On the Fence: Reconsidering Our Neutrality on Predestination

Many Christians despise talking about predestination.

On the one side, Arminians never seem to be persuaded. No matter how many verses you throw at them or how many prominent theologians you cite, Arminians just won’t budge. Instead of relying on scripture, Arminians will often revert to appeals to “commonsense” principles of fairness. The other side is arguably worse. Calvinists seem to look down on Arminians as lesser Christians who refuse to accept the incontrovertible teachings of scripture. They’ll insist you respond to every proof-text they bring up, but will dismiss the passages you bring up as “out of context.” They’ll insist that Arminians are man-centered, ignoring the fact that many Calvinists display more arrogance than their Arminian counterparts. 

It’s no wonder that those on the fence perpetually stay on the fence. Why choose a side when both sides are unbearable? 

 

According to Barna, 1 out of every 3 Christians are on the fence about this issue. Even further than that, those who take positions often do so with great caution, acknowledging their lack of confidence in their position. There are three specific reasons that proponents of sitting on the fence will cite.

The first is that the Bible says things on both sides. We hear this argument often, and for good reason. Ephesians 1 tells us God “predestined us as sons,” but John 3 tells us God “loved the whole world.” Ephesians 2 says faith is “not your own doing, but the gift of God” while Revelations 2 praises the good churches for their own choices. Romans 9 tells us that salvation “depends not on human will, but on God who has mercy”, yet the whole Bible consistently asks us to make our decision. With all of that in mind, it makes sense to simply sit this one out. Since the Bible says things on both sides, we shouldn’t take a strong position.

The second reason why many Christians don’t take a side is because theologians are split on the issue. It would be absurd, and even arrogant of us to say we’ve found the truth when our foremost Christian leaders aren’t unified. It’s probably better for us to just resign ourselves to the fact that we’ll also never know for sure.

The third reason is that our opinion on the subject doesn’t really matter. It’s already radical to tell someone that God forced them to become a Christian—and it doesn’t even affect our eternal destiny [1]. Our view of predestination won’t send us to heaven or to hell, so why care so much?

The Bible’s teachings are ambiguous. Theologians are unsettled. Predestination is a radical idea that give us no tangible advantages. 

These three arguments combine to give us a compelling reason for keeping a neutral position. But how open minded should we be?

Let’s switch gears and discuss a different topic that very few Christians are open minded about: the faith vs. works debate. Ever since Martin Luther kickstarted the Reformation, the Protestant mantra has rung clear: we’re saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Works play absolutely no role in salvation. The mainstream Protestant view is that so extreme that they believe Catholics who believe works are necessary for heaven won’t get in [2].

But is the doctrine of works that erroneous? We claim that there’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that works matter at all. But take off your Protestant-tinted glasses for a second, if you will. Try to see these verses from an objective standpoint—don’t refute them just yet. 

Romans 2:6-8: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”

James 2:24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

1 Corinthians 13:2: “If I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”

Of course, Protestants have been refuting these verses for centuries, just like Catholics have been refuting our verses for centuries [3]. But it’s important to realize the Bible isn’t completely clear cut. It teaches that faith isn’t the highest virtue (1 Cor 13). It teaches that God will judge people according to their works (James 2, Rom 2), and that the only thing that “counts” is faith with works (Gal 5). At the same time, it also teaches that we only need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16), that we are saved by faith (Eph 2), and we’re justified by faith apart from works (Rom 3). In other words, the Bible says things on both sides. 

That’s not all. Consider the fact that Christendom has been virtually split in half since the Reformation with regards to whether works are important to salvation. There isn’t a consensus among “Christian” scholars about whether works factor into salvation. There’s consensus within the Protestant community, but that proves nothing. That would be the same as showing consensus within the Reformed community to prove predestination. Those in authority who call themselves “Christ-followers” have never come to an agreement on the importance of works. 

Additionally, the works debate requires we take a radical position, but doesn’t yield any important benefits. If we take the stance that faith is our only ticket into heaven, we have to accept the corollary that many—if not most—Catholics will end up suffering for eternity in hell. If we believe that good works are necessary, on the other hand, we have to deal with the uncomfortable view that many Christians who didn’t do enough good works won’t be entering heaven. It’s important to note that the only real difference between our views is that Protestants think we should do works because we love God, and Catholics do works because they’re required [4]. Since both sides do works, it won’t affect our salvation regardless of which position we choose.

Recognize this pattern? That’s because these are the exact same three arguments that predestination agnostics use: The Bible seems to say things on both sides. Theologians have never come to an agreement. Our belief about it influences how we see many Christians, but it doesn’t affect our salvation. 

Yet, despite all of this, we take a stance on works but refuse to take a hardline position on predestination. So here’s my challenge to the reader: be consistent. Either take a hard stance on works and predestination, or take a soft stance on both.

I got together with a group of friends last summer and this exact topic came up. When I said my most radical belief was pro-predestination, my good friend seemed to jokingly sneer at this. She said, “theologians can’t even agree on this, and you’re telling me you know you’re right?”  Everyone seemed to agree, and honestly, I felt foolish. How could little ol’ me come to a conclusion when our theological giants have been bickering about this issue for centuries? Looking back on it, I’m relieved to realize that I wasn’t crazy. (Scratch that. I probably was and still am, to my own chagrin). Simply because people disagree doesn’t mean you can’t take a stance. I know my friend definitely believed that faith was the only necessity in salvation, despite the fact that theologians have never come to an agreement on that debate either.

I’d guess that the majority of Christians have a strong opinion on the works debate. Even though the Bible does say a few things that seem to be in favor of works being required, we take the stance that they’re not. We examine the passages closely, look up commentaries, and refute the passages with our own interpretations. That’s ok, of course; there’s nothing wrong with that. But we ought never justify apathy for a topic on the grounds that it seems confusing or ambiguous, and we should never deride someone simply because they have a strong opinion. 

The other legitimate position says that we shouldn’t take a hard stance on either issue since the Bible says things on both sides. It’s possible for either predestination or no predestination, and it’s possible for works to be required or not required. Though it seems extremely radical to repudiate centuries of Reformation teachings, perhaps the debate isn’t closed. It is admittedly somewhat arrogant for us to claim we have a corner on the market for truth and refuse to even consider the alternative side. I wouldn’t recommend this, but at least it’s a consistent position. 

Christians despise talking about predestination because they don’t think they’ll ever find a resolution. Instead of choosing to shy away from conflict, we should search with even more intensity for God’s truth. Don’t ever squander an opportunity to examine God’s word more closely.

 

 

 

 

[1] This isn’t actually the position of Calvinists, but rather a misinterpretation of how salvation works in a Reformed framework. I simply use this example to demonstrate that Calvinism appears radical to the outside world.

[2] John Piper, for example, states “At numerous levels, the [Catholic Church’s] contradictory stance toward Scripture produces a kind of religion that I fear has led many people astray, even into destruction.”

[3] We have a refutation to their verses, too. But so do they. They have a response to Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:28, and Acts 16:31. In fact, when I read Catholic apologists, they use the same exact hermeneutics as Protestants do. They’ll say the verse is out of context, or they’ll bring up a different verse that seems to require a re-interpretation of the original verse. They’ll say we have to take the totality of scripture in interpreting certain verses. In fact, they’ll even agree to what Ephesians 2:8-9 says! They’ll simply state that the passage is referring to when we convert to Christianity, not when we enter heaven.

[4] I don’t mean to say that Catholics do works begrudgingly. I simply mean that the difference is mainly in our motives. When we see a person who claims to be a Christian but doesn’t ever tithe to church or give to the poor, for instance, Catholics would say the person is not saved. Christians, on the other hand, would likely say that he may or may not be saved, that we’ll never know.

Love is Love. But It’s Not Marriage.

“Love is love”. (spoiler alert: I agree with this statement)

They don’t even know what it means.

But do we? The Pew Research Center found that support for same-sex “marriage” among self-described conservatives has doubled since 2001[1]. In fact, almost half of conservatives believe that gay marriage should be legal. So the question we have to ask ourselves is, why? Why are we shifting along with our culture?

The underlying reason for this decline can be found in this fundamental premise behind the gay marriage argument: Homosexual relationships may be immoral, but only according to Christianity. Because the state should not support a religion, liberals reason, the state should be able to condone same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. If we take Christianity out of the picture, apparently same-sex marriage is absolutely acceptable.

At this point, most Christians do one of two things: they either attempt to persuade the listener that Christianity is the best way, or they give up and agree that Christianity is the sole justification for “traditional marriage”[2]. However, unless you’re arguing with a Christian, neither of these options is going to work. Instead, I’d like to explore a third, option, something many of you likely haven’t heard before. But before I do, there’s an important point that needs to be made.

There is explicit biblical teaching against same-sex marriage. 1 Corinthians 6:9 makes this clear: “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality…”[3]. The fact that more than two out of every three white mainline Protestants are ‘deceived’ is disturbing[4]. There are clear biblical teachings that cannot be left aside when discussing these issues with other believers.

However, when discussing this topic with non-Christians, I believe the most effective method is to leave the Bible out[5] – not entirely, but not as the main focus of your position. Here’s how to frame it: “I believe homosexuality is immoral because that’s what the Bible teaches. I believe homosexuality shouldn’t be government sanctioned because it doesn’t fit the definition of marriage and family.”

In Obergefell vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that “The fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”[6] If you’re curious, the Fourteenth Amendment reads,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[7]; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[8] [9]

Footnote seven denotes the “Due Process Clause”. Note that there is no mention of the right to marry here, there is only the right to life, liberty, and property. Footnote eight points out the “Equal Protection Clause”, and here’s where it gets tricky. We’d have to look at specific laws are regulations surrounding marriage. Obviously, there are stipulations on every law. There isn’t a universal right to marry anyone (a minor, an non-consensual adult, an animal), so we can’t say that everyone has a right to marry. So what is the definition of marriage?

Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut definition of marriage. Many definitions are circular, and define marriage as a relationship between spouses, which are then defined as the result marriage itself. Instead, we should look at the historical and philosophical examples that we derive marriage from. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in ancient and medieval time periods, marriage was used to “create kinship bonds, control inheritance, and share resources and labor”[10]. In fact, some in those time period discouraged excessive “love” because it failed to contribute to the well being of society. In medieval and ancient times then, we can safely assert that marriage focused on family and social order (the natural result of family). Plato maintained this idea of a family-centered definition of marriage in his book ‘The Republic’[11]. He believed that the purpose of marriage should be mainly to procreate, going so far as to claim that the state should regulate certain marriages. The philosopher Hegel believed marriage is the microcosm of the state because of its multi-generational contribution to society.

The main takeaway here is that marriage is marriage because it can create a family. Historically, love has been separated from marriage. This doesn’t mean marriage is devoid of love – far from it – but rather, that love is not a synonym for marriage.

 

There’s a difference between love and marriage.

 

If there’s a fundamental difference between love and marriage, then ‘love’ can be ‘love’, and that really doesn’t make a difference in the discussion of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Matt Walsh, author of “The Unholy Trinity”, says in his book that

“The love between a man and a woman gives birth to civilization. It creates life. It makes families. The love between a man and a woman is the bedrock. The foundation. The root that grounds our society and sustains it. The love between men is not procreative. It does not conceive and bring forth life. It does not do anything, practically speaking.”[12]

Love isn’t illegal. The government cannot and should not control our feelings. That’s up to us as citizens, to have our own moral compasses. Within the boundaries of the law, we can do and think as we please. But for the government to recognize non-procreational couples as the ‘bedrock of society’ is not only a slap in the face of true marriage, but it’s a complete and utter lie. There is no such thing as gay “marriage”.

Of course, the argument is always made that there are heterosexual couples that don’t have/can’t have kids. Because we treat these couples as legally married, why wouldn’t we treat homosexual couples as being legally married? This argument is simple and can be summarily dismissed. As Matt Walsh says, “one is an accident of nature, and the other is a result of nature.”[13] There is absolutely no same-sex couple that can procreate – on the other hand, according to the LA Times, 94% of married couples have at least 1 child[14]. The opposition always points to the minority, such as the 1% of rape for abortion, or the 6% of barren heterosexual couples. But the exception is not the rule. Homosexuals cannot procreate. They are not the foundation of society. Homosexuality should not be recognized as such by granting them the status of marriage.

Love is love. Homosexuals should be allowed to love each other – it may be immoral, absolutely – but it’s not the job of the government to stop them. However, because they cannot procreate, they are not the bedrock of society. In fact, studies show that homosexual couples break up on average in less than two years, and have much higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, and disease[15]. This just shows that homosexuals cannot be the grounding of our nation. They can have their love. But they can’t change the definition of marriage.

 

Love may be love. But it’s definitely not marriage.

 

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

[2] Caveat: there is no reason to call it “traditional marriage”. Just like I wouldn’t say I was hit by a “traditional car” a couple days ago, it’s unnecessary to say “traditional marriage”. For the sake of clarity, however, I may refer to heterosexual marriage as traditional marriage.

[3] ESV, italics and bold added

[4] http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

[5] I’ve had people disagree with me on leaving the Bible out, but with this specific topic, I agree that the government shouldn’t be supporting a religion. Don’t worry, there are secular reasons to reject homosexual “marriage” too.

[6] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[7] The Due Process Clause.

[8] The Equal Protection Clause.

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, underline added.

[10] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marriage/

[11] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marriage/

[12] Matt Walsh, “The Unholy Trinity”. 2017. p.127

[13] Matt Walsh, “The Unholy Trinity”. 2017. p.117

[14] http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/08/nation/la-na-childless-couples-20131208

[15] Matt Walsh, “The Unholy Trinity”. 2017. P.120-121