TWOGATBWOM: The Nature of the Divine Sovereignty, Jack Cottrell

I do agree with one thing that Cottrell says about Calvinists and divine sovereignty: consistent calvinism cannot adequately and biblically reconcile free will with divine sovereignty. There is no reconciling free will with divine sovereignty. Scripture explicitly teaches God's sovereignty over His creation and man's desires , and only implicitly seems to assume man's free will.

The main justification for a biblical notion of free will is, "God would not command us and hold us accountable to His commands if we were not free to obey them". This makes complete sense. However, what makes sense and what God does do not always mesh. Paul obliterates this notion in Romans 9:

“Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

In reconciling two exclusive ideas, one taught explicitly and one explicitly denied, I hold to God's absolute sovereignty and deny man's free will.

TGOGATBWOM Part 2

In order to move coherently and smoothly through the Scripture countering election and sovereignty and asserting free will, Pinnock and friends must ignore one very basic facet of Biblical teaching: we are all sinners. There's really no good way to counter this other than to ignore it, which this book does at every possible turn.

Adam freely chose to disobey God and every act of will since has been corrupted by sin, not as some external force we strive to act against but as the core of our very nature. Apart from God's grace we delight in rebellion against Him. Everything in Scripture testifies to this, from Genesis to Revelation. To ignore this is to rewrite Scripture.

This simple statement above is enough to counter Pinnock`s entire book, but because I enjoy tearing down antiscriptural swill I will continue.

Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles, I. Howard Marshall

What I find particularly odd about Marshall's essay was how he so cavalierly throws aside their Pauline authorship. This makes it easy for him to ignore every system of thought in the Pauline epistles,  namely election and sin and of course Romans 9. If we correctly assume every book that begins with "I, Paul", is written by Paul, how can we assume that these books are not? If they were not written by Paul, then Marshall is totally fine with using books written by some liar claiming to be Paul the Apostle, as long as he can use them to prove his point. Like I said, I find this very odd.

Does God want all men to be saved? Not according to Romans 9. Even if we exclude Pharoah by saying, "He was the only person God wanted to damn", we cannot exclude the general statement that Paul makes:

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?

 Marshall's argument falls apart when he begins to examine the scope of how the word "all" is used. Calvinists believe that when the New Testament speaks of God's desire for "all" to be saved it means all believers. In this sense "all" means all whom God has chosen to be saved, since we have seen that no one can believe in God unless God wants them to. The other option is that somehow God wants all men to be saved except for those He doesn't. This is contradictory and I do not hold to this view.

I am fine with the Bible not always making sense. It's about God. He shouldn't make sense to us. This isn't one of those times.

Conveniently Marshall narrows his investigation to the Pastoral epistles, and I would not have a problem, logically speaking, if he only mentioned these books, but this is not the case. Near the end of this essay he says,

If we ask why some believe and others do not, we can say no more than that this is part of the mystery of evil to which the Pastorals, like the rest of Scripture, can offer no answer.

Wrong. This isn't a mystery that God has chosen to keep hidden. The answer is twofold: (1) men are born sinners, and (2) God chooses some to be His children. If Marshall's question was meant to say, "Why does God choose some and not others?", then yes, this is a mystery. As I have said before, I believe that Marshall and every author in this book intentionally obscure the specifics of election and man's sinful nature in order to further their belief in free will.

The Grace of God and the Broken Will of Man: Critiquing Pinnock’s The Grace of God and the Will of Man

Part 1

You wouldn’t know it by reading the title, but Editor C.H. Pinnock believes that our will is at least a match for the power and glory of God, either to thwart His work or to provide the missing piece necessary to complete it. I wager if you’ve read anything else I’ve written, you already know my opinion on this book. I do not believe, like many Calvinist theologians do, that this line of thinking is a tolerable difference in the church between brethren who ultimately desire to glorify God. I believe it is a subtle cancer that has given birth to many atheistic and antitheistic systems of thought. My thesis is that the root of Pinnock’s theology is the same pride which demeaned Lucifer and Adam.

We are in no way a match for God’s will, and there is nothing that we do that God needs from us to complete His will. We do not thwart His plans, nor does God bend His will to accommodate our fleeting and transitory nature. There are instances where God seems to change His mind in response to His creation, but these are not meant to demonstrate that God’s purpose has changed, or that He does not know future events, but that He has emotions in a manner like our own, along with contrasting attributes like wrath and mercy.

If God were a god whose will was subject to every changing whim that passes through our minds, then nothing He desired would ever be accomplished because literally none of us desires to do His will. If His will was subject to ours we would be God. If His will was subject to ours, prophecy would have no meaning for our lives because it would no longer describe God’s intention for us, but our intention for ourselves. I do not want to live in a world like this.

The Universality of God’s Love, by Fritz Guy

The root of pride is not seen more clearly than in Guy’s essay, “The Universality of God’s Love”. His proposal is that God’s love is defined by what He does for His creation, specifically mankind. I have not read any theology essay more self-centered than this offensive little ditty.
His essay can best be summarized by a quote from page 37:

God is “glorified” – that is to say, the divine experience of reality is expanded and enriched – as the humanity created in the divine image experiences more and more of its glorious potential for creativity, understanding, love, and the sheer enjoyment of reality.

God’s experience as God is expanded when we achieve our potential to be gods. Does this sound familiar?

 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God”[1]

If God’s goal was for us to achieve our highest potential, why the fuss over the tower of Babel? Shouldn’t He have helped us build the tower to the sky?

Why does God save the sinner? Why does He chastise Israel?

I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharoah and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.[2]
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.[3]
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of his mercy?[4]

Guy is a humanist, a philosophy that believes the ultimate goal of humanity is to glorify humanity: to be better, to improve, to achieve. He throws God in to legitimize his religion. God is our servant and His goal becomes the improvement and achievement of humanity. This is a despicable twisting of His servant message. Yes He came to serve, but as an example of how we relate to each other, not to show us what His role is in our lives.

[1] Genesis 3.4,5
[2] Exodus 14.4
[3] Isaiah 48.11
[4] Romans 9.22,23

Why doesn't God love everyone?

God loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved.

This idea has long been assumed, but I think we need to look closely at what the Bible says exactly, and what it would mean if God actually does love everyone.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...

I suppose I started to question this belief around the time when I realized that God is responsible for our salvation. Three specific questions came to mind:

1. If He loves everyone, why doesn't He save everyone?
2. If He loves everyone, why does the Bible say God hates some kinds of people?
3. How much meaning can love have if it extends to everyone, everywhere?

I believe very strongly that we cannot answer questions about God using only reason. It would be very easy to say God doesn't love everyone because, He cannot feel the same way about His children that He does about those who openly hate Him. That would be reasonable, but it may or may not be scriptural. Our capacity for reason is broken because of sin, and limited because we are not God. So we must use reason and Scripture.

If God loves everyone, why doesn't He save everyone?

There are verses in the New Testament that state plainly that God wants all to be saved. These verses can easily apply to only those whom He has chosen. He wants all of His people to be saved. I believe that these are people who will be saved inevitably because God loves them, He wants them to be saved, and He has chosen them to be saved.

Romans 9 mentions Moses and his ordeal with Pharoah. The passage Paul uses from Exodus says two things: (1) Pharoah hardened his heart against God, and (2) God hardened Pharoah's heart against Himself. The passage in Romans only says that God hardened Pharoah's heart. Paul asks a question regarding why God would harden Pharoah's heart:

What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?

Paul's emphasis in this passage is on God's absolute sovereignty. He is master of the choices we make. This is a very strange and offensive thought, but Paul isn't the only Bible author who believes this way. Solomon with his great wisdom says on more than one occasion in Proverbs that God orders what we decide. I cannot answer how or to what extent this works. Many teachers will say that God only hardened Pharoah's heart after He saw that Pharoah had hardened his heart. This seems strange to me, as if God's only purpose was to validate Pharoah's decision, with the impetus and initiative lying wholly with Pharoah. This does not seem to mesh at all with what Paul is saying, nor with what Solomon had to say.

From this we can conclude that God never had any intention for Pharoah to submit to His will and set the Israelites free. We can also see that God explicitly ensured that Pharoah would make the choices he made. God does not wish to save everyone, and His reasoning is twofold: (1) to show His wrath and make His power known, and (2) to make the riches of His glory known to us. So we should have some comprehension as to why He does not save everyone.

The other part of this question is How can God love someone and condemn them to hell for eternity? We know that because of sin, no one can be saved unless God saves them. We also know that God chooses some specifically to receive wrath. How can we say with a straight face that God loves the same people whom He condemns to eternal punishment? There are mysteries in the Bible that are not explained, but looking at the whole of Scripture I do not believe this is one of them. There are plainly some people that God hates.

If He loves everyone, why does the Bible say God hates some kinds of people?

The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, 

And the one who loves violence His soul hates.

Psalm 11.5

There are six things which the Lord hates,

Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,

And hands that shed innocent blood,

A heart that devises wicked plans,

Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies,

And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Proverbs 6.16-19

I am not going to explain these verses to the point where they mean nothing. I will never do that to any verse or passage. They are in the Bible. They are God's word. We learn who God is when we accept the truth and trust in Him.

I know wonderful people who have not placed their faith in Christ, but who I would not place in any of these above categories. Does God hate them? A better question is, can I in my limited knowledge be sure that they do not fall into these categories? Can we honestly say that someone who has rejected the love of Christ and His sacrifice does not love violence, devise evil plans, or shed innocent blood? 

I cannot say why God hates some people, other than His nature is holy and just, and He loves what is holy and just.

How much meaning can love have if it extends to everyone, everywhere?

This is my question to those who believe that God loves everyone.

If I met a woman who immediately and freely offered me her love, and who I saw did the same to every man or woman she came in contact with, how could I take such a person seriously? How genuine could this love be? Granted, God is not a person like us, and we cannot directly apply metaphors or analogies to Him, but I think the point is still a valid one. How can I trust a God who loves cruel and hateful and godless men as much as He loves me? How can I be special and "elect" if God loves the unelect as much as He loves me?

I love my children. I love spending time with them, talking with them, teaching them what I know, and laughing with them, all of that. I do not feel the same way about other children. I can guarantee I would not feel this way about children who made it clear that they hate me. Is God more loving than I? Is He capable of loving those who hate Him? Absolutely, but why would He?

God commanded Hosea to take a prostitute as wife. She was not faithful, yet Hosea loved her nevertheless. This story illustrates God's love for us. Even when we sin and follow after other gods, He still loves us. Can we apply this to unbelievers? I do not believe we can. I believe that to say that God loves God-haters as much as He loves me severely cheapens His love for me. I believe that saying God loves everyone makes His love extremely unappealing to those seeking the true love of a Father.

How can we preach God's love if God doesn't love everyone?

No, I don't believe God loves everyone, everywhere. I do not believe that He loves those who hate Him and who have rejected His Son. I do not believe that He loves those He has not chosen, who will spend eternity in hell. I do however believe that God loves all the people He has placed in my life. I know this because I love them, and I do not love unless God gives me love, because love is from God.