘pass by’ the one in need of mercy is a violation of the commandment.
Paul interpreted this second greatest commandment
to his readers in Romans
13:8 & 10
‘…for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law’, and ‘love is the
fulfillment of the law’. James
4:17 states, ‘Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does
not do it, to him it is sin’. And 1 John 3:4 states
‘Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is
lawlessness’. So we see that not showing mercy when it is within our power to
do so is lawlessness and is therefore sin. And of course God does not sin.
But here is the question to ask – whether or not
the parable is a picture of how God loves. Whether the one simply in need of
love (mercy) is the one God offers mercy. Either it is – or it isn’t. If the
parable is a correct representation of how God acts toward men, it is
definitely in opposition to the doctrine of Unconditional Election in this way;
Unconditional Election has God commanding men to
obey the law of love, yet at the same time choosing to ignore it Himself. This
makes God out to be a hypocrite. It also directly contradicts the facts of
scripture that God Himself stated He has and will fulfull this commandment and
not ignore it for His own glory or ‘pleasure to do so’.
Based on this one example alone it appears to me
that the doctrine of unconditional election is a misrepresentation of the God
of the bible, and is therefore a violation of scripture and a different gospel.
– Thomas
Correction ‘why I believe the doctrine of TULIP is *not biblical*.
#2. If I understand the doctrine correctly, the logical order of the practical aspect of salvation without free will (defined as the ability to choose to trust in God) being involved is; regeneration – receiving of faith/repentance – resulting in salvation. My question is this. What exactly is this regeneration prior to salvation? I’ve heard several major voices in the TULIP camp define it as bringing the spiritually dead to life so as to be able to believe. If this is so, it logically occures prior to recieving Christ. Sinse 1 John 5:12 states ‘he who does not have the Son does not have the life’, exactly what kind of ‘life’ is this regeneration prior to receiving the Son?
Someone who I addressed this to attempted to state that it all happens simultaneously to which I asked ‘well then, if it occurs all at the same time could not faith precede regeneration? But this he could not accept. In order for free will (as defined above) to be eliminated from the equation regeneration (as defined as bringing the spiritually dead to life) must precede faith.
So, based upon these two violations of scripture alone (the doctrine of unconditional election violating the second greatest commandment and the doctrine of a regeneration to life prior to receiving Christ – violating 1 John 5:12), I must conclude T.U.L.I.P. is a doctrine of men.
– Take care,
Brother Tom
Tom, thanks for your comments brother. Let me try to reply as concisely as I can.
I don’t think there is a person on the face of the planet, who ever lived (other than Christ Himself), that can answer the question(s) about how God’s sovereignty works in conjunction with man’s free will. I think you would agree that, since God is omniscient and has always existed, that nothing is ever outside of His knowledge or understanding. He knows everything from the beginning to the end. Because of this, God would never need to “look into the future” to see whether or not a person would believe in Him and then elect that person based upon a future event. Because God is in sovereign control over all things, it makes sense it nothing has ever come into existence that He did not, in one way or another, allow (cause) to come to pass. Are we good so far?
TULIP is, indeed, a man-created acrostic. However, I do believe the fundamentals of the acrostic are taken from what the Bible teaches.
Romans 9 is the definitive chapter dealing with God’s sovereign choosing. Ephesians is also a great book to study regarding predestination. Essentially, the Bible quite often teaches that God saves the person and we don’t save ourselves. Moreover, the Bible teaches often that God “chooses” us and that we don’t “choose” to be saved ourselves.
Moreover, the Bible does teach about election, predestination, and foreordination, so we can’t say that God doesn’t, in fact, choose, when the Bible teaches it so clearly. However, that doesn’t mean that He chooses in a way that we can even understand.
For example, the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. It also teaches that faith is a gift from God and that not of ourselves. Therefore, salvation is all (100% of God) and not initiated by man.
However, the Bible also clearly teaches than fallen man ends up in Hell because of our lack of faith and lack of repentance. So if faith and repentance are gifts of God, then that would lead us to believe that people end up in Hell because God didn’t give it to us. However, the Bible NEVER teaches that God elects or predetermines people to Hell, but they they end up in Hell due to their own unrepentant heart.
And so, we are left holding the bag of trying to figure out how those two work together, and I personally believe that is a mystery that has not been revealed to us at this time. I do, however, believe that God will reveal it to us at a later date, whether in this life or the next.
And I think that the apostle Paul struggled with this also. To me, the most definitive verses dealing with this subject are in Romans 9:18-20. There Paul says that God has mercy on whoever He wants to have mercy on and He hardens whoever He wants. In verse 19 Paul then asks the question that everyone today asks and it is this, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” If God would have allowed Paul to answer this particular question then the debate about God’s sovereignty and man’s free will would be put to bed for good.
But God doesn’t allow that question to be answered. Instead of answering it, Paul simply leaves us with this (and it’s because I don’t think he understood it either because it is a mystery withheld from us all), “On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God.”
Therefore, we can’t say that God’s sovereign election is unbiblcal, because the Bible clearly teaches it. And we can’t say that man has no free will, either, because humanity is exhorted to repent and believe throughout Scripture and people end up in Hell for their unbelief and and given Heaven because of their belief. Yet faith and repentance are both free gifts from God.
———
Regarding your other comments about whether faith or regeneration come first, that’s also up for grabs.
However, I personally do not think that one comes before the other. I think we receive them simultaneously. Both faith and regeneration are God’s work and we don’t achieve them ourselves. And if God does it, then He does it all at once. You can’t have true saving faith without being regenerated and you can’t be regenerated without having true genuine faith. Therefore, I think that when God saves a person, He does the work solely Himself and He does it all at once. These are not steps where step #1 comes first and then step #2. It is one act of God.
Hey Charles
I agree, God does not look into the future as that would put Him in time when He is outside of time viewing everything as the present. With the doctrine of unconditional election the whole question comes down to – why would God choose to give faith to (save) some and not to others? Calvin stated it was because it pleased Him to do so. This is a violation of the second greatest commandment. Also, if a doctrine or difficult passage requires the insertion of hidden meanings into simpler passages that would otherwise contradict the former, the interpretation of that doctrine or difficult passage must be suspect and give way to the simpler passages (or phrases such whosoever). Wouldn’t that be required by proper hermeneutics?
“Why would God choose to give faith to (save) some and not to others?” is the very question Paul mentions in Romans 9, but doesn’t answer. I believe that is an unanswerable question for us here in this world.
No, I don’t believe any of this really has all that much to do with the 2nd greatest commandment.
Scripture says we are dead in our trespasses and sins–dead, as in not breathing, not in a coma, not alive or capable of life, doesn’t respond to external influences, etc. Dead. No one does good. We love the darkness and hate the light. We do just like our father (Satan) does. We hide from God (like Adam in the bush) and no one seeks after God. These are plain Scriptural truths. Essentially, no one chooses to believe because we are incapable of doing so a part from God’s grace. Therefore, if God grants the grace to believe, then it is His work and not ours. He chooses us, we don’t choose Him. All we choose is to continually do evil, and all the time.