Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 6

Bercot argues that God “deals with us… based on where we are right now” and doesn’t normally use foreknowledge to refuse someone admission to the vine; how does Tertullian’s Saul/Solomon example challenge common modern assumptions about assurance, backsliding, and God “already knowing you’ll fall away anyway”?

Another way to ask: If God deals with us based on who we are right now, how do the Saul/Solomon examples challenge common ideas about being “once saved always saved” or backsliding? How does it challenge the thought that God won’t accept you because he already knows you’ll fall later?

Direct Answer The Saul/Solomon example challenges the idea that God refuses present grace because of future failure; instead, God treats people according to their current state and does not “prematurely condemn” them for future sins. That undermines the modern assumption that if God foreknows someone will fall away, He won’t truly accept them now.

Support from Transcript:

Bercot: God deals with us “not based on His foreknowledge of where we will end up, but based on where we are right now.”
He says God won’t say, “I can foresee… I’m going to have to cut you off… so there’s no point even allowing you to get on the vine.”
Tertullian: “Saul is chosen, for he is not yet the despiser… Solomon is rejected, for he has now become…” enslaved to idols.
Tertullian asks: must God “prematurely condemn” people “because of future delinquencies?” and answers that it’s “not the mark of a good God to condemn beforehand.”
Bercot still affirms foreknowledge, but says God “doesn’t use his foreknowledge in the normal course of his interaction with us.”

Discussion Follow-ups How might this affect how you counsel someone who has repented after failure—do you treat them as genuinely restored now, or as a “future apostate”?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 6 of 10