This is a book on The Doctrines of Grace, or the five points of Calvinism. The intended audience are people who believe that the Bible does not contain verses that have logical consequences that contradict one another, and who believe their interpretation of the Bible should be based upon the text. The book discusses the Bible’s view of itself and of philosophy, then it discusses how to resolve apparent contradictions in the Bible by carefully applying rules of interpretation. After providing the necessary background, scriptures verses relating to The Doctrines of Grace are examined along with passages that those against The Doctrines of Grace claim refute The Doctrines of Grace.

Answering Objections to The Doctrines of Grace

What Are the Doctrines of Grace? {#what-are-the-doctrines-of-grace?}

The Doctrines of Grace are often called the five points of Calvinism. They are five truths derived from the Biblical text. Although they are often called the five points of Calvinism, the five points have been believed on by God fearing men throughout history. Their teachings are not only found in the New Testament but in the Old Testament as well. They are recognized both by the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession.
The five points are often referred to by the acronym TULIP.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

We now briefly describe each point.

Total Depravity – The fall adversely effected every area of man’s life, both his intellect and his character. The result is that man is by nature a child of wrath. The fall has left man in a state, where he does not seek after God, and cannot receive the things of God, they are foolishness to him. The only hope for man is that God gives him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
Unconditional Election – 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence”. John 1:12-13 states that “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul says to the redeemed “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Those who acknowledge the truth were natural men, taken from the same lump of clay as the vessels of wrath, and could not receive the things of God as natural men (1 Corinthians 2:14), but God granted them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). Some wrongly assert God looked to see who would choose Him and then decided to choose them, but if that were so how could one reconcile the statement that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, or that those who believe were not born of the will of men, but of God? Or the statement we love Him because He first loved us? Not only that but the problem is that it has God deciding one thing after looking at his creation. This has multiple problems, their god would be changing his knowledge in time (he knew what to do only after consulting the future wills of his creatures), this is not the changeless being described in Malachi 3:6. It also has the problem that their god’s knowledge is growing in time, hence their god is not omniscient, it also has a problem that in they view god is taking counsel of men. This is counter to the Bible asking the rhetorical question in Romans 11:34-36 “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” Verse 36 clearly demolishes any concept of man having an autonomous will that functions independently of God.
Limited Atonement – This is the belief that God did not propitiate His wrath towards anyone other than the elect. As we read in the book of Acts 13:48 “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” we see from verse 46 that there were people who did not believe. It logically follows that they were not ordained to eternal life. The fact that some are ordained unto condemnation is explicitly stated in Jude 1:4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” This stands against the currently popular concept that Jesus did not die for a particular subset of people given to Him by the Father, but he died for the potential atonement of every single person who ever would live. The people who have the view that Jesus only died for potential atonement of people cannot point to a single verse where a word that could be translated “potential” is used in reference to the atonement. Hence it is a belief that does not have its basis in exegesis of scripture. The concept of “potential” is eisageted into every text on the atonement as a means of reconciling their choice to hyper-literalistic interpretations of phrases like “the whole world” or “all men” with passages which they rightly recognize as teaching that some people will in fact experience the wrath of God in Hell. The Calvinist reconciles these two things by pointing out that “the whole world” and “all men” are often used in a non-literal manner to refer to all types of men, or a great number of people, and that they consistently assume the same in the passages which refer to atonement.
Irresistible Grace: In John 6:37 Jesus said “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” It is clear from this passage that if someone is given to Jesus they will come to Him and He will raise them up on the last day. This verse also supports the idea of limited atonement. If someone does not come to Jesus, they were not given to Jesus by the Father since Jesus said, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me”. For those familiar with formal logic, they can break Jesus statement into 2 parts: Part A: “Given to Jesus by the Father” and Part B: “Comes to Jesus”. We can say Jesus’ statement has the form A implies B. It is a fact of logic called contraposition that if A implies B then (not B) implies (not A). What are “not A” and “not B”? “Not A” is “not given to Jesus by the Father”, “not B” is “Does not come to Jesus”. Thus, it is a fact of logic that the statement in John 6:37 also has the consequence that if someone does not come to Jesus, they were not given to Jesus by the Father.
Persistence of the Saints: The persistence of the saints means that God by His grace keeps them from falling away. This doctrine is also supported by John 6:36 because Jesus did not put any conditions upon raising them up on the last day. It is often mentioned that there are people who do make professions of faith, then later deny the profession they made. This is addressee in 1 John 2:18-19 “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
What Is Our Basis for Evaluating the Five Points? {#what-is-our-basis-for-evaluating-the-five-points?}
1. Scripture Is the Basis for our Faith {#scripture-is-the-basis-for-our-faith}

Men by nature suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (Romans 1), we are warned not to trust our hearts. (Proverbs. 3:5, Jeremiah. 17:9)
The way that seems right to a man ends in death (Proverbs 14:12, 16:25)
He who trusts in his own heart is a fool (Proverbs 28:26)
The entrance of God’s word gives light (Ps. 119:130)
There is no foundation worth building upon other than the revealed word of God. (Isaiah 8:20, Mat. 7:26)
Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
- Note it does not say the fear of a god, but of The God revealed in the Bible whose name is “YHVH”.
- So pagan philosophers who may have believed in a god or perhaps multiple gods did not give us a starting point for knowledge.
Proverbs 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
Proverbs 2:5-6 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Proverbs 9:9-10 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
The truth about God enters into man’s heart only by revelation from God through His Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14)
1. Our Faith Should not Rest on the Wisdom of Men. {#our-faith-should-not-rest-on-the-wisdom-of-men.}

Some object to the Doctrines of Grace because they cannot be reconciled with common preconceived philosophical notions about God, man, or fairness that have no basis in scripture. Many people have heard these philosophical assumptions their whole life, and were even taught them at church, and consequently view them as Christian ideas, even though they are not found in the Bible. Many have never taken time to ask the question, “Are these ideas Biblical?”. Some assume these ideas are correct because they have been taught them in church, or because they seem “self-evident” or “reasonable” to them. The Bible contains many warnings against man looking to his own heart and thoughts rather than to God’s word. While the Bible tells us that man’s heart, in its natural state, cannot receive the things of God, the philosopher assumes man is capable of knowing and determining truths about God by looking to the philosopher’s own thoughts, feelings and experience. The Bible believer and the philosopher have two totally different views of man and two totally different views of how man can come to know truth.

Scriptural Warnings against Philosophy {#scriptural-warnings-against-philosophy}
1. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians {#paul’s-first-letter-to-the-corinthians}

There are many warnings in scripture to beware of following the teachings of pagan philosophers, or the imaginations of our own wicked hearts, rather than the Word of God. Paul spent quite some time dwelling on this in his first letter to the Corinthian church. Included below is 1 Corinthians 1:17- 3:23

1 Corinthians 1:17-31 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:1-23 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

Key Points in 1 Corinthians 1-3 {#key-points-in-1-corinthians-1-3}

In I Corinthians 1-3 Paul rejects this world’s wisdom (wisdom is the same word whereby we get philosophy philo = love and Sophia=wisdom.)

“The thoughts of the wise are vain” I Corinthians 3:20
“the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” I Corinthians 3:19. It will be destroyed I Corinthians 1:19-23
By worldly wisdom the philosophers NEVER KNEW GOD (I Corinthians 2:6)
“If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise” I Corinthians 3:18
Paul did not use “enticing words of mans wisdom” I Corinthians 2:4. But spoke of a wisdom not of this world I Corinthians 2:6, which the world did not know I Corinthians 2:6-9
A wisdom not revealed to men by means of empiricism (ear hath not heard, eye hath not seen), mysticism, or rationalism (neither hath entered into the heart of any man) but by revelation from God’s Holy Spirit I Corinthians 2:9-11
The things of God are a wisdom that the natural man cannot receive because it is foolish to him, consequently we should not think that we can begin with a set of presuppositions commonly agreed upon by almost all men and think that we could from them logically deduce the truth about God.
1. Other Scriptures Also Reject Philosophy {#other-scriptures-also-reject-philosophy}
Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
The Bible tells us that the Fear of the YHVH is the beginning of both Wisdom and Knowledge (Proverbs 1:7, 1:29, 2:5, 9:10)
1. Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
  1. Note it does not say the fear of a god, but of YHVH.
  2. So pagan philosophers who may have believed in one or more gods did not give us a starting point for knowledge.
2. Proverbs 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
3. Proverbs 2:5-6 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
4. Proverbs 9:9-10 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
The truth about God enters man’s heart only by revelation from God through His Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14)
1. Philosophy’s Non-Biblical View of Man {#philosophy’s-non-biblical-view-of-man}

Philosophy assumes man starting with man can know the truth apart from Divine revelation.

Philosophers assume:

Man is autonomous, free from God’s control
Man is seeking the truth
Man can know the truth apart from revelation
Man is the measure of all things, and they typically look to some aspect of man’s being able to find truth.

The Bible rejects these ideas philosophers commonly assume

God is Sovereign - Man is not autonomous, has no free will
1. Turns the king’s heart wherever He wishes (Proverbs 21:1, Ezra 7:27)
2. Hardens Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 10:1)
3. Opens Lidia's heart (Acts 16:14)
The Bible tells us man’s heart and own understanding will lead him astray.

Proverbs 3:5-7 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Proverbs 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

The Bible tells us that men do not seek the truth about God, in fact, they seek to suppress the knowledge of God, that God has placed inside of them.

Romans 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Psalms 14:2-3 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Repenting and acknowledging of the truth is a gift God gives to some men

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

God does not give the gift of repentance to every man

Mark 4:10-12 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

John 10:24-30 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
Man is not the measure of all things. God knows all things and man only knows some things. Without proper knowledge how can man set up a proper metric from measuring all things

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Even when presented with true wisdom revealed by God, men will reject it as false and foolish, unless God does a work in their hearts.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Notice that in rejecting God’s revelation, man falsely assumes he can sit in judgement of the Word of God to determine if it is foolish or not. Apart from God working in man’s life he will assume he is a better off trusting his own thoughts, feelings and beliefs than trusting in a revelation from the all-knowing God. While the Bible does not teach man is the measure of all things, it does teach that apart from God working in in man’s heart man tends to think this way about himself.
1. Methods of Humanistic Philosophy {#methods-of-humanistic-philosophy}

The methods of humanistic philosophy can be broken into four categories, depending upon what they appeal to an authority.

Human Reason – Rationalism
Human Emotion – Mysticism
Human Experience – Empiricism
Human Beliefs – Fideism

Philosophy’s starting point is some aspect of a particular human being’s existence (thoughts, emotions, experiences, beliefs). Philosophy’s goals depend on the philosopher. Since philosophy starts with an individual it is not surprising to see it end in subjectivism. We will look at each one of these humanistic methods in more detail and as we do so, I ask you to think about how these methods have adversely influenced common Christian teachings.

Mysticism {#mysticism}

A mystic believes that his or her feelings or impressions is a source of truth. You might think of a new ager who claims to get a certain vibe or feeling about something and considers that feeling a basis for a belief. Now a rejection of mysticism is not a total discounting of feelings, sometimes we feel certain ways for a reason. A false teacher may give you the creeps because you love the word of God and cannot stand to see scripture twisted, abandoned or augmented.

When people think about professing Christians being influenced by mysticism, they often think of the charismatic movement. While Charismatics can fall prey to their feelings and consider them more highly than they ought, they are not the only ones. People who are the most ardent anti-charismatics are often mystics as well. For example, how many times have you heard people claim they had a calling to preach, teach or be a missionary based upon a feeling they had while praying? Many times, missionary candidates begin fundraising to go to a certain place and much of the argument for them going there is based only on their feelings, rather than a unique qualification or ability that the situation might call for.

We do well to remember the Bible tells us to pray for wisdom, not feelings. There are many other methods of determining where missions giving should be invested and who should be sent rather than to trust the feelings of a self-appointed missionary. We could survey possible locations and determine where would be the best places to go. (Paul wanted to go where no one had preached before, yet this is a low priority in missions today.) In addition to looking at where would be a good place to go, it is also good to determine what resources an organization has in terms of people, connections, and business opportunities etc. At a minimum, it would be good to look at a person’s character, knowledge, skill set, health, and other qualifications. It is also important to gauge someone’s commitment level. How much time and effort and money has the person spent in preparing before asking others for support? Will life on the mission field be a step up for them or a step down? Are they so willing send and support others who might be more effective than them? Are they going to go even without getting support? Given what the Bible says about our hearts we should be careful not to put too much stock in a individuals feelings or impressions.

Fideism {#fideism}

A fideist is someone that believes their belief about something determines what is true. An example of Fideism can be seen in some of the “prosperity gospel” teachers who encourage their supporters to “have faith in their faith”, “name it claim it”, etc. Sometimes they believe their beliefs spoken become an even more powerful force in their efforts to manipulate their god, they call this “positive confession”. These people have a very low view of their god, they believe their god is bound to perform as their human will power prescribes. In believing this they effectively make themselves above their god. Their god is like some impersonal principle tapped into by means of a human’s will power. Rather than believing they exist to serve the true and living God they created a false god and believe their false god exists to be manipulated by them and serve them. Rather than believing God turns men’s hearts, they believe they turn their god’s heart. They would do well to remember the prayer of the Lord Jesus Christ who said to the Father “not my will be done, but thy will”.

Rationalism {#rationalism}

A Rationalist believes that man, climbing up in his ivory tower and thinking about things, can determine truth, justice meaning and morals. The rationalist does not need to collect a bunch of data and make models that are generalizations of the data. When talking about their personal beliefs the rationalists don’t like to say “I think this” or “I think that”. Instead, the rationalist likes to take his thoughts and claim they are not merely his thoughts, but they are “universal principles”, “self-evident truths”, “the voice of reason”, “common sense”, “absolutes”. Although the rationalist typically does not appeal to their ideas as divinely inspired in the Biblical sense, they may refer to the source of their ideas as “Human Reason” or “Reason” for short. They may claim “Reason dictates that ….” or “Common sense tells us that…”. The rationalist will often dismiss contrary ideas as being “unthinkable”, “absurd” or will say they do not measure up to the “bar of Reason”. It was pointed out by many that the ancestors of the rationalists and people in other parts of the world did not believe their alleged “self-evident” ideas. “Reason” seemed to say different things to each person she spoke to, it was not only culturally dependent but varied from person to person as evidenced by how rationalists would write books against other rationalists’ positions.

Not surprisingly, Rationalism was more popular years ago, when communities were less ideologically diverse. In such communities, people had a common cultural and religious background after some time these beliefs tended to seem “self-evident” and obvious to them, many of the teachings were no longer presented in the context of the religion in which they were introduced. Some communities started contributing the justification for their choices to “common sense” rather than their religious heritage, though before adopting their current religion their community may not have believed much of what was now so pervasively believed among them that it was considered “common sense”. Rationalisms conclusion are a function of the prevailing culture. Rationalism can never go against the grain of the culture to provide a truth since it was dependent upon the culture to provide a judgement of what was “reasonable” or “unthinkable”.

Rationalism is not a Christian epistemological method, yet wolf of Rationalism was given sheep’s clothing and rebranded itself as “Natural Theology” and the Rationalists in the Christian community called “Natural Theologians”. Natural Theologians often claims they can provide “rational proof” of the existence of the Biblical God and give us a “rational basis” for the “laws of God” and possibly even answer the so-called “Problem of Evil”. Natural Theology is really a means whereby a professing Christian is tricked into abandoning the Word of God as the ultimate authority and replacing it with “Human Reason”. In the end natural theology is doomed to follow whatever the flow of thought is within its culture, since that will determine what presupposition is “common sense” and what is not. Given that Jesus taught that most men walk the broad road to destruction, natural theology is little more than a bus stop on the road to apostasy. This is precisely what it was for Charles Darwin who went to Bible College to study natural theology and ended up being completely apostate. The natural theologian has it all backwards, it is the word of God that will judge the thoughts of men, as Paul declared:

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

God’s word clearly tells us that human understanding is unreliable

Proverbs 3:5-7 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Proverbs 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

Given the Bible’s view of man’s unreliability of man’s heart, the inability of the natural man to receive the things of God, his hatred and suppression of the truths that were revealed to him, and the utter inability to bring himself to repentance, it would be impossible for a rationalist to prove the reliability of the Bible, since the teachings of the Bible regarding man, contradicts the fundamental tenets a rationalist is required to believe about man and his reasoning abilities.

Many recognized that rationalism was untethered by anything outside the mind of the rationalist, and turned to empiricism as the method of choice. At least that was constrained to be consistent with observations, and therefor limited in its ability to speculate.

Empiricism {#empiricism}

Empiricism in the broadest sense involves making generalizations and interpretations of human experience and observations. Empiricism is not self-contained; it does not provide a basis for believing that human beings are able to make observations that reflect an objective world. This is an assumption that most people are willing to make but it none the less an assumption which is not supplied by empiricism. While the human experience or observation is tethered to an external reality by the reliability of human sense perception, the generalization and interpretation of the experience is untethered and may be viewed as a constrained form of rationalism. The farther the generalization get away from describing verifiable, repeatable, and common human observations, the more subjective it becomes. Empirical philosophies that are not restricted to verifiable, repeatable phenomenon are extremely subjective. Many empirical philosophies make universal statements after observing a few particulars. Such statements could never be fully verified by a finite set of tests.

Like the rationalists who put forth their ideas buttressed by the claim that they were “common sense” or “self-evident truths” obtained from “Reason” the modern humanist likes to claim he got his ideas from “science”. Just as “Reason” was not a monolithic entity kicking out universally accepted truths, so the humanist speaking in the name of “Science” is not putting forth absolutes. It should be recognized for what it is, an attempt to add grandeur to one’s own thoughts and opinions and intimidate someone in the name of an invisible friend called “Reason” or “Science”.

Just as notions of “common sense” or “self-evident truths” can only survive to the extent the culture has a common belief or acceptance in those ideas, so wild generalizations and interpretations of human experience can only be held as “Scientific” if they are believed pervasively throughout the culture. As those who disagreed with a rationalist were dismissed as being “irrational” or “unreasonable”, so those who disagree with the propaganda of the modern humanist are dismissed with a roughly equivalent label of “unscientific”. This is clearly seen when discussing the question of origins. When one does not believe in evolution they are not corrected by means of a proof starting from an agreed upon set of axioms and ends up deriving an evolutionary history, they are dismissed and scoffed at in the same manner an ivory tower rationalist discredits those who disagree with his thoughts as “unreasonable”.

Not all of empiricism involves wild speculation being upheld by propaganda campaigns and dismissal or excommunication of non-believers. The more empiricism is restricted to describing repeatable phenomenon, the less controversial and subjective the process becomes. Some call this subset of empiricism operational science. Operational science, though still ambiguous, is far less controversial. Perhaps because it does not attempt to address questions like: what am I? why am I here? How did I get here? What is right and wrong?

Operational science is single handedly responsible for giving credibility to the word science. By operational science we developed models for the behavior of things allowing us to build airplanes, computers, cell phones, microwave ovens, TV sets, and create modern medicines, and other things. The track records of say historical science or alleged scientific reconstructions of history one might find in an anthropology class have a disastrous track record. Not only have they failed to produce anything of value, their alleged “scientific theories” have been the basis for ethnic cleansings, putting black pygmies in zoos with monkeys and killing aborigines for their skeletons after declaring them missing links. While many of these “historical scientists” like to point out that operational science also makes mistakes and needs to be refined over time. The refining is quite different. The refining of theories in operational science typically results when measurements are taken outside the scope where the model was previously used. Often the old model is still useful under a restricted set of conditions. The “historical scientists” like to associate their wild speculations with operational science because it gives them a credibility that is not warranted by their own track record.

Like empiricism, operational science is not self-contained, there are several assumptions one has to make before practicing operational science.

Apriori assumptions needed for empiricism:
- Order in the universe
- Reliability of sense perception
- Humans ability to recognize that order
- Logic
Common additional assumptions include:
- Spatial invariance
- temporal invariance
- preference for simpler models

Even with all these assumptions restricting our generalizations, there is still a huge amount of subjectivity. For example, we may assume Y is a function of X and not a function of X, Q & R.

Despite it’s limitations operational science has been remarkably useful. Although models are continually being improved and are typically not final, they usually work well where they have been tested.

A Biblical basis for operational science

While the empiricist lacks a basis for practicing empiricism, since it is not self-contained, the Christian has a Biblical basis for practicing operational science. The Bible’s teaching that God works all things after the counsel of His own will, gives us reason to think there is order in the universe. The fact that man was made in the image of God and his sense perception was designed by God, gives us cause to believe that it’s perceptions are not completely subjective. The following verse states that God commanded man to subdue the earth and gave him dominion over it.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Notice the verse tells us to do the following things:

Taking dominion implies controlling something
Controlling an object requires having a model of its behavior
It assumes a purpose for controlling it

If we believe God empowered man to take dominion, we have a basis for assuming the requirements to do it are met. If we believe God wants us to model and subdue things, we have reason to trust the utility of our sense perception, we have reason to believe we can develop useful models of things, we have cause for believing simpler models are more likely to be true. None of these presuppositions are supplied by Atheism. Truly operational science is a Biblical endeavor, but it can never tell us the nature of God, only give us useful models of the nature of some aspects of things.

Paul’s method of interacting with philosophers {#paul’s-method-of-interacting-with-philosophers}

Acts 17 contains a summary of Paul’s presentation of the Christian religion to pagan philosophers at Athens. Paul does not start off by appealing to a mutually agreed upon set of self-evident truths and show where they made a logical blunder to end up at their beliefs rather than Biblical beliefs. Nor is Paul overly concerned with how these particular men might be manipulated to like the teaching he would present. No, Paul knew that the gospel would be foolishness to those who are perishing but Jesus’ sheep would hear their shepherd’s voice and follow him. For this reason, not trusting in the wisdom of men, he boldly proclaimed truths that ran directly contrary to his audiences cherished presuppositions.

They thought they were genetically superior, Paul told them that God made all men of one blood
They thought themselves to be wise, He told them they were ignorant of God
They built costly temples for their gods, Paul told them God did not dwell in temples made by men’s hands
They were proud, Paul taught them that God did not need anything from them
They believed in human autonomy and Paul told them that God predetermined the lives of men
They believed the body was absurd and evil, Paul proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus, as proof that He would be the one that will judge the world.

So as we engage others we should be careful to openly deal with the all the statements in scripture, even if they are contrary to the presuppositions of our culture or of those we are speaking with.

A warning against seeking the approval of the world and pleasing men. {#a-warning-against-seeking-the-approval-of-the-world-and-pleasing-men.}

Christians get into much trouble when we desire to be popular or wise in the sight of men

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Hoping for the love and approval of the world is an unrealistic goal. Consider the words of Jesus:

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

John 15:17-19 These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Seeking the affections of the world is a dangerous and adulterous desire

1 John2:15-16 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

The example of the Pharisees {#the-example-of-the-pharisees}

The many of the Pharisees heard Jesus and believed but they were afraid of the social consequences of admitting that Jesus was the Messiah and the other religious leaders were wrong.

John 12:42-43 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

We all have a desire to be liked by those at our church, Bible College, or denomination and to fit in with them, like the chief rulers and the Pharisees we are prone to peer pressure. It is important for us to love God more than man, and desire to be true to God’s word more than to be a respected member of our theological circle or accepted by the worldly philosophers.

Exegesis of scripture is the key {#exegesis-of-scripture-is-the-key}
1. The intended audience {#the-intended-audience}

This booklet is written from the perspective of someone who believes the Bible contains the revealed word of God and is the basis for knowledge. I believe the five points of Calvinism are exegetically consistent with every passage in the Bible. Many Calvinists have gone to great length to address every passage that some might claim speak against Calvinism. The Great Baptist Scholar, and Spurgeon’s favorite commentator, John Gill, wrote a book called The Cause of God and Truth where he exegeted every scripture that a contemporary claimed was against Calvinism. Those who profess to believe the Bible, should likewise reconcile every passage of the Bible with their theological viewpoint.
Since the Bible tells us not to trust our hearts and not to lean on our own understanding, but to look to God’s word. The entrance of God’s word gives us light. Jesus said that if we do not build upon His teachings we are building our house on sand.

Progressing from isolated passages to a systematic theology {#progressing-from-isolated-passages-to-a-systematic-theology}

A particular sentence in isolation can have a few possible meanings, but the set of possible meaning are not limitless. For example, consider the following sentence.

John loves his wife and so does Bill.

This sentence can mean that Bill loved his wife just like John loved his wife or it could mean that Bill loved John’s wife. Although this sentence can have multiple meanings it cannot take an arbitrary meaning. Later statements can clarify the meaning of this sentence, but it cannot cause it to have a meaning that is not allowed by the words and structure of the sentence. The following statements might clarify the meaning of the first sentence.

John loves his wife and so does Bill. Bill’s wife Alice is the only woman he had ever loved, but John was a widower, who loved his first wife, Mary, and loves his current wife Rose. The fact that John loved his first wife has not diminished his love for his 2nd wife.

The later statements force us to choose one of two things regarding the meaning of the first sentence. If we assume the meanings of the sentences is not contradictory, then we have to interpret the first sentence to mean that John loves his wife (Rose), and that Bill loves his wife (Alice). The other choice that we can make is we could assume that the first sentence means that John loved his wife and that Bill also loved John’s wife, and we could chose to believe that the subsequent sentences are contradicting the first sentence and that one or more of the sentences are not true.

In interpreting the Bible, we assume that the Bible does not contradict itself. This does not give us the right to decide on one particular possible meaning of a verse in isolation to all others, and then say, well I have chosen a particular possible meaning for verse X and therefore no verse can disagree with my assumed meaning of verse X. We must evaluate our assumptions regarding the possible meanings of a verse by asking the question can I reconcile my assumed meaning of this text with other possible meanings of other portions of scripture in the same paragraph and the same book and the rest of the Bible.

Dealing with difficult passages and apparent contradictions {#dealing-with-difficult-passages-and-apparent-contradictions}

Believing that the Bible, when correctly interpreted, does not have contradictions is not the same as believing that one knows how to properly interpret every passage. The Bible is not an easy book, even the apostle Peter said Paul’s writings contained things that were hard to understand.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

A humble Christian when faced with an apparent contradiction might say there are things in the Bible I have yet to understand or properly reconcile, but I believe it to be without contradiction and without error.

Some who call themselves Bible believers when faced with what might appear to be a contradiction between verses or even a contradiction to their theological position will react by claiming that they don’t believe in logic. But if they reject logic they are not capable of calling themselves a believer in anything because they have in fact rejected logic, and in so doing they have rejected all dichotomies including the dichotomy between “Bible believer” and “non Bible believer”.

Some who profess to be Bible believers have found things in the Bible that either contradict their beliefs, or verses that appear to contradict each other and they are unwilling to change their theology or hermeneutic to yield a consistent interpretation, or do not know how to do so. Rather than being humble and admitting they need help with their exegesis, hermeneutic, or theology, and reading a commentary they assume there is no one else who can reconcile the verses and attempt to solve this by casting out logic. Often, they will say something like “God does repent and God does not repent”, and then say this is a “divine mystery”.

Some of these people are happy when a better hermeneutic is presented to them, but others get angry. Some believe that being a Christian involves accepting and believing in both sides of a contradiction, in some cases they are even proud of the fact they can embrace both sides of a contradiction, they see it as evidence of their “great faith”. Although these people are sometimes found in what might be called fundamentalist or evangelical churches, they end up being a bit similar to the neo-orthodox. While the neo-orthodox pit “faith” against “facts” and believe that faith is inherently inconsistent with reality. These people pit “faith” against “logic”. They typically do not realize that without logic they don’t have a basis for parsing sentences or limiting the possible meanings of words. Since they have rejected the basis for gaining meanings from sentences they have rejected the basis for exegesis of the Bible.

What is the inward motivation of such people? I cannot say, often we cannot really know the motivation of our own heart yet alone someone else’s heart. We can say the following:

Do they have a low view of the Bible since they believe accepting it means accepting contradictions?
Since they equate being illogical with spiritual, how can they interpret a text?
What becomes the basis of what they believe since they no longer have a means of coming to conclusions from the Bible?
Can we say they have a high view of themselves since they assume since they have not resolved the apparent contradictions none can?
Are they cowardly and afraid to take a position and try to take two conflicting positions at the same time?
1. How to reconcile alleged contradictions {#how-to-reconcile-alleged-contradictions}

The following systematic approach is used to reconcile Bible difficulties

Examine the original language to make sure we have a good understanding of the texts.
1. Check if the words and phrases translated correctly.
2. See if there are figures of speech or idioms that do not warrant a hyper literalistic interpretation.
Identify the type of literature used in the passages.
1. Poetry often contains metaphors, hyperboles, personifications, anthropomorphisms and other constructs that should not be interpreted literally.
2. Historical narratives typically contain summaries of speeches, and not the entire speech, and different summaries contain different levels of detail.
3. Theological discourses are typically more complete discussions of an issue.
4. Prophetic passages – there is much disagreement in the body of Christ on how to interpret prophetic passages, but conservative scholars whether amil or premil, dispensational or covenantal will typically apply a different hermeneutic to prophetic passages than to historical narrative, theological discourse, or poetry.
Determine whether the passages are primary or secondary passages.
1. The main purpose of a primary passage is to directly discuss the issue of interest.
2. The main purpose of a secondary passage is not the discussion of the topic of interest. For example, God talking about coming down and examining Sodom’s crimes are as bad as men say is not a primary passage discussing the extent of God’s knowledge, but it is historical narrative describing the judgment of God against Sodom.
Examine the secondary passages to see if they are using a literary device that does not require a hyper-literalistic interpretation. For example, is it poetry, personification, anthropomorphism, metaphor, hyperbole, apocalyptic imagery etc…
Determine if one or more of the passages could have another interpretation that would not result in contradictions and interpretational difficulties.
1. Distinguishing between historical narratives and theological discourse allows a harmonious understanding of otherwise difficult issues. {#distinguishing-between-historical-narratives-and-theological-discourse-allows-a-harmonious-understanding-of-otherwise-difficult-issues.}

The gospels contain many summaries of Jesus’ discourses. We can read the summary of Jesus’ sermon on the mount in just a few minutes; we suspect his actual sermon was much longer than that. The Bible does not give us the indication that Jesus would pop in speak to the people for 10 minutes then disappear but clearly tells us that Jesus spent a lot of time with the people.

Mark 8:2 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat:

John wanted to emphasize the gospel he wrote was in fact a summary

John 21:24-25 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Different summaries contain different levels of detail. Bible critics will often point to the different summaries and claim there is a contradiction, when in fact there is just a different level of granularity of the summary. One example is with Jesus’ discussion of divorce in the gospels. Consider the two accounts:

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

If we view these passages not as summaries but as complete, verbatim statements, Luke 16:18 does not seem to allow a man to divorce his wife under any circumstance and does not allow the remarriage of the divorced woman under any circumstance either. Matthew 5:31-32 allows the man to divorce his wife in the case where she commits sexual immorality. An insistence that every passage be interpreted hyper literally would lead one to conclude that these two passages in the Bible are contradictory. Since one passage allows for something forbidden in another passage. This apparent contradiction disappears when one realizes the first statement is a simpler and coarser summary of Jesus’ teaching that contains the general rule “don’t divorce” without listing the exceptions to the rule, one of which is mentioned in a more detailed summary of one of Jesus’ discussions on divorce and remarriage. If one assumes that Jesus’ statements are complete theological discourses recorded verbatim, to be interpreted in the strictest literal sense, there is no way to reconcile these passages.

Later in the New Testament, Paul gives a theological discourse on the topic of divorce and remarriage.

1 Corinthians 7:1-17 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

This is not a summary of a sermon of Paul but a complete explanation. It contains more details and allows for divorce in the case of abandonment in the case the unbeliever is not pleased to dwell with their believing spouse. The word χωρίζω, translated depart, has the meaning of separating or tearing asunder. In the context, this can involve not just a physical departure but also the sexual denial of a spouse. Verses 3-5 of the passages make clear the duty of the husband and wife to each other. The denial of sexual union is considered defrauding the marriage covenant and placing ones spouse in a situation where they will be tempted. In contrast to the word for departing the word συνέρχομαι speaks of the sexual union of the man and his wife.

1 Corinthians 7 is not the only passage that contains theological discourse on the subject of divorce and remarriage. There are some passages in the Old Testament as well. While there are some who wish to build their theology merely on the New Testament, this was not the view of the Apostle Paul who wrote:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Notice that the New Testament does not regard the law as being morally wrong, in fact it calls the law good, and profitable for instruction, learning, and training in righteousness. Since the New Testament regards the law as being morally good, we cannot merely discard the moral teachings of the law as if they were outdated.

Ceremonial practices of the law may have already seen their fulfillment, but the morality of the law has not changed. It is still good, it is still moral, it is still useful for our learning and our training in righteousness. Some have suggested that Jesus completely discarded and rejected the Old Testament teachings that allowed for divorce, by the following statement

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

At the beginning, before the fall, there was no allowance for divorce, but the law made this provision for the hardness of people’s hearts after the fall. Divorce is a protection for one of the spouses in the event a hard-hearted spouse defrauds them, and breaks the marriage covenant. Jesus was not abolishing divorce, by claiming that it came into existence because of the hardness of men’s hearts after the fall. This is made clear in the very next verse

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Not only is the idea of the abolition of divorce inconsistent with the above verse it is problematic because it would indicate that the law was morally flawed, yet the New Testament calls it good, and Jesus himself said he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Clearly the correct teaching on divorce and remarriage should be consistent with not only the New Testament passages but also the passages in the Old Testament. With that in mind, let us consider also the following passage about a man who unjustly divorces a maid-servant he had previously taken as a wife.

Exodus 21:7-11 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Notice what constituted abandonment in this case, not providing for her (food and clothing), and not fulfilling his sexual obligations to her. She is not only to be freed from the marriage but cannot be put back into the category of a servant. Just as the spouse in 1 Corinthians who denies their spouse is referred to as defrauding their spouse, so this passage refers to the wicked man as having dealt deceitfully. In both cases the defrauded spouse is free to go out, they are not bound since the other has deceitfully defrauded and ripped apart the marriage covenant by their deeds.

The passage in 1 Corinthians 7 speaks of the unbeliever departing, it is worth noting that not everyone who makes a profession of faith is to be recognized as a believer. In fact, the Bible says we should consider and treat some people as unbelievers despite the fact they have made professions of faith.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Titus 1:15-16 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

The man who does not provide for his family, or the person who has hardened their heart and continues in sinful rebellion despite rebukes from fellow Christians and the local church, is not to be treated as a believer. Though as Titus us 1:16 says they may profess to know God, their works demonstrate that they do not.

Some ask the question, what about when a spouse is providing food, clothing, housing and sexually for their spouse but is physically abusive. Physical abuse is not listed as one of the allowable terms, should it be allowed as a cause for divorce. Consider for a moment the fact that God expects those that read the Bible to be able to make generalizations based on a fortiori arguments. Some might ask “What are a fortiori arguments?”. They are arguments of the form if A is true then certainly B is true also. Let us look at a few examples from the Bible.

1 Corinthians 9:8-10 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

If it is true that we should care for our oxen that is working for us, how much more should we care for the pastors that are working for us.

Matthew 7:9-11 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

If evil people care for their children how much more should we expect God to care for His children.

Matthew 12:11-12 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

If we should rescue a suffering animal how much more so a human being. Did the verse about caring for oxen explicitly mention how we should treat human beings, no but God expects the reader of the Bible to be able to make proper generalizations that are not explicitly stated.

Turning our attention back to the divorce issue. Is it worse to be neglected or physically abused? Obviously, we would rather be ignored than attacked. Consequently, we should have the sense to understand that if God allows divorce where one of the partners is suffering from serious neglect, how much more would God allow divorce for the case of real physical abuse.

If in the case of neglect, divorce is allowed for a servant girl, how much more for a free woman or a man.
If divorce is allowed in the case of a spouse neglecting duties, how much more so in the case of physical abuse.

Let’s review what we have seen from these passages. The summaries of sermons recorded in the gospels do not contain a complete treatment of the subject, so one gives the general idea, do not divorce, the other is a more exact summary that says do not divorce except in the case of sexual immorality. The summaries do not contain all exceptions to the general rule that divorce is to be avoided, for all the exceptions one should consult the theological discourses in the old and New Testament. The passages in the OT & NT agree in their reasons for divorce. Abandonment of the duties of the marriage covenant. For the man this includes providing for his wife financially and sexually. The wife’s failure to uphold her end of the covenant including providing sexually for her husband is also considered defrauding and abandoning the marriage. The spouse who refuses to do justly should be rebuked by one, then two then by the church, if they do not repent they are to be treated as a departing unfaithful unbeliever. In addition, we recognize the validity of a fortiori argumentation and allow for divorce in the case of physical abuse. If you are allowed to divorce for willful neglect, how much more for willful physical abuse.

Primary and secondary passages in Bible Interpretation {#primary-and-secondary-passages-in-bible-interpretation}

A primary passage is a passage that explicitly deals with the topic of interest. For example primary passages dealing with whether or not God is corporeal are

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1 Timothy mothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

A secondary passage might be

Psalm 91:2-4 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

This is called a secondary passage because the primary topic is the protection of the Lord, not whether or not God is corporeal. While the secondary passage, speaks of God having both feathers and wings, this is not taken literally. If so, it would be impossible to harmonize this passage with the primary passages where the focus of the text is whether or not God is corporeal. A primary passage is not primary because we like it better, it is primary if its topic is dealing directly with the topic of interest.

An example Exegetical examination of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 {#an-example-exegetical-examination-of-1-timothy-2:8-15}

There are many who claim the Bible forbids women teaching men. There are also many women Bible teachers who claim they are not in violation of scripture. In this section we will exegete a passage in 1 Timothy often cited by those who oppose women preaching and teaching to men, in our exegesis we will consider the standard claims of the opposing position.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Exegesis of the passage:

Hermeneutical Methods: A hermeneutical method should be applied consistently in the Bible.
1. Different types of literature call for different hermeneutics: typical types of literature are poetry, apocalyptic literature, historical narrative, theological discourse.
  1. This passage is theological discourse.
2. Idioms and figures of speech are not interpreted in a wooden literalistic manner. One cannot assert that something is an idiom or figure of speech without any evidence of that fact, otherwise there is no way to determine the meaning of a text.
3. If one believes the Bible to be infallible the meaning of a particular text must be consistent with the meanings of all other texts.
The literal meaning of the passage encourages women not to be obsessed with outward appearances but to be of sound mind and self-controlled and adorn themselves with good works. Lest there be any confusion over what a good work is, Paul clearly lets Timothy know it is not a good work for a woman to teach, or usurp authority over a man. And Timothy should always prohibit such an attempt by a woman to do this. (note the phrase “all subjection”). This commandment is rooted in the consequences of Eve’s part in the fall of mankind. This is signified by the word “for” which gives the reason for the prohibition of women teaching, men abdicating authority, and women ruling over men. Timothy was supposed to make the women learn in silence, and “all subjection” and not allow them to usurp authority over men, or to teach men.
1. This is emphatically stated twice in the positive that they are to be silent and learn in subjection and also stated in the negative that they are not to usurp authority over a man.
2. Paul claims the basis for the subjection of women and the prohibition of them teaching or being in authority is not rooted in the present culture, not something that is based on a temporally passing condition, but something that is rooted in the story of the first man and woman and continued unimpeded up until Timothy’s time.
  1. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Key Greek Words
1. The Greek word translated “shamefacedness” in the KJV is αἰδώς. It is pronounced ahee-doce'. Strong states it’s meaning as: bashfulness, that is, (towards men), modesty or (towards God) awe: - reverence, shamefacedness.
2. The Greek word translated “sobriety” in the KJV is σωφροσύνη pronounced so-fros-oo'-nay. It signifies “soundness of mind” and “self-control”. Strongs gives it’s definition as: soundness of mind, that is, (literally) sanity or (figuratively) self control: - soberness, sobriety.
3. The Greek word translated “silence” in verses 11 and 12 of the KJV is ἡσυχία hēsuchia pronounced hay-soo-khee'-ah. According to Strong’s it’s meaning is; (as noun) stillness, that is, desistance from bustle or language: - quietness, silence.
4. The Greek word translated “subjection” in verse 11 of the KJV is ὑποταγή. Phonetically it is hupotagē. It is pronounced hoop-ot-ag-ay'. According to Strongs it means: subordination: - subjection.
  1. The Greek word for subjection is emphatically strengthened by the Greek word for “all”, πᾶς. Pronounced “pas”. Strongs gives the following definition: Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
5. The Greek word translated “suffer” in the KJV is ἐπιτρέπω (epitrepō). Strongs defines it as : to turn over (transfer), that is, allow: - give leave (liberty, license), let, permit, suffer.
6. The Greek word translated “teach” is διδάσκω. It is pronounced did-as'-ko. Strong gives it’s meaning as to teach or to cause to learn: A prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb δάω daō (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application): - teach.
7. The Greek word translated “for” is γάρ. It is pronounced gar. It indicates a reason. Strongs defines it as: A primary particle; properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): - and, as, because (that), but, even, for indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.
Examination of the appeal to the story of the fall
1. Genesis 3:9-21 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
2. In verse 16 it states that the husband should rule over the wife. This would be impossible if the woman were responsible for instructing her husband. Moreover Paul points out that the women admits she was deceived. Whereas Adam was not deceived but none the less Adam sinned in harkening to the voice of his wife rather than the word of God. (See verse 17).
The following are a few arguments given by those who reject the constraint imposed by the literal meaning:
1. Appeal to an overriding personal experience.
2. Claim that it is outdated and applied only to the culture of their day.
3. Claim that there is no distinction between man and woman in Christ Jesus and therefor this stated restriction on the role of the woman does not restrict them.
4. Claim this is a general rule but they are the exception to the rule. Sometimes they claim they are violating the rule because there are no decent men.
5. They may claim viewing this as a prohibition against women teachers and leaders is not consistent with Deborah being a prophetess and Phillip’s daughters being prophetesses.
It is incumbent upon those who claim this passage does not prohibit women teachers to tell us the following things:
1. What this passage does mean (not merely what they do not believe it means.
2. How they determined their meaning of this passage from the words of the passage
  1. They must also be willing to accept the implications of applying their hermeneutical approach used in these passages to other portions of the Bible.
Examination of commonly stated objections
1. An appeal to an overriding personal experience. Sometimes a woman teacher may claim, “The Holy Spirit told me to teach”
  1. The Bible tells us not to believe every spirit, but to test them
    1. 1 John 4:1-3 Dear friends, stop believing every spirit. Instead, test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has become human—and remains so—is from God. But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.The word of God is the final authority not someone’s personal experience
  2. There are many who speak falsely in the name of the Lord. And the Lord is against them. We ought to be against them as well.
    1. Jeremiah 23:32 Look, I'm against those who prophesy based on false dreams," declares the LORD, "and relate them and lead my people astray with their lies and their recklessness. I didn't send them; I didn't command them, and they provide no benefit at all to these people," declares the LORD.
    2. Ezekiel 13:9 My hand will oppose the prophets who see false visions and speak deceptive divinations. They won't be included with the council of my people, nor will they be entered into the registry of Israel's house or enter Israel's land. Then you'll know that I am the Lord GOD,
    3. Ezekiel 22:28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken.
  3. A scriptural warning against those who wish to have friendship with rebels who toss God’s word behind their backs
    1. 2 Chronicles 19:1-2 After this, King Jehoshaphat of Judah returned safely to his palace in Jerusalem, where Hanani's son Jehu, the seer, went out to meet him. He asked king Jehoshaphat, "Should you be helping those who are wicked, yes or no? Should you love those who hate the LORD? Wrath is headed your way directly from the LORD because of this.
  4. The scriptures tell us that revelations are constrained to be consistent with God’s not in contrast to it.
    1. The word of God tells us how to identify false and lying spirits.
      1. Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
      2. Those who would claim their experience overrides or overrules the teaching of the word of God, have NO LIGHT IN THEM. Such a person, male or female is hardly qualified to teach.
2. The claim this passage was only for the culture at the time of it’s writing and does not apply to the culture today.
  1. Paul did not claim the reason for the commands and prohibitions were because of the ambient culture but appealed to the fall of man.
    1. If the implications of the fall persisted until Paul’s day why would we assume they no longer persist?
  2. By claiming that the change to the current culture allows them to lay aside the commandments given in scripture, they act in the same manner the hypocrites that Jesus rebuked:
    1. Mark 7:6-9 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
3. Examination of the claim that there is no distinction between man and woman in Christ Jesus and therefor this stated restriction on the role of the woman does not restrict them.
  1. Clearly there are biological distinctions between men an women so one can not argue there is not distinction in any sense. So there must be some limits to the idea of no distinction between male and female, bond and free etc…
  2. If one argues against the literal meaning because they believe there ia no distinction in the roles men and women can have then that should be applied consistently in scripture, then whatever men are allowed to do women should be allowed to do as well.
    1. This would imply that it is acceptable for a woman to marry a woman since a man can marry a woman and there is no distinction.
    2. Why then does the scripture repeatedly condemn homosexuality?
  3. Why does the scripture contain passages, like I Timothy 2 that at least on face value seem to differentiate between men and women’s roles?
    1. What then would be the meaning of all the passages where women are spoken of as having a role different from men?
    2. How is that meaning determined from scripture?
4. Examination of the claim this is a general rule, but they are the exception to the rule. Sometimes they claim they are violating the rule because there are no decent men.
  1. Exegetically the words “all subjection” are used. Why would this be used if there were to be allowed exceptions?
  2. Where in the scripture does it explicitly allow for this exception?
  3. Are all the other prohibitions just general rules that can be violated by extraordinary people, or broken because of the lack of good men?
    1. For example, can a woman marry another lady because there are no good men available?
    2. Can a woman professing to believe marry an unbeliever if there are no believing men interested in her?
5. Examination of the claim this passage cannot imply a general prohibition against women teachers and leaders since Deborah and Phillips daughters were prophetesses.
  1. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Deborah or Phillips daughters were teachers. That job was for the Levites. Deborah went with Barak into battle but was not the leader of the army.
  2. Let us consider the example of a woman prophesying in scripture:
    1. Luke 1:41-45 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
    2. It is clear that Elizabeth was not teaching here.
6. Examination of the claim that it is acceptable for women to preach and teach to men if they are submitting to a man who is over those men.
  1. This is borne out of a misreading of verse 12 of the text. The text states
    1. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
  2. Those who wrongly interpret the text think only one thing is prohibited and that is the woman usurping authority. Paul makes clear he does not allow women to teach, nor does he allow the women to usurp authority over the man.
  3. The key word being οὐδέ (oo-deh') which is translated “nor”
    1. Strongs lists it’s meaning as: not however, that is, neither, nor, not even: - neither (indeed), never, no (more, nor, not), nor (yet), (also, even, then) not (even, so much as), + nothing, so much as.
  4. But the passage does not say “I suffer not a woman to teach if she is usurping authority over the man”
The Bible clearly states that women ruling over men is putting men in a state of humiliation, contempt and ruin. Why would we want to empower and support wicked women who are doing that in the name of God
1. Isaiah 3:8-12 For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

The attempts to justify women preachers have involved all kinds of hermeneutical errors.

Some have tried to put modern culture above God’s word.
Some have tried to determine the meaning of a text apart from the words in the text.
Some have cited some scriptures which they believe has wording allows for their belief, without reconciling their belief with other portions of scripture. Sometimes using their interpretation of one passage to ignore other passages.

Does the phrases “all men” and “whole world” always refer to every single person who was alive or would live? {#does-the-phrases-“all-men”-and-“whole-world”-always-refer-to-every-single-person-who-was-alive-or-would-live?}
1. A Key Interpretational Choice {#a-key-interpretational-choice}

Many of the disagreements between Calvinists and non-Calvinists regarding a few texts centers around whether

“All men” or “whole world” has to be taken in the strictest hyper literal sense
It is valid to read the concept of “potential” or “possibility” into texts regarding salvation when there is no Greek or Hebrew word expressing such a concept in the text.

The Calvinist does often does not interpret “all men” or “whole world” in the hyper literal sense. The conservative non-Calvinist often reads the concept of potentiality into texts without a textual warrant for doing so. In this section we demonstrate that the phrases “all men” and “whole world” are often not used in the hyper literal sense in the Bible.

All Men {#all-men}

When interpreting 1 Timothy 2, the Calvinist does not interpret the phrase “παντας ανθρωπους” (translated “all men” in the KJV) in a hyper literal fashion. Does the Calvinist have a warrant for doing this? Can they find support for this interpretation in other passages in the Bible? Let us look at a few passages. 2 Corinthians 3:2 contains the phrase “παντων ανθρωπων” (all men), yet it is clearly not meant to be taken in the hyper literal sense.

2 Corinthians3:2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

In Acts 22:15 we also see a case where a hyper literal interpretation of “παντας ανθρωπους” does not fit the text

Acts 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

Clearly Paul has not been a witness to every single man who had lived, was living at that time or should live, there were then and are now many who have never heard of the Apostle Paul.

William Hendriksen, in his commentary on the book of 1 Timothy 2 addresses this issue

Indeed, such invocations must be made “in behalf of” or “for” (see N.T.C¹. on John 10:11, for the meaning of the preposition) all men. Several expositors feel certain that this means every member of the whole human race; every man, woman, and child, without any exception whatever. And it must be readily admitted that taken by itself the expression all men is capable of this interpretation. Nevertheless, every calm and unbiased interpreter also admits that in certain contexts this simply cannot be the meaning.

Does Titus us 2:11 really teach that the saving grace of God has appeared to every member of the human race without any exception? Of course not! It matters little whether one interprets “the appearance of the saving grace” as referring to the bestowal of salvation itself, or to the fact that the gospel of saving grace has been preached to every person on earth. In either case it is impossible to make “all men” mean “every individual on the globe without exception.”

Again, does Rom. 5:18 really teach that “every member of the human race” is “justified”?

Does I Corinthians 15:22 really intend to tell us that “every member of the human race” is “made alive in Christ”?

But if that be true, then it follows that Christ did not only die for every member of the human race, but that he also actually saved everyone without any exception whatever. Most conservatives would hesitate to go that far.

Moreover, if, wherever it occurs, the expression “all men” or its equivalent has this absolutely universalistic connotation, then would not the following be true:

(a) Every member of the human race regarded John the Baptist as a prophet (Mark 11:32).

(b) Every member of the human race wondered whether John was, perhaps, the Christ (Luke 3:15).

(d) Every member of the human race was searching for Jesus (Mark 1:37).

(e) It was reported to the Baptist that all members of the human race were flocking to Jesus (John 3:26).

And so one could easily continue. Even today, how often do we not use the expression “all men” or “everybody” without referring to every member of the human race? When we say, “If everybody is ready, the meeting can begin,” we do not refer to everybody on earth!

From the passages cited above it should be clear phrases like “παντας ανθρωπους” do not require a hyper literal interpretation.

Whole World {#whole-world}

Calvinists do not take the phrase “ὅλος κόσμος” (holos kosmos) translated “whole world” is 1 John 2:2 to mean everyone who has lived, is living and shall live. Some of their critics claim they have no basis for not interpreting the phrase “whole world” in the most hyper literal sense. The interpretation of this passage is dealt with in the section on specific passages often cited as being against The Doctrines of Grace. Here we will merely address the question “Should the phrase ‘whole world’ always be taken in the most hyper literal sense?”. A good approach is to ask are there places in the Bible where the word holos or the phrase “holos kosmos” was used in a non hyper literal sense? We do have a few clear cases:

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. (holos kosmos)

Most would recognize this as hyperbole, that not every single person living in the entire world was speaking about the faith of the Roman Christians. In 1 John 5:19 the believers are being contrasted to the unbelievers who are referred to as the “ὅλος κόσμος” or “whole world” obviously the “whole world” in this case does not refer to every single man, woman and child or else the believers would not be contrasted with them.

1 John5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

We also have in Revelation 12:9 the word “ὅλος” used in a non hyper literal sense with the Greek word οἰκουμένη which also means earth or world .

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

While Satan may deceive many, or even most, he has not deceived every single person in the entire world. Certainly, he did not deceive Jesus! In John 12:19-21 The Pharisees speak of the “world” (κόσμος) going after Jesus as the result of his miracles. In the same passage it also discusses the Greek believers wanting to see Jesus

John 12:17-21 The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record. For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.

In his commentary on 1 John 2:2, the great Baptist scholar, John Gill, discusses the Jewish use of the term whole world

but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world" (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that אין להן כפרה, "there is no propitiation for them" (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),

"it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" went after him;''

which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere (o) it is said,

"amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''

which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place (p),

"amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''

where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said (q), when

"R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), כולי עלמא, "the whole world" stood up before him;''

that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added (r),

"when a great man makes a mourning, כולי עלמא, "the whole world" come to honour him;''

i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, כולי עלמא לא פליגי, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent (s); כולי עלמא סברי, "the whole world" are of opinion (t), are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" (u), only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luk_2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jo_5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1Jo_2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for Joh_17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation; see Gill on Rom_3:25. The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say (w) repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous (x); sometimes incense (y); sometimes the priests' garments (z); sometimes it is the day of atonement (a); and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers (b), that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them; See Gill on 1Jo_4:10.

(l) Jarchi in Isa. liii. 5. (m) T. Hieros. Nazir, fol. 57. 3. Vid. T. Bab. Succa, fol. 55. 2. (n) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 71. 2. (o) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 33. 2. (p) T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 22. 2. (q) T. Bab. Horayot, fol. 13. 2. (r) Piske Toseph. Megilla, art. 104. (s) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 90. 2. & Kiddushin, fol. 47. 2. & 49. 1. & 65. 2. & Gittin, fol. 8. 1. & 60. 2. (t) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 48. 1. (u) Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 11. sect. 16. (w) Zohar in Lev. fol. 29. 1. (x) Ib. fol. 24. 1. T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 2. (y) T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 88. 2. & Erachin, fol. 16. 1. (z) T. Bab. Zebachim, ib. T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 44. 2. (a) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 87. 1. & T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 45. 2, 3. (b) Seder Tephillot, fol. 41. 1. Ed. Amsterd.

Given all of this, I believe it has been well established that it is not always necessary to interpret the term “ὅλος κόσμος” in a hyper literal sense of being everyone who has lived, is living and shall live. The interpretation of these phrases must be done in a manner that is consistent with the context of the books in which they appear and the other statements in the Bible.

The Responsibility of the Non-Calvinist {#the-responsibility-of-the-non-calvinist}

Having shown that the Calvinist does in fact have a warrant for non hyper literal interpretation of passages often translated “whole world” or “all men”. The non-Calvinist who inserts the concept of potentiality into many texts regarding salvation should also be required to give a basis for this practice. How can one insert the concept of potential into passages regarding salvation when it is not explicitly stated? What if the concept of potentiality were allowed to be inserted into other passages dealing with other aspects of Jesus’ ministry. For example, what if the concept of potential was inserted into the concept not only of Jesus being a savior but also of being a judge. The practice of inserting concepts into phrases where there are no words to warrant them, is a dangerous practice that, if allowed, could result in a passage having the very opposite meaning of what is stated. For example, what if instead of inserting the concept of possible and interpreting the text as if the word “potential” appeared in it when it does not, we inserted the concept of negation and interpret the text as if the word “not” appeared in it when it does not. In both cases one is inserting meanings into texts to get the text to say something that it does not. If we can modify the meaning by inserting the concept of potential, why not go all the way and insert the concept of negation, it is the same method of interpretation.

The Calvinist seems on much better interpretational ground. While it is perfectly reasonable to recognize the use of hyperbolic language and non-literal interpretation of phrases, this is not done in a willy nilly manner. But the adding of concepts to a text without a word to warrant it is dangerous ground and if allowed one can interpret any passage to mean the very opposite of what it states.

A word of caution when tossing about the word “possible” {#a-word-of-caution-when-tossing-about-the-word-“possible”}

On page 24 of Whosoever Will Dr. Jerry Vines states:

“It is the design of the sovereign God to make the salvation of all people possible and to secure the salvation of all people who believe.”

We have addressed the fact that the meaning “possible” or “potential” is often read into Biblical texts dealing with salvation. It is also important to ask: ”What determines the impossible from the possible?” Is it God’s nature and will or is there something else?

If there is something other than God that determines what is possible then that which determines what is possible is a God that regulates God. This is blasphemous and we would hope that Dr. Vines is not advocating such a thing.
Are there multiple things that are possible? Who determines reality in such a case does God determine it or some other thing. If there are multiple “possibilities and God ultimately determines it” you are left with only one possibility and that is what God wants. The Bible says that God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. (Ephesians 1:11) This does not mean that a creature acts in a manner other than it’s nature but it may mean that God changes the nature of a creature in accordance with His will and purpose.
Statements like “possibility” and “sense of freedom” are terms that our friends need to think carefully about if they are going to use them. Define them and it will not only help us understand your world view but you will understand it better as well.

I have found that people often use terms like “possible” and do not really think to define what they mean by possible or to ask the question “who or what do you believe determines what is possible?”

Scripture’s use of Anthropomorphic language {#scripture’s-use-of-anthropomorphic-language}
1. God, The creator of space-time, is non-corporeal, aspatially omnipresent and immutable {#god,-the-creator-of-space-time,-is-non-corporeal,-aspatially-omnipresent-and-immutable}

The Bible describes God as distinct from His creation. The Bible tells us that God spoke all of the space-time creation into existence and that our space-time creation is upheld by the “word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). Since God caused space-time to come into existence, it is not surprising to see the Bible tell us that God is not a spatial or temporal being but is described as Spirit and immutable.

John 4:23-24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

1 Timothy mothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

The Bible describes God as not only creating time-space but working everything within time space according to His will; upholding all things by the word of His power; and by His power making all things exist

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Colossians 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Since by God all things consist, and He is actively upholding all things by the word of His power and working all things after the counsel of His own will, we can see God is not only possessing knowledge of every point in space-time, but is actively causing it to exist and to conform to the counsel of His own will. Although God is separate and distinct from space-time He is a-spatially present controlling all things. The Psalmist spoke of God’s omniscience and omnipresence

Psalms 139:1-12 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Other passages mention it as well

Jeremiah 23:23-24 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

The above passages, clearly indicate that God is not like men. Men are creatures limited in knowledge, and by time and space but God is not. Though God is not temporal or spatial He is actively present at all points upholding them by the word of His power and working all things after the counsel of His own will. Men should not think that God is like them. Because men’s propensity to worship the creature rather than the creator (Romans 1:25), the Bible contains many passages where God reminds men that He is not a man and is not like men.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Isaiah 55:8-11 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

In the above passages where God emphasizes that He is not a man, and not even like men, it should be noted that emphasizes His immutability or temporal invariance with the fact that man lies, learns, changes his mind and in many other ways changes with time. Perhaps He emphasizes this because man in his folly, is more apt to deny the immutability of God than to assert God as being corporeal.

Overview of Anthropomorphic Passages {#overview-of-anthropomorphic-passages}

Although God claims that He is not material, and is immutable, there are Bible passages describing God’s interactions with mankind as if God were spatially and temporally limited. Some of these passages speak as if God was corporeal possessing hands arms and having a face. Some speak of God as coming to some place or returning to another place as if He were a spatial/temporal being. Others speak as if He changed His mind. These passages are often referred to as “anthropomorphic passages”.

Anthropomorphism is a literary device which is analogous to personification. As personification describes impersonal objects as if they had the attributes or actions of persons, anthropomorphism is a describes God’s interactions with man as if He was a man. Anthropomorphic passages are not to be understood in a hyper literal sense any more than the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8.

Proverbs 8:1-5 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

Clearly this passage is not to be understood of a physical entity called wisdom standing in public places and calling out to those walking by. So anthropomorphic passages are also not to be interpreted in a hyper literalistic sense. Anthropomorphic passages appear in historical narratives of God’s interactions with men in time space, they are not theological discourse and are not primary passages on the nature of God.

While most Christians recognize the corporeal/spatial anthropomorphic passages where God speaks of Himself as if He had physical components or even human body parts as being figurative, many fail to recognize the anthropomorphism in the temporally anthropomorphic passages that describe the God as “repenting” or having a change of mood such as becoming grieved. Because of this they struggle to reconcile these passages with the Biblical texts that teach the immutability of God and His counsel. The following scriptures should be very helpful to Christians in recognizing a passage as anthropomorphic

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Changing one’s mind, or repenting are just as much associated with being a man as having corporeal body parts like a hand, an arm, eyes. These attributes are not by any means to be associated with God. This being the case, we ought to recognize that when the Bible speaks of God repenting it is anthropomorphic and no more to be taken as literal than passages that speak of God as having a hand, feet, or eyes. If one recognizes that physical/spatial anthropomorphic passages are not to be taken literally, they ought to recognize the temporal anthropomorphic passages are also not to be taken literally.

Spatial/Corporeal anthropomorphic passages: {#spatial/corporeal-anthropomorphic-passages:}

Exodus 7:5 The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand over Egypt to bring the Israelis out from among them."

Genesis 6:5 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 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Numbers 6:24-26 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Psalms 89:10 Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
1. Temporal anthropomorphic passages {#temporal-anthropomorphic-passages}
Genesis 6:6–7 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Judges 2:18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

1 Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite.

1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Psalm 106:45 And he remembered for them his covenant, And repented according to the multitude of his mercies.

Jeremiah 26:19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls.

Joel 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, And turn unto the LORD your God: For he is gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness, And repenteth him of the evil.

Amos 7:3 3 The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.

Amos 7:6 6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Jonah 3:9–10 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Jonah 4:2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
1. A look at the original language {#a-look-at-the-original-language}

Some apparent contradictions are a product of a bad translations so it is always important to check the words in the original languages. In this case however the Hebrew word Nacham (נחם) is used to say God does not “repent” in the declarative theological statements and is used to describe God as “repenting” in His interaction with men as told in the historical narratives. Strong’s gives the following definition for the word Nacham:

A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

Nacham (נחם) and is found 109 times in the Old Testament. The King James translates it as some form of repent 41 times, and some form of comfort 66 times, ease 1 time, and relieve 1 time. It is an emotional term that does not strictly correspond to the English word repent. Here are a few more passages in which the word “nacham” is used.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Jonah 3:9–10 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Genesis 27:41-42 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob. And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah: and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee.

Genesis 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

The context in which a word is used is important in determining it’s meaning, especially when a word can take on a variety of meanings. Certainly, the latter two verses cited indicate the word does not have a one to one correspondence with the English word “repent”. In those passages would make no sense if one translated the word “repent”. But whether one takes the word to be “repentance”, “comforting”, or one of its other possible meanings, they all have an idea of temporality associated with them. They express the notion of some kind of change in ones state with time, either a change in emotional state or a change in ones thoughts intents and purpose. Either way, if not recognized as an anthropomorphic passage, it is hard to reconcile these passages with the idea of God being explicitly declared immutable in other scriptures, some of which use the same word “Nacham” to say God does not repent!

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

While some apparent contradictions can be resolved by examining the individual words in the original languages, the contradictions resulting from a hyper-literal interpretation of anthropomorphic passages cannot be resolved by looking at the original language since the same word, nacham, is used in passages that say God does “not repent” and in anthropomorphic passages which describe Him as “repenting” and all possible meanings of the word have a connotation of time varying thought, attitude or behavior.

Primary theological discourse and secondary anthropomorphic passages {#primary-theological-discourse-and-secondary-anthropomorphic-passages}

The statements in the Bible indicating that God is immutable and is not corporeal are general theological statements made to help people understand the nature of God. The anthropomorphic passages occur in historical narratives discussing God’s interacting with man in time space. Some of the anthropomorphic descriptions of God interacting in time space speak as if God were a spatial being that decided to come to a certain location, that looked at a certain place, or that stretched out his hand to do something, others do not talk about God as if He were a spatial being but as if He were a temporal being having thoughts and emotions that changed with time, as if he was a being living in time rather than the immutable creator of time.

As far as whether or not God is corporeal, these passages are secondary passages. We are told in primary passages that God is spirit and non-corporeal is immutable and works all things after the counsel of His own will, and that His counsel will stand, that none can thwart it.

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom.

1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King Eternal—the immortal, invisible, and only God—be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.

We are told that God’s thoughts are not like our thoughts in Isaiah 55:8-9. Yet just as there are verses where the incorporeal God is described as if He had hands, feet, a face etc… we see some passages in the Bible where the immutable God’s thoughts are described as if they were similar to ours. The following verses talk of God as sorrowing, being jealous, grieving, being angry and repenting.

Genesis 6:6-7 Then the LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and he was deeply grieved about that. So the LORD said, "I will annihilate these human beings whom I've created from the earth, including people, animals, crawling things, and flying birds, because I'm grieving that I made them."

Deuteronomy 32:21 They provoked me to jealousy over non-gods, and to be angry over their vanity. Now I'll provoke them to jealousy over a non-people; and over a foolish nation I'll provoke them to anger.

Some, not recognizing this as anthropormorphic language might infer that God is limited to space time just like men are. They might think God occupies a certain portion of space (is a spatial corporeal being) and changes with time. Some who don’t understand the use of anthropomorphic language end up believing God, the creator of space-time, is somehow limited by it, and that God is not omniscient or omnipresent since He needed to go somewhere and look at something to know what is going on. They often make little effort to reconcile their beliefs with primary passages discussing God’s immutability, omniscience, and omnipotence.

God chose to use anthropomorphic language in the following passage

Genesis 11:5-7 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

The passage is historical narrative, not a theological discourse and the purpose of the passage is to describe God’s judgment on mankind rather than make a statement about whether or not God is omnipresent. Regarding God’s nature it is a secondary passage. A primary passage dealing with God’s omnipresence would be

The famous Old Testament scholars Keil & Delitzsch, wrote the following concerning Genesis 11:5-7.

“Jehovah's “coming down” is not the same here as in Exo_19:20; Exo_34:5; Num_11:25; Num_12:5, viz., the descent from heaven of some visible symbol of His presence, but is an anthropomorphic description of God's interposition in the actions of men, primarily a “judicial cognizance of the actual fact,” and then, Gen_11:7, a judicial infliction of punishment.”

Recognizing the type of statement, theological discourse or historical narrative, and recognizing anthropomorphic language, allows us a systematic way of interpreting scripture that resolves what would otherwise appear to be contradictions.

Understanding implicitly conditional statements used in anthropomorphic texts. {#understanding-implicitly-conditional-statements-used-in-anthropomorphic-texts.}

In the Bible God makes statements of judgement which are not explicitly stated in the form of a conditional statement but are to be interpreted that way. They do not have the form “If you don’t repent then, I will do such in such”, they often only have the form “I will do such and such”. This is explained in the following passage:

Jeremiah 18:6-10 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

When people don’t recognize that some statements, though not explicitly stated in the form of conditional statements are to be interpreted this way, this it is very hard for them to reconcile various accounts in the Bible. Their problems get compounded when they fail to recognize they are dealing with temporally anthropomorphic passages. Consider the following passages:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Jonah 3:9–10 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

The context of the first passage is Balak hoping that he can change God’s mind and purposes through offering up sacrifices. This idea is soundly refuted in Numbers 23:19. The context of the 2nd is dealing with God not bringing judgement upon Ninevah that he had threatened. When one realizes that a threat is not the same as a promise or a purpose then one can see there is in fact no contradiction. A threat can be a means to change the hearts of men, to accomplish the unchanging purpose of God in the life of a man. A threat does not indicate that there are multiple possible outcomes contingent upon whether or not man repents, independent of God. In fact the scriptures clearly indicate that repentance is not something man can do on his own, but is a gift from God.

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Psalms 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

God can impart understanding, repentance and knowledge apart from any means but He often chooses to use means. For example, God gives us understanding through the means of the preaching of His word. So in some cases God gives repentance to some men through the means of threats and warnings. Threats and warnings do not produce repentance in all men, only those to whom God gives repentance through the threats and warnings. Scripture gives us many clear examples, such as Pharaoh and the unbelieving religious people of Jesus’ day. Like Jeremiah, Jonah knew the declarations of doom, were conditional statements before he went to Nineveh, he also believed that God would use the threats as a means to give them repentance and mercy, that is why he did not want to go.

Jonah 3:10-4:3 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.

Obviously, we do not have the whole text of Jonah’s preaching so we cannot know all that he said. Certainly he did not given the impression that judgement was a certain decree, but was an implied conditional statement or threat. In this case it was a threat which the immutable counsel of God had determined would be the means whereby the people would repent.

Correctly Understanding the Physical Anthropomorphic Passages {#correctly-understanding-the-physical-anthropomorphic-passages}

Understanding that scripture uses a literary device called anthropomorphism to talk of God’s actions in a figurative way as if He were a man acting in time space. This type of literary construct is analogous to the common literary construct of personification which talks about impersonal objects as if they were persons.

If we were to take the physical anthropomorphic passages hyper literally we could not reconcile them with passages that state God is spirit and not corporeal. Consider the following passage:

Exodus 15:6-8 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy. And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble. And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.

We do not interpret this to mean God literally has a right hand and nostrils. We interpret this passage as an account of God’s actions in time space. God works powerfully judging the unrepentant wicked Egyptians. His strength is greater than the strength of the Egyptians and all things He created. God is to be feared not the Egyptians, whom the scripture say that dashed in pieces with His right hand.

Correctly Interpreting the Temporal Anthropomorphic Passages {#correctly-interpreting-the-temporal-anthropomorphic-passages}

Just as God does not have hands and feet, He does not repent or change His mind. Yet when the Bible uses anthropomorism it talks of God as if he were a man. Men make statements and then change their mind. A powerful man may threaten and intend to kill you and then decide not to kill you in response to your repentance. The anthropomorphic passages are saying that God’s pronouncements are analogous to that.

The statements about God repenting are found with threatening statements of doom. The threatening statements of doom are not expressed as conditional statements, but are to be interpreted as if they were conditional. If these statements are wrongly taken as hyper-literally then when God does not bring the threatened doom, it appears that God has repented. But as noted earlier in this section, God wants us to understand these statements are implicitly conditional, though not explicitly stated as such.

The scriptures make clear of three things:

Prounoncements of doom are to be understood as threats and implicitly conditional statements.
God is the one who gives repentance to men (2 Timothy 2:25, Ez. 11:19, Acts 11:18)
Since God gives repentence to men, God’s “repentenace” is not a change in His plan or counsel but a fulfillment of his plan to bless the sinner with both repentance and forgiveness.

We recognize the statement of the threat as a proclamation and the statement of God’s repentance go together. The intent is to encourage the one who has heard the pronouncement of God’s judgement against Him, that God in fact uses this pronouncement of judgement as a means to bring someone to a state of repentance, so they can receive mercy, forgiveness and blessing. Though the Bible has statements indicating what is sin and of the judgement condemning those who sin, we recognize that God uses these statements to convict us and bring us to repentance.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Implications of Misunderstanding Anthropomorphic Passages {#implications-of-misunderstanding-anthropomorphic-passages}

Most Bible readers recognize spatial/corporeal anthropomorphic passages should not be interpreted hyper-literally, but fail to recognize that temporal anthropomorphic passages should not be interpreted in a hyper-literal manner. When people fail to recognize a passage as anthropomorphic and attempt to interpret it literally, it causes many problems. It leaves them unable to reconcile a hyper-literal interpretation of an anthropomorphic passage with statements on the natures of God expressed in primary passages dealing with the nature of God. Typically, they will respond in one of three ways:

They will say the Bible has contradictions and cease to believe in it.
They will believe it is their duty as Christians to accept two contradictory ideas and believe them both. Rather than resolving an apparent contradiction through recognizing the uses of a literary mechanism, they will speak of “balancing” conflicting teachings. When you point out to them they are attempting to embrace two contradictory ideas, some end up claiming they believe in the Bible but they don’t believe in logic; yet it is impossible to interpret any sentence of the Bible or any other book without logic. Without logic it is impossible to communicate an idea or thought. The idea of a believing and non-believing dichotomy requires logic.
Some will choose to believe in the hyper-literal interpretation of the secondary anthropomorphic passage, and disregard the primary passage dealing with the nature of God. This leads people to question standard beliefs about the nature of God, such as God’s omniscience, immutability, omnipresence, etc...
1. The denial of God’s immutability – clearly if God changes His mind then God is not immutable.
2. The denial of God’s omniscience - If God literally repents then He changes his mind in response to something, then obviously He must not have known about it beforehand otherwise he would not have had to change His mind.
3. The denial of the reliability of God’s word – If God changed His mind and at first believed He was going to destroy Ninevah then later decided not to, then this would call into question God’s word as a whole. If one does not recognize the implicit conditional statements and the anthropomorphic language used in historical narrative then there is no reason we should trust God’s word. This is made clear in the following scripture
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
1. The denial of the immutability of God’s counsel - if He changes His mind then his original plans were thwarted. How can we be certain of any of His good plans and promises for His children?
2. God now takes counsel from his creatures – whereas the Bible speaks of God working all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11) according to purposes which he purposed in Himself (Eph. 1:9) and not taking counsel of anyone (Is. 40:13-14, Romans 11:34).

In the next few chapters we will look at these things in a little more detail.

God the creator of men and things {#god-the-creator-of-men-and-things}
1. Chapter motivation {#chapter-motivation}

In the previous chapter we saw how apparent contradictions in scripture are resolvable when one recognizes the use of a literary device known as anthropomorphism. We recognized that anthropomorphic passages, when interpreted in a hyper literal sense, conflicted with passages from theological discourse where God explicitly is defined as being non-corporeal, aspatially omnipresent, and immutable. Likewise, a proper understanding of other facts about God, derived from primary passages, will help us in understanding other secondary passages. For this reason we spend some time emphasizing some important facts about God, and discussing how some common beliefs about God should be rejected because they have logical implications which conflict teachings found in primary passages about God.

There are no other Gods {#there-are-no-other-gods}
1. Relevant scriptures {#relevant-scriptures}

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, And my servant whom I have chosen: That ye may know and believe me, And understand that I am he: Before me there was no God formed, Neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

What about scriptures that talk about other gods? {#what-about-scriptures-that-talk-about-other-gods?}

There are several passages in the Bible that talk of other beings called “god” or “Elohim”, or “the sons of God”. How are we to reconcile this with the above passages? Let’s look at some of these scriptures:

Psalm 82:1-8 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

There are also non-human beings called the sons of God

Genesis 6:1-6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 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. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

After the tower of Babel the nations were said to be divided according to the number of the sons of God

Deuteronomy 32:8-12 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, the LORD alone guided him, no foreign god was with him.

Both Jew and Gentile human beings are also called the offspring of God

Acts 17:28-31 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Although there are a group spiritual beings are called “elohim”, they do not share the attributes of YHVH, and they are not like YHVH.

Psalms 86:6-10 Give ear, O LORD, unto my prayer; and attend to the voice of my supplications. In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee: for thou wilt answer me. Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

YHVH rules over the “elohim”, and the unjust among the “elohim” will be judged by YHVH and will die like men. Clearly the “elohim” do not have the attributes of YHVH, and the “sons of elohim” human or angelic, do not have the attributes of the only begotten son of YHVH. YHVH alone is the creator, others are created, they are subject to YHVH. Though the Bible calls angelic beings “elohim” or “the sons of elohim” they are subject to YHVH. For this reason we call YHVH the only true God, and Jesus the one of a kind Son of God.

Examples of views that have implications that conflict with these scriptures {#examples-of-views-that-have-implications-that-conflict-with-these-scriptures}

Many who profess to believe in YHVH, end up adopting other beliefs that have consequences which imply the denial of the attributes of YHVH. Consider the following examples:

if someone believes their god changes with time, they have effectively created a belief that time regulates their god or changes their god. They have effectively adopted a belief in two gods, their professed god and a “time god” that regulates their professed god.
Another idea that has polytheistic consequences is that what is possible is determined by something other than god, if this is the case then there is a regulating principle or a being that determines possible from the impossible. If this is supposed to be external to their god and their god is a demi god underneath that being or principle.
If one assumes there exists a standard of right and wrong that exists independently apart from their god. Often these people will attempt to justify or condemn their gods behavior on the grounds of these alleged external principles. Some have decided that because certain things happened that they thought should not have happened they choose either not to believe in a god, or believe their god is less than all powerful. If a principle exists that constrains what their god should do then this principle is in effect a god above their god.
1. YHVH is the creator of all {#yhvh-is-the-creator-of-all}
  1. Scriptures {#scriptures}

Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

1 Chronicles 16:26 For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

Popular beliefs on human autonomy conflict with the idea that YHVH is the creator of all {#popular-beliefs-on-human-autonomy-conflict-with-the-idea-that-yhvh-is-the-creator-of-all}

Autonomous comes from two words: auto, which means self; and nomos which means law. Autonomous means self-law or self-governing. If something derives it’s law or nature from something outside of itself then it is not autonomous. Created beings could not choose their nature, since making a choice requires have a nature, and for this reason cannot be viewed as autonomous. For something to be autonomous they would have to have an uncreated nature that owed its character to no one.

While some in the church believe in human autonomy, they have a very hard time reconciling that with the idea that men were created by God. Many believe the idea of human autonomy came into the church through popular pagan philosophies that existed in the early church. The Stoics believed in human autonomy. They recognized autonomy would be inconsistent with man being a created being, they solved this problem by assuming men have an uncreated “divine spark” in them. The Epicureans believed man’s autonomy could be explained by assuming that men were composed of uncreated atoms which were eternal and “free”. In both cases these philosophies recognized the difficulties with something being created yet “autonomous”, they both believed that man had an eternal uncreated aspect to his existence, in one case it was a “divine spark” in another it was eternal atoms.

A belief that something is autonomous from God, would raise the question where did this autonomous entity come from?. If it was created by God, didn’t God know what it would do before he made it? If it functions according to it’s nature, then didn’t God create it’s initial nature along with all the things that might be able to mutate that nature, and didn’t God create the laws of interaction that would exist regarding how one thing is or is not able to mutate the nature of another? God is immutable

Important facts about man {#important-facts-about-man}
1. Man has a nature according to the Bible {#man-has-a-nature-according-to-the-bible}

The Bible says that out of the abundance of the heart man speaks, and from the heart comes murder, adultery, etc… Jesus states that a good tree brings forth good fruit it is not possible for it to be otherwise. The fact though that man acts according to his nature does not mean his nature is immutable. God exercises sovereignty over the nature of men as seen in scriptures that talk of God giving men repentance, hardening men’s hearts, and opening hearts as well. The following scriptures show that man acts according to his nature.

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Matthew 15:19-20 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Matthew 12:34-37 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Ephesians 2:3 states that before regeneration man is “by nature, the children of wrath” and Matthew 12 indicates that man acts (in particular, speaks) according to his nature. It then goes on to say that man will be judged based on “every idle word” which man speaks. Man makes choices according to his nature and that explains why man can be said to be judged both according to his works as well as his nature. Some have claimed that man’s choices were independent of his nature, that view would make it hard to reconcile with the above passages.

Man’s nature and his relationship with God, his creator {#man’s-nature-and-his-relationship-with-god,-his-creator}

There are a few interesting points to make concerning the nature of man

If man makes choices according to his nature then man needs a nature to make a choice. For this reason, man is incapable of choosing his nature. Since that would require him already having a nature.
Man is born with a sinful nature. – We already mentioned Ephesians 2 which tells us that before regeneration we were children of wrath “by nature”, and that the natural man does not receive the things of God.
God changes the nature of men. For example, God opens our hearts and grants repentance so that we can acknowledge the truth.

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Since it is God who grants repentance, Paul says

Romans 9:16 “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” Likewise, John states

Likewise John writes

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God)

In addition, God exercises control over people apart from salvation. Whether or not God is pleased to save the king, the Bible still tells us the kings heart is in the hand of the Lord.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

We saw this in the life of Pharaoh, inspite of seeing all the wonders performed through Moses, he would not repent because God had hardened his heart.

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

It is not that Pharaoh wanted to be good but was forced to act against his nature. His very nature was hardened from birth and continued to be hardened. And he was rightly judged for what he was. Some will ask why does God create wicked people and then not give them repentance? The following scriptures answer this question.

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Even wicked Pharaoh, who refused to repent and acknowledge God, was used by God for God’s purpose to make God’s wrath and power known to God’s elect.

Just as God demonstrates his sovereignty over the nature of things He created by performing miracles, He demonstrates his sovereignty over the hearts of men. Bringing some to repentance and hardening others. Thank God that He chose to sanctify His elect and change our wicked hearts! It is the mercy of God that He saves some of those whose were by nature children of wrath by His grace through faith in Christ. The salvation of God is so wonderful that He changes our nature making us “new creations”. It should be noted, it is stated, if any man be in Christ he is a new creature, the present tense having a notion of continual or repeated action one could argue that the believer is continually being remade by God! Sanctification is a continual remolding of our nature, conforming it to obedience to Christ!

Does choice imply autonomy? {#does-choice-imply-autonomy?}

Some claim that human autonomy is necessary to make a choice, and claim that a choice is by definition outside of the control of others. This is not a Biblical definition of the word choice. Nowhere in the Bible is human choice described as something outside of God’s control. In fact, many places in the Bible, such as the scriptures stated in this chapter, indicate that a man chooses according to his nature, but that his nature is mutable, and that God can and does change the nature of men. God turns men’s hearts, gives men repentance, hardens hearts and blinds people. “Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.” (Psalms 65:4)

The idea of a “free creature” that nobody can make do anything is inconsistent with the idea of creation. All created creatures exist not as a result of their own will but as a result of the will of the creator. Some may object to this point by saying that before creation there is no will of the created to be violated. While this is true, it should be recognized that existence continues after the creating. Thus all created beings do something every day that was determined completely apart from their own will. They exist. Even if a person commits suicide they still have a soul that exists. The choices that one can make are also limited by ones nature, a person without legs cannot choose to grow legs and grow them. We are all limited in our choices according to how we were created and the gifts given to us or not given to us. The only real way someone could claim to be free is if they did not believe they were truly constrained by physical reality and the laws that are over them. The alert reader recognizes this sort of “free will” thinking ends in something similar to Gnosticism.

God is omniscient {#god-is-omniscient}
1. Positive Proof from the Scripture {#positive-proof-from-the-scripture}
  1. The largest discussion of the topic (Psalms 139) {#the-largest-discussion-of-the-topic-(psalms-139)}

Psalm 139 — To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. 1 O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. 2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, Thou understandest my thought afar off. 3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, And art acquainted with all my ways. 4 For there is not a word in my tongue, But, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. 5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, And laid thine hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain unto it. 7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. 9 If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, And thy right hand shall hold me. 11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; Even the night shall be light about me. 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; But the night shineth as the day: The darkness and the light are both alike to thee. 13 For thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. 17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them! 18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: When I awake, I am still with thee. 19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: Depart from me therefore, ye bloody men. 20 For they speak against thee wickedly, And thine enemies take thy name in vain. 21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. 23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: Try me, and know my thoughts: 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting.

Verses that speak of God knowing man and his heart. {#verses-that-speak-of-god-knowing-man-and-his-heart.}

Job 11:11 11 For he knoweth vain men: He seeth wickedness also; will he not then consider it?

Genesis 22:12 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

1 Kings 8:39 39 Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)

Samuel 16:7 7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

God’s knowledge is incomprehensible to men {#god’s-knowledge-is-incomprehensible-to-men}

The Bible warns us to beware of philosophy and vain deceit, it tells us that we should not lean on our own understanding but encourages us to trust in God’s word. None the less there have been countless people who think they can look within themselves and determine truth. These people are called “rationalists”. Some of the rationalist like to buttress their opinions by claiming they came from “Human Reason” or by claiming that their opinions were “Self evident” thus did not need a defense. Those who proposed contrary ideas were criticized and their ideas were called “unthinkable”, “absurd”, or not measuring up to the bar of reason. We should not be surprised if rationalists consider the ideas of scripture “unthinkable” since the natural man cannot receive the things of God! When they say this they are actually proving the Bible! The fact that the Bible describes God’s knowledge as beyond men’s natural capability, should discourage any Christian from becoming a philosophical rationalist.

Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, That the everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

The Bible calls those who deny God’s omniscience wicked {#the-bible-calls-those-who-deny-god’s-omniscience-wicked}

Some deny God’s omniscience by claiming He does not know the future. Others deny it by saying He changes his mind. (Changing one’s mind implies, learning new facts, learning new facts means that you were at one time ignorant of something.)

Psalm 73:11–12 And they say, How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the ungodly, Who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.

Job 22:12–13 Is not God in the height of heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are! And thou sayest, How doth God know? Can he judge through the dark cloud?

The wicked ask the question “How doth God know?”, as if the one who ordains all things and works all things after the counsel of His own will needed some means to check on reality to see if it is as he ordained it.

Psalm 94:6–8 They slay the widow and the stranger, And murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, Neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. Understand, ye brutish among the people: And ye fools, when will ye be wise?

Here is the hope of fools, that God does not see, and if he does see He will not regard it. But it is God’s encouragement to the godly that God does know, that God does understand.

Isaiah 40:27–28 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, And my judgment is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, That the everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding.

God clearly knows all things because He is working all things for the good of those that love Him. The righteous hope in God’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and the immutability of God and his loving counsel for us. The wicked are in bondage to the fear of death and the best they can do is hope that God does not know, God does not see, or maybe God will change.

Professing Christians should consider where their theology places them, are they siding with the wicked or the righteous? Would God call them righteous or wicked for having their views about God’s knowledge, power, and immutability?

Texts used by some to claim God is not omniscient. {#texts-used-by-some-to-claim-god-is-not-omniscient.}

These texts are called secondary texts because the subject in view is not God’s knowledge. These texts are typically passages where God is speaking anthropomorphically. Below are some examples:

God asks Adam where he is, and if Adam has eaten from the tree

Genesis 3:9–11 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

God did not ask because He was seeking knowledge, but to encourage man to confess his sin. By assuming God asks out of ignorance, they assume their god does not have knowledge of the past and of the present.

Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Some wrongly take this to mean God is not omnipresent and has to move spatially to see what men had done in the past.

Genesis 18:20–21 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Some, on the basis of a willful misinterpretation of this text, deny God’s omniscience and omnipresence.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: For they shall all know me, From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: For I will forgive their iniquity, And I will remember their sin no more.

Here they like to claim God literally forgets things, instead of believing He acts as if He forgets them, in fact God does not forget His wrath against His elect, He propitiates it which has an analogous result to forgetting. There are many scriptures that indicate God knows all things. Because of this, Bible believing people have no problem recognizing these anthropomorphic passages for what they are.

The wicked claim the following text indicates that God didn’t know what the wicked people would do and was surprised by their actions

Jeremiah 32:34–35 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Some say, that God never even thought the people would do what they ended up doing, but that is not what the text says. It says that God had never any thought to command them to do such a wicked practice. “which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind that they should do this abomination” They should at least read the text more carefully.

Some do not believe God knows and controls men’s hearts despite the fact that scriptures like Proverbs 21:1 explicitly state that God controls men’s hearts. In addition, they assume God did not even know Abraham’s heart until He tested it they cite the following scripture

Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Notice the scripture does not say that only because of this God knew Abraham feared him, but is rather citing an example for Abraham’s benefit of an example from his life. But even in the fact that Abraham’s action is interpreted as being an outgrowth of a fear of God indicates God knows the hidden matters of the heart. One could have contributed Abraham’s willingness to a lack of love for Isaac or any number of things.

The wicked’s pipe dream is that God’s plan can be thwarted and God’s hand can be stayed. In spite of clear scriptures that indicate the counsel of the Lord shall stand and that none can stay His hand. The wicked dreams that they will be able to stay God’s hand. Instead of believing that God “frustrates the plans of the wicked” they like to believe men can frustrate God’s plan. The wicked always gets it wrong by choosing to have a higher view of man than he should and a lower view of God. They will say they don’t want to accept the Bibles teaching of God’s omnipotence or omnipresence because that would require them to lower their view of man. The Bible warns us not to think more highly of ourselves than we ought!

Some use the following verses as justification to say God is unable to impact people to the extent He wishes and suffers from failed expectations because of it.

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, That I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, Brought it forth wild grapes?

The primary idea of the passage is not God having failed expectations but, the wicked’s need to understand his own wretchedness. This passage deals with wickedness of men who were placed in a good environment and could not blame the environment for their wickedness, but they were drawn away by their own lusts and enticed. Like Adam in the garden we wicked sinners tend to want to blame our environment, our parents, our circumstances or other things rather than face the fact we were drawn away by our own lusts and enticed.

Some claim the following passages teach God only had knowledge of some people, not all.

Amos 3:1–2 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, Against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

The word translated “know” here is used of a romantic relationship between a man and his wife (Gen. 4:1). Israel is referred to as the wife of God in various passages. This indicates a special relationship not mere intellectual knowledge. God certainly knew the other nations in an intellectual sense. He fortold many things about many nations; He knew Pharaoh would not repent; He knew Babylon would carry Judah into captivity; and He called out Cyrus by name before he was born.

Matthew 7:22–23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

When Jesus says he never knew these people, He did not mean he had no knowledge of them. The text clearly indicates that Jesus knew they were workers of iniquity. He even casts them into the fires of Hell for their wickedness. These people were not the Bride of Christ, they were not part of the church, Christ did not know them in that sense.

The Immutability of God and the Prayers of Men {#the-immutability-of-god-and-the-prayers-of-men}
1. Scriptures that speak of the immutability of God {#scriptures-that-speak-of-the-immutability-of-god}

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 1:10-12 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Psalm 102:25–27 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: And the heavens are the work of thy hands. 26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 27 But thou art the same, And thy years shall have no end.

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, The thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times the things that are not yet done, Saying, My counsel shall stand, And I will do all my pleasure:

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Reconciling the Immutability of God’s counsel and the fact He answers some of the prayers of men {#reconciling-the-immutability-of-god’s-counsel-and-the-fact-he-answers-some-of-the-prayers-of-men}

Some have suggested the fact that God answers prayers means that He is mutable and changes with time. They often point to the temporal anthropomorphic passages that speak of God repenting. Though we know that repentance is an attribute of men and not an attribute of God, and this passage is thus not to be taken literally we still must answer the question what about prayer. How does it work? Many have asked the question “If God is immutable how can the scriptures say “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much?”

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

People who ask this question often assume at least one of the following things:

In order for their prayers to avail much they would have to change God’s mind and God’s plans.
In order for the prayers to be their prayers, they must be completely independent and autonomous from God and not have their origin in God.

Notice that these ideas are not part of the text but are read into the text by those who have these views. The text does not say that the righteous man is accomplishing anything autonomously apart from God, it does not say that the righteous man avails much through his prayers. The righteous man is not spoken of as availing anything but the prayers of the righteous man are spoken of as availing much.

These ideas are not read into the text out of a blatent disrespect for God’s word, or a desire to add to His word and be found a liar, but typically because the reader of this text has not properly recognized the literary construct of anthropomorphism in the temporal anthropomorphic passages that talk of God repenting. And is taking his hyper-literal interpretation of those texts and using super imposing them onto this text.

God’s word, does not change God’s mind but it avails much {#god’s-word,-does-not-change-god’s-mind-but-it-avails-much}

In fact there are many things that have meaning and avail much that do not change God’s mind. One example is God’s word.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God’s word did not change God’s mind but it reflected God’s mind and for that reason is powerful, it accomplishes that which God pleases, and it prospers in the thing that God sent it to do. So here we see the word of God being spoken of as “accomplishing” and “prospering”. It was not necessary for the word of God to change God’s mind or plan in order for it to accomplish something. In fact it can really only accomplish something that is according to God’s purpose for it.

The word of God accomplishes the will of God in creation {#the-word-of-god-accomplishes-the-will-of-god-in-creation}

God, by His word, spoke into existence the light, the earth, the seas, the vegetation, the sun, the stars, all the animals and man called all of His creation “good”.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

See also Acts 4:27-28.

God, the Judge of All Creation {#god,-the-judge-of-all-creation}
1. Overview {#overview}

There are three issues covered in this chapter. First, we see that nobody has the right to judge God, it is God that is the judge of all creation. Second, it is important that man understand the scriptures understanding of the basis for God’s right to judge. Finally, we will look at the so-called “problem of evil”.

Nobody has the right to judge God {#nobody-has-the-right-to-judge-god}

Man’s interaction with other men may be governed by an impersonal set of laws in the form of a constitution or even moral laws given by God, but this in no way implies a moral law governs God. God is the ultimate lawgiver (James 4:12, Isaiah 33:22) there can be no law above Him. He is the creator who the scripture says works all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph. 1:11), sits in heaven and does as He pleases (Ps. 115:3), and whose purposes are not to satisfy an external standard but are purposes which have their root in his own being (Eph. 1:9).

If one believed there was a standard by which God could be judged, then they would in believe in something higher than God which judged God. If they believe that God is constrained to be “good” by this standard then this standard exercises control over God, thus reducing God to a demigod under an impersonal standard. Indeed, it is blasphemous to think of God as subject to external rules.

God is not constrained by external laws or rules the only thing that constrains God is His own desires, He wants and does as He pleases, since He is the creator, He has absolute right over creation to do with it as He pleases. Having said that, God does not lie (Titus us 1:2, Numbers 23:19, etc…) and God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) so if God says something regarding His character it is true that God is constrained to be consistent with that statement but this is not an external constraint but the internal consistency of God with His own nature, and the way that we know of His nature is only by means of Divine revelation. For no man knows the things of God except the Spirit of God reveal it to him. (1 Corinthians 2:11-14)

While God has an immutable nature and is a law unto Himself and cannot deny Himself. We have to be extremely careful not to make assumptions regarding God’s nature and character. The Bible warns us not to lean on our own understanding. We must have a scriptural warrant for making assumptions about the character of God, otherwise we may end up creating a God in the image of our own flawed understand, we were warned not to lean on.

Sometimes people attempt to place moral apriori constraints on God, similar to those which God has placed upon man, but there is no Bible verse saying that God is bound by any law that He has given to men. To presume that God is bound by the laws He gave men ignores the creature creator distinction and assumes that the creature has the same rights as the creator. In fact, we can think of many examples where God is not bound by laws He has given to men.

The Basis for God’s right to judge mankind {#the-basis-for-god’s-right-to-judge-mankind}

This section will look at two different views that professing Christians have put forth as the basis for God having the right to judge mankind in general and any particular man in specific. The two different views for the basis of man’s accountability to God: the “Response able” view and the “Creator creature” view.

The “Response able” view: This view is that man is only accountable to God to the extent he is able to do what God asks, and if God is not the ultimate cause of his actions.
The “Creator creature” view: This view has the basis of God’s right to judge man being the fact that God made man and God has the right to do whatsoever He wishes with His creation.

The “Response able” view has the following problems

This is the view of the unbeliever who Paul refutes in Romans 9.
1. Romans 9:19-20 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”
2. Notice the unbeliever claims he is not accountable to God if God is the ultimate cause for his being displeasing in the sight of God.
3. Notice that Paul counters with a different basis for man’s accountability to God. The Creator creature relationship.
The 2nd problem with the “response-able” view is that it is a subtle attack on the authority of God. It would claim that there is an idea of right and wrong that is external to God that God must adhere to. Such an idea is blasphemous since it makes God a demigod under the higher impersonal moral law. This is simply not the case.

The Creator creature relationship is the basis for God’s judgment in Romans 9, and in the book of Job.

Job 38:1-4 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Notice here God objects to Job’s questioning on the grounds that God is the creator, and Job was not an autonomous being who existed apart from God’s creation. When people want to assert any other basis for God having the right to judge man other than God being the sovereign all powerful creator they run into horrible theological problems.

The So-Called Problem of Evil {#the-so-called-problem-of-evil}

With the “response able” view being clearly rejected by Romans 9 and also having some blasphemous implications which attack the authority of God, why would any Christian ever propose it? The answer for some is they think it helps them solve the so-called “problem of evil.” The so-called “problem of evil” can be stated as follows: “if God is all powerful, all knowing and the creator, and if God is good why is there evil in the universe?”

The “Response able “ view and the problem of evil – the “Response able” view tries to solve the so-called “problem of evil” by saying that there are many things in the universe that God is not the ultimate cause of and they would claim that evil is one of those things. This does not really solve the problem, it denies the omni attributes of God. Some who started out on this line of reasoning carried it to it’s logical conclusion and ended up in open theism. Others realized it would take them in that direction and refused to carry the idea out to its logical conclusion realizing that it would lead them into heresy.

Ron Rhodes in his book “Reasoning from the scriptures with Muslims” recommending asking Muslims the question: “If God produces evil, how can we escape the conclusion that he has evil in his nature, since one cannot produce what one does not possess?” (p.124). On the same page, Rhodes goes on to say “Saying that good and evil stem from the same essence of God is the same as calling evil “good” and good “evil”. Note that Rhodes adopted the axiom “one cannot produce what one does not possess” he got this axiom from the Catholic philosopher Aquinas. However the following scriptures make very clear that this is an unbiblical presupposition.

Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
1 John 1:5 “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

The Bible teaches that God is ultimately the cause of all things, and says that “God worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11) and Isaiah 45:7 says God created evil. I take exception to the idea that God creates out of Himself. The created order does not share the attributes of God, God created out of nothing. It is not the Bible that teaches that God forms creation out of His own essence but pantheism. This is why one must be very careful in adopting ideas from philosophers. Clearly God is able to create darkness without being darkness and create evil without being evil. I do not believe Mr. Rhodes is a pantheist but the assumption he borrowed has pantheistic implications. There are many good things in Mr. Rhodes books that you can benefit from, this goes to show that how easy it is for people to make unsound assumptions, even teachers like Mr. Rhodes.

The “Creator creature” view of accountability answers the so-called problem of evil by recognizing the following things:

God is the creator, and the creator created out of nothing.
That which is created does not possess all the attributes of the creator.
We cannot infer the creator’s attributes by looking at creation. (We are not pantheists) For example the Bible says that God created darkness and evil. We cannot infer that He is darkness and evil.
1. Since we are not pantheists, we do not seek to know God by looking at rocks, trees or the motion of the planets.
2. The Bible says that no man knows the things of God except the Spirit of God reveal it to them. (I Cor 2:9-14)
3. We know of the creator because He has given us a general revelation, which we suppress, (Romans 1) and He has also given us the special written revelation of His word.
Evil is not an unplanned accident but was ordained for a purpose. The most evil act in history was the crucifixion of Jesus and the Bible tells us this was according to God’s preordained plan.

Acts 4:26-28 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

The Bible believer takes great comfort in the fact that all things will work together for the glory of God and for the benefit of those that love God. (Romans 8:28) There is no senseless evil in the universe God does not waste any pain.

The “problem of evil” in itself is a wicked unbiblical endeavor that seeks to put God on trial and say how can God be good if there is evil in the universe He created. The whole question is invalid since it implicitly assumes a standard separate from God which would judge the morality of God, by assuming such a thing, one is assuming that God is a demigod constrained by an external impersonal moral law. This is of course blasphemous and contrary to the Scripture which tells us that “God worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Ephesians 1:11) “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” (Psalm 115:3), and “Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.” (135:6).

All who love wisdom should notice that when Nebuchadnezzar was given back a sound mind he made the following professions

Daniel 4:34-37 34And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35And 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? 36At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. 37Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

Let us be of a sound mind and understand there is no external standard regulating God. He does as He pleases, let us also understand that the creator has rights the creature does not have. Let us not be among the blaspheming crowd that falsely assumes God to be a demigod under an impersonal moral standard of goodness, which they conceive in their own heads, they falsely assume would bind the Almighty.

What is Free Will? {#what-is-free-will?}
1. Free will often undefined {#free-will-often-undefined}

When discussing any subject it is important that people carefully define their terms. If people cannot or will not define their terms we are left to wonder if they really know what they are talking about. We must ask those who advocate “free will” to give us a clear definition, free from what? Free to do what? What is meant by free will?

Free from God’s control? {#free-from-god’s-control?}

Some have said that free will means free from God’s control. But the following scriptures should be sufficient to dispel that notion.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Proverbs 20:24 Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?

Psalms 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.

Exodus 9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Romans 11:7-8 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Romans 9:15-18 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

A blank slate? {#a-blank-slate?}

Some use the term “free will” to mean that man does not have a sin nature, or is at least not born with one, that is the so called “tabula rasa” or “blank slate” idea that various people have advocated, but the Bible refutes. (Since this is not typically an issue among professing Bible believers, the following list should suffice.)

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Romans 5:12-14 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Free from having a nature? {#free-from-having-a-nature?}

Perhaps some people suppose there is a random aspect to their choices because they are surprised by them, and they see what appears to be inconsistency in them. They will often say that proof of them not having a nature is the fact that they make different responses when presented with the same external stimulus. This does not recognize a few facts, first it is not assumed that man’s nature is immutable, therefore the nature itself changes with time. If you are hungry and faced with the external stimulus of a plate full of tasty food, you may eat it, but at some point, you will stop when you are full. So there is a more general complex rule that you generally wish to eat when you are hungry, than when you are full.

Some have postulated that free will means the will does not function according to a nature, they would say that free will is the power of contrary choice meaning that in any given circumstance one with free will can choose one thing or another. This is in contradiction with the scriptures which teach that man has a nature and that he makes choices according to his nature.

Ideas in Tension – “Balancing contradictory ideas” {#ideas-in-tension-–-“balancing-contradictory-ideas”}
1. The tension in the non-Calvinists views {#the-tension-in-the-non-calvinists-views}

Those who believe that man is autonomous from God, or claim that human accountability must be rooted in some autonomy from God and yet claim that God has omni-attributes have a great deal of tension caused by holding onto two ideas that even those who would hold them both confess that these ideas certainly seem contradictory. The Calvinist does not have this tension because he has rejected the idea that man can act autonomous from God, and rejected the idea that autonomy is a necessary condition for man’s accountability to God. The non-Calvinist claims the Calvinist’s logical consistency and lack of tension comes at the expense of the rejection of the ideas they should cling to. It is interesting to read non-Calvinist authors discuss

The tension
2) The unfruitfulness of attempting to resolve it
3) The appeal of Calvinism in relation to this tension
4) The claim that Calvinism is an overreaction or over stressing of one of the two ideas that are in tension.
1. Examples of non-Calvinists discussing the “tension” {#examples-of-non-calvinists-discussing-the-“tension”}
  1. Example 1 {#example-1}

In the Preface of Whosoever Will James Leo Garrett Jr. writes:

“The present author has suggested that it (the growing # of 5 point Calvinists in the SBC seminary grads) is a basic swing of the pendulum away from movement toward human accountability and activity and back toward divine sovereignty and activity”

Notice He describes man’s thoughts on this issue as being analogous to a pendulum swinging between two distinct end points. On one end is the idea of human activity and accountability and the other God’s activity and sovereignty. In such an analogy moving toward one belief can only be done at the expense of moving away from the other. In describing things in this term the author suggest that these ideas are incompatible with each other if God is Sovereign and man is accountable for his deeds, thoughts and nature, then these ideas are not incompatible and there must exist a logically consistent explanation for their coexistence.

This problem is solved by the text of the scripture which tells us that the basis of man’s accountability to God is based on the fact that God is God, He made man and has as the creator has the right to do with man whatsoever He wishes.

Romans 9:18-24 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Notice the basis for man’s accountability to God does not rest in any notion of autonomy from God, quite to the contrary it is assumed in verse 19 that men are not autonomous from God, and in the response to the argument the inspired apostle does not claim autonomy as the basis for accountability but instead affirms the assumption made in verse 19 and points out that it is God’s right as creator to do what so ever he wants to with His creation. This is the basis for accountability to God. He is our creator.

Job 38:1-4 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Notice here God objects to Job’s questioning on the grounds that God is the creator, and Job was not an autonomous being who existed apart from God’s creation. When people want to assert any other basis for God having the right to judge man other than God being the sovereign all powerful creator they run into horrible theological problems. If one asserts that there is a moral law above God which governs and constrains what God is allowed to do or not do then by postulating an external law above God they are effectively creating a God over God and becoming polytheists.

Example 2 {#example-2}

Jerry Vines, in same book (Whosoever will), in reference to the words “whosoever believeth in Him” makes the following statement which gives us a better understanding of the “pendulum” statement made earlier in the book. On page 23 Jerry Vines writes

“We see a beautiful balance in this one verse that we find all over the Bible. Scripture gives the divine side and the human side of salvation. To overemphasize either to the exclusion of the other is to miss the complete message of the Bible. Gerald Borchert says: ‘God is the initiator and principle actor in salvation, and we should never think salvation originated with us. God, however, has given humanity a sense of freedom and requires us to make a choice. Accordingly, people are responsible for their believing. It is unproductive theological speculation, therefore, to minimize either the role of God or humanity in the salvation process. The Bible and John 3:16 recognize the roles of both’”

I will dwell here for awhile because I believe this gives us insight into the position of Jerry Vines and his friends. Let’s begin by noting some of the statements Dr. Vines makes and quotes:

“God, however, has given man a sense of freedom” - This is a presupposition that the next statement references, yet
1. “sense of freedom” is not defined by Dr. Vines he must assume that we assume it also. If this is a dialogue with Bible believing 5 point Calvinist Baptists here is where we are going to stop and ask for clarity.
2. Not surprisingly no verse is given to support this undefined “sense of freedom” Are we to accept an undefined notion? Without a verse to support it?
3. Is this freedom from God’s control? Have our friends become open theists? If they are advocating the ability of choice apart from God’s control then how is a belief in an autonomous freedom consistent with the following passages
  1. Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
  2. Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
4. How can a belief in autonomous will of any creature be reconciled with a belief in the omni-attributes of God?
“Accordingly, people are responsible for their believing”
1. Notice the use of the word “Accordingly” – this is according to this “sense of freedom” which perhaps Borchert defines but Dr. Vines never does. Perhaps Dr. Vines does not think it necessary to reference a definition since he assumes you will take it as a presupposition without any scriptural mandate, because he has done so. If he is speaking to the 5 point Calvinist then he should be careful not to assume they have adopted this as a presupposition.
2. Notice the word “responsible” – from “response” and “able” this is a different word than a 5 point Calvinist would probably use, we would use the word “accountable”. Responsible seems to be pushing for the idea that God’s ability to hold people accountable is based upon “responsibility” or the ability to respond to the demand. Yet there is no biblical support for this idea. In fact we see that God does not use “sense of freedom” and “response ability” when the question of how is it that God calls me to account seeing He made me this way is asked in Romans 9
  
  Roman 9:18-24 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
3. Notice that man is not the regulating factor in who receives mercy and who does not (v18)
4. Notice that when the question is asked “Why does God find fault, for who hath resisted His will?” The response does not appeal to “a sense of freedom” given to man, nor is an explanation given that appeals to man having an intrinsic ability to cause or inhibit the flow of God’s mercy.
5. The basis for God’s judgment of man is not grounded in any notion of autonomy or “response ability” but in the fact that He that forms something has the right to do with it as He wishes.
Notice the point Dr. Vines and Borchert are left with “it is unproductive theological speculation, therefore, to minimize either the role of God or humanity in the salvation process”
1. Having bought into some vague notion of autonomy the non-Calvinist is left with thinking of a dichotomy (is it man’s belief, or is it God’s work) I believe this where Garrett gets the notion of a pendulum swinging back and forth. This is why they talk of striking a balance. There are many verses which talk about God turning hearts (Proverbs 21:1) or opening hearts (Acts 16:14) or hardening (Romans 9:18) etc.. The undeniable presence of these verses cause them to want to call God the “principal actor” so in their view it is a pendulum tilted in the direction of God. (More of God and less of man) This dichotomy is very difficult for them because there are so many verses that indicate that salvation “is not of yourselves” So the idea “sense of freedom” and the dichotomy that it yields makes the examination of this issue unproductive by Borchert’s own admission and apparently with Dr. Vines agreement.
Garrett misunderstands Calvinism’s appeal to the students as a desire to push the pendulum in the direction of God. The beauty of the five points is that it is Biblical. Because it is Biblical, it makes theological examination of the relationship between predestination and man’s belief a fruitful study rather than a painful Gordian knot, a balancing act, or a swinging between two unstable points of a pendulum. So ingrained in those who reject the five points are the notions of “sense of freedom” and “ability to respond” as a basis for “accountability to God”, that they assume the Calvinist holds these two things as well and is consequently also in the throes of the same dichotomy, lost in a fruitless endeavor and they seek to rescue the Calvinist by saying ‘come out of it you will never understand this. Chalk it up to a divine mystery and move on’. The Calvinist in dialogue with the non-Calvinist needs to help the non-Calvinist understand it is having the wrong basis for God’s right to judge men and an unbiblical idea of human autonomy that makes the non-Calvinist position unfruitful. Once free of these unbiblical notions they will no longer feel in tension between contradictory ideas.

Example 3 {#example-3}

Ron Rhodes is another example of a non-Calvinist who feels the tension between the idea God being sovereign and man having a “free will”. On page 126 of his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims, he writes

“Though Scripture portrays God as being absolutely sovereign (Acts 15:17-18; Ephesians 1:11; Psalm 135:6) Scripture portrays man as having a free will (Genesis 3:1-7). It is certainly inscrutable to our finite understanding how both divine sovereignty and human free will can be true, but both doctrines are taught in Scripture. In fact, both of these are often seen side-by-side in the span of a single Scripture verse. For example, in Acts 2:23 we read this of Jesus: “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.” Here we see divine sovereignty (“by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge”) and human free will (“you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death”). We also see in Acts 13:48: “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed to eternal life believed.” God’s sovereignty is clear (“all who were appointed for eternal life”) as is man’s free will (“believed”).”

Notice the following feeling and degree of tension in the phrase “It is certainly inscrutable to our finite understanding how both divine sovereignty and human free will can be true” on page 127 of the same book he writes

“The difficulty, as noted above, is trying to figure out how human freedom and divine sovereignty can both be true at the same time. These are not easy concepts. It has been suggested that divine sovereignty and human free will are like parallel railroad tracks that are often found side by side in Scripture, and the tracks never come together on this side of eternity. When we enter glory, we will no doubt come to a fuller understanding of these biblical doctrines. Now we see as in a mirror darkly; then we shall see clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12).”

As for his claims that these scriptures advocate free will, those claims is not supported by any of these scriptures.

The word free does not even appear in any of these passages.
His notion of free will is based upon the fact that men believed and acted “you with the help of wicked men, put him to death” Yet nowhere does it say that their actions or beliefs were independent of God’s control or free from God’s influence.
It must be recognized that his argument that “free will” is taught in these texts does not come from the text itself but is an implicit assumption he has regarding man’s beliefs and actions.
It is a philosophical assumption he reads into a single word “believed”, even after we are told that these people were appointed unto eternal life! Perhaps what Mr. Rhodes needs is a better understanding concerning the nature of man’s beliefs and actions.
Contrary to what some non-Calvinists claim, Calvinists do believe that men believe and make choices. In earlier chapters we exposed the false dichotomy of “Did a man choose to do it” or “Did God ordain it”. Pointing out that these ideas are not mutually exclusive. That it is not a contradiction to say God ordained that a man would choose certain things. There are many examples in the scripture from God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, opening Lydia’s heart or putting it upon the heart of a gentile king to help rebuild Jerusalem as mentioned in Ezra 7:27
- Ezra 7:27 Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem:
Notice, the king out of his heart makes a choice to beautify the house of the Lord, but God is praised because as the Proverbs 21:1 points out “The Kings heart is in the hand of the LORD as the rivers of waters He turns it withersoever He wishes”

We have seen how the idea of human autonomy has been portrayed by its advocates as something that is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with God’s sovereignty and His omni-attributes. Many do not even attempt to have a logically consistent theology, some consider any attempt to do so an unfruitful endeavor.

Unfruitful attempts to reconcile human autonomy and the Biblical idea of God’s sovereignty. {#unfruitful-attempts-to-reconcile-human-autonomy-and-the-biblical-idea-of-god’s-sovereignty.}
1. A common attempt to resolve free will and God’s sovereignty. {#a-common-attempt-to-resolve-free-will-and-god’s-sovereignty.}

In an effort to explain the many verses on predestination in the Bible, some believers in human autonomy have put forth the idea that their god would look into the future see who would of their own “free will” believe in him and then choose those people. These people often appeal to the following scripture

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

But nowhere in this passage does it say election is based upon foreknowledge of man’s autonomous decisions! It merely says election is in accord with God’s foreknowledge. This only seems like a proof text to someone who is willing to read in the concepts they desire. Many don’t realize they are doing this. In addition to the proof text failing to prove their desired point, there are a host of problems with this view

Their god in this case looks into the future, as if it exists apart from him, and learns from it and then make a decision regarding who to predestine.
This has their god changing with time, growing in knowledge, learning and taking counsel from his creation.

Many of the people who put forth this view do not realize the blasphemous implications of it. It implies their god is not all knowing since he has to learn from his creation, it implies their god is mutable since he looks at man’s hearts and then decides. This god needs to take counsel of his creation, thus it contradicts the characteristics of the God that Paul mentions in the book of Romans

Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Isaiah asked similar rhetorical questions in Is. 40:13-14

Both these passages teach that God did not take counsel of anything or of anyone. He certainly did not take counsel of us. But if you really believe God looked to see what you would do and believe before deciding something then you would have to stand up and say “Hey Paul, Hey Isaiah, I am the counselor of God”. And if you believe God chose to predestinate you because he saw that you would choose Him then you could say God loved me because he saw that I would love him. But the scripture teaches that we love God because he first loved us.

What is Molinism {#what-is-molinism}

Monlinism is a philosophy which believes in a god that consults the alleged autonomous free will decisions of men before deciding what to ordain. Molinism has gained a lot of popularity recently through the teachings of William Lane Craig and others. Molinism was not invented by Craig, but by a 16th century Jesuit theologian named Luis de Molina. There is no record of this teaching in the Bible or in early Christian writings. Consequently, it cannot be considered part of the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Though Molinists will typically admit that their belief system does not surface in history until long after the Bible, they typically claim their ideas are consistent with the Bible. We will present their ideas and then compare them with scripture.

Molinism teaches that a free creature cannot be made to do anything. It teaches that men are free creatures with a free will. Molinism claims that the Molinist god looks at all possible worlds that could exist given his prior knowledge of men’s autonomous free will decisions and then ordains the world that suits the most among his possible choices. The Molinist god is thus constrained by the wills of men and limited in what he can choose to actuate by the wills of men.

Those who believe in an omnipotent God, according to the traditional Biblical idea of omnipotence, will argue the Molinist view of God is unbiblical. Typically, they will cite passages like Ephesians 1:9-11 where it describes God as working all things after the counsel of His own will, and according to purposes which he purposes in himself. We find both in Isaiah 40:13-14 and Romans 11:33-36, that the Biblical God does not take counsel of anyone. Their criticism of Molinism will involve among other things a charge that Molinist do not believe in the omnipotence of God, since their God is restricted in what is possible for him to ordain by the wills of men.

In order for a Molinist to call their god all powerful and maintain that men have a “free will”, William Lane Craig found it necessary to redefine the term “all powerful”.

William Lane Craig’s redefinition of Omnipotence {#william-lane-craig’s-redefinition-of-omnipotence}

For many years the church got along quite well with its understanding of the omnipotence of God. That God, the creator of all things had complete control over His creation. He worked all things after the counsel of His own will. He upheld all things by the word of his power. He demonstrated his sovereignty over the nature of things by performing miracles, and over the nature of men by changing their hearts either granting them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth or hardening them.

The traditional definition of omnipotence did not suit William Lane Craig’s theology, rather than say he rejected the notion of an omnipotent God, he redefined the term omnipotent, so he could claim to believe his god was omnipotent but at the same time denying the classic understanding of the term. At this point I would like to make a request for the sake of clarity. It would be easier for us all to keep track of who’s who and who believes what if people who reject old concepts associated with old terms came up with new language to refer to their new beliefs rather than redefine old terms.

Christians should be careful to make sure people explain their definition of terms. The easiest way to bring in new ideas into a community is to redefine and old term. Paul warned about people using the terms “Jesus” and “gospel” to refer to something other than the Jesus and the gospel he preached. Mormons, Muslims, JWs, and other groups have another Jesus and another gospel, that although they may be called by the same word they have a completely different meaning. Some groups claim they believe in the Trinity but may redefine it to be something other than what it is. Likewise, William-Lane Craig has redefined “all-powerful” to being something other than having power over all creation. Since he has redefined an attribute of god, he believes in a different God, just like a Muslim believes in a different Jesus. The name is the same, but the attributes are different. Let’s look at Craig’s own words to get a redefinition of omnipotence and his motivation for it. The quotes to be read are taken the transcripts of his teachings on his website. The manual contains the links.

Quotes from William Lane Craig’s transcripts {#quotes-from-william-lane-craig’s-transcripts}

Here are some quotes from William Lane Craig's transcripts:
“Paradoxes of Omnipotence

Immediately, when dealing with the subject of omnipotence, we confront the so-called paradoxes of omnipotence. We have all heard these. For example, if God is omnipotent, can he make a stone too heavy for him to lift? If he can make a stone too heavy for him to lift, then there is something he can’t do, namely, he can’t lift the stone. But if you say he can’t make a stone too heavy for him to lift, then there is something that he can’t do, namely, he can’t make such a stone. So the idea is that omnipotence is an inherently paradoxical idea. How should we understand, then, divine omnipotence in such a way as to avoid these paradoxes?

First, we need to ask ourselves, “Can God act in ways that are contrary to his own nature?” For example, could God create another God and fall down and worship him? Could God commit adultery? These are obviously not things that God could do. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. So such actions are usually exempted from divine omnipotence. To say that God is omnipotent or almighty doesn’t mean he can contradict his own nature.

What about logical impossibilities? Can God do things that are logically impossible? For example, could God make a square circle? Could God make a married bachelor? Could God bring it about that Jesus both came and died on the cross and that he did not come and die on the cross? Could God make a round triangle? These sorts of things are also usually exempted from God’s omnipotence. Most theologians – the vast, vast majority of theologians – have not understood omnipotence to mean that God can do things that are logically impossible. Indeed, when you think about it, these really aren’t things at all. There isn’t any such thing as a married bachelor. There is no such thing as a round triangle. These are just combinations of words which, when put together, are incoherent combinations. They are just logical contradictions. Therefore, to say that God cannot do logical contradictions is not to say that there is some thing that God can’t do because these aren’t really things at all. Thus, to say that God can’t bring about a logical contradiction is not really to inhibit God’s omnipotence at all.”

"Omnipotence Defined
How can we define divine omnipotence then? Here is a rough and ready definition of what omnipotence means. It means that God is able to bring about any state of affairs which it is logically possible for anyone in that situation to bring about. God can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation. What this would imply is that God cannot do things that are logically impossible. God cannot act contrary to his nature or bring about infeasible worlds. But he can bring about any state of affairs in which it is logically possible for someone in his situation to bring about."
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-16#ixzz3FUrfEYzP

"Omnipotence Defined
How, then, should we understand omnipotence? One of the insights of modern philosophy of religion, in dealing with the subject of omnipotence, is the realization that we shouldn’t think of omnipotence in terms of quantity of power or of specific tasks. Rather we should think of omnipotence in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. A state of affairs is just a way something might be – for example, the state of affairs of there being chairs in this room, or the state of affairs of our being in the lower story of the church building, or there being a piano here. Those are all states of affairs that actually obtain. Omnipotence should be understood in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. To be omnipotent means the ability to bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for any one in that situation to bring about. A person with that kind of power is omnipotent.

How does this apply to some of these paradoxes of omnipotence? No one can actualize a state of affairs which consists of an all-powerful being’s inability to lift a stone. That is impossible. No one can actualize the state of affairs of an omnipotent being’s being incapable of lifting a stone. So that would mean that omnipotence would not require God to be able to create a stone too heavy for him to lift. That would not fall within the scope of omnipotence.

No one can actualize the state of affairs of a morally perfect being’s sinning. It is logically impossible for a morally perfect being to sin. So no one can actualize the state of affairs of a morally perfect being’s committing a sin. So that would not fall within the scope of omnipotence.

It seems that this definition of omnipotence is adequate to capture the intuitive idea of being all-powerful, and yet it won’t commit you to saying that God can do these absurdities like worship another God or make a stone too heavy for him to lift or make a round square and things of that sort. To be omnipotent is to be able to bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone in that situation to bring about."
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-17#ixzz3FUt5DFa9

"It is logically impossible to make someone freely do something. We are not positing any non-logical constraint upon God’s omnipotence here. It is logically impossible to make someone freely do something. That is as logically impossible as making a round square or married bachelor"
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-16#ixzz3FUrRwUZ1

“The only obstacle to universal salvation is therefore human free will. It's logically impossible to make someone freely do something. God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible. Thus, even though He is all-powerful, God cannot make everyone freely be saved.”

A closer look at Dr. Craig’s paradoxes of omnipotence {#a-closer-look-at-dr.-craig’s-paradoxes-of-omnipotence}

Craig sets things up by saying that there are “paradoxes of Omnipotence”. The “paradoxes of omnipotence” consist of questions such as:

Can God act contrary to his nature?
1. Can God do things that are logically impossible?
2. Can God perform an act that will render Himself less than all powerful in the traditional sense of the phrase?
  - For example, can God make a rock that is so big He can’t lift it?

Traditionally Christians would answer no to all of these questions, but Molinism would effectively answer yes to the 3rd one since it assumes God can make a man that he cannot control. Let us look at how Craig responds to these questions and contrast that with the Bibles teachings

Question 1 Can God act contrary to his nature?

Dr. Craig states:

“First, we need to ask ourselves, “Can God act in ways that are contrary to his own nature?” For example, could God create another God and fall down and worship him? Could God commit adultery? These are obviously not things that God could do. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. So such actions are usually exempted from divine omnipotence. To say that God is omnipotent or almighty doesn’t mean he can contradict his own nature.”

On this point Craig seems to agree with standard Christian teaching, and the Bible

2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Question 2 Can God do something that is logically impossible?

Craig would agree that the logically impossible items are non-things since they lack a definition.

“Most theologians – the vast, vast majority of theologians – have not understood omnipotence to mean that God can do things that are logically impossible. Indeed, when you think about it, these really aren’t things at all. There isn’t any such thing as a married bachelor. There is no such thing as a round triangle. These are just combinations of words which, when put together, are incoherent combinations. They are just logical contradictions.”

It follows that the question is then not a well defined question, and hence not an objection that needs to be answered.

Question 3 Can God perform an act, that will render Himself less than all powerful in the traditional sense? For example, Can God make a rock that is so big He can’t lift it?

Dr. Craigs goal is to promote try to reconcile his foundational belief in human autonomy with the Bible’s teaching of predestination. This is no small task, since man is a created being, this would necessitate a belief that his god is constrained by external circumstances, in this case a man that he created.

A true Molinist should answer the question “can your god commit an action that would render him less than all powerful in the traditional sense.” in the affirmative.

Effectively this is what they are teaching.
The Molinist god created a creature he could not control.

Once created this portion of creation creates a circumstance that the Molinist god is constrained and limited by. In this case the Molinist god is constrained by what men, his creatures, will.

The Bible of course does not teach this, the Bible demonstrates that God has complete control over all the things He created. God demonstrated his soveriegnty over the nature of things by performing miracles whereby the nature of a things would be changed like water turned to wine, or it would act in a way contrary to it’s nature such as an axe head floating. God did not only demonstrate his sovereignty over things but also people. We have already seen many accounts where the scripture speaks of God opening hearts like Lydia in Acts, and hardening hearts like Pharaoh. According to the scripture it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps and the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water, He turns it withersoever He wishes.

The absurdity of Dr. Craig’s new definition of “all-powerful” {#the-absurdity-of-dr.-craig’s-new-definition-of-“all-powerful”}

We now show how the redefined term could be applied to multiple created entities that have no power at all. Consider the following example:

Assume the existence of a creator whose name starts with a Y and who makes creatures and then names them.
The creator defines an attribute called “D-resistant” A D-resistant things or being is one that nothing or nobody whose name starts with the letter D has any power over.
Once being named with a name starting with the letter D, a being or thing cannot be renamed.
The creator is D-resistant.
The creator makes all things in the world D-resistant including two beings named Dale and David.
By definition Dale and David have no control over themselves, each other or anything else in the universe.
Dale and David are in the following situation
- Their names start with a D
- They are D-resistant
- Everything else in the universe is D-resistant
It is logically impossible for someone else in their situation to have power over themselves, each other or anything else in the universe.
Although they meet William Lane Craig’s definition of “Omnipotent” they have no power at all.

William Lane Craig’s redefining of all-powerful, has been reduced to absurdity in that a being with no power could be called “all-powerful” according to that definition. The Molinist god is not the all-powerful God of the Bible.

The Molinist god takes counsel from his creation {#the-molinist-god-takes-counsel-from-his-creation}

Molinism also has the problem that the Molinist god takes counsel from his creatures and their choices before deciding to create them. But the scriptures indicate the Biblical God has no counselors.

Romans 11:33-36 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Isaiah asked similar rhetorical questions in Is. 40:13-14

A Calvinist would say that God created people and things as an outgrowth of His own purpose, and since their existence and choices stem from His own purposes and power He does not need to consult them to see what they would do, yet the Molinist god allegedly creates free creatures whose actions are not determined by the Molinist god, hence the Molinist god must take counsel from something external to know what the future or the possible future would be. We see clearly that the Molinist god is not the God of the Bible.

Craig’s Molinist god vs the God of the Bible {#craig’s-molinist-god-vs-the-god-of-the-bible}

Craig’s god vs the Biblical God

Craig’s Molinist god	The God of the Bible
Constrained by the situation he is in, lives within the context of a situation. In the situation the Molinist god lives and moves and has his being.	Rather than being constrained to live within the context of a situation governed by aspects of potentially created beings, the Biblical God upholds all things. The situation would disappear if God were not upholding all things by the word of His power! (Hebrews 1:3, by Him all things consist (Col. 1:17) According to the Apostle Paul, we live and move and have our being in the Biblical God.
Takes counsel of his creatures to see what they would autonomously wish to do.	Does not take counsel of anyone, but acts according to the counsel of His own will.
His choices are a function of his nature plus the nature of all other persons and things that make up the situation.	His purposes are rooted in Himself

William Lane Craig’s view of freedom implies a free creature cannot be created {#william-lane-craig’s-view-of-freedom-implies-a-free-creature-cannot-be-created}

If one started with the traditional definition of an all-powerful God who has power over all things that exist, one could ask the question “Besides God do any free creatures exist?” and the answer would be no, because that would make God less than all-powerful over his creation, it would make him subservient to the nature of his creation rather than sovereign over it.

But the modern Molinist does not view their god to be all powerful in the traditional meaning of the term, so they do not think it impossible for their god to create free creatures. Now armed with a definition of “free creature” and a modified definition of “all-powerful” they point out that the existence of “free creatures” is not a violation of their definition of all-powerful because it by definition of the term "free creature", is logically impossible for their god to have control over them, hence not a violation of their new definition of the term “all-powerful”.

After redefining the term “all-powerful”. He states “it is impossible to make someone freely do something”. Is a “free creature” a creature that cannot be made to do anything? Then it is logically impossible for a free creature to be created, since if the free creature was created it would have been made to do something by it’s creator; it would be made to exist.

Some may say well at the point of creation there did not yet exist someone with a will to violate, yet after creation the person is still made to exist apart from their will. Not only are they made to exist, but the created being is forced against their will to have a set of limitations and capabilities that are outside of their control. As one songwriter lamented “I wish I was taller, I wish I was a baller”. This man was made short, apart from his will, and continued to be forced to live in a short body.

The idea of free will came from the stoics and epicureans, both believed man had at least one uncreated component which could account for his alleged autonomy. The stoics taught that every man had an uncreated divine spark. This belief in an uncreated divine spark was their basis for believing man had an autonomous will. The epicureans believed everything was composed of uncreated atoms that acted as they pleased and were not subject to eternal control. The belief that man was a conglomeration of uncreated uncontrolled eternal atoms was the basis for the epicurean’s belief in “free will”. But when it comes to the Christian how can a Christian profess on one hand that the universe including man was created by God out of nothing, and at the same time believe man is autonomous from God.

No scriptural basis for Molinism and it’s multiple possible worlds {#no-scriptural-basis-for-molinism-and-it’s-multiple-possible-worlds}

The Bible says “The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” and “the world in it’s wisdom did not know God”. We therefore ought to be careful in our speculations concerning God. Before claiming a truth self-evident we should remember the Bible teaches that the way that seems right to a man ends in death.

We cannot trace Molinism back to the Bible, there is no evidence the apostles ever heard or thought of such a thing. It is not a view exegetically derived from scripture. Not only is it not derived from scripture, it is at odds with scripture. Trusting in it and the alleged self-evident ideas of it’s proponents violates the commandment not to go beyond what the scriptures teach.

1 Corinthians 4:6 (ESV) I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

When asked where in scripture a Molinist gets the idea that there are multiple possible worlds, they often claim counterfactual statements in the Bible are proof there are multiple possible worlds.

Counterfactuals do not imply multiple possible worlds {#counterfactuals-do-not-imply-multiple-possible-worlds}

Counterfactuals are when God specifies:

What would have happened if an event which did not happen would have occurred,
What would happen if someone were to make a certain decision that they end up not making.
1. Conterfactuals are not indications of multiple possible worlds {#conterfactuals-are-not-indications-of-multiple-possible-worlds}

Counterfactuals are statements which indicate God’s perfect knowledge of the nature of things, and the character of people. Knowing the nature of all people and things, God knows not only what we do but what we would do in different circumstances. God gives people counterfactual information at times to allow them to make better choices. An example of this is when David asked God what would happen if he stayed at Keilah

1 Samuel 23:6–13 6 And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand. 7 And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. 8 And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. 10 Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. 11 Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down. 12 Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up. 13 Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.

God used counterfactual information to direct David’s decisions. Logically speaking, A imples B can be true, even if it is impossible for A to happen. Recall that God had already ordained that David would be king, consequently we know that it would be impossible for him to be delivered into the hands of Saul and be killed before becoming King. Let’s call being delievered up into Saul’s hand “B” and staying a Keilah event “A”. God told David A implies B. God used counterfactual information to give David in the form A implies B, knowing that would make David leave making A false. It was not possible for David to stay at Keilah since that implied being handed over to Saul and God had destined him to be King not to be handed over to Saul.

In other cases counterfactual information is used to rebuke people of their wickedness and to let people know they are worse than some of the people they regard as very wicked

Matthew 11:20-24 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

The above statements have the form of "if A then B" A = the cities had seen the mighty works B = the cities would have repented. Saying A implies B says nothing about the possibility of A or B. There is nothing in the text that says it is possible that these cities could have seen those mighty works. In fact, since these cities were already destroyed it was impossible for them to see Jesus’ mighty works. This ought to help us understand that statements of the form A implies B are making absolutely no statement regarding the possibility of statement A being true. In this case it was impossible for A to be true yet Jesus said A implies B. This is a very important point. These statements about the nature of these cities. And the nature of the people that Jesus was talking with, namely that they were worse than the people of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon. God knowing our nature knows what we would do in situations that He never ordained for us to experience.

A counterfactual statement is a particular implication concerning the nature of people, that gives us insight into their character and information about what would happen in a hypothetical situation. This in no way indicates that the hypothetical situation could have happened. Consider the following scripture

John 1:11-13 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This passage contains a principle: “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God”. We can say that if someone receives Jesus, they become a child of God. From this we can construct many counterfactuals. I can honestly say that if Bill receives Jesus, he will become a child of God. If Mary receives Jesus she will become a child of God, etc… However it should be pointed out that just like Jesus saying what Sodom would have done if it had seen his mighty works in no way implied that it was possible for them to see his mighty works, so John 1:12 makes no statement about whether or not it is possible for Bill or Mary or any other particular person to receive Jesus, it only says that if anyone does receive Jesus he or she will become a child of God. For example It may be that Bill is a natural man and not one of Jesus’ sheep.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now some will say that believe that God enables all natural men to receive the things of God, but that was not the teaching of Jesus. If fact Jesus spoke in parables so that some people would not believe and be converted.

Matthew 13:10-15 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them**, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given**. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed**; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.**

Here Jesus reaffirms the truth of the principle that if they see, hear and understand and are converted they would be healed, but also stating that it was not given to them to understand.

Matthew 11:25-26 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Logically speaking we can say that A implies B, without making any indication of whether A is true or not. We merely state that if A is true then B is true also. Much of the problems non-Calvinists have in understanding the scriptures is an outgrowth of a particular mistake in logic. Many of them see a statement of the form A implies B and assume that it must be possible for A to be true. For example, John 3:16 states

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The phrase “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” is a statement of the form A implies B. “A” in this case is Being a believer in Christ this implies “B” not perishing and having eternal life. The statement says nothing about any particular persons ability to believe. The word whosoever is not a statement about ability, it is a translation of a greek word “pas” which means “all”.

Jesus taught “All that the Father has given me shall come unto me” and that His sheep hear his voice and follow him, while He said to others “you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” Jesus’ sheep hear warnings about Hell and choose to trust Him, because they were predestined to eternal life.

Just as Jesus’ sheep use counterfactual information in making a decision, so we should not be surprised if God uses this as a means to direct men’s steps concerning lesser things.

In summary, Counterfactuals are typically statements of the form A implies B where A does not happen and hence is not true. Clearly A implies B can be true without A being true. A statement in the form of A implies B does not say anything about the possibility of A being true. Many non-Calvinists make grave interpretational errors because they assume a statement of the form “A implies B” implies A is possible. But this is not the case. The truthfulness of a statement A implies B does not imply the existence of an alternative possible world where A is true.

Who determines what is possible in Molinism? {#who-determines-what-is-possible-in-molinism?}

I have found it helps Molinists to recognize some of the problems with Molinism if you ask them what is meant by possible and who determines what is possible.

There are 2 possible assumptions

Possibility is not exclusively determined by their god – Then the entity or entities which are apart from the Molinist god and define what is possible and impossible work as a regulating principle that their god must submit to. If this is the case their god is a demigod underneath that principle. This is clearly unbiblical. One may argue that Logic determines what is possible and impossible, the question then is Logic apart from God and constraining God? This implies that God is not intrinsically logical but constrained by it? If God is intrinsically logical then why does one need to postulate an eternal external regulating principle from God. Traditionally Christians have argued that Logic is part of God’s nature and thus intrinsic to God and have rejected a regulating principle constraining God since that opens up for the charge of polytheism.
Possibility is determined exclusively by God – If what is possible is determined by God. Then does God determine things to be possible other than what He ordains? If yes then something is possible that God does not ordain then God is not sovereign and His ability to ordain is not reliable. If no then you are not left with a plurality of universes but only one universe which is possible that would be the one that God ordained.

If the freewill decisions in the ordained universe are autonomous from their god and are possible then one has to ask the question again what makes one free will decision possible and another impossible. If possibility is determined by their god then how is the will free from their god’s control? If the possibility is a principle external to their god then their god is a demigod living under the authority of the principle.
Some have said their god first determines what is possible then determines what he will ordain from that, this implies that their god thinks sequentially in time and is not all knowing since he decides first what is possible then decides what to ordain out of that set of possible events.

Objections to Biblical Determinism {#objections-to-biblical-determinism}
1. Do our choices need to be unpredictable for the choice to be meaningful? {#do-our-choices-need-to-be-unpredictable-for-the-choice-to-be-meaningful?}

Logical Fallacy Committed: categorical fallacy.

These people are confusing categories of meaningful and undetermined. They are two separate things. For a Biblical example of how things can be both determined and meaningful, consider the choices made by believers in heaven. Those who believe will not sin, therefore they will always choose that which is best, for this reason if one knows what is best, the actions of all the believers in heaven are completely predictable and determined beforehand. Yet their actions will be done willingly consistent with the new nature they have, which God has given them. God does not make them act against their nature instead God makes them willing. This is even seen in the comments made concerning the wills of believers on earth in Phi 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”. Notice it is the work of God that causes us to will and do of his good pleasure!

if we are determined then we are nothing but robots or machines? {#if-we-are-determined-then-we-are-nothing-but-robots-or-machines?}

Logical Fallacy committed: asserting the consequent, equivocation, straw man

Asserting the consequent: Asserting the consequent is one says because a implies b. I observe b therefore a. To see the falseness of this line of reasoning consider the example: if it is raining the ground is wet. The ground is wet therefore it is raining. Obviously, this is bad reasoning since the ground could be wet because it was watered with a sprinkler system. Back to the objection at hand, the flawed reasoning is: Being a robot implies being determined, I am determined therefore I am a robot. There are many things that are determined that are not robots nor mechanistically determined as are robots.

Equivocation: The fact that something is determined does not imply it is mechanistically determined. Biblical determinism is rooted in the idea of an all-powerful all-knowing creator who created man in His image capable of thought and desires, and possessing a soul. Biblical determinism believes man acts according to his nature, but that God is capable of changing man’s nature. Biblical determinists do not believe that men are mere machines. Machines do not will or possess concept information, nor do they have a soul. humans do. humans are determined but not mechanistically determined. The fact that man has concept information forever separates him from machines. It is a very poor analogy to compare something that does not will or think with something that does will and think, but whose thoughts and desires were before determined by an all-knowing creator.

A root cause for the equivocation error: equating concept information with symbols we use to represent concepts, and symbol manipulation with thought. This is an error often committed by atheistic materialists. The symbols themselves do not intrinsically possess the concepts they represent, if that were true we would not need to invest time to memorize the vocabulary of a foreign language because the meaning would be intrinsic to the symbol. A processing of symbols should not be confused with thinking, (the processing of concepts). It is quite possible for something to process symbols without having any understanding of the concepts that someone has associated with them. The graphite and the paper upon which a math problem is solved have no understanding of the math problem or the solution, a book has no understanding of the concepts which we associate with the symbols on it’s pages. Likewise, a thermometer has no understanding of temperature, my computer doesn’t associate any concept with the states of the internal components or with the images on the screen.

Straw man logical fallacy: This fallacy can be committed out of ignorance of the opposing view, or out of intentional deceit. It creates a false representation of a person’s belief (a straw man) and then proceeds to attack the straw man. By defeating the straw man they think or they hope that others will think they actually defeated the real man. Asserting that Biblical determinism is the same as mechanistic determinism is either ignorant or deceitful.

Doesn’t the fact that I do not respond the same way to the same external stimulus each time I am presented with it prove I am not determined? {#doesn’t-the-fact-that-i-do-not-respond-the-same-way-to-the-same-external-stimulus-each-time-i-am-presented-with-it-prove-i-am-not-determined?}

Categorical fallacy: Confusing the category of “Simple Mechanization” with Determinism.

These people do not understand that although the external stimulus may be roughly the same the internal state is not the same. Consider for example a properly functioning Coke machine, which I believe all would consider mechanistically determined. If Coke costs 75 cents, then if I put one quarter in the machine and press the button the machine will not yield a can of Coke, if I put another quarter in the machine and press the button the machine will not yield a can of Coke. Yet if I repeat this a third time, the machine will yield a can of Coke. The mechanistically determined Coke machine did not respond in the same way to the same external stimulus when presented with it those three times. We understand the internal state of the Coke machine was different after each quarter was placed in it, yet the internal state was not easily observable to us. If this is the case with a simple mechanistically determined coke machine, then why should we expect that determinism implies that one should always respond the exact same way to roughly the same set of external stimulus? The Bible says that man’s heart is very deceitful and unknowable by man, yet the all-knowing all powerful creator God knows our hearts. Jeremiah 17:9-10 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”

Beyond even the complexity of human nature is the fact that our nature is mutable God can change it. Our hearts may devise to walk a certain path but God can change both our steps and our heart. Proverbs 16:9 “A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.” Proverbs 21:1 “The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.”

Human behavior is so unpredictable how can we be determined? {#human-behavior-is-so-unpredictable-how-can-we-be-determined?}

Categorical fallacy: Confusing the category of “Beyond Human predictability” with Undetermined.

Things are not undetermined because we can’t predict them, we are not all knowing, nor was it we who determined all things. But it is God that “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11) Proverbs 20:24 “Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?”

Many brilliant scientists have made this logical blunder. They often appeal to the uncertainty principle as proof of a “random”, “undetermined” or “uncaused” universe. But our inability to deterministically model the world does not imply any of those things. In case one is interested I have included a discussion of this topic.

It has been theorized based on various laboratory measurements and philosophical generalizations that energy is quantized meaning it cannot occur in less than certain amounts. If energy is quantized, this limits our ability to measure quantities without significantly disturbing them. In empirical experiments, measurements require interaction of forces with the object of interest. For a large object, this interaction does not greatly impact the characteristics of the object because the energy used in the measurement process is quite small. However, when we begin to look at very small objects and desire to measure some of their properties the existence of a minimum “quanta” of energy may have a significant effect upon the object because we cannot use an arbitrarily small amount of energy in the measurement process. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that we can never simultaneously measure the velocity or momentum of a particle and it’s position. Thus according to the uncertainty principle, we have limitations in our ability to measure certain things about the physical world. Because of this, it is often useful to utilize probabilistic models. Using probabilistic models does not imply the underlying process is random, merely that we might was well model it that way because we lack access to important information. In short, the use of probabilistic models is more of a reflection on our ignorance than it is on whether something is determined or not. Now some have argued that we could never know something is deterministic unless we could know how the mechanism functions. But this is not a valid argument since it assumes empirical study is the only way of knowing things. Yet even empirical study has axioms which cannot be empirically verified. In addition, empirical study although useful never gives certainty since it deals with approximations and generalizations by it’s very nature. Christians believe there is an all-knowing God who knew the position of all particles in throughout space and time from all eternity. He did not know or learn the facts about the universe by observation but his knowledge of them is eternal and resides in himself. This same God communicates revelation to mankind.

The Bible often commands people to make a choice, doesn’t this prove that it is me who must make the choice and not God? {#the-bible-often-commands-people-to-make-a-choice,-doesn’t-this-prove-that-it-is-me-who-must-make-the-choice-and-not-god?}

Fallacy false dichotomy, (aka the false dilemma or the either or fallacy)

God’s commanding people to choose to receive his gift, or choose to follow Him does not imply that God did not beforehand choose and enable those who would positively respond to His command. In fact, the Bible makes very clear that those who believe were already ordained to do so and those who reject Christ were also ordained to do so. Speaking of the Gentiles who believed Paul and Barnabas’ preaching we read in Acts 13:48 “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Here we see that those who believed were already ordained by God to do so! This point is made many places in the Gospel of John 1:12-13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Some have wrongly assumed that because “As many as received Him” is stated before “to them gave he power to become the sons of God” That the belief happened first in time. But this is not stated in the text. After assuming a temporal order, which the particular text does not warrant, they often assume a causal relationship based upon the assumed temporal order. This is the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo proctor hoc the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo procter hoc." Means "After this, therefore because of this." They often assume that this belief was itself born of man’s “free will” and not of God’s will, yet the scripture states clearly that it is God who has the causal will, not man. It is not that man does not will, no he does will, he does believe, but that belief is born out of the will of God. In other words, God makes the believer believe! If there remains any confusion as the to causal relationship of wills consider the following scripture John 10 25-30 "Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." Notice again human belief is an effect of being chosen as one of Jesus’ sheep. Being Jesus’ sheep is not a cause of man’s belief. The believer sincerely believes, but he does so because God ordained and determined that he would.

Likewise, those who disbelieve were appointed to that as well. This is 1 Peter 2:7-8 “Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” (Jude 1:4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” John 12:39-40 “Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”) These scriptures make impossible the belief that some have that God chooses everyone, but is powerless to make them believe or disbelieve.

How could God find fault with people for not believing if God ordained their unbelief? {#how-could-god-find-fault-with-people-for-not-believing-if-god-ordained-their-unbelief?}

This is the question Paul answers in Romans 9. Since Roman’s 9 is in the Bible, we can safely say that all who answer differently than Paul provide an unbiblical answer.

Romans 9:16- So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

If one is tempted to reply to this type of question by appealing to an alleged “free will” repent of being unbiblical and reply as Paul did!
Notice that the basis for God’s authority to hold man accountable rests in the fact that God made man. God’s position as the creator is the basis for man being accountable before God. The unbeliever that Paul is refuting claims the basis has to be human autonomy yet Paul rejects this notion, clearly stating the basis for our accountability to God is based in the fact God is our creator.
When Job questions God, God responded by indicating that His position as the Creator placed him above any human questioning. There is no standard external to God which God has to adhere to.

Job 38:1-4 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Notice here God objects to Job’s questioning on the grounds that God is the creator, and Job was not an autonomous being who existed apart from God’s creation.

If what we do is all determined by God doesn’t that make us like puppets? {#if-what-we-do-is-all-determined-by-god-doesn’t-that-make-us-like-puppets?}

No it is a different type of determination. Each move of a puppet is actuated externally without the puppet knowing anything nor wishing to make any movement. In the case of men our actions are made according to our nature, we make willingly actions. The nature which causes us to chose various things is evil, and unless God intervenes and changes our nature we will, willingly reject God be filled with pride self righteousness and love sin.

It has been said that God does not make the believer do something against his will but instead makes the believer willing. I believe this expression is derived from Phi 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

God’s determinism ordained that the creature would make decisions according to his or her will. This actually establishes the value and authenticity of the human will it does not do violence to it. The fact that God changes the will of some from wickedness to righteousness is a beautiful thing. Are wills and natures are slightly different from each other but God asks the rhetorical question “For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7) The answer to this rhetorical question is not “chance”, “free will”, “the blind fates of fatalism”, but God almighty

If everything is determined, then why does it matter what I do? {#if-everything-is-determined,-then-why-does-it-matter-what-i-do?}

This confuses fatalism with determinism. In fatalism the outcomes are determined without respect to anything that happens before. In Biblical determinism the outcomes are determined but they are ordained to have causal relationship with other events and actions. This ordination of causal relationships is why man’s actions and life have meaning and make an impact! God ordained that believers would do good works (Ephesians 2:10), God ordained that the prayers of a righteous man would avail much, (James 5:16) and He ordained that the preaching of the Gospel would be the power of God unto those appointed unto eternal life and foolishness unto those that perish. The fact that God determined things ensures there is a meaningful relationship between events.

A hierarchy of causal relationships can be seen in the following example: Bill acting according to his nature releases the rock, and it falls to the ground. We speak of Bill being a causal agent he acted releasing the rock. But there are other actors in this play. We might call one of them gravity, others might be Bill, the rock, and the ground. Ultimately God cause the existence of Bill, the rock, the ground and any rules which might govern the physical interactions between objects. Not only did God create all things but He upholds them by the word of His power and can change their nature and attributes at any time. The Bible demonstrates this by recording miracles and instances where God granted repentance to natural men and hardened people hearts. The fact that God ultimately causes and controls all things does not make life meaningless, rather it establishes and ensures its meaningfulness. God made all things for Himself, even the wicked for the day of evil. It matters so much to God what we do that He ordained everything we do.

Is it possible that God looks at all possible universes where men automously act and make decisions apart from God and then God merely chooses the one the universe that He wants to exist? {#is-it-possible-that-god-looks-at-all-possible-universes-where-men-automously-act-and-make-decisions-apart-from-god-and-then-god-merely-chooses-the-one-the-universe-that-he-wants-to-exist?}

This notion is frought with problems

How does one begin to talk about possible universes? Are there universes which are possible for God to make and others that are not? Is there something external to God that constrains him from creating certain universes? If so then someone believes in a god above God that is able to regulate and restrict God’s behavior. If the possibility is only constrained by what God’s desires to exist, then how can there be more “possible” universes than the one that exists, since that would require God both actively willing and not actively willing a possible but never to be realized universe.
- This has God looking at his potential universes and then after looking choosing one. Thus God is learning from his universe, and God’s knowledge is changing with time. This is incompatible with the idea of God being all knowing and immutable. It effectively postulates that God is somehow subject to time.
- Someone who was omniscient and thus incapable of learning from examination or any other method.
- Someone who is has always been all knowing does not have any knowledge that came after any other piece of knowledge.
How can one talk of autonomous creations since something that is created is made to exist by an act of creators will.
- Some have stated “No one can make a free creature do anything” but if one believes a free creature was created by another then the free creature was made to exist by a creator, and is thus not a “free creature”.
- If a “free creature” can be made to do things by someone else then what is the definition of “free creature”? To what extent is their existence determined by another?
The idea that man is autonomous is inconsistent with many scriptures
- Proverbs 20:24 Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?
- Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.
- Psalms 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
- Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.
The scriptures speak of God being a causal agent modifying people’s nature and hence their choices, granting repentance, opening hearts, hardening hearts, turning the kings heart. This is not the language one would expect to find in scripture if a molinist god was merely ordaining actions which were committed autonomously from him
- Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
- 2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
- Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
- Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
- Romans 11:7-10 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
1. If everything that happens in the universe was determined and ultimately caused by God, doesn’t that mean that God is “accountable” for evil? Since confusion exists and God ordained it doesn’t that mean that God is the author of confusion? {#if-everything-that-happens-in-the-universe-was-determined-and-ultimately-caused-by-god,-doesn’t-that-mean-that-god-is-“accountable”-for-evil?-since-confusion-exists-and-god-ordained-it-doesn’t-that-mean-that-god-is-the-author-of-confusion?}
Christians have already agreed that God alone created all that is. Consequently, if we acknowledge God as the sole creator then we must acknowledge Him as the ultimate cause of all that exists, even evil.
Christianity, unlike pantheistic religions, believes that God is distinct from his creation. The creation does not share all the attributes of the creator. This is why Christians never worship the creation. Since the creator and the creation do not share the same attributes the existence of evil in the creation does not mean the creator is also evil.
The idea that God is accountable to anyone is denying that God is the supreme authority, there is no law above God that judges his actions. If there were such a law then that law would be a god above god.
The word author refers to the immediate cause not the ultimate cause. God’s word says the answer of the tongue of man is from the Lord, yet we do not consider all the words of men to be the word of God.

Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Similarly, the fact that God created spirits that would mutate and become lying spirits and that God would put lying spirits in the mouths of false prophets clearly does not imply that God is a lying spirit. There is a big difference.
- 1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
- Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
1. If Biblical determinism is true, then God ordained that people would go to hell, and these people had no chance to believe, because they were wicked by nature and God did not choose them. {#if-biblical-determinism-is-true,-then-god-ordained-that-people-would-go-to-hell,-and-these-people-had-no-chance-to-believe,-because-they-were-wicked-by-nature-and-god-did-not-choose-them.}

This is what the Bible means by “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” mentioned in Romans 9. Proverbs 16:4 states: “ The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

Some will object that Hell was made only for the devil and his angels, but this is obviously not the case. Since Jesus casts the unbelieving humans in there Matthew 25:41 “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” This objection is a bit strange because it has no problem believing that God could make a hell for the devil and his angels yet would never make hell for any of his human creation.
- A Christian has no basis for assume that the universe is a chance universe, this argument actually is nothing more than stating “Biblical determinism does not agree with my false notion of the universe and how things ought to be”

It is best if we understand that God ordained evil and uses it for His purpose. Joseph understood this.

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
1. God command’s people to believe, and some therefore assert that man must be able to believe because they assume God would never command someone to something they are incapable of. {#god-command’s-people-to-believe,-and-some-therefore-assert-that-man-must-be-able-to-believe-because-they-assume-god-would-never-command-someone-to-something-they-are-incapable-of.}

In his book Whosoever Will, Dr. Vines mentions that “God commands us to believe” (p. 25) he goes on to say “It would be unreasonable to command someone to do something impossible for them to do.”

We all say things we should not and this seems to have been Dr. Vines turn to say something he should not. The idea that “God would not command people to do things they are not capable of doing” has no scriptural basis, in fact there are some very important counter examples:

The Samaritan woman at the well was asked to go get her husband but she had no husband. Jesus asked her that to convict her of sin.
- John 4:16-18 “Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.”
The law was given not because we could keep the commandments but so that we would see our need for Christ.
- Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
I hope nobody short of Jesus really thinks that they can be perfect as their father in heaven is perfect.
- Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

God commanded the Jews to keep the law when they were not able to do so, it was instead a device given to shut their mouths and make them recognize their guilt before God (Romans 3). It was their school master to bring them to Christ. The unbelieving Jews, who assumed as Dr. Vines does, that went about trying to establish their own righteousness by works and never came to a saving knowledge, being ignorant of the true righteousness of God and their helpless sinful condition, they wrongfully assumed that God would not have given them the law if they could not satisfy it’s commandments.

The argument that if people are incapable of doing good they cannot be judged for doing evil. {#the-argument-that-if-people-are-incapable-of-doing-good-they-cannot-be-judged-for-doing-evil.}

The fact that someone is incapable of doing what is right does not excuse them. In fact it is all the more reason for quarantining them in hell. We send people to prison because they are wicked. If they argue that they are murders by nature and cannot help themselves then that is all the more reason to lock them up and throw away the key or put them to death.

What about the verses like John 3:16 that says “Whosoever believes” doesn’t that imply anyone can believe. {#what-about-the-verses-like-john-3:16-that-says-“whosoever-believes”-doesn’t-that-imply-anyone-can-believe.}

This verse says nothing about ability of every person in the universe to believe in Christ it merely states that all who believe in the Lord will have eternal life. (The Greek word translated “whosoever” is “πᾶς” it just means “all” or “any”. ) . It can be said that all who are 4 feet tall and have a ticket are able to ride on the bumper cars at the amusement park. That does not in any way infer that everyone is over 4 feet tall!

Are there people who want to believe but can’t because they are not God’s elect? {#are-there-people-who-want-to-believe-but-can’t-because-they-are-not-god’s-elect?}

No! If you are not one of God’s elect you will not want to believe, “There is none that seeketh after God”. (Romans 3:11) but instead seeks to suppress the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-32).

What about Esau? Doesn’t it say that “he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears” Does this mean that he wanted to repent but could not? No. It means that he pleaded that his father Isaac would repent of giving Jacob the blessing. It is not that he sought to repent of his sin but could not. He like all men naturally loved darkness rather than light. Gill in his commentary on the entire Bible (Hebrews 12:16) states
- “Jews say concerning him: they have a tradition (w), that he committed five transgressions on the day he came out of the field weary. "He committed idolatry: he shed innocent blood; and lay with a virgin betrothed; and denied the life of the world to come (or a future state); and despised his birthright.'' It is elsewhere (x) a little differently expressed. "Esau, the wicked, committed five transgressions on that day: he lay with a virgin betrothed; and killed a person; and denied the resurrection of the dead; and denied the root, or foundation, (i.e. that there is a God,) and despised his birthright; and besides, he desired his father's death, and sought to slay his brother.'' (w) Targum Jon. ben Uzziel in Gen. xxv. 29. (x) Shemot Rabba, sect. I. fol. 89. 3. T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 16. 2.
  - On Hebrews 12:17 Gill adds “the Targum on Job_15:20 "all the days of Esau the ungodly, they expected that he would have repented, but he repented not.''”
1. Jerry Vines in Whosoever will asks the question, “if God does not love the unbelievers or non-elect, then why did He create them?” {#jerry-vines-in-whosoever-will-asks-the-question,-“if-god-does-not-love-the-unbelievers-or-non-elect,-then-why-did-he-create-them?”}

The following scriptures that address this point.

Proverbs 16:4 **“**The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”

Romans 9:19-24 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The next two verses indicate the unbelieving heretics were preordained to both disobedience and condemnation.

1 Peter 2:7-10 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Notice people were appointed unto disobedience v8 and these people are contrasted with a “chosen generation”

There are some who claim spiritually dead people can respond of their own initiative to God {#there-are-some-who-claim-spiritually-dead-people-can-respond-of-their-own-initiative-to-god}

Mr. Patterson in chapter 2 of Whosoever Will claims that people who are spiritually dead can respond to God. He cites the following

The fall story and Adam and Eve’s response in the Garden
The Romans 4:16-22’s discussion of Abraham and Sarah

Yet in none of his discussions did he demonstrate that these people were not being acted upon by the Holy Spirit, and being given the grace to believe and trust. This is an assumption that Mr. Patterson is reading into these passages, then he offers these passages as proof when the proof is not contained in the text but in his own assumptions regarding the text. Perhaps this is why the arguments often involve all kinds of stories, illustrations and analogies. It would be nice if Mr. Patterson addressed clear texts that refute his position such as.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

There are a host of passages that indicate God is an active agent in people’s repentence

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
He makes no attempt to deal with Acts 16:14 though he does mention it. Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
1. Some claim election does not equal salvation because the Israelites, according to the old testament, were the chosen people, but many of them idolators and reprobates. {#some-claim-election-does-not-equal-salvation-because-the-israelites,-according-to-the-old-testament,-were-the-chosen-people,-but-many-of-them-idolators-and-reprobates.}

This make a true point election does not imply salvation in general. Election is a general term. Being elected president of your high school class is not the same as being elected as president of the USA. For the first covenant, election did not imply salvation. But clearly election for the new covenant does imply salvation. The person making this argument commits a categorical fallacy. They falsely equate election to the first covenant and election to the new covenant.

ANALYSIS OF SOME SCRIPTURES THAT ALLEGEDLY REFUTE THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE {#analysis-of-some-scriptures-that-allegedly-refute-the-doctrines-of-grace}
1. John 3:16 What about the phase “God so loved the word”? {#john-3:16-what-about-the-phase-“god-so-loved-the-word”?}

The context is the believing world! The very same verse makes it clear. Who is the beneficiary of the gift of God? All men? Everyone who ever lived or will live including unbelievers? Or All who believe regardless of where they are from or whether or not they are Jews or Gentiles?

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” {#2-peter-3:9-“the-lord-is-not-slack-concerning-his-promise,-as-some-men-count-slackness;-but-is-longsuffering-to-us-ward,-not-willing-that-any-should-perish,-but-that-all-should-come-to-repentance.”}

Notice the words “us-w0rd” that indicates the people to whom the letter was written, that is the church, the elect not the whole world including unbelievers.

1 Timothy 2:4 {#1-timothy-2:4}

Let us look at this verse as well as the surrounding verses

1 Titus us 2:1-6 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

There are three common interpretations of this passage

Universalism – the “all men” who will be saved is every human and the “ransom for all” is means the ransom was literally paid for all. This verse has problems in that it is at odds with many passages which speak of men going to hell. A couple examples are listed below
1. Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
2. Revelation 14:9-10 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
3. Most Universalists resolve this issue by denying the inerrancy and consistency of the Bible.
4. It is possible to view God as being all powerful in this view because God accomplishes what He wills.
Calvinism – The “all men” refers to the elect gentiles from all over the world as opposed to only the elect Jews.
1. Timothy’s mother was a Jew, and there was a movement of the Jews to separate from the Gentiles. Although Timothy had a Greek father he was circumcised (Acts 16:1-3). It would be reasonable to remind him that God also had elect among the gentiles.
2. Verse 1 indicates that all men are to be prayed for “all men” this is generally not considered to be all men at all times whoever lived and whoever shall live even men dead already and in hell or heaven, the examples given are rulers and magistrates many of which would be gentiles. This further supports the idea that all men in this context means gentiles, and specifically elect gentiles.
  1. The context is Jesus being a mediator for these people, and we know he did not pray for all men
  2. It is clear from the passage that “all men” in verse 1 refers to the same group as “all men” in verse 4. In both cases it is “pas anthropos”
    1. God’s willingness that “all men” be saved is the basis why one ought to pray for “all men” in verse 1.
  3. Since this is a command to pray for “all men”, someone who does not pray for “all men” is a sinner.
    1. If one wants to assert that “all men” means a literal every single man who ever had lived or shall live, then that person would have to call Jesus a sinner in violation of that command since Jesus very explicitly states that he does not pray for all men.
      1. John 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
  4. The scriptures claim Jesus was sinless, so a non-literal interpretation of “all men” should be believe.
    1. 2 Corinthians5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
3. This view allows one to maintain the belief that God is all powerful and be logically consistent. Since those who are saved and ransomed are God’s elect. So God is able to accomplish His desire.
Potential Universalist - Like the universalist “all men” is said to refer to all men that have lived, live and shall live, however the interpreter here does not actually believe that all men shall be saved, they instead believe that many will be damned despite the fact that God wills them to be saved. They believe that Jesus provided potential atonement not actual atonement. They believe the potential antonement only becomes actual atonement when actualized by the will of men. They believe that the will of God is thwarted by the will of man, in some cases resulting in damnation and attained by the will of man in other cases resulting in salvation.
1. They run into the same problem as the universalist in interpreting “all men” in a hyper literal way, they make the verse carry the implication that Jesus is a breaker of the commandment in verse 1.
2. The salvation mentioned here is limited by the will of man yet we find this to oppose the clear teaching of scripture
  1. Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
3. There is nothing in the passage that speaks of potential salvation or opportunity to be saved. The passage does not say that God wills all men to have the opportunity to be saved.
4. The idea that God’s will can be thwarted by man’s will is problematic in two ways
  1. It seems to presuppose that man’s will is autonomous from God. In clear violation of the scriptures with speak of the Lord opening, turning, and hardening hearts.
  2. It violates scriptures that speak of God’s will being unmovable
    1. Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
    2. Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
  3. By making man able to will autonomously from God’s control, God can no longer be said to be all powerful. If it is believe that God created man and gave him a nature then it would seem that if man chooses according to his nature God ultimately is still in control of the choices since He created the nature, the environment and all the other natures that it would interact with. Some have tried to salvage this explanation by claiming that God was not all knowing, thus God did not know the outcome of all of man’s choices and the environment. This however does not solve the problem, for in this scenario God is still the cause of everything that happens it is just that this “god” is ignorant of the final outcomes. To alleviate this problem some have added a belief in a background of “chance” which is effectively a “chaos” type god.
    1. It is interesting that this position ends up actually making man autonomous from God in some respect. This is suspiciously similar to the promise of the serpent that “ye shall be as gods”.
    2. Holding onto this view and maintaining logical consistency leads one to an open theist position. I can understand why some who hold this view that are not open theists will claim that it is not fruitful to think about the relationship between God’s action and man’s action in salvation.
5. Scriptures that speak of people opposing God’s commandments is often put forth as an argument for man’s autonomy. Here a distinction is made between the commandments of God sometime called the “will of God” and the predetermined path of history also called the “will of God”. If scriptures did exist that taught man could frustrate the preordained plan of God they would be in direct contradiction with Job 23:13 and Ephesians 1:11, cited previously. It is best if we develop an interpretation that is consistent across all verses this way we do not have unfruitful theological study and do not have to swing back and forth on a pendulum between contradictory views both held to be true.
6. This view has “man’s belief” being the determining factor in whether or not someone is one of Jesus’ sheep. This view is inconsistent with many passage which has a reversal of the professed cause and effect!
  1. John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
    1. This passage in John has the effect being “belief” and the cause is identified as “being Jesus’ sheep”.
7. Notice the scriptures clearly state that God is the one who decides who will have mercy
  1. Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Conclusion: since I recognize there are verses in the Bible about people being sent to hell, and since I do not believe the Bible is self contradictory and I believe in the omni-attributes of God and since I see no evidence that potential salvation is discussed. I am compelled to stay with the Calvinistic interpretation.

1 Timothy 4:10 “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” {#1-timothy-4:10-“for-therefore-we-both-labour-and-suffer-reproach,-because-we-trust-in-the-living-god,-who-is-the-saviour-of-all-men,-specially-of-those-that-believe.”}

Again nowhere does this verse speak of “potential” salvation, and the Bible does not teach universalism so how does the Calvinist interpret this passage?

if this speaks of eternal salvation, then this verse teaches universalism which is contrary to John 3:18, 36, Mark 16:16, Revelation 21:8.
The Calvinsits believe this is discussing providential kindness in which all men partake to an extent, but the believer partakes in it to a greater extent. God gives food sustains and delivers people.
1. Romans 12:3 {#romans-12:3}

Dr. Vines in Whosoever Will cites Romans 12:3 claiming “A sovereign God has given every person the faculty of faith and the means to exercise it” The passage reads

Romans 12:3 “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”

It should be noted that in the Greek there is no definite article and it should probably have been rendered “a measure of faith” This verse does not say anything at all about every man having been given saving faith. The measure of faith given to one man is nowhere said to be equal to that of another. In fact other passages indicate that not all have the ability to believe because they are not Jesus sheep. (See John 10:26)

John 1:12 {#john-1:12}

In Whosoever Will, Dr. Vines quotes John 1:12 and makes the claim “When does regeneration come? It comes after saving faith.” The scripture of interest is

John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

Dr. Vines assumes a temporal relationship which is not given in this verse. It is irrelevant to his claim. All that can be inferred from this verse is the people who received him were also given power to become the sons of God. It does not say which one happened first or if it happened at the same time. Nor is there any mention of one being a regulating cause of the other.

Romans 8:32 {#romans-8:32}

In Whosoever Will, Dr. Vines states “Romans 8:32 says God “spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” God not only gave His Son to the world; He gave Him for the world” (p. 21)

Let’s look carefully at Romans 8:32 and the surrounding verses

Romans 8:28-33 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Clearly the “us all” is the elect, not the whole world including the non-elect unbelievers as Vines claims. The “us all” is the elect, it is they who “love God”

I Corinthians 15:3 {#i-corinthians-15:3}

On p. 22 of Whosoever Will, Dr. Vines cites I Corinthians 15:3

1 Corinthians 15:1-3 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

The “our” here clearly refers to the brethren, the elect, the believers, not the whole world including the God-hating unbelievers.

1 John 2:2 {#1-john-2:2}

1 John 2:2 “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

There have been a few interpretations put forth for this verse let us look at them and their implications and the reasoning behind them:

The “whole world” refers to all mankind that ever lived and ever shall live.
1. Logical implications –
  1. God has appeased His wrath against the “whole world”
  2. We should not expect His wrath to be poured out on anyone ever. – But this can’t be reconciled with the Book of Revelation where in 14:9-10 the wrath of God is not propitiated toward all men but is poured out on some men.
The “our sins” refers to believers and “whole world” refers to unbelievers and the word propitiation does not mean an appeasement of wrath but only a potential appeasement of wrath.
1. There is no support for the idea that the word translated propitiation means to only “potentially” pacify ones wrath.
2. Does one really want to say that Christ only potentially appeased the wrath of God toward the believer?
  1. A singular usage of the word translated propitiate cannot mean two different things at the same time and place. He (Christ) is called the propitiation of “our sins” and “the whole world” so there is no difference given in the propitiation one is not an actually propitiation and the other a potential propitiation. It is a singular usage of one word.
John as a believing Jew wrote “our sins” as a reference to the believing Jews, and the “whole world” as a reference to the believing Gentiles whose sins would be propitiated in the exact same sense as were the believing Jews.
1. The 2nd interpretation requires the introduction of “potentiality” which is not in the text. This leaves us with two possibilities (1 & 3)
2. interpretations hinges on a few things
3. John is consistent in his theology
  1. Does John teach universalism elsewhere in the book? or John’s other books? If not then interpretation 1 is to be rejected.
  2. Did Jews of John’s day use the words “whole word” to mean something other than all mankind who ever lived or ever would live? More specifically could it refer to the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews and in the context the believing Gentiles.
    1. Gill clearly demonstrates that the word “world” has a variety of meanings in John’s writings, and that it was used as the Gentiles in contrast to the Jews. See Part 1 section 57 of “The Cause of God and Truth” http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_57.htm
4. If John is not consistent in his theology
  1. We should not put much weight on what he says.
5. Acts 7:51 {#acts-7:51}

Some claim Acts 7:51 refutes the notion that people can resist saving grace.

Acts 7:51-58 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

It should be noted that they were not accused of being elect people who were successfully resisting the work of God in attempt to save them. They were resisting the work of God, but God was probably not working to save all of them, however we do read in the next chapter that Saul, one of the ones resisting Spirit-filled Steven, does get saved in what could be described as an irresistible manner.

Gill does make some good comments on this passage

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah: and such who resist Christ's ministers, resist him, and such who resist him, may be said to resist his Holy Spirit; and the word here used signifies a rushing against, and falling upon, in a rude and hostile way, and fitly expresses their ill treatment of Christ and his ministers, by falling upon them and putting them to death: which is the resistance here designed, as appears by the following verse: so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace in conversion, when he is in men, and acts with a purpose and will to convert them; since it does not appear that he was in these persons, and was acting in them, with a design to convert them; and if he was, it wilt be difficult to prove that they so resisted, and continued to resist, as that they were not hereafter converted; since it is certain that one of them, Saul, was really and truly converted, and how many more we know not. Though it will be allowed, that the Holy Ghost in the operations of his grace upon the heart in conversion may be resisted, that is, opposed; but not so as to be overcome or be hindered in, or be obliged to cease from, the work of conversion, insomuch that may come to nothing:

For other passages {#for-other-passages}

There is a host of verses that people appeal to in objection to God’s sovereignty. The great Baptist preacher John Gill responded to all of them in his book “The Cause of God and Truth”. He also went through the writings of the early church fathers and showed that this was their belief as well. His book is available for free online at http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5 To my knowledge Gill’s book has never been refuted. Try googling “John Gill refuted” or “Cause of God and Truth refuted”

The Scriptures Referenced by the Creeds Relating to the Attributes of God {#the-scriptures-referenced-by-the-creeds-relating-to-the-attributes-of-god}
1. Why this section {#why-this-section}

This section was included to help people who have non-traditional views regarding the nature the God described in the Bible understand the historic protestant position regarding the attributes of God and what scriptures they based their views on. Since I have met some Baptists do not like to regard themselves as protestant, I have included the London Baptist Confession and a statement from the Waldensian confession indicating that they considered themselves to be aligned with the teachings of the reformation.

Chapter 2 of The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Scriptures it References {#chapter-2-of-the-westminster-confession-of-faith-and-the-scriptures-it-references}

Chapter 2: Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]

II. God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37]

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]

[1] DEU 6:4 Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. 1CO 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God by one. 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

[2] 1TH 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God. JER 10:10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King.

[3] JOB 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? 8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? 9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

[4] JOH 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

[5] 1TI 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[6] DEU 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female. JOH 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. LUK 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

[7] ACT 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. 15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.

[8] JAM 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. MAL 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

[9] 1KI 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? JER 23:23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? 24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

[10] PSA 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. 1TI 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[11] PSA 145:3 Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.

[12] GEN 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. REV 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

[13] ROM 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

[14] ISA 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. REV 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

[15] PSA 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

[16] EXO 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

[17] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

[18] PROVERBS 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. ROM 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

[19] 1JO 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

[20] EXO 34:6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

[21] HEB 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[22] NEH 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day. 33 Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly.

[23] PSA 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

[24] NAH 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. 3 The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. EXO 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

[25] JOH 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.

[26] ACT 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.

[27] PSA 119:68 Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes.

[28] 1TI 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. ROM 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

[29] ACT 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.

[30] JOB 22:2 Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? 3 Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him that thou makest thy ways perfect?

[31] ROM 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

[32] REV 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. 1TI 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. DAN 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 35 And 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?

[33] HEB 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

[34] ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? PSA 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

[35] ACT 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. EZE 11:5 And the Spirit of the Lord fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the Lord; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.

[36] PSA 145:17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. ROM 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

[37] REV 5:12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. 13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

[38] (Traditionally, I John 5:7 is placed here, but we have, for obvious reasons, omitted it in our online edition) MATT 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. MATT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. II COR 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

[39] JOHN 1:14,18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

[40] JOHN 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me. GAL 4:6 And Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

The London Baptist Confession Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity {#the-london-baptist-confession-chapter-2:-of-god-and-of-the-holy-trinity}

1.The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

( 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Jeremiah 10:10; Isaiah 48:12; Exodus 3:14; John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; Deuteronomy 4:15, 16; Malachi 3:6; 1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:23; Psalms 90:2; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 6:3; Psalms 115:3; Isaiah 46:10; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36; Exodus 34:6, 7; Hebrews 11:6; Nehemiah 9:32, 33; Psalms 5:5, 6; Exodus 34:7; Nahum 1:2, 3 )

2.God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself, is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, and he hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth; in his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain; he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands; to him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.

( John 5:26; Psalms 148:13; Psalms 119:68; Job 22:2, 3; Romans 11:34-36; Daniel 4:25, 34, 35; Hebrews 4:13; Ezekiel 11:5; Acts 15:18; Psalms 145:17; Revelation 5:12-14 )

3. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.

( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )

Waldensian Confession of 1655 {#waldensian-confession-of-1655}

The Waldensian confession indicates they also believed in a sovereign God, and affirmed the reformation teachings. At the end of their declaration they wrote:

And for a more ample declaration of our faith we do here reiterate the same protestation which we caused to be printed in 1603, that is to say, that we do agree in sound doctrine with all the Reformed Churches of France, Great Britain, the Low Countries, Germany, Switzerland, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and others, as it is set forth by them in their confessions; as also in the Confession of Augsburg, as it was explained by the author,[1] promising to persevere constantly therein with the help of God, both in life and death, and being ready to subscribe to that eternal truth of God with our own blood, even as our ancestors have done from the days of the Apostles, and especially in these latter ages.

Therefore we humbly entreat all the Evangelical and Protestant Churches, notwithstanding our poverty and lowness, to look upon us as true members of the mystical body of Christ, suffering for his name's sake, and to continue unto us the help of their prayers to God, and all other effects of their charity, as we have heretofore abundantly experienced, for which we return them our most humble thanks, entreating the Lord with all our heart to be their rewarder, and to pour upon them the most precious blessings of grace and glory, both in this life and in that which is to come. Amen.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary ↩

Doctrines of Grace

Answering objections to doctrines of grace

Read in Your Language

What Are the Doctrines of Grace? {#what-are-the-doctrines-of-grace?}

What Is Our Basis for Evaluating the Five Points? {#what-is-our-basis-for-evaluating-the-five-points?}

Scripture Is the Basis for our Faith {#scripture-is-the-basis-for-our-faith}

Our Faith Should not Rest on the Wisdom of Men. {#our-faith-should-not-rest-on-the-wisdom-of-men.}

Scriptural Warnings against Philosophy {#scriptural-warnings-against-philosophy}

Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians {#paul’s-first-letter-to-the-corinthians}

Key Points in 1 Corinthians 1-3 {#key-points-in-1-corinthians-1-3}

Other Scriptures Also Reject Philosophy {#other-scriptures-also-reject-philosophy}

Philosophy’s Non-Biblical View of Man {#philosophy’s-non-biblical-view-of-man}

Methods of Humanistic Philosophy {#methods-of-humanistic-philosophy}

Mysticism {#mysticism}

Fideism {#fideism}

Rationalism {#rationalism}

Empiricism {#empiricism}

A Biblical basis for operational science

Paul’s method of interacting with philosophers {#paul’s-method-of-interacting-with-philosophers}

A warning against seeking the approval of the world and pleasing men. {#a-warning-against-seeking-the-approval-of-the-world-and-pleasing-men.}

The example of the Pharisees {#the-example-of-the-pharisees}

Exegesis of scripture is the key {#exegesis-of-scripture-is-the-key}

The intended audience {#the-intended-audience}

Progressing from isolated passages to a systematic theology {#progressing-from-isolated-passages-to-a-systematic-theology}

Dealing with difficult passages and apparent contradictions {#dealing-with-difficult-passages-and-apparent-contradictions}

How to reconcile alleged contradictions {#how-to-reconcile-alleged-contradictions}

Distinguishing between historical narratives and theological discourse allows a harmonious understanding of otherwise difficult issues. {#distinguishing-between-historical-narratives-and-theological-discourse-allows-a-harmonious-understanding-of-otherwise-difficult-issues.}

Primary and secondary passages in Bible Interpretation {#primary-and-secondary-passages-in-bible-interpretation}

An example Exegetical examination of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 {#an-example-exegetical-examination-of-1-timothy-2:8-15}

Does the phrases “all men” and “whole world” always refer to every single person who was alive or would live? {#does-the-phrases-“all-men”-and-“whole-world”-always-refer-to-every-single-person-who-was-alive-or-would-live?}

A Key Interpretational Choice {#a-key-interpretational-choice}

All Men {#all-men}

Whole World {#whole-world}

The Responsibility of the Non-Calvinist {#the-responsibility-of-the-non-calvinist}

A word of caution when tossing about the word “possible” {#a-word-of-caution-when-tossing-about-the-word-“possible”}

Scripture’s use of Anthropomorphic language {#scripture’s-use-of-anthropomorphic-language}

God, The creator of space-time, is non-corporeal, aspatially omnipresent and immutable {#god,-the-creator-of-space-time,-is-non-corporeal,-aspatially-omnipresent-and-immutable}

Overview of Anthropomorphic Passages {#overview-of-anthropomorphic-passages}

Spatial/Corporeal anthropomorphic passages: {#spatial/corporeal-anthropomorphic-passages:}

Temporal anthropomorphic passages {#temporal-anthropomorphic-passages}

A look at the original language {#a-look-at-the-original-language}

Primary theological discourse and secondary anthropomorphic passages {#primary-theological-discourse-and-secondary-anthropomorphic-passages}

Understanding implicitly conditional statements used in anthropomorphic texts. {#understanding-implicitly-conditional-statements-used-in-anthropomorphic-texts.}

Correctly Understanding the Physical Anthropomorphic Passages {#correctly-understanding-the-physical-anthropomorphic-passages}

Correctly Interpreting the Temporal Anthropomorphic Passages {#correctly-interpreting-the-temporal-anthropomorphic-passages}

Implications of Misunderstanding Anthropomorphic Passages {#implications-of-misunderstanding-anthropomorphic-passages}

God the creator of men and things {#god-the-creator-of-men-and-things}

Chapter motivation {#chapter-motivation}

There are no other Gods {#there-are-no-other-gods}

Relevant scriptures {#relevant-scriptures}

What about scriptures that talk about other gods? {#what-about-scriptures-that-talk-about-other-gods?}

Examples of views that have implications that conflict with these scriptures {#examples-of-views-that-have-implications-that-conflict-with-these-scriptures}

YHVH is the creator of all {#yhvh-is-the-creator-of-all}

Scriptures {#scriptures}

Popular beliefs on human autonomy conflict with the idea that YHVH is the creator of all {#popular-beliefs-on-human-autonomy-conflict-with-the-idea-that-yhvh-is-the-creator-of-all}

Important facts about man {#important-facts-about-man}

Man has a nature according to the Bible {#man-has-a-nature-according-to-the-bible}

Man’s nature and his relationship with God, his creator {#man’s-nature-and-his-relationship-with-god,-his-creator}

Does choice imply autonomy? {#does-choice-imply-autonomy?}

God is omniscient {#god-is-omniscient}

Positive Proof from the Scripture {#positive-proof-from-the-scripture}

The largest discussion of the topic (Psalms 139) {#the-largest-discussion-of-the-topic-(psalms-139)}

Verses that speak of God knowing man and his heart. {#verses-that-speak-of-god-knowing-man-and-his-heart.}

God’s knowledge is incomprehensible to men {#god’s-knowledge-is-incomprehensible-to-men}

The Bible calls those who deny God’s omniscience wicked {#the-bible-calls-those-who-deny-god’s-omniscience-wicked}

Texts used by some to claim God is not omniscient. {#texts-used-by-some-to-claim-god-is-not-omniscient.}

The Immutability of God and the Prayers of Men {#the-immutability-of-god-and-the-prayers-of-men}

Scriptures that speak of the immutability of God {#scriptures-that-speak-of-the-immutability-of-god}

Reconciling the Immutability of God’s counsel and the fact He answers some of the prayers of men {#reconciling-the-immutability-of-god’s-counsel-and-the-fact-he-answers-some-of-the-prayers-of-men}

God’s word, does not change God’s mind but it avails much {#god’s-word,-does-not-change-god’s-mind-but-it-avails-much}

The word of God accomplishes the will of God in creation {#the-word-of-god-accomplishes-the-will-of-god-in-creation}

Autonomy is not a prerequisite for meaning {#autonomy-is-not-a-prerequisite-for-meaning}

No part of creation is autonomous from God {#no-part-of-creation-is-autonomous-from-god}

How the prayers of a righteous man can avail much {#how-the-prayers-of-a-righteous-man-can-avail-much}

Being Autonomous from God is not the key to prayer and service to God, being filled with God’s Spirit is the key. {#being-autonomous-from-god-is-not-the-key-to-prayer-and-service-to-god,-being-filled-with-god’s-spirit-is-the-key.}

Additional Problems for those who claim God literally repents or changes His mind when men pray {#additional-problems-for-those-who-claim-god-literally-repents-or-changes-his-mind-when-men-pray}

God hears prayers when they are according to His will, how then could we think we will change His will by our prayers? {#god-hears-prayers-when-they-are-according-to-his-will,-how-then-could-we-think-we-will-change-his-will-by-our-prayers?}

If Prayers “Change God’s mind” then why does the Spirit make intercession for us, when God thinks we don’t know how to pray? {#if-prayers-“change-god’s-mind”-then-why-does-the-spirit-make-intercession-for-us,-when-god-thinks-we-don’t-know-how-to-pray?}

If God changed His mind because of man, then men would be controlling God and His power. {#if-god-changed-his-mind-because-of-man,-then-men-would-be-controlling-god-and-his-power.}

If God changed His mind in response to men’s statements or prayers then God would be taking counsel of man {#if-god-changed-his-mind-in-response-to-men’s-statements-or-prayers-then-god-would-be-taking-counsel-of-man}