Twin Truths - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------

Again and again we confronted with biblical illiteracy. Ms. Lesley gets bent of shape for being called a heretic, and goes wild with an incorrect definition of heresy.

She then gets all twisted up trying to explain Bible paradoxes, while simultaneously asserting that there is only one set of doctrinal beliefs that are true. 

In addition, she will never quote the Bible. Not once.)

------------------

A few years ago, a discernment ministry I had trusted to speak truth promoted an erroneous book. Recently, I was surprised and extremely disappointed to see another ministry I trust promote this book. Needless to say, I don’t quite trust them anymore. I wanted to take today and write about this because the book’s topic is so very important.

Well, I actually don’t want to write about this because, not only is it an important topic, but it’s also an incredibly inflammatory one. But the topic keeps coming to mind since I saw that post and I believe the Lord wants me to write about this. I ask you to read this thoughtfully. I am in no way claiming to be an expert on this topic nor do I have any interest in debating with anyone about it. (Hmm. "I am ignorant about this and prefer to stay that way...")

I simply want to share what I have learned in hopes that it may be helpful to others who are struggling through this particular thing.

Let me back up a few years to when the “book” first came out. I received an email promoting this book and I was curious. The book’s premise was that Calvinism is heretical. Why would this author (and then this ministry in its promotion of it) put a line in the sand and say such a thing? That would have to mean that they believe that anyone who believes in Calvinism is a heretic, which means they are not saved. (Ms. Lesley claims that when the author of this book used the word "heretic" he meant Calvinists aren't saved. But the two don't follow. Ms. Lesley doesn't know if the author of the book thinks that. She just assumes, and then runs with it. 

Her conclusion is based on misunderstanding heresy. The Greek word for "heresy" is hairesis. Hairesis is  

a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention.

Its most frequent use is "the sect of the Pharisees," in Acts 15:5, for example. This is simply those who believe something different. 

Peter uses the word in 2Pe. 2:1:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Peter adds the word "destructive" [more accurately, "damnable" in the KJV], which is apóleia, destruction, ruin, loss, perishing; eternal ruin. 

This means there are heresies and there are "damnable" ["eternal ruin"] heresies. Ms. Lesley falsely assumes all heresy is damnable, upon which the balance of her article is based.

Lastly we note that Ms. Lesley carefully avoids mentioning any identifying information regarding this book and its author, so we cannot see for ourselves if she is accurately relaying information.) 

That is a very strong (and absolutely FALSE) statement and that, alone, turned me off greatly to the book and, if I am honest, to the entire ministry.

It is one thing to say I disagree with a certain secondary doctrine. It is quite another to say that the person who doesn’t agree with me is going to hell. (Doubling down, Ms. Lesley attributes a pronouncement of hellfire to the author, but we can't see for ourselves what this author wrote.)

As I read the intro to the book in the email, I spotted something troublesome that caused further concern. Here was how the sentence started out: “We cannot believe in a God who…”

Do you see the serious problem with that sentence? (No, we don't. Let's supply Ms. Lesley with some sentences to illustrate that such a statement as this is not at all problematic. A Christian can easily say:

“We cannot believe in a God who… was once a man.”

“We cannot believe in a God who… tolerates sin.”

“We cannot believe in a God who… isn't One in three persons.”

 So the usage of such phraseology is not at all problematic.)

Who are we to decide who God is? (It is quite plain that the author's statement does not involve him deciding who God is.)

God’s Word tells us who He is. (No, Ms. Lesley, your Calvinistic doctrine tells you who He is. We shall not permit you to assume a priori that your doctrine is correct and then apply your criticisms against someone who thinks your doctrine is wrong.)

We don’t get to decide which doctrines we do or do not like and what we will or will not believe. (Of course we do! This is just silly. Every doctrine we believe has been selected by us to the exclusion of doctrines we don't believe.)

This was a huge red flag and discounted anything further that was written regarding the book. 

But let’s back up a few years before this book to when I had no idea what I believed about free will and election. I had some wrong notions about how it all worked and was okay with that. Eventually, as I started to study the Word more, I began to understand that my conclusions were flawed. And then God led me to a sermon (Ms. Lesley is a cessationist. It isn't possible for God to lead anyone anywhere, because that is extra-biblical revelation.

And notice she selected her doctrines, then made a different selection of doctrines. So walks back her previous statement that "we don't get to decide which doctrines we... like...")

by John MacArthur called Twin Truths: God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility. It was by far the most clarifying and scriptural resource I have ever had the pleasure of listening to regarding this divisive topic. I recommend it highly.

Here is what I learned (in a nutshell): Both are true and run like parallel tracks into eternity. (Then Ms. Lesley is not a Calvinist. Calvinists do not believe in free will in the conventional sense. "Irresistible" grace, if irresistible, does not involve free will. "Unconditional election," if unconditional, has no exceptions.)

We can’t figure out how they work together and that’s okay. (Well, this is refreshing. The typical Calvinist has it all figured out, her doctrine is typically perfect, her ability to determine the salvation status of others is without flaw, and she unflinchingly plunges into corrective mode whenever she sniffs out some heresy. 

Therefore, Ms. Lesley's admission that there are things we cannot figure out about God is surprising.)

You see, it’s man’s pride that makes him insist on choosing one or the other. It’s man’s pride that causes these arguments and divisions. It can’t be his dedication to God’s Word because no man dedicated to God’s Word could possibly deny election. And no man dedicated to God’s Word could deny free will. They are both clearly in the Bible. (But, but... Ms. Lesley contradicts herself. In this article she believes there is only one way to interpret Scripture. How is it possible that there are two streams of seemingly contradictory doctrines that are both in the Bible?)

So what does that mean? It means that our finite brains can’t understand.

We think we have to understand everything and we can’t understand this. And so men come up with (unbiblical) arguments that deny clear passages of scripture. It’s so tragic, really. (But, but... We can't understand everything, yet people are denying clear passages of scripture? Aren't clear passages of Scripture understandable? How does denying clear passages of Scripture come to bear on us not being able to understand everything?

And why can't she quote some relevant Scriptures or an example to illustrate?)

The funny thing is that Satan will seem to get you one way or another. (An oddly fatalist viewpoint.)

Those who believe in God’s sovereign election rarely believe in God’s prophecy regarding the future of Israel. And those who believe in a future for Israel rarely believe in God’s sovereign election. I am here to tell you that both are clearly true. (This is a strange juxtaposition. Ms. Lesley seems to believe that these two doctrines are superficially exclusive but really aren't. But she doesn't give us enough information. What does she mean by "God’s sovereign election," and what details about this doctrine come to bear on "a future for Israel?")

If you cast your preconceived notions aside and just read scripture, both are so very obvious. (How about an example? We long for a single Scripture, or even a brief explanation to demonstrate.)

But we get caught up in man’s systems and our denominations and intellectualism and following men (Like Calvin?)

and we get so confused. We don’t want to be viewed as stupid or unintelligent or unintellectual and so we follow the crowd. Ridiculous and destructive pride often keeps us from backing away from our wrong argument after we have made it. (Wow. If anyone has been prideful and making wrong arguments, it is the Doctrinal Police.)

The one other thing I believe it is important to mention is that, if you believe John Calvin was an evil man set on spreading an evil doctrine, I rather doubt you really know who he was. Spend some time getting to know this man. He was not perfect (as none are) but he did some tremendous things for the Kingdom and has been so wrongly maligned. I learned this upon my own study of him many years ago now. ("Get to know Jacobus Arminius. He wasn't the heretic Calvinists claim he was. And he positively influenced the Kingdom in so many ways." 

We remember that only a few sentences ago Ms. Lesley decried getting caught up in man's systems.)

So what do I want to communicate today specifically regarding this topic? Why am I writing about it?

I think the answer to that is simply that we cannot understand how these things work together and we must humble ourselves and be at peace with this.

The Bible clearly teaches election (Ephesians 1 is the passage that brought this home for me when studying it so many years ago but there are many others). (Maybe her study was too many years ago for her, because a closer examination of Ephesians 1 leads us to the opposite conclusion. That passage teaches that some are elected, but not all. Paul begins by talking about how "we" are predestined:

Ep. 1:11-13 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 

But then in verse 13 he turns to his audience and tells them "you" were included, and that happened when "you" heard the word of truth:

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...

So who is Paul talking about when he is discussing predestination? Who are the we who were the first to hope in Christ? The apostles, perhaps? The firstfruits [1Co. 15:23, Re. 14:4]? And who is he talking about when he changes the narrative and begins addressing his audience? The Ephesian church, perhaps?)

To deny this is to deny scripture. (No, to deny this is to deny someone's doctrinal interpretation of Scripture.)

Yes, it’s a hard and unpleasant doctrine (Why is it hard and unpleasant?)

to wrap our brains around but we do not have the option to say “we can’t believe in a God who…”! That is just plain sinful. (Ms. Lesley wanders back to repeat her condemnation of the author of the book, having spent zero time explaining why it is wrong or sinful.)

But the Bible also clearly teaches free will (that man is responsible for his choices). (Sigh. Where does the Bible teach these things, Ms. Lesley?)

So the only conclusion we can draw–if we believe God is absolutely fair- (Is God absolutely fair? Where in the Bible does it say this? The author might want to take a little trek through Romans 9 to understand that not only is God unfair, but He can do anything he wants [Romans 9:15].)

is that these two things work together in a way we can’t possibly understand.

As students of the Bible, may we be willing to believe what God says about Himself within its pages. Even when we don’t like it. Even when we can’t understand it. Even if it brings the ridicule of man.

This brings to mind an old song by the Heritage Singers. Here’s the chorus–

God said it and I believe it
and that settles it for me
Though some may doubt that His word is true
I’ve chosen to believe it, now how about you?