7. "The Bible clearly teaches [the Calvinist view of] predestination, and so we have to accept it. There are only three possible responses to the truth of predestination: get angry about it, ignore it, or accept it. Humble people have no trouble accepting it; it's just us proud, self-sufficient people who struggle with it because we are used to being independent, always concerned with having the right to choose."
Nice manipulation, ex-pastor! You set up what you're saying as biblical "truth" and defined anyone who disagrees with you as "unhumble," as if they're disagreeing with God's Word. Who's going to disagree with you now!?! Way to keep people quiet and in their place! Making them afraid to disagree. It's brilliant. Almost cult-like manipulation! (And it would be funny to answer him this way: "Get angry about it, ignore it, or accept it? Well, I wonder which one God predestined me to do. I guess I'll have to wait and see. Because, of course, I have no control over it.")
And notice the one option the pastor left out: To disagree with him and to find out for ourselves what the Bible really says. Disagreement in this church, with this pastor, was not an option!
Another thing the pastor liked to say was that Christians in other countries don't have trouble accepting God's sovereign control over predestination; it's just us Americans who can't accept it because we like our independence and we don't like the idea of someone being in authority over us. And he's said that when he tells kids about predestination, they have no trouble accepting it because they are humble and trust easily. And that it's just us adults who have trouble accepting it because we don't like humbling ourselves, because we want to be in control and make our own decisions, but that God calls us to be humble like these children.
(Think about it: If you were a little kid, and some powerful preacher who was considered as a wise "man of God" told you that "this is what the Bible says and so you have to believe it," wouldn't you trust him too?)
It's manipulation, that's what it is! Shaming and manipulating people into agreeing with him, or at least into shutting up if they disagree.
But I wonder ... If his view of predestination is so "clearly" taught in the Bible, then why have theologians debated this for centuries but never yet come to a consensus on it? Just wondering.
Let's take a look at "elect" and "predestined," to see that the Bible is not as Calvinistic as Calvinists think it is:
1 Peter 1:1-2: “To God’s elect . . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.”
Let's look again at this verse (because it is a verse that predestination hinges on), but let’s dig even deeper.
As I sought to understand 1 Peter 1:1-2 more accurately, I learned that the Revised Standard Version of this verse says this: “... To the exiles of the dispersion ... chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for the sprinkling of his blood ...”
The NIV's "elect" is simply translated "exiles of the dispersion" in the RSV.
Maybe you won’t see it this way, but to me it sounds like Peter is not writing to the “elect,” as in “those predestined by God for salvation,” as Calvinists would view it But it sounds like he is writing to those Christians of the day who have been scattered under the persecution they were experiencing, to “dispersed exiles.”
Calvinists make so much of the word "elect," but it might not be what they think it is. And this might not be a "predestined to go to heaven" passage at all.
I covered this in the previous predestination post, but let's look at the other ways to read 1 Peter 1:1-2 than "God predestined certain people for salvation."
One way to read it is "God knows who will choose Him (they are foreknown by Him), and all true believers are destined to grow in obedience to Christ. We chose a path that is destined to bring us closer and closer to Jesus."
Another way to read it is that it's simply talking about the dispersed Jews of that day, the exiles, saying that the scattered Christians of that day were chosen, by God foreknowing them as His own, to be obedient to Christ and covered by His blood. This is basically the same thing as the one above, except it's specific to the exiles of that day.
But the point is that it's not "prechosen for salvation," but it's "God foreknows who His people are, those who willingly believe in and obey Him. And He chooses us and destines us (true believers who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior) for obedience to Jesus and for being covered by His blood."
Update 2022: To truly understand predestination, you need to read Ephesians in the KJV. Ephesians 1:5, 11-12 (KJV): “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself … In him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”
Does this say certain sinners are predestined to salvation/eternal life?
No. To know what “adoption of children” means (the NIV words it “adoption as sons”) go to Romans 8:23 (NIV): “… we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”
“Predestined for adoption” is not about certain sinners being predestined for salvation/eternal life. It’s about the promise that God will redeem the bodies of all believers, that we will reach that “glorification” talked about in Romans 8:30, eventually acquiring the full benefits of being a child of God.
Even Ephesians 1:13-14 (NIV) confirms this when it says that “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”
Notice that those believers were not included in Christ until after they believed. And after they believed, they were given the Holy Spirit as a promise that they will be redeemed. This contradicts Calvinism on at least three points:
First, it confirms that predestination is not about certain sinners being preselected for heaven, but it’s about believers being predestined for redemption. Second, it contradicts Calvinism’s idea that the elect are “in Christ” (essentially “saved”) from the beginning of time, because Scripture shows they were not in Christ until after they believed. And third, it contradicts Calvinism’s view that the elect have to get the Holy Spirit first, that He causes them to believe in Jesus, because it shows that they didn’t get the Holy Spirit until after they believed, as a result of believing.
And notice also that the second "predestination" (in Eph. 1:11-12, but you have to use the KJV) specifies that the "inheritance" believers get is what was predestined, NOT that certain people are predestined for salvation. Basically, Ephesians predestination is saying that we who are “in Him” (as a result of choosing to believe in Him) are predestined to have our bodies redeemed, to get an inheritance, and to be “for the praise of his glory.” All of this is promised by God to anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus. And anyone can.
This is not about individual people being pre-chosen for salvation, but it’s about the destiny of anyone who chooses to believe in Jesus. And that's a big difference!
This goes right along with what I've been saying. We are not destined - specifically pre-chosen - to be saved. Where a believer's path leads is what's been predestined, not who believes.
God predestined the destination of the path of a true believer. But it's our decision to get on that path or not, to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or not.
But Calvinists believe that "accepting Jesus in your heart" is works, that it's man working for their salvation, trying to earn it. And since we can't do anything to work for or earn our salvation because salvation is by faith alone, then it must mean that we can't accept Jesus. That God has to "force" faith on certain people.
Find me one verse that says "accepting or receiving Jesus is forbidden because it's working for your salvation." This is purely man-made reasoning.
"Accepting" all the work that someone else did on your behalf is not trying to work for it or earn it. It's simply agreeing to accept what they are offering.
"Oh, but 'accepting Jesus' is not in the Bible anywhere," Calvinists say.
Oh, yes it is, if you consider what the concordance says about "believing" and "receiving."
Consider "receive" in these verses:
Romans 1:5: "Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship ..."
Romans 5:11: "through whom we have received reconciliation ..."
Romans 5:17: "... how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."
Romans 8:15: "... but you received the spirit of Sonship."
This could almost sound like we received something from God, through no effort or response on our own. That we simply did nothing, and God dropped these things into our laps. It could sound Calvinistic ... until you look up "receive" in the concordance.
"Receive" in these passages isn't passive. It's not "God gave it to me with no effort on my part." According to the concordance, it's actually active, done by us. It's reaching out and grabbing ahold of what is offered to us, taking it unto ourselves. It is "accepting" what is offered. Accepting Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf. Accepting forgiveness, grace, salvation, etc. These things are offered to all people, but we have to receive - accept - them.
And likewise, "believe" is about accepting what is told to us.
Ephesians 1:13: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promise of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 14:39: "Through him everyone who believes is justified ..."
Acts 16:31: "They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved ...'"
In the concordance, "believe" is not about passively sitting there while God shoves thoughts into your head. It's about being persuaded by something we heard and, consequently, choosing to commit to it, putting our faith in it. We can only be "persuaded" by something if we have the ability to hear things, to think through them, to make a decision about them. And believe is about deciding to believe what we are told is true, and to put our faith in it. It's about "accepting" the truth, and about choosing to believe and trust that Jesus is Lord and Savior.
"Accepting Jesus" is indeed in the Bible. If you've got the eyes to see it.
Okay, so onto another possible way to read the 1 Peter passage:
To get even deeper, (hang in there, this is important!) this 1 Peter greeting sounds a lot like Paul’s greeting in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14:
“But we always ought to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This could definitely sound like God hand-picked who would believe and who wouldn’t. And it would sound especially so if the verse simply said, “God chose you to be saved!”
But in various translations of the Bible, it doesn’t just say “from the beginning God chose you to be saved.” There are translations that say something like, “God chose you as His first-fruits.” This "first-fruits" adds a whole new meaning. They were chosen to be the first to believe in Jesus, simply because their lifetimes coincided with His.
Maybe all along, it’s not saying that God chooses who to save from the beginning of time (that He elects certain people to go to heaven), but maybe it's saying that He chose that generation (Paul's and Peter's generation) to be the generation that would be the first of the “Jesus believers” - the first believers after Jesus’s death and resurrection, the first generation to have the Holy Spirit to help them grow to be more and more like Christ.
They were a chosen generation, chosen to be the first to see Jesus and have the Holy Spirit.
And maybe this is the same kind of greeting we see in 1 Peter. Maybe Peter is saying not that they were chosen for salvation, but that they were chosen to be the generation that saw Jesus’ death and resurrection. They would be the first believers of history to have Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
This makes it so much clearer to me. These interpretations above make so much more sense than the Calvinist idea of "chosen/predestined," which destroys the Gospel message, God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, God's grace and justness and love, and conflicts with the vast majority of what we read in the Bible, of how God acts in the Bible, and what He calls us to do.
And this bit is from "According to the Concordance ... It's NOT Predestination":
There are so many other ways to understand "predestination" than "predestined by God to go to heaven or hell." And unlike a Calvinist's view of predestination, these other ways do not contradict the rest of the Bible and do not change God's character into something horrible, irrational, and contradictory. Contrary to Calvinism, these other ways keep the Bible consistent and keep God's character intact.
[Added note: As I've heard it best summed up: We are elected to service, not salvation. Election, in the Bible, is about believers being elected for service to God, not about certain sinners being elected for salvation. And so when anyone chooses to believe in Jesus, we become one of the elect, those who are of service to God. Election is not the same thing as Calvinist predestination, as Calvinists like to teach. My Calvi-pastor gave a sermon where he said that (almost word for word) "There is an important doctrine called the doctrine of predestination. The Bible calls it the doctrine of election. I use these terms interchangeably." This is a big, fat lie because nowhere in the Bible will you find the phrase "doctrine of election." And yet this Calvinist pastor basically says that the Bible itself clearly reports that there is a "doctrine of election" and that it's the same thing as predestination. Not true! And so deceptive! Predestination is about a believer (anyone who chooses to truly put their faith in Jesus) being predestined to be redeemed and glorified and to bring glory to God, and election is about believers being of service to God. Neither of these is about certain sinners being pre-chosen to be saved over others. But it's about what happens once we choose to believe in Jesus. Remember, even the angels and Jesus were elect. This doesn't mean they were chosen for salvation, just that God chose them for a particular service. This makes so much more sense than saying election means predestined to be saved.]
