RSS<\/a><\/p>\nTopics Addressed in This Interview:<\/h2>\n
Matt Tully<\/em>
Andy, thank you so much for joining me again on The Crossway Podcast<\/em>.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
My pleasure, Matt.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Very briefly here, how would you explain the doctrine of predestination to a fifth grader?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Well, election just means that you choose. So I might, depending where I\u2019m at, let\u2019s say we\u2019re in a room with some objects\u2014like we\u2019re in a kitchen and there\u2019s a bowl full of apples; maybe there are seven apples in the bowl\u2014and I\u2019d say if I want an apple, and I choose an apple, then that means I\u2019m electing that apple.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Why are you using the word electing<\/em> now? We said predestination, but you\u2019re bringing in this other other word.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Predestination is the big umbrella term that includes, theologically, when God actively chooses and when he passes over. So I chose the word elect<\/em> to illustrate the positive aspect of he\u2019s choosing some. So I would say I chose that apple, and I passed over the rest. That whole transaction of me choosing some and not the others illustrates the big picture of predestination.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
So predestination is the overarching concept, and then within that we have election. And then what\u2019s the term for passing over?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Well, there\u2019s not a clear Bible word for this. There are different phrases the Bible uses, not just one. The word that theologians use is reprobation, and that sounds scary.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
That\u2019s a big, scary word that some people listening are already like, I don\u2019t like this<\/em>.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
It\u2019s just a way of trying to summarize, concisely, the concept that I believe is in the Bible, that God sovereignly and justly chose to pass over non-elect sinners and punish them. So whatever that is, you can call it something else, but that concept is what I want to say the Bible teaches.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
You said that a couple times, that this is from the Bible. What\u2019s the one or two key passages that you would point to to defend this idea of predestination?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The main passage is Romans 9. Romans 9 is probably the main passage for election and reprobation. But if I was going to make a case for God ultimately causing reprobation, I\u2019d go to Romans 9 and show that God the potter prepared vessels of wrath for destruction. That\u2019s Romans 9:20\u201323\u2014the analogy of a potter and pottery, potter and clay.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
That passage strikes me as a more proactive statement of what\u2019s happening in reprobation than even the example you gave before of passing over. There\u2019s a certain lack of activity that\u2019s implied there, whereas the idea of preparing vessels for destruction feels a little bit more proactive, which, again, is sort of an uncomfortable way to talk about it.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah. And it\u2019s not just there. In Jude it says that these certain people were long ago designated for this condemnation. So God designated certain people long ago for condemnation. This is in the Bible. There are passages in Revelation in chapters 13 and 17 that say that God intentionally did not write the names of certain individuals in the Book of Life before he created the world. He could have included their names, but he didn\u2019t. Jesus said, \u201cI thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wises and understanding.\u201d So God hid Jesus\u2019s message from the wise and understanding, and Jesus is praising the Father for that. There are other texts, but those are some key ones that show that there\u2019s something here where God ultimately causes this.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
I wonder if you could take a moment and speak pastorally here. Do you understand, and can you even resonate personally with, the discomfort that we often feel when we hear these kinds of things explained, this understanding of what Scripture\u2019s teaching? Obviously, it is somewhat controversial at times, and others have different approaches to these passages. But can you resonate with the discomfort that we often feel?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Absolutely. My wife actually was a little bit unnerved that I was writing this book. When I told her I was going to write a book on predestination, she was fearful. She rejoices in the doctrine of predestination and God\u2019s sovereignty, so she believes it all, but it was frightening to her because we have daughters. Right now they\u2019re 14, 11, 10, and 5, and it\u2019s a debilitating thought to imagine that one of your own children rejects Jesus. And when you talk about this, it feels like it\u2019s outta your hands. If God chose, then what can we do about it?<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
I think you\u2019re right. Having kids, in particular, makes this doctrine feel all the more weighty and serious. It was theoretical to some extent, but children sort of drive it home in a way that feels, at least for me, unparalleled in thinking about it.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah. I have a note here that she wrote me. She said that as she read my book that rather than predestination frightening her, she said it helped change her heart and caused her to worship and love our good God even more. And that was surprising to her. So I think when you just study everything and you correlate what the Bible says about God\u2019s predestining work, the result should be that you come away encouraged and praising God and just humbled. And often when people talk about it, it\u2019s the exact opposite, isn\u2019t it? It\u2019s they\u2019re sinfully proud or they may be anxious or they\u2019re not encouraged.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
We\u2019ve spent a lot of our time already just talking about reprobation, the negative side of predestination, but maybe just to briefly hit on election again, when you think about it on its own terms, predestination is an incredibly encouraging, uplifting idea that God chose us. Unpack that a little bit.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
If I had to define it in one concise sentence, election is that God sovereignly and graciously chose to save individual sinners. So if you compare passages that say \u201cvessels of mercy, which God prepared beforehand for glory\u201d versus \u201cvessels of wrath prepared for destruction,\u201d that\u2019s comparing election and reparation. Or in Romans 11:7, it\u2019s the elect and the rest. In John 10 you have Jesus\u2019s sheep and those who are not Jesus\u2019s sheep. So election is this positive predestination for eternal life, and it\u2019s in accord with God\u2019s love and mercy and grace. And it has all these distinct goals that are so encouraging.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
The natural next question that someone might ask about all of this is, Okay, I accept this is what the Bible\u2019s teaching. How is this fair, though?<\/em> And maybe to put it even more bluntly, How is this just? How can this be what God is actually doing?<\/em><\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The way I would approach that is I\u2019d take two steps. My first step would be to turn to Romans 9 and read verses 14 to 18. In that passage Paul addresses that very question, basically, Is there any injustice with God over his choosing to save some and not others?<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
So he literally asks, Does this make God unjust?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah, it\u2019s this very question. And I\u2019d answer this passage teaches that God is fair when he sovereignly has mercy on whomever he wants. That\u2019s what that passage teaches. So that\u2019d be my first step is just to work through Romans 9, And then I\u2019d illustrate it, secondly, with a parable that Jesus told in Matthew 20. Do you remember the story about the landowner and he hires workers? He hires them at like 6:00AM\u2014<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Different times of the day, and then pays them all the same.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah. Those are the different times: 6:00AM, 9:00AM, noon, 3PM, and 5:00PM. At 6:00PM he then pays him in reverse order a denarius, a day\u2019s wage. As he\u2019s paying them a denarius, the ones who started at the beginning of the day think, Oh, we\u2019re going to get some more.
We agreed to a denarius, but if he\u2019s paying them a denarius, what\u2019s he going to pay us?<\/em> And you get to the end and the master says to the foreman to pay the guys who\u2019ve worked all day the same. And they\u2019re grumbling. They\u2019re grumbling. And the master says to one of the grumblers, Friend, I\u2019m doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose\u2014I elect\u2014to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?<\/em> I know this passage isn\u2019t about the doctrine of election per se, but it\u2019s indirectly illustrating a principle. The principle is that God is not unfair when he\u2019s undeservedly kind to some and not others.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Because I think I would read that parable and apply it to salvation in that everyone is being saved, and some people are saved early in life and they live a godly life; others are saved on their deathbed, but we all receive the same ultimate reward, in a sense. So that\u2019s how that would address the criticism of unfairness. But what about those who don\u2019t get paid anything?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The principle here is does God give everyone what they deserve? And for some people, in God\u2019s graciousness, Jesus absorbs his wrath and takes what we deserve so that the sin is paid for and we get mercy and grace. If we are all going to insist on, Hey, we want fairness! We want justice!<\/em> then we all go to hell.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Then that gets at the core idea here that is undergirding this doctrine, which is the conviction that we all deserve death, that we all deserve punishment. None of us are starting from this neutral spot.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Right. We are a bunch of rebels, and God, in his kindness, decided to save some. And we don\u2019t know all the reasons he chose some and not others. He just just says, like with Israel, I loved you because I loved you, not because you were lovely<\/em>. It\u2019s not like God chooses the strongest and the prettiest and the bravest. That\u2019s not why.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
The next obvious question is, How does predestination fit with free will\u2014the idea that we can make choices that matter?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The book is divided into a bunch of chapters, and the chapter on free will, I think I spent more time on that chapter than the rest of the book combined. And I didn\u2019t plan it that way. It\u2019s just such a landmine philosophically and exegetically, just putting it all together. So how long do we have here?<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Thirty seconds.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Just briefly, how would you address that with a Christian coming to you as their pastor, perhaps. Sitting down across the table with coffee and saying, I just don\u2019t understand how this can fit with any concept of free will that has any meaning to it<\/em>.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
So here\u2019s how I initially answer. Initially, I go to Romans 9 again. So earlier I said I would go to Romans 9. That was Romans 9:14\u201318. This time it would be Romans 9:19\u201323. And I would show two responses Paul has when someone objects, It\u2019s not fair for God to blame people for doing what he ordained they would do<\/em>. So it\u2019s exactly your question. Response one in Romans 9 is surprising: \u201cWho are you to say that it\u2019s unfair for God to blame people?\u201d That\u2019s not even a philosophical answer. It\u2019s just putting you in your place. <\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Yeah. You don\u2019t have standing to even ask the question.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Don\u2019t accuse God of wrong. Put your hand over your mouth before you do that. So that\u2019s just the first thing. I think we should be careful that we don\u2019t sinfully accuse God of wrong. That\u2019s first. Second, I\u2019d say the potter, that\u2019s God, is free to mold the clay, that\u2019s us, however he wants. That\u2019s what the text says. And then people will say, Well then in what sense do we have free will? Because when I do things, everything in my sense experience says I chose to do it<\/em>. I\u2019m sitting here in a chair. I chose to sit in this chair. That was my decision. You didn\u2019t make me. I did it. So fair enough. We make genuine choices. Our choices are genuine choices, but the problem is that many of us presuppose that because our choices are genuine choices, that therefore God couldn\u2019t have ordained those free choices.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
They feel like they\u2019re mutually exclusive.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Right. And that\u2019s where we have to press in. So some would wrongly conclude that God would be guilty of forcing us to sin. He would be unjust for condemning certain individuals for doing what he ordained they would do. So they say what God wants is not mechanical, pre-programmed, robotic outcomes, and that\u2019s what the Calvinist view of election is, basically, they\u2019d say.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Why isn\u2019t it that? If I took my son and grabbed his arm and made him hit his sister, and then I turned around and punished my son for doing that, I think everyone would acknowledge it wasn\u2019t his fault. He\u2019s not morally culpable for that act. So how is that not what is going on when it comes to God?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Several steps to take here. Step one would be the foundational truth that God and not God are two distinct categories. God, the creator, is distinct from his creation. In your analogy, , what we have is a person. Everyone in your story, they\u2019re all creatures. So when one creature insists on getting his way, he\u2019s a bully.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
He doesn’t have the right to do that. <\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
For one to get his will, the other one doesn\u2019t get his will. Well, that whole framework doesn\u2019t work. A better analogy would be to say a novelist and the characters in the story. So you pick a story like C. S. Lewis\u2019 The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe<\/em>. Edmund betrays some people\u2014I won\u2019t give it away in case you haven\u2019t read the book. And if you haven\u2019t read the book, you should repent and go read it.
So is C. S. Lewis responsible for Edmund\u2019s betrayal, or is Edmund responsible for Edmund\u2019s betrayal? Is the author 50% responsible and the character is 50% responsible, or is it 90 \/10, 75\/25? And the answer is 100\/100. They\u2019re responsible fully but in different ways and in different senses. C. S. Lewis is the author of the book. He\u2019s responsible because he ordained what Edmund freely chose to do. His responsibility is as the creator and the author of a fictional story, but Edmund\u2019s responsibility is a moral responsibility for an evil choice as a creature, as a character in a story. Now that\u2019s something like what we mean when you say that God\u2014<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Yeah. It\u2019s not a perfect analogy, but it kind of suggests it. Because I think that the danger with that is that Edmund is a fictional creation. He\u2019s not real. And so there is no moral culpability that he faces. He does only in the context of this fictional story.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Everybody always says that. Whenever I give this illustration, that\u2019s the response. And I concede with you, brother, that it\u2019s more complicated than that. So yes, the analogy fails in that it has limitations. But it has a bigger limitation than that. And this is the one no one ever puts their finger on. So the issue is that you say humans in the real world are much greater than people in a fictional story. But I\u2019ve never heard someone say this objection: but God is far more powerful and knowledgeable and benevolent than C. S. Lewis, the author.
In other words, God is way bigger than that. He can write not just a fictional story, but he can design the universe with complex characters who freely and responsibly choose precisely what he ordains. And if it offends you to be compared to a character in a fictional story, look at half a dozen passages in Scripture that compare you to a clay pot.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Yeah, that\u2019s helpful. That\u2019s a good recalibration. And so this gets into this topic of compatibilism. And so you\u2019re kind of advocating that these two things can be true at once, even though we can\u2019t fit them together fully\u2014the idea that God is completely sovereign and over our choices and that we are making real choices that we\u2019re responsible for.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The next step in trying to explain free will is just that we’ve got to define our terms. And it can be scary to someone to hear compatibilism. What are we talking about? So basically, is God\u2019s meticulous sovereignty\u2014that he\u2019s sovereign over everything, not just generally but specifically\u2014is that compatible with our human freedom? If so, then you believe in compatibilism, which I do. And Calvinists typically do.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Because the other approach, the approach of maybe a hyper Calvinist, would be to say, No, they\u2019re not compatible, and that means we\u2019re getting get rid of human freedom<\/em>.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Correct.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
There\u2019s no such thing as human freedom. <\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
So there are two errors here. You can deny human freedom, or you can deny God\u2019s meticulous sovereignty. Now what , incompatibilists do is say that God\u2019s meticulous sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom. And then further, the incompatibilists and the compatibilists define human freedom differently. And typically, Arminians are incompatibilists. They would say that we have a free will in the sense that we can choose differently. We can equally make alternative choices in the same circumstances. And I would say, as a compatibilist, that we have a free will in the sense that we always choose what we most want. We voluntarily choose what we most want in any given circumstance as long as our choices aren\u2019t constrained. And when it comes to choosing Christ, you can see the difference here. So an incompatibilist would say something like this: I\u2019m just as free to choose Christ as I am free to reject Christ. As a radically depraved sinner, I\u2019m able to choose Christ because of prevenient grace. It enables me to freely do so, if I decide<\/em>. And I would say, as a compatibilist and as a Calvinist, I am unable to choose Christ until God changes my heart, because I always choose what my heart desires. And I always choose what I choose because I want what I want because I am who I am, and I am who I am because of my heart. I choose according to my nature. Just like a tomato plant can\u2019t produce apples, I can\u2019t choose Christ unless God changes my wanter\u2014my nature, my heart<\/em>.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Maybe pressing into this particular topic, how would you respond to the concern that predestination renders the idea of this free offer of the gospel? This is something that we often say in our circles, especially when we\u2019re talking about evangelism, that the free offer of the gospel renders it some kind of mirage. There can\u2019t be any genuine free offer of the gospel extended to all people in a predestined kind of world.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
It depends how you define the word free<\/em>. What Calvinists mean by that is we indiscriminately offer the gospel to everyone, which is kind of like preaching in a cemetery, and God has to raise the dead. But we don\u2019t know which people God\u2019s planning to raise from the dead. So it\u2019s not like we can be picky and choosy with whom we share this good news with. God didn\u2019t tell us that. He just said preach it to everybody. So our job is to proclaim this gospel to everybody indiscriminately. <\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Going back more broadly to this idea of positive predestination, namely election, maybe the Arminian types listening might say, Well, I believe in predestination. I believe in election, but it\u2019s election based on God foreseeing our faith, seeing faith that we freely choose to have. So why isn\u2019t that what you think is going on?<\/em><\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Basically, the question is, What\u2019s the basis of God\u2019s choosing? Did he choose on the basis of something we do? And Arminians and Calvinists agree the basis is foreknowledge. There are several passages that say explicitly that God chose based on foreknowledge, but the controversy comes with how you define foreknowledge. And the way you defined it was a specific kind of view that the Arminians hold. It\u2019s called conditional election. They would say that foreknowing is basically God\u2019s foreseeing; that is, his foreknowledge of what humans would freely choose. So some call this prescience or foreseen faith or simple foreknowledge. The idea is God foresaw that specific individuals, like Matt, would first freely choose to believe in Christ, and then afterwards he chose to save those individuals.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
He elects them.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah. That\u2019s basically the view that you propose in your question. But there\u2019s another view which I think is more persuasive from Scripture, and that\u2019s that foreknowing is not foreseeing but foreloving. God\u2019s foreknowledge is his personal commitment to specific individuals. The idea is he intimately knew you, Matt, and loved specific individuals beforehand. He personally committed himself to certain individuals before they even existed.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
So it\u2019s using the word knowledge<\/em> or know<\/em>, like we might say to another person, I know you<\/em>. It doesn\u2019t just mean I know you exist or I know you did these things. It means there\u2019s a relational kind of element to that?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah. I\u2019ve got a list in my book somewhere of a bunch of places where that word is used in Scripture and it doesn\u2019t refer to just knowledge. Like Adam knew his wife Eve,<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Yeah. We know what that means.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
That\u2019s a little different than just just knowledge.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
So maybe one of the most pastorally challenging and sensitive questions that can come up related to this idea of predestination and election relates to babies\u2014babies who have passed away at a very early age, maybe even in the womb. Does the Bible help us understand how we should think about the death of babies and others who lacked the mental faculties to have faith potentially? Do we have any understanding of what would\u2019ve happened to them?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The Bible doesn\u2019t directly answer that difficult question anywhere, but it\u2019s natural for us to consider it and it\u2019s good to talk about it. The way I would proceed here is to try to say, What are the puzzle pieces in the Bible that we can assemble to start to answer that question?
So let me just put a few on the table here. One is that babies who die are sinners by nature, not sinners by choice. So the difference here is between original guilt and original sin. So original guilt means we\u2019re guilty before God. Basically, we\u2019re guilty before God because all humans are originally in Adam. So original sin means we inherit a sinful nature. So we don\u2019t become sinners sometime after our conception.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
The first time we sin.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
That\u2019s right. We sin because we\u2019re sinners. It\u2019s not like early in our lives we become sinners by choice. We\u2019re already sinners by nature. That\u2019s why we sin. So that\u2019s number one. Number two is that God condemns people who consciously rebel against him. So I know I\u2019m working off of inferences here. This isn\u2019t directly answering your question.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
When you say that though, that God condemns people who consciously sin against him, does that mean that the opposite is true, that God doesn\u2019t condemn people who don\u2019t consciously sin against them? And where do we see that in Scripture?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
It would be just for God to condemn anyone who\u2019s in Adam. That would be just.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
That\u2019s right. Because we are guilty.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
That\u2019s right. But I\u2019m looking at passages like Romans 1 that says, \u201cThe wrath of God is revealed against these ungodly men who suppressed the truth by their unrighteousness.\u201d Those are the ones who are without excuse. And I just can\u2019t imagine an infant in the womb being able to suppress the truth. Again, God would be just to punish anyone who has a sinful nature because they have original sin and original guilt. But I\u2019m looking at this and there\u2019s another passage\u2014more than one\u2014like 2 Corinthians 5:10 says that each one will receive what is due for what he\u2019s done in the body. So you\u2019re being judged for what you did. So I\u2019m just suggesting if God condemns people who consciously rebel against him, that could imply that God does not condemn people who don\u2019t consciously rebel against him.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
And there\u2019s another passage with David where it kind of suggests perhaps that, in a more direct way, that babies might actually be saved.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
That\u2019s the story when David committed adultery with Bathsheba. He had a son, and the baby died.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
God punishes David. <\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
That\u2019s right. But what\u2019s interesting is David\u2019s mourning before the death and then not mourning after the death. Again, this isn\u2019t addressing your question directly, but when David says, \u201cI shall go to him. He won\u2019t come to me; I will go to him,\u201d it\u2019s possible that he meant he\u2019d join the son in the grave, not heaven. But I think it\u2019s implying that God mercifully saves babies because David changes from being all mournful to being confident that he\u2019ll see his son, and then he just responds differently when his son Absolom dies. He was a rebel, and then he did mourn. So there\u2019s that, and then God judges some people more severely than others. Of course, no human is saved apart from Christ. You have to insist on that. But you just put all that together, and it\u2019s my judgment\u2014I could be wrong\u2014my judgment is that the Bible implies that God mercifully saves babies who die. And I don\u2019t know that with a hundred percent certainty. I think it\u2019s almost certainly true, and I think it\u2019s so probable that it\u2019s pastorally responsible to comfort grieving parents with these truths. It has comforted me and my wife. We\u2019ve lost a baby through miscarriage. We named the baby Anastasis Hope. Anastasis means resurrection. So we\u2019re confidently expecting to see her or him. I actually don\u2019t know. I have four daughters so I assumed it\u2019s a girl, but maybe I have a son. But I don\u2019t want to move on until I just say this. When I\u2019m shepherding people through miscarriages, I\u2019ll say basically what I just shared with you, but also I\u2019ll add this: whatever God does in this situation is just and good, and you can trust him.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
What would it look like to take the doctrine of predestination too far beyond what the Bible teaches?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Oh, there are so many ways you can mess this up. If you believe it in a way that thinks you don\u2019t need to proclaim the gospel, that\u2019s a massive error. That\u2019s disobeying Scripture. If you conclude it doesn\u2019t matter how I live\u2014I\u2019m either in or I\u2019m out\u2014massive error. If you conclude that God chooses people and does not choose people\u2014rejects people\u2014in the same way, I think that\u2019s an error. So it\u2019s not like the way that God chooses people is exactly the same way he passes over people. The Bible presents those\u2014<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
They\u2019re not equivalent?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
It\u2019s not like predestination is symmetrical, where some call it double predestination, but people can use double predestination in a good way too. But the idea is some think that God elects and reprobates people in the same way, symmetrically, like they\u2019re equally active decrees. Like God sovereignly chose to work unbelief in certain unfallen individuals and condemn them. I don\u2019t think Scripture teaches that.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
You think we want to hold a little distinction there.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yeah. In reprobation, God sovereignly and justly chose to pass over non-elect sinners and withhold his regenerating grace. So the difference is if it\u2019s a picture of a mass of humans rebelling against God\u2014running away from God, running to hell\u2014and God, in his mercy, saves some. That\u2019s more like what the Bible portrays as opposed to here\u2019s this big group of innocent people, and God says, I\u2019m going to make you do evil things and condemn you, and I\u2019m going to make you do good things<\/em>.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Isn\u2019t that more, though, what comes out in that picture of the potter and the vessels? There doesn\u2019t seem to be a distinction in terms of how it speaks about how God makes some for salvation and some for condemnation.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
It could, if that\u2019s the only analogy you have. I see why some people conclude that. <\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
But you\u2019re trying to bring what the full picture is that Scripture gives us and let that inform. <\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
So what I\u2019m doing is looking at everything Scripture says, and that informs how I understand an analogy. So with analogies, they can be tricky. When you use an analogy, often you have one point of comparison, and you can over-exegete an analogy, and I\u2019m trying not to over-exegete that analogy.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
That\u2019s good. Letting Scripture dictate how we talk about these things is so important. Pastorally speaking, I think sometimes people who would embrace this doctrine, as you\u2019ve laid it out, would still struggle to know how to talk about it in everyday life, whether it\u2019s parents to their kids or pastors to their congregations or just friends. So speak to the parent right now who their kids come to them and ask them a simple question that I\u2019m sure all parents have heard: Does God love everybody? How should they respond in light of the doctrine of predestination?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
The answer is yes, God does love everyone, but not in the same way. There\u2019s a pastor named Mark Jones whom Crossway publishes, and he has an article called \u201cDoes God Hate the Sin and Love the Sinner?\u201d or something like that. And in there he ends it with ten different ways that we can speak this way. Some of them are like this: God hates the sin and hates the non-elect sinner, because he\u2019ll ultimately damn that person. He doesn\u2019t just hate their sins. And you could say God hates the sin and loves the non-elect sinner. I mean, that person is still someone God created, and he shows much grace towards that person by letting him have his food and rain and sun and air and all that. And you can go on to all these different ways to talk about it. So you can say yes, God loves everyone, but you can flatten all of the other distinctives if you use that like a bumper sticker. <\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
So the answer is just a little bit more nuanced than we often want to give it.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Yes.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Another question: What should we say and how should we talk about this doctrine, this truth, in the face of maybe the death of a family member, or a good friend, who wasn\u2019t a believer, as far as we know? They never repented, never believed. So often it can be easy to take some solace from the fact that they never chose to believe. It was their choice and they rejected God, and so that provides us some measure of I suppose comfort maybe isn\u2019t the right word. But it feels like it gets more complicated when we start to introduce the doctrine of predestination into that.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Well, the first thing, you don\u2019t know with a hundred percent certainty necessarily whether a person trusted Christ at the end or not, especially if it\u2019s a family member who knew the gospel. They may have turned at the end. You don\u2019t know. But let\u2019s say they didn\u2019t. Well, you have to ask, What has God revealed to us in Scripture that says here\u2019s why reprobation exists, here\u2019s the goal? And there are two of them, at least. One of them is subservient to the second. One is to glorify God for his wrath and his power. That\u2019s in Romans 9:17\u201318. And then that leads to the ultimate goal, which is to glorify God for the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy. That\u2019s what Scripture says right there in Romans 9:22\u201323. Now this can sound callous, but it\u2019s right there in Scripture. So the idea I have is when I bought my wife a diamond ring and went to a jeweler store (I never go to jeweler stores), and he put the ring under all these bright lights and beneath it he put a black velvet cloth. And I realize now he didn\u2019t put a white pillow underneath. He put a black cloth because the black background with the bright light on the diamond let me see that diamond in ways I wouldn\u2019t have seen without that background. And Scripture says one of the purposes for God\u2019s passing over some is to glorify God for the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy. So that\u2019s what the text says now.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
But would you say that to someone who had just lost a family member?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Of course not in that moment. But I\u2019m trying to make sense theologically of how this all fits. As a Christian, how do I make sense of it? That is one piece of the puzzle Scripture gives us, to say God has his reasons, and I dare not hate God for something I don\u2019t understand. So I\u2019m just wanting to trust God, and he\u2019s revealed some true things about this. That\u2019s one of them, and I need to believe it. If I don\u2019t, I\u2019m being disobedient.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
How much of that is the proper Christian response to a doctrine like this? You talked about loving predestination, and I think we can understand ways that that could happen. Even for you today, is there a sense in which we have to just choose to trust God and cling to that hope that we have that he is just, he is good, and that maybe someday in glory we will understand better and even appreciate, to a certain extent, his choices on this stuff? Is there a kind of hoping in what we see coming in the future that is going to get us through some of these difficult topics?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Absolutely. But I think it\u2019s immature to have the attitude, when you\u2019re talking about a difficult doctrine in Scripture, to say, Well, here\u2019s what the Bible says. I believe it, but I don\u2019t like it<\/em>\u2014and try to apologize for the Bible. I think that is immature at best. What\u2019s far better is to not just concede that yes, that\u2019s what Scripture teaches, but to love God and love the truth, even if you don\u2019t understand everything about it, but not question God in his ways. So this is true for what God says about men and women. My mentor, DA Carson, was counseling a couple, and they said something like, Okay, we see complementarianism is what Scripture teaches, but we don\u2019t like it<\/em>. And Carson said, Good. You\u2019re halfway there<\/em>.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Don\u2019t stay there. That\u2019s not the ideal spot to be.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
So that\u2019s why I write a book like this is to help people consider everything Scripture says about it and come to love it.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Maybe as a final question, one response to this whole conversation we\u2019ve had today and to a book like yours is that this is really just unhelpful speculation that goes beyond what the Bible clearly says. Wouldn\u2019t it be better to leave this topic vague and mysterious, to not try to logically fit these pieces together, but to instead just sort of back away and don\u2019t get into the weeds as deeply as we have, lest we put God in a box or overly systematize something that we just simply can\u2019t fully understand?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
That certainly can happen. You can overdo it. <\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
So that is a danger?<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Oh yeah. So what I try to do in this book is say here\u2019s what Scripture says about election and reprobation. Here\u2019s how I think it coheres. And if I ever speculate, I say so in the book. I\u2019ll say, This is speculation<\/em>, or I\u2019m not sure about this<\/em>. And I do that rarely. And I think that\u2019s helpful to just distinguish between God revealed this, he didn\u2019t reveal that. An example is when I talk about free will. I end it by saying, *How is this even possible that God can be meticulously sovereign and ordain what I would freely choose to do and not be in any way responsible for the sin that he ordained I would freely choose to do? How\u2019s that possible? And the answer is I don\u2019t know. It\u2019s a mystery. <\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
That\u2019s a helpful thing to hear you say as a Calvinist. Oftentimes Calvinists are charged with trying to explain everything logically and not acknowledging that there is mystery. But it seems like you would want to say no, no, no. That\u2019s core to what we\u2019re doing here iis we\u2019re holding these two truths we see in Scripture together, and we\u2019re not always able to explain it fully.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
It\u2019s just like the death of Christ. God predestined it, and the people who murdered Jesus are responsible.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
We literally see that.<\/p>\nAndy Naselli<\/em>
Acts 2 and 4.<\/p>\nMatt Tully<\/em>
Yeah, that says that. Well, Andy, thank you so much for helping us to think about these difficult, deep topics, challenging topics that do confront us in a certain way. We appreciate it.<\/p>\n