the irrefutable application of logic to doctrine

Theologian and apologist Norman Geisler’s written works span an enormous breadth of Christian thought, yet his conclusions sometimes originate from faulty reasoning and pure speculation. Geisler relies as much on his ability to reason as he does on actual scripture. He often ignores scripture because his reason gives him the conclusion he wants. While obviously sound doctrine requires using human reason, we must always base our conclusions on the truths simply and clearly declared by scripture and separate our selfish human desires from our endeavors.

In his Systematic Theology, Geisler devotes an entire chapter to Logic. In this, he defines and discusses the application of logic to theology. “Logic deals with the methods of valid thinking,” he says.[1] All thinking requires logic, says Geisler.[2] He diligently lays out the laws of logic, including syllogisms, deductive and inductive logic, along with various fallacies and propositions, etc., etc.

If logic is the basis of all thinking, and theology is thinking about God, then it follows that logic is the basis of all thinking about God.[3]

Logic allows us to form arguments, to think about our world, about ideas, and to arrive at conclusions. Patrick Hurley, author of the standard collegiate textbook on the subject, says that logic gives us “the skill needed to construct sound arguments and to evaluate the arguments of others.”[4] Hurley tells us that logic instills the necessary awareness needed for “clear, effective, and meaningful communication.”[5] Hurley does not grant the universal ability to logic that Geisler does. Logic does not form the basis for thinking, but it allows us to evaluate our thinking, at least from a secular reference point. From a spiritual reference, logic can help us avoid errors, but it does not teach us anything. Theology is the study of God, not thinking about him. Finney had thoughts of God, as well as Pelagius, Aristotle, and Plato. Every atheist has thoughts of God. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” says the psalmist (Psalm 14.1). In order to study God, he must draw us to him and reveal himself. Christ said, “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6.44). In the book of Jeremiah, God said, “I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it” (Jeremiah 31.33). we do not learn about God by our sinful, irrational minds. God has given logic as a tool, yet we are unable to use it to its full advantage without his grace.

Theologians have traditionally relegated the nature of the Trinity to mystery; they do the same with the incarnation of Christ. Logic cannot abide with mystery, and trusting in mystery does not satisfy Geisler. He feels a need to logically confine this mystery in a logical cage. He attempts to explain these divine, incomprehensible, glorious truths and fit them into his ridiculous human vocabulary.

In the Godhead there is one What and three Whos; in Christ, the second person of the Godhead, there is one Who and two Whats. In the Incarnation, one Who in God assumed another What, so that there were two Whats in one Who.[6]

We do not glorify God by attempting to reduce him to colloquialisms of bizarre pronouns and meaningless equations. He is beyond us necessarily and forever so.

Geisler fails to apply his own stated rules in applying logic. He describes deductive logic through syllogisms and propositions. In a syllogism, we define terms, apply a property to the general term, and then single out one example. If the example meets the definition of the term, then the property applies. In Geisler’s example

All human beings are sinful.
John is a human being.
Therefore, John is sinful.[7]

Syllogisms use propositions. A proposition declares a property of a term.

All human beings are sinful.

Though Geisler states the importance of using propositions in forming theological conclusions, he ignores the propositions he disagrees with. He agrees that human beings are sinful, and that “spiritual death is spiritual separation from God,”[8] yet he denies Paul’s direct statement that the spiritually dead cannot please God. Geisler believes that spiritual death does not mean that humans are so depraved that “they have no capacity to understand and respond to God’s message.”[9] Geisler ignores the statement of Christ, who said that we do not bear spiritual fruit apart from him (John 15.5). He ignores Paul, who said that the spiritually dead mind “is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8.6-8). Paul repeats this to emphasize that men cannot believe in God, as God is only pleased by our faith in him (Hebrews 11.6).[10] 

Geisler also illogically uses analogies to prove his point, but analogies do not prove anything. He isolates verses that describe sinners as polluted, sick, and in darkness, and then says, “A sick person is able to receive a cure, just as a dirty person can embrace cleansing and a person in the dark can accept light.”[11] Analogies do not give us information. They do not strengthen arguments or create counterpoints. Analogies merely serve to illustrate proven points. If we found our doctrine entirely on scripture, analogies prove nothing. Scripture uses many metaphors to describe our unredeemed state, and Geisler focuses on only those that validate his position, even though he says in his Logic chapter that inductive logic requires examination of the broadest possible sample of evidence.[12] May I add another logical rule: direct statements are stronger than metaphors. Scripture uses metaphors to clarify and exposit theological concepts, but we speculate dangerously when we extend these metaphors beyond the text.

When Geisler says that sinners are polluted and in need of cleansing,[13] he cites Titus 2.14, which says

[Christ] gave himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Notice Paul does not say that we are not clean. He implies this. Direct statements are also stronger than implications. We can look elsewhere and find that sinners are unclean (Isaiah 6.5), but we cannot conclude this from this passage alone.

Geisler fails to discuss the interplay between language and logic. Unfortunately, scripture does not neatly state its propositions in proper, logical form, always using categorical syllogisms, propositions, or excluded middles. We must do much of this work ourselves. While Geisler pretends to give homage to clear, rational thought, he makes broad doctrinal statements without clearly laying out the evidence for them. In discussing predestination and free will, he says that “the Bible affirms that human beings are free to accept or reject God’s gift of salvation (John 1.12; Romans 6.23; Matthew 23.37; 2 Peter 3.9).”[14] None of these verses contain a proposition about free will. The concept of free will can only be read into the verses if one assumes a priori that free will is true. We expect a proposition declaring that man is free to accept or reject God to read like this:

Men can freely accept or reject God’s gift of salvation.

John 1.12 says, “As many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name.” We can rephrase this as a conditional statement:

If a man believes in his name and receives him, he gives them the right to become children of God.

Does this declare man’s freedom? Pair it with John 1.13, which says that these who receive Christ “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” If we combine the two verses together and rephrase them as a conditional statement, they in fact deny free will.

If a man believes in Christ’s name and receives him, then Christ gives him the right to become a child of God, and this only because of God’s will, not a man’s will, by his blood, or by his father.

If we state this categorically rather than conditionally, as the text is presented, we have this.

By God’s will alone, we are his children, and God gives his children the right to become his children because they believe in Christ and receive Christ.

Logically, this is nonsense. This can only be revealed to us. We are always his children because he has decided this to be, because we believe in Christ, and we believe because we are his children.

None of these verses declare free will. Romans 6.23 tells us that the wages of sin is death. This tells us nothing about man’s will, but only of the consequences of sin. In Matthew 23.37, Christ laments over the unwillingness of Israel to repent. Unwillingness does not indicate free will if Christ said, “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8.34); it actually confirms the slavery of the will. Christ gives us the direct statement that we need to begin to logically form theology—Man is a slave—but not the statement that Geisler wants. Peter does not make a statement about free will in 2 Peter 3.9, but instead a statement of God’s desire for all of his children to believe in him. Geisler adds to these passages what he wants to be true. Instead of applying his strict rules of logic, he falls victim to his self-centered desire to be free from God’s sovereignty.

Every Arminian fails in this respect. Instead of asking, “What does scripture teach?”, he says to himself, “This is what I want scripture to teach.” Not a one of them realizes that he is a proud, self-centered human being, and that this is the first and foremost admission he must make before he attempts to know God.

---

[1] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, (Bloomington: Bethany House, 2011), page 61.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, 68.

[4] Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2000), vii.

[5] Ibid.

[6] We find this tragic intersection of comedy and theology in Geisler, Theology, 71.

[7] Geisler, Theology, 61.

[8] Ibid, 771.

[9] Ibid.

[10] And subsequent obedience, obviously, as James points out—true faith always obeys (James 2.26).

[11] Ibid, 772.

[12] Ibid, 66.

[13] Ibid, 772.

[14] Ibid, 71.

establishing free will: attempt mdclxxxix

If the Arminian cannot rely on prevenient grace to enable all men to receive the Gospel, then what does he do? Norman Geisler rejects the Wesleyan tradition and believes that since God created Adam in his image, every man remains able to freely choose to believe in God. He believes this in spite of the abundance of scripture teaching on man’s dead, enslaved, desperately wicked, incapable heart.

While Geisler admits that “fallen human beings are spiritually dead in that they have no spiritual life,” he maintains that “God’s image is still present in them; hence, they’re able to hear his voice and respond to his offer of salvation.”[1] Geisler cites little scripture to support this argument, but simply believes it must be true because it makes sense. If we are not free, then God cannot hold us responsible for our sins.[2] Geisler makes rational, philosophical arguments for human freedom. He says, “Humankind intuitively recognizes freedom as being good… People never march against freedom... Free choice is an undeniable good.”[3] Later he says, “Sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond.”[4]

Speaking scripturally, Geisler says that “God’s image in Adam was effaced by the Fall, but not erased. It was marred but not destroyed. Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is still in human beings. This is why murder and even cursing [those] 'who have been made in God’s likeness' are sins.”[5] Geisler believed, much like Finney and Pelagius, that our sin originates as a choice from some kind of constitutionally neutral position. He says, “Fallen man is ignorant, depraved, and a slave of sin, but all these conditions involve a choice.”[6] In this Geisler speaks correctly, but he does not completely understand what he speaks about. The sinner does choose to deny God and to live in his sin, but he can make no other choice. He has a will, and he chooses of his own accord, uncoerced by anything outside himself. In this sense, he is free, but he is not free to make any positive, righteous choice. He is not free to believe in God.

In his Systematic Theology, Geisler continues

Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually “dead” (Genesis 2.17; cf. Ephesians 2.1) and thus, a sinner because of “[his] sinful nature” (Ephesians 2.3), he was not so completely depraved that it was impossible for him to hear the voice of God or make a free response: “The Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid’” (Genesis 3.9-10). As already noted, God’s image in Adam was effaced but not erased by the fall; it was corrupted (damaged) but not eliminated (annihilated).[7]

Adam made a free choice, but the Calvinist doctrine of depravity never denies the freedom of natural man to respond negatively to God. The natural man can freely disobey God. In this same passage, we read that even after God confronts him, Adam refuses to submit to God and blames him for his own failure: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3.12). Man has complete freedom to defy God, but he is not free to trust in God nor to obey him.

Scripture barely speaks of “the image of God,” and it hardly defines it rigorously enough for us to make any claims on its ability to strengthen the will to trust in God in spite of the inherent corruption of sin. Theologians rely largely on philosophical assumptions that “made in the image of God” denotes such characteristics as reason, morality, emotion, and volition. We may say that the image of God distinguishes us from the animals, but that hardly gives us any detail to establish any kind of “free will” doctrine. If anything, this image distinguishes us from the animals by enabling us to relate to God, but this is precisely what died when Adam sinned—our connection to God. Gentry and Wellum explain the most common traditional interpretation:

The divine image refers to the mental and spiritual qualities that man shares with his Creator. The fact that commentators cannot agree in identifying these qualities makes this approach suspect...The majority of Christians [believe this view.] … This interpretation did not originate with the Christian church but can be traced back to Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher living in the time 30 B.C. to A.D. 45. The traditional view does not rest on a grammatical and historical interpretation of the text; instead, it is based on theological conclusions. It does not account for the fact that “image” normally refers to a physical statue and therefore cannot be exegetically validated as the author’s intended meaning of the first audience’s natural understanding of the text in terms of the ancient Near Eastern cultural and linguistic setting.[8]

Animals reason[9], so does this mean they are created in God’s image? If a person becomes mentally disabled and can no longer reason, is he no longer made in God’s image? Animals care for each other, showing some level of morality and emotion. Obviously they make choices. In what way are we different from animals? This “image” precisely distinguishes us from the beasts, but what exactly is it?

Gentry and Wellum believe that by “the image of God,” scripture describes a representative relationship with God.

The term “image of god” in the culture and language of the ancient Near East in the fifteenth century B.C. would have communicated two main ideas: (1) rulership and (2) sonship. The king is the image of god because he has a relationship to the deity as the son of god and a relationship to the world as ruler for the god… The divine image indicates man’s relationship and spiritual fellowship with God.[10]

We represent God on earth, and in this representation we enjoy a relationship to him. At least we did, until Adam abandoned this relationship to assert his independence from God. If the image of God denotes a relationship to God, then apart from Christ’s redemption, only Christ retains the image of God. Indeed, after Adam’s sin, we read that Adam’s first son was born “according to [Adam’s] image” (Genesis 5.3), and no longer in God’s image. We also read that God forbids murder because man was created in God’s image (Genesis 9.6), but this refers to the value that God places on us, not any inherent righteous ability, long destroyed by Adam’s sin. Paul tells us that Christ bears God’s image (2 Corinthians 4.4; Colossians 1.15), and that we possess this image as God creates it in us (Colossians 3.10). If we can connect any kind of righteousness to this image, we can do so only before the fall, and after redemption. Adam bore God’s image before he sinned, and he remained righteous in relationship to God until he sinned. As Christ bears God’s image, we do only as we are in relationship to God, in Christ. There is nothing in scripture that connects any kind of faith to the marred image of God in the sinner. Regarding Paul’s mention of God’s image, Gentry and Wellum add, “Paul mentions holiness, knowledge, and righteousness, not because one can identify ethical or mental or spiritual qualities as elements of the divine image, but because these terms are covenantal and describe a covenant relationship.”[11] Scripture does not supports Geisler’s assumption that we are sufficiently free from sin to choose to believe in God, much the opposite.

---

[1] Geisler, 20.

[2] Ibid, 31.

[3] Ibid, 34.

[4] Ibid, 41.

[5] Ibid, 45.

[6] Ibid, 45.

[7] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, (Bloomington: Bethany House, 2011), page 773.

[8] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2015), page 71-72, 86.

[9] Ashley Capps, “Responding to the Claim That Animals Can’t Reason, Don’t Deserve Same Consideration,” Free from Harm. Retrieved from https://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animals-cant-reason-dont-deserve-treatment/, December 29, 2014. Also compare “10 Animals that Use Tools”, Charles Q. Choi, December 14, 2009. https://www.livescience.com/9761-10-animals-tools.html

[10] Gentry and Wellum, 77.

[11] Ibid, 86.

sovereignty and balance lol

The late Norman Geisler writes in Chosen but Free that there must be some "balance" between God's sovereignty and man's will. Hilarious.

The Sovereignty of God

If we assume beforehand that man is free to decide his fate, that he is not compelled by any external force, desire, or purpose, nor is he limited by any deficiency within himself, then we encounter severe scriptural problems as we read the Bible. Scripture speaks of a God who acts unilaterally to accomplish his goals. He takes no consideration for the plans of man into account. In fact, he uses our plans to accomplish his (Acts 2.23). No one can thwart his will (Job 42.2), yet our will is subject to his (Proverbs 16.33; James 4.13-16). This God says

For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’[1]

Isaiah tells us that God is unique in all of Creation. God turns hearts towards himself (1 Samuel 10.9; 1 Kings 18.37; Ezra 6.22). God brings calamity (Isaiah 45.7). God does what he pleases (Psalm 115.3; 135.6). He asks, “I act and who can reverse it?” (Isaiah 43.13).

Charles Hodge explains

If God be a Spirit, and therefore a person, infinite, eternal, and immutable in his being and perfections, the Creator and Preserver of the universe, He is of right its absolute sovereign. Infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, with the right of possession, which belongs to God in all his creatures, are the immutable foundation of his dominion.[2]

Hodge gives us numerous verses to cement his claim:

Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he pleased.
All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
All that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine.
The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all.
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine.
Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it, What makest thou? Or thy work, He hath no hands?
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?
[He] worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.
Of him and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.[3]

We can list many more. Hodge continues

It is plain that the sovereignty of God is universal. It extends over all his creatures from the highest to the lowest. It is absolute. There is no limit to be placed to his authority…It is immutable. It can neither be ignored nor rejected. This sovereignty is exercised…in appointing to each individual his position and lot. It is the Lord who fixes the bounds of our habitation. Our times are in his hands. He determines when, where, and under what circumstances each individual of our race is to be born, live, and die…Although this sovereignty is thus universal and absolute, it is the sovereignty of wisdom, holiness, and love…This sovereignty of God is the ground of peace and confidence in all his people.[4]

A God who is not sovereign is not God. If he does not absolutely rule his Creation, then how can we trust him? How can we trust the promises of a God who builds his world around the actions and decisions of sinful men? Why should we believe in a God who submits to the fleeting whims of fallen man? How can we trust his word? Why should we submit to his will?

Arminian theologians refuse to trust in a sovereign God because they do not understand him. They do not understand how God can allow evil yet remain loving and just. If they do not understand the God portrayed by scripture, then the portrayal must be incorrect. If God acts sovereignly in all the universe, over our lives, our thoughts, our decisions, why are we held responsible? Is God not responsible? If God is sovereign, is he not responsible for evil? If God is sovereign, how are all not saved? They fail to trust the wisdom and justice of God and instead resort to fallible human philosophy. They can only conclude that God is not absolutely sovereign because that is the limit of their understanding and they only believe in what they understand. This is not faith, however. Faith is believing in spite of the absence of evidence. In fact, faith itself is the evidence that God is just, wise, and loving. Our comprehension is not the evidence of his justice, but faith. We do not rely on complete comprehension or absolute knowledge of the inner workings of his mind when we seek him (Hebrews 11.1).

Modern Arminians take this convincing yet shallow argument and attempt to reframe the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism into a debate about God’s character. The Calvinist God is not fair. He cannot love all men. Conveniently, the debate always circles back to preserve man’s freedom and tread upon God’s sovereignty. God is love, and therefore he gives man freedom to choose. God is love, and therefore he gives every man a chance to choose. God is love, and there is no love without free choice. If God is sovereign and man is not free, then we are robots. Scripture teaches none of these positions explicitly, but Arminians must read them into the text by implication and inference. There is no complexity or depth in their objections or their comprehension of God, of his character, or of the nature of the will. They pretend to believe in his sovereignty, yet they blatantly deny it when they face the difficulty of reconciling free will with sovereignty. The Arminian prefers his freedom over the freedom of his Creator. Man must be free before God can be. Man must be sovereign over himself, over his choices, his will, and his destiny. God can only be “sovereign” inasmuch as his sovereignty is compatible with man’s freedom. While this contradicts scripture, it does not contradict man’s rebellious desire to be his own master.

Logically inconsistent Arminians maintain that God is sovereign and that man is free. Norman Geisler tries to stride the middle of the fence. He describes all the ways in which God is sovereign in Chapter 3 of Chosen but Free, but then immediately questions and contradicts every single assertion in the next chapter in order to preserve free will.[5] This is how he “balances” free will and sovereignty, by ultimately destroying sovereignty in favor of human freedom. Consistent Arminians know that God cannot be sovereign if man is to be free. God is omnipotent and omniscient, like no other entity or person in Creation. If he knows all and can do all, then he can change anything he wants to change to accomplish his will, and he knows exactly what he needs to change in order to do so. He knows everything in time, past, present or future, according to scripture, and he can change anything or accomplish anything, from the ends of the heavens to the thoughts of our hearts. We can only scripturally arrive at the same conclusion as Job, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42.1), yet if we must persist into this blatantly defiant philosophy of free will, either his omnipotence or his omniscience must go.

The Balance between God and Man

Geisler confuses the entire issue. He pretends to believe in sovereignty to the point of arguing for it in detail, and then immediately denies everything he says. God is before all things and “There was never a time when God was not. In fact, he existed before all things.”[6] God created all things, upholds all things, is above all things, knows all things and can do all things.[7] “God’s sovereignty over all implies also that he accomplishes all things that he wills,” he says.[8] Geisler argues that God controls all things, including kings, human events, angels, demons, Satan, and human decisions.[9] “Scripture portrays God as in sovereign control of everything we choose, even our salvation,” Geisler continues.[10] He supports his assertions with clear scripture:

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.
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.
He chose us in him before the creation of the world.[11]God sovereignly predestines our decisions, as “other verses affirm God’s actions on the human will, even in matters of salvation” and “God’s sovereignty over human decisions includes both those for him and against him.”[12]All who were appointed to eternal life believed.
God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
[Christ] is a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall. They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.[13]

Geisler fully seems to agree that God sovereignly rules his Creation, over every detail, over every desire, every decision, every event, every thought, etc., yet when he begins to explore the implications of God’s sovereignty, he balks. Geisler argues against sovereignty not by scriptural evidence, but through rigorous objections. These objections in no way reflect any kind of biblical testimony, but merely his own conclusions. Unable to reconcile biblical testimony with the objections of his human mind, he abandons biblical testimony altogether.

Geisler objects to clear statements of God’s sovereignty. If God is sovereign, then he is responsible for our sin. If God is supremely sovereign, then he should give everyone a desire to do good all the time. Why doesn’t he? If God is sovereign, then he is responsible for Lucifer’s sin.[14] Geisler abandons every scriptural conclusion in the previous chapter merely because he cannot reconcile his objections with scripture. Scripture must be false if it does not answer his objections. Geisler cannot reconcile God’s sovereignty with our desire to sin. He cannot understand how God could ever ordain an act of sin, yet he quotes Acts 2.23, where Peter tells the Jews, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”[15] God ordained the actions that led to Joseph being sold to slavery. Joseph tells his brothers, “Now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life…God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to keep you alive by a great deliverance. Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God” (Genesis 45.5, 7, 8). God can have purpose in allowing sin. This does not mean he sins, nor tempts anyone to sin, but he desires it for his purposes. His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55.8, 9). He is wiser than us. Geisler’s problem lies in this, that he cannot accept a God whose wisdom far surpasses his own.

Scripture affirms sovereignty and scripture affirms our responsibility. Neither of these can be weakened through scripture. Scripture does not affirm our free will but it does assert that we do make choices. Are these choices entirely and absolutely free? No, but they are our choices. We are responsible for them. How can this be? I do not know but this is what the Bible says. Why do we insist that these choices be absolutely free? No choice is ever free. Our needs constrain us. Our desires, our upbringing, our genetic makeup, our circumstances—all of these greatly affect our choices. We never truly have a free will but we always make choices that belong to no one but us, for no one bears the full consequences of our choices but us. If Geisler or Pinnock ever describe our choices as free, they either do not understand what they say or they lie. If they say that our sinful, corrupt nature does not restrict our choices, they deny scripture. Free will reflects the wishes of proud men unwilling or unable to trust in the Bible. It is not biblical.

Scripture repeatedly affirms God’s sovereignty over every decision of men. Geisler admits this. God guides when we perceive that we make our own decisions. Proverbs says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (16.1) and “The mind of a man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps” (16.9). God changes hearts toward his will (Ezra 6.22; Proverbs 21.1). He hardens hearts against obedience (Exodus 4.21; Isaiah 6.10) in order to judge men. God can change hearts, either to trust in him or to disobey him (Romans 9.18)[16]. He can at any time change our hearts, so when he turns us toward him, this is his will, and when he allows us to continue in our natural disobedience, this is also his will. Geisler says that God cannot be sovereign over our decisions because that would make him the author of sin. To say God is sovereign is to say that as supreme ruler and potentate, God orders everything that occurs and so in this sense, he is responsible. Scripture does not lay our sin to his account, obviously. Herein lies the antimony. We remain responsible in the moral sense for every word, action, intent, or thought. God does not hold himself accountable for our actions; he holds us responsible. How can he do that? Scripture does not explain—it merely declares. Geisler and others build their theology not from clear declarations of scripture but from foggy whims based on weak implications that directly contradict clear declarations. Geisler repeatedly uses language such as “it would seem”, “it would appear”, and “it would follow.”[17] He cannot make a clear, direct statement against sovereignty because scripture does not. He stands on weak foundations built on sinking sand and neither faithful men nor God have upheld these teachings, but rather Satan, for it was he who said to Eve, “You will be like God.” Free will maintains this old lie, that we, instead of God, order our lives. Free will teaches that we live independently of God and that we master our eternal fate rather than him.

Let's assume that everything in Chapter 3 is true because, well, all of it is directly taken from scripture. We cannot refute this truth: God orders all. How do we then make sense of evil? How do we reconcile the first act of sin? From where did it originate?

Calvinists believe that God allowed sin to enter the world so that he could redeem humanity and be glorified in her redemption. We see redemption as soon as Adam sins (Genesis 3.15), then God prophesies his redemption will flow through Abraham (Genesis 12.3). Scripture records this thread all throughout, in every book of the Bible. God delivers his people from Egypt (Exodus). God leads them to the land of Canaan (Joshua). He teaches them his ways. He disciplines them. He gives them a king to lead them when they reject him as their king (1 Samuel 16). God accomplishes all of his works to glorify his name (Joshua 7.9; Isaiah 48.9-11; Ezekiel 20.9, 14, 22). Conversely, Calvinists believe that godly desires can only come from God. We believe that man is fully enslaved to sin and therefore can in no way desire good. Scripture makes this clear (Genesis 6.5; Jeremiah 17.9; Romans 8.7, 8). Geisler strongly objects to this. He says, “If all good desires come from God, then it follows logically that God is responsible for Lucifer’s sin against God.”[18]

If we lived in a purely three dimensional, material world where God only operated in ways that we understood, then perhaps Geisler might have a point. God does not, however, operate, think, reason, or act as we do. He is infinitely beyond us. Scripture makes two things very clear: (1) Man sins and man only sins. He is incapable of righteousness apart from God (John 15.5). (2) God does not sin. How then do we reconcile these two? We may say that God allows sin, but does not himself sin. He allows it for his purposes, to bring redemption out of failure and to glorify himself, while at the same time not being the direct author of sin.

Geisler explains what he thinks is the self-defeating position of sovereignty in a series of propositions:

1.       God is sovereign (assumed).

2.       God cannot give anyone the desire to sin.

3.       God must have given Lucifer the desire to sin since (1) he did not get the desire from his nature, and (2) he did not get the desire from any other creature.^[19]

Proposition 3 fails because scripture tells us very little about Satan’s nature. Scripture tells us that God created everything “good,” but again, gives us no details regarding exactly what “good” entails. Does “good” mean absolutely and forever sinless? Everything created by God is good but does that statement necessarily equal a nature incapable of sin? Does scripture teach that all created things are incapable of sin? Geisler himself admits that “good” creatures can sin of their own volition.[20] Calvinists do not dispute that God created Adam in a free state. Obviously, a created man can sin because that is what happened. Clearly this sin did not originate from God because that would contradict his nature. The Bible does not teach that Adam was incapable of sin. Jesus was the only man incapable of sin but scripture does not teach this of any other person. Scripture does not teach that “good” equals “perfectly sinless and without any capacity to sin” or even “always entailing righteous and holy occurrences, intentions, and activities.” Creation was “good” but became corrupted (Genesis 1.31). Adam was “good” but he sinned. God causes all things to work together for good, but my life will not be perfect nor will I be without sin (Romans 8.28). God meant good to Joseph and his brothers but this good contained much evil within it (Genesis 45.5-9). God allowed Satan to work much evil in Job’s life without any explanation, yet ultimately, he blessed Job in his later years.  Christ’s death was good. When God works in our lives, even in the case of Adam, righteousness and holiness always mix together with sin because we are not God. Geisler wants to explain these terribly complex ideas by oversimplifying the terms involved.

Geisler also fails to understand or mention that sovereignty asserts the will of the creature, just not a free will. Sovereignty does not say that God causes evil, but God allows it. Sovereignty believes that every creature has a will of his own. The creature makes his own decisions, but God remains sovereign over them. We do not understand the mechanisms behind these two phenomena, but we know scripture assumes them both. God sovereignly ordained that Lucifer, by his own will and not by any temptation of God, chose to rebel against him. Geisler struggles to place these two in harmony with each other by limiting God’s sovereignty. He wants desperately to understand them but they will not be understood unless we do great violence to God’s sovereign nature.

Geisler is confused about this “strong sovereignty” position that he dislikes. Sovereignty does not say that God actively performs, incites, tempts or causes acts of sin. The language here fails to adequately express the intent. He may “ordain” or desire a sinful act when he has a greater purpose in the sin, other than the righteous act or holy abstinence that would have replaced the sin. God ordained Christ’s death. He desired this sinful act for the greater purpose of the redemption of his people. This is his sovereignty. He hates sin but he allows it. He is wiser than us. We cannot explain him. God has purposes in sin but he does not cause it. Failure brings redemption and humility in the heart of the believer. God desires affliction in our lives to drive us to him (Psalm 118.67, 75). Israel suffered at the hands of many foreign nations as judgment against her sin. King Nebuchadnezzar went mad but eventually gave glory and praise to God because of his ordeal (Daniel 4). God ordains sin but it does not originate from him. Our language cannot express the true meaning behind this because our minds are too limited to understand it. We should expect this when we seek the knowledge of the infinite, almighty, incomprehensible God.

Geisler’s entire thesis revolves around this idea of “balance” between God and man. Scripture tells us of no such balance. Scripture describes no such virtue as this “balance.” God describes us as “dust,” (Genesis 3.19), a “worm,” (Isaiah 41.14), “grass,” (Isaiah 40.6), and “grasshoppers,” (Isaiah 40.22). Even our rulers are “nothing,” and “meaningless” (Isaiah 40.23). There can be no balance between God and dust. We cannot even add a cubit to the span of our life (Matthew 6.27) because God has numbered our days (Psalm 139.16), yet Norman Geisler declares some kind of “balance” exists between God’s sovereign might and man’s pitiful will. Little exists on earth more arrogant than this kind of doctrine that brings God down to the level of a man and sets this “good power of free choice”[21] against the Almighty.

---

[1] Isaiah 46.9,10

[2] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Volume I: Theology, (Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers: 2016), page 395.

[3] Ibid. Psalm 115.3; Daniel 4.35; 1 Chronicles 29.11; Psalm 24.1; Ezekiel 18.4; Isaiah 45.9; Matthew 20.15; Ephesians 1.11; Romans 11.36, King James Version.

[4] Hodge, 441.

[5] Geisler, Chosen, Chapters 3 and 4. Geisler explains how God is sovereign over all of creation, including events, man’s decisions, Satan, angels, etc., but in Chapter 4, he says none of this is possible if man is to be morally responsible for his actions, and God not the origin of evil.

[6] Ibid, 22.

[7] Ibid, 23-24.

[8] Ibid, 25.

[9] Ibid, 26-30.

[10] Ibid, 29.

[11] Ephesians 1.11; Romans 8.29-30; Ephesians 1.4, New International Version.

[12] Geisler, Chosen, 29.

[13] Acts 13.48; Romans 9.18; 1 Peter 2.8, NIV

[14] Geisler, Chosen, 31-33.

[15] Ibid, 29.

[16] There may be some leeway here in interpreting whether or not God actively or passively hardens hearts. God needs to do nothing in order for our hearts to turn away from him, though scripture tells us that he actively “hardens” hearts, possibly to emphasize the severe nature of his judgment.

[17] Geisler, Chosen, 32.

[18] Ibid, 33.

[19] Ibid, 36.

[20] Ibid, 34.

[21] Ibid, 37.