Calvinist – Michelle Lesley

Welcome to another “potpourri” edition of The Mailbag, where I give short(er) answers to several questions rather than a long answer to one question.

I like to take the opportunity in these potpourri editions to let new readers know about my comments/e-mail/messages policy. I’m not able to respond individually to most e-mails and messages, so here are some helpful hints for getting your questions answered more quickly. Remember, the search bar (at the very bottom of each page) can be a helpful tool!

Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.

This reader’s question is in reference to my article In Defense of Offense: Why Christians Need to Stop Worrying About Offending People.

Would you say offending with the purpose to offend with the truth is the same as what you are saying? So should we ever purpose to offend when we speak the truth from the Bible?

Great question! (And let me take this opportunity to say to all of my readers and followers that if you’re ever unclear about something I’ve written or posted – especially if it seems unbiblical or out of character for me – please, please, please just ask me about it politely, like this reader did, and I will be happy to explain if I’m able. I would much rather you ask than attack me, jump to the wrong conclusion, or worse, assume I’ve apostatized. Genuine, polite questions are always welcome!)

Hon, when you say “purpose to offend,” I’m thinking of a person who gets out of bed in the morning with the primary goal of offending people, making them angry, or upsetting them, not with the primary goal of sharing the gospel or restoring someone from sin.

I’m not sure why a Christian would have the desire, goal, or motive of offending people, regardless of his reason for doing so. That goes against the grain of everything Scripture teaches us both about Christian character and the ineffectiveness of provoking people. The Bible says:

A brother offended is harder to win over than a strong city,
And contentions are like the bars of a citadel.
…if possible, so far as it depends on you, being at peace with all men…
Proverbs 18:19, Romans 12:18

Fathers are told not to provoke their children to anger. One of the qualifications for pastors and elders (which we’re to emulate) is that they not be pugnacious (i.e. “looking for a fight”), but peaceable and considerate. (If not, they’re disqualified from ministry.) We’re not to place a stumbling block or offense before anyone – saved or lost, in order to protect our ministry and so that people might be saved. You’ll recall that Paul devotes significant ink to the idea that if it would offend people for him to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he’ll never eat meat again. We’re told not to be quarrelsome, but kind, patient, and gentle in our teaching and correction so that people can be saved. Titus 3:2 reminds us “to slander no one, but to be peaceable, considerate, demonstrating all gentleness to all men”.

The Scriptures go on and on about this. We’re not only forbidden from trying to offend people, we’re instructed to bend over backwards trying not to offend people. The Bible is offensive enough all on its own. That’s more than enough offense for sinners to try to deal with without us making things harder and piling on personal offensiveness.

And that’s the whole point of my article. Not that we should intentionally be personally offensive in our demeanor, but that we shouldn’t refrain from kindly, yet firmly speaking the truth in love so that sinners might be saved, and saints might be sanctified, just because we’re afraid that biblical truth will offend them.

What do you think about churches using Right Now Media?

I drop in on the RNM website from time to time, and from what I can see, it’s almost all (if not all) false teachers.

Scripture is clear that churches shouldn’t support (financially or otherwise) false teachers, and certainly not those, like RNM, who profit from platforming them and spreading their false doctrine. In fact, if your pastor welcomes false teachers into the church – in person, through their books and materials, via video platforms like RNM, etc. – instead of rebuking them and their false doctrine, he is participating in their wickedness, he is disqualified from pastoral ministry, and he needs to be under church discipline.

Yeah, it’s that serious to God.

And from a stewardship point of view, even if there are a few doctrinally sound teachers sprinkled in at RNM, I don’t see how it could possibly be worth the monthly subscription price for whatever few good teachers they might* carry.

*Visiting the RNM site, I get the impression that they want your money before they give you access to the names of all the teachers they platform. I clicked on several pages, and the teachers they did disclose fell into two categories for me: people I know to be false teachers, and people I’ve never heard of. I didn’t see the name of anyone I know to be a doctrinally sound teacher.

Since it’s a subscription service, not a “pay for the specific video you’re using” kind of thing, there isn’t even the option for pastors to say something like, “We feel like this particular R.C. Sproul video is the best one available on the theology of shoelaces, but it’s only available from RNM. We are recommending ONLY this video at RNM. Avoid everything else.”. No, you’re either in (and paying for everything) or you’re out.

Because RNM is primarily a source of false doctrine and false teachers, and because your church’s offering money would be going to support that – in disobedience to the commands of Scripture – you should be very concerned if your church subscribes to RNM. I would recommend that you and/or your husband set up an appointment with the pastor to discuss it. There’s an underlying issue here in subscribing to RNM – either the pastor is not exercising proper oversight over whoever subscribed the church to RNM, or the pastor is not discerning or diligent enough to know that he’s unleashing false teachers on his sheep.

🚨FRIENDLY WARNING🙂: The following question is related to Calvinism/Reformed theology. Please be reminded that we do not do Calvinism vs. Arminianism arguments here, on any of my social media platforms, or via email. Argumentative comments and messages will be deleted. Please see my Statement of Faith tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page if you have any questions.

My wife and I just finished watching the taped version of your talk [from the Resolute Conference on Answers TV] and we both agreed that it was extremely helpful! Thank you for pouring your time and effort into what was a clearly well-researched message.

Thank you so much. Yes, some of the teaching sessions (including mine) from Answers in Genesis’ Answers for Women 2025 Conference, Resolute, have been posted to Answers TV. I’m sure the rest will be posted soon, so if you have a subscription, you can watch! If you don’t have a subscription, give it some consideration! It’s only $4.99 a month or $39.99 a year, plus they offer a seven day free trial to get you started! If you’d like to watch my session on the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), here’s the handout that goes along with it.

I do have one question, however. During your gospel presentation you specifically said that Christ died for “you” (i.e., the listener). But if you are saying that to an unregenerate person who has not been predestined to eternal life (according to the “U” in TULIP), how does that work with limited atonement (“The atonement for sin that Christ made on the cross applies only to those who are, or will, in the future be, saved”)?

Respectfully, how could you truthfully say that Christ died for “you,” if that person hasn’t been elected for life? Considering that you [are Reformed] your presentation of the gospel seems to be inconsistent with the doctrine of limited atonement.

I’d like to get your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy between the two. Thank you for your time and consideration!

You’re welcome. I’m glad to explain. I was speaking to about 3000 people that week (plus however many will watch the video, now), the vast majority of whom were already saved. So it is true for those people – Jesus did die for them.

When I gave the gospel presentation, I was addressing it to the elect in the audience – to those who would listen and believe the gospel, either right then, or later in life. (So it was true for them, too. Jesus died for them.) I was not speaking to those who would reject the gospel for the rest of their lives and spend an eternity in Hell – those who aren’t elect (if there were any like that in the audience), even though they could also hear me.

The thing is -and I know I’m not telling you anything new, here – you and I don’t know who’s elect and who’s not. That’s above our pay grade and none of our business. That’s God’s purview. The only way we can know for sure that someone is elect is after she gets genuinely saved and perseveres to the end. If she’s genuinely saved, that means she’s elect. But we can’t know before someone gets saved whether or not she’s elect, so, like the sower, we scatter the seed of the gospel with wild abandon, trusting God’s sovereignty as to what kind of soil it lands on and leaving everything after our gospel presentation up to Him.

I would also appeal to Scripture:

In Peter’s sermon in Acts 3, he’s preaching an evangelistic sermon and says -without knowing whether or not any of his audience is elect:

For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.

Was everyone he was preaching to elect? Probably not.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul hearkens back to the gospel he proclaimed to these brothers when they were lost and says he told them that “Christ died for our sins”. At the time he originally said that, he had no way of knowing whether or not everyone he was preaching to would believe.

But all of that being said, I did read back through all of the sermons in Acts and some other evangelistic encounters in Scripture (and also discussed this on Sunday with one of our {unofficial} lay elders at church), and the general approach seemed to be: You’re a sinner, here’s what Jesus did so salvation and the forgiveness of sin could take place, repent, believe it, and be saved. The personal appeal was placed on the “you must repent and believe” part, not on the “Jesus died” part.

So, sure, I’ll tweak things and try to pattern my gospel presentation more in the style of the Apostles, not because of Calvinism as a framework, but because, as Christians – all Christians – we do always want to be as closely aligned with Scripture as we can get. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I appreciate the sharpening.

But I’m not going to quibble with anyone who says, “Jesus died for you,” when she shares the gospel accurately with someone. If the person she’s talking to gets saved, it’s true. If the person she’s talking to doesn’t get saved, she’s technically made a good faith, optimistic mistake while earnestly appealing to him to repent and believe the gospel, but she hasn’t sinned, it doesn’t matter to that person, and she hasn’t sent that person to Hell by saying so. And … you know … she’s sharing the gospel.

If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Benny repents?, Brother Lawrence, Why the Calvinist label?…)

September 9, 2019September 14, 2019 Michelle Lesley

Welcome to another “potpourri” edition of The Mailbag, where I give short(er) answers to several questions rather than a long answer to one question. I also like to take the opportunity in these potpourri editions to let new readers know about my comments/e-mail/messages policy. I’m not able to respond individually to most e-mails and messages, so here are some helpful hints for getting your questions answered more quickly. Remember, the search bar can be a helpful tool!

In these potpourri editions of The Mailbag, I’d also like to address the three questions I’m most commonly asked:

“Do you know anything about [Christian pastor/teacher/author] or his/her materials? Is he/she doctrinally sound?”

Try these links:
Popular False Teachers / Recommended Bible Teachers / search bar
Is She a False Teacher? 7 Steps to Figuring It Out on Your Own
(Do keep bringing me names, though. If I get enough questions about a particular teacher, I’ll probably write an article on her.)

“Can you recommend a good women’s Bible study?”

No. Here’s why:
The Mailbag: Can you recommend a good Bible study for women/teens/kids?
The Mailbag: “We need to stop relying on canned studies,” doesn’t mean, “We need to rely on doctrinally sound canned studies.”.

“You shouldn’t be warning against [popular false teacher] for [X,Y,Z] reason!”

Answering the Opposition- Responses to the Most Frequently Raised Discernment Objections

I saw this video making the rounds on social media. It appears as though Benny Hinn is repenting of teaching the prosperity gospel. Is this true, or too good to be true?

Briefly, it is not true, and his behavior and teaching bears this out. He has made similar claims in the past and continues to teach the same old lies from the same old pit of Hell. The YouTube video making the rounds is 4½ minutes long. What it doesn’t show is that for an hour and a half prior to this 4½ minute snippet Benny conducted one of his regular “healing” services. Furthermore, prosperity teaching is not the only heretical aspect of Benny’s theology, so even if he had repented of teaching the prosperity gospel, he would remain a heretic to avoid.

Repentance doesn’t just mean a blase admission that something is wrong. Repentance is a total change of lifestyle. If Benny were to repent, what we would see would be genuine, long lasting grief over his sin. He would step down from, and dismantle his “ministry,” cancel all of his tours, crusades, and speaking engagements, take all of his books out of print, shut down all of his online platforms and do everything in his power to scrub the internet of his false teaching (at the moment, he has said he’s planning to keep his “most popular” teachings available online for those who want them), return the money he has scammed from people, and park himself in a solid church so he can learn the gospel, be saved, and be discipled in sound doctrine.

If you’d like to believe Benny has repented, OK. Check back up on him in about six months and see if he has done any of the things above to “bear fruit in keeping with repentance.”

For the longer version of the answer to this question, see the resources below.

Benny Hinn and the Fruit of True Repentance at A Word Fitly Spoken

Re: Uncle Benny

I’m encouraged to see him express a refutation of prosperity theology, & even admit to wrong teachings on that topic. Now, pray for undeniable, lasting fruit that exemplifies genuine repentance. Truth & time go hand in hand (Psalm 51:17; Luke 19:1-10; Luke 3:8).

— Costi W. Hinn (@costiwhinn) September 4, 2019

(Be sure to get and read both of Costi’s books if you haven’t already.)

WWUTT 1030 Q&A Benny Hinn, Couples Studies, Christian Fiction? at WWUTT

No, Benny Hinn Has Not Repented by Gabe Hughes

Benny Hinn’s nephew ‘encouraged’ by uncle’s rejection of prosperity gospel, calls for ‘genuine repentance’ at The Christian Post

Benny Hinn and the Fruit of True Repentance at Voice of Reason Radio

Benny Hinn Renounces His Selling of God’s Blessings. Critics Want More. at Christianity Today

[In your “Welcome” tab,] you describe yourself as…….A genuinely regenerated Protestant, Southern Baptist, Calvinist/Reformed Baptist…I am just getting in on the Reformed Baptist conversation. As a Southern Baptist, why do I need to add all the other titles. Why or what did you reform? I am confused. Why can’t you just be Southern Baptist?

You don’t need to use a bunch of labels if you don’t want to, I just want to be specific and clear to my readers what my theology is in case they’d like to know, and so they will know what to expect when they read my articles.

Reformed Baptist theology is different from Arminian (or what Southern Baptists like to call “Traditionalist” theology). If you are Southern Baptist and unfamiliar with Calvinism, you are most likely in a Traditionalist church (you may want to ask your pastor). I think you’ll find the answers to many of your questions in this article (be sure to read the additional resources at the end, too.) I’d also encourage you to read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

(Just a reminder to my regular readers, I don’t engage in or allow Calvinism/Arminianism debates and arguments in the comments sections of my articles or on social media. Please review my comment parameters at the “Welcome” tab at the top of this page before commenting.)

I am, for now, the choir director at my church. I lead the choir and my husband leads the congregational hymn singing. In one question I read [on your blog], I should not be doing that- the answer to the question of whether woman should serve as worship leaders or music ministers was a simple “no”. It would help a great deal to have an extended answer, and then I’ll know whether to tender my resignation and find another way to serve. I can happily go back to just singing in the choir. Thank you for your insight.

It’s so encouraging when I hear from women who want to do the biblical thing! I’m not sure which of my articles you were reading where I simply said “no” to the question of whether or not women should serve as worship leaders, but I have addressed that question in greater length in this article (see #4).

Of course, this article doesn’t address a woman only directing the choir, but rather, serving as the minister of music. I can see some situations in which it might be biblically OK for a woman to only direct the choir.

For example, if it’s an emergency situation like the minister of music getting sick at the last moment on Sunday morning and he has been the one to lead the choir through rehearsals, explain the text of the music to them, etc., and the only person capable of stepping in and directing the choir that morning (just the choir, not the congregation) is a woman, I don’t think that would be a problem. Another example: At my church, the choir occasionally does anthems that center around a tenor solo, which our minister of music (who directs the choir) will sometimes sing. He will step up to the pulpit to sing the solo, and a lady in the choir will direct the choir part of the anthem. I don’t think that’s problematic, either.

Of course, you will need to pray about it and talk it over with your husband and pastor, but, for what it’s worth, my thought on your situation is that if your husband is Scripturally qualified (as well as musically qualified) to step into the pastoral role of minister of music (because men should not hold positions of leadership they’re not biblically qualified for either), and he is overseeing the choir – selecting the music, leading rehearsals, etc. (all the pastoral type things mentioned in the article), then it would not be a problem for you to simply direct them on Sunday morning. Especially if, as it sounds like might be the case, the two of you are temporarily filling in until a permanent minister of music can be found and hired. But, really, the best case scenario would be for your husband (and/or another biblically qualified man to) lead the congregation and the choir. And it would probably be a load off your shoulders!

I have a question that I haven’t been able to find a clear answer to including in your blog. Can women teach men in Bible study say on a Thursday night?

The 1 Tim 2:12-13 Scripture points to Adam being created first then Eve therefore, therefore I would deduct that women should not teach or exercise authority over a man whether it be in church, Sunday School or in a Thursday night Bible study. Am I wrong?

DING! DING! DING! You are absolutely RIGHT! Tell her what she’s won, Johnny! :0)

Yes, you’re correct. You’ll notice in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that there’s no exception for any day of the week. The prohibition against women teaching men is for any day ending in a Y.

And, you didn’t say where this Thursday night Bible study is meeting, but those types of gatherings of the Body often meet in homes, and there’s no exception for meeting in a home (or anywhere else) versus meeting inside the four walls of a church building, either. When 1 Timothy was written, there were no church buildings. The church was largely meeting in people’s homes. I say “the church was meeting,” because the church is the gathering of Believers, not the building in which they meet. So it’s not OK for women to teach Scripture or preach to a co-ed gathered body of Believers, whether that’s in a church building during worship service or a smaller class or group, or at a Christian conference, retreat, parachurch event, or at a Bible study at someone’s home on a Thursday night.

You’re also correct that I’ve never addressed this specific question directly, but I have touched on it here, here (2nd question), and here (#7 – I just hopped over to this article and added home, workplace, and coffee shop Bible studies to question 7). So let me grab the salient points from those articles and put them together in a more helpful way:

“Teaching” includes any situation in the gathering of the body of Christ in which women would be giving instruction to men in the Scriptures and/or on spiritual matters (which, in a biblical church gathering, would necessarily include Scripture), whether in an official position of teacher (pastor, teaching elder, Sunday School/Bible study teacher, or other leadership position) or any other situation requiring exhorting, teaching, or explaining of the Scriptures.

We need to remember what the definition of “church” is. The church is not a building, it is a body of born again believers gathered for the purpose of worship, prayer, the ordinances, and/or the study of God’s word. Those things can take place in a church building, a home (as with the first century churches in Acts), in a campus or office building, outdoors, in a conference center, in a sports arena, or anywhere else. So, when a body of believers comes together for these purposes, regardless of the building in which they meet, or whether you call it “church” or not, they are the church, and the biblical parameters about women teaching and holding authority over men applies.

I don’t mean this to sound facetious or anything, but sin is sin no matter what time of day or day of the week it takes place on.

Today, I came across a book I had purchased in the past – Practicing the Presence of God from Brother Lawrence. Taking a quick look at the book, I’m inclined to throw it away. It reminds me of Buddhist thinking or New Age garbage. As a monk, Brother Lawrence’s Catholic theology conflicts with biblical Christianity.

Before I became a Christian, I was into New Age thinking and practices. Just reading bits and pieces of this book makes me think New Age thinking instead of what I know from the Bible. I’m going to throw it away…I don’t see any redeeming Christian theology in it thus far. I don’t want to expose anyone else to wrong theology. Just wondered if you have any thoughts on this book?

Unlike the vast majority of books I’m asked about, I have actually read this one. However, it has probably been ten years ago or more since I read it. All I remember is that it was fairly short (which is probably why I read it), and that one of his main points was keeping our thoughts focused on God at all times. And I mean all times. Every waking moment of the day, we are to be consciously, actively thinking about God or we’re not pleasing Him. I remember trying to put that into practice. Even while doing something as mindless as washing the dishes, it was impossible and exhausting. (It did, however demonstrate to me how much of the time our brains are on auto-pilot.)

You’re correct in your assessment of the theology of the book. Brother Lawrence was a Roman Catholic mystic. Roman Catholic doctrine – as it is laid out in their own documents – is patently unbiblical, as is mysticism. Christians should not receive any sort of spiritual teaching from someone with that theological pedigree.

Thank you for throwing the book out instead of passing bad theology on to others.

Calvinism/Arminianism, Mailbag

The Mailbag: God loves everybody?

February 25, 2019May 23, 2019 Michelle Lesley

You stated that God loves each and every one of us. Can you help me understand that in terms of election? I had understood that He loves His elect, although it is His desire that each one be saved. I’m having trouble reconciling those two things! Thank you!

That is a super question. I love it when women dig into the deep questions of theology!

I’m not sure if I can help you understand that or not, because I’m not sure anybody out there has a complete grasp of that concept. God’s ways and His thoughts are much higher than our ways and our thoughts, and there are things He chooses not to reveal fully to us. This is one of those things. So if you ask this question of several different people, you’ll probably get several different answers. And anybody who thinks she’s got this completely figured out…well, I’d be a bit concerned.

All I can do is give you my perspective and the Scriptures (click the hyperlinks) I base that perspective on. My perspective isn’t based on Reformed theology treatises, but rather on my understanding – limited and flawed by sin as it is – of the nature and character of God as I’ve come to know it from the Bible. I’m sure I’ll get plenty of disagreement from both my Calvinist/Reformed brethren and my Traditionalist/Arminian brethren, and that’s fine. (I would just remind you to please review my comment parameters before commenting. In addition to those parameters, I don’t participate in debates over Calvinism in the comments sections of my articles or anywhere else. Ever. It’s fruitless.)

Let me start by saying that in the discussion of God’s love for people, my understanding is that people are talking about, for lack of a better way of saying it, God’s heartfelt feelings towards people. His emotional affections toward people. Not any way He might act toward them, position them, bless or not bless them, etc. So as I talk about God’s love in the remainder of this article, that’s what I mean, because that’s what I understand the question to mean.

Do I believe that God loves all people without regard to whether or not they’re elect? Yes. But I don’t believe God loves all people in the same way. Why? Because I’m a parent. And because God frequently and intentionally reveals Himself to us in Scripture as Father, and because we, being made in His image, demonstrate His communicable attributes, there are some things we can observe in our own relationships with our children that reflect – albeit through a glass dimly – God’s posture toward both sinners and saints.

My husband and I have six children. (For the purposes of the point I’m about to make, we will stipulate that he and I created all of them.¹) I love all the children I have created. Some of them are saved, and some of them are not, but I still love all of them regardless of their spiritual state.

But my love for my children who are saved is qualitatively different from my love for my children whom I know are not saved. There is a deeper bond between my saved children and me because we are not only familially mother and child, we are also spiritually brothers and sisters. We’re not just related by flesh and blood, we’re also related by the blood of Christ.

My unsaved children and I only have the love of familial affection between us. And not only that, while there is nothing in my saved children that wars against the Holy Spirit who resides within me, the sinful nature of my unsaved children does. Furthermore, there is the burden and longing in my heart for my unsaved children to know Christ. With my saved children, that burden and longing is replaced with joy that they are walking with the Lord. But none of that means I don’t love my unsaved children. It just means I love them in a different way than the way I love my saved children.

God personally created every human being in His image. So, strictly in that broad, creative sense – reflected in the way that when a man sires offspring he is their father and they are his children – God is the Father of all people, and all people are His children. And in the same sense that I love all of my children though in different ways, I believe God loves all of His created children though in different ways. Those who are saved (elect) are doubly His children, in the creative sense and in the spiritual sense, so there is a special bond and intimacy there that is higher and qualitatively different from those who are unsaved (not elect), because God is only “related” to them as Creator. Additionally, as with the way I love my own children, though God already knows who will and won’t be saved, the longing of His heart is for His unsaved children to repent and be saved, and the joy of His heart is His saved children who are walking with Him.

We see part of this idea a bit in the parable of the prodigal son (and remember, Jesus is the one who came up with this story). Let’s peel back the main spiritual point of the parable for just a moment and look at the structural elements of the story from an earthly perspective. Jesus intentionally chose a father and his two sons to build this story around. The father represents God. The older son represents “righteous” people, and the younger son represents “sinners”. Both boys are the father’s sons in the sense that he created both of them.² Nothing in the story indicates that the father only loves the older, righteous son and doesn’t love the younger, sinful son. I would argue that this father loves the younger son in the same way I described loving my unsaved children, and I believe the father’s reaction to the younger son’s return (starting in verse 20) supports this. You don’t hate your own child for months or years on end and then, in a split second, show this kind of heartfelt love toward him. This is a dad – representing God – who loved his kid without regard to his spiritual state.

There seems to be a line of thought among some Calvinists that starts with taking mainly Romans 9:13 – “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated” – at least a little bit out of context and understanding it to mean that God feels the emotion of hatred toward (detests, is passionately hostile toward, dislikes to the ultimate degree – that’s the way most of us define the word “hates”) everyone who isn’t elect. I have a few thoughts on that:

• If you read Romans 9:13 in context, it’s obvious that the “love” and “hate” mentioned in verse 13 are not about God’s emotional feelings toward the elect and non-elect. The whole point of the passage is that God is sovereign and He decides, based on His own reasons that have nothing to do with our behavior, who is elect and who is not, and that He draws a very clear line between the two. He uses the words “love” and “hate” for contrast very much like we would say, “this is a black and white issue”. What this verse means is “This group over here (Jacob), I have set apart and chosen. This group over here (Esau), I have not.” If you read the cross-references for this verse, it becomes even more obvious that God is not talking about emotions here, but about His right to set apart for salvation whomever He chooses, as well as the position of the elect versus the position of the non-elect, which He metaphorically compares to the positions of Jacob and Esau respectively.

• God chose Jacob and Esau to illustrate this point. Isaac was Jacob’s and Esau’s father. Isaac didn’t demonstrate any sort of feelings of hatred toward Esau even though he knew Jacob was the “chosen one”. In fact, Scripture tells us it was Esau, not Jacob, whom Isaac “loved”. (Remember, we’re still talking feelings, here.)

• Compare Romans 9:13:

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

with Luke 14:26:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

The same Greek word translated “hate”, μισέω (miseó), is used in both verses. Is Jesus saying that we have to despise our closest and most beloved family members and even our own lives in order to be His disciple? Of course not. Again, it’s a contrast statement He’s using to make a point.

The way this verse is usually explained is that the love we have for Christ is to so far eclipse our love for anyone or anything else that our love for them seems like hatred in comparison to our love for Him.

But the love we have for Christ involves far more than mere feelings of affection. Loving Christ enough to follow Him means your loyalties lie with Him regardless of the cost. You cast your lot with Him to the exclusion of anyone or anything else that gets in your way. It’s almost like the part of the wedding vows that says, “…and forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him as long as you both shall live.” It’s not like you completely cut everybody out of your life except your husband and decide to feel hatefully toward them. It means your highest earthly loyalty, love, dedication, priority, and commitment are reserved for him. The same way our highest spiritual loyalty, love, dedication, priority, and commitment are reserved for Christ. Which is the same sort of way that God’s highest loyalty, love, dedication, priority, and commitment are reserved for His elect in Romans 9:13.

The question then arises, “But the Bible says God’s wrath abides upon the unsaved, and He is going to send them to Hell. Doesn’t that mean He hates them?”. Again, going back to our parent-child motif, my answer would be no. Let me proffer some examples: I can be extremely angry or wrathful toward my children for defying me and yet still love them. If I have a prodigal child who sins in every imaginable way, shakes his fist at me, curses me, and whatever other abominable behavior we could imagine, I could tell my child he’s no longer welcome in my home or at family gatherings unless he repents. But it would be heartbreaking to do because I would still love him. If I have a child who is constantly and unrepentantly breaking the law, and I have an opportunity to turn him in to the police, knowing that he’s going to go to jail, I’m going to turn him in. And I’ll do it with tears streaming down my face, because I love him.

I’m just a finite, sinful parent living in a fallen world. God is our perfect Heavenly Father. His heart is much bigger than mine. His character is much holier than mine. And He is able to be perfect in all ways simultaneously. He can be perfect in wrath and perfect in love, perfect in judgment and perfect in compassion, toward the same person at the same time. We may not be able to completely understand how He loves, but we can trust that however He loves, He loves perfectly.

¹For the purposes of being accurate, our two oldest children are my step-sons.

²Some will argue that both were sons in the sense that both were elect – the older son being saved at an early age, and the younger son saved later in life. I’m not sure we could use that argument because, while the younger son (the “sinner”) becomes a Believer in the story, the older son mainly represents the scribes and Pharisees, and when we see Jesus interacting with the scribes and Pharisees in the gospels, He generally regards them as unbelievers. And since Jesus is God, He knows whether or not they’re elect.

Calvinism/Arminianism, Mailbag

The Mailbag: Should I leave a Wesleyan church?

April 30, 2018August 13, 2025 Michelle Lesley

Readers, please note:
Comments attempting to debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or questioning the salvation of Calvinists or Arminians, will not be published.

A few years ago, we had to leave our church. In the area we live in, church teaching is mostly fluffy and there’s a lot of worldliness. We “settled” for a church in which we know the pastor and his wife personally. The pastor lives the Word he preaches.

The problem I have with the church is the doctrine of the denomination. They are a Wesleyan holiness background – Arminian. This past year I’ve done some doctrine study on my own to understand the differences in the Calvinism / Arminian camps more fully. I do not agree with some of the doctrinal stances of the church. Are these big enough issues to leave? Am I being too critical?

Finding a doctrinally sound church is probably the number one problem I hear about from readers, and it just breaks my heart. I dearly wish every church out there taught sound doctrine so this would no longer be an issue for Christians. If your pastor preaches sound doctrine and makes sure it’s taught in your church, be sure to give him a hug and tell him thank you.

I needed a quick brush up on Wesleyan theology, and some of my readers may not be too familiar with it, so let me start off with recommending two brief articles: Wesleyan-Holiness Theology and Who are the Wesleyans, and what are the beliefs of the Wesleyan Church?

Though much of what Wesley originally taught was biblical and doctrinally sound, two major doctrines were not: sinless perfection (also known as entire sanctification) and the idea that a genuinely regenerated Christian can lose her salvation.

“Wesley recorded the experiences of others whom he had no doubt were delivered from all sin and filled entirely with the pure love of God.”

Whether one defines “perfection” as “completely without sin” or “growth and maturity in Christ,” the idea that either can be achieved in a human lifespan in this fallen world should be a no-brainer for anyone who’s truly born again and who takes a few minutes for introspection and logical thought – no prooftext needed.

The fallenness of this world will never stop providing temptations for Christians to sin. Those temptations will be there, and you will continue to give in to them until the moment you die, regardless of how long you live. Furthermore, the longer you grow in holiness, the more God opens your eyes to sins of the heart that you didn’t even realize you were committing. Bitterness, complaining, jealousy, idolatry, pride… The longer you live, the more sinful you realize you are. Ask the finest Christian you know, on his death bed, if he no longer gives in to temptation, if he no longer sins, if he has reached the point of complete spiritual maturity, and he will say to you, with Paul, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death?”.

Christian, you know your heart and your walk with the Lord – can you imagine ever getting to any point in your life at which you could say you were as perfectly sinless and mature as Jesus was?

The belief that someone who has been genuinely born again in Christ can lose her salvation is directly refuted by multiple passages of Scripture. The reason it can look to us as though someone has lost or forfeited her salvation – “deconstructed” or “left the faith,” if you will – is because, although many can fake it pretty well, that person was never genuinely saved in the first place. I’ve discussed the Scriptures dealing with the false doctrine of losing one’s salvation in my article The Mailbag: Can unforgiveness cause you to you lose your salvation?.

Let me also clarify that, while Wesleyans who hold to the tenets outlined in the articles on Wesleyism linked above are Arminians*, not all Arminians would agree with all of the tenets of Wesleyan theology. (Kind of an “All Wesleyans are Arminians, but not all Arminians are Wesleyans,” thing.)

*Just a little FYI for Christians who find themselves in discussions about Arminianism. ArmInian is spelled with an “I” in the middle. An ArmEnian (with an “E” in the middle) is a citizen of the Asian nation of ArmEnia. It is quite possible to be either a Calvinist Armenian or an Arminian Armenian :0)

To illustrate, I know a great many Southern Baptists whose beliefs could technically be classified as Arminian, but they would reject the Wesleyan notions of sinless perfection and the idea that a genuinely regenerated Christian can lose his salvation.

There’s a broad spectrum of Arminianism. Some Arminian churches are so biblical and handle God’s Word so well that a Calvinist could joyfully join one and find minimal disagreement with the preaching and teaching. I am Reformed and I happen to be a member of just such a church.

Finally, in addition to the formal doctrines of sinless perfection, losing one’s salvation, and Arminianism taught by Wesley, a lot can happen in 250+ years, and while I’m sure there are some small pockets of sound doctrine in individual Weseleyan churches somewhere out there, Wesleyism is now fraught with false doctrine of all sorts. This false doctrine mostly manifests itself as progressivisim (wokeness, egalitarianism, social justice, affirmation of perversion, etc.), but there are also examples of New Apostolic Reformation false doctrine as we saw a few years ago in the Asbury “Revival”.

You don’t state which Wesleyan doctrine(s) you find troublesome, so I’m not comfortable saying whether or not you’re being too picky and whether or not you should leave this church.

Another factor at play is how hard this pastor hammers the doctrines you’re uncomfortable with. A pastor who, for example, reluctantly keeps sinless perfection in the back closet because the church sign says “Wesleyan” but never talks about it from the pulpit is a different situation from a pastor who regularly preaches on sinless perfection and says you can’t be saved if you don’t believe this doctrine.

You also need to consider what your other options for churches are if you leave this one. Are there any churches within achievable driving distance that are more doctrinally sound than the one you’re attending? (You might find the resources in the “Searching for a new church?” tab at the top of this page to be helpful.)

The final piece of the puzzle, and probably the determining factor, is your husband. What does he think about all of this, and how is he leading your family? Is he saved? Generally doctrinally sound? I’m surmising the two of you are at least somewhat on the same theological page since you left the last church together and settled on this one together. If he is not leading you to sin, you will need to submit to his decision on this matter.

My counsel would be for you and your husband to make an appointment with your current pastor to ask questions and find out where he stands on all the Wesleyan doctrines. Then, you and your husband should take some time (a few weeks, a few months, whatever it takes) to search the Scriptures and pray about it together, as well as look at your options for other churches. Give your husband your input and let him know you’ll support whatever decision he makes.