the main thesis of the book

Arminian theology differs from Calvinist theology on every vital issue. Arminians pretend to uphold the supremacy of scripture in their doctrine and beliefs, but they do not. Instead they depend on the strength and validity of their human faculties to interpret scripture and establish doctrine, rather than the revelation of the Holy Spirit. They first declare their assumptions to be axiomatic and use these to interpret God’s word. Foremost of these is the freedom of the human will, next being the universal, indiscriminate love of God for all sinners. Some pretend to hold to the sovereignty of God over his Creation, but none actually do. Effectively, they believe that man is equal to God in rights and responsibilities, and nearly in terms of power. As a free, moral agent, man has every right to seek his own will; despite his weakness as a flesh and blood human being, limited in time, space, strength, resources, love, and righteousness, he also bears the responsibility of the salvation of the lost. With God in his corner, supporting his desires and purposes rather than God’s, the Arminian can literally accomplish anything. Arminians do not believe that sin has disabled and corrupted man’s heart and as a result, they believe not only that they possess all power to redeem the lost to Christ, but to continue in sanctification (perfectly, some even believe) by their own strength until death. They believe that God loves all men unconditionally, regardless of his attitude toward God, or his refusal to submit to his will or place his trust in Christ. They do not believe that God elects men, like Abraham or Jacob, but that he “elects in general”, generally and not specifically, whomever will respond. God chooses the choosers. Men elect themselves, in other words. Men are not sinners, remember, because none of them are slaves to sin and any can be righteous if he so chooses. God chooses the righteous, not sinners. Arminian theology is the theology of men and not of God. It is not the revelation of God to men, but the best idea that men have, given his best interpretation of scripture, to try to reach out to God. It is not the Gospel. It is not scripture, but an amalgamation of human philosophy and false religion in an attempt to satisfy our desire for God but without the humiliation and desperation that God requires.

From this theology, we get the “prosperity gospel,” Catholicism, ordained homosexuals, “Christian” abortionists, and nearly every other error in the modern church. When men believe that they choose independently of God and that God loves them in spite of their obstinate, unrepentant hearts, they no longer need scripture to guide them. They are free to pick and choose, to add, to dismantle and destroy the Word of God as they desire. They become a guide to themselves. The goal of Arminian theology is as the Serpent described in the Garden: “You will be like God.”

Introduction to God's Love

I have done my best to establish that scripture alone guides us, above and beyond any concern of human reason, that God is sovereign over all of Creation, including our thoughts, intentions, desires, and that man is not only completely impotent regarding any God-ward effort, but depraved and enslaved to sin apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart. If man is to make any progress toward his Creator, the Holy Spirit must recreate his heart and give him life, implant a desire for God and set him free from his sin. Man must be completely reborn by the Spirit before he can seek after God (John 3). This initiative must come from God because man is incapable of it, but the question is, who? We know that “the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7.14). If few find the way to life, and God must lead them because they refuse to even seek it on their own, then God must decide who he leads to him. How does he decide? Who does he choose? Clearly, he does not choose everyone.

We know, however, that God loves the world (John 3.16). God must want everyone to be saved, yet why does he not cause everyone to be saved? If salvation rests in God’s work and not in our own, why is every person not saved? Arminians solve this problem concretely and succinctly—God does not choose; man does. God chooses men who choose him (Wesley). God loves all men but since all men are free to believe or not, men ultimately decide their eternal fate. But we have seen that this is impossible. Given the choice, all men will choose eternal fire. Calvinists have a much more profound problem. God loves everyone but he does not save everyone. Why? John Piper believes God has two separate wills: one will to declare and one will to act. Piper believes that God says, “I love all men but I will allow/ordain/choose many men (that I love) to perish eternally.”[1] Arminians refuse to accept this, for good reason. This notion is the exact opposite of love. Piper tells us that God’s ultimate goal is to magnify his glory[2], just as he allowed his Son to die for our sins, a despicable event that resulted in grace for us and glory for God, but this hardly satisfies. Not that we should seek for satisfaction per se as we pursue theological truth, but at the very least, we should seek to reconcile apparent contradictions.

If men cannot choose to believe but God must give them faith, and God loves everyone but does not save everyone, what options do we have?

• All men can choose to believe in God. This is clearly denied in scripture.
• God does not love everyone. So far, we have not established the universality of God’s love. We cannot assume it outright, no matter how well we believe we know scripture. We must diligently investigate every belief, assumption, and philosophy till we know by faith and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we have arrived at spiritual truth.
• God saves everyone. I will explore this later.

This issue drives perhaps the deepest wedge into Christian theology, yet not in the Arminian camp, but in the Calvinist. Little in Creation can be known with complete certainty, but I feel safe in declaring that all Arminians believe that God loves all men equally and without condition. It is a simple belief requiring little investigation or thought. Christ has said that “God loves the world,” after all. This verse forms the cornerstone of God’s universal love and let no one dare contend with it.

---

[1] John Piper, Does God desire all to be saved?, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2013).

[2] Ibid, 54.

those loony calvinists

As I’ve said before, Arminians rely primarily on their understanding and perception when forming or supporting theological ideas. Eighteenth century revivalist Charles Finney declared all who questioned human freedom to be insane:

Nobody ever did call in question the freedom of the human will, without justly incurring the charge of insanity. By a necessity of his nature, every moral agent knows himself to be free. He can no more hide this fact from himself, or reason himself out of the conviction of its truth, than he can speculate himself into a disbelief of his own existence…That he is, that he is free, are truths equally well known, and known precisely in the same way, namely, he intuits them.[1]

We are free because we perceive we are free. No other explanation is needed unless you are crazy! Elsewhere he says, “The moral government of God everywhere assumes and implies the liberty of the human will, and the natural ability of men to obey God…The human mind necessarily assumes the freedom of the human will as a first truth.”[2] Notice Finney does not say that scripture declares the freedom of the will—it emphatically does not. We may infer that scripture “assumes and implies” it only because we already assume this. Scripture nowhere states explicitly that men are free. Finney relies not on scripture but on the implication that human freedom is a “first truth,” that is to say, “I am free because I perceive I am.” We do not build doctrine on perception.

Finney delves slightly deeper into this question of depravity. He distinguishes between “physical” and “moral” depravity. Physical depravity regards the body or the constitution. He says, “Physical depravity, being depravity of substance as opposed to the actions of free will, can have no moral character.”[3] It consists of the “nature or [the] constitution.”[4] Finney compares this type of depravity to illness, insanity, or mental retardation.[5] Considering Finney’s legal background, it should surprise no one that these compare directly to the states that exonerate a man in a strictly legal sense. “Moral depravity is the depravity of free will, not of the faculty itself, but of its free action,” he adds.[6] Moral depravity does not mean that the will of men is depraved, but that they make sinful decisions. It is a “depravity of choice…at variance with moral law.”[7]

Finney admits that men are morally depraved but refuses to acknowledge that this depravity lies in their nature, even though he cites scripture that expressly states this.

That men are morally depraved is one of the most notorious facts of human experience, observation and history…The moral depravity of the human race is everywhere assumed and declared in the Bible…The Bible exhibits proof of it in those passages that represent all the unregenerate as possessing some wicked heart of character. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6.5). “This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one even unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead” (Ecclesiastes 9.3). “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17.9).[8]

If the “heart” does not represent man’s nature, then what can it possibly refer to? Finney makes no clear statement on the distinction. He states that sin consists “in obeying the flesh,”[9] but fails to recognize that the flesh is the body, or in any case, at least representative of either the body or the nature. Either way, depravity rests in this entity that Finney calls “the flesh.” If the flesh is not depraved, then why does sin consist in obeying the flesh? Is this flesh not a part of us? This flesh either resides in us or it is us, our nature, so how can Finney say that we are not “physically depraved,” by his definition?

Finney makes two grand declarations regarding the depravity of human nature. If human nature were corrupt, this would make God the author of sin, for “to talk of a sinful nature, or sinful constitution, in the sense of physical sinfulness, is to ascribe sinfulness to the Creator, who is the author of nature.”[10] If human nature were corrupt, then it would have no moral character, and God could not justly judge us for what we are born with. He says, “Physical depravity, whether of body or of mind, can have no moral character in itself, for the plain reason that is involuntary, and in its nature is disease, and not sin.”[11]

Adam was created free, either to obey or disobey God. In his disobedience, his nature became corrupt. He died, as God had promised (Genesis 3.17; Romans 5.12), and all of us inherit his dead, sinful nature. Though we cannot overcome our nature without grace, God judges us in Adam because our representative freely sinned against God (Romans 5.15-19). We cannot charge God with injustice because we are incapable of righteousness. Finney confuses legal concepts with scriptural ones. We do not legally fault the mentally incompetent when they commit crimes, but God will judge every one of us for our sin, whether imbeciles, lunatics, or otherwise. We are slaves to sin, incapable of pleasing God, and dead in sin, and our actions do have moral character. We are always moral agents, either natural or reborn. Before Christ, we are morally sinful. We absolutely are moral agents and our actions have the moral character of sin and only sin. We may do "good" works, but these works do not glorify God because they are not from a heart of faith (Isaiah 64.6; Romans 8.7, 8; 14.23). After we are reborn, we trust in Christ and we begin to have his moral character. Finney’s unwillingness to trust in scripture despite his lack of comprehension does not alter scripture. Finney simultaneously declares the corruption of the flesh and the strength of the constitution without offering any kind of explanation other than to say, if you disagree, you are nuts.

Christ said, “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8.34). Is our flesh enslaved, and our will free? Does Christ make this kind of distinction? How does Paul describe the problem? In Romans 6, Paul says that our body is ruled by sin and we are slaves to sin (6.6). He says that for anyone to be free from sin, he must die (6.7). Sin reigns in our body but we obey its desires (6.12). Sin is our master, but only Christ can set us free as we identify with him in death (6.8-14). Sin does not only rule our flesh—sin rules us. Sin rules our entire person—soul, mind, body—all of it. If sin does not completely rule us, why do we need Christ? Jesus said, “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (John 15.5). Christ must make us a new creation in order for us to trust in him and obey him (2 Corinthians 5.17). How then can any part of us be righteous without him?

Finney believes his understanding of human freedom to be axiomatic. He believes himself so enlightened that to disagree with him is insanity. He cannot possibly be wrong because he directly intuits what he believes. He places faith in his faculties, in his knowledge, in his perception and reason above all else. His logic sits above the revelation of God. Who can argue with this kind of arrogance?

Arminians believe that sinners please God. They believe that either God has enabled all men to please him by faith, or that they never lost their ability to please him in the fall. They also believe that though natural men can believe in God and therefore please him (Hebrews 11.6), they remain sinners, dead in sin, enslaved to sin, and unable to please him (Genesis 6.5; Jeremiah 17.9; John 8.34; Romans 8.7, 8; Ephesians 2.1). This is a plain contradiction.

---

[1] Finney, 37, emphasis added.

[2] Ibid, 307.

[3] Ibid, 243.

[4] Ibid, 245.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid, 243.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, 246-247.

[9] Ibid, 250.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid, 243.

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.

wesleyan theology is garbage

Arminian theology on sin covers a much wider conceptual range. Some theologians believe that sin corrupts completely but the corruption has been almost completely mitigated for every sinner by Christ’s death. Others believe that man never became completely corrupted and that he has always retained a measure of righteousness through the image of God he was originally created in. Others simply declare that sin does not reside in the heart of man at all, but is only a manifestation of our decisions. The Arminian must avoid admitting to the corruption of sin if he is to uphold man’s volitional freedom, for the ultimate sin is not violence to God, but against man and his ability to determine himself.

To Wesley, the natural man is a “logical abstraction.” There is no such man.[1] Christ’s death provided sufficient grace to overcome the death and slavery of sin. Paul said that “through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Romans 5.18). Great-house and Dunning tell us that this refers to “prevenient grace,” which universally enables all men to freely trust in Christ. Wesley equates spiritual grace and knowledge to the conscience. He says

No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural: It is more properly termed preventing grace. Every man has a greater or less measure of this, which waiteth not for the call of man. Everyone has, sooner or later, good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root, or produce any considerable fruit. Everyone has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which, sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world. And every one, unless he be one of the small number whose conscience is seared as with a hot iron, feels more or less uneasy when he acts contrary to the light of his own conscience. So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath.[2]

This grace of Wesley’s completely renews the dead man. If a man can choose to believe in God, he is no longer a slave to sin. Greathouse and Dunning admit as much. He is no longer a sinner, for a sinner is a slave to sin (John 8.34), dead in sin (Ephesians 2.1), unable to please God (Romans 8.7, 8), and “desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17.9). Wesley’s grace completely regenerates every man. Wesley famously believed that this “prevenient grace” is “free for all, and free in all.”[3] This free, “preventing grace” begins our salvation. It causes “the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against him.”[4]

Later Wesleyan theologians detail the effects of the atonement to include this regenerating grace. H. Orton Wiley says, “The grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all men, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.”[5] This benefit extends from Christ’s atonement, citing Wesley’s words, “God is so far reconciled to the world, that he hath given them a new covenant; the plain condition whereof being once fulfilled, ‘there is no more condemnation’ for us, but ‘we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.’”[6] Wiley quotes John Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism, describing the first of “four degrees” of justification, “The first justification engages the sinner’s attention, encourages his hope, and draws his heart by love.” Again, this “first degree” of justification applies to all, according to Wesleyans. Paul tells us in Romans 8.1 that there is “therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Wiley continues, “the Arminians taught that there was a ‘free gift’ of righteousness, unconditionally bestowed upon all men through Christ.”[7] Thomas Summers adds, “If a decree of condemnation has been issued against original sin… likewise a decree of justification has been issued from the same court, whose benefits are unconditionally bestowed through the Second Adam.”[8] Everyone has been redeemed through Christ’s death. Not only did Christ’s atonement grant to every sinner the faith to trust in Christ, but it redeemed him from the penalty of sin, regardless of his faith. Orton continues

The second effect of the free gift was the reversal of the condemnation and the bestowal of a title to eternal life… [Condemnation] was arrested in Christ as regards every individual, and thereby changed into a conditional sentence. Man is not now condemned for the depravity of his own nature…its culpability was removed by the free gift in Christ. Man is condemned solely for his own transgressions.[9]

Later I may tackle the disparity about scripture teaching one atonement for two kinds of sin, universally redeeming all while simultaneously leaving all condemned, but for now I will stay with this application of “preventing grace.” I mainly intend to show that Wesleyan theology teaches that all men have received grace that restores, regenerates, or cleanses them from sin, bringing them to life, opening their eyes, setting them free from sin, and places them in Christ, without any faith on their part.

Wesley encountered this inherent problem in Arminianism: how do we uphold absolute freedom of the will yet stay true to the doctrine of sin? Wesley and later Wesleyan theology solve it in two ways: natural conscience and the atonement. Our conscience draws us to God, and every man has received this grace that draws him to God, “the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning his will, and the first slight transient conviction of sin.”[10] We receive this grace through Christ’s atonement, universally applied to all unconditionally.

Wesley confuses natural conscience with regenerating grace. The Bible nowhere equates conscience with regeneration or repentance. Men who believe in right and wrong do not necessarily believe in God. This is not because they choose not to. They have no “first wish to please God”; they hate him. They may be moral men, but in no way do they have “the first slight transient conviction of sin,” as from a cosmic Judge. Christ is the light of the world in that he lived God’s commands for us to observe. In scripture, light is knowledge. Christ came to “enlighten every man” by convicting men of their sin (John 3.20; 16.8-9). In John 1, though John says “Christ enlightens every man,” he also says “the world did not know him” (John 1.9, 10). The world had the light of Christ, but they still did not believe in Christ. Only those who received Christ became sons of God, and this only because they were born of the will of God (1.13). Light does not equal grace, faith, or repentance. In John 3, Christ speaks of the Light, not as an internal influence drawing men to him, but as an external conviction, exposing their evil deeds. The Light brings judgment.

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.[11]

This Light of Christ convicts us of sin, and those who are born of God (John 1.13) come to the Light and practice the truth.

Paul speaks of the natural light of conscience in Romans 1.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.[12]

God reveals himself through Creation and through the moral law (Psalm 19). In every society, we see God’s nature revealed through human relationships that can only exist through God’s moral law:

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.[13]

The Law lies within us as our conscience and reveals God’s will, but it does not give us a desire to love, please, or trust in God. The Law incites the rebellion that lies within us, in fact. Paul tells us, much as Christ’s light convicts us of sin, that the Law exposes our sin:

I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind.[14]

Conscience convicts us of sin, and unless God gives us his life, not light, which we all have, we remain condemned in this sin.

Only Christ releases believers from condemnation. Faith trusts in Christ and applies the benefits of Christ’s death. Paul only speaks of the spiritual benefits of salvation for those who are “in Christ,” and only believers in Christ live “in Christ.” Justification that removes the condemnation results from faith; it is not the source of faith. Wesley believed that God provided this justification to all men. In “On the Fall of Man,” he says, “God hath also, through the intercession of his Son, given us his Holy Spirit, to renew us both ‘in knowledge,’ in his natural image; opening the eyes of our understanding , and enlightening us with all such knowledge as is requisite to our pleasing God.”[15] Later he describes this grace as “an universal remedy for an universal evil,” applying Romans 5.18 to the discussion:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Wesley applies this verse too broadly. Paul restricted this justification to those who trust in God through faith, but Wesley applies it to all as this “preventing grace” that enables all men to believe in God. Wesley elsewhere applies Romans 8.32 to the world at large:

“He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” How freely does God love the world! While we were yet sinners, “Christ dies for the ungodly.” While we were “dead in our sin,” God “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” And how freely with him does he “give us all things!” Verily, free grace is all in all! The grace of God, whence cometh our salvation, is free in all, and free for all.[16]

Paul does not speak of all men, but only of believers. All the benefits of Romans 8 apply only to those who trust in Christ. This verse follows the Great Chain of Redemption, where Paul traces God’s work of foreknowledge, to election, to calling, to justification, and finally to glorification. In no way does this apply to all men, but exclusively to believers.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Wesley teaches universalism, that everyone will be saved regardless of their faith in Christ.

What does scripture say of those who are “in Christ Jesus”?

We are alive to God in Christ Jesus. Romans 6.11
We have eternal life. 6.23
We have no condemnation. 8.1
We are free from the law of sin and death. 8.2
We can never be separated from God. 8.39
We are one body. 12.5
We are sanctified. 1 Corinthians 1.2
We have wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. 1.30
We have brotherly love. 16.24
We are new creations. 2 Corinthians 5.17

Etc., etc., etc.

To apply even a single benefit of the atonement to all men without regard to the humility that faith in Christ requires, completely disregards Christ’s work and sinless life, openly mocks his death on the Cross, and destroys divine justice. It places saint and sinner alike in the family of God. It places the harlot of Revelation on equal status with the holy bride of Christ, to the point that God loves both equally, as if he were some indiscriminating adulterer. How does a theologian proceed from this travesty?

---

[1] William M. Greathouse and H. Ray Dunning, An Introduction to Wesleyan Theology, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1989), page 72.

[2] John Wesley, “On Working Our Own Salvation,” III.4.

[3] Wesley, “Free Grace,” 2.

[4] Wesley, “Working,” II.1.

[5] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology: Volume II, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1952), page 129.

[6] Quoted in Wiley, 129. From Wesley, “Justification by Faith,” I.9.

[7] Wiley, 132.

[8] Thomas Summers, Systematic Theology: Complete Body of Wesleyan Arminian Divinity, (Nashville: Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888), page 41.

[9] Wiley, 135.

[10] Wesley, “Working,” II.1.

[11] John 3.19-21.

[12] Romans 1.18-21.

[13] Exodus 20.12-17.

[14] Romans 6.7, 8.

[15] Wesley, “On the Fall of Man,” II.8.

[16] Wesley, “Free Grace,” Advertisement.

theodicy

Atheists commonly object that God doesn't exist because evil exists. A good God wouldn't allow evil, or he wouldn't allow evil to the extent that he does or whatever.

God allows evil to exist. He uses it to work greater works than if evil never existed. There can be no redemption without evil, no grace, mercy, or forgiveness. Men are not brave without evil, nor are they strong, generous, or even kind. That's the easy answer. 

God himself says, "Who are you, O man to even question me?" That's God's answer. 

To the atheist I say, "What do you do about evil? How do you respond?" There is evil in this world that cannot be countered by the courage or kindness of men. There is evil that is yet incomprehensible and even invincible. In this world, in this life, evil often "wins." God wants this so we despair of existence and turn to him for strength and life. But what can the atheist possibly offer to those overwhelmed by this evil? Why would he object to God's existence when only God offers justice? Only God's existence can make this evil right, and not in this temporary world, but in the eternal world. God is the only answer to evil that makes sense. Only God can make all things right. If you do not believe in God, you have no reason to live. This world will overwhelm you. Eventually it will destroy you. You can ignore the evil and pretend it doesn't exist. You can drink or screw your life away, but if you ever decide to consider reality, if you ever decide to honestly see existence for what it is, you'll live your life in despair. You'll live your life without hope. If you refuse to believe in God, you abandon all hope of justice. You abandon all hope of redemption. You abandon all hope.

unpopular opinion

just a few thoughts on MLK Jr

besides not believing in the virgin birth, MLKJ ruined black america. before his famous march on washington, black america was on the upswing following lincoln's emancipation proclamation. incomes were increasing. church attendance was always up, of course. place a population in the throes of slavery and where else will they turn? look at this:

Suits. They all wore suits. They wore suits to church. They went to church. I don't even go to church that often. I never wear a suit ... anywhere.

MLK ruined black america. why do i say that? whereas slavery is a despicable, disgusting, vile blight on the american conscience, nevertheless it had its purposes. God's work always does. God does not work in niceties and pleasantries, with easily discernible motives. he does not operate in the current vernacular of "blessedness." this is a myth popularized by charlatans eager to gain wealth by appealing to the common greed of the masses. God works in despair, in drudgery, in difficulty, and in pain. He uses these things to drive us to him, and in knowing him, we become blessed, primarily by his presence and also often by his material blessings that usually come through honest, hard-working character.

what did mlk do? he appealed no longer to the God who created him, but to government which once enslaved him. why? he refused to wait for God's work and instead sought immediate relief. possibly he even sought glory for himself, which he found like few have found. this glory came at the price of true glory, of character, of honesty and integrity, as a people who formerly trusted in Christ now trust in government, and this has become their ruin.

Arminians and Sin: Introduction

While Calvinists largely agree on the definition and effects of sin, Arminian theology fails to consistently agree. Calvinists hold the traditional, orthodox definition of sin. Sin “misses the mark” set by God, both in the actions and the heart. Sin encompasses both external deeds and states of the mind and heart, including desires, thoughts, intentions, etc., and therefore, man enters the world in a state of judgment. Some Arminians agree with this definition, but others, like Pelagius and Finney, take issue with it. Calvinists and Arminians disagree completely on the effects of sin in regards to salvation. Can man freely respond to Christ’s command to “Repent and believe,” or does he need external assistance in the form of divine grace? If he needs grace, how extensive is this grace? Does God completely change the heart of man, or is there some participation on his part? Calvinists believe that faith can only come from God, for man is dead in his sins and unable to please God, but Arminians hold to human freedom, requiring varying degrees of grace from God to enable man to ultimately make the final decision of repentance.

Like sovereignty, a believer’s stand on this issue carries far-reaching implications. If man possesses enough ability, or righteousness, or faith within himself to initially reach for God, then he must likewise possess this same ability, righteousness, or faith to continue in his walk. While most Arminians deny Pelagius’ belief that man does not need a savior, these same theologians agree on Pelagius’ logical extension of this belief that man contains within himself the ability to fully live a life that satisfies God, completely free from sin in this life and in this flesh. These Arminians, most notably John Wesley, ascribe credit for this life somewhat to God’s grace, but interestingly enough arrive at the same conclusion as the man who denied the need of Christ at all. This stand on free will and man’s inherent ability also logically leads theologians to believe that a Christian, once saved, can somehow lose his salvation and be forever lost. If man can choose to receive Christ, then he can choose to stop believing. Just as this believer is able to reach for Christ initially, he should be able to keep himself near Christ throughout his journey of faith. God will not interfere with man’s decision to believe or not to believe. These beliefs in the ultimate authority of man to believe led Finney to manipulate the evangelizing situation. Today, we continue this tradition of trusting men with the ultimate decision of salvation, and we ply them with music, with song and dance, theater, carnival rides, rampant displays of emotional manipulation, and sometimes with material benefits. Eager to win souls, but unwilling to trust the Word of God or the God of the Word, we employ carnal means in spiritual work. We do not trust the Holy Spirit to lead men to Christ. How can he if the decision rests with men? Why should we implore the Spirit when he does not reign over men’s hearts?

Arminians cannot believe in sin, lest they forfeit their precious free will. They dismiss the complete effects of sin and believe every man has been regenerated in God’s image but they do this without faith. “Every man is able to believe,” they say. If any man is unable, God cannot condemn him, for a man must possess ability before he has responsibility. In believing this, they ignore Adam our representative, who, although possessed of complete ability to abstain from sin and obey God’s law, sinned in our place, bringing condemnation and inability upon us all. For the Arminian, no man is a slave to his sin, despite the testimony of both Christ and Paul (John 8.34; Romans 6.6). Every man can exercise faith in God, despite his dead soul (Ephesians 2.1). They prioritize the pride of free will over the humiliating truth of his word. They look with their eyes and understand with their minds instead of trusting scripture. They see men who do “good,” and accept this as evidence of man’s ability to believe in God, not understanding that natural men do good to please themselves. They confuse natural, moral conscience that glorifies man with faithful, supernatural, Spirit-given life that glorifies God.

brownies

I keep a box of brownie mix on my shelf all the time. Actually, it's a box from Costco with five bags of brownie mix. I get a hankering for brownies every month or so, sometimes more often, sometimes less. They're easy to make and easier to eat. My mom used to have me help her bake cookies which I do with my kids but I can mix a batch of brownies and down a couple within 20 minutes or thereabouts. 

Imagine the logistics and discover that goes in to this little chocolate delight. Not only does Costco have to get the mix to my store, but someone had to test the recipe (Ghilardellis), put it in a box, sell it for a decent price, and do all of this on a mass scale. What about the genius who actually created the first brownie? Or the person who found that if you put flour, eggs, baking soda, oil and sugar together and heat it up, you get this thing called a "cake"? Who did that? Who grabbed this tall sick of hard grass, took a bite and said, "that's delicious!" I'm gonna call that sweet and I'm gonna take all these canes and boil them to a dry concentrate and call that "sugar"? Or whoever it was that found this bean on a tree (or shrubbery or root idk) and took a bite and said "this will be amazing with that 'sugar' stuff! I'll call it chocolate!"? 

Every day I look at all this stuff we have to enjoy... Chocolate and coffee and paper to write math equations and computers to play war games over this thing called the internet and Rick and Morty that's supposed to have nine seasons but I don't believe them and all kinds of fruit and a few tasty veggies plus animals that are also tasty and stars in the sky and mountains over there and beaches that way and the ocean (!) and clam chowder and this world is so amazing... But what blows my mind even more so is that some people believe all of this is just the result of a near endless chain of trillions and trillions of mathematically impossible accidents each depending on one another and if even a single one had failed all of it would never have happened. Amazing

paul washer's thoughts on porn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePt1daKYsB4

i haven't made it to "the lowest rung of christianity"

whatever that is. idk. i looked up "lowest rung" in the bible and didn't find anything.

yeah i look at porn. i've been struggling with porn all my life and recently decided to "step up" my efforts at combating this. yeah i'm not a great christian. who is honestly?

but why is pornography different than anger? or gossip? or reading romance novels? why does washer demonize porn users more vehemently than alcoholics or potheads? i am in no way trying to justify porn use or to say that it's ok. it's definitely not. it destroys souls. it destroys relationships. it crushes the spirit. i should know. it had done that to me. i'm just wondering why is it different than anything else? maybe washer condemned other sinners. the proud, those who worship celebrities, or those who give their time and money to watch professional basketball or football. all of it is merely emotional relief. we do these things to manage our negative emotions. we fear. we worry. we get angry. we lack trust in God. so we seek out relief in these things. we seek relief from this stress through entertainment, through sports, through alcohol, through relationships, through shopping. i love buying books that i never read. all of it keeps us from Christ. all of it is idolatry. maybe porn is the most destructive, but it isn't the most "sinful." it isn't more faithless than anything else, though it may reap the most destructive results.

it's funny though. washer in another sermon urges us to "cry out to God" to deliver us from sin. he tells us to "grab hold of the promises." i've always wondered, "what does that even mean?" it's so esoteric, so vague and intangible.  in scripture, there are few concrete, tangible steps for finding deliverance from sin. all of it is so...whimsical, so foggy, so difficult to grasp...

"seek his face"
"trust in his word"
"consider yourself dead to sin"

seek...trust...consider ---- how? all of it can only be done by faith and faith only comes from God. all i have is this little bit that i can do. i can only get on my knees and make words come from my mouth. i can't change my heart or my attitude. i can't make myself humble. i can't muster true repentance. this comes only from the Holy Spirit and he decides when to give. but i do seek. i read a little. i pray a little. i write the things that the Spirit reveals to me. a little. this is what i do and i wait. what good does it do to condemn me for this disease, for this emotional trauma that has plagued me since i was a child, that causes me to seek temporary, destructive solace in these intoxicating, hypnotic images? what good is it? does this condemnation motivate me to change? maybe temporarily. more than anything it drives me to seek for relief more desperately than before. but the end result of every failure, thank God, is this result: the Holy Spirit within me cries out, more and more, to my Father, for deliverance, for grace, for strength, for purity.

i have failed so many times. i have lost so much. i have hurt so many people that i care about. i can only believe that God has desired this to keep me close to his heart, to teach me, to humble me. i was an arrogant child. i still am, but at least now i know how arrogant, how selfish, how useless i am without Christ.

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.