If you don’t delve into the doctrine of predestination and election you dont delve into the gospel, we must delve into this doctrine and explain it.
2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689
- God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
There is no contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, Man is responsible ,Man is accountable. One of the fallacies of the doctrine is that it removes man’s accountability and his responsibility.
2. Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
God did not look down the corridor of time and see that Esau was not going to respond favorably and Jacob was going to respond favorably. This is a wrong view of election,That is not God being sovereign but God being a time traveler.
That’s God not having any power whatsoever,no control, He is absolutely helpless just being able to see the future and who was going to choose him and therefore lie to us to make us believe He is sovereign. That’s not predestination. Predestination is not making a decision because you know the outcome, That is like thinking a news anchor has special powers because they saw a video before you did and told you the outcome before you saw it.
Probably the most common evasion is from those who would see foreknowledge as something that figures into God’s electing choice. And by that, they mean that He foreknew by looking ahead into the future to discover what was going to happen. And when He knew, when He learned through this foresight who was going to respond positively to the gospel, then He chose those people. And so, in effect, the choice is still theirs. But God saw it ahead of time and, therefore, He elected them because of the choice He knew they would make. That really evades the whole point, because it makes the choice the choice of the sinner, rather than the choice of God. If God looks into the future to see who’s going to believe, you have two problems there. Number one, that means that the believer himself is the one who made the decisive choice, not God. And that goes against dozens of Scriptures that say God is the one who chooses. Jesus said to the disciples: You haven’t chosen Me; I chose you. And in Thessalonians, Paul writes to the Thessalonians and emphasizes the fact that they are saved by God’s choice, God’s choice. And then the other problem with that is that ultimately, ultimately, if it’s my choice, I’m going to make the wrong choice.
“Pelagianism,” to put it as simply as I know how, starts with the denial of the doctrine of original sin. It’s a denial that Adam’s sin in any way affects his progeny. So that all of us are born essentially blank slates, and we have—we have the choice. And again, this all hinges on human choice; we have the choice to be good or evil. And we’re evil by our own choice, not because of any sinful tendencies or guilt that we inherited from Adam. That’s where Pelagianism starts. And out of that, you get a totally graceless theology. Because ultimately, if it’s my choice, whether it be good or evil, then I can save myself. I can redeem myself, simply by choosing to be good. And hard core Pelagians, that’s exactly what they teach. Charles Finney was a classic example who fell into this. Basically said: Look, you want to be saved, just choose not to sin; stop sinning and you can be saved. He even preached a sermon called “Make for Yourself a New Heart,” where he taught that as an unredeemed person you could, by sheer force of your will, change your own heart, contrary to what Scripture teaches. And you could, therefore, redeem yourself. The problem with all this is it gives the sinner credit that he doesn’t deserve. And also lays a burden on his back that he can’t possibly bear.
I would classify most Arminianism as a kind of semi-Pelagianism. After Pelagius passed from the scene and his teaching was declared a heresy, there arose a new sort of modification of Pelagius’ teachings—semi-Pelagianism, that’s the technical name for it—that taught okay, well, we were damaged by Adam’s sin, it did affect us, we did inherit sinful tendencies, but—and different semi-Pelagians treat it different ways—but the most common view is God just gives grace to all of humanity, and restores us to the place where we can make a free choice. And so again, like with Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism puts all the emphasis on free will.
The standard, typical American evangelism, which attempts to manipulate the man or the woman, soft-sell the gospel, take the offense out, entertain them, do whatever you need to do, because this is all about getting this person to make a decision. And that whole concept of decisions and invitations and, you know, umpteen verses of just-as-I-am, and all of the things that go with it, is an effort to manipulate, because it’s based upon essentially a semi-Pelagian-Arminian view that man is the ultimate decider. And I mean Finney launched that entire thing, you know. He said the whole idea of evangelism is to manipulate people’s minds to get them to the point where they make this decision; which, you know, is essentially how American evangelism is done, far and wide.