My purpose in this mini series is to provoke thought and to cause each of us to reconsider our soteriology. There is always a danger of people simply going with whatever they were first taught when they were first saved. Regardless of the topic, this is a true pattern. Think about it, how many things do you now believe that you were taught the exact opposite when you first became a believer? I’m sure there are some views that have changed, but, by in large, most people do not wander too far from the fold in which they were first discipled. Just do a quick mental survey of the Christians you know. Those, for example, who believe that tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit were probably taught that as kids or when they first got saved. Those who don’t believe that were probably taught that as kids or when they first got saved. Those who believe that you can fall from grace and lose your salvation were usually taught that when they were first discipled. Those believing “once saved-always saved” were probably raised and taught that way. My last example is our views of the end time. Most people who believe in pre-millennial, dispensational theology were probably “raised” that way, it was probably what they were taught when they were first saved.

It is extremely difficult, stressful and at times emotionally painful to deconstruct our theology and put it back together as we study and feel led by the Holy Spirit. Going through such a process once is great, doing this regularly for the rest of ones life is priceless. It is well worth the time, stress and effort. I believe that this is part of what we are called to do when Paul instructed us to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

I believe that most evangelicals were raised with an inconsistent view of God’s sovereignty, one way or another. We say two things that, when drawn out to logical conclusions, can not both possibly be true. The first thing we say is that all men have a real choice to make. We say that the decision about accepting Christ is up to us. Then in the very next breath we say that God is in control. Now wait just a minute here! How can both these things be true? Just think about it. If the decision is made by us, truly free of manipulation by God, then how is He in control? Does that not make God simply a spectator? How is God in control if He is not…well…in control? Another good example of inconsistency in our lingo is when we teach that man is totally free to make a decision for God and then we turn around and pray for someone’s salvation! What is that all about? Why do we pray for God to “convict”, “draw” or “open the eyes” of certain individuals if we believe that ones decision for Him or against Him is truly free? Are we asking Him to in some way violate their free will? Are we asking Him to manipulate their hearts or their spiritual eyes? And what of those poor souls who have no one praying specifically for their salvation? Are they less likely to choose Christ? Are those whom we specifically pray for more likely to be saved than if we didn't pray for them? Can God be just if He makes it easier for some to accept (due to the specific prayers of others) than He does those who have no such intersession? (The accusation of promoting an "unjust" God can be tossed around, not just at "Calvinists" you see).

I believe the reality of salvation is taught in several passages of scripture. I’ve listed some in previous posts and have spent more time working through others. It is possible that the plainest teaching on salvation is found in the book of Romans. And in the book of Romans, it is possible that the clearest chapter on this topic is chapter eight. And in that chapter, possibly the most clear verse is twenty 28. So, without further impediment,

Romans 8:28-33 NIV

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.

What do you think Paul, who was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, meant when he wrote that “in all things God works…”? What do you think he meant when he used the word “foreknew”? What connections can be made between verses 28 and 29? Is the NIV wrong for including verse 28 in the same paragraph as 29? The quick and easy answer, the answer that makes us feel as if we’re off the hook is “oh, God just knew who would and wouldn’t accept Jesus ahead of time and on that basis He predestines”. Oh yes, I’ve tried to hang my hat on that as well. Again, how does verse 28 apply to that line thinking? Does not that line of thinking simply make God a responder to His observation of us? He can not be in full control in that view can He? In that view, we are still in control of our destiny, God simply does nothing more than react. Is that real sovereignty? Did God act or react with Abram? Saul? Jeremiah? Pharaoh? Jacob? Esau? Peter? Andrew? Peter and Andrew’s father? You?

Here’s my challenge: do a study on the words “foreknowledge” and “knowledge” in the Bible (and their related words). See if they simply refer to intellectual understanding or awareness.

Try to apply the definition of pure intellectual understanding or awareness for the word “knowledge”, “know” or “knew” to when Jesus told us what His response will be to those who pretended to be Christians on earth when they face Him on judgment day. What will He say to them? “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:23). Is God not omniscient?

Post away!