predestined – 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.

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.