"But predestination!" (#7-9: depravity, Book of Life, "predestine")
This is a series where I examine some things my Calvinist ex-pastor preached about predestination. Click on these for the pastor's sermons ("When Calvinists say 'But predestination!'"), and my comments 1-4 (election) and 5-6 (Romans and sovereignty) and 10-11 (shaming tactics, Feb. 2015) and 12-14 (dead, regeneration, born again) and 15 (total depravity, manipulation) and 16A (God's Will, babies) and 16B (sin, evil, suffering) and 17 (double-speak and the gospel).
The shorter version of this series - with a lot less quotes and a lot less of my thoughts, written for everyone and not mainly for those in my ex-church - can be found here.
Seventh:
This echoes the Calvinist use of verses like 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" - which they interpret to mean that unbelievers cannot understand the gospel or become believers unless God causes them to (and of course, the non-elect never can), to "prove" their idea of "total inability" and "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace."
But this verse isn't about unbelievers being unable to understand the gospel or become believers unless God regenerates them. It's about believers being able to understand the "secret wisdom" of God, particularly His wisdom about Jesus's death, about why it was necessary and what it would accomplish, about how He planned Jesus's death on the cross in our place to make salvation possible and create an offer of salvation for all people.
As verses 7-8 say, it's "a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." If the rulers had known that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, they wouldn't have crucified Him. (And if the "demon rulers" had known what Jesus's death would accomplish - that it would be their eternal undoing - they wouldn't have enticed the people to crucify Him.)
But since God's plan of salvation required the death of Jesus, this "secret wisdom" about what His death would accomplish was hidden from them, from the Jewish rulers (and the demon rulers). And they could not understand the value of the crucifixion - Jesus's work on the cross - because they were looking at the situation with earthly eyes, not spiritual eyes.
That's what this means, not that unbelievers cannot understand the gospel or become believers unless God causes them to or that there's non-elect people who never can.
What a stretch! What a misapplication of Scripture!
And John 20:31 contradicts Calvinism in this too: "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
The very reason the Scriptures were written down is so that people can believe in Jesus and be saved, not so that (as Calvinists would say) the elect believe but the non-elect reject it and thereby earn their predestined punishment in hell.
Just because an unbeliever cannot understand spiritual things doesn't mean they are predestined to be unbelievers who cannot understand spiritual things or that they cannot become believers who do understand spiritual things.
In fact, in Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus says that if His miracles had been done in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, they would have repented. Unless Jesus was lying, this shows that even those wicked unbelievers could have come to Christ, that they had the ability, the option, to come to Christ, and that they even would have come to Christ if they had the benefit of seeing the miracles that the Jews saw.
"Inability" is not a biblical concept. It's Calvinist, inserted into Scripture and used to support their view of election and predestination.
[Sidenote: Calvinists like this pastor will always refer to the greatest evil ever committed - the crucifixion of Jesus - to "prove" that if God predetermined that event, then He also predetermines all other sins and evils and unbelief. If the crucifixion was "locked in" by God, so is everything we do and decide.
But just because the crucifixion was predetermined to happen - yes, God knew ahead of time that man would sin and need a Redeemer, and so He predetermined ahead of time that Jesus would have to die in order for people to be saved - it doesn't mean that God forced the people to be evil and to commit the evil act of crucifying Jesus. It doesn't mean they had no way out. (If they had no way out, that would negate the verse about God's promise to provide a way out of temptation.)
God simply foreknew what the people at that time in history and in those conditions would want to do - that they would want to kill Jesus - and so He made sure Jesus was born at that time and in that culture and to that people group.
Jesus could have been born in a culture of multiple gods or in a completely immoral culture that wouldn't care that He claimed to be God. But God made sure Jesus was born in a highly religious culture that worshipped one God and that considered it blasphemy to call yourself God, making it much more likely that they would kill someone who committed blasphemy. God knew what He was doing when He picked the time and culture He did. He can orchestrate the right conditions without forcing the people to be a certain way to get His plans accomplished.
In the Bible, God lets people be evil (He foreknows it too) and He works their evilness into His plans. And so He knew the Jews would have the evil reaction to Jesus that they did, but He did not plan/force them to be that way. He knew what they would be like and worked it into His plans.
But in Calvinism, God preplanned that the people would be evil and He put the evil desires in their hearts, giving them no ability to choose otherwise, and then He punishes them for their evil.
These are two very different Gods! And one can still be trusted while the other can't.
Also keep in mind that even though the crucifixion was predetermined to happen, Jesus could have backed out if He wanted to: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)
And it was possible for the people to make a different decision: "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Cor. 2:8)
Just because something was preplanned by God doesn't mean that He forces us to be a certain way, to decide what we do, or to go through with it. It doesn't mean that we couldn't have chosen something else or that He cannot alter the way He reaches His end goal. He can change plans as needed - based on our obedience or disobedience - and still work things towards the end He wants. If we choose to obey, He'll work that in His plans. But if we choose to disobey, He's got a way to work that into His plans too. He's that big of a God!
One of the first verses that really made me realize this was the one about how He was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son (Ex. 4:24). I remember reading that and thinking, "But You need Moses! How could You threaten to kill him? How will the people be freed from Egypt without Moses?" And that's when it dawned on me that even though God had a plan to use Moses to free the Israelites, He was not locked into that plan. He could alter the path to get to His end goal as He needed to, based on whether or not we cooperate with Him.
God has plans for our lives and for mankind, but He lets us decide whether to obey or disobey. And our disobedience doesn't thwart His end goal - He can still find a way to reach it whatever we choose, even if the path to get there zigs and zags - but it will greatly affect the part we play in His plans, the consequences we face, and the eternal rewards we get.]
Eighth (halfway to sixteen, hang in there, you're doing great):
From his January 2018 sermon (about the value of people), he said that predestination is "an act of God in which - before time began, before creation - He chooses to have mercy on some sinners and not others."
Calvinists use Revelation 13:8 to prove that the names of the elect are written in the Book of Life (that they are chosen and saved) before the beginning of the world: "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" (ESV).
"Written before the foundation of the world." Sounds very Calvinist-predestinationy, right?
But let’s read it in the King James: ”And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Read them both again. [And notice the word is "from" not "before."]
Very different, isn't it?
And I think there are two possible ways to understand it according to the KJV (which I think is the most reliable translation, though not perfect because no translation is), neither of which supports Calvinist predestination.
1) "From the beginning" could refer to the Lamb being slain. If so, I would suggest it means that Jesus was foreordained to be slain for our sins from the very beginning - that God knew before He even created us that we would sin and need a Redeemer, and so He planned from the beginning to pay for our sins with Jesus's death. This would be confirmed by 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Acts 2:23.
2) Or if "from the beginning" really does refer to names being written in the Book of Life, notice that it's "from" in the KJV, which is far different than "before" in the ESV. This would mean not that certain names were written/chosen before the world began (as Calvinist say, to support their idea of predestination and election) but that names started being added to the Book of Life from the beginning, meaning that new names are added as each new person comes to Christ, which would be confirmed in Rev. 17:8. (Or maybe it's about the Book of Life itself being created from the beginning.)
Either way, it contradicts Calvinism.
[For more on this, watch this video from Kevin at Beyond the Fundamentals: "Why Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 does not support Calvinism." But have a cup of coffee first, in order to keep up with his fast talking.]
A note about the ESV vs King James:
Read these articles about the men who wrote the Greek texts that the ESV is based on (and many other modern translations, but I pick on the ESV because it's the preferred translation of Calvinists): "Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs" and "Westcott and Hort and the Greek Text."
The ESV is based on the RSV, which is based on the Greek Texts of these two men (who, apparently, rejected the infallibility of Scripture, despised evangelicals, questioned Jesus's divinity and an eternal hell, did not believe that Genesis and the creation story were literal, affirmed Darwin and evolution, etc.), which is based on two corrupted manuscripts which differ from the majority of the more reliable manuscripts that the KJV is based on.
So when something says that the ESV has only made 6% changes, it means "from the RSV," meaning that it's 94% the same as the RSV it was based on, a translation which was based on two corrupted manuscripts that disagree with the majority of the manuscripts available. It would be like if a journalist interviewed 100 people about an event ... and 95 of them said the exact same thing, but 5 told a different story ... and the journalist decided to side with the 5 and print their story as fact. Raises some red flags, doesn't it?
In the course of researching this issue, and after not knowing for decades what to think of the whole "which translation is most accurate" debate, I now side with the King James. I mean, I have several other translations, and I think different ones are good for different reasons, such as readability, compare and contrast, to hear God's Word in a fresh way, etc. But when having to decide which one is more reliable and accurate, especially considering the significant differences between them, I have to side with the KJV (not the New King James, just the King James). And I've never been more sure of it than now, after all this research.
Interestingly, David Cloud writes this in an article from Way of Life Literature called Are the modern versions based on Westcott-Hort? (emphasis is Cloud's):
"... [Those who support modern Bible translations] often disassociate themselves from Westcott-Hort and claim that they merely use an “eclectic” Greek text... [and some] imply that Westcott and Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because 'no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism.'...
This position DODGES THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WESTCOTT AND HORT REPRESENTED THE SIGNAL DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT THAT IS REPRESENTED TODAY IN THE POPULAR THEORIES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own unique blend, and their Greek New Testament represented the first popular departure from the Greek Received Text [the "textus receptus" is the Greek text of the New Testament which the KJV is based on].
While today’s textual scholars do not always admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by these men.
Bruce Metzger... one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament... makes the following plain admission: 'The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament...ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT... ' (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264).
... Brooks further states, '... It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version, and to a lesser extent, also the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible' (Ibid.).
... Ernest Cadman Colwell, a textual scholar who published a number of widely used grammars and textbooks [says] '... HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS....'
...that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism and that the current 'eclectic' Greek New Testaments continue to reflect, for the most part, the decisions made by Westcott and Hort....
Dr. Zane Hodges [says] 'MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY ‘ADDICTED’ TO WESTCOTT AND HORT.... The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts' (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).
... The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the Received Text in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from the W-H text... Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something."
I know for me, after comparing KJV verses to ESV verses (see this post), I trust the KJV much more than the ESV or any other modern translation that is based on Westcott and Hort's texts. And this was the verse that clinched it for me:
Philippians 2:6 in the ESV (and most other modern translations): “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
If you're like me, I always thought this was just a way to over-stress Jesus's humility, that He was being super humble to submit to the Father's Will and give up heaven for awhile to come down here in a human body, for our sakes. I always just figured it was teaching that if Jesus, who is God, is that humble, then we should be humble too.
And I was okay with that interpretation of it... until I read the KJV version of it: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is saying that Jesus did not think it was robbing God of glory to claim that He [Jesus] is equal to God - because Jesus is God, in the flesh.
After realizing that this is what the verse should say, I now have a big problem with ESV (and others) because - compared to the KJV - I no longer think the other translations are merely emphasizing Jesus's "super humility," but that they actually have Jesus denying His divinity.
In the KJV, Jesus does not think it's wrong for Him to consider Himself equal to God. But in other translations, Jesus does not consider equality with God something He can grasp. Total opposites!
And this is disturbing to me and makes me totally question the reliability of any translation that uses the manuscripts that say this. And so if I have to choose which one is more right, I am going with the KJV over all these newer ones. Because Jesus could never deny His divinity, even in the name of humility.
[Also keep in mind that in order to copyright any new translation - to make it "their own" - it has to differ a certain percentage from any other translation. So therefore, all new copyrighted translations must make a certain amount of changes. To me, this weakens the integrity and reliability of every new copyrighted translation. However, I still do read other translations - I grew up with the NIV - but when I wonder about the correct translation of a verse, I almost always go back to the KJV.]
Ninth:
Also in his January 2018 sermon, he said that the definition of predestination "in the Greek" is "prechosen, preselected, elect ahead of time." The pastor's definition clearly implies that predestination is about certain people being chosen for salvation ahead of time. And Calvinism, as I said, centers around this "doctrine."
But did you know that the word "predestine" only shows up 4 times in the King James? Calvinism's whole theology is built around a word that only shows up 4 times in the KJV, the translation I trust most. (And as I already pointed out, their theology is also built around the word "sovereign" which isn't even in the KJV at all or defined in any verse as Calvinists define it.)
And not only that, but according to the concordance, in the Greek it simply means that something is determined beforehand. But it doesn't say what was determined beforehand or how it was determined beforehand, nor is there any indication in the definition that it's talking about salvation or choosing people.
And so it is a huge error/deception (dare I say "a lie") to say "Predestination in the Greek... means 'prechosen, preselected, elect ahead of time'", clearly implying that the Greek definition of predestination specifies that people are elected for salvation ahead of time. (Remember that the devil's in the details.)
But this is nowhere in the definition of "to determine beforehand."
It would be like saying that the Webster dictionary's definition of "preplan" is "to choose certain people ahead of time to go heaven." Can you see the huge stretch here, the majorly wrong implications imposed on a word that inherently contains no such thing?
The definition of "predestination" contains no such idea of choosing certain people ahead of time for salvation. And it's totally wrong and deceptive to say or imply that it does, a brazen twisting of the word to make it fit Calvinist presuppositions.
And so since the word itself doesn't tell us what or who was predestined, we need to look at the context of each verse to see that. And here it is, in context:
The first two uses of "predestine" are in Romans 8:29-30 (KJV): “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son … Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
This doesn't say God predestined certain people to be saved. It says that those God foreknows are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. It’s not about God predestining who believes, but it's about God predestining what happens to anyone who chooses to believe: by His plan, all believers will be conformed to Jesus’s image.
[Warning: Calvinists also change the definition of "foreknows" to make it fit their doctrine of predestination. They boldly and shamelessly change it from God knowing what happens beforehand... to God "planning/decreeing" what happens beforehand. They say God only foreknows what will happen because He first pre-planned/decreed what happens. But this is a violation of the definition of foreknows. Also, Calvinists will use verses about God working someone's self-chosen wickedness into His plans to "prove" that God preplanned and caused the wickedness and sins, as if the person had no chance to choose otherwise. And then they'll say "See, God preplans/controls all things, even sin, evil, and unbelief." But biblically, God didn't preplan or cause it; He just foreknew what they would choose and worked it into His plans. And if they had chosen something else, He would've foreknown their different choice and would've worked that into His plans instead. Do not fall for a Calvinist's bad definition of "foreknows."]
God doesn't predestine who believes, but He predestines what happens to someone after they believe (and anyone can): All believers will grow to be more like Jesus and eventually be glorified.
And the second two uses of "predestined" are in 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. It says that believers are "predestinated unto the adoption of children" and that our inheritance has been predestined.
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 and glorification. Second, it contradicts Calvinism’s idea that the elect are “in Christ” (“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 who 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, the more trustworthy translation) specifies that the "inheritance" believers get is what was predestined, NOT that certain people are predestined for salvation.
[Interestingly, the NIV translates Ephesians 1:11 like this: "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,"
Now again in the KJV: "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:"
Notice what's missing?
The NIV skips the part about our inheritance being predestined, making it sound instead like whether or not we are "chosen" is what's been predestined. Big difference!]
Basically, the Ephesians' predestination verse is saying that we who are “in Him” (as a result of choosing to believe in Him - and anyone can) are predestined to have our bodies redeemed, to get an inheritance, and to bring God glory. All of this is promised by God to anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus. And anyone can.
And so even though this word is only in the Bible four times - and all four have to do with what happens after someone believes - Calvinists build their whole theology around it (their wrong understanding of it), incorrectly interpreting it to say that God chooses who believes.
[If you're still not sure about the proper interpretation of predestination, ask yourself which God is more trustworthy: A God who calls all people to believe, allows anyone to believe, and gives everyone the responsibility to make their own choice to accept or reject Jesus and who planned what gifts/jobs He will give to anyone who believes... or a God who says that He loves the world and that Jesus died for all sins and who calls all people to believe, while at the same time He prepicked who believes and sent Jesus to die only for them and He prevents everyone else from believing and will punish them for their unbelief even though He gave them no chance or ability to choose anything else?
And for more about the difference between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist definition of predestination, see Soteriology 101's "Provisionists believe in Predestination and Election."]
(Comments 10-11 next)
