ISSiaMnilBlaM

.: -

r r
DR. NORMAN GEISLER

D SEN
i it

—g—
BETHANY HOUSE PUBLISHERS
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55438
 1

Chosen But Free Second Edition

Copyright © 1999, 2001
Norman L. Geisler

Cover design by Eric Walljasper

Unless otherwise identified, Scripture quotations are from the HOLY BIBLE,
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by
International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
All rights reserved. The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are
registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International
Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International
Bible Society.

Scripture quotations identified NKJV are from the New King James Version of the
Bible. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publishers. Used by
permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations identified KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations identified NASB are taken from the NEW AMERICAN
STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the prior written
permission of the publisher and copyright owners.

Published by Bethany House Publishers

A Ministry of Bethany Fellowship International
11400 Hampshire Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55438
www.bethanyhouse.com

Printed in the United States of America by

Bethany Press International, Bloomington, Minnesota 55438

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Geisler, Norman L.
Chosen but free / by Norman L. Geisler .
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-7642-2521-9 (pbk.)
1. Predestination. 2. Free will and determinism. 3. Providence and
government of God. 4. God—Omniscience. 5. Calvinism. 6. Arminianism.
I. Title.
BT810.2 ,G45 2001
233’.7—dc21 2001002518
 To all my students
who for the past forty-two years
have asked more questions about this
than any other topic.
DR. NORMAN L. GEISLER is author or coauthor of some fifty books
and hundreds of articles. He has taught at the university and graduate
level for over forty years and has spoken, traveled, or debated in all
fifty states and in twenty-five countries. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy
from Loyola University and now serves as president of Southern Evan­
gelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My appreciation to my wife, Barbara, for her patient proofing of

the manuscript. This text was also improved considerably by the keen
insights and many helpful suggestions of Professors Robert Culver,
Fred Howe, and Thomas Howe, along with Bob and Gretchen Passan-
tino.
 CONTENTS
X

1. Who Is in Charge?..................................... 11
2. Why Blame Me?......................................... 19
3. Viewing the Alternatives........................... 38
4. Avoiding Extreme Calvinism................... 56
5. Avoiding Extreme Calvinism (continued) 76
6. Avoiding Extreme Arminianism.............. 104
7. A Plea for Moderation............................... 119
8. What Difference Does It Make?................ 136
APPENDICES:
1. Great Christian Church Fathers on Free Will.... 150
2. Was Calvin a Calvinist?............................................. 160
3. The Origins of Extreme Calvinism....................... 167
4. Answering Objections to Free Will....................... 181
5. Is Faith a Gift Only to the Elect?........................... 188
6. Biblical Support for Unlimited Atonement.......... 200
7. Double-Predestination............................................. 215
8. An Evaluation of the Canons ofDort (1619)........ 220
9. Jonathan Edwards on Free Will............................. 230
10. Is Regeneration Prior to Faith?............................. 235
11. Monergism vs. Synergism....................................... 241
12. Extreme Calvinism and Voluntarism...................... 244
13. A Response to James White’s The Poller's Freedom 252
Bibliography.................................................................... 264
Subject Index.................................................................. 269
Scripture Index............................................................... 276
 CHAPTER ONE

Who Is in Charge?
In his widely acclaimed book The Knowledge of the Holy, A W. Tozer
writes: “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the
most important thing about us.”1 And so before we examine God's
sovereignty in coherence with human free will, we will in chapter 1
allow God’s own Word to educate us as to His nature and attributes.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GOD

When anyone who is thoroughly acquainted with the Bible thinks
about God, one of the first things that comes into the mind ought to
be God’s sovereignty. God’s sovereignty is deeply rooted in His attrib­
utes. Several of them are crucial to His ability to reign over all things.

God is before all things

God is “before all things" (Col. 1:17).2 Or, as die first verse of the
Bible puts it, “In the beginning God. ...” Before there was anything
else, there was God, the Uncreated One. The psalmist said. "From
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Ps. 90:2 Kjv). There never
was a time when God was not. In fact, He existed forever before all
things. He is called “the First,” “the Beginning,” and "the .Alpha"
(Rev. 1:8; 1:17; 21:6). Often the Bible speaks of God as being there
“before the w'orld began” (John 17:5; cf. Matt. 13:35; 25:34: John
17:24; Rev. 13:8; 17:8).

’A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 9.
“Unless otherwise noted, Bible quotations are from the New International Version of the
Bible. Also, unless otherwise noted, all italics within Scripture reference are the author's.
 1
12 CHOSEN BUT FREE

God was not only before all things, but He was before all time.
That is, He is eternal. For God was there "before the beginning of time”
(2 Tim. 1:9). In fact, God brought time into existence when He
“framed the worlds” (literally, “the ages,” Heb. 1:2, Rotherham trans.).
God “alone has immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16 nkjv). We get it only as a
gift (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:53; 2 Tim. 1:10). And our immortality’ has a
beginning; God’s does not.

God created all things

Not only is God before all things, but He created all things. “In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1 KJV).
"Through him [Christ] all things were made, without him nothing was
made that has been made” (John 1:3). “For by him all things were
created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether
thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by
him and for him” (Col. 1:16).

God upholds all things

God not only created all things, He also upholds all things. He­
brews declares that God is "'sustaining all things by his powerful word”
(Heb. 1:3). Paul adds, “He is before all things, and in him all things
hold together’ (Col. 1:17). John informs us that God not only brought
all things into existence but He keeps them in existence. Both are true
for “they were created and have their being’ from God (Rev. 4:11).
There is “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
through whom we live’’ (1 Cor. 8:6; cf. Rom. 11:36). Hebrews asserts “it
was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists,
should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering”
(Heb. 2:10).

God is above all things

The God who is before all things that He created and who is up­
holding all things is also beyond them. He is transcendent. The apos-
de affirmed that there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all
and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:6). The psalmist declared: “0
Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have
set your glory above the heavens” (Ps. 8:1). “Be exalted, O God, above
the heavens, let your glory be over all the earth” (Ps. 57:5). “For you,
0 Lord, are the Most High over all the earth-, you are exalted far above
all gods” (Ps. 97:9; cf. 108:5).

J
WHO IS IN CHARGE? 13

God knows all things

What is more, the God of the Bible knows all things. He has om­
niscience (otnnfrall; science=knowledge). That God is all-knowing is
clear from numerous passages of Scripture. The psalmist declared:
“Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite"
(Ps. 147:5 NKJV). God knows “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10).
He knows the very secrets of our heart. The psalmist confessed to God:
“Before a tvord is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD. .. .
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain” (Ps.
139:4, 6). Indeed, “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight.
Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we
must give account” (Heb. 4:13). The apostle exclaimed: “Oh, the
depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How un­
searchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Rom.
11:33). Even those who would eventually be saved w’ere known by God
(1 Peter 1:2) before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). By His
limidess knowledge God is able to predict the exact course of human
history (Dan. 2, 7), including the names of persons generations before
they were born (cf. Isa. 45:1). Nearly two hundred predictions were
made by God about the Messiah, not one of which failed. God knows
all things past, present, and future.

God can do all things

Furthermore, God is all-powerful. He not only knows all things
eternally and unchangeably, but God is omnipotent (owini=all; po-
tent=powerful). Before performing a great miracle, God promised
Abraham, “ 'Is anything too hard for the Lord ? I will return to you at
the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son’ ” (Gen.
18:14). In fact, “Nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).
He is not only infinite (not limited) in His knowledge. He is also
infinite in His power. God declares: “ ‘I am the Lord, the God of all
mankind. Is anything too hard for me?' ” (Jer. 32:27). God's power is
supernatural as is evident by the miracles He perforins that overpower
the forces of nature. Jesus the Son of God walked on water (John 6),
stilled the storm (John 6), and even raised the dead (John 11).
What is more, God’s omnipotent power is manifested in the crea­
tion of the world from nothing. He simply spoke and things came into
being (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, 11). Paul describes Him as “God. who said,
‘Let light shine out of darkness’ ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The writer of Hebrews
14 CHOSEN BUT FREE

declares that God is “sustaining all things by his powerful word’ (Heb.
1:3).
Of course, God cannot do what is actually impossible to do. Since
it is impossible for God to do things contrary to His unchanging na­
ture, it is understandable that He cannot do any contradictory thing.
The Bible says, “God cannot lie” (Titus 1:2 NASB), because “it is im­
possible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18). For “ ‘He who is the Glory of
Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he
should change his mind’ ” (1 Sam. 15:29).
For example, God cannot make a square circle. Nor can He make
a triangle with only two sides. Likewise, God cannot create anodter
God equal to Himself. It is literally impossible to create another being
that is not created. There is only one Uncreated Creator (Deut. 6:4; Isa.
45:18). Everything else is a creature.
Nonetheless, God can do whatever is possible to do. He can do
anything that does not involve a contradiction. There are no limits on
His power. The Bible describes Him as “the Almighty” (all-might}’) in
numerous places (e.g., Gen. 17:1; Ex. 6:3; Num. 24:4; Job 5:17).

God accomplishes all things

God’s sovereignty over all things implies also that He accomplishes
all things that He wills. Isaiah declares, “The Lord Almighty has
sworn, ‘Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed,
so it will stand. . . . For the Lord .Almighty’ has purposed, and who can
thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?’ ”
(Isa. 14:24, 27). Again, “ ‘I am God, and there is no other; I am God,
and there is none like me.. .. My purpose will stand, and I will do all
that I please. . . . What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have
planned, that will I do' ” (Isa. 46:9-11). Paul adds, “In him we were
also chosen, hating been predestined according to die plan of him
who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his wilt' (Eph.
1:11). Peter confirms this, saying of Christ’s crucifiers that “ 'they did
what your [God’s] power and will had decided beforehand should hap­
pen ’ ” (Acts 4:28; cf. 2:23).

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

A God who is before all things, beyond all things, creates all things,
upholds all things, knows all things, and can do all things is also in
control of all things. This complete control of all things is called the

1
WHO IS IN CHARGE? 15

sovereignty of God. As the Westminster Confession ofFaith puts it, “God,

from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own
will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass” (chap­
ter 3). Nothing catches God by surprise. AU things come to pass as He
ordained them from all eternity.

God rules over all things

The Bible affirms God’s sovereignty in many ways. Just as earthly
sovereigns control their domain, even so the heavenly King is in
charge of His creation. Isaiah’s vision of God was of a heavenly king
whose train filled the temple (Isa. 6). Yahweh is called “the great King”
(Ps. 48:2). His reign is eternal for “the Lord is enthroned as King for
ever” (Ps. 29:10). And He is King over all the earth, for “TTieLORD is
King for ever and ever, the nations will perish from his land” (Ps.
10:16). He is also the almighty King: “Who is this King of glory? The
Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle" (Ps. 24:8). As such,
God rules over all things: “Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the
power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything
in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom; you are
exalted as head over alL Wealth and honor come from you; you are the
ruler of all things” (1 Chron. 29:11-12).

God is in control of all things

Not only is God in charge of all things, He is also in control of
them. Job confessed to God: "I know that you can do all things; no plan
of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). The psalmist added, “Our God
is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Ps. 115:3). Again, "The
Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in
the seas and all their depths” (Ps. 135:6). As Daniel put it, "He does as
he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No
one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’ ”
(Dan. 4:35).

Earthly kings are under God’s control

Solomon declared that “ The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Prov. 21:1). God
is the Sovereign over all other sovereigns. He is “King of kings and
Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:16). There is no human that is not under God’s
power.
16 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Human events are under God’s control

God not only controls the hearts of kings, He is in charge of all
human events. He ordains the course of history before it occurs, as He
predicted through Daniel the great world kingdoms of Babylon,
Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Dan. 2, 7). Indeed, the great King
Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way that “ 'the Most High is sover­
eign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and
sets over them die lowliest of men’ ” (Dan. 4:17). The Lord says, “ 'So
is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me
empty, but [it] will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for
which I sent it' ” (Isa. 55:11; cf. 46:9-11).

The good angels are under God’s control

God not only rules in die visible realm but also in the invisible
domain. He is “over all creation” including “visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers” (Col. 1:15-
16). The angels come before His throne to get their orders to obey (1
Kings 22; Job 1:6; 2:1). They constandy worship God (Neh. 9:6). In­
deed, they are positioned before the dirone of God, and “day and
night diey never stop sating: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Al­
mighty, who was, and is, and is to come’ ” (Rev. 4:8).

The evil angels are under God’s control

God’s sovereign domain includes not only the good angels but also
the evil ones (Eph. 1:21). They too will bow before God’s dirone one
day in total subjection to Him, for "at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, in heaven and on eardi and under the earth [evil spirits]”
(Phil. 2:10; cf. Isa. 45:22-23). Indeed, die evil spirits who deceived
King Ahab were dispatched from die very throne of God. The Scrip­
tures inform us:

I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all die host of heaven
standing round him on his right and on his left. And die Lord
said, "Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and
going to his death diere?” One suggested this, and another that.
Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, "I
will entice him.” “By what means?” the Lord asked. “I will go out
and be a king spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,” he said.
"You will succeed in enticing him,” said the Lord. “Go and do it”
(1 Kings 22:19-22).

J
WHO IS IN CHARGE? 17

Even Satan is under God's control

Even Satan came along with the good angels before God’s throne
in the book of Job (Job 1:6; 2:1). And although he wished to destroy
Job, God would not permit him. Satan complained, saying to God,
“ ‘Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and
everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his
flocks and herds are spread throughout the land’ ” (Job 1:10). God
has power to bind Satan any time He desires, and He does it for a
thousand years in the book of Revelation (20:2).
Also, the devil’s demons who fell with him (Rev. 12:9; Jude 6) know
they are eventually doomed. One cried out to Jesus, “ ‘What do you
tvant with us, Son of God?... Have you come here to torture us before
the appointed time?’ ” (Matt. 8:29). And eventually Satan and all his
hosts will be destroyed. The devil himself “knows that his time is
short” (Rev. 12:12). While he is presently roaming the earth (1 Peter
5:8), he does so only on a leash held firmly by God’s sovereign hand.
Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (Heb. 2:14), which
He did officially on the Cross (1 John 3:8). And Christ will return to
defeat the devil actually. John foretells how “tire devil, who deceived
them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and
the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented dav and
night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).

Even human decisions are under God’s control

Perhaps the most difficult thing to understand is that God is in
sovereign control of everything we choose, even our salvation. For "in
him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the
plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of
his will...” (Eph. 1:11). “For those God foreknew he also predestined
to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the first­
born among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called;
those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified"
(Rom. 8:29-30). According to Paul, “he chose us in him before the
creation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). Peter said of Jesus to the Jews.
“ ‘This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowl­
edge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death bv nail­
ing him to the cross’ ” (Acts 2:23). Indeed, only those who are elect
will believe, for Luke wrote that “all who were appointed for eternal
life believed” (Acts 13:48).
Other verses affirm God’s actions on the human will, even in
18 CHOSEN BUT FREE

matters of salvation. John declares that we are “children [of God]

born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will,
but born of God" (John 1:13). Likewise, Paul affirms that “it is not of
him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God w'ho shows mercy”
(Rom. 9:16 NKjv). He adds even stronger words: “God has mercy on
whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he w'ants to
harden” (Rom. 9:19; see appendix 1).
God’s sovereignty over human decisions includes both those for
Him and against Him. Peter, quoting from Isaiah (8:14), writes of
Christ: He is “ ‘a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that
makes them fall.’ They stumble because they disobey the message—
which is also what they were destined for” (1 Peter 2:8). Likewise, God
has destined the “vessels of wTath” who were “prepared for destruc­
tion” (Rom. 9:22 nasb) as well as die “vessels of mercy” (Rom. 9:23
nasb)—each according to His will.
Whatever else may be said, God’s sovereignty over die human will
includes His initiating, pursuing, persuading, and sating grace without
which no one would ever will to be saved. For “there is no one who
understands, no one who seeks God" (Rom. 3:11). “We love Him” only
because “Hefirst loved us” (1 John 4:19 Nigv). Indeed, no one comes
to the Father unless he is drawn by God (John 6:44).

HOW THEN ARE WE FREE?

If God is sovereign, how then can we be free? Does not divine sov­
ereignty make a sham of human responsibility? Is not a sovereign God
a Giant Puppet Master, pulling the strings of human “puppets” at His
will? If God is in complete control of everything, including human
choice, then how can we be truly free? Are not sovereignty and signif­
icant free will mutually exclusive? These questions are the subject of
the rest of this book. And we begin in the next chapter with what the
Bible says about free choice.

1
 CHAPTER TWO

Why Blame Me?

I have never forgotten a placard I saw in a Presbyterian church
foyer over forty years ago: “We believe in predestination, but drive
carefully because you may hit a Presbyterian!” On the other side of
the coin from divine sovereignty (see chapter 1) is human responsibil­
ity.

WHO DONE IT?

If God is in control of everything, then why should we be blamed
for anything? If an all-knowing God knows what we are going to do
before we ever do it—and if He cannot be wrong—then is not this the
way it’s going to happen regardless of what we do?
Or to put the problem anodrer way, if God is in control of all
events, then how can I be responsible for anything that happens, even
my evil actions? It would seem that His sovereignty eliminates mv re­
sponsibility.

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT

Some believers have been known to excuse their sin, claiming:
“The devil made me do it!” But the problem here is even greater,
because logically one cannot stop at this point. For if God is in sover­
eign control of all things, then instead it would appear that, ultimately,
“Godmade me do it.”
Indeed, one response to the problem of divine sovereignty and
20 CHOSEN BUT FREE

human responsibility is that of extreme Calvinism.1

This response claims that free choice simply is doing what we de­
sire, but that no one ever desires to do anything unless God gives him
the desire to do so.2 If all of this were so, then it would follow that God
would be responsible for all human actions.
If it were true, then the Bible should say that God gave Judas the
desire to betray Christ. But it does not. Rather, it says, “the devil had
already prompted3 Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betrayjesus” (John
13:2).
Nor does it help to claim that God gives only good desires but not
evil ones and that all other choices result from our evil natures. For
neither Lucifer nor Adam had an evil nature to begin with, and yet
they sinned. Further, why doesn’t God give a good desire to all?

WHO MADE THE DEVIL DO IT?

For the strong (extreme) Calvinists the ultimate question is: Who
made the devil do it? Or, more precisely, who caused Lucifer to sin? If
free choice is doing what one desires, and if all desires come from

*We use the term “extreme” rather than “hyper” since hyper-Calvinism is used by some to
designate a more radical view known as “supcrlapsarianism,” which entails double­
predestination (see appendix 7), denies human responsibility’ (see Edwin Palmer, The Five
Points of Calvinism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1972], 85), or nullifies
concern for missions and evangelism (see Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The
Battle for Gospel Preaching [Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust], 1995).
We should note dial theologians we classify as extreme Calvinists consider themselves
simply “Calvinists" and would probably object to our categorizing them in this manner. In
their view, anyone who does not espouse all five points of Calvinism as they’ interpret them
is not, strictly speaking, a true Calvinist. Nonetheless, we call them “extreme” Calvinists
because they are more extreme than John Calvin himself (see appendix 2) and to distin­
guish them from moderate Calvinists (see chapter 7).
•Edwin Palmer, an extreme Calvinist, insists "that man is free—one hundred percent free—
free to do exactly what he wants.” But this is seriously misleading in view of what is said only
a few lines later, namely, "Man is totally unable to choose equally as well between [the]
good and the bad." He adds, “the non-Christian is free. He does precisely what he would
like. He follows his heart's desires. Because his heart is rotten and inclined to all kinds of
evil, he freely does what he wants to do, namely, sin.” See Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points
of Calvinism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1972), 35—36.
sFurther, it is noteworthy that it says the devil “prompted,” not forced, Judas to betray
Christ The act of Judas was free and uncoerced. This is evident from the use of the word
betray (Matt. 26:16, 21, 23 nasb), for betrayal is a deliberate act (cf. Luke 6:16). And
though the devil had put the idea into his heart (John 13:2), Judas performed the act freely,
admitting later that he had "sinned” (Malt. 27:4). Jesus said to Judas, “What you are about
to do, do quickly." Mark even says that whatjudas did he did “conveniendy” (Mark 14:10—
11 KJV).
WHY BLAME ME? 21

God, then it follows logically that God made Lucifer sin against God!1
But it is contradictory to say that God ever could be against God. God
is essentially good. He cannot sin (Heb. 6:18). In fact, He cannoteven
look with approval on sin. Habakkuk said to God: “Your eyes are too
pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (1:13). James re­
minds us that “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting
me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone”
(1:13).
So, if for no other reason, the strong Calvinist’s position must be
rejected because it is contradictory. And the Bible exhorts us to “avoid
contradictions” (1 Tim. 6:20 nkjv). Opposites cannot both be true at
the same time and in the same sense. God cannot be good and not
good. He cannot be for His own essential good and be against it by
giving Lucifer the desire to sin against Him. In short, God cannot be
for Himself and against Himself at the same time and in the same
sense.
Consequendy, some less strong Calvinists claim that God does not
give any evil desires but only good ones. However, this new has two
problems. First, why would God give a desire to do good only to some
and not to all? If He is all-loving, then surely He would love all, as the
Bible says He does (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Second, this
does not explain where Lucifer got the desire to sin. If it did not come
from God, then it must have come from himself. But in that case, his
original evil act was self-caused, that is, caused by himself—which is
exactly the view of human free will the strong Calvinist rejects.5

WHO MADE THE DEVIL?

If God did not make the devil do it, then who did? More simply,
who made the devil? The biblical answers to these questions are: God
^Jonathan Edwards mistakenly believed that a man never, in any instance, wills anything con­
trary to his desire, or desires anything contrary to his will (Jonathan Edwards, “Freedom of
the Will,” in Jonathan Edwards: Representative Selections, cds. Clarence H. Faust and Thomas
H. Johnson [New York: Hill and Wang, 1962], 267-68). But this is contrary to both Scrip­
ture (Rom. 7:15) and our conscious experience. John Locke was correct when he said,
“The will is perfectly distinguished from desire” (John Locke. "An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding,” in The Empiricists, ed. Richard Taylor [Garden City. N.Y.: Double­
day & Company, Inc., 1961], 2.21.30).
5In spite of the fact that his mentor, Jonathan Edwards, rejects the view of human freedom
called self-determination, R. C. Sproul speaks of free will as "self-determination” (R. C.
Sproul, Willing to Believe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1997]. 158). but Sproul
simply means it is not determined (caused) by anything external to itself. It is determined
by things internal to itself, namely, by its nature. This is not what is meant in this discussion
by a “self-determined action," which is one freely caused by the self (the 1) without either
external or internal constraint (see appendix 4).
22 CHOSEN BUT FREE

did not make the devil, and He did not make the devil do it. Rather,
God made a good angel called Lucifer, who became the devil by his
own free choice to sin.

God made only good creatures

The Bible affirms that God made only good creatures. After almost
every day of Creation it says, “and it was good” (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18,
21, 25). And after the last day, it declares, “It was very good” (1:31).
Solomon added, “This only have I found: God made mankind up­
right ...” (Eccl. 7:29). We are told explicitly that “every creature of
God is good” (1 Tim. 4:4 kjv). And an absolutely good God cannot
make an evil thing. Only a perfect creature can come from the hands
of a perfect Creator.

God gave free choice to good creatures

One of the things God gave His good creatures was a good power
called free will. God said to Adam: “ You arefree. . .” (Gen. 2:16). Man­
kind intuitively recognizes freedom as being good; only those who
usurp and abuse power deny it, and yet even these value and seek it
for themselves. And people never march against freedom. One never
sees a crowd carrying placards: “Down with freedom!” or "Back to
bondage!" And even if someone did speak against freedom, he would
thereby be speaking for it, since he values his freedom to express that
idea. In short, free choice is an undeniable good, since it affirms its
own good even when attempting to deny it.

Free choice is the origin of evil

However, die power of moral free choice entails the ability either
to choose the good God designed for us or to reject it. The latter is
called evil. It is good to be free, but freedom makes evil possible. Free
will is good in itself, but entailed in that good is the ability to choose
the opposite of good, which then makes evil possible.
If God made free creatures, and if it is good to be free, then the
origin of evil is in the misuse of freedom. This is not hard to under­
stand. We all enjoy the freedom to drive, but many abuse this freedom
and drive recklessly. Yet we should not blame the government that
gives us the license to drive for all the evil we do with our cars. Those
whose irresponsible driving kills others are responsible for what has hap­
pened. Remember: the government that gave us the permission to
WHY BLAME ME? 23

drive has also informed us how to drive safely/'

Likewise, God is morally accountable for giving the good thing
called free will, but He is not morally responsible for all the evil we do
with our freedom. Solomon said it well: “This only have I found: God
made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes"
(Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the fact of freedom; we are responsi­
ble for the acts of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though
some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we
are the cause of the latter.

DID GOD MAKE ME DO IT?

Staunch Calvinist7 Jonathan Edwards “solved” the problem of pre­

destination and free wi 11 by claiming that (1) free will is doing what we
desire; (2) but God gives us the desire to do good. What about the
desire to do evil? That comes from our fallen nature, which desires
only evil. Apart from God giving us the desire to do good, we naturally
desire to do evil.8
However, the faithful followers of Edwards admit this does not
solve the issue of where Lucifer and Adam got the desire for their first
sin. R. C. Sproul calls this an “excruciating problem,” adding: “One
thing is absolutely unthinkable, that God could be the author or doer
of sin.”9 Yet this problem is “excruciating” only because Sproul be­
lieves in the law of noncontradiction,10 and it appears to be a contra­
diction to hold, as he does, all of these premises:

(1) God cannot give anyone the desire to sin;

(2) Originally, neither Lucifer nor Adam had a sinful nature;
(3) The will does not move unless given a desire by God or by
its own nature.

cOf course, both the government and God put limits on those who abuse their freedom.
Human finitudc, divine judgment, and eventual death place limits on all free choices.
7Some Calvinists, like W. G. T. Shedd, are more moderate at this point (see his Dogmatic
Theology, 2nd ed., vol. 3 [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1980]. 298f.
8Sce Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, eds. Arnold S. Kaufman and William K_ Fran-
kena, reprinted. (New York: Irvington Press, 1982).
9R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers. 1986), 31.
10Sproul declared: “I don’t like contradictions. 1 find little comfort in them. I never cease to
be amazed at the ease with which Christians seem to be comfortable with them.... What I
want to avoid is a God who is smaller than logic and a faith that is lower than reason"
(ibid., 40-41).
24 CHOSEN BUT FREE

And here is the unmistakable conclusion: both Lucifer and Adam

sinned because God gave them the desire to sin. But Sproul is not
willing to give up on premises 1 or 2 under any circumstances. There­
fore, premise 3 must be false, since it is contradictory to the other
premises he believes are absolutely true. For it is certain that Lucifer
neither had an evil nature, nor did God give him the desire to sin.
Conversely, if the followers ofJonathan Edwards insist on clinging
to their flawed view of human freedom, then their God must take the
rap for giving Lucifer and Adam the desire to sin. For if die original
perfect creature’s will is in neutral and is unmoved until God moves
on it (hadng no sinful nature to move it toward sin), then there is
only one person left in the universe to do it—God! And as “excruci­
ating” as it is, diey must either blame God foi* the origin of evil, or
else they must give up their view of free will as doing what one desires
according to one’s nature or God’s giving of tiiose desires.

WHO MADE ME DO IT?

If neither the devil nor God made me do it, then who did? The
biblical answer is that Zdid. That is, tire “I” or “self’ is the cause of
evil. How? By means of the good power of free choice that God gave
me.

Doesn’t every event have a cause?

Strong Calvinists object to this reasoning, claiming that every event
has a cause—even our actions. And to claim that God did not cause
our actions would mean that there is an effect without a cause—which
is absurd. In response to this reasoning, several things should be
noted.
First, every event does have a cause. But not every cause has a cause,
as even the strong Calvinists agree. Every painting has a painter, but
every painter is not painted. Further, if every cause had a cause, tiien
God could not be the first Uncaused Cause that He is. Hence, it is
even more absurd to ask: “Who made God?” God is the Unmade
Maker. And it is absurd to ask, “Who made the Unmade?” No one
made the Unmade; He is simply unmade.
Pursuing the question any further is like insisting that there must
be an answer to the question “Who is the bachelor’s wife?” Bachelors
WHY BLAME ME? 25

do not have wives, and the Uncaused Being does not have a cause.1'
Likewise, if the creature, by means of the good power of free choice,
is the first cause of evil, then no cause of this evil action should be
sought other than the person who caused it.
Second, the extreme Calvinist’s objection wrongly assumes that
either an evil action must be caused by some other person or thing or
else it is not caused at all since, the thinking goes, every event is either
caused or uncaused, and there allegedly are no other logical alterna­
tives. Neither the extreme nor moderate Calvinist (or even Arminian)
believes that evil actions have no cause for at least two basic reasons.
For one, it is a violation of this fundamental rule of reason: Every ef­
fect has a cause. Even the renowned skeptic David Hume denied that
he ever asserted such an “absurd” thing that things arise without a
cause.12
What is more, if evil actions have no cause, then no one can be
held responsible for them. But both good moral reason and Scripture
inform us that free creatures are held morally responsible for their
choices. Lucifer was condemned to eternal separation from God for
his rebellion against God (Rev. 20:10; 1 Tim. 3:6), as were the angels
who fell with him (Rev. 12:4, 12; Jude 6-7). Likewise, Adam and Eve
were condemned for their actions (Gen. 3:1-19; Rom. 5:12).
However, if our actions are not uncaused, then is not the extreme
Calvinist’s view correct that they must be caused by another? Not at
all. For this perspective overlooks one very important alternative,
namely, that they were caused by ourselves. True, every action is either
uncaused or caused. This exhausts the logical possibilities. But it does
not follow that every action is either uncaused by anyone or caused b\
someone else. It may have been caused by me, i.e., by my Self. There are
three possibilities: My actions are (1) uncaused; (2) caused bv some­
one (or something) else; or (3) caused by my Self. And there are many­
reasons to support the last view.

“It should not be hard for an atheist to believe that something can be uncaused, since many
believe that the universe itself is uncaused. But if the universe can be uncaused because it
was always there, then so can God because He was always there. Of course, the problem
with the atheist’s claim is that there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning,
since it is running down (see William Lane Craig. The Kalam Cosmological Argument [Lon­
don: The Macmillan Press, Ltd., 1979]).
'-’Hume wrote to a friend: “But allow me to tell you that 1 never asserted so absurd a Propo­
sition as that anything might arise without a cause” (The Letters of David Hume, ed.J. Y. T.
Greig, 2 vols. [Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1932], 1.187).
26 CHOSEN BUT FREE

WHO CAUSED ME TO DO IT?

Again, extreme Calvinists object that a self-caused action is a con­
tradiction in terms. According to this line of thought, nothing can
cause itself. We cannot, for example, lift ourselves by' our own boot­
straps. A cause is always prior to its effect (in being, if not in time).
But we cannot be prior to ourselves. Thus, it would seem to follow that
a self-caused action is impossible, being rationally absurd.
Here again, extreme Calvinism exhibits a fundamental misunder­
standing. A self-caused beingis impossible for the reason they give, but
this is not true of a self-caused action. It is true that we cannot exist
before we exist or be before we have being. But we can and must be
before we can do. That is, we must exist before we can act.
Therefore, self-caused actions are not impossible. If they were,
then even God, who cannot do what is impossible (cf. Heb. 6:18),
would not have been able to create die world. For there was no one or
nothing else to cause the world to exist before it existed, except God.
If the act of Creation was not self-caused by God, then it could not
have been created, since He, the Uncaused Cause, is the only one who
could have performed it.
Likewise, if self-caused actions are not possible, then there is no
explanation for Lucifer’s sin. For again, a sinless God could not have
caused Lucifer to sin (James 1:13). And since Lucifer w’as the first one
to sin, then his action must have been self-caused or else he would
never have been able to sin. It follow’s that self-caused actions are pos­
sible. Even moderate Calvinists, like W. G. T. Shedd, admit this, saying,
“A positive act of angelic self-determination is requisite. ... Nothing
but the spontaneity’ of will can produce the sin; and God does not
work in the will to cause evil spontaneity” {Dogmatic Theology, 1.420).
Perhaps the reason it seems to some that self-caused actions are not
possible is the term “self-caused” itself. It might be better understood
were we to speak of our actions as “caused by' myself” (as opposed to
“caused by another”). Or, better yet, actions caused by my Self (that
is, by me, myself or I). Actions do not cause themselves, but a self can
cause an action. Speaking this way' would eliminate the ambiguity of
language that gives rise to the false belief that a self-caused action is
impossible.

WHY DID I DO IT?

But why do I do what I do? Don’t my background, training, and
environment affect what I do? Yes, they do, but they do not force me. to
WHY BLAME ME? 27

do it. They affect my actions, but they do not effect (i.e., cause) them.
They influence but do not control my actions. That I still have the
power to make free moral choices is true for several reasons.
First, there is a difference between inherited physical characteristics
(like brown eyes), over which I have no control, and inherited spiritual
tendencies (like lust), over which I ought to have control. We cannot
avoid the basic size, color, talents, or ethnic group from which we have
come. But we do have a choice as to whether to follow' spiritual im­
pulses we may have inherited, like impatience, anger, pride, or sexual
impurity'. None of these tendencies excuses evil actions that may follow
from them; for instance, physical abuse, murder, or sexual perversion.
We may feel the impulse to strike back at someone who has said
something nasty about us, but we can choose not to act on this im­
pulse. Morally speaking, “irresistible urges” are urges that have not
been resisted. People have died for lack of water and food, but no one
has ever been known to die for lack of sex, alcohol, or other drugs to
fulfill his cravings! We have a free choice in all these areas.
Second, there is a difference betw'een moral and nonmoral
(amoral) choices. Our preferences for color are nonmoral and largely
determined. But a choice to be racist based on the color of one’s or
another’s skin is not nonmoral, nor is it an act we could not avoid
performing.
Finally, those who point out that all actions have a reason and that
reason determines what we do often fail to properly distinguish a pur­
pose from a cause. The purpose is why I act. The cause is what pro­
duces the act. A purpose is a final cause (that for which we act), but a
cause is an efficient cause (that by which we act). No end or goal of an
act produces a human free act. It is simply the purpose for which we
choose to act. If we choose to cheat or steal, we do so freely, even though
greed may have been the purpose for doing so. Moral actions spring
from our free choices, no matter what the purposes for them may have
been.

HOW CAN AN EVIL NATURE CHOOSE GOOD?

Extreme Calvinists, following Jonathan Edwards, object that will

necessarily follows nature.13 This basic argument states that what is
good by nature cannot will evil, and what is evil by nature cannot will

,3Sce R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 60-61.

28 CHOSEN BUT FREE

good. Unless God gives evil men the desire to will good, they cannot
Mill good any more titan dead persons can raise themselves back to
life. Following the “later” Augustine (see appendix 3), before the Fall,
Adam was able to sin or not to sin; after the Fall, he was able to sin but
unable not to sin-, after regeneration man is able to sin or not to sin
(like Adam before die Fall); and in heaven man will be both able not
to sin and not able to sin.
In response, it should be observed that this is contrary to Augus­
tine’s own earlier position (see appendix 3) that M'e are born Mith a
propensity but not a necessity to sin.14 It makes sin unavoidable, rather
dtan inevitable. That is, it is inevitable that we will sin, but it is not
inevitable dtat we must sin. Even though we are depraved and by na­
ture bent toward sin, nonetheless, each sin is freely chosen. In addi­
tion, there are several serious problems with this position.
First of all, it is self-contradictory, for it holds two logically opposite
premises: (1) What is good by nature cannot will evil (since will follows
nature); (2) Yet Lucifer and Adam, who were good by nature, Milled
evil.
Second, it logically removes all responsibility for evil actions by evil
(unregenerated) creatures, since diey have no real choice in the evil
they do. They can’t help but do what comes naturally.
Third, it confuses desire and decision. That evil men naturally desire
to sin does not mean dtev must decide to sin. Both Scripture and ex­
perience inform us dtat there is a difference. Paul writes, “I do not
understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate
I do” (Rom. 7:15).15 Personal experience reveals that we sometimes act
contrary to our strongest desire, such as to retaliate or to shirk respon­
sibility.16
HAugusline said of Adam and Eve, “The sin which they committed was so great that it im­
paired all human nature—in this sense, that the nature has been transmitted to posterity'
with a propensity to sin and a necessity to die” (Augustine, “City of God,” in A Select Li­
brary of thr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 2
[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956], 14.1).
“■Sproul suggests that this passage is simplv speaking of "conflicting desires” {Chosen by God,
59). But this is not consistent with the text, which says that what "I do” (i.e., choose to do)
is often contrary to what I “want” (i.e., desire). Elsewhere, Sproul offers the implausible
suggestion that Paul is simply experiencing the “all things being equal dimension” {Wil­
ing to Believe, 156). That is, we choose what we do not want to choose when all things are
equal—but they are not always so! Hence, we always choose what we desire. It is painful to
watch extreme Calvinists go through these exegetical contortions in order to make a text
say what their preconceived theology mandates that it must say.
‘"Many extreme Calvinists claim (see Sproul, Chosen by God, 58-59) that whatever we ulti­
mately decide to do is really our strongest desire, even when we decide to go against what
we experience as our strongest desire. But this is really victory by stipulated definition and
not a real argument. It is both a denial of our experience and is unfalsifiable.

J
WHY BLAME ME? 29

Fourth, this view is a form of determinism. It believes that our

moral actions are determined (caused) by another, rather than self-
determined (caused) by ourselves.
Fifth, if what is evil can’t will good, and if what is good can’t wall
evil, then why do Christians who have been given good natures still
choose to sin?
Many extreme Calvinists attempt to avoid this charge by redefining
determinism. One does so by suggesting, “Determinism means that we
are forced or coerced to do things by external force.”17 This is the
fallacy of special pleading. This particular reasoning admits that there
is an internal determination but denies that it should be called “deter­
minism” because there was no external determination. Yet a rose bv
any other name is still a rose. The bottom line is, they believe that
irresistible forces were exerted upon free creatures in order to get
them to do what God wanted them to do. With the exception of the
later Augustine (see appendix 3) there was no major church father up
to the Reformation who held this view (see appendix 1).

FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE, WHOSE FAULT IS IT?

The unpleasant truth is that even though I have an inherited sin

nature (Eph. 2:3), I have no one to blame but myself (i.e., my Self for
my personal moral actions. This is clear for many reasons.18

Responsibility and the ability to respond

Both extreme and moderate Calvinists (and Arminians) agree that
God holds free creatures morally responsible for their free choices.
Indeed, the Bible is filled with references supporting this conclusion.
This is true of Lucifer (1 Tim. 3:6), other angels who fell (Jude 6-7),
Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:14), and of all human beings since the Fall
(Rom. 3:19).
However, sound reason demands that there is no responsibility
where there is no ability to respond. It is not rational to hold someone
responsible when they could not have responded. And God is not ir­
rational. His omniscience means God is the most rational Being in the

’’Sproul, Chosen by God, 59.

,8This is not to say that Adam’s sin has no effect on us; it does (Rom. 5:12). We are born in
sin (Ps. 51:5) and are sinners by nature (Rom. 7:18). We are born with a bent to sinning.
Nevertheless, in spite of this natural inclination, we are personally responsible for sins we
commit. Again, this is the difference between desire and decision.
30 CHOSEN BUT FREE

universe. Therefore, reason also demands that all moral creatures are
morally free; that is, they have die ability' to respond one way or an­
other.19 Whatever evil we do and are responsible for, we could have
responded otherwise. When we did evil we could have not done it.
This is what is meant by a “self-caused” action. It is an action that was
not caused by another but by one’s Self. It is an action that one could
have avoided (see also appendix 4).

Ought implies can

Not only are evil moral actions ones that could have been other­
wise, but they should have been otherwise. There is agreement by both
the extreme Calvinists and their opponents that a moral duty is some­
thing we ought to do. Moral laws are prescriptive, not merely descrip­
tive. They prescribe actions that we should (or should not) do.
But here, too, logic seems to insist that such moral obligations
imply that we have self-determining moral free choice. For ought im­
plies can. That is, what we ought to do implies that we can do it. Oth­
erwise, we have to assume that the Moral Lawgiver is prescribing the
irrational, commanding that we do what is literally impossible for us
to do. Good reason appears to insist that if God demands it, then we
can do it. Moral obligation implies moral freedom.
The objection brought against this conclusion by the strong Calvin­
ist calls for comment. For he insists that God often commands us to
do the impossible and yet still holds us responsible for not doing it20
For example, God commanded: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heav­
enly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Yet we all are painfully aware that
in our fallen state this is impossible. In fact, we are commanded never
to sin, and yet as depraved beings we cannot avoid sinning. For we are
sinners “by nature” (Eph. 2:3).
Two comments should be made, then, in response to this objec­
tion. First of all, when we say “ ought implies can’ we do not mean that
whatever we ought to do we can do by our own strength.21 This would
be contrary to the clear teaching of Christ that “without me you can
do nothing” (John 15:5). We can’t do anything but, as Paul said,

‘Minimally, free will is die ability' to do otherwise. The degree to which a person is free is
debated among Christians who reject the extreme Calvinist’s view (see appendices 1 and
4). What they agree on is that one cannot be both forced and free (see chapter 4).
“See R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, 99.
•’’This error is called Pelagianism, named after the early church teacher called Pelagius,
against whose supposed views (really, his followers’ views) Augustine wrote many works (see
appendix 3).

-
WHY BLAME ME? 31

“[We] can do all things through Christ who strengthens [us]” (Phil.
4:13 nkjv). Sure, we are told to “work out [our] own salvation with
fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), but only because “it is God who
works in [us] to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil.
2:13). Hence, "ought implies can" only in the sense that we can by the
grace of God. Without His grace we cannot overcome sin.
Second, further evidence that we can do what we ought to do by
God’s grace is found in a familiar passage: “No temptation has seized
you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let
you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he
will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it” (1 Cor.
10:13). It couldn’t be clearer: God never prescribes anything without
providing the way to accomplish it. If we are morally bound, then we
must be morally free.

Reward and punishment

Another evidence that we have morally self-determining free
choice is that Scripture and common moral wisdom both inform us
that praise and blame make no real sense unless those praised or
blamed were free to do otherwise. Why eulogize Mother Teresa and
vilify Hitler, if they could not help doing what they did? Why blame
Adolf Eichmann and praise Martin Luther King, if they had no free
choice in the matter? Yet they did, and we do. The Bible says plainly
that God “ ‘will give to each person according to what he has done’ ”
(Rom. 2:6).

An undeniable fact
Fatalists and determinists22 have attempted in rain to deny human
freedom—and this they have done without anyone forcing them to do
so! The fact is that freedom is undeniable. For if everything were de­
termined, then so would the determinists be determined to believe
that we are not free. But determinists believe that determinism is true
and non-determinism is false. Further, they believe that all non-
determinists ought to change their view and become determinists. Yet
this implies that non-determinists are free to change their view—
which is contrary to determinism. Thus, it only follows that determin­
ism is false, since it is contradictory to its own claim. (Of course, this

"By “determinists” here we mean those who deny that in moral decisions we are free to do
other than we do. A determinist, as opposed to a self-determinist, believes that all moral
acts arc not caused by ourselves but are caused by someone (or something) else.
32 CHOSEN BUT FREE

is not to deny that all free acts are determined by God in the sense
that He foreknew—for sure—that we would freely perform them [see
chapter 3].)

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES?

From beginning to end the Bible affirms, both implicitly and ex­
plicitly, that human beings have free choice. This is true both prior to
and after the Fall of Adam, although free will is definitely affected by
sin and severely limited in what it can do.

Free will before the Fall

The power of free choice is part of mankind being created in the
image of God (Gen. 1:27). Adam and Eve were commanded: (1) to
multiplv their kind (1:28) and (2) to refrain from eating the forbid­
den fruit (2:16-17). Both of dtese responsibilities imply the ability to
respond. As noted above, the fact that they ought to obey these com­
mands implied that they could obev them.
The text narrates their choice in the latter, saying, "She took some
and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and
he ate it" (Gen. 3:6). God's condemnation of them makes it evident
that they were free. He asked. “ ‘Have you eaten from the tree that I
commanded you not to eat from?’ ” (Gen. 3:11). “God said to the
woman, ‘AATiat is this you have doner' The woman said, ‘The serpent
deceived me, and I ate' ” (3:13).
The New Testament references to Adam’s act make it plain that he
made a free choice for which he was responsible. Romans 5 calls it
“sin” (v. 16), an “offense” (v. 15 NKjv), and "disobedience” (v. 19).
1 Timothy 2 refers to Adam’s act as a “transgression” (v. 14 NKJV). All
these descriptions imply that it was a morally free and culpable act.

Free will after the Fall

Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually ’‘dead”23 (Gen.
2:17; cf. Eph. 2:1) and a sinner “by nature” (Eph. 2:3), he was not so
completely depraved that he could neither hear the voice of God nor
make a free response (see chapter 4). For “the Lord God called to
the man, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, 'I heard you in the garden,

““Spiritual death” in the Bible does not mean annihilation, but separation. Isaiah said.
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God” (Isa. 59:2). Likewise, the “second
death" is not annihilation but conscious separation from God (Rev. 20:14; cf. 19:20; 20:10).

=
WHY BLAME ME? 33

and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid ” (Gen. 3:9-10). God’s
image in Adam was effaced by the Fall but not erased. It was marred but
not destroyed. Indeed, the image of God (which includes free will) is
still in human beings after the Fall. This is why murder (Gen. 9:6) and
even cursing (James 3:9) of other people are sins, “for in the image of
God has God made man” (Gen. 9:6).
Fallen descendants of Adam have free will
Both Scripture and good reason inform us that depraved human
beings have the power of free choice.24 The Bible says fallen man is
ignorant, depraved, and a slave of sin. But all these conditions involve
a choice. Peter speaks of depraved ignorance as being ignorant “will­
ingly” (2 Peter 3:5 kjv). Paul declared that unsaved people have
“clearly seen” and “understood” the truth but they deliberately “sup­
press” it (or “hold it down” [Rom. 1:18-19]). As a result, they are
“without excuse.” Even our enslavement to sin is a result of a free
choice. He adds, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to
someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you
obey...” (Rom. 6:16). Even spiritual blindness is a result of the choice
not to believe. For “The god of this age has blinded the minds of un­
believers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel...” (2 Cor.
4:4). Even those under the power of Satan are there by a free act of
“disobedience” (Eph. 2:2).
With respect to initiating or attaining their own salvation, both Lu­
ther and Calvin were right in asserting that fallen humans are not free
with regard to “things above,” that is, achieving their own salvation.25
However, contrary to strong Calvinism, in regard to the freedom of
accepting God’s gift of salvation the Bible is clear: Fallen beings are
free. Thus, the free choice of fallen human beings is both "horizon­
tal” (social) with respect to things in this world and “vertical” (spiri­
tual). The former is evident in the choice of a mate: “But if her hus­
band dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong
to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). This is a freedom described as having "no
constraint,” and where one has "authority over his own will,” and where
one "has decided this in his own heart” (1 Cor. 7:37 NASB). This same
horizontal freedom is described in an act of giving “entirely on their
24Evcn depravity involved a choice by Adam and by all his spiritual descendants (Rom. 5:12).
“See Marlin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. Henry Cole (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1976), 79; and John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans.
Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1957). vol. 2,
79.
34 CHOSEN BUT FREE

own" (2 Cor. 8:3) as well as "spontaneous and not forced' (Philem. 14).
And the vertical ability to believe is everywhere implied in the Gospel
call (cf. Acts 16:31; 17:30). Freedom for God’s creatures, as it is for the
God in whose image they are made, is described in James 1:18: “Of his
own will begat he us with the word of truth . .(KJV).
Peter describes what is meant by free choice when he says it is "not
under compulsion" but "voluntary" (1 Peter 5:2 nasb) . Paul depicts the
nature of freedom as an act where one “purposed in his heart" and did
not act under "compulsion" (2 Cor. 9:7 nasb). In Philemon, he says it is
an act of "consent" and "should not be ... by compulsion" but "ofyour
own freewill" (NASB).
Calvinist W. G. T. Shedd summed it up directly when he wrote:

Though actuated by die Holy Spirit, the holy will is neverthe­

less a self-modng and uncompelled faculty. Holy inclination is the
will’s right self-motion because of the Divine actuation, or “God’s
working in die will to will." Sinful inclination is the will’s wrong
self-motion without Divine actuation. But die motion in both in­
stances is that of mind, not of matter; spiritual, not mechanical;
free, not forced motion (Dogmatic Theology, 3.300).

Even unsaved people have a free choice as to either receiving or

rejecting God’s gift of salvation (Rom. 6:23). Jesus spoke of those who
rejected Him, saving, “ ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often I have
longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks
under her wings, but you were not willing ” (Matt. 23:37). And John
affirmed that “all who received him [Christ], to those who believed in
his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).
Indeed, He desires diat all unsaved people will change their minds
(repent). For “He [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to
perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). That is, to
a change of mind.
Like the alternatives of life and death Moses gave to Israel, God
says, "Choose life” (Deut. 30:19). Or, as Joshua said to his people,
“ ‘Choose you this day whom ye will serve’ ” (Josh. 24:15 kjv). Or, as
God said to David, “This is what the Lord says: ‘I am giving you three
options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you’ ” (2 Sam.
24:12). Morally and spiritually responsible alternatives are set before
human beings by God, leaving the choice and responsibility to them.
Jesus said to the unbelievers of His day, “If you do not believe that I am,
you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24). Over and over He
WHY BLAME ME? 35

declared belief to be something they were to da. “ ‘ We believe and know

that you are the Holy One of God’ ” (John 6:69); “ ‘Who is he, sir?...
Tell me so that I may believe in him’ ” (John 9:36); “Then the man
said, ‘Lord, I believe,' and he worshiped him” (John 9:38); “Jesus an­
swered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe' ” (John 10:25). This is
why Jesus said, “ ‘ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but who­
ever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not be­
lieved in the name of God’s one and only Son’ ” (John 3:18). Plainly,
then, belief is our responsibility and is rooted in our ability' to respond.
This view has overwhelming support by virtually all the great church
fathers up to the sixteenth century (see appendix 1).

Can everyone believe?

Contrary to the extreme Calvinist’s view, faith is not a gift that God
offers only to some (see appendix 5). All are responsible to believe
and “whoever” decides to believe can believe (cf. John 3:16).26 Jesus
says, “ 'Whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting life’ ” (John
3:16 kjv). He adds, “ ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned’ ”
(v. 18). And, “ ‘Whoever comes to me I will never drive away’ ” (John
6:37). Revelation 22:17 also states: “Whoeveris thirsty, let him come;-and
whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.”
If everyone can believe, why then did Jesus assert of some “ ‘For
this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so thev can
neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor
turn—and I would heal them” ’ ” (John 12:39-40)?
The answer is found in the context: (1) Belief was obviouslv their
responsibility, since God held them responsible for not believing. Only
two verses earlier we read, “Even after Jesus had done all these mirac­
ulous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him" (John
12:37); (2) Jesus had been speaking to hardhearted Jews who had seen
many indisputable miracles (including the resurrection of Lazarus
[John 11]) and who had been called upon many times to believe be­
fore this point (cf. John 8:26), which reveals that thev were able to do
so; and (3) It was their own stubborn unbelief that brought on their

2®It is an intramural debate among those opposed to extreme Calvinism whether faith is a
gift or not. The Bible is seriously lacking in any verses demonstrating that faith is a gift (see
appendix 5). But if it is a gift, then it is one offered to all and can be freely accepted or
rejected. Arminius spoke of “the gift of faith,” but added that it must be "received” bv
free will (James Arminius, “Works,” in The Writings ofJames Arminius, trans. Janies Nich­
ols, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1956], 2.52 [article 27]).
36 CHOSEN BUT FREE

blindness. Jesus had said to them, “ ‘I told you that you would die in
your sins; if you do not believe that I am, you will indeed die in your
sins’ ” (John 8:24). Thus, it was chosen and avoidable blindness.
Can anyone believe unaided by God’s grace?
While all truly free acts are self-determined and could have been
otherwise, nonedieless, it is also true that no free human act can move
toward God or do any spiritual good without the aid of His grace. This
is evident from the following Scriptures:
But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able
to give as generously as this? Evervdiing comes from you, and we
have given you only what comes from your hand. (1 Chron. 29:14)
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44).
“I am the vine; you are die branches. If a man remains in me
and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do
nothing” (John 15:5).
[Jesus prayed:] “Holy Fadier, protect diem by die power of
your name—die name you gave me—so that diey may be one as
we are one” (John 17:11).
“While I was with them, I protected them and kept diem safe
by that name you gave me. None has been lost except die one
doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled” (John
17:12).
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me
was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet
not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (1 Cor. 15:10)
Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for
ourselves, but our competence comes from God. (2 Cor. 3:5)
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power
is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more
gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.
(2 Cor. 12:9)
Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his
good purpose. (Phil. 2:12-13)
I can do everything through him who gives me strength. (Phil.
4:13)
W. G. T. Shedd, who as stated previously is a moderate Calvinist,
wraps it up this way:
If die sinner voluntarily rejects the offered mercy of God, he is

I
WHY BLAME ME? 37

culpable for so doing, and is therefore amenable to the charge of

culpability and responsible before the divine tribunal because of
it.... Man is responsible for sin because he is both the author and
the actor of it; but he is not responsible for holiness, because he is
only the actor and not the author.... “The sinner is free in ac­
cepting or rejecting the invitations of the gospel.” If he accepts
them, he does so freely under the actuation of the Holy Spirit. If
he rejects them, he does so freely without this actuation and solely
by his own self-determination (Dogmatic Theology, 3.298-299).

EITHER/OR OR BOTH/AND?
Sovereignty and free will. Is it one or the other, or is it both one
and the other? The Bible says both. In the first chapter we saw that
God is sovereign over all things, including human events and free
choices. Nothing catches God by surprise, and nothing is outside His
control (see chapter 1). On the other hand, in this chapter we have
seen that human beings, even in their fallen state, have the God-given
power of free choice. This applies to many earthly things here
“below” as it does to heavenly things from “above,” namely, with re­
gard to receiving God’s gift of salvation.
The mystery of the relationship between divine sovereignty and
human free will has challenged the greatest Christian thinkers down
through the centuries. Unfortunately, the extreme Calvinists have sac­
rificed human responsibility in order to preserve divine sovereignty
(see chapter 4). Likewise, as we shall see later, extreme Arminians
have sacrificed God’s sovereignty in order to hold on to man’s free will
(see chapter 5). We believe that both of these alternatives are wrong
and lead to inordinately extreme actions (see chapter 6).
 CHAPTER THREE

Viewing the
Alternatives
THE TWIN TRUTHS OF SOVEREIGNTY AND
RESPONSIBILITY
The Bible emphatically declares that God has absolute sovereignty
over all that happens, including the salvation of saints and the con­
demnation of unrepentant sinners (see chapter 1). Nevertheless, the
same Scripture stresses dial the moral responsibility' for moral actions
rests squarely wilt free moral agents and not with God (see chapter 2).
It has been said that on the outside of the door of heaven it reads,
“Whosoever will may enter,” while on the inside is written, “I have
chosen you.” According to Scripture, both are true. This is one of the
great mysteries of the Christian faith, along with the Trinity and the
Incarnation (see 1 Tim. 3:16).

The Cross: both predetermined and freely chosen

One of the most powerful indications that the Bible sees no con­
tradiction between God’s predetermination and human free choice is
found in Acts 2:23. On the one hand, it declares that Jesus’ death was
determined “by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge.” (This can also
be rendered “determinate counsel” kjv or “God’s definite plan”
tcnt.) Yet even though it was set and determined from all eternity
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 39

that Jesus would die, nonetheless, Jesus says He did it freely: “ ‘I lay
down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I
lay it down of my own accord ” (John 10:17-18).
Nothing could be clearer. God determined it from all eternity, and
yet Jesus did it freely. And if it can be true ofJesus’ free choices, then
there is no contradiction in asserting that our free actions are both
determined and free. As far as the Bible is concerned, there is no con­
tradiction between divine predestination and human free choice'.

The crucifiers: both predetermined and free

Sometimes the twin truths of divine sovereignty and human re­
sponsibility are expressed in the same passage. In one of the texts just
mentioned, both God’s predetermination and man’s wicked free
choice are present: “ ‘This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by
God’s set purpose and foreknowledge, and you ... put him to death by
nailing him to the cross’ ” (Acts 2:23). As before, while God deter­
mined their actions from all eternity, nevertheless, those who carried
out the crucifying of Jesus were free to perform these actions—and
were morally responsible for them. Here again, it is not either sover­
eignty or free choice; it is both sovereignty and free choice.
In Acts 3, verses 12, 15, and 18 contain the same two truths. On
the one hand, the "Men of Israel” had “killed the Prince of life” (NKJV).
Yet on the other hand, “this is how God fulfilled what he [God] had
foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.”
So it had to happen because He foretold that it would, yet “this is how
God fulfilled” it, by the Jews freely killing the Christ.

Jesus’ betrayal: both necessary and freely chosen

Jesus proclaimed: “ ‘And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was de­
termined'. but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed'.' " (Luke 22:22
kjv). God determined that the betrayal must happen, but when it oc­
curred it did so as a result of a free and responsible act ofjudas. There
is no contradiction between these two truths.

Stumbling over Christ: both disobedience and destiny

In his first letter, Peter cites Isaiah: He [Christ] is “ ‘a stone that
causes men to stumble and a rock dtat makes them fall.’ They stumble
because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined
for” (1 Peter 2:8; cf. Isa. 8:14). With no sense of difficulty or disjunc­
tion, Peter records in the same verse that men reject Christ, the Stone,
40 CHOSEN BUT FREE

both because of their own disobedience and because God had des­
tined them to it. There is no contradiction, since God knew exactly
what they would freely do.1
Conspiracy' against Jesus: both predetermined and pernicious
Peter also pairs divine sovereignty and human responsibility in
Acts: “ ‘Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gen­
tiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your [God’s] power
and will had decided beforehand should happen’ ” (Acts 4:27-28). No­
tice that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and tlte Jewish leaders conspired
and '’did' it, but God’s “power and will had decided beforehand”
what would happen. Both are true.
Joseph’s enslavement: intended both by’ his brothers and by God
Looking briefly at one example from the Old Testament, Genesis
informs us that Joseph’s brothers sold him into Egypt as a slave. But
eventually Joseph said, “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but
God' (Gen. 45:8). And later he added, “ 'You intended to harm me, but
God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the
sating of many lives’ ” (Gen. 50:20). Again, both are true. One and
the same event results from both God’s plan and man’s choice.
Salvation: both chosen by God and chosen by us
Another example of both God's sovereignty and our responsibility
being found in the same scriptural text is found in Jesus’ statement
from John 6:37: “ 'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and who­
ever comes to me I will never drive away.’ ” On the one hand, only those
the Father preordains to do so will come to Christ (John 6:44). On the
other hand, it is also true that “whoever” chooses to come will be
saved (Rom. 10:13). Another passage makes the same point: "God
chose you to be saved ... through belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13).
Salvation: both ordained to it and persuaded into it
There is an interesting passage in Acts which states that "all who
were appointed [by God] for eternal life believed” (13:48). Yet within a
‘"The idea behind the words 'a stone of stumbling’ ... is that of a stone or rock which lies
in the road so that travelers knock against it or get tripped up by it. It is thus that Christ,
once He is revealed, inescapably stands in the way of those who refuse to respond to lite
testimony about Him. The Word, both spoken and living, becomes a stumbling block to
those who are disobedient, i.e., those who actively revolt against the gospel (see iv. 17)” (Alan
M. Stibbs, The Older Tyndale New Testament Commentary on First Peter [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959]).
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 41

few verses of this text Luke says, "They [Paul and Barnabas] spoke so
effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed” (14:1).
According to this rendering, in the first text only those who were pre­
ordained to be saved would come to faith. But it is also true that per­
suasive preaching is a means by which people come to faith in Christ.
So the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility
in the same overall passage. The same act can be determined by God
as well as chosen by man. There is no contradiction between these as
far as Scripture is concerned.
Some moderate Calvinists, like J. O. Buswell, deny this is a refer­
ence to predestination. He wrote, “Actually the words of Acts 13:48—
49 do not necessarily have any reference whatever to the doctrine of
God’s eternal decree of election. The passive participle tetagmenoi may
simply mean ‘ready,’ and we might well read, ‘as many as were pre­
pared for eternal life, believed.’ ” He adds, “Commenting on this
word, Alford says, ‘The meaning of this word must be determined by
die context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life
(v. 46); the Gentiles, “as many as were disposed to eternal life,” be­
lieved. ... To find in this text preordination to life asserted, is to force
both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not con­
tain.’ ”2 Be this as it may, even if this text is taken as such, in the strong
sense there is no contradiction between preordination and persua­
sion, since God preordained the means (persuasion) with the end
(eternal life).
Rejection of Christ: both by God’s destiny and by our
disobedience
As mentioned before, the harmony between predetermination and
free choice is clear in Peter’s words: “They stumble because they dis­
obey the message—which is also what they were destined for" (1 Peter
2:8). There is no inconsistency here: they were destined to disobey,
and God knew for sure they would choose to reject Christ. Buswell
comments that “Acts 13:46 notes that the Jews by their own choice
rejected the message. Then, Paul turns to die Gentiles. Individual
choice determined the rejection of the message, thus by inference it
appears that when this rejection occurred, then the Gentiles moved
into the sphere, so to speak, of God’s appointed grace to them, and
thus they also believed. Notice verse 48 states that the Gentiles heard

2Jamcs Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of (he Christian Religion, vol. II (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1962-63), 152-53.
42 CHOSEN BUT FREE

the good news. They were glad, they glorified the word of the Lord, and
their belief thus moved them into the sphere of God’s grace, the appoint­
ment, so to speak, of eternal life. Even as the Jews chose to reject, so the
Gentiles chose, within God’s grace, to believe."3

A beautiful illustration
One final illustration of die congruency' between predetermina­
tion and free choice is found in the shipwreck recorded by Luke in
Acts 27. Paul assured his fellow travelers in advance that “ ‘ not one of
you will be lost, only the ship will be destroyed’ ” (v. 22). Yet a few
verses later he warned them, “ 'Unless these men stay with the ship, you
cannot be saved ” (v. 31). Both are true. God knew in advance and had
revealed to Paul that none would drown (cf. v. 23). But He also knew
it would be through their free choice to stay on the ship that this
would be accomplished.

SOVEREIGNTY AND RESPONSIBILITY

No one has ever demonstrated a contradiction between predesti­

nation and free choice. There is no irresolvable conflict between an
event being predetermined by an all-knowing God and it also being
freelv chosen by us. Even the famous Calvinistic Westminster Confession
ofFaith (1646) makes this point when it says, “Although in relation to
die foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come
to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he order-
eth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either
necessarily, freely, or contingendy” (emphasis mine).
The noted Puritan Calvinist Stephen Charnock held this same
position, declaring:

That is, he [God] did not only know that we would do such
actions, but that we would do them freely; he foresaw that the will
would freely determine itself to this or that .. . and though God
knows contingent things, yet they remain in tire nature of contin­
gencies; and though God knows free agents, yet they remain in the
nature of liberty’....
God did not foreknow the actions of man, as necessary, but as
free; so that liberty is rather established by this foreknowledge,
than removed. God did not foreknow that Adam had not a power
’Ibid., emphasis mine.
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 43

to stand, or that any man hath not a power to omit such a sinful
action, but that he would not omit it.
Thus, man hath a power to do otherwise than that which God
foreknows he will do. Adam was not determined by any inward ne­
cessity to fall, nor any man by any inward necessity to commit this
or that particular sin; but God foresaw that he would fall, and fall
freely.4
Consider the logic of this view that God know; -for sure—pre-
cisely how we will use our freedom. It goes like this:
(1) God knows all things, including the future (Isa. 46:10; Ps.
147:5).
(2) God knew from eternity that Jesus would die on the Cross (Acts
2:23; cf. Rev. 13:8).
(3) Thus, Jesus must die on the Cross. (If he had not died on the
Cross, then God would have been wrong in what He foreknew. But an
all-knowing [omniscient] God cannot be wrong in what He knows.)
(4) Butjesus freely chose to die on the Cross (John 10:17-18).
(5) Therefore, one and the same event is both predetermined and
freely chosen at the same time.
The same logic applies to predetermination and free choice in
either salvation or condemnation. Consider the following:
(1) God knows all things.
(2) Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i.e., is deter­
mined) . If it did not come to pass, then God would have been wrong
in what He foreknew. But an all-knowing Being cannot be wrong in
what He foreknows.
(3) God knewjudas would betray Christ.
(4) Therefore, it had to come to pass (i.e., was determined) that
Judas would betray Christ.
The logic is flawless. If God has an infallible knowledge of future
free acts, then the future is completely determined. But what does not
follow from this is that
(5a) Judas was not free to betray (or not to betray) Christ.
This is because there is no contradiction in claiming that God knew
for sure (i.e., predetermined) that Judas would freely (i.e., with free
choice) betray Christ.
What is contradictory to affirm—and the Bible never affirms it—is
the following statement:
■‘Stephen Charnock, Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God (Grand Rapids. Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1979), 450.
 1
44 CHOSEN BUT FREE

(5b) Judas was coerced to betray Christ freely.

One and the same act cannot be both forced and free at the same
time and in the same sense. For coerced acts are not free acts, as is
clear from both die Bible and good reason. The Bible (see chapter 2)
uses terms like “no constraint” and "authority over [one’s] own will” (1
Cor. 7:37 NASB) or “not under compulsion” but "voluntarily" (1 Peter
5:2; 1 Cor 9:17). Free acts are acts of "consent” and "should not be . . .
by compulsion” but "of [one’s] own free will' (Philem. 14). At a mini­
mum, freedom means the power of contrary choice; that is, an agent
is free only if he could have done otherwise.
Further, good reason informs us diat if someone is forced against
his will to commit a crime, then he is not responsible for it. For ex­
ample, if some three-hundred-pound muscleman forced your hand on
a loaded gun and pointed it at someone else and squeezed your finger
on die trigger, you are not responsible for the shot that killed him/
her.
The same reasoning (showing diere is no contradiction in affirm­
ing both that God determined Judas would betray Christ and yet that
Judas did it freely) applies to diose who accept Christ as well as to
those who reject Him. An example can be briefly stated as follows:
(1) God knows all diings.
(2) Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i.e., is predeter­
mined).5
(3) God foreknew the aposdejohn would accept Christ.
(4) Therefore, it had to come to pass (as predetermined) that
John would accept Christ.
But here again John’s acceptance is free. It is simply that God
knowing!}' predetermined from all eternity’ that John would freely ac­
cept Christ.6

Mystery or contradiction?
Does not the law of noncontradiction demand that two opposite
statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same

5By “determined” here we do not mean that die act is directly caused by God. It was caused
by human free choice (which is a self-determined act). By “determined” it is meant diat
the inevitability of the event was fixed in advance since God knew infallibly that it would
come to pass. Of course, God predetermined that it would be a self-determined action. God
was only the remote and primary remote cause. Human freedom was the immediate and
secondary cause.
6This is not to say that John would initiate the move to Christ or that it could be done without
the movement of the Holy Spirit on his heart and will. This is the subject of chapter 4.

1
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 45

sense? Yes, of course it does.7 But these two statements are not logically
opposite.
Let’s again illustrate the harmony of predetermination and free
choice. Suppose you cannot watch your favorite sports event live on
TV. So you videotape it. When you watch it later, the entire game and
every play in it are absolutely determined and can never be changed.
No matter how many times you rerun it, the final score, as well as
every aspect of every play, will always be the same. Yet when the game
happened, every event was freely chosen. No one was forced to play.
Therefore, the same event was both determined and free at the same
time.
Someone may object that this is so only because the event has al­
ready occurred, and that before the game occurred it was not prede­
termined. In response we need only point out that if God is all­
knowing (omniscient), then from the standpoint of His
foreknowledge the game was predetermined. For He knew eternallv
exactly how it was going to turn out, even though we did not. There­
fore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the future, including our
free acts, then everything that will happen in the future is predeter­
mined, even our free acts. This does not mean these actions are not
free; it simply means that God knew how we were going to use our
freedom—and that He knew it for sure.
However, this raises again the question of contradiction. How can
one and the same event be both free and determined at the same
time? The answer, as the early St. Augustine put it, is that our free
actions are determined from the standpoint of God’s foreknowledge,
but they are free from the vantage point of our choice. He noted that
“no one sins because God foreknew that he would sin.” In fact, "when
he sins, it is because He whose foreknowledge cannot be deceived
foresaw. . ..” So, “No man sins unless it is his choice to sin: and his
choice not to sin, that, too, God foresaw.”8 What St. Thomas Aquinas
added—“Everything known by God must necessarily be”—is true if it

The Bible uses the term '‘mystery" of things that go beyond reason but not against reason.
However, it never uses the words "paradox" or "antithesis" of things we are to believe. In
fact, die only time the Greek word for antitheses {antitheses, i.c., contradictions) is used in
the New Testament, we are told to “avoid" them (1 Tim. 6:20 NKJV). Since in the history of
thought Zeno’s "paradox" and Kant’s “antinomies” or antitheses were logical contradic­
tions, these terms should be avoided by Christians when speaking of the mysteries of the
faith like the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the relation between sovereigntv and free will.
8Sl Augustine, “City of God," in A Select Library of the Xicene and Post-Xicene bathers of the
Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publish­
ing Co., 1956), 5.10.
46 CHOSEN BUT FREE

refers to the statement of the truth of God’s knowledge, but it is false

if it refers to die necessity of the contingent events.9 That is, our acts
are free with respect to our choice, but they are determined with re­
spect to God’s foreknowledge of them.
To demonstrate die reasonableness of this conclusion, consider
again the law of noncontradiction. The above affirmations (from Acts
2:23 and John 10:17)—(1) “Jesus’ death on the Cross was determined
by God” and (2) “Jesus’ death on the Cross was freely chosen by Him­
self’—are not contradictory because they are said in a different rela­
tion (or “sense”). The law of noncontradiction is violated only if two
logically opposite statements are said of the same thing at die same
time and in the same relationship. But diese two statements are said in
a different relationship. In the one case, it is in relation to God’s fore­
knowledge, but in the other it is in relation to Jesus’ free choice.
Furthermore, in order to have a contradiction one statement must
affirm what the odier denies. They must be logically opposite, and this
is not the case here. The two statements simply say: (1) God predeter­
mined it; (2) Jesus freely chose it. These are not logically contradic­
tory. What would be contradictory is this: (1) God predetermined it;
(2) God did not predetermine it. Likewise, this would be contradic­
tory: (1) Jesus did not freely choose it; (2) Jesus did freely choose it
But there is no contradiction in saying it was predetermined from
God’s standpoint and free from Jesus’ perspective. It is determined in
the one sense that God foresaw it. Yet it is also true in another sense that
Jesus freely chose it. To be contradictory it must be both true and false
at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore, no logical contradic­
tion has been demonstrated between God’s sovereignty and human
free choice.
Now that we have seen that there is no contradiction between pre­
determination by God and free choice by man, it remains to explore
the relationship between them. There are three basic views as to how
divine sovereignty and human responsibility' relate to God’s foreknowl­
edge of the events.

'Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica," in The Basie Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed.
Anion C. Pegis, vol. 1 (New York: Random House, 1944), la. 14,4.

1
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 47

THREE VIEWS ON SOVEREIGNTY AND

RESPONSIBILITY
The three basic Hews we will examine are represented respectively
by. extreme Calvinists, moderate Calvinists, and modern Arminians
(Wesleyans).10 First, a look at extreme Calvinism.

Extreme Calvinism: predetermination is independent of

foreknowledge

Statement of the extreme Calvinist view

According to this view, God’s predetermination is done independ­
ent of His foreknowledge of human free acts. God operates with such
unapproachable sovereignty that His choices are made with total dis­
regard for the choices of mortal men. Strong Puritan Calvinist William
Ames asserts:

There is no foreknowledge which is prerequisite or presup­

posed for the decree of predestination besides that simple intelli­
gence which relates to all things, since it depends upon no cause,
reason, or outward condition, but proceeds purely from the will of
him who predestines.

What is more, according to Ames, God determines to save whom­

ever He wishes regardless of whether they choose to believe or not. In
fact, God gives the faith to believe to whomever He wills. Without this
God-given faith they could not and would not believe. In fact, fallen
human beings are so dead in sin that God must first regenerate them
before they can even believe. Dead men do not believe anything; they
are dead!11
There is an important corollary to this view. If free choices were
not considered at all when God made the list of the elect, then irresis­
tible grace on the unwilling follows. That is, man would have no say in
his own salvation. Accordingly, the fact that all men do not choose to
love, worship, and serve God will make no difference whatsoever to
God. He will simply ‘■doublewhammy” those He chooses with His ir­
resistible power and force them into His kingdom against their will
(see chapter 5).

,0What is popularly known as “Arminianism” today is really Wesleyan (following John Wes­
ley) and not what Jacobus Arminius and his immediate followers held (see chapter 6).
"William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans, and ed. John D. Eusden (Durham, N.C.: The
Labyrinth Press, 1983), 153.
48 CHOSEN BUT FREE

The roots of this extreme Calvinistic view are found in the later
Augustine. More recent versions have been expressed in the writings
ofJohn Gill, Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, and R. C. Sproul. Since
Augustine came to believe that heretics could be coerced to believe
against their free choice, he saw' no problem in God doing the same
for tire elect (see appendix 3).

The problems with extreme Calvinism

There are, of course, serious problems with this position. First of
all, it involves a denial of human free choice (that is, the power of
contrary choice), which is supported by both Scripture and good rea­
son (see chapter 2 and appendix 4). .As even Augustine himself earlier
stated, “He that is willing is free from compulsion. . . In the final
analysis, a person who is coerced, either externally or internally,” has
no choice in his own salvation. Jonathan Edwards held that “free
choice” is doing what we desire, and it is God who gives the desire.
But since God only gives the desire to some (not all), this leads to
another problem.
Second, “irresistible grace” on the unwilling is a violation of free
choice. For God is love (1 John 4:16), and true love is persuasive but
never coercive. There can be no shotgun weddings in heaven. God is
not a cosmic B. F. Skinner who behaviorally modifies men against their
will. C. S. Lewis has two of the finest passages in print against the idea
of “irresistible force” used on unwilling unbelievers.14 In Screwtape Let­
ters Lewis concludes that “the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the
two weapons which the very nature of His [God’s] scheme forbids
Him to use. Merely to override a human will . . . would be for Him
useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.”15 In The Great Divorce
Lewis has another great passage showing how God will ultimately

'-Augustine; see appendix 4.

13In an attempt to avoid being called a determinist, R. C. Sproul (like other extreme Calvin*
ists) defines free will as the ability to choose without external coercions. Then he proceeds
to admit to believing that man is internally coerced by irresistible grace of regeneration on
the unwilling. But coercion is coercion whether it is external or internal, and all coercion
is contrary to free choice. This is the view of the New Testament (see chapter 2) and all
major church fathers, including the early Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, up to the Ref­
ormation (see appendix 1).
HIn another place Lewis used an unfortunate and misunderstood metaphor about his own
conversion in which he claims to have been brought “kicking [and] struggling into the
kingdom” (in C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, [New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company,
1955], 229). But the aforementioned texts make it clear that he did not believe in irresis­
tible grace on the unwilling.
,5C. S. Lewis, Screwtape Letters (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961).

J
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 49

respect the free choice with which He has endowed His creatures. Said
Lewis, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say
to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end,
‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self­
choice there could be no Hell.”10
In spite of some apparent inconsistency on this point (see his com­
ments on Luke 14:23), John Calvin faced honesdy the biblical teach­
ing that the Holy Spirit can be resisted. He recognized that Stephen
said of the Jews, “ ‘You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts
and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy
Spirit!' ” (Acts 7:51).17 Calvin remarked, “Finally, they are said to be
resisting the Spirit, when they stubbornly reject what He says by the
prophets.” Calvin describes this resistance with phrases such as “stub­
bornly reject,” “intentionally rebel,” and “wage war on God.”18 But if
God’s grace can be resisted, then it is not irresistible. Irresistible force
used by God on His free creatures would be a violation of both the
charity of God and the dignity of man. God is love. And true love
never forces itself on anyone, either externally or internally. “Forced
love” is a contradiction in terms.
Third, the extreme Calvinist’s view leads logically to a denial of
God’s omnibenevolence (all-lovingness). For the Bible says, “God is
love” (1 John 4:16) and that He “love[s] the world” (John 3:16). “For
there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11 kjv), not only in
His justice but in all His attributes, including love (Matt. 5:45). In fact,
if God is one indivisible being without any parts, as classical Calvinists
believe,19 then His love extends to all of His essence, not just part of
it. Hence, God cannot be partly loving. But if God is all-loving, then
how can He love only some so as to give them and only them the de­
sire to be saved? If He really loves all men, then why does He not give
to all men the desire to be saved? It only follows then that, in the final
analysis, the reason why some go to hell is that God does not love them
and give them the desire to be saved. But if the real reason they go to
hell is that God does not love them, irresistibly regenerate them, and
,6C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1946). 69.
I7John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles, trans. John W. Fraser and W. J.
G. McDonald, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Win.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), see on Acts 7:51.
l8Ibid., emphasis mine.
19The simplicity (indivisibility) of God is embraced by traditional Calvinism, includingjohn
Calvin himself. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1. Chap. XIII):
Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God; and William Ames,
The Marrow of Theology, 86-87.
50 CHOSEN BUT FREE

give them the faith to believe, then their failure to believe truly would
result from God’s lack of love for them (see chapter 2).
Suppose a farmer discovers three boys drowning in his pond where
he had placed signs clearly forbidding swimming. Further, noting their
blatant disobedience he says to himself, “The)' have violated the warn­
ing and have broken the law, and they have brought these deserved
consequences on themselves.” Thus far he is manifesting his sense of
justice. But if the farmer proceeds to say, “I will make no attempt to
rescue them,” we would immediately perceive that something is lack­
ing in his love. And suppose by some inexplicable whim he should
declare: “Even though the boys are drowning as a consequence of
their own disobedience, nonetheless, out of the goodness of my heart
1 will save one of them and let the other two drown.”20 In such a case
we would surely consider his love to be partial and imperfect.
Certainly this is not the picture of die God of the Bible, who “so
loved the world” (John 3:16) and sent His Son to be a sacrifice not
only for the sins of some “but also for the sins of the whole world”
(1 John 2:2); whose Son “died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6) and not
just for the elect. Indeed, the God of the Bible “wants all men to be
saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Peter
even speaks of those “denting the sovereign Lord who bought them”
(2 Peter 2:1; see appendix 6).
Even John Cahin was not an extreme Calvinist on this point (see
appendix 2), for he believed that by Christ’s death “all the sins of the
world have been expiated.”21 Commenting on the “many” for whom
Christ died in Mark 14:24, Calvin said, “The word many does not
mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.”22 This
means that people like Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, and R. C.
Sproul, who believe in limited atonement, are more extreme than
John Calvin! Hence, they have earned the title “extreme Calvinists.”

20It makes no difference whether the boys are “drowning” or dead. The same logic applies
if he has power to raise all but only raises one from the dead.
2,John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephe­
sians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker and eds. David W. Torrance and
Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 308.
‘•John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries: A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke and
the Epistles of James and Jude, trans. A. W. Morrison and eds. David W. Torrance and
Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), 138—
39.
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 51

Arminianism: God’s predetermination is based on His

foreknowledge

Statement of the Arminian view

While it is debatable whether Arminius meant this (see chapter 6),
some of his Wesleyan followers are said to believe that God knows in
advance (by His omniscience) just what choices everyone will make,
whether to accept or to reject salvation. While Wesleyan “Arminians”
believe that election is conditioned on foreseen faith, (see Richard
Watson Theological Institutes [N.Y.: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1836],
2.350) some do not believe that God’s act of election itself is condi­
tional. Rather, they hold that God unconditionally willed that salvation
would be received on the condition of faith. Consequently, on the
basis of their foreknown free choice to accept Christ, God chooses
(elects) to save them. Man is totally free to accept or reject God, being
under no coercion from Him. On the other hand, since God is all­
knowing He is in sovereign control of the whole universe. He knew
exacdy tvhat everyone would choose to do, even before He created the
world. In short, man is entirely free and yet God is in complete control
of the universe. But the “control” is not based on coercion of the
events but on die knowledge of tvhat the free agents will do under what­
ever persuasive means He may use on them.

Problems with this Arminian view

The Arminian view faces several difficulties. First, the biblical data
seem to say more than that God simply knew what was going to hap­
pen. It appears that God actually determined what would happen and
that He even assures its accomplishment by effectively working to
bring it about. As we saw earlier (in chapter 1), God’s sovereignty
means He is in control of all that happens, even the free acts of
human beings. Paul was “confident of this, that he who began a good
work ... will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus”
(Phil. 1:6). He added, “It is God who works in you to tvill and to act
according to his good purpose” (Phil. 2:13).
Second, if God’s choice to save was based on those who choose
Him, then it would not be based on divine grace but would be based
on human decisions. This flies in the face of die whole biblical teach­
ing on grace (cf. Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7; Rom. 11:6). It is contrary to
the clear teaching of Scripture that salvation springs from the will of
man. John said believers are “children born not of natural descent,
52 CHOSEN BUT FREE

nor of human decision or of a husband’s will, but born of God” (John

1:13). Paul adds that salvation does not “depend on man’s desire [will]
or effort, but on God’s mere)'” (Rom. 9:16).
Third, in opposition to this Molinistic23 view of middle knowl­
edge,24 which suggests that God’s foreknowledge is dependent on our
free choices, the classical view of God (held by both Calvinists and
traditional Arminians) affirms that God is an eternal and entirely in­
dependent Being. He is not dependent on anything in the created
universe for what He “is.” And being a simple (indivisible) Being,
whatever He “has” He is. That is, His atU’ibutes are identical to His
essence or nature. So if God has knowledge, then He is knowledge.
This means that while the objects of His knowledge are distinct from
His nature, God’s knowledge of them is identical to His eternal and
independent nature. Thus, God’s knowledge is independent of any­
thing outside Himself. But if it is totally independent, dien God’s
knowledge cannot be dependent on our free choices.23
Finally, the whole idea of there being a chronological or even log­
ical sequence in God’s thoughts is highly problematic for evangelical
theology. It runs contrary to the traditional doctrine of God’s simplic­
ity' (absolute indivisibility) held by Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas,
and bequeathed to modern evangelicals through the Reformers.
God’s attention does not pass from thought to thought, for His knowl­
edge embraces everything in a single spiritual co-intuition. For if God
is simple, then His thoughts are not sequential but simultaneous. He
does not know things inferentiallv but intuitively. On die contrary, if
God is not simple, dien He could diink in temporal succession. And,
as some have shown, if God is temporal, then He is also spatial. In­
deed, such a God would even be material (which is contrary to Scrip­
ture, e.g., John 4:24). And if God is limited to die space/time world,
then He could think no faster than the speed of light. Thus He would
not even be able to know' the w’hole universe at a given moment, to say

“Molinism is the new springing from the Spanish Jesuit theologian Miguel de Molinis
(1640-97), who posited that God has “middle knowledge’’ of future free events. This
knowledge is said to be dependent on the human free choices that would later be made.
-4See William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,
1987).
“Aquinas gives the reason that God’s knowledge cannot be dependent on anything in the
created world, including our free choices. His argument goes like this: Everything in crea­
tion is an effect that flows from the First Cause. What exists in the effect first preexisted in
the First Cause. But in God, who is a totally independent Being, nothing is dependent.
Therefore, God’s knowledge of all free acts is totally independent knowledge (see Summa
Theologica, la.14).

I
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 53

nothing of having an infallible knowledge of the future. Furthermore,

if God is limited, then He is subject to disorder and to entropy (that
is, He is running out of usable energy). Thus, God will ultimately be
exhausted by running out of energy.

Moderate Calvinism: God’s predetermination is in accord with His

foreknowledge
There is a third alternative. It postulates that God’s election is nei­
ther based on His foreknowledge of man’s free choices nor exercised
independent of it. As the Scriptures declare, we are “elect according to
the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter 1:2 nkjv). That is to say, there is
no chronological or logical priority of election and foreknowledge. As
John Walvoord insightfully commented on 1 Peter 1:2, it “teaches not
the logical order of election in relation to foreknowledge but the fact
that they are coextensive.”26 In other words, all aspects of the eternal
purpose of God are equally timeless.
God is a simple Being, all of whose attributes are one with His in­
divisible essence. Hence, both foreknowledge and predetermination
are one in God.27 Whatever God knows, He determines. And whatever
He determines, He knows.
More properly, we should speak of God as knowingly determining
and detenninately knowing from all eternity everything that happens,
including all free acts. For if God is an eternal and simple Being, then
His thoughts must be eternally coordinate and unified.
According to the moderate Calvinist’s view, whatever God fore-
chooses cannot be based on what He foreknows. Nor can what He
foreknows be based on what He forechose. Both must be simultaneous,
eternal, and coordinate acts of God. Thus, our moral actions are truly
free, and God determined that they would be such. God is totally sov­
ereign in the sense of actually determining what occurs, and yet man
is completely free and responsible for what he chooses.

Evaluation of the moderate Calvinist’s view

In spite of the fact that moderate Calvinists have repeatedly stated
their view and distinguished it from the Arminian position, and in
spite of the fact that extreme Calvinists have acknowledged this con­
fessed difference, nonetheless, some choose to ignore it. Citing with

26In Lewis Sperry Chafer/John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Themes, rev. ed (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1974), 233.
27For further arguments for simplicity see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1.3.4.
54 CHOSEN BUT FREE

approval his mentor, John Gerstner, Sproul affirms: “In Norman Geis­
ler, the implicit Arminianism of Dispensationalism28 has become ex­
plicit. Geisler writes, ‘God would save all men if He could....’ God
will save as many as God can ‘without violating their free choice....’
No Arminian has ever been more specific in his denial of Calvinistic
[read: “extreme Calvinistic”] doctrine titan this self-designated dis-
pensational Calvinist."29 This statement concerning the “... implicit
Arminianism of Dispensationalism” reveals an obvious lack of knowl­
edge of dispensational thought. It ignores the primary source materi­
als found in L. Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, C. C. Ryrie, and other
key dispensationalists. Their easily verifiable statements on the issue of
God's sovereign grace and their cogent rejection of classical Arminian
and Wesleyan thought are available for any researcher. A careful look
al these sources would have avoided such an unwarranted proclama­
tion.
If affirming that God will not violate the free choice of any human
being in order to save that person is an “Arminian” view, then every
major church father from die beginning, including Justin, Irenaeus,
Athenagoras, Clement, Tertullian. Origen, Methodius, Cyril, Gregory,
Jerome, Chrysostom, the early Augustine, .Anselm, and Thomas Aqui­
nas (whom Sproul gready admires) were Arminians! (see appendix 1).
Further, if Sproul’s radical reformation view is correct, then even most
Lutherans who follow Melanchthon, not Luther’s Bondage of the Will,
on this point are Arminians! What is more, then all moderate Calvin­
ists, including W. G. T. Shedd, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord,
Charles Ryrie, Fred Howe, and many others are Arminians—even
diough all diese people call themselves Calvinists (or “moderate” Cal­
vinists) and believe in the same four points of Calvinism that Calvin
believed (see chapter 4 and appendix 2).

SUMMING IT ALL UP
God’s predestination and human free choice are a mystery, but not
a contradiction. They go beyond reason, but not against reason. That
is, they are not incongruous, but neither can we see exactly how they
are complementary. We apprehend each as true, but we do not com­
prehend how bodt are true.

'■^This is an irrelevant “red herring” (diversion of the issue). He should have said “Moderate
Calvinism,” not “Dispensationalism.”
’’Sproul, Willing to Belirve, 203.

J
VIEWING THE ALTERNATIVES 55

Of the three basic ways predetermination and free will may be re­
lated, two have serious problems. According to the classical theistic
view of God held by all Calvinists and traditional Arminians, God is
omniscient, eternal, independent, and indivisible in His being or es­
sence. But such a Being cannot be dependent on anything for His
knowledge. Hence, the Wesleyan-Arminian’s (and Molinist's) Hew that
God’s predetermination of human acts is dependent on His knowl­
edge of our free choices is not feasible.
Likewise, the extreme view of God predetermining things inde­
pendent of (or without regard to) His foreknowledge is not plausible.
For God’s foreknowledge and His foredetermination cannot be sepa­
rated. God is one simple (indivisible) Being. In Him knowledge and
foredetermination are identical. Hence, He had to predetermine in
accordance with His foreknowledge. And He must have foreknown in
accordance with His predetermination.30
St. Augustine summed it up well when he urged that “... we may
not so defend grace as to seem to take away free will, or, on the other
hand, so assert free will as to be judged ungrateful to the grace of God,
in our arrogant impiety.31
There is no contradiction in God knowingly predetermining and
predeterminately knowing from all eternity precisely what we would
do with our free acts. For God determined that moral creatures would
do things freely. He did not determine that they would be forced to
perform free acts. What is forced is not free, and what is free is not
forced. IN BRIEF, WE ARE CHOSEN BUT FREE.

’“Even strong Calvinists (like R. C. Sproul), who vehemently oppose any concept of predes-
tination based on foreknowledge, nonetheless admit that “God predestines us according
to what pleases him” (Chosen by God, 157). Yet Sproul also acknowledges that it is faith in
His completed work that pleases God (Heb. 11:6; cf. 10:14). If so. then the distinction
between “according to” and “based on" should be understandable to extreme Calvinists.
”St. Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, 2.28.
 CHAPTER FOUR

Avoiding Extreme
Calvinism
A DEFINITION OF EXTREME CALVINISM
An extreme Calvinist is defined here as someone who is more Cal-
vinistic than John Calvin (1509-1564), the founder of Calvinism. Since
it can be argued thatjohn Calvin did not believe in limited atonement
(that Christ died only for the elect; see appendix 2), then it would
follow that those who do are extreme Calvinists.1 Although the roots
of many points of extreme Calvinism are traceable all the way back to
die later period of St. Augustine’s life (see appendix 3), its beginnings
in the modern world are found in Theodore Beza (1519-1605), a dis­
ciple of John Calvin and a contributor to the Synods of Dort (1618-
19), a Calvinistic confession in response to the followers of Jacobus
Arminius (1560-1609) in the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610. Ex­
treme Calvinists are identified with these teachings:

‘Calvinists who believe Calvin held to unlimited atonement are called Amyraldians, follow­
ing Moise Amyraut (or Moses Amyrald, [1595-1664]), a French Protestant pastor. Amyrald
believed that God desires all to be saved on the condition that they believe. Hence, he
maintained both an ideal universalism and an actual particularism. See Brian Armstrong,
Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969).

J
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 57

T— Total Depravity
U— Unconditional Election
L— Limited Atonement
I— Irresistible Grace
P— Perseverance of the Saints

It is our purpose in this chapter to measure the first two of these

tenets of extreme Calvinism against the Scriptures. Since it is possible
to hold these “Five Points” in a moderate sense (as the author does—
see chapter 7), this chapter will serve not only as a direct critique of
extreme Calvinism but also as an indirect defense of a more moderate
Calvinism.

AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM’S VIEW OF

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Extreme Calvinism is distinguished by a particular understanding
of the “Five Points,” which more or less stand or fall together, partic­
ularly the first four. That is, they are an interdependent unity. If one
point is accepted, then logically all should be embraced. Likewise, if
one is rejected, then logically all should be.

What total depravity does not imply for extreme Calvinists

For extreme Calvinists, total depravity does not mean that human
beings are as depraved as they could be. Nor does it mean that thev
cannot do any social or domestic good, for most humans are capable
of much “horizontal” good to others as a result of God’s “common
grace” to all men. But they are incapable of any “vertical” or spiritual
good and, according to extreme Calvinism, they are totally incapable
of initiating, attaining, or ever receiving the gift of salvation without
the grace of God.

What total depravity does imply for extreme Calvinists

Extreme Calvinists believe that a totally depraved person is spiritu­
ally dead. By “spiritual death” they mean the elimination of all human
ability to understand or respond to God, not just a separation from
God. Further, the effects of sin are intensive (destroying the ability to
receive salvation), not just extensive (corrupting the ability to receive
salvation). While many extreme Calvinists would deny the implica­
tions, the following chart illustrates the differences:
58 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Moderate Calvinist View Extreme Calvinist View

Corruption of Good Destruction of Good
Effects of Sin Are Extensive Effects of Sin Are Intensive
Born With Propensit}' to Sin Born With Necessity to Sin
Human Will Is Diminished Human Will Is Destroyed2
tyliile extreme Calvinists admit that fallen humans have biological
life, they deny they are alive in any sense in which they can respond to
God; their natures are so totally corrupt that sin is an unavoidable
necessity.3 And whereas the faculty of will is present, nonetheless, the
ability to choose to follow God is destroyed.

AN EVALUATION OF VERSES USED TO SUPPORT

THE EXTREME CALVINISTS’ VIEW OF
TOTAL DEPRAVITY

There are many verses used by extreme Calvinists to support their

position. We will closely examine them.

Ephesians 2:1
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins ..(cf.
Col. 2:13). Extreme Calvinists note that “Dead men cannot make
themselves come alive.’’4 What they need is life, and a dead person
cannot give life to himself. Dead persons cannot even so much as be­
lieve that someone else can raise them to life again.

Response
This extreme Calvinistic interpretation of what is meant by spiri­
tual “death” is questionable. First of all, spiritual “death” in the Bible
is a strong expression meaning that fallen beings are totally separated
from God, not completely obliterated by Him. As Isaiah put it, "your
iniquities have separated you from your God” (Isa. 59:2). In brief, it
does not mean a total destruction of all ability to hear and respond to

2By “destroyed” we mean operationally in salvation not essentially as a part of being in God’s
image.
’Many extreme Calvinists use terms like “propensity;” "inclination,” and “bent” towardsin,
but they really mean “necessity.” This is clear in the following quote from Jonathan Ed­
wards: "That propensity is truly esteemed to belong to the nature of any being, or to be
ric- "Thai

inherent in it, that is the necessary consequence of its nature .. .” (Edwards, “Works," in
The Works of Jonathan Edwards [Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1974], 1.145, emphasis
added).
4See R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 114.

1
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 59

God, but a complete separation of the whole person from God.

Second, even though they are spiritually “dead,” the unsaved per­
sons can perceive the truth of God. In Romans, Paul declares emphat­
ically that God’s truth is “clearly seen” by them so that they are “with­
out excuse” (1:20). Adam and Eve were spiritually “dead” after they
ate the forbidden fruit. Yet they could hear the voice of God and re­
sponded to Him (Gen. 3:10). And this was not merely a hearing of the
tangible sounds. Their reaction reveals that they understood the
meaning of the words.
Third, “dead” is only one of many figures of speech used to de­
scribe the fallen state. It is also depicted as “sickness,” which does not
imply the person had no ability to hear and respond to God (Matt.
9:12). In short, depravity involves the corruption of life but not its de­
struction. The image of God in fallen humans is effaced but not
erased. Even unsaved people are said to be in God’s image (Gen. 9:6).
The image is marred but not eradicated by sin (cf. James 3:9).
Fourth, if spiritually “dead” amounts to a kind of spiritual annihi­
lation, rather than separation, then the “second death” (Rev. 20:10)
would be eternal annihilation, too—a doctrine rejected by extreme
Calvinists. A spiritually dead person, then, is in need of spiritual life
from God. But he does exist, and he can know and choose. His facul­
ties that make up the image of God are not absent; they are simply
incapable of initiating or attaining their own salvation. Like a drown­
ing person, a fallen person can reach out and accept the lifeline even
though he cannot make it to safety on his own.
Finally, in the parallel passage (Col. 2:12-13) Paul speaks of those
“dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature”
being able to believe. For he said, you have been “raised with him
through yourfaith in the power of God.”
John 1:12-13
“Yet to all ■who received him, to those who believed in his name,
he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of
natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of
God.” According to the extreme Calvinist’s interpretation of this pas­
sage, the new birth does not result from any human decision or free
choice—it is from God.
Response
There are at least two serious mistakes in such an interpretation of
this text. First, verse 12 makes it plain that the means by which this
GO CHOSEN BUT FREE

new birth is obtained is by "all who receive him [Christ].” This involves
an act of free will. Second, this passage is simply denying that there is
any other source of the new birth other than God Himself. It is not
“of (Greek: eh, out of) human sources, whether parents, husband, or
ourselves. No one can save us but God. God is the source by which the
new birth is given (v. 13), but free will is the means by which it is "re­
ceived” (v. 12). It is “by” grace but “through” (Greek: did) faith that
we are saved (Eph. 2:8).

Romans 9:16
“So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God
who shows mercy” (NKJV). To the strong Calvinists this seems unmis­
takable evidence that salvation "does not . . . depend on man’s desire
[will]” (ntv). R. C. Sproul is incautiously triumphant about this, claim­
ing: “This one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.”5

Response
Again, the Greek idea “of here can mean “out of (cf. John
1:13). It is a reference to the source of salvation, not the means by
which we receive it—this means it is a free act of our will in receiving it
(John 1:12; Eph. 2:8, etc.). .All forms of Calvinism and Arminianism
believe that God is the one who initiated salvation, even before the
world began (Eph. 1:4). Only God can be the source of God’s saving
“mercy.” However, as the Bible indicates later in Romans 9 (v. 22) and
elsewhere, we can reject God’s mercy (2 Peter 3:9; Acts 7:51).

John 3:3, 6-7

“Jesus declared, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom
of God unless he is born again. . .. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the
Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying,
“You must be born again.” ’ ” Likewise, a number of other passages
assert diat man is so totally depraved that he must be born all over
again spiritually (cf. 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 1 John 5:4). For extreme Calvin­
ists, regeneration is the condition of faith, not the reverse. R. C.
Sproul affirms that “A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the
maxim: ‘Regeneration precedes faith.’ ” He added, “We do not be­
lieve in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we
may believe”6 (see appendix 10).
‘Ibid., 151.
‘Ibid., 72.

I
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 61

Response
There is no disagreement that depraved humans need to be born
anew, to be given a new “Self (Col. 3:10) and made a “new creation”
(2 Cor. 5:17). The dispute is over whether this comes by an act of God
apart from the recipient’s free choice. On this point the text both here
and elsewhere indicates that this new birth comes through an act of
faith on the part of the recipient. According to this very passage, it is
“whoever believes” that gets eternal life (John 3:16). And in 1 John
5:4 it is “everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the vic­
tory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” Although
prompted—not coerced—by grace, the act of faith is an act of the be­
liever, not a gift from God only to the elect (see appendices 5 and 6).
John 6:65
Jesus said, “ ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me
unless the Father has enabled him.’ ” Sproul comments, “The passage
teaches at least this much: It is not within fallen man’s ability to come
to Christ on his own, without some kind of divine assistance.”7
Response
Moderate Calvinists and Arminians agree with this. As Sproul him­
self admits, the real question is: “Does God give the ability to come to
Jesus to all men?”8 The answer is that there is nothing here or any­
where else to say God limits His willingness to provide this ability to
only some. Indeed, the Bible is clear that He is patient, “not wanting
anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9),
and that He “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge
of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4; see also Ezek. 18:32).
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], be­
cause they are spiritually discerned” (Kjv). This is used by extreme
Calvinists to support the idea that unregenerate persons cannot even
understand the Gospel or any spiritual truths of Scripture.
Response
This interpretation, however, fails to take note dtat the tvord “re­
ceiveth” (Greek: dekomai) means “to welcome.” It simply affirms dial
’Ibid., 68.
‘Ibid.
62 CHOSEN BUT FREE

while he does perceive the truth (Rom. 1:20), he does not receive it.
There is no welcome in his heart for what he knows in his head. He
has the truth, but he is holding it dowm or suppressing it (Rom. 1:18).
It makes no sense to say that an unsaved person cannot understand
the gospel before he is saved. On the contrary, the entire New' Testa­
ment implies that he cannot be saved unless he understands and be­
lieves the gospel.
Total depravity is to be understood in an extensive, rather than an
intensive, manner. That is, sin extends to the -whole person, “spirit,
soul, and body” (1 Thess. 5:23), not just to part of the person. How­
ever, if depravity has destroyed man’s ability' to know good from evil
and to choose the good over the evil, then it would have destroyed
man’s ability to sin. If total depravity were to be true in this intensive
(read: extreme Calvinist) sense, it would destroy man’s ability to be
depraved at all. For a being with no moral faculties and no moral abil­
ities is not a moral being at all; instead, it is amoral, and no moral
expectation can be held over it.
But this isn’t what Scripture teaches. In a parallel passage Paul
speaks of unbelievers being “darkened in their understanding and
separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them
due to the hardening of their hearts." This implies a free and deliberate
act by which they have "lost all sensitivity” (Eph. 4:17-19). In other
words, their fallen condition and eventual lostness are not only a result
of being born that way but also because they have chosen to be that
way.

Titus 1:15
Extreme Calvinists also cite Paul saying, “To the pure, all things
are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing
is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted." Here
again, fallen humans seem incurably and unavoidably wicked.

Response
However, Paul makes it clear that their depraved condition is also
a result of their free choice. For in the very next verse he speaks of
their being “disobedient” (v. 16). Fallen humans are in darkness, but
that is because they “love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19).
Love is a choice. Thus they are condemned because they do not be­
lieve (John 3:18), not the reverse.
People are ultimately condemned for two reasons: First, they are
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 63

born with a sinful nature that puts them on the road to hell; second,
because they choose not to heed the warning signs along the road
telling them to repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30). That is, they sin inevi­
tably (though not necessarily)9 because they are born with a sinful na­
ture, and they find themselves in a sinful condition where they are
bound by sin because they have chosen to be in this condition. In the
very text cited in support of the extreme Calvinists’ view it declares
that fallen men are “unbelieving” (Titus 1:15).

John 8:44
“ ‘You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out
your father’s desire.’ ” From this text extreme Calvinists conclude that
fallen humans cannot avoid sinning because they are by nature “the
children of the devil” (1 John 3:10) who have “been taken captive by
him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25-26 Ntyv).

Response
It is true that unbelievers belong to the devil and that “the whole
world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19 nkjv). But
it does not follow that we have no free choice in the matter. Jesus said,
“ ‘I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin’ ” (John 8:34).
In fact, in the very text cited to support the extreme Calvinist view,
note that it says: “ ‘You want [will] to carry out your father’s [the
devil’s] desire’ ” (John 8:44). It is by their free choice that they follow
the devil and become enslaved to him.

Ezekiel 36:26
“ ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will
remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.’ ”
This is used to ground their belief that humans are so depraved that
God has to give them a new heart before they can even respond to or
believe in God.

Response
The extreme Calvinistic conclusion from this text does not follow
for several reasons. First, in context the passage is speaking propheti­
cally about “the house of Israel” returning to “their own land” in the

9By “necessarily” here we mean coercively, unavoidably, or against one’s will. One is never
forced to sin. He could always have avoided it, if not in his own natural (God-given) powers,
at least by God’s special grace (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13).
64 CHOSEN BUT FREE

last days (v. 17 NASB). Further, the new heart was a result of their re­
pentance (cf. v. 31). And in a similar text it says plainly that their stony
heart condition was a result of their own free choice. Ezekiel told
them earlier: “Cast away all your transgressions . . . and make yourself a
new heart and a new spirit” (Ezek. 18:31 NASB). On another occasion
God said through Jeremiah, “ ‘ They turned their backs to me and not
their faces; though I taught them again and again, they would not listen
or respond to discipline’” (Jer. 32:33). Rather, “'They set up their
abominable idols in the house that bears my Name and defiled it’ ”
(Jer. 32:34). But when they returned to God, then He said, “ ‘I will
give them one heart and one way’ ” (v. 40 nasb: cf. also Jer. 24:7).
Second, as many other passages indicate, Israel’s return is contin­
gent on their repentance. Moses wrote, “When all these blessings and
curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart
wherever die Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and
when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him
with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I
command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes
and have compassion on you and gadier you again from all the nations
where he scattered you” (Deut. 30:1-3). It is clear that their restora­
tion was dependent first on their repentance. They have to change
their minds first before God will change their hearts.
Finally, God said He would “give” this new heart to them. But such
gifts must be received bv an act of the will. The gift of salvation is
received by faith. As Paul said, it is “by grace you have been saved,
through faith" (Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation comes through faith; faith does
not come through salvation.
Nowhere in the Bible is faith given only to some to believe (see
appendix 5). Radier, all are called on by God to believe and to repent.
Paul said, “ ‘In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he
commands all people everywhere to repent' ” (Acts 17:30). The Philippian
jailer w’as told, as are all unbelievers (cf. Rom. 10:13;John 3:16): “ ‘Be­
lieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved ...’ ” (Acts 16:31). The
clear implication from these and all biblical passages speaking of how
we receive salvation is that belief is something all people can and
should exercise, not something that only some must w’ait to receive
from God before they can activate it.
Ephesians 2:3
“All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the crav­
ings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 65

the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." On the basis of this and
like passages (cf. John 8:44), extreme Calvinists argue that we cannot
avoid doing what we are by nature any more than pigs can stop acting
like pigs or dogs like dogs. Sin is unavoidable.

Response
First of all, even if sin were unavoidable for a sinner, it is not una­
voidable that they remain a sinner. There is a way out of sin. The sin­
ner can believe and be saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31); even in this very
passage we are informed that salvation is received “through faith”
(v. 8).
Furthermore, it is a mistake to view depravity as necessitating sin.
Even Augustine, the forefather of modern Calvinism, said, “We are
born with the propensity to sin and the necessity to die.”10 Notice that
he did not say we are born with the necessity to sin, but only with the
propensity or inclination to sin. Sin in general is inevitable, but each
sin in particular is avoidable—by the grace of God. One can always
become a believer, and for a believer there is always a way of escape
from sin (1 Cor. 10:13).

Psalms 51:5
“’Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother con­
ceived me” (Ps. 51:5). From this the extreme Calvinists conclude that
we cannot ever help sinning, since we are born that way and can’t
escape it.

Response
It is true that we are born in sin (Job 15:14; Ps. 58:3) and that we
inherit the inclination to sin from Adam. Indeed, we sinned in Adam
(Rom. 5:12). Hence, we deceive ourselves if we say we have no sin na­
ture (1 John 1:8). But it does not follow from this inborn tendency to
sin that we have the necessity to sin. Among others, being born in sin
means at least three things: (1) we are born widi a propensity to sin:
(2) we are born with the necessity of dying; (3) imputed to us was the
legal guilt of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12-21), a guilt that was removed by
the work of Christ, the Last Adam (Rom. 5:18-19).
Even some of the strongest passages on human depravity speak of
it also as a matter of human choice: “IV? all, like sheep, have gone

10Sce St. Augustine, City of God, 14.1.

66 CHOSEN BUT FREE

astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on
him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6); “All of us have become like one
who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all
shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away' (Isa.
64:6); “All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there
is no one who does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:12).
Extreme Calvinists love quoting Romans 9 (see response earlier in
this chapter) but often overlook the implications of verses 11-12: “Yet,
before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order
that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him
who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ ” But this
text makes it clear that even though we are born in sin, yet before
birdt no personal sins are committed. These are done only after one
is old enough to know the difference between good and evil (Isa.
7:15). Jesus said, “ ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin;
but now dtat you claim you can see. your guilt remains’ ” (John 9:41).

Romans 8:7-9
“The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law,
nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the
Spirit...." This appears to say that unsaved persons are not free not
to sin. That is, sin follows necessarily from their very nature. We sin
because we are sinners by nature, rather than being sinners because
we sin.

Response
It is true that we are sinners by nature, but that old nature does
not make sin necessary any more than a new nature makes good acts
necessary. The old nature only makes sin inevitable, not unavoidable.
Since we are free, sin is not necessary. Again, as Augustine said, we are
born with the propensity to sin, not the necessity' to sin. If sin were
necessary, then we would not be responsible for it (see chapter 2),
which the Bible declares we are (Rom. 3:19). Furthermore, Paul
makes it clear in this section of Romans that our enslavement to sin is
our free choice. He wrote, “Don’t you know that when you offer your­
selves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom
you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to
obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Rom. 6:16). We are born
with a bent to sin, but we still have a choice whether we will be its slave.
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 67

Romans 3:10-11
“There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who
understands, no one who seeks God.” Romans 10:20 adds, “ ‘I was
found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who
did not ask for me.’ ” Indeed, there are many verses that indicate that
no one comes to God unless He draws them (cf. John 6:44, 65) and
that it is God who seeks us (Luke 19:10).

Response
The moderate Calvinist (and Arminian) has no problem with such
a rendering of these verses. It is God who initiates salvation. “Salvation
is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9 Kjv). “We love Him because He first loved
us” (1 John 4:19 nkjv). We seek Him, then, only because He has first
sought us. However, as a result of the convicting work of the Holy
Spirit on the whole “world” (John 16:8) and “the goodness of God”
(Rom. 2:4 NKJV), some people are moved to repent. Likewise, as a re­
sult of God’s grace some seek Him. Hebrews declares that “without
faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him
must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek
him” (11:6). God is found by those who seek Him, yet when they find
Him they discover that He first sought them.

2 Corinthians 3:5
“Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for our­
selves, but our competence comes from God.” Jesus adds, “ ‘Apart
from me you can do nothing’ ” (John 15:5). These and like verses are
used by extreme Calvinists to show that we are so depraved that we are
totally incapable of even responding to the gospel without His power.

Response
These verses prove only that we cannot attain salvation by our own
will. They do not demonstrate that we cannot receive die gift of salva­
tion. Further, moderate Calvinists do not deny that God’s grace works
on the unregenerate to move them to faith. It only denies that any
such work is irresistible on the unwilling (see below), or that God gives
faith only to the elect, without which no one can be saved (see appen­
dix 5).
68 CHOSEN BUT FREE

AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM’S VIEW OF

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

The second premise of extreme Calvinism is unconditional elec­

tion, by which is meant that there are absolutely no conditions for
God’s electing some to salvation. There are no conditions, either for
God’s giving of salvation or for our receiving it.
Strangely, even some extreme Calvinists seem to acknowledge this
distinction, saying, ‘‘We must be careful to distinguish between condi­
tions that are necessary for salvation and conditions that are necessary
for election....” He adds, “There are all sorts of conditions that must
be met for someone to be saved. [A strange statement for one who
believes salvation is by “faith alone”!] Chief among them is that we
must have faith in Christ” (Chosen by God. 155)." However, when we
understand that even faith to believe is an “unconditional gift to the
elect,” the so-called “condition” of faith turns out to be no real con­
dition for man at all. It is a “condition” only in the sense that God has
to place it there first before the justification will occur.

AN EVALUATION OF VERSES USED TO SUPPORT

THE EXTREME CALVINISTS’ VIEW OF
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

Many texts are offered by extreme Calvinists to support their view

that election is totally unconditional for either God or human beings.
The following often appear.

Ephesians 1:5-11
God “predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus
Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will." Also, “he made known
to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he
purposed in Christ....” Again, “In him we were also chosen, having
been predestined according to the plan of him who w'orks out every­
thing in conformity with the purpose of his will.. .” (1:5, 9, 11).

“The catch is that even faith is a result of “irresistible regeneration.” Surprisingly, Sproul
even admits that “The Reformed view does, in a narrow sense, see obedience as a ‘condi­
tion’ (but never the ground) of justification.... The real necessary condition is the pres­
ence of real faith which will of necessity yield the fruit of obedience” (Willing to Believe,
179).

-
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 69

Response
Moderate Calvinists agree that there are no strings attached to the
gift of salvation—it is unconditional. When election occurred—before
the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—the elect were not even cre­
ated yet. God elected on His own, without any conditions that needed
to be performed on the part of the elect.
However, the question is not whether there are any conditions for
God giving salvation; the question is whether there are any conditions
for man receiving salvation. And here the Bible seems to be very em­
phatic that faith is the condition for receiving God’s gift of salvation.
We are “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1 nasb). We must “believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ” in order to be saved (Acts 16:31 Nigv). “Without
faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him
must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnesdy seek
him” (Heb. 11:6).

Romans 8:28
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those
who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Here
again, election is unconditional from God’s standpoint. There is noth­
ing outside God that prompts it.

Response
That these and like texts show the unconditional nature of election
from God’s point of view is not challenged. But the question is not
whether election is unconditional from the vantage point of the Giver
but whether there are any conditions for the receiver.
This and other Scriptures reveal that election is related to fore­
knowledge. Romans 8:29, the very next verse, says, “Those God fore­
knew he also predestined.” And 1 Peter 1:2 proclaims dtat the elect
“have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.”
This affirms that God is the unconditional source of the election, and
that election is done with full foreknowledge of all things. But we have
demonstrated that the elect will freely choose to believe. Election is
not based on or dependent on foreknowledge. Rather, it is merely in
accord with it (see chapter 3).
An illustration is in order. Suppose a young man (whom we will
call Jim) is contemplating marriage, and knows two young ladies
(whom we will call Joan and Betty), either of whom would make a
good wife for him. As a Christian, he has three basic choices: (1) to
70 CHOSEN BUT FREE

propose to neither of them; (2) to propose to Joan; or (3) to propose

to Betty'. Bear in mind that the young man is under no compulsion.
There is nothing outside his own will that places demands on him to
choose any one of the three options (or any other one).
Suppose further that the young man happens to know that if he
proposes to Joan she will say yes and if he proposes to Betty she will
say no. Suppose then, in accordance with this foreknowledge of how
she will freely respond, that Jim chooses to propose to Joan. Suppose
even that he knew she would be reluctant at first but with persistent
and loving persuasion she would eventually—freely—accept his offer.
The decision on his part was entirely free, uncoerced, and not based
on anything outside himself. But it was also a decision dtat was with
full knowledge of the response and which respected the free choice of
the person to whom he decided to propose. This is analogous to what
the moderate Calvinists believe about God’s unconditional election.
In contrast, let’s hold the same illustration up against extreme Cal­
vinists' belief. They would say dtat if Jim foreknew that both tvomen
would refuse his proposal for marriage unless coerced against their
will to do so,12 he would not have to show his love to either of them.
Instead he could, for instance, decide to force Betty' to marry him
against her will. Would we not sav that “forced love” is a contradiction
in terms? And since Jim represents God in the illustration, would not
this make God into someone who forces Himself on others in violation
of their integrity'? It seems to me that this is precisely what the extreme
Calvinists are affirming (see section on “irresistible grace” in
chapter 5).

Romans 8:29
“For those13 God foreknew he also predestined.... And those he
predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he
justified, he also glorified.” Many extreme Calvinists take “fore­
known” to refer to the fact that God foreloved.14 In this case, to

*2Extreme Calvinists insist they hold to the truth that man is free and uncoerced. They claim:
“Man is free—one hundred percent free—to do exactly what he wants. God does not coerce
a single one against his will" Yet Palmer adds shortly thereafter, “Incidentally, the Christian
has no free will either. . . . Christ will not let him reject Him" (see Edwin Palmer, The Five
Points of Calvinism, 36, emphasis mine). Language is emptied of meaning when we speak
of such things as being coerced to act freely.
*sPaul is referring to “those" particular people (i.e., the elect) whom God foreknew in a
special sense, not everyone whom He foreknows in His omniscience.
uSee David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ.:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963), 85f.
 AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 71

foreknow' and to choose or elect would be the same thing. They cite
other passages in attempts to support this (e.g., Deut. 7:7-8; Jer. 1:5;
Amos 3:2; Matt. 7:22-23). If so, then God’s foreknowledge would not
have any reference to foreknowing how the elect would respond. But
this is not the case, as our response shows.

Response
First, even if this is true, it is irrelevant, since extreme Calvinists
believe in God’s infallible foreknowledge (cf. Isa. 46:10) regardless of
what these verses teach. And if God does foreknow infallibly, then He
would still foreknow what people would freely believe, and He would
still have to decide whether He would have to force them to believe in
Him or else elect those He knew could be persuaded to freely accept
His grace (see chapter 3).
Second, there is strong evidence to show that "foreknow” does not
mean “choose” or "elect” in the Bible. For one thing, many verses use
the same root word (Greek: ginosko) for knowledge of persons where
there is no personal relationship: Matt. 25:24—“ ‘I knew that you are
a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where
you have not scattered seed’ John 2:24—“But Jesus would not en­
trust himself to them, for he knew all men”; John 5:42—“ ‘I know you.
I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts’ ” (cf. John
1:47; Ps. 139:1-2, 6).
Further, “know” does not usually mean “choose” in either die Old
or New Testament. Of the 770 times the Hebrew word “know” (yada)
is used in the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek Old Testament (the
Septuagint) translates it by the Greek word ginosko about five hundred
times. And in the New Testament this word is used about two hundred
twenty times, the vast majority of which do not mean to choose.15 What
is more, even the few texts used by extreme Calvinists (e.g., Hos. 13:5:
Gen. 18:17-19; Jer. 1:5-6; Amos 2:10-12; 3:1-4;) are doubtful.16 since
they show that a relationship is involved—not merely a choice but also
a relationship set up by a choice. Otherwise, why would God ask diem

,5There is possibly only one case where “know” and “love” are equated in the New Testa­
ment (1 Cor. 8:1—4). But even here “know” is a better translation. See Roger T. Forster
and V. Paul Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History (Wheaton. Ill.: Tvndale House Pub­
lishers, 1974), 188-89.
,6See Forster and Marston, 182-87.
72 CHOSEN BUT FREE

to “walk together” (Amos 3:1-4) after saying He “knew” them (cf.

Hos. 13:5)?17
In addition, “foreknow” (Greek: proginosko) is used in the New
Testament in reference to advanced knowledge of events: “Therefore,
dear friends, since you already know this [in advance], be on your
guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men
and fall from your secure position” (2 Peter 3:17; cf. Acts 2:23; 1 Peter
1:18-20). Thus, the extreme Calvinist’s equating of foreknowing and
foreloving does not follow.
Finally, the word “chosen” by God is used of persons who are not
the elect. Judas, for example, was “chosen” by Christ but not one of
the elect: “Jesus replied, ‘Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one
of you is a devil!’ ” (John 6:70). Israel was chosen as a nation, but not
every individual in Israel will be saved (see Rom. 9:7, 27-29).
Furthermore, even if one could demonstrate that sometimes “fore­
knowledge” means “to forechoose” (as it could in Romans 11:2), this
does not demonstrate the extreme Calvinist’s view of unconditional
election. For the question still remains as to whether God ordained an
act of free choice as a means of receiving His unconditional grace.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29
“But God chose the foolish things of die world to shame the wise;
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose
die lowly things of this world and die despised things ... so that no one
may boast before him.” Extreme Calvinists argue that if salvation in any
way depended on us, then we could boast. But since we cannot boast,
then salvation in no way depends on us—even on our faith.

Response
First, neither this nor any other passage of Scripture affirms that
faith is not a necessary condition for receiving God’s gift of salvation.
Indeed, many passages say that faith is a condition for receiving salva­
tion (see John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Rom. 5:1). Second, it is a mistake to
believe that the exercise of faith or trust in God’s complete provision
for our salvation is a ground for boasting. As a condition for salvation,
faith is opposed to works and works are opposed to faith. For “to the
man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his
''Ibid., 186—87. The Hebrew word “know" (yada) is translated in this instance by the Greek
word epislamai in the Septuagint, meaning to “understand fully.” Here, too, it means
knowledge, not merely choice, though God’s choice is in the light of His knowledge.
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 73

faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). “"Where, then, is boast­

ing? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law?
No, but on that offaith” (Rom. 3:27). Salvation, then, can be an un­
conditional gift from God, even though receiving it is conditioned on
an act of faith on our part.

Matthew 11:27
“ ‘All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one
knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the
Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.' ” It seems apparent
from this that only those Jesus chooses (known as “the elect”) will know
the Father in a personal way.

Response
This is certainly true, and it is acknowledged by those who oppose
extreme Calvinism. The question, though, is whether one has to be
walling to receive this revelation before he will come to know God per­
sonally. The answer here is in the context, the same being true for
other references. In this very passage Jesus invites His listeners to
“come unto Me” and “take my yoke upon you” (w. 28-29 Kjv). Else­
where, He chides unbelievers for not being willing: “ ‘O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how
often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers
her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing ” (Matt. 23:37).
God chooses only to reveal Himself personally to the willing. Jesus
said, “ ‘If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my
teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own’ ” (John
7:17). It is noteworthy also that it does not say that Jesus wishes only to
reveal the Father to some. Indeed, God desires all to be saved (Matt.
23:37; 2 Peter 3:9).

John 15:16
“ ‘ You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go
and bear fruit—fruit that will last.’ ” It seems evident that Jesus
claimed that we were chosen by Him, not the reverse. Hence, our elec­
tion is unconditional.

Response
The context here favors its being a reference to Jesus’ choice of
the Twelve to be His disciples, not God’s choice of the elect to eternal
74 CHOSEN BUT FREE

salvation. After all, Jesus is speaking to the eleven apostles (John 15:8;
16:17). In addition, the word “chosen” by God is used of persons who
are not the elect. Judas, for example, was “chosen” by Christ but was
not one of the elect: “Jesus replied, ‘Have I not chosen you, the
Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!’ ” (John 6:70).18
2 Thessalonians 2:13
“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the
Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the
sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.”
Response
As with many other passages, diere is no debate with the extreme
Calvinists that die elect are chosen unconditionally by God. But they
neglect to note diat these very verses they quote declare that diis sal­
vation came to us “through belief in the truth." In short, we were chosen
but free—which is direcdy contrary to the conclusion of the extreme
Calvinists (see chapter 2 and appendix 5).
In summary, the error of extreme Calvinism regarding “uncondi­
tional election” is the failure to adhere to an election that is uncon­
ditional from the standpoint of die Giver (God), but has one condi­
tion for the receiver—faith.19 This, in turn, is based on the mistaken
notion diat faith is a gift onlv to die elect (see appendix 6), who have
no choice in receiving it.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Extreme Calvinism, as represented by die traditional “Five Points,”
has been demonstrated to lack biblical support for the first two of
,6Even if this means eternal election, there is no debate with die fact that our election is
unconditional from God’s standpoint. However, neither this nor any other text affirms that
there is no condition for receiving salvation. It is clear, of course, that God chose us before
we chose to accept Him. And our decision to accept His offer of salvation is not die basis
for His choice of us. We did not choose Him—either first or as the basis of His choice of
us. We merely responded to His gracious offer of salvation based solely on His uncondi­
tional grace. But we do have a choice in receiving this unconditional gift of salvation, for
"all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become
children of God” (John 1:12).
’’Some extreme Calvinists admit that faith is a condition for receiving salvation (sec Sproul,
Willing to Believe, 133). However, they hasten to say that faith is a result of “irresistible
regeneration.”
What they mean is dial faith is not a condition that unregenerate humans must exercise
before they can receive the gift of salvation. Sproul acknowledges that this is "die most
crucial point of the debate between Dispensationalism [moderate Calvinism] and Re­
formed Theology [extreme Calvinism]” (see Sproul, Willing to Believe, 198).

4
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM 75

these points: total depravity and unconditional election. In contrast,

the moderate Calvinist view of these points (see chapter 7 and appen­
dices 5 and 7) is in full accord with Scripture. To complete our study
we turn now to the last three points of traditional “Five-Point” Calvin­
ism: Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of
the Saints.
 CHAPTER FIVE

Avoiding Extreme
Calvinism
(continued)

In the preceding chapter we examined the first two letters of the

“Five-Point” T-U-L-I-P of strong Calvinism: Total Depravity and Un­
conditional Election. We continue here in chapter 5 with the last
three: Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of
the Saints.

AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM’S VIEW OF

LIMITED ATONEMENT

Extreme Calvinists argue that limited atonement is supported by

the fact that the objects of Christ’s death are always believers, not un­
believers. They further contend that if Christ paid the price for the
salvation of all unbelievers, then all would be saved. In other words,
they argue that rejection of limited atonement leads to universalism
(the belief that everyone will be saved), which of course is contrary to
Scripture (e.g., see Matt. 25:41; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:10-15).
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 77

AN EVALUATION OF VERSES USED TO SUPPORT

THE EXTREME CALVINISTS’ VIEW OF
LIMITED ATONEMENT

Many verses are offered by extreme Calvinists to support their view

that Christ did not die for all mankind but only for the elect. The
following are some of the main texts used.1

Matthew 1:21
This text affirms that “ ‘She [the Virgin Mary] will give birth to a
son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his
people from their sins’ ’’(Matt. 1:21). Along with this are several other
verses used to imply that Jesus only died for believers: “ ‘Greater love
has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends’ " (John
15:13); “ ‘I lay down my life for the sheep’ ” (John 10:15); “ ‘Be shep­
herds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood’ ”
(Acts 20:28); “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”
(Eph. 5:25); “who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wicked­
ness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to
do what is good” (Titus 2:14); “He who did not spare His own Son,
but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely
give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is
God who justifies” (Rom. 8:32—33 nkjv).

Response
First of all, it should be observed that there is a logical fallacy in
arguing that (1) because Christ died for believers (2) He did not also
die for unbelievers. Both could be true.
Second, to put it another way, while the text declares that (1)
Christ died for those in the church, it does not say that (2) Christ died
for only those in the church. For example, for me to say that I love my
friend Carl does not mean that I do not love my neighbor Larry. The
fact that I have affirmed my love for Carl in no way posits that I do not
also love Larry.

’Others use Isaiah 53:8; John 10:15-18; 15:13-14, and Acts 20:28, but the same critique ap­
plies to diem, namely: (1) While only some are actually saved by the cross (namely, those
who believe), Christ died for all; (2) Simply because a text declares that Christ died for
believers (the church, etc.) does not mean He did not also die for unbelievers too, as other
texts affirm that He did (cf. 1 John 2:2). Further, if affirming Christ died for His "sheep"
(v. 15) means only the elect, dien Jesus would not have said there were "other sheep"
(v. 16) that were also saved (for this would mean more than the elect will be saved).
78 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Finally, the New Testament plainly states that God does love all and
that Christ did die for all: “ ‘For God so loved the world that he gave
his one and only Son’ ’’(John 3:16); “He is the atoning sacrifice for
our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”
(1 John 2:2); “[He] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowl­
edge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). There are numerous other verses that
say die same thing (see appendix 6).

Ephesians 5:25
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her.” The assertion in dris case is that the focus of
Christ’s love is only the church, not unbelievers. The text does not say
that Christ loved and died for the “world” but only that He loved and
died for His bride, the church.

Response
There are good reasons why die fact diat Christ loves the church
does not mean He did not love die world as well. For one thing, die
fact that I love my wife does not logically mean that I lack love for
other persons. It simply puts special focus on my love for someone
who is special in my life.2
Second, Christ’s wife—the church—is a body of all persons who
accept Christ (John 1:12) and are baptized by the Holy Spirit into one
body (1 Cor. 12:13). The door of the true church is open to all who
will enter in and be part of this special group that experiences His
special love. For “God so loved the world” (John 3:16) and wants all
to partake of the relationship Christ has to His bride. Thus, “the Spirit
and the bride say, ‘Come!’ .And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ Whoever
is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift
of the water of life” (Rev. 22:17).

Ephesians 1:4
“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy
and blameless in his sight.” The Bible also asserts that Christ was “the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8 Nigv). From

This and other verses reveal a special (unique) love of Christ for His church, which is what
all Calvinists believe in distinction from most Arminians. What separates the moderate Cal­
vinist from the extreme Calvinist is that the former affirms and the latter denies that Christ
died for the non-elect and desires them to be a part of His bride as well, so that they too
can experience this special love.

1
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 79

this it is argued that Christ the Lamb was only slain for the elect. To
die for anyone else than the elect would be a waste, for only the elect
will be saved. God knew and chose before the world began exactly who
the elect were.

Response
The fact that only believers were chosen in Christ before time
began does not mean that Christ did not die for all human beings.
God knew exactly who would believe, since He knows all things before­
hand (Isa. 46:10; Rom. 8:29). Peter says believers “have been chosen
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1:2). Paul
affirms that “those God foreknew he also predestined” (Rom. 8:29).
The Atonement is limited in its application, but it is not limited in its
extent. Certainly this passage does not say it is limited in scope, and
many other passages (see below) tell us that it is not (see appendix 6).

1 Corinthians 15:3
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that
Christ died for our sins according to die Scriptures” (cf. John 10:11;
Rom. 4:25; 2 Cor. 5:21). The point being made by extreme Calvinists
is that when the Bible says Christ died for someone, it identifies that
group as believers by phrases like “we,” “our,” or “for us.”

Response
Few teachings are more evident in the New Testament than that
God loves all people, that Christ died for the sins of all human beings
(cf. 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1), and that God desires all
persons to be saved (see appendix 6). That only believers are men­
tioned in some passages as the object of Christ’s deadi does not prove
the Atonement is limited in its extent for several reasons.
First, when the Bible uses terms like “we, “our,” or “us” of the
Atonement it speaks only of those to whom it has been applied, not for
all those for whom it was provided. In doing so it does not thereby limit
the Atonement in its possible application to all people. It speaks,
rather, of some to whom it has been already applied.
Second, the fact that Jesus loves His bride and died for her (Eph.
5:25) does not mean that God does not love the whole world and does
not desire all to be part of His bride, the church. Indeed, as the verses
below will show, “ ‘God so loved the world that he gave his one and
only son’ ” (John 3:16). And Jesus desired all His Jewish kinsmen to
80 CHOSEN BUT FREE

be saved (Matt. 23:37), as did Paul (Rom. 9:1-2; 10: 1-2).

Third, this reasoning overlooks the fact that there are many pas­
sages declaring diat Jesus died for more than the elect (e.g., see John
3:16; Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor. 5:19), as we discuss in detail elsewhere (again,
see appendix 6).

John 5:21
“ ‘For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even
so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.' ” This verse is some­
times used by extreme Calvinists in an attempt to prove limited atone­
ment whereby Christ gives spiritual life only to the elect?

Response
First of all, if this interpretation were true it would contradict the
clear teaching of other texts in John (John 3:16) and elsewhere
(1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1). And all true Calvinists, following Calvin, be­
lieve die Bible is the Word of God and does not contradict itself. Sec­
ond, die use of “just as” in this text indicates the Son is doing the
same thing as die Father, and die Fadier “raises the dead.” So it is not
a reference to salvation but to resurrection of the dead. Finally, die
resurrection in diis very chapter of John refers to “all who are in the
graves” (5:28), both saved and unsaved (v. 29). Hence, the resurrec­
tion life given is not limited to the elect: bodi saved and unsaved are
resurrected.

John 17:9
“ ‘I pray for them [the disciples]. I am not praying for the world, but
for those you have given me, for they are yours.’ ” The “them” is
plainly a reference to His disciples (v. 6). Extreme Calvinists point out
that Jesus explicitly denied prating for the “world” of unbelievers. If
true, this would be support that the Atonement is limited to the elect,
the only ones for whom Christ prayed. It is argued that this fits with a
limited new of the Atonement.

Response
Several important things should be noted in response to this. First,
the fact that Christ only prayed for die elect in this passage does not
in itself prove that He never prayed for the non-elect at any time. If,

•'See Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, 51.

 AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 81

as extreme Calvinists admit, Jesus as a man could have had negative

answers to His prayers,1 then He could have prayed for some people
who were not elect, even if it is not recorded in Scripture. Many things
Jesus did are not recorded (cf. John 21:25).
Second, Christ prayed for non-elect persons. His prayer, “ ‘Father,
forgive them for they know not what they do’ ” (Luke 23:34 kjv) un­
doubtedly included people who were not elect.5 Further, Jesus indi­
rectly prayed for the world by asking us to “ ‘pray the Lord of the har­
vest to send out laborers into His harvest’” (Luke 10:2 NKJV), yet
knowing that not all would be saved (Matt. 13:28-30). In fact, He wept
for unbelievers (Matt. 23:37) and prayed that unbelievers would be
saved (John 11:42).
Third, even if Jesus had not prayed for the non-elect, still other
passages of the New Testament reveal that the apostle Paul did, and
he exhorts us to do the same. He cried out, “Brothers, my heart’s de­
sire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved”
(Rom. 10:1), even though he knew only a remnant would be saved
(Rom. 11:1-5). He adds elsewhere, “I urge, then, first of all, that re­
quests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone"
(notjust the elect; 1 Tim. 2:1).
Fourth, even if it could be demonstrated that Christ did not pray
for the non-elect, it would not mean He does not love them and did
not die for their sins. A special prayer for those who would become
believers is understandable (John 17:20). But this no more proves He
does not love the world than my saying “I pray daily for my children”
proves I do not love all the children of the world. My children have a
special place in my prayers, just as Christ’s disciples had a special place
in His prayers. The important thing is that Jesus wanted everyone to
be His children (Matt. 23:37; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 2 Peter 3:9).
Finally, His use of the word world here of the non-elect shows that
John did not use it of the “Christian world,” or elect, as extreme Cal­
vinists claim He does in 1 John 2:2 and elsewhere.

Romans 5:15
“For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much
more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of die one

♦Even extreme Calvinists believe that Jesus as a man could have had unanswered prayers (see
John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth [London: n.p., 1814], new ed., 1.87-88; cf. 2.77).
’There is no evidence that the other thief on the cross, all the Roman soldiers, or the mock­
ers present ever were saved.
82 CHOSEN BUT FREE

man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many'." Also, “For just as through
the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also
through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righ­
teous” (Rom. 5:19). Extreme Calvinists insist that in both cases the
benefit of Christ’s death is only to “the many” [the elect] but not to
“all” (cf. Heb. 9:28).

Response
In response to this argument for limited atonement, it is notewor­
thy that “many” in Romans 5 is used in conu-ast with “one” (Adam or
Christ), not in contrast to “all.” In fact, the “many” is interchangeable
with “all.” This is evident from several things: (1) The term “all" is
used in this same passage (w. 12, 18) as interchangeable with “many”;
(2) Once, the two terms refer to the same thing: in verse 15 “many
died” refers to the same thing as verse 12 where “all died” as a result
of Adam’s sin; (3) The contrast is between “one” and “all” (v. 18), just
as in the next verse it is between “one” and “many” (v. 19); and (4) If
“many” means only “some” as in “limited atonement,” then only
some people, not all, are condemned because of Adam’s sin. For in­
stance, Romans 5:19 declares that “just as through the disobedience
of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obe­
dience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” Yet all true
Calvinists believe in the universality of sin. By the same logic with the
same word in the same verse they should believe in the universal ex­
tent of the Atonement.

Mark 10:45 (cf. also Matt. 26:28)

“ ‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to
serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.' ” This and many other
New Testament passages teach substitutionary atonement (1 Cor. 15:3;
2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 3:18). But extreme Calvinists insist that logic
demands that if Christ died for all, then all would be saved. For if
Christ was substituted for their sin, then He paid for it and they are
free. But the Bible teaches that all will not be saved (cf. Matt. 25:40-
41; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 20:10-15). Therefore, they argue that Christ
could not have died for the sins of all mankind.

Response
First, this conclusion is not really an exposition of these passages—
which say nothing about a limited atonement. Rather, it is a specula-
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) S3

tive inference. Second, the inference is not logically necessary. That a

benefactoi’ buys a gift and freely offers it to someone does not mean
that person must receive it. Likewise, that Christ paid for our sins does
not mean we must accept the forgiveness of sins bought by His blood.
Third, the word “many” is again used to mean “all.” It is “many”
in contrast to “few,” not “many” in contrast to “all.” As just men­
tioned, “many” and “all” are also used interchangeably (see Rom.
5:12-19). This is supported by usage of the term in both the Old and
New Testaments. The most widely accepted authority on the Greek
New Testament concludes that polloi (many) has the inclusive mean­
ing of “all” in the crucial redemptive passages.6 Jesus said “many"
(all) are called but “few” are chosen (Matt. 20:16 nkjv).
Finally, that Christ’s death made everyone savable does not thereby
mean that everyone is saved. His death on the Cross made salvation
possible for all men but not actual—it is not actual until they receive it
by faith. This should not be difficult for an extreme Calvinist to un­
derstand. For even though the elect were chosen in Christ, the Lamb
slain before the creation of the world (Rev. 13:8; Eph. 1:4), nonethe­
less, they were not actually saved until God regenerated and justified
diem. Before the moment in time when they were regenerated, the
elect were not saved actually but only potentially. Salvation, then, can
be provided for all without it being applied to all. There is enough
Bread of Life put on the table by Christ for the whole world, even
though only the elect partake of it. The Water of Life is there for
“whoever” (all) to drink (John 4:14), even though many refuse to
do so.
John 1:9
“The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the
world.” Some Calvinists reason that this supports limited atonement,
since “world” and “every man” cannot refer to the whole human
race. If they did, then everyone would be saved. But since other Scrip­
tures clearly repudiate universalism (cf. Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10-15),
then it must refer to the elect scattered around the world.
Response
There are several reasons this does not refer only to the elect but
to the fallen world as a whole. First, this usage is consistent with the
‘See Gerhard Friedrich, cd., Theological Dictionary of the Neu’ Testament, vol. VI. trans, and
ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964-
76), 536-45.
84 CHOSEN BUT FREE

generic use of the word world throughout John’s -writings (cf. John
3:16-18; 1 John 2:1-2, 15-17). Second, this interpretation is supported
by the context (w. 10-11) where John refers to Jesus not being recog­
nized or received by the world in general. Third, that the Light
(Christ) has been manifested in the “world” does not mean He was
accepted by all the world. Indeed, the very next verses indicate He was
not. For “He was in the world, and though the world was made
through him, die world did not recognize him. He came to that which
was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:10-11).

Romans 9:11-13
“Yet. before the twins were born or had done anything good or
bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by
works but by him who calls—she was told. ‘The older will serve the
younger.’Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ ” This
is a favorite passage of extreme Calvinists, especially those who believe
in double-predestination. For it appears to say that God not only loves
just the elect, but also that He even hates the non-elect (appendix 7).

Response
Few scriptural texts are more misused by extreme Calvinists than
this one.7 First of all, God is not speaking here about the individual
Jacob but about die nation ofJacob (Israel). In Genesis when the pre­
diction was made (25:23 NKJV), Rebekah was told, “ ‘Two nations are
in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body. . . . And
die older shall serve the younger.’ ” So the reference here is not to
individual election but to the corporate election of a nation—the cho­
sen nation of Israel.8
Second, regardless of the corporate election of Israel as a nation,
each individual had to accept the Messiah in order to be saved. Paul
said, “I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ

"R. C. Sproul is a case in point (for instance, see Chosen by God, 148-50).
'’Even Piper, who holds that the Romans 9 passage is speaking of individual election to eter­
nal salvation admits of modem scholars that “the list of those who see no individual pre­
destination to eternal life or death is impressive.” Indeed, “Sanday and Headlam (Romans,
245), for example, take die position that ‘the absolute election ofJacob ... has reference
simply to the election of one to higher privileges, as head of the chosen race, than the
other. It has nothing to do with their eternal salvation. In the original to which St. Paul is
referring, Esau is simply a synonym for Edom.’ Similarly, G. Schrenk (TDNT, IV, 179) says
on Rom. 9:12, ‘The reference here is not to salvation, but to position and historical task, cf.
the quotation from Gen. 25:23 in v. 12: "The elder shall serve the younger.” ’ ” (John Piper,
TheJustification of God, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1993], 57).
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 85

for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel'
(Rom. 9:3-4). He added, “Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to
God for the Israelites is that they may be saved’’ (Rom. 10:1). Even
though of the end times he says later that “all Israel will be saved"
(Rom. 11:26), he is referring to Israel at that time. And clearly at pres­
ent there is only "a remnant" (11:5). So even though Israel as a nation
was elect, nonetheless, each individual had to accept God’s grace by
“faith” in order to be saved (11:20).
Third, God’s “love” for Jacob and “hate” for Esau is not speaking
of those men before they were born, but long after they lived. The
citation in Romans 9:13 is not from Genesis when they were alive
(c. 2000 B.c.) but from Malachi 1:2-3 (c. 400 B.C.), long after they
died! The evil deeds done by the Edomites to the Israelites are well
documented in the Old Testament (e.g., Num. 20). And it is for these
that God is said to have hated them as a country. Here again, this did
not mean that no individuals from that country would be saved. In
fact, there were believers from both Edom (Amos 9:12) and the neigh­
boring country of Moab (Ruth 1), just as there will be people in
heaven from every tribe, kindred, nation, and tongue (Rev. 7:9)?
Fourth, the Hebrew word for “hated” really means “loved less.”
Indication of this comes from the life of Jacob himself. For the Bible
says Jacob “loved also Rachel more than Leah. . . . The Lord saw that
Leah was hated' (Gen. 29:30-31). “The former implies strong positive
attachment and the latter, not positive hatred, but merely a less love.”10
The same is true in the New Testament, as when Jesus said. “ ‘If
anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother... he
cannot be my disciple’ ” (Luke 14:26). A parallel idea is expressed in
Matthew 10:37: “ ‘Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me.’ ” So even one of the strongest verses used bv
extreme Calvinists does not prove that God hates the non-elect or even
that He does not love them. It simply means that God's love for those
who receive salvation looks so much greater than His love for those
who reject it that the latter looks like hatred by comparison.
’John Piper, widely held by extreme Calvinists to have the best treatment on Romans 9,
makes this mistake. Piper claims that “the divine decision to ‘hate’ Esau was made ‘before
they were born or had done anything good or evil (9:11)." But, as shown on the previous
page, the reference here is not to something said in Genesis about the individualsJacob
and Esau before they were bom. What Genesis 25 says is simply that the older would serve the
younger. What is said in Malachi 1:2-3 about the nations ofJacob and Esau (Edom) is not
only centuries after their progenitors had died, but it is also in regard to what the nation
of Edom had done to the chosen nation of Israel (ibid., 175).
,0See Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 60.
 1
86 CHOSEN BUT FREE

A couple of illustrations make the point. The same loving stroke

diat makes a kitten purr seems like hatred if she turns the opposite
direction and finds her fur being rubbed the WTong way. Likewise, the
person standing under the Niagara Falls of God’s love with his cup
upside down may complain that his cup is empty. Whereas, another
with his cup right side up may appear to be receiving more loving
treatment. In reality, God’s expressed love is the same for both believ­
ers and unbelievers. He is simply patiently waiting for one to repent
(i.e., turn die "cup” of his life right side up). The expressed love is the
same for both believer and unbeliever; the received love is greater for
the believer.11

1 Corinthians 15:22
“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Some
extreme Calvinists claim diat “all" must mean only die elect here. Pal­
mer wrote, “Although it is clear that every person in the world died in
Adam (Rom. 5:12), it is equally clear that everybody in the world has not
died in Christ. There are many people who have not been crucified in
Christ. They hate Him.”12 Thus, strange as it may seem, “n/Zwill be
made alive” is supposed bv extreme Calvinists to support limited
atonement.

Response
There are at least three reasons why this text does not uphold lim­
ited atonement. First, in this verse “all” means “all.” “All” does not
mean “some.” This is die pattern when “all” is used in die context of
salvation in the New Testament. Second, diere is a tight logical con­
nection between the two “alls” in die passage. And it is admitted that
the first “all” means literally all fallen human beings. Third, as with
John 5:21, this text is not speaking about salvation at all; it refers to
die resurrection of all men. It affirms diat by virtue of Christ’s resur­
rection “all will be made alive,” that is, they will be resurrected. What
this verse is saying is diat not all are resurrected to salvation-, some are
"1 John 4:16 affirms that “God is love,’’ and love can constrain in a moral sense (2 Cor.
5:14), but it cannot compel moral choices in a physical sense. In this sense, love always
operates persuasively but never coercively.
Numerous verses in Scripture teach unlimited atonement. God so loved “the world”
(John 3:16); Christ’s death is the satisfaction for the sins of “the whole world” (1 John
2:2): His blood “bought” the redemption of even apostates (2 Peter 2:1); Christ died “for
all” (2 Cor. 5:14); and He reconciled “the world” to God (v. 19). These and other passages
are discussed in detail elsewhere (see appendix 6).
'•’Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 53.
 AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 87

raised to condemnation (John 5:21-29).

That 1 Corinthians 15:22 is speaking of the resurrection, not sal-
ration, could not be more evident from the context. It is introduced
by these words: “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the
firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came
through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"
(w. 20-21). Indeed, the entire chapter is on the physical resurrection
from the dead. To treat it otherwise is to wrench it from its context.

1 Peter 3:18
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrigh­
teous, to bring you to God.” And, “He himself bore our sins in his
body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteous­
ness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24). These and
many other Scriptures (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) imply a substitutionary atone­
ment (cf. Isa. 53). But many limited atonement advocates insist that if
Christ was substituted for all, then all will be saved. And since, of
course, all Calvinists believe only some, not all, will be saved, then it
follows that for extreme Calvinists Christ must have died for only the
elect.13 They often point to John McCleod Campbell’s work, The Na­
ture of the Atonement (1856), as a demonstration of the incompatibilitv
of universal atonement and substitutionary atonement.14

Response
The first thing to note is that this objection is a form of special
pleading, based on a different view of substitution. Of course, if sub­
stitution is automatic, then everyone for whom Christ is substituted
will automatically be saved. But substitution need not be automatic; a
penalty' can be paid without it automatically taking effect. For instance,
the money can be given to pay a friend’s debt without die person
being willing to receive it. Those, like myself, who accept die substitu­
tionary atonement but reject limited atonement simply believe diat
Christ’s payment for the sins of all mankind did not automatically save
them; it simply made them savable. It did not automatically apply the
saving grace of God into a person’s life. It simply satisfied (propiti­
ated) God on their behalf (1 John 2:2), awaiting their faith to receive

l!Sce R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty (Downers Grove. Ill.: InterVarsitv Press.
1996), 149.
“However, it should be pointed out that McCleod rejected limited atonement.
88 CHOSEN BUT FREE

God’s unconditional gift of salvation, which was made possible by

Christ’s atonement.15

THE EXTREME CALVINISTS’ GOD IS NOT

REALLY ALL-LOVING

The stark truth of the matter is that the God of extreme Calvinism
is not all-loving. Limited atonement necessarily means God has limited
His love to only some. In a redemptive sense, He loves only the elect.
He does not really love all sinners and desire them to be saved. Every­
one He desires to be saved, gets saved, and that is only the elect. R. C.
Sproul, a popular proponent of limited atonement, understands the
dilemma: “It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some are not
elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that lov­
ing toward them.” In fact, God is not really loving at all toward them
with regard to their salvation. If He were, then they would be part of
the elect, for according to extreme Calvinists, whomever God really
wants to be saved will be saved. R. C. Sproul’s response to “the prob­
lem,” though, is a bit shocking. He argues that to say God should have
so loved the world, as He did the elect, is to assume that “God is obli­
gated to be gracious to sinners.... God may owe people justice, but
never mercy.”'6
But how can this be? Both justice and mercy (or love) are attributes
of an unchangeable and infinite God. God by His very nature mani­
fests to all His creatures what flows from all His attributes.17 So,
whereas there is nothing in the sinner to merit God’s love, nonetheless,
there is something in God that prompts Him to love all sinners, namely,
God is all-loving (omnibenevolent).18 Hence, extreme Calvinism is in

15For an excellent treatment of this whole matter sec Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1998).
’“Sproul, Chosen by God, 33-34.
,7Extreme Calvinists admit that God’s holiness demands that He be just toward all persons.
Hence, by the same logic they should hold that His love demands that He be loving toward
all men.
’“Jonathan Edwards attempts to avoid this painful logic by making salvation an arbitrary act
of mercy rather than something flowing from God’s essential nature of love (see Jonathan
Edwards: Representative Selections, 119). However, this is an unsuccessful maneuver for sev­
eral reasons. First, the Old Testament word translated “mercy-” (KJV) means “compassion­
ate love" (see Niv). Second, love is of the very essence of God (1 John 4:16) who cannot
change (Mai. 3:6; Heb. 1:11; 6:19; James 1:17). Third, even one of Edwards’ disciples,
R. C. Sproul, admits that God is necessarily good and yet free at the same time (Willingto
Believe, 111).
 AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 89

practice a denial of the omnibeneuolence of God.™

It does not help matters to say that God has given “an ‘opportunity ’ to
all men to be saved if they want to." For Sproul admits, “Calvinism as­
sumes that without the intervention of God no one will ever want
Christ. Left to themselves, no one will ever choose Christ.”20 Yet the
extreme Calvinists’ God, who can give this desire to all, deliberately
refuses to give it to any but a few elect. There is something seriously
wrong with this picture!
Charles Spurgeon was a strong Calvinist himself, yet his confession
is instructive with regard to limited atonement: “We do not know why
God has purposed to save some and not others.... We cannot say why
his love to all men is not the same as his love to the elect.”21 Indeed,
even to say God desires all to be saved is inconsistent with limited
atonement. How can God desire contrary to His own eternal and un­
changeable decree? And if God loves only the elect, then He is not
omnibenevolent. God cannot be all-loving if He does not love all.
The root problem here is a philosophical one. Extreme Calvinists
hold a voluntaristic view of God’s attribute of love: God can will to love
whomever He chooses and not love (or hate) those He wishes. But if
this is so, then God is neither essentially loving nor all-loving. In ex­
treme Calvinism, an action is right (whether loving or not) simply be­
cause God wills it. But this is both a denial of God’s unchanging na­
ture and an ultimate slur on the character of God (see appendix 12
for a more detailed discussion).
Extreme Calvinistic voluntarism reduces God’s “essence” to an ar­
bitrary will. Consider John Piper’s revealing statement: “To put it
more precisely, it is the glory of God and his essential nature mainly to
dispense mercy (but also wrath, Ex. 34:7) on whomever he pleases apart
from any constraint originating outside his own will. This is the essence of
what it means to be God. This is his name."—
But this is clearly not God’s name. His name is die eternal, un­
changing “I AM” (Ex. 3:14; cf. Mai. 3:6). Name stands for character
or essence in Scripture. God’s name is not His will—certainly not an

l9R. C. Sproul apparently does not see the inconsistency here. He admits that "it is ’neces­
sary* for God to be good" and that "God can do nothing but good” (Willing to Believe,
111), yet at the same time he contends that redemptively God chooses to love only some
persons (the elect).
20Ibid., 34.
’’Cited by Iain Murray in Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching, 117.
“Piper, TheJustification of God, 88-89 (italics his).
90 CHOSEN BUT FREE

arbitrary one that is not rooted in and bound by His unchangeable

essence.

AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM’S VIEW OF

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Another essential belief of extreme Calvinism is irresistible grace,
though some seem embarrassed by the term and use softer words like
“effectual grace.”

AN EVALUATION OF VERSES USED TO SUPPORT

THE EXTREME CALVINISTS’ VIEW OF
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Many passages in the Bible are employed to support the idea of
“irresistible grace.” These deserve careful scrutiny. Among them are
die following.
Romans 9:15
“ ‘I will have merci’ on whom I have mercy, and I will have compas­
sion on whom I have compassion.’ ” Also, “ 'I [God] will harden Phar­
aoh’s heart, and ... he will not listen to you’ ” (Ex. 7:3—4). This is used
to bolster die idea that Pharaoh had no real choice in the matter (cf.
John 12:36ff). Allegedly, when God moved on his heart to accomplish
His purpose, Pharaoh could not resist
Response
God did not harden Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh’s own
free choice. The Scriptures make it very clear that Pharaoh hardened
his own heart. They declare that Pharaoh’s heart “grew hard” (Ex.
7:13; cf. 7:14, 22), that Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (Ex. 8:15), and
diat “Pharaoh’s heart grew hard” the more God worked on it (8:19
NKJV). Again, when God sent the plague of the flies, “Pharaoh hard­
ened his heart at this time also” (8:32 NKJV). This same phrase, or like
phrases, is repeated over and over (cf. 9:7, 34-35). While it is true that
God predicted in advance that it would happen (Ex. 4:21), nonethe­
less die fact is that Pharaoh hardened his own heart first (7:13; 8:15,
etc.), and then God only hardened it later (cf. 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27).23
“John Piper stands the order and thought of the text on its head, claiming implausibly that
“it is just as probable that ‘the hardening of man by God appears as self-hardening’ ”
(Piper, The Justification of God, 163). This is an almost classic example of reading one’s
theology into the text as opposed to reading what the text actually says.

J
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 91

Further, it was God’s mercy that occasioned the hardening of Pharaoh's

heart. For each time he pleaded with Moses to lift the plague, he was
furdier confirmed in his sin by adding to his guilt and by making it
easier for him to reject God the next time.
What is more, the Hebrew word “hardened” (chazaq) can and
often does mean to “strengthen” (Judg. 3:12; 16:28) or even to “en­
courage” (cf. Deut. 1:38; 3:28).24 Taken in this sense, it would not
carry any sinister connotations but would simply state that God made
Pharaoh strong to carry through with his (Pharaoh’s) will against Is­
rael.
However, even if the word is taken with the strong meaning of
hardening, the sense in which God hardened Pharaoh's heart could
be likened to the way the sun hardens clay and also melts wax. If Phar­
aoh had been receptive to God’s warnings, his heart would not have
been “hardened” by God. When God gave Pharaoh a reprieve from
the plagues, he took advantage of the situation. “But when Pharaoh
saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed
them [Moses and Aaron], as the Lord had said” (Ex. 8:15). So there
is a sense in which God hardens hearts, and a sense in which He does
not.25 This same reasoning applies to other texts that speak of God
hardening a person in their unbelief (cf. John 12:37ff.).
Finally, parallel passages by Paul support the idea that it is man
doing the initial hardening, not God. Romans 2:5 asserts, “But be­
cause of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are stor­
ing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righ­
teous judgment will be revealed.”

Romans 9:19
“One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For
who resists his will? ” This seems to imply that God’s potver in salva­
tion is literally irresistible regardless of what one wills.

Response
In response, it should be pointed out first that die phrase "who
resists his will?” is not an affirmation by the biblical author but a ques­
tion posed in the mouth of an objector. Note the introductory phrase,

“See Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy in Human History, 158-59.

“Even some strong Calvinists like R. C. Sproul agree that God is not hardening Pharaoh's
heart actively, but only passively in the sense of giving him up (cf. Rom. l:24ff.) to his own
sinful desires (Chosen by God, 144-46).
92 CHOSEN BUT FREE

“One of you will say to me. A similar objector is introduced in Ro­

mans 3:8: “Why not say—‘let us do evil that good may result?’ ” So the
idea that one cannot resist God’s will may be no more part of Paul’s
teaching than the view that we should do evil so good may come.
Furthermore, Paul clearly rejects the objector’s stance in the very
next verse, sating, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to [i.e., re­
sist] God?” (Rom. 9:20). His answer implies that the objector can and
is resisting God by raising this very question. But more importantly,
the direct implication is that if it is irresistible, then we should not be
blamed.
In addition, in Romans 11:19-20 when Paul agrees with the objec­
tor he writes, “well said” (Nigv). No such statement is added here in
Romans 9.-6
Another point to remember is that things that eventually seem “ir­
resistible” were not so to begin with. For example, sin only becomes
unavoidable when one freely rejects what is right and his conscience
becomes hardened or seared (cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). Likewise, righteousness
becomes only irresistible when we freely yield to God’s grace. Thus,
grace is only irresistible to die willing, not to die unwilling. As John
Walvoord insightfully puts it, “Efficacious grace never operates in a
heart that is still rebellious, and no one is ever saved against his will.""'
Irresistible grace operates the wav falling in love does. If one will­
ingly responds to die love of another, eventually they reach a point
where that love is overwhelming. But that is the way they’ willed it to
be. Even if Paul agreed with the objector that God’s work is irresistible,
it would not support die hard line of extreme Calvinism, since God
uses irresistible saving grace only on the willing, not the unwilling.
Finally, even if one could show that God is working here (1) irre­
sistibly, (2) on individuals, (3) for eternal salvation—all of which are
doubtful—it would not follow necessarilv that He works irresistibly on
the unwilling. Indeed, as we have seen, God does not force free crea­
tures to love Him. Forced love is both morally and logically absurd.
Romans 9:21
“Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump
of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
-'•Even John Piper, who believes in irresistible grace on the unwilling, admits that many
scholars hold that Paul rejects the objector’s statement (Piper, TheJustification of God, 189—
90).
-'AValvoord, The Holy Spirit: /I Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondcrvan, 1991), 124 (emphasis added).

■
 AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 93

Or, as the King James Version translates it, “Hath not the potter power
over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and
another unto dishonour?” The image this conjures up in a Western
mind is often a deterministic, if not fatalistic, one where they have no
choice but are overpowered by God.

Response
However, a Hebrew mind would not think this way, knowing the
parable of the potter from Jeremiah 18. For in this context the basic
lump of clay will either be built up or torn down by God, depending on
Israel’s moral response lo God. For the prophet says emphatically, “If
that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict
on it the disaster I had planned” (18:8). Thus, the unrepentant ele­
ment of Israel becomes a “vessel for dishonour” and the repentant
group a “vessel for honour” (see comments on Romans 9:22 below).
Further, there is a different use of prepositions in “vessel unto hon­
our” versus a “vessel 0/wrath” (Rom. 9:22). A vessel 0/wrath is one
that has received wrath from God, just as a vessel of mercy' has received
mercy' from God. But a vessel unto honor is one that gives honor to
God. So a repentant Israel will, like a beautiful vessel unto [for] honor,
bring honor to its Maker. But like a vessel of dishonor (literally, “no-
honor”), an unrepentant Israel will not bring honor to God, but will
rather be an object of His wrath.

Romans 9:22
“What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power
known, bore with great patience the objects [vessels] of his wrath—pre­
pared for destruction ?” Does this not indicate that God has predestined
the lost to damnation? Many strong Calvinists believe that it does. The
Puritan predestinarian William Ames wrote, “There are two kinds of
predestination, election and rejection or (reprobatio).” He added,
“Reprobation is the predestination of certain men so that the glory of
God’s justice may be shown in them, Rom. 9:22; 2 Thess. 2:12; Jude
4.”28

Response
As indicated above, this passage implies that the ‘Vessels of wrath”
are objects of wrath because they refuse to repent. They did not

’’Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 154.

94 CHOSEN BUT FREE

willingly bring honor to God, so they became objects of God’s wrath.

This is evident from the fact that they are “endured [by God] with
much longsuffering” (Rom. 9:22 NKJV). This suggests that God was
patiently waiting for their repentance. As Peter said, “The Lord is ...
longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that
all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9 igv).
Furthermore, taking Paul as the best commentator on his own -writ­
ings, earlier in Romans he noted that the wrath of God comes on the
wicked because of their own willful disobedience. He wrote, “But be­
cause of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing
up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righ­
teous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5). There is absolutely no
reason to believe, as the extreme Calvinists do, either here or any­
where else in Scripture, that God predestines certain persons to eter­
nal hell apart from their own free choice.

Luke 14:23
In a parable Jesus said, “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out
to the roads and country lanes and make [compel] them come in, so that
my house will be full’ ” (Luke 14:23). This is a strong word meaning
"force” and applies direcdy through the parable to coercing people
into the kingdom of God. Most hardcore Calvinists from the time of
die later Augustine (see appendix 3) have taken this to mean God uses
coercive power on the unwilling to get them saved.

Response
Inside the New Testament the word “compel” (Greek: anagkadzo)
has a range of meanings. It is sometimes used in a physical sense of
being "forced” against the will (cf. Acts 26:11; Gal. 2:3, 14; 6:12). But
on other occasions it has a moral sense. “Jesus constrained his disciples
to get into a ship” (in Matt. 14:22 kjv). There is no indication of any
physical coercion in this case. Although another Greek word is used,
the idea is the same when Paul speaks of being “compelled” by the
love of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14). In fact, not counting Luke 14:23, of the
other eight times the word “compel” is used in the New Testament, at
least four of them are in the moral sense where one is not forced
against his will (cf. Matt. 14:22; Mark 6:45; Acts 28:19; 2 Cor. 12:11).
Outside the New Testament this word means “to compel someone
in all the varying degrees from friendly pressure to forceful

J
 AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 95

compulsion.”29 Not only is there no necessity here of taking this in the

sense of irresistible grace against one’s will, but everything we know
about free choice (see chapter 2 and appendices 1 and 5) is that what
is done freely is not done by “constraint” or “compulsion” (cf. 1 Cor.
7:37; 1 Peter 5:2).

John 6:44
“ ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,
and I will raise him up at the last day.’ ” According to extreme Calvin­
ists, this speaks of an irresistible drawing by God.30 They note that the
word “draw” (Greek: elkud) means to “drag” (Acts 16:19; James 2:6).

Response
In order to understand the issue properly, a number of things must
be taken into consideration. First of all, like any word with a range of
meaning, the given meaning of this Greek word must be determined
by die context in which it is used. Sometimes in the New Testament it
does mean to drag a person or object (cf. John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts
16:19). At other times it does not (cf. John 12:32; see also below). Stan­
dard Greek Lexicons allow for the meaning “draw” as well as “drag.”3'
Likewise, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)
uses it in both senses. Deuteronomy 21:3-4 employs it in the sense of
"drag” and Jeremiah 31:3 to “draw” out of love.32
Second, John 12:32 says, “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth
[on the cross] will draw all [peoples] to myself.” The sense here ac­
cording to the standard Greek lexicon by Arndt & Gingrich, is a moral
“pull on a man’s inner life.” It means to “draw, attract,” not to force
(p. 251). It follows the Old Testament use by Jeremiah, where God
said, “Therefore, with lovingkindness I have drawn you.” (Jer. 31:3).
Finally, their being drawn by God was conditioned on their faith.
The context of their being “drawn” (6:37) was “he who believes”
(6:35) or “everyone who believes in Him” (6:40; cf. v. 47). Those who
believe are enabled by God to come to Him. Jesus adds, “ ‘This is why
1 told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled

”Scc Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:345.

MScc Sproul, Chosen by God, 69-70.
’’See William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University* of Chicago Press, 1957), 251;
Henry George Lidell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1968), 216; and Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2.503.
’This reference is Jeremiah 38:3 in the LXX.
 1

96 CHOSEN BUT FREE

him’ ” (John 6:65). A little later He says, “ ‘If anyone chooses to do

God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or
whether I speak on my own’ ” (John 7:17). From this it is evident that
their understanding ofJesus’ teaching and being drawn to the Father
was accomplished through their own free choice.

James 1:18
“He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might
be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” It is clear that God was the
one who chose for us to be born, not ourselves (cf. John 1:13).

Response
Here again, there is no question that God is the source of salvation.
Had He not chosen to save, then no one would be saved. But the ques­
tion remains as to the means by which we receive that salvation. That is,
does God save us apart from our free choice or through it? Nothing in
this text, or any other for that matter, declares that God chooses to
save us against our will. Just the contrary is true (see chapter 2). For
“by grace” are we saved “through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9). Our salvation is
“through the word” (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18). but the Bible declares
that the Word must be received by faith (Acts 2:41; Heb. 4:1-2) to be
effectual (see appendix 10).

John 3:27
“ ‘A man can receive only what is given him from heaven.' ” Extreme
Calvinists use this to prove that God’s grace is irresistible.33

Response
However, this does not say anything about God’s work of salvation
being irresistible. In fact, it says we are to “receive” it. This implies a
free act of the will dtat can either accept or reject God’s offer. Indeed,
there are specific cases where God’s grace is rejected, as the following
passages demonstrate.

GRACE IS NOT IRRESISTIBLE ON THE UNWILLING

Those who insist that God’s will cannot be resisted confuse what
God wills unconditionally with what He wills conditionally. God wills the
’’See Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, 55.
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 97

salvation of all persons conditionally—conditioned on their repent­

ance (2 Peter 3:9). Hence, God’s will in this sense can be resisted by
an unrepentant heart. Of course, God’s will to save those who believe
(i.e., the elect) is unconditional. So this is not a repudiation of uncon­
ditional election. Election is unconditional from the standpoint of the
Giver (God), but it is conditional from the standpoint of the receiver.
And since God foreknows for sure who will receive it, the result is cer­
tain. Thus, in this sense God’s grace on the elect is irresistible.
Furthermore, there are very clear passages affirming that the Holy
Spirit can be resisted. This applies to both God's will (Greek: thelo,
wish, desire) and His plan (Greek: boulomai, counsel, plan). Consider
die following Scriptures.
Luke 7:30 declares, “The Pharisees and experts in the law rejected
God’s purpose [will]3'* for themselves, because they had not been bap­
tized by John.” Acts 7:51 affirms, “You stiff-necked people, with uncir­
cumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always
resist the Holy Spirit?' Even John Calvin commented on this text, saving
that Luke is speaking of their “desperate inflexibility” when “they are
said to be resisting the Spirit."35 But how can God’s work on them be
irresistible when it was actually resisted?
Also, Matthew 23:37 affirms emphatically that Jesus desired to
bring the Jews who rejected Him into the fold but could not because
they would not. He cried, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the
prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to
gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings, but you were not willing.” God’s grace is not irresistible on those
who are unwilling.
Finally, there are many other texts indicating that man can defy’ the
will of God.36 This is true of both unbelievers (cf. Matt. 12:50; 7:21;
John 7:17; 1 John 2:17) and believers (1 Thess. 4:3). Of course, in one
sense eventually and ultimately God’s will prevails in that He sover­
eignly wills that those who reject His offer of salvation will be lost. In

’’The Greek word for "purpose” (boulan) can mean counsel, decision, or will (see Arndt
and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 145).
K Calvin’s Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles, 1:213, emphasis mine.
’'Most Calvinists distinguish different dimensions of God’s will, such as (1) God’s prescriptive
will to do only what is good; (2) His permissive will (which allows sin); and (3) His providen­
tial or overruling will (which brings good out of evil). God’s will is often resisted in the
sense of (1), since we are always disobeying His commands. But His permissive (2) and
providential (3) wills cannot be resisted, for He never allows more than what He permits,
and He always accomplishes His ultimate purposes (Isa. 55:11). The command (or call) to
be saved is a command that He allows to be resisted (2 Peter 3:9; Matt. 23:37).
98 CHOSEN BUT FREE

this sense, God’s overruling will is being done through their will to
reject Him. But with regard to His will that all men be saved (1 Tim.
2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), it is clear that it can be resisted. In short, it is God’s
ultimate and sovereign will that we have free will to resist His will that
all be saved.
C. S. Lewis has some very insightful comments in this connection.
In Screwtape Leiters he wrote, “The Irresistible and die Indisputable
are the two weapons which die very nature of His [God’s] scheme for­
bids Him to use. Merely to override a human will .. . would be for
Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.”37 In The Great
Divorce Lewis adds, “There are only two kinds of people in the end:
those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says,
in the end, ‘Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without
that selfchoice there could be no Hell."38

GRACE IS IRRESISTIBLE ONLY ON THE WILLING

R. C. Sproul, an ardent Calvinist himself, reminds us that “the
dreadful error of hyper-Calvinists is that it involves God coercing
sin.”39 What he does not seem to appreciate is that it is also a dreadful
error to coerce good. Forced freedom, whether of good or evil, is con­
trary to the nature of God as love and contrary to the God-given na­
ture of human beings as free. Forced freedom is a contradiction in
terms.
Short of coercion, Calvinists disagree about the degree of persua­
sion God places upon a person widi the degree of sovereignty one is
willing to attribute to God (see chapter 1). Extreme “Calvinists” from
the later Augustine (see appendix 3) to R. C. Sproul do not blink at
the use of the terms “compel” or “coerce” of God’s grace. St. Augus­
tine wrote, “Let them [the Donatists] recognize in his [Paul’s] case
Christ first compelling, and afterward teaching; first striking, and after­
ward consoling.”40 He also said, “The Lord Himself bids the guests in
the first instance to be invited to His great supper; and afterward
compelled."'" Sproul adds, “If God has no right of coercion, then he has

37Lewis, Screwlape Letters, 128.

“Lewis, The Great Divorce, 69.
’’Sproul, Chosen by God, 143.
**Sl Augustine, "On the Correction of the Donatists,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 6.22-23, emphasis mine.
■"Ibid., 6.22, emphasis mine.
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 99

no right of governing his creation.”42

Moderate Calvinists like myself are willing to affirm that God can
be as persuasive as He desires to be, short of coercion. In theological
terms, titis means God can use irresistible grace on the willing. But
this kind of divine persuasion will be like that of a courtship. God will
woo and court so persuasively that those willing to respond will be
overwhelmed by His love.

AN UNSUCCESSFUL MANEUVER

Some extreme Calvinists use a kind of smoke-and-mirror tactic to

avoid the harsh implications of their view. They claim that God does
no violence toward a rebellious will; He simply gives a new one. In
R. C. Sproul’s words, “If God gives us a desire for Christ we will act
according to that desire.” This sounds reasonable enough until the
implied words are included: “If God gives us a[n irresistible] desire
for Christ we will [irresistibly] act according to that desire.” Now it can
be seen that extreme Calvinists are using word magic in an attempt to
hide the fact that they believe God forces the unwilling against their
will.
What extreme Calvinists want to do is to avoid the repugnant
image of a reluctant candidate being forced into the fold or captured
into the kingdom.*3 Therefore, they argue that “Once that desire is
planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and scream­
ing against their wills. They come because they want to come.”44 Of
course, here again it is the implied but missing words that shine a
whole new light on the picture. What Sproul really means is this:
“Once that desire is [irresistibly] planted, those who come to Christ
do not come kicking and screaming against their wills.” In other
words, once someone is dragged against his will, then he will act will­
ingly. But no matter how well the act of “irresistible grace” is hidden
by euphemistic language, it is still a morally repugnant concept.
The problem with the idea of “irresistible grace” in extreme Cal­
vinism, according to this analogy, is that there is no informed consent
for the treatment. Or, better yet, the patients are dragged kicking and
screaming into the operating room, but once they are given a head

“Chosen by God, 42, emphasis mine.

"Ibid., 123.
"Ibid.
100 CHOSEN BUT FREE

transplant, they (not surprisingly) feel like an entirely different per-

son!
Again, noted defender of irresistible grace R. C. Sproul states the
problem well: “The sinner in hell must be asking, ‘God, if you really
loved me, why didn't you coerce me to believe? I would rather have
had my free will violated than to be here in this eternal place of tor­
ment.’ ” He adds, “If we grant that God can save men by violating
their wills, why then does he not violate everybody’s will and bring
them all to salvation?” Then, Sproul confesses, “The only answer I can
give to dais question is that I don’t know. I have no idea why God saves
some but not all.” He then adds, “I don’t doubt for a moment that God
has the power to save all.”45
If this is the case, then Sproul must doubt that God has the love to
save all. That is to say, the extreme Calvinists’ God is all-powerful, but
He is not all-loving! And in coercing the elect into the kingdom, die
supposedly irresistible “grace” of regeneration46 negates God’s infi­
nite goodness.
However, a dieological rose by any other name is still a theological
rose. The truth is diat extreme Calvinists believe that God uses irresis­
tible force to change a person from not loving Christ to loving Christ.
Hence, irresistible love is forced love. And forced “love” is not love at
all.

EXTREME CALVINISM POSITS A

COERCIVE GOD
Everyone who believes God is all-powerful admits that God could,
if He wished, force people to do things against their will. The real
question is not could but would—that is, would an all-loving Being
force free creatures to do things against their will? The extreme Cal­
vinists say yes. Virtually all the great church fathers including the early
Augustine up to the time of Luther said no (see appendix 1). And

4SIbid., 36-37, emphasis mine.

v,Sproul speaks reluctantly of “the irresistible character of regenerating grace,” but tries to
soften its compulsive nature by insisting there is no external compulsion. He cites Calvin,
saying, "The Lord draws men by their own wills,” but then admits these are wills “which he
[God] Himself has produced'' (Willing to Believe, 113, emphasis mine). But if God produced
the will by irresistible force, then it is theological double-talk to say that we do it willingly
(pp. 112-13). This irresistible act of regeneration is compared to an act of resurrection on
a passive and dead body. What could be more compulsive?
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 101

even Lutherans follow Melanchthon, not Luther’s Bondage of the Will,

in rejecting this compulsive view. ”

AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM’S VIEW OF THE

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
The final letter in the Calvinist’s T-U-L-I-P is “P” for “Perseverance
of the Saints.” For Calvinists, this means all of those who are regener­
ated will persevere to the end. They will all make it to heaven.

All Calvinists believe in perseverance

All Calvinists believe that all the elect will persevere in their faith
and be saved. That is, all the regenerated are elect, and all the elect
will be in heaven. ’8 In popular language, Calvinists of all varieties be­
lieve “once saved, always saved.” They hasten to point out, however,
that “the perseverance of the saints depends on the perseverance of
God.” Or, more properly, it depends on “the preservation of God.”49
In the words of the Westminster Confession ofFaith (chapter 17, 1),
perseverance means: “They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved,
effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor
finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere
therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”

EXTREME VS. MODERATE CALVINISM ON

PERSEVERANCE
There is not always a discernable difference between many ex-
treme and moderate Calvinists on the matter of perseverance. How­
ever, at least some extreme Calvinists seem to imply that none of the
elect will die in sin, while the moderate Calvinist holds that no elect
person will be lost, even if he dies in sin. Further, extreme Calvinists
believe that all elect persons will be faithful to the end. Whereas mod­
erate Calvinists hold that even if some true believers are not faithful
until death, nonetheless, God will still be faithful to them (2 Tim.
2:13).
♦7Sec David P. Scacr, The Doctrine of Election: A Lutheran Note in Kenneth Kantzer et al.,
Evangelical Perspectives (Baker Book House, 1979), 105-15.
♦•However, Augustine and his followers up to the Reformation believed that some of the
regenerate are not elect and would not persevere (see Augustine, City of God, 22). In this
sense they were like later Arminians.
♦’Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 69-70.
102 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Another way to explain the difference is that moderate Calvinists

believe in both temporal assurance on earth and eternal security in
heaven for the elect, whereas some extreme Calvinists appear to be­
lieve only in the latter, since one cannot be really sure that he is one
of the elect until he perseveres to the end. The elect are secure, but
according to the many extreme Calvinists, no professing Christian can
be absolutely sure that he is one of the elect until he meets the Lord.
There is such a tiling as “false assurance”; Calvin even speaks of a
“false work of grace.”50 And Sproul asserts that “we may think that we
have faith when in fact we have no faith.”5’
A. A. Hodge said, “Perseverance in holiness, therefore, in opposition
to all weakness and temptations, is the only sure evidence of the genu­
ineness of past experience, of the validity of our confidence as to our
future salvation.” While there can be a “temporary withdrawal of re­
straining grace” while an elect person is “allowed to backslide for a
time,” nonetheless, “in every such case they are graciously restored.”52
This seems to imply that if someone backslides and does not turn
around before he meets his Maker, then that is proof that he was not
truly saved. If so, then no matter what evidence one may have mani­
fested in his life for many years before this, he could not have had true
assurance that he was saved. This reminds us that there is such a thing
as “false assurance.” Further, Hodge adds, “we can decrease it. We can
even lose it altogether, at least for a season.”53 The bottom line for
these extreme Calvinists is that no one can be sure he is one of the
elect until he gets to heaven.
However, in a seeming inconsistency they go on to speak about
present assurance.54 Yet when one looks at the criteria offered as a test
for one’s election, it becomes clear that one could not have absolutely
kept all of them until he died.55
“Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.2.
51 Chosen by God, 165—66.
“A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1949), 544-45.
“Ibid., 164, 166.
wThe great Puritan theologian William Ames (1576-1633) wrote of perseverance: “This cer­
tainty about the thing itself, which is called a certainty of the object, is made fast for all
true believers. But the perceiving of it, which is called a certainty of the subject, is not
always enjoyed by all." However, “it may be acquired by any without special revelation and
it should be sought by all” (The Marrow of Theology, 172). R. C. Sproul claims "that it is
still not only possible for us to have a genuine assurance of our salvation, but that it is our
duty to seek such assurance" (Chosen by God, 167-68), yet elsewhere he speaks of the tor­
menting thoughts that overcame him that he might not be one of the elect (see Ligoneer
Calendar comments for November 6, 1989).
“For a more detailed discussion of the differences, see N.L. Geisler, “Moderate Calvinism'’
in Eternal Security: Four Views (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), ed. Matt Pinson.
AVOIDING EXTREME CALVINISM (continued) 103

Nonetheless, strong similarity between the two Calvinists’ news, as

opposed to Arminianism, is that salvation of the believer is eternally
secure from the very first moment of salvation. Verses used to support
this contention are discussed later (see chapter 7).

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

A careful examination of Scripture reveals that extreme Calvinists,
particularly on the first four points, are unsupported by the many texts
they employ. When properly understood in their contexts, these pas­
sages do not support their interpretation of the “Five Points” of ex­
treme Calvinism as expressed in the traditional T-U-L-I-P, with the pos­
sible exception of the last point as held by some. We turn, then, to
examine extreme Arminianism and its dangers.
 CHAPTER SIX

Avoiding Extreme
Arminianism
Like a pendulum, theological movements tend to go to one ex­
treme or the other. In the last chapter we examined the extreme Cal­
vinists’ view, which sacrifices human free will at the expense of divine
sovereignty. In this chapter we will examine the extreme Arminian
view, which sacrifices God’s sovereignty on the altar of man’s free
choice. But before we discuss extreme Arminians, it is necessary to
sketch briefly what is meant by “Arminianism.”

WHAT IS ARMINIANISM?

Arminianism is the theology of the followers of Jacobus IJames]

Arminius (1560-1609), a Dutch Reformed theologian whose views
were expressed in the Remonstrance (1610), formally set forth a year
after his death. Since the Remonstrance comprises five often misunder­
stood points, we cite them in their own words:
(1) God elects on the basis of His “eternal, unchangeable pur­
pose” only “those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall
believe on this His Son Jesus.” He also wills “to leave the incorrigible
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 105

and unbelieving in sin and under wrath”;1

(2) Christ “died for all men and for every man, so that he has
obtained for them all . . . redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet
that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the be­
liever. .. .”2
(3) “That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy
of his free will . . . can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any
thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it
is needful that he be born again of God in Christ...
(4) “That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and
accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate
man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following,
and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good....” It
adds, "But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not
irresistible. . .
(5) “That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith
... have thereby full power to . . . win the victory ... but whether they
are capable ... of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more par­
ticularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures, before we ourselves
can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds.”5
Arminius’s view's were formally condemned at the Calvinists’ Synod
of Dort (1618-19), and many of his followers were banished and per­
secuted. The condemnation by the extreme Calvinists followed the
proclamation of the five points of the Remonstrance and served as the
basis of the famous “Five Points” of the T-U-L-I-P (see chapters 4
and 5). It w’as not until 1795 that there was official toleration for news
of the Arminians.
'More fully, Article 1 of the Arminian Remonstrance states: ‘‘That God, by an eternal un­
changeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath deter­
mined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through
Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus,
and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end;
and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under
wrath..(Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1983), 3.545.
It is noteworthy that there is no mention here, or in the other four articles, of being elect
on the basis of their foreseen faith, as extreme Calvinists allege. Arminius did, however,
mistakenly believe that God owed sinners something because of His justice (Arminius,
“Works," in The Writings offames Arminius, vol. 1, 2.497-98). The truth is that it was God’s
love, not His justice, that prompted Him to provide salvation for all men. All men are justly
condemned to hell. Were God not also loving, no one would be in heaven.
’Ibid., 2.546.
’Ibid., 2.546-547.
*Ibid., 2.547.
’Ibid., 2.549.
106 CHOSEN BUT FREE

A modified version of the Arminian position was carried on in the

teachings of the Englishmen John Wesley (1703-1791), Charles Wesley
(1707-1788), and tlieir friend John William Fletcher (1729-1785).
Subsequently, this was continued in Methodism, Pentecostalism, the
Holiness Movement, and the Charismatic Movement. (However,
George Whitfield’s Calvinistic teachings have also been held by many
in the Wesleyan tradition.) The greatest Wesleyan-Arminian theolo­
gian at the turn of the nineteendr century was Richard Watson (1737—
1816; see his Theological Institutes [T. Mason and G. Lane, 1936]).

AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM6

In recent years a serious extreme has emerged in Arminian circles
that is self-labeled “Free Will Theism" or the “Openness of God”
tiew.7 Actually, it shares some similarities with "Process Theology”8
and is more appropriately called the New Theism or Neotheism.9

THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

Neotheists have carried Arminianism io a dangerous extreme.
They have “created” a new new diat is neither identical to the tradi­
tional theism of Calvin and Arminius, nor is it the same as the radical
liberal God of the Process Theology, which borrows from such think­
ers as Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, Shubert Ogden,
and John Cobb. Several proponents of this form of Arminianism,

6Some of the things listed under “extreme Armininianism” are really what scholars call
“Pelagianism” or even "Process Theology,” and should not be identified with traditional
Arminianism.
:See Clark Pinnock, et al.. The Openness of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1994).
’’Clark Pinnock, “Between Classical and Process Theism” in Process Theology, cd. Ronald
Nash (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987); William Hasker, God, Time, and
Knowledge (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1989) ; David and Randall Basinger, eds.,
Predestination and Free Will (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1986).
’Neotheists list five characteristics of their position: 1. "God not only created this world ex
nihilobui can (and at limes docs) intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs’’; 2. “God chose
to create us with incompatibilistic (libertarian) freedom—freedom over which He cannot
exercise total control”; 3. "God so values freedom—the moral integrity of free creatures
and a world in which such integrity is possible—that He does not normally override such
freedom, even if He sees that it is producing undesirable results”; 4. “God always desires
our highest good, both individually and corporately, and thus is affected by what happens
in our lives”; and 5. “God does not possess exhaustive knowledge of exactly how we will
utilize our freedom, although He may very well at times be able to predict with great ac­
curacy the choices we will freely make” (Pinnock, Openness of God, 156).
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 107

including Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker,

and David Basinger, have collaborated on a volume titled The Openness
of God.10 Other Christian thinkers who share similar views or who have
expressed sympathy for this position include Greg Boyd, Stephen
Davis, Thomas Morris, and Richard Swinburne.”
As noted elsewhere,12 Neotheism has exalted free will at the ex­
pense of divine sovereignty. Since the Bible affirms both sovereignty
and free choice (see chapters 1 and 2), Neotheism is an extreme to be
avoided.

A DENIAL OF GOD’S TRADITIONAL ATTRIBUTES

As discussed in chapter 2, the traditional Christian view of God

held by the early church fathers (see appendix 1), expressed in the
great confessions and creeds of the Christian church and embraced by
die Reformers, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and later Armin-
ius—firmly upheld the traditional attributes of God. Among other
things, these included that God is transcendent (beyond the uni­
verse), immanent (within the universe), Creator ex nihilo (out of noth­
ing), and can cause supernatural events (miracles). In addition, these
attributes include that God knows all things (has omniscience), God is
before all things (has eternality), God never changes (has immutabil­
ity), and God is in complete control of all things (has sovereignty). But
it is precisely these attributes of traditional Christian theology (includ­
ing Calvinist and Arminian) that are denied by those extreme Armi-
nians who embrace Neotheism.

'•Ibid.
’’Those who have written books include Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free
Will (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985); Ronald Nash, ed., Process Theology
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987); Greg Boyd, Trinity and Process (New
York: Peter Lang, 1992) and God of the Possible (Baker Book House, 2000); J. R. Lucas, The
Freedom of the Will (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) and The Future: An Essay on God,
Temporality and Truth (London: Basil Blackwell, 1989); and Peter Geach, Providence and
Evil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Richard Swinburne’s The Coherence of
Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) and Thomas V. Morris’s Our Idea of God: An In­
troduction to Philosophical Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1991) are close to the
view. A. N. Prior, Richard Purtill, et al., have written articles defending Neotheism. Others
who show sympathy to the view include Stephen T. Davis, Logic and the Nature of God
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983) and Linda Zagzebski, The
Dilemma ofFreedom and Foreknowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
’’See Norman L. Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man? (Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers,'T997) and The Battle for God, with W. House (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel
Publications, 2001).
IOS CHOSEN BUT FREE

A DENIAL OF GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE

OF FREE EVENTS
■While Neotheists claim to believe in omniscience, they make a se­
rious qualification that negates the historical position that God infalli­
bly knows all things, including all future events.

It is unbiblical to deny God’s foreknowledge

The extreme Arminian’s argument against God knowing future
free acts is unbiblical. Since much of die future involves free human
actions, this would place most revelation from God regarding the fu­
ture in serious jeopardy. But the Bible is filled with such predictions
about die future.

God knows all things

The Bible declares diat God knows all things, including our future
free choices. He is omniscient. The psalmist declared, “Great is our
Lord, and might)' in power: His understanding is infinite” (Ps. 147:5
nkjv). God says through Isaiah dial He knows die end from the begin­
ning (Isa. 46:10). And according to the psalmist, God knows the very
secrets of our heart (Ps. 139:1-6). Indeed, “Nothing in all creation is
hidden from God’s sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare be­
fore the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Heb. 4:13).

God knows who the elect are

Further, God knows who the elect are. They were chosen in Christ
before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). God not only knows
who is going to heaven (Rom. 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2); He also knows who is
not (cf. Rev. 20:10-15).
In addition, God knew from eternity that Christ would die for our
sins (1 Peter 1:18-20; Rev. 13:8). Yet this involved Christ’s free choice
(John 10:17-18).

God knows who the non-elect are

God knew and predicted that Judas would betray Christ (Acts 1:20)
and that he would be lost forever (John 17:12). He also knew eternally
and infallibly predicted that the Beast and False Prophet would be cast
into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20). He also names some who are among
the elect before they ever get to heaven. Paul includes himself among
those whom God knew and chose before the foundation of the world
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 109

(Eph. 1:4). But if, as Neotheists claim, God cannot know future free
acts, then this would not be possible.

God predicted numerous human events

Since virtually all human events involve free choices, it follows that
nearly every supernatural prediction in the Bible involved God's infal­
lible foreknowledge of what human beings would freely choose. The
late Professor Barton Payne, in his comprehensive catalogue of proph­
ecies, lists 1,817 predictions in the Bible (1,239 in the OT and 578 in
the NT). Payne lists 191 biblical prophecies with reference to Christ.13
Some of these specified the town (Bethlehem) in which Christ would
be born (Mic. 5:2) and the time He would die (Dan. 9:26 ff.), namely,
around A.D. 33. Daniel predicted the succession of the great world
kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Dan. 2, 7),
including his account of the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan.
11) in amazing detail. Isaiah 44:28 (cf. 45:1) predicted by name Cyrus,
king of Persia, a century and a half before he was born. Isaiah (11:11;
cf. Deut. 28:lf.) predicted the return of Israel to her land centuries in
advance. Ezekiel (44:2) predicted the closing of the Golden Gate on
the east side ofJerusalem until the time of the Messiah. Ezekiel (26:3-
14) also foresaw the destruction of Tyre, which was centuries later lit­
erally fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar and then Alexander the Great. Jer­
emiah (49:16-17) prophesied the doom of Edom (Petra), which re­
mains as a tourist site in Jordan to this day. There were numerous
other biblical prophecies made hundreds of years in advance that have
been literally fulfilled, including the unlikely desert flourishing (Ezek.
36:33-35) and the increase of knowledge and education in the last
days (Dan. 12:4). Not a single biblical prophecy has ever failed.14 None
of this would have been possible without God’s infallible foreknowl­
edge of future free acts.
Furthermore, God knows who will be lost and who will be saved
(Matt. 25:40-41). He knows the order of events in the last days and
has laid it out in the book of Revelation (see chapters 6-19). There
are literally hundreds of events known and predicted by God in
advance, and these clearly reveal His infallible foreknowledge of the
future.

’’See J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1973), 674-75; 665-70.
“See Norman L. Geisler, “Prophecy as Proof of the Bible,” in Baker's Encyclopedia of Chris­
tian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1999), 611-18.
110 CHOSEN BUT FREE

It is unreasonable to deny God’s foreknowledge

Not only is it unbiblical to deny God’s knowledge of future free
events, it is also unreasonable. The following arguments support this
conclusion:

The alleged impossibility of knowingfree acts in advance

Extreme Artninians (Neotheists) deny that God has infallible
knowledge of future free acts on the alleged grounds that God cannot
know in advance what we will freely choose to do. Their reasoning
goes like this:
(1) Whatever is infallibly known in advance must be determined.
(2) A freely chosen event cannot be determined by another.
(3) Therefore, what is infallibly foreknown cannot be freely cho­
sen.
However, this reasoning is unsound. The second premise is false.
For, as already shown (in chapter 3), there is no contradiction between
God knowing for sure (has determined) what will freelv occur in the
future (is freely chosen). Just because someone could have chosen an­
other way does not mean that God did not knots- for sure which way
he would choose.

The alleged impossibility of knowingfuture events

Neotheists have offered another argument against God having in­
fallible knowledge of future free acts. It goes like this:
(1) The future has not yet actuallv occurred.
(2) Truth is what corresponds to what actually is.
(3) Therefore, it is impossible to know something is true before it
actually occurs.
There are at least two major problems with this reasoning. First, it
is possible that God knows from eternity that an event that is future to
us would one day occur (and then be true). In this case, it would not
be true in advance before it occurred, but it would be true that God
knew in advance that it would one day occur and then be actually true.
Second, no such problem exists for a God who is eternal, that is,
beyond time—and the Bible and good reason inform us that God is
(see the following page). Hence, nothing is future to God. If God is
beyond time, then all time is spread before Him in one eternal now.
He sees the way a man on the top of the hill sees the w'hole train at
once, while the man in the tunnel below sees only one car going by at
a time, noticing neither the one already past nor the one yet to
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 111

come.15 God is not standing on one day of the calendar of time, look­
ing back at the days past and forward to the days to come. Rather, He
is looking down on the whole calendar, seeing all the days at once (cf.
2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2).

The inconsistency of denying God’s infinite knowledge

Extreme Arminians (Neotheists) admit that God is infinite, yet
they deny His knowledge is infinite. But this is inconsistent, for God’s
knowledge is identical with His essence, since He is admitted to be a
necessary Being (that is, one that cannot cease to exist). And a neces­
sary Being is what it is necessarily. That is, nothing is accidental to the
being (existence) of a necessary Being. Whatever God “has,” that He
is—essentially.
So if God “has” knowledge, then He is knowledge in His entire
being. But His entire Beingis infinite. Therefore, God must be infinite
in His knowledge (Ps. 147:5). And if infinite in knowledge, then He
must know everything that is possible to know.16 That is, He must
know everything that is not impossible. But the future is not impossi­
ble, since it will one day be actual. Therefore, God must be able to
know the future. In brief, God can know the potential as well as the
actual. And the future is potential. The future preexists in Him as its
primary cause. So God knows the future in advance by knowing Him­
self. Therefore, God can know the future (Isa. 46:10).

A DENIAL OF GOD’S IMMUTABILITY

(UNCHANGEABILITY)
Another important attribute extreme Arminians reject is God’s im­
mutability. This, too, is both unbiblical and unreasonable.

It is unbiblical to deny God’s immutability

Scripture affirms from beginning to end that God is unchangea­
ble. Moses declared that “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a
,5Another way to put it is this: (1) What is infallibly foreknown cannot be otherwise; (2)
What is free can be otherwise; (3) Therefore, what is infallibly foreknown cannot be free.
In this form, there is an equivocation on the second premise. Premise (1) means that it
cannot actually come to pass contrary to the way God foreknew it would. But in premise
(2) it means that it was possible that we had not chosen this way. If we had chosen otherwise,
then an all-knowing, eternal God would have known for certain that it would be that way.
Hence, there is no contradiction.
l6The only thing an omniscient Being cannot know is what is impossible, like a square circle.
For example, God cannot know that what is true is false, or that what is good is evil.
112 CHOSEN BUT FREE

son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then
not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” (Num. 23:19). The book of
First Samuel adds, “ ‘He who is die Glory of Israel does not lie or
change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his
mind’ ” (15:29). Speaking of the perishable universe, the psalmist as­
serted, “They will perish, but you remain; diey will all wear out like a
garment. Like clothing you will change diem and they will be dis­
carded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Ps.
102:26-27). The prophet Malachi cited God, proclaiming, “ ‘I the
Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of ]acob, are not de­
stroyed' ” (3:6). The writer of Hebrews declares that “it is impossible
for God to lie” (6:18). He adds, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday
and today and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). The apostle Paul told Timothy
that "if we are faithless, he [God] will remain faithful, for he cannot
disown himself’ (2 Tim. 2:13). Andjames writes that “Every good and
perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heav­
enly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (1:17). That is
to say, God does not even change in die slightest In fact, as Hebrews
affirms, it is impossible for God to change.

It is unreasonable to deny God's immutability

Everything that changes has a cause. Change is a movement from
a state of potentiality /or that change to the actual change itself. But no
potentiality can actualize itself, any more than steel can make itself
into a skyscraper. Therefore, there must be some “actualizer” outside
die change to account for it. The whole universe is changing.17 There­
fore, the whole universe needs a Cause beyond it that is not changing
(i.e., God). God is the Unchanging Cause of all that changes.
Furthermore, God cannot change since He is Pure Actuality; He is
the “I AM" (Ex. 3:14), die self-existent one. He has no potentiality
not to be, since He is (as even Neotheists admit) a necessary Being.
But a necessary Being by nature cannot not exist. He must exist, and
cannot go into nonexistence. Yet if a Necessary Being has no potenti­
ality not to exist, then He cannot change. For to change demands a
potential for the change. Therefore, God must be unchangeable in
His being.

'According to the second law of Thermodynamics, the entire universe is running down, that
is, running out of useable energy (again, see Ps. 102:26-27). And it is this visible, perisha­
ble universe that points to an invisible, imperishable God behind it (see Rom. 1:19-20; cf.
Acts 17:24-29).
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 113

This, of course, does not mean that God cannot enter into chang-
ing relationships. But it is not God who changes when the relationship
changes, any more than the pillar changes when the man moves from
one side of it to the other. The man may change in relation to the
pillar, but the pillar does not change. Likewise, the universe changes
in relation to God, but God does not change (cf. Heb. 1:10-12).

An objection to God’s unchangeability answered

Extreme Arminians (Neotheists) object that the Bible often speaks
of God as changing. He changes in answer to prayer (e.g., see Ex. 32).
He changed His mind about having made the world (Gen. 6:6). He
changed His mind when Nineveh repented (Jonah 3:10). However,
there are many reasons for concluding that none of these Scriptures
prove that God’s nature actually changes.
First of all, if God really did change, it would be contradictory to
all the Scriptures just cited. And the Bible does not contradict itself.18
Second, as just noted, God cannot change. If He did, then He
would not be God—there would be something more ultimate than He
is that is the unchanging basis for His change and all other change.
Third, the Bible often uses anthropomorphism (speaking of God
in human terms). Speaking of God as changing is an anthropomor­
phism. For example, the Scriptures speak of God as having eyes (Heb.
4:13), arms (Num. 11:23), and even feathers (Ps. 91). Yet extreme
Arminians do not take these literally!
Fourth, it is not God who actually changes but man. When riding
our bikes into the wind, we say, “the wind is against us." And when we
turn around and ride in the other direction, we say “the wind is for
us.” In actual fact, the wind did not change; we did. Likewise, when a
sinner repents, God does not change; the sinner does. For God’s jus­
tice demands that He has an unchanging hatred toward evil, and His
love demands that He have an unchanging mercy toward those who
forsake their sin. So when the sinner repents, he simply moves from
die action of God that flows from His unchanging attribute of justice
to that which flows from His unchanging attribute of love. God does
not change.

lfcFor evidence that the Bible is not self-contradictory, see Norman L. Geisler and Thomas A.
Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992), especially chap­
ter 1.
114 CHOSEN BUT FREE

A DENIAL OF GOD’S ETERNALITY

Extreme Arminians also deny God’s eternality. While acknowledg­
ing that God has no beginning, they deny that He is beyond time or
nontemporal. This, too, is without biblical or rational justification.
It is unbiblical to deny God’s eternality
All orthodox Christians believe the universe had a beginning
(Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16). But time began with the space/time
universe. Only God existed prior to time. God is “before all things”
(Col. 1:17). The psalmist said, “From everlasting to everlasting, Thou
art God” (Ps. 90:2 KJV). Often the Bible speaks of God as being there
“before die foundation of the world" (John 17:24 KJV; cf. Matt. 13:35;
25:34).
But if God was before all time, then He is eternal. God was diere
“before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9). In fact, God brought time
into existence when He “framed die ages” (Heb. 1:2, Rotherham
translation). God “alone has immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16 NKJV), an im­
mortality without beginning or end. He is literally die First and the
Last (Rev. 1:11 NKJV).
It is unreasonable to deny God’s eternality
In spite of the clear teaching of Scripture and of the great fathers
of the Christian church, extreme Arminians teach diat God is tempo­
ral, that He is in time.
But none of the arguments Neotheists have given for a temporal
God are comincing. Instead, there are powerful arguments demon­
strating diat God must be nontemporal, that is, eternal.

Whatever is in time, changes

Whatever is in time is changing, for time is a measurement of tem­
poral change. Time is a computation according to a before and an
after. But only what changes has a before and an after. Therefore,
whatever is temporal in its being must change. But as shown above,
God cannot change. As a result, it follows that God cannot be tempo­
ral.

Whatever is in time had a beginning

As is demonstrated by the Kalam Argument for God’s existence,19
there cannot be an eternal number of moments passing in succession
,9See William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Macmillan, 1979).
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 115

one after the other, for an infinite number of moments cannot be tra­
versed (only a limited number can be traversed). So if there were an
infinite number of moments before the present moment, then the
present moment would never have arrived. But the present moment
has arrived. Therefore, there cannot have been an infinite number of
moments before the present one, but only a finite (limited) number.
Hence, whatever is in time had a beginning. But even Neotheists
admit that God had no beginning. If so, then He cannot be temporal
or in time.

Whatever (or whoever) created time cannot be in time

Extreme Arminians (Neotheists) acknowledge that God created
tire entire spatio-temporal universe out of nothing. But time is an es­
sential part of the cosmos. If so, then God must have created time. But
if time is something that is of the essence of creation, then it cannot
be an attribute of the uncreated—that is, of God. God is, as the Bible
says, “before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2).

Whatever is temporal is also spatial and material

According to the contemporary concept of space, time, and mat­
ter, whatever is temporal is also spatial. And whatever is spatial is also
material. But God is not immaterial (John 4:24). Therefore, if God is
in time, then He is also spatial and material. Neotheists reject this con­
clusion. But if space and matter are denied of God, then time must
also be denied.
Another result of Neotheistic logic is that God could not think any
faster than the speed of light—the fastest thing in the space/time uni­
verse. But if God’s thoughts do not encompass the universe simulta­
neously, then there is no way He can be in control of it. He cannot
even think of it all at once, let alone be in complete control of it.

A DENIAL OF GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY

As was demonstrated in chapter 1, the Bible emphatically affirms

the sovereignty of God. Likewise, there are good arguments from the
attributes of God to show that God is in complete control of the entire
created universe.20

wSee chapter 1.
116 CHOSEN BUT FREE

It is unbiblical to deny God’s sovereignty

To summarize, God is “before all things” (Col. 1:17). He is also
"before the. beginning of time" (2 Tim. 1:9). Further, “Through him
[Christ] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
been made” (John 1:3). “For by him all things were created: tilings in
heaven and on earth, risible and invisible” (Col. 1:16). And God is
“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3). Paul adds,
“He is before all tilings, and in him all things hole! together" (Col. 1:17).
And, as has been clearly demonstrated, the God of the Bible knows
all tilings. The psalmist declares, “His understanding is infinite” (Ps.
147:5 NKJV). He knows the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), even
the very secrets of our heart (Ps. 139:1-6). “Everything is uncovered
and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account”
(Heb. 4:13).
We have already seen also that God can do all things. He is all-
powerful. “Nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). God is om­
nipotent.
A God who is before all tilings, upholds all things, knows all things,
and can do all things is also in control of all things. This complete
control of all things is called die sovereign tv of God. The Bible affirms
God’s sovereignty in many ways. First, God is in sovereign control of
His creation. Yahweh is called “the Great King” (Ps. 48:2). His reign
is eternal: “The Lord is enthroned as King forever” (Ps. 29:10). And
He is king over all the earth: “The Lord is King for ever and ever; the
nationswill perish from his land” (Ps. 10:16). Nothing happens apart
from God’s will. Job confessed to God: “ ‘I know that you can do all
tilings; no plan of yours can be thwarted’ ” (Job 42:2). The psalmist
adds, “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him” (Ps.
115:3). Again, “The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens
and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Ps. 135:6).
Solomon declared that “The king’s heart is in the hand of the
Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases” (Prov.
21:1). God is the Sovereign over all sovereigns. He is “King of kings
and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).
God is in charge of all human events. He ordains the course of
history before it occurs (Dan. 2, 7), and He “is sovereign over the
kingdoms of men” (Dan. 4:17).
God not only rules in the risible realm but also in the invisible
domain. He is “over all creation” including “visible and invisible,
AVOIDING EXTREME ARMINIANISM 117

whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers” (Col. 1:15-

16 NKjv). The angels come before His throne to get their orders to
obey (1 Kings 22; Job 1:6; 2:1). They are positioned before the throne
of God and never stop praising Him (Rev. 4:8).
God’s sovereign domain includes not only the good angels but also
the evil ones (Phil. 2:10; cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22). Satan, too, is under
God's sovereign hand (Job 1:6; 2:1; cf. Rev. 12:12; 20:2).
God is in sovereign control of everything we choose, even our own
salvation (Eph. 1:11; cf. Eph 1:4; Rom. 8:29-30; Acts 2:23). If God is
sovereign, dien He is in control of the whole universe. And if He is in
control of the whole universe, then extreme Arminianism is wrong.
It is unreasonable to deny God’s sovereignty
God’s sovereignty flows from His attributes of omniscience and
omnipotence, as well as the fact that He freely created and sustains all
tilings. Anyone who knows all, can do all, and on whose will the very
existence of all things depends can exercise sovereign control over ev­
erything. This follows logically from these attributes. Since we have
already given die good reasons why God possesses these attributes, we
have thereby also provided the solid reasons for His ability to sover­
eignly control the entire created universe.
Of course, the degree to which God exercises this sovereignty will
be limited by other things: (1) He cannot do what is impossible to do;
(2) He will do only what He wills to do, not everything He is capable
of doing; (3) He cannot do what is contrary to His moral nature. For
example, He cannot be unloving or force free creatures to love Him.
But God is capable of creating more than He did; He is able to do
more miracles than He has done, and He has the power to annihilate
beings He has not chosen to annihilate. Just how God uses the unlim­
ited power He has will be determined by His wall in accordance with
His absolutely perfect nature. Often, this will be inscrutable to finite
creatures. As Paul declares, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wis­
dom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and
his paths beyond tracing out!” (Rom. 11:33). And as Moses informs
us, ‘‘The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things
revealed belong to us and to our children” (Deut. 29:29).

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In chapters 4 and 5 we examined the extr eme Calvinist view, which
sacrifices human free will at the expense of divine sovereignty. In
118 CHOSEN BUT FREE

chapter 6 we have scrutinized the extreme Arminians, who sacrifice

God’s sovereignty on the altar of man’s free choice. Both are unnec­
essary extremes and as such entail theological dangers to be avoided.
We turn, then, to explore a more moderate position.
 ' CHAPTER SEVEN ’

A Plea for
Moderation
By this point, the observant reader is no doubt asking, “What’s
left? If extreme Calvinism and extreme Arminianism are to be
avoided, then which view is correct?” Well, there are at least two major
views remaining: moderate Calvinism and moderate Arminianism.
And in spite of their significant difference, both are opposed to ex­
treme Calvinism and extreme Arminianism.

EXTREME VS. MODERATE CALVINISM

The following chart summarizes the primary differences between
what is here called extreme Calvinism and moderate Calvinism. Even
extreme Calvinists admit that “All the Five Points of Calvinism [as they
understand them] hang or fall together” (Palmer, 69). What they do
not say is that there is a moderate way to understand these Five Points,
in which they also stand or fall together.
A defense of moderate Calvinism is found in chapters 4 and 5
(“Avoiding Extreme Calvinism”) in two ways: explicitly by a critique of
extreme Calvinism and implicitly in the implied alternative. Further
criticisms of the extreme Calvinist view are recorded in appendices
1-9.
 1
120 CHOSEN BUT FREE

The Five Points Extreme Calvinism Moderate Calvinism

Total Depravity Intensive Extensive
(destructive)1 (corruptive)
Unconditional No condition for No condition for
Election God or man God; One condition
for man (faith)
Limited Atonement Limited in extent Limited in result
(only for elect) (but for all men)
Irresistible Grace In compulsive sense In persuasive sense
(against man’s will) (in accordance with
man’s will)
Perseverance of die No saint will die in No saint will ever be
Saints sin2 lost (even if he dies
in sin)

A MODERATE CALVINIST’S UNDERSTANDING

OF T-U-L-I-P
We have already evaluated the extreme Calvinists’ understanding
of T-U-L-I-P (in chapters 4 and 5). Here we simply note how a moder­
ate Calvinist understands these five Calvinistic doctrines.
T—Total depravity is amply supported by Scripture in the moder­
ate Calvinist sense. All die Scriptures used by extreme Calvinists are
accepted by moderate Calvinists: the only difference is that moderates
insist diat being “dead” in sin does not mean that unsaved people
cannot understand and receive the truth of the gospel as the Spirit of
God works on their hearts. That is, it does not in effect erase the image
of God (but only effaces it).
V—Unconditional election is also held by moderate Calvinists. It is
unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver, even though there is
one condition for the receiver—faith.3
'Some extreme Calvinists deny dial they believe the image of God is “destroyed” in fallen
humans—at least formally. But logically this is what their view demands and practically this
is what they hold.
-Not al! extreme Calvinists hold this, though some do and others are inconsistent on the
point
’This does not mean the sinner must perform some work in order to become one of the
elect. God alone does that on the basis of grace alone (this is evident in the verses used to
support God’s sovereignty in chapter 1). It means only that the elect must believe in Christ
to receive this gift of salvation.
A PLEA FOR MODERATION 121

L—Even limited atonement is affirmed by moderate Calvinists in

the sense that it is limited in its application. That is, although redemp­
tion was purchased for all and is available to all, nonetheless, it will
only be applied to those whom God chose from all eternity—the elect.
I—Irresistible grace is held by moderate Calvinists. Irresistible
grace is exercised on all who are willing, as was stated in chapter 5.
That is, anyone who is receptive to God’s work in his heart will be
overwhelmed by His grace.
P—Perseverance of the saints, too, is an essential part of moderate
Calvinism. It affirms that all regenerate (justified) people eventually
will be saved. This is supported by numerous Scriptures.

A DEFENSE OF ETERNAL SECURITY

Moderate Calvinists, such as I am, differ with Arminians on many
points. One crucial point has to do with whether or not “once saved,
always saved” is accurate. That is, whether or not it is possible to lose
one’s salvation. It is my conviction that the Bible favors the Calvinist’s
position of eternal security—that a truly saved person can never lose
his/her salvation.
The New Testament is replete with verses that teach salvation can
never be lost or rejected and that we can have present assurance of
this? Among them the following stand out.

John 5:24
“ ‘I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him
who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned', he has crossed
over from death to life.’ ” Those who truly believe can be certain now
that they will be in heaven. Eternal life is a present possession the mo­
ment one believes.

John 6:39^10
“ ‘And this is the will of him who sent me, that 1 shall lose none of
all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Fa­
ther’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall
have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.’ ” Clearly Christ
will lose “none” of His children.

<Somc believers, such as Lutherans, believe salvation cannot be "lost" but it can be “re­
jected" (by apostasy). The net result is the same, though—once they had it; now they don’t.
 1
122 CHOSEN BUT FREE

John 10:27-28
“ ‘My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I
give them eternal life, and they shall never perish-, no one can snatch
them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater
than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.' ”
What makes our salvation sure is not only God’s infinite love, but
also His omnipotence. “No one,” not even ourselves, can pry us out
of His hand.

John 17:12
Speaking of His disciples, Jesus prayed to the Father: “ ‘While I was
with them, 1 protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave
me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that
Scripture would be fulfilled.' ” Jesus' praver also included believers
not yet born (see v. 20).
We are assured here by Jesus' efficacious prayer that all true believ­
ers will be saved. Only those doomed to destruction by their own un­
willingness to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) will be lost.
Hebrews 10:14
"By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being
made holy.” According to this passage, the one sacrifice of Christ on
the cross secured forever the salvation of the elect. Since this was se­
cured at the Cross, before we were ever born, it follow’s that any true
believer is assured now that he will be in heaven.

Romans 8:16
Paul said, “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s
children.” This is a present witness of our ultimate state: We know now
that we are God’s sons. And God’s sons can no more be condemned
titan God’s Son in whom they are accepted (Eph. 1:4). And since, ac­
cording to all Calvinists, salvation cannot be lost, it follows that ex­
treme Calvinists must admit that regardless of whether a believer falls
into sin or not he will be in heaven. For he does not get there by his
own righteousness but by Christ’s righteousness imputed to him (see
2 Cor. 5:21; Titus 3:5-7).

Romans 8:29-30
“For those God foreknew he also predestined. . .. And those he pre­
destined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he
A PLEA FOR moderation 123

justified, he also glorified.” This golden chain is unbroken. The same

persons who were predestined were called, justified, and eventually
glorified (made it to heaven). In order to avoid eternal security, the
word “some” would have to be inserted into the text, but it is not
there. All'who are justified will eventually be glorified.5
Romans 8:37-39
“U7to shall separate us from the love of Christi Shall trouble or hard­
ship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it
is written. . . . No, in all these things we are more than conquerors
through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor
life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor
any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our
Lord.” This passage needs little comment, merely contemplation. It is
difficult to conceive of language that is more inclusive. There is liter­
ally no one and nothing that can separate a believer from Christ!
Romans 11:29
Salvation involves both the gift (Rom. 6:23) and calling (Rom.
8:30) of God. And Paul declared emphatically: “God’s gifts and his call
are irrevocable.” Hence, the gift of salvation can never be revoked.
Ephesians 1:13-14
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in
him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing
our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s posses­
sion—to the praise of his glory.” That is, as soon as one believes, he is
marked by the presence of the Holy Spirit as one of whom God guar­
antees His ultimate salvation.
Philippians 1:6
"Being confident of this, that he [God] who began a good work in you
will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Paul ex­
pressed confidence that the God who initiated the saving process in
our lives would finish it. That is, all the regenerate will make it to
heaven. We can be sure that what God begins to save He will complete.
sContrary to the belief of some extreme Calvinists, this does not prove atonement is limited
in its extent but only in its application. The “call” here refers to the effectual call of the
elect, not the general call, offer, or command for all to be saved (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9).
124 CHOSEN BUT FREE

2 Timothy 1:12
Paul proclaims: “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced
that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.” Since
our salvation does not depend on our faithfulness but on God’s
(2 Tim. 2:13), our perseverance is assured by Him. Hence, we can
“know” presently that we are heaven bound by His grace.

2 Timothy 2:13
“If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown him­
self” Even if our faith falters, His faithfulness does not. In order for us
to lose our salvation God would have to “disown himself.” He would
have to cease being God.

2 Timothy 4:18
The apostle Paul expressed confidence that "The Lord will rescue
me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly king­
dom.’’

1 Peter 1:5
Peter adds, “Through faith [we] are shielded by God’s power until the
coming of the salvation that is readv to be revealed in the last time.” By
placing our faith in His faithfulness we are assured now that God’s
power will keep us to the end.
1 John 5:13
John declares: “I write these things to you who believe in the name
of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.’’
Throughout this book, the apostle lists ways we can “know” now diat
we are one of God's elect, namely, if we obey His commandments
(2:3); keep His Word (2:5); walk as He did (2:5); love die brethren
(3:14); love in deed, not only word (3:18); have die Holy Spirit within
us (3:24); love one another (4:12); and not continue in sin (5:18; cf.
3:9). In short, if we have the presence of the Spirit in our hearts and
manifest the fruit of His Spirit in our lives (cf. Gal. 5:22-23), then we
can be assured that we are one of die elect. We do not have to wait
until we meet Christ to know’ that we belong to Him.
Jude 24-25
“To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you be­
fore his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only
A PLEA FOR MODERATION 125

God our Savior be glory, majesty', power and authority, through Jesus
Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore!" Whatever
warnings the Bible may give about our falling,6 we are assured that a
true believer wall experience no fall that will involve the loss of heaven.
For an all-powerful God is able “to keep us from falling.”

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ARMINIANS

Arminians object to the use of the above verses to prove “Once
saved, always saved.” Several reasons are offered by them to support
their conclusion.

THE PROMISE OF SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL

One reason given is the argument that all these promises are con­
ditioned—conditioned on the believer continuing in the faith. Colos-
sians 1:23 is often used in connection with this: "ifyou continue in your
faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the
gospel.” In his defense of Arminianism, Robert Shank argues that
there are some eighty-five “New Testament Passages Establishing the
Doctrine of Conditional Security.”7 He stresses texts that speak of
“continuing,” “abiding,” “holding fast,” etc. For example, 1 Corinthi­
ans 15:2 says, “By' this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the
word I preached to you.”
But Calvinists respond by observing that neither this nor any other
text asserts that a true believer will ever lose his faith. Rather, a proof
that they are truly believers is that they will continue in the faith. John
says, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s
seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been
born of God” (IJohn 3:9). He adds, “They went out from us, but they
did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would
have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them be­
longed to us” (1 John 2:19). However weakened by sin, true believers
endure in their faith to the end. This demonstrates that the promise
of salvation is not conditional.
‘Calvinists of various varieties interpret the warning passages differently. Some, following
Calvin, take them as hypothetical, not actual. Others, like the author, consider them to be
actual but to be warnings about losing our rewards (1 Cor. 3:15), not our salvation. Seejodie
Dillow, The Reign of the Servant King (Hayesville, N.C.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992).
’Robert Shank, Life in the Son (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989), 334-37.
126 CHOSEN BUT FREE

BELIEF IS A CONTINUAL PROCESS

Also, Arminians argue that tire Bible uses “belief” in the present
tense, not as a once-for-all completed act when we were first saved. For
example, the famous verses in the gospel ofJohn that promise eternal
life for believing, do so while speaking of belief as a continual process.
Hence, they can be translated, for example, “For God so loved the
world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever continues to be­
lieve in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
In response to this, there are several very important things to point
out. First of all, not all references to belief that brings salvation are in
the present tense. Some are in the aorist tense in the Greek and indi­
cate a completed action. For instance, Romans 13:11 declares, “The
hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our
salvation is nearer now than when we Jirst believed.” Second, continued
belief can be a condition of ultimate salvation without necessitating
that salvation can be lost. God knows in advance that all who begin to
believe will continue by His grace to persevere to the end. In short,
God is able to keep us by His power (1 Peter 1:5; Phil. 1:6). Third,
since salvation is in three stages, it is no surprise that belief in the
present is stressed in the Bible. We were saved from the penalty of sin
(justification) in the past: we are being saved from the power of sin in
the present (sanctification); and we will be saved from the presence of
sin in the future (glorification). But even though we must “work out
[our] own salvation” in the present (Phil. 2:12), it is God “who works
in” us both “to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil.
2:13). Fourth, nowhere does God’s Word say that those who are truly
believers will lose their salvation (see next page). It only says that those
who believe should and will continue to believe to their eventual sal­
vation. Finally, it is not our works of righteousness or lack thereof
(Tims 3:5-7) that get us to heaven, but Christ’s righteousness, which
is imputed to us tire moment we believe (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; John 5:24).

SYMMETRICAL NATURE OF FAITH

The next Arminian argument is one from the nature of faith. Ar-
minians contend that if we can exercise faith to “get in” Christ then
we can use the same faith to “get out” of Christ. Just like getting on
and off a bus headed for heaven, we can exercise our free choice at
either end. Not to be able to do this, they insist, would mean that once
A PLEA FOR MODERATION 127

we get saved, then we are no longer free. Freedom is symmetrical; if

you have the freedom to get saved, then you also have the freedom to
get lost again.
In response to this argument, it is important to observe a few
things. First of all, this rationale is not biblically based', it is speculative
and should be treated as such. Second, it is not logically necessary to
accept this reasoning, even on a purely rational basis. Some decisions
in life are one-way with no possibility of reversing them: suicide, for
example. Saying “oops” after jumping off a cliff will not reverse the
consequences of the decision. Third, by this same logic the Arminian
would have to argue that we can be lost even after we get to heaven.
Otherwise, he would have to deny we are free in heaven. But if we are
still free in heaven and yet cannot be lost, then why is it logically im­
possible for us to be free on earth and yet never lose our salvation? In
both cases the biblical answer is that God’s omnipotent power is able
to keep us from falling—in accordance with our free choice.

VERSES USED BY ARMINIANS TO SHOW ONE CAN

LOSE HIS SALVATION
Many verses are used by Arminians to show that a believer can lose
his salvation. Space does not permit a detailed explanation of all of
them,8 but they fall into two broad categories, both of which will now
be refuted.

PROFESSING BUT NOT POSSESSING BELIEVERS

First, there are the verses that deal with professing believers who
apparently never had saving faith. These include the following:

Matthew 7:22-23
Jesus said, “ ‘Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we
not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and
perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “7 never knew
you. Away from me, you evildoers!” ’ ”

‘See Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1907), 882-86, for a corhplete listing of such verses. And consult Charles Stanley,
Eternal Security (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1990) for a discussion of the most im­
portant verses Arminians use to support their claim that we can lose our salvation.
 1
12S CHOSEN BUT FREE

Response
In spite of their profession and even miraculous signs done in His
name, it is clear from the emphasized words “/ never knew you” that
those referred to were never saved.

2 Peter 2:22
This verse also speaks of professing (but not possessing) Christians
who were never truly converted; who denied “die sovereign Lord who
bought them” (v. 1); who had “known the wav of righteousness”
(v. 21). Yet they had not followed it, but like a “dog” (not a lamb)
showed diat they were really “slaves of corruption” (v. 19 nasb) and
not a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17) of God.

Revelation 3:5
“He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never
blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name
before my Father and his angels.”

Response
Two tilings are noteworthy about this text. First, it is a promise to
those “dressed in white,” which is a description of saints (Rev. 7:14),
and therefore an inference that they will never lose dieir salvation.
Second, it does not say that God will ever blot anyone’s name from the
book of life.

Revelation 22:19
“And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God
will take away from him his share in the tree of life9 and in the holy
city, which are described in this book.”

Response
This appears to be a warning to unbelievers, not believers. They
never made it to the holy city because they are “outside” the heavenly
gates (v. 15) and are described as “unjust” (v. 11 NKjv).

'The rendering “book of life" (KJX'J does not follow the best manuscript tradition. Even so,
the verse possesses no insurmountable problem for eternal security, it easily could be an­
other stay to designate unbelievers by noting that they have no place in the Book of Life.
A PLEA FOR MODERATION 129

TRUE BELIEVERS LOSE REWARDS, NOT SALVATION

The second group of verses used by Arminians refers to those who
are truly saved but are only losing their rewards, not their salvation.
Several sample texts include the following."’
1 Corinthians 3:11—15
“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using
gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown
for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed
with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what
he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he
will suffer loss [of reward]; he himself will be saved, but only as one
escaping through the flames.”
Response
This text hardly needs a response. It is clearly speaking about loss
of one’s “reward” and that “he himself will be saved.” There is no
mention of a loss of salvation.
Psalm 51:10-12
“Create in me a pure heart. . . . Restore to me the joy of your sal-
ration and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.”
Response
Even through David’s gross sins of murder and adultery, he did not
lose his salvation. He had not lost his salvation but only the joy of it.
Believers in sin are not happy. They are sons under the discipline of
the Lord (Heb. 12:5-11; cf. 1 Cor. 11:28-32). The loss is of reward,
not salvation.
1 Corinthians 9:27
“I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached
to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."
10Some passages do not refer to losing either salvation or rewards, but to something else.
Matthew 10:22 is a case in point: “ ‘All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands
firm to the end will be saved.' ” The context of this reference (cf. w. 17, 23) and a similar
passage indicate (in Matt. 24:15-44) that He is probably speaking about the believers who
live through the Great Tribulation to come (see Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testa­
ment Edition, 42). If so, then it means those who live through the Tribulation will go into
the coming earthly kingdom of Christ. Even if it refers to salvation, it merely shows that
the elect will persevere unto their ultimate salvation.
130 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Response
Paul is speaking here of loss of reward, not of salvation (cf. 1 Cor.
3:15; 2 Cor. 5:10). For he speaks of it as a “prize” to be w'on, not a
"gift" to be received (Rom. 6:23). In any event, warnings to persevere
are not inconsistent with an assurance of salvation any more than ex­
hortations to “work out [our] own salvation” (Phil. 2:12) are contra­
dictory to “God working in us” (Phil. 2:13) to accomplish it.

Hebrews 6:4-6
"It is impossible for tiiose who have once been enlightened, who
have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who
have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the
coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because
to tiieir loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and
subjecting him to public disgrace.”
Response
There are several problems with taking this to refer to believers
who can lose salvation. The passage declares emphatically that “it is
impossible to renew them again to repentance” (Heb. 6:6 nasb), and
few Arminians believe that once a person has backslidden it is impos­
sible for him to be “saved again.” But while the description of die
spiritual status of those spoken of in diis passage differs from odier
ways of expressing it in die New Testament, some of the phrases are
very difficult to take any odier way dian that the person was saved. For
example, (1) diese had experienced “repentance” (Heb. 6:6), which
is die condition of the acceptance of salvation (Acts 17:30); (2) diey
were “enlightened” and had “tasted the heavenly gift” (Heb. 6:4); (3)
diey were “partakers of die Holy Spirit” (v. 4 NKJV); (4) they had
“tasted the good word of God” (v. 5 NKJV); and (5) had tasted the
"powers of the age to come” (v. 5 NKJV). All these phrases speak of
one who is saved.
Of course, if diey were believers, then the question arises as to
their status after they had “fallen away” (v. 6 nasb). In response, it
should first be noted that the word for “fall away” (parapesontas) does
not indicate a one-way action as would be true of apostasy (Greek:
apostasia); radier, it is the word for “drift,” indicating that the status
of the individuals is not hopeless. Second, the very fact is that it is
“impossible” for them to repent again indicates die once-for-all na­
ture of repentance. In other words, they don’t need to repent again
A PLEA TOR MODERATION 131

since they did it once, and that is all that is necessary for “eternal
redemption” (Heb. 9:12). Third, the text seems to indicate that there
is no more need for “drifters” (backsliders) to repent again and get
saved all over any more than there is for Christ to die again on the
cross (Heb. 6:6). Fourth, the writer of Hebrews calls those he is warn­
ing “beloved” (Heb. 6:9 nasb), a term hardly appropriate for unbe­
lievers. Finally, the phrase “persuaded of better things” of them indi­
cates they were believers.

Hebrews 10:26-29
“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful
expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the en­
emies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without
mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more
severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has tram­
pled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing
the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted
the Spirit of grace?”

Response
As strong as this sounds, like the other warning passages in He­
brews (see comments on Heb. 6:4—6 above), this, too, appears not to
be a warning about loss of salvation but about loss of rewards. This
conclusion is supported by several considerations. First, the persons
involved are described clearly as “brethren” (y. 19 nkjv), and “His
[God’s] people” (v. 30), and believers who have a “High Priest” (Christ,
v. 21 nkjv), and a “confession of. . . hope” given only to the “faithful”
(v. 23 NKJV). Second, the text is not speaking of salvation but of a
“great reward” (v. 35 NKJV). Third, those mentioned have “a better and
enduring possession ... in heaven” (v. 34). Fourth, they have been
“illuminated” by God (v. 32) and have possessed the “knowledge of
the truth” (v. 26), phrases that fit with believers. Fifth, they have suf­
fered with and have had compassion for the author of the book as
believers (w. 33-34). Sixth, they are described as those who can do the
“will of God” (v. 36), something only believers can do (John 9:31).
Seventh, the reference to those who “insulted the Spirit of grace” im­
plies they were believers who had that Spirit to insult. Eighth, the "cer­
tain fearful expectation ofjudgment” fits the description of the believ­
ers coming before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10), where
132 CHOSEN BUT FREE

tlieir works will be tried by fire and they could suffer loss of reward:
“His work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to
light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each
man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward"
(1 Cor. 3:13-14). Finally, the illustration used of those who died under
the law of Moses (Heb. 10:28) speaks of physical death for disobedi­
ence, not of eternal death or separation from God. Paul speaks of
physical death of believers for sin in 1 Corinthians 11:30 (cf. 1 John
5:16).

Galatians 5:4
“You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from
Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

Response
This verse speaks of true believers who. again, are called “breth­
ren” (6:1) and who had placed their “faith” in Christ (3:2 NKJV) for
their “justification” (3:5, 11). They had “begun in the Spirit” (3:3
NKjv) but were now “fallen . . . from grace” (5:4) as a means of their
sanctification and had gone back to tire keeping of the law (3:5), which
only brings one into bondage (3:10). They had not lost their salvation
but only their true sanctification, which also comes by grace, not by
the law.

2 Timothy 2:17-18
“Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hy-
menaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They
say diat the resurrecuon has alreadv taken place, and they destroy the
faith of some.”

Response
There are several reasons why this text does not indicate a loss of
salvation. First, it does not say their salvation was destroyed but only
their faith in a future resurrection. Second, only a few verses earlier is
one of the strongest of all verses on eternal security', which affirms drat
even “if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown
himself’ (v. 13 ). Third, the context focuses on belief in die resurrec­
tion. Hence, it may refer only to loss of belief in the resurrecuon as a
future event. Fourth, even if it refers to the loss of faith in general, it
is not die genuine faith (1 Tim. 1:5) that endures but a formal faith
A PLEA FOR MODERATION 133

(2 Tim. 3:5), which even demons have (James 2:19), and is not suffi­
cient for salvation (cf. James 2:14ff.).

2 Timothy 4:7
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have hept
the faith.”

Response
Paul speaks of keeping the faith, but he does not say that those
who do not keep the faith will not be saved. In fact, he says in the very
next verse that the result of his keeping the faith is not salvation but a
reward—"the crown of righteousness” (v. 8). Those who are not faith­
ful as Paul will not receive such a crown. As he says elsewhere, “He will
suffer loss; [yet] he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping
through the flames” (1 Cor. 3:15). And as John affirms, “They went
out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had be­
longed to us, they would have remained with us; but their going
showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19).

TRUE BELIEVERS MANIFEST EVIDENCE OF

THEIR FAITH
A true believer in Christ cannot lose his/her salvation, but neither
should one take it for granted that he is saved. There are many Scrip­
tures exhorting us to examine ourselves to make sure we are true be­
lievers. True faith will manifest itself in some way.

2 Corinthians 13:5
“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in thefaith', test yourselves.
Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you
fail the test?” False faith is possible (James 2:19). True faith will leave
evidence of itself.

2 Peter 1:10
“Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling
and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall.” From
God’s standpoint our election is sure. It was ordained before the foun­
dation of the world (Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Yet wears exhorted to make sure
that we are one of the elect. This can be known in many ways, as the
numerous verses on assurance of salvation indicate, such as the witness
 1
134 CHOSEN BUT FREE

of the Spirit (Rom. 8:16), the fruit of the Spirit in our lives (Gal. 5:22-
23), and love for the brethren (1 John 4:7).

Philippians 2:13
“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only
in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work
out your salvation with fear and trembling.” It is important to note that
Paul is speaking to believers. They already have the first stage of salva­
tion (justification). Second, while it is true that we are asked to work
out our salvation (i.e., sanctification), notice that Paul immediately
adds: “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his
good purpose” (v. 13). And what God is working is His own sovereign
will (“good pleasure”), which was determined “before the foundation
of the world” (Eph. 1:4-5, 11). Again, both are true.

Jude 21
“Keep yourselves in God’s love as vou wait for the mercy of our Lord
Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.” It is true that we should
“keep [ourselves],” but it is also true that God keeps us in His love.
As we are working out our own saltation, God is working it in and
through us (Phil. 2:12-13).

1 Corinthians 13:7
“It [love] always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perse­
veres.” True love does always persevere. And we can know if we have
the true love of God in our hearts. Indeed, the Bible declares that we
can (Rom. 5:5; cf. Rom. 8:16). John said, “We know that we have passed
from death to life, because we love our brothers” (1 John 3:14).

THE ROOTS OF MODERATE CALVINISM

We have been defending a moderate form of Calvinism. This view
is not new. Its roots are found in the early writings of St. Augustine. As
indicated previously (and also in appendix 3), St. Augustine’s earlier
view was a more moderate form of what I have called extreme Calvin­
ism. In our opinion, had Augustine not been thrown off track by his
view of baptismal regeneration and the coercion of heretics to believe
(during the Donatist controversy), extreme Calvinists would find no
significant support in the whole history of the Christian church up to
the Reformation.
A PLEA FOR MODERATION 135

THE BOTTOM LINE

Moderate Calvinists and moderate Arminians, who represent the
vast majority of Christendom, have much in common against the ex­
tremes in the opposing two views. Indeed, John Wesley himself (a
moderate Arminian) said he was only a “hair’s breadth from Calvin.”
And as is later demonstrated in appendix 2, Calvin himself rejected
some things held in later extreme Calvinism (e.g., limited atonement).
Of course, there are some significant differences between moder­
ate Calvinists and moderate Arminians, but they do not negate the
similarities. One of those differences was discussed above, namely,
whether “once saved, always saved” is accurate. But even here, in ac­
tual practice, the similarities are greater than many think. The vast
majority of proponents of both views hold that if a professing Christian
turns away from Christ and lives in continual sin that this is evidence
that he is not saved. The difference is that the moderate Calvinists
claim that he was never saved to begin with, and the moderate Armi­
nians believe that he was. But both believe that the unrepentant who
continue in sin are not true believers. As 1 John 3:9 said, “No one who
is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in
him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.” To
illustrate, a pig and a lamb can fall in the same mud puddle. But when
they do, the pig wants to stay there and the lamb wants to get out!
 A db
tCHAPTER EIGHT
<

What Difference
Does It Make?
A WORD TO THE WISE
By this point many readers are no doubt saying, “So what?” or
“What difference does it make?” In reality, what practical difference
does it make whether one is an extreme Calvinist, an extreme Armin-
ian, or something in between?
Frankly, the answer to this question is that it makes a world of dif­
ference what we believe. Belief affects behavior, and so ideas have con­
sequences. Good ideas lead to good consequences, and bad ideas have
bad consequences. A person who believes the railroad crossing signal
is stuck when, in truth, a train is coming, may soon be dead! Anyone
who believes the ice on the lake is solid when, in fact, it is thin, may
be about to drown! Likewise, false doctrine will lead to false deeds. To
repeat the limerick, “Johnny was a good boy, but Johnny is no more.
For what he thought was H,O was H,SO.: (sulfuric acid)!”

SOME PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF

EXTREME CALVINISM
Extreme views of any kind often have serious consequences. This
is true of both Calvinists and Arminians. First, let’s take a look at what
 WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 137
i
difference extreme Calvinism can and often does make in one’s prac-
deal spiritual life.
Failing to take personal responsibility for our actions
Logically speaking, if “free choice” is doing what we can’t help
doing because by nature we simply do those kinds of things, then why
should I take responsibility for my actions? If not “the devil made me
do it,” then it will be “God made me do it.” Extreme Calvinism leads
logically (if not practically) to personal irresponsibility: if our actions
are good actions, they are such only because God has programmed us
to do good; if evil, then we cannot help it, because we are sinners by
nature and God has not given us the desire to do good.
Again, if I am really not the cause of my actions, then why should
I take responsibility for them? Why should I take either credit or
blame for them? After all, the extreme Calvinist believes that ought
does not imply can. Responsibility does not imply the ability to re­
spond. But if this is so, then why should I feel responsible? Why should
I care when it is completely out of my hands one way or the other?
Even many strong Calvinists have acknowledged the extreme to
which hyper-Calvinists (see appendix 7) took the doctrine of divine
sovereignty. Iain Murray wrote, “They did not renounce the [Calvin-
istic] Confession of 1689, but they overlaid it with an incrustation of
something that approached Antinomianism, and ate out the life of the
churches and of the gospel as preached by many ministers.” He adds,
“Divine sovereignty was maintained and taught, not only in exaggerated
proportions but to the practical exclusion of moral responsibility.”'
Hear the voice of a passionate but less extreme Calvinist, Charles
H. Spurgeon, speaking against some hyper-Calvinists: “My heart
bleeds for many a family where Antinomian doctrine has gained sway.
I could tell many a sad story of families dead in sin, whose consciences
are seared as with a hot iron, by the fatal preaching to which they
listen.” He adds, “I have known convictions stifled and desires
quenched by the soul-destroying system which takes manhood from
him and makes him no more responsible than an ox.”2
Blaming God for evil
Not only does extreme Calvinism tend to undermine personal
responsibility but it logically lays the blame squarely on God for the
’Cited by Iain Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. 126-27.
’Ibid., 155.
138 CHOSEN BUT FREE

origin of evil. Two personal illustrations make the point. Many years
ago when the late John Gerstner and I taught together at the same
institution, I invited him into one of my classes to discuss free will.
Being what I have called an extreme Calvinist, he defended Jonathan
Edwards’ view that the human will is moved by the strongest desire. I
will never forget how he responded when I pushed the logic all the
way back to Lucifer. I was stunned to hear an otherwise very rational
man respond to my question “Who gave Lucifer the desire to rebel
against God?” by throwing up his hands and crying, “Mystery, mystery,
a great mystery!" 1 answered, "No, it is not a great mystery; it is a grave
contradiction." And this is because, on the premises of extreme Cal­
vinism, only God could have given Lucifer the desire to rebel against
God, since there is no self-determined free choice and Lucifer had no
evil nature. But if this is so, then logically it must have been God who
gave him the desire to sin. In short. God caused a rebellion against
God! Perish the thought!
The second example is also tragic. A well-known conference
speaker was explaining how he was unable to come to grips with the
tragic death of his son. Leaning on his strong Calvinistic background,
he gradually came to the conclusion: “God killed my son!” He trium­
phantly informed us that “then, and onlv then, did I get peace about
tile matter." A sovereign God killed his son, and therein he found
ground for a great spiritual victory, he assured us. 1 thought to myself,
“I wonder what he would sav if his daughter had been raped?” Would
he not be able to come to grips with the matter until he concluded
victoriously that “God raped my daughter!” God forbid! Perish die
thought! Some views do not need to be refuted; they simply need to
be stated.
When this same logic is applied to why people go to hell, the trag­
edy is even more evident. Actually, there is no real difference on this
point between die extreme Calvinists and fatalistic Islam in which
Allah says, in the holy book (the Qur’an), “If We [majestic plural] had
so willed, We could certainly have brought Every soul its true guid­
ance; But the Word from Me Will come true. ‘I will Fill Hell with jinn
and men all together’” (Sura 32:13). As the famous Persian poet
Omar Khayyam put it,
Tis all a chequer-board of night and days
Where destiny widi men for pieces plays;
Hither and thither moves and mates and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 139

Lest the reader think this is an unfair caricature of extreme Calvin­

ism in Muslim terms, listen to the words of the famous Puritan Calvin­
ist William Ames: “ [Predestination] depends upon no cause, reason,
or outward condition, but proceeds purely from the will of him [God]
who predestines.” Further, “there are two kinds of predestination,
election and rejection or reprobation. . . . The first act of election is to
will the glory of his grace in the salvation of some men....” Likewise,
“Reprobation is the predestination of certain men so that the glory of
God’s justice may be shown in them.”3
True, some Calvinists reject this “double-predestination” in favor
of God simply “passing over” the non-elect, but even they must admit
that the result is the same: since God did not give them the desire to
be saved “they are condemned to eternal misery.”4 The question still
remains as to why God did not give the desire to all persons to be
saved rather than selecting a mere few. Not a few persons raised in this
tradition have asked themselves, “What difference does it make? If I
am not one of the elect, then there is nothing I can do about it” To
say the least, this can have a devastating effect on one’s own salvation,
to say nothing of one’s enthusiasm to reach others for Christ (see
139).

Laying the ground for universalism

The one million dollar question for the extreme Calvinists is this:
If God can save anyone to whom He gives the desire to be saved, then why
does He not give the desire to all people! The answer can only be that
God does not really will that all be saved. It does not suffice to claim
that God’s justice rightly condemns those who do not believe, since
even faith is a gift from God that He could give to all if He wanted to
do so.
Nor is it sufficient to claim that God justly condemns all sinners,
because God is not only completely just but is also all-loving (1 John
4:16). Why, then, does His love not prompt Him to save all? It is this
very reasoning, when combined with the truth of Scripture that God
“is not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9), that leads logi­
cally to universalism. For if God can save all without violating their
free choice, and if God is all-loving, then there is no reason why all will
not be saved. After all, according to extreme Calvinists, God's love is

’Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 153-55.

♦Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 222.

fi
140 CHOSEN BUT FREE

I
irresistible. Hence, such love focused on all men would inevitably
bring all to salvation.
Undermining trust in the love of God
The blunt and honest answer of extreme Calvinism to this di­
lemma, in the face of the unavoidable logic leading to universalism, is I
to deny that God is all loving. In short—redemptively at least—God
loves only the elect. This fits with the extreme Calvinist’s belief in lim­
ited atonement (see chapter 5). For if God loves only the elect, then
why should Christ have died for more titan the elect?
But any diminution of God’s love will sooner or later eat away at
one’s confidence in God’s benevolence. And when it does, it can have
a devastating effect on one’s life. Indeed, this has been the occasion
for disbelief and even atheism for many.5
A partially loving God is less than ultimately good. And what is less
than ultimately good is not worthv of worship, since worship is attrib­
uting worth-ship to die object of worship. But if the extreme Calvinists’
view of “God" is not the Ultimate Good, then it does not represent
God at all. The God of die Bible is infinitely losing, that is, omnibe-
nevolent. He wills the good of all creation (Acts 14:17; 17:25), and He
desires die salvation of all souls (Ezek. 18:23, 30-32; Hos. 11:1-5, 8-9;
John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).
At first blush, one is impressed widi a God that supposedly loves
him more than others and has elected him to eternal salvation. But
upon further reflection, he cannot help but wonder why, if this God is
so losing, He does not so love the world. When this thought sets in,
die “amazing love” at first experienced by the elect turns to “partial
love,” and finally to a recognition that God actually hates the non­
elect. In the words of extreme Calsinist William Ames, God “is said to
hate them [the non-elect] (Rom. 9:13). This hatred is negative or priva­
tive, because it denies election. But it has a positive content, for God
has willed that some should not have eternal life.”6
This doubt is implicit in the confession of some of the most pious
persons. Indeed, were it not for their deep piety; it is doubtful they
could long maintain such a belief. Strong Calvinist Charles Spurgeon
5Charlcs Darwin called hell a "damnable doctrine" (Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of
Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Darwin Barlow [New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1993], 87). And
renowned agnostic Bertrand Russell said, “I do not myself feel that any person who is really
profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment” (Bertrand Russell, Why I Am
Not a Christian [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957], 12).
‘ Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 156 (emphasis mine).
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 141

admitted, “We do not know why God has purposed to save some and
not others.... We cannot say why his love to all men is not the same
as his love to the elect.”7 If one allows this to gnaw at his mind long
enough, it can turn him from being a particularist into being a univ-
ersalist—from one unfortunate belief to another.

Undermining the motivation for evangelism

Many years ago a young man went to his spiritual mentor and in­
formed him that he would like to be a missionary to the heathen. His
hyper-Calvinistic advisor told him that if God wanted to save the world,
He could do it without him. Fortunately, the young man did not heed
his mentor’s advice. His name was William Carey, famous missionary
to India.8
God only knows for sure how many other extreme Calvinists feel
die same. As a matter of fact, if their view is correct, then we need not
get excited about missions for several reasons. First of all, God does
not love the whole world in a redemptive sense, but only the elect.
Second, Christ only died for the elect, not the world. Third, no one
has the faith to believe unless God gives it to him. Fourth, God has
willed to give faith only to a select few, “the frozen chosen.” Fifth,
when God's power works on the hearts of the unbelievers He wants to
save, there is absolutely nothing they can do to refuse it. God’s power
is irresistible (see chapter 5). If all these were true—thank God they
are not—it would be understandably hard to muster up much enthu­
siasm for missions or evangelism.
Charles Spurgeon pointedly remarked of hyper-Calvinists in his
day: “But there are some people so selfish that, provided they go to
heaven, it is enough they are in the covenant. They are dear enough
people of God. . . .” But “They say it is equal whether God ordains a
man’s life or death. They would sit still to hear men damned.... They
seem to have no feeling for anyone but themselves. They have dried
the heart out of them by some cunning sleight of hand.”9
John Gill, who according to some was the originator of hyper­
Calvinism, is a practical example of the destructive influence on mis­
sions and evangelism. Spurgeon noted that “During the pastorate of
my venerated predecessor, Dr. Gill, this Church, instead of increasing,
gradually decreased. . . . But mark this, from the day when Fuller,
’Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching, 112.
®Sce Mike Haykin, One Heart and One Soul (Phillipsburg, NJ.: Evangelical Press, n.d.), 195.
’Cited by Iain Murray in Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching, 112.
142 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Carey, Sutcliffe, and others, met together to send out missionaries to

India, the sun began to dawn of a gracious revival which is not over
yet."10 Of Gill, Spurgeon added bluntly: “The system of theology'with
which many identify his [Gill’s] name has chilled many churches to
their very soul, for it has led them to omit the free invitations of the
gospel, and to deny that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus.”11
Iain Murray adds, “In this connection it is noteworthy that just as
renewed understanding of the free offer of the gospel led to the age
of overseas missions in England, so it did also—by different means—
in Scotland.” Robert Moffat, a result of that revival, wrote, “Much de­
pends on us who have received the ministry of reconciliation, assured
that God our Saviour vvilleth the salvation of all."1'-’ The truth is, if it
were to come down to one incorrect belief over another, the belief
that God desires all to be saved is more consistent with universal atone­
ment than with limited atonement.

Undermining the motivation for intercessory prayer

Not only does extreme Calvinism erode the basis for evangelism, it
also tends to destroy the perceived need for intercessory prayer. WTrile
prayer cannot change the nature of God (see chapter 1), it can be
used by God to implement His will to change people and things.
Joshua prayed, and live sun stood still (Josh. 10). Elijah prayed, and
the heavens were shut up for three and a half years (1 Kings 17-18;
James 5:17). Moses prayed, and God’s judgment on Israel was stayed
(Num. 14). While prayer is not a means to get our will clone in heaven,
it is a means by which God gets His will done on earth. Things do
change because we pray, for a sovereign God has ordained to use
prayer as a means to the end of accomplishing these things. But if we
believe God will do these things even if we do not pray, then there is
no need for prayer. What we believe about how God’s sovereignty re­
lates to our free will does make a difference in how—and how much—
we pray.

A NATURAL REACTION
By this time many readers are no doubt saying, “Well, I know many
Calvinists who are missionaries, zealous evangelists, and deeply dedi-

'“Ibid., 120.
“Ibid., 127.
“Ibid., 120-21.
 WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 143

cated prayer warriors.” None of these alleged consequences apply to

them. For that we praise God. But for many reasons, this does not
mean the above points are invalid.
First of all, not all Calvinists are extreme Calvinists. Many are more
moderate (see chapter 7) and these criticisms do not apply to them.
I Second, not all extreme Calvinists consistently live out their beliefs.
Thankfully, sometimes people are better in their conduct than in their
creed. It is a fact that life itself tends to round off the extreme ends of
our views, whether Calvinistic or Arminian.
Third, the above consequences are logical results of the extreme
Calvinists’ view, whether they come to fruition in the lives of an indi­
vidual extreme Calvinist or not. If they were consistent with their ex­
treme views, these extreme actions would tend to manifest themselves
in their lives. And this is a valid criticism of their view.

SOME PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF

EXTREME ARMINIANISM
Calvinists have no monopoly on extremes. Extreme Arminianism
is a source of much harm as well.

Undermining confidence in the Bible

According to the extreme Arminians (Neotheists), God does not
have infallible knowledge of future free choices. Yet almost all predic­
tive prophecy involves future free choices. This being the case, for ex­
treme Arminians, all the predictive prophecies in the Bible are fallible.
But it is a fundamental view of evangelical Christians that the Bible is
the infallible Word of God (see John 10:35; Matt. 5:17-18). Therefore,
extreme Arminianism undermines confidence in the Bible—it cannot
be trusted as the Word of God.
There are nearly two hundred predictions in the Bible about the
coming of Christ. Virtually all of these involve the divine ability to fore­
see free choices. For example, the Old Testament predicted where
Jesus would be born, namely, in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2). This is true of
numerous other predictions, including when Jesus would die (Dan.
9:25-27), how He would die (Isa. 53), and that He would rise from the
dead (Ps. 16:10; cf. Acts 2:30-31). If the extreme Arminian is right,
these can be nothing but good guesses on God’s part. They could all
be wrong, and no doubt some are. In any event, we cannot trust the
Bible to speak infallibly. Our confidence in Scripture is undermined.
144 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Another example, if God does not know for sure future free acts,
is that He does not know that the Beast and False Prophet will be in
the lake of fire. But the Bible says they will be there (Rev. 19:20;
20:10). Hence, either this prophecy could be false or else extreme Ar-
minianism is not correct. Or, if extreme Arminianism is true, then this
prediction may be false.
In response to this criticism, extreme Arminians argue God has
infallible knowledge of necessary events and, on occasion, when
needed, He overrules free choice to accomplish His overall purposes.1’
This answer, however, does not make it for several reasons. First of all,
the vast majority (if not all) of human events involve free choices that,
according to extreme Arminianism, God cannot know infallibly.
Second, overruling human free choice is precisely what they object
to in the strong Calvinist position. If God can and does overrule free
choice on some occasions, then why not on others—especially those
where the eternal destiny of the individual is concerned.
Third, of all the predictions made in the Bible about Christ and
other events, there are no undisputed cases where the prophecy was
wrong. But surely if God were merely guessing on all occasions, dien
He would be wrong on some.
Finally, the extreme Arminian view undermines the divine audior-
ity of Scripture—it leaves us with a fallible Bible. But die Bible itself
says we can accept God’s Word unconditionally. It says this explicitly in
the context of affirming that He knows “the end from the beginning”
(Isa. 46:10). Paul writes, “If we are faithless, he will remain faidtful, for
he cannot disown himself’ (2 Tim. 2:13). Again, he reminds us that
“God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). Hence, with
regard to these unconditional promises, “It does not, therefore, de­
pend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy’” (Rom. 9:16).

Destroying the ability to test a false prophet

Extreme Arminians object to the foregoing criticism by insisting
that biblical prophecy is conditional. All predictions have an implied
“if—if things go as God has guessed they will. If so, then no predic­
tions claim to be infallible, since they did not categorically predict any­
thing.
While this response would avoid the charge of fallibility, nonethe­
less, it opens itself to other very serious charges. First of all, if all

*’See Pinnock, The Openness of God, chapter 6.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 145

prophecy is conditional, then there could not be any way to know a

false prophecy. But the Old Testament lays down tests for false proph­
ets, one of which is whether or not the prediction comes to pass. For
"if what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take
place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That
prophet has spoken presumptuously” (Deut. 18:22). If the extreme
Arminians are correct, then this test would not be valid.
Further, the predictions about Christ cannot be conditional. The
Bible tells us that His death was preordained before the foundation of
the world (Acts 2:23; Rev. 13:8; cf. Eph. 1:4). In fact, it was absolutely
necessary for our salvation (Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:22).
Finally, there is no evidence in the Bible that messianic prophecy
is conditional. Conditional terms such as “if’ are neither used nor
implied in these passages. It is eisegesis (reading meaning into them)
and not exegesis (reading the meaning from them) to say they are con­
ditional.

Undermining the infallibility of the Bible

Not only does the extreme Arminian’s denial that God knows fu­
ture free acts diminish (or deny) God’s omniscience and omnipo­
tence, but it also entails a denial of the infallibility and inerrancy of
the Bible, in which some extreme Arminians (e.g., Clark Pinnock)
claim to believe. For if all prophecies are conditional, then we can
never be sure they will come to pass. Yet the Bible affirms that they
will. But for these Arminians, such pronouncements are not infallible,
and they may be in error. Indeed, on the premise that God is only
guessing, it is reasonable to assume that some are wrong. It is begging
the issue to assume that it just so happened that all of His guesses
turned out to be right.

Undermining hope in an ultimate victory over evil

Since extreme Arminians (Neotheists) insist that God does not
know the future for sure and that He does not intervene against free­
dom except on rare occasions, it seems to follow that there is no guar­
antee of ultimate victory over evil. For how can He be sure that anyone
will be saved without tampering with their freedom, which contradicts
the extreme Arminian (libertarian) view of free will?
And positing the eternal annihilation of all who choose evil does
not solve the Neotheist’s dilemma. For this is the ultimate violation of
free choice—the total destruction of it! This is to say nothing of the
146 CHOSEN BUT FREE

fact that both Scripture (Luke 16:19ff.; Rev. 19:20; 20:10) and centu­
ries of orthodox Christian teaching stand against this aberrant doc­
trine.14
What is more, this view is contrary to the Bible, which predicts that
Satan will be defeated, evil will be vanquished, and many will be saved
(Rev. 20). But since, according to die extreme Arminian, this is a
moral question that involves (libertarian) free will, it follows that God
could not know this infallibly. However, the Bible does inform us that
evil will be defeated (Rev. 21-22). But if this is so, neither God nor the
Bible can be completely infallible and inerrant. Yet some extreme Ar-
minians, such as Clark Pinnock, claim diat it is. This is inconsistent.
Undermining trust in God’s promises
It is clear that not all God’s promises in die Bible are to everyone.
Some are only to some people (e.g., Gen. 4:15). Others are only to a
certain group of people (e.g., Gen. 13:14-17). Some are only for a
limited time (e.g., Eph. 6:3). Many promises are conditioned on
human behavior. They have a stated or implied “if’ in them. The Mo­
saic Covenant is of this type. God said to Israel, “ ‘Now if you obey me
fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my
treasured possession’ ” (Ex. 19:5-6). Odier promises, however, are un­
conditional. Such was the land promise to Abraham and his offspring.
This is clear from the facts that (1) no conditions were attached to it;
(2) Abraham’s agreement was not solicited; (3) it was initiated while
Abraham was in a deep sleep (Gen. 15:12); (4) die covenant was en­
acted unilaterally by God who passed through the split sacrifice (Gen.
15:17-18); and (5) God reaffirmed this promise even when Israel was
unfaithful (2 Chron. 21:7). Now, such unconditional promises, which
involve free choices of creatures, would not be possible unless God
knew for certain all future free choices.
Extreme Arminians offer 1 Kings 2:1-4 as an example of how a
seemingly unconditional promise is really conditional. God promised
David of his son Solomon: “ ‘My love will never be taken away from
him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you’ ”
(2 Sam. 7:15-16). Yet later God seemed to take this back, making it
conditional on whether he (and his descendants) would “walk faith­
fully before me” (1 Kings 2:1-4). Thus, they argue that all seemingly
unconditional promises are really conditional.
HSec N. L. Geisler, “Annihilationism" in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1999).
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 147

However, this argument fails for many reasons. First of all, it is a

non sequitur, since the conclusion is much broader than the premises.
Even if this were an example of an implied condition, it would not
mean that all promises are conditional. Second, it overlooks the many
cases in Scripture (see above) where there are unconditional promises
(cf. Rom. 11:29). These are counter-examples that refute the conten­
tion that all God’s promises are conditional. Third, it is inconsistent
with the extreme Arminian view of God. They insist that God is an
ontologically independent Being. But God’s knowledge is part of His
essence or being. How then can God’s knowledge be dependent on
anything else?15
Finally, the argument is based on a failure to see that the two texts
refer to two different things. In 2 Samuel God was speaking to David
about never taking the kingdom away from his son Solomon. This
promise was fulfilled, for in spite of Solomon’s sins (1 Kings 11:1-2)
die kingdom was not taken from him during his entire lifetime. In
fact, the fulfillment is explicitly stated in God’s words to Solomon:
“ ‘Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and
my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the
kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nev­
ertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your
lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son’ ” (1 Kings 11:11-12).
So God did keep His promise to David about Solomon.
The other text (1 Kings 2:1—4) is not speaking about God’s promise
to David regarding his son Solomon. Rather, it refers to God taking the
kingdom from any of Solomon’s sons. There was no unconditional
promise made here. From his deathbed, David exhorted Solomon to
“ 'Walk in his [God’s] ways, and keep his decrees and commands... so
that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, and that the
Lord may keep his promise to me: " If your descendants watch how they
live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul,
you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel”’” (2:3-4).
This promise was both conditional (“if’) and limited to Solomon’s
sons. It said nothing about Solomon, from whom God had already
made an unconditional promise not to take the throne away during
his lifetime.

I5See R. Garrigou-LaGrange, God: His Existence and Nature (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co.,
1946), appendix IV, 465-528.
148 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Destroying assurance of salvation

One of the great motivating factors in the Christian life is the as­
surance of salvation. But no Arminian can be sure he will make it to
heaven. The possibility' of backsliding always hangs over his head. And
if he does backslide, then he loses his salvation.
Thank God, die Bible assures us that we can know that we have
eternal life (John 5:24; 1 John 5:13). And nodiing can separate us
from die love of Christ (Rom. 8:36-39). Even if we are faithless, God
remains faithful (2 Tim. 2:13). These and numerous other passages of
Scripture inform us that true believers are eternally secure (see chap­
ters 6 and 7).
Hindering confidence in answered prayer
In spite of the fact that extreme Arminians make much of God’s
dynamic ability to answer prayer, it would appear that their concept of
God actually undermines God’s use of special providence in answering
prayer. They admit, as indeed thev should, that most answers to prayer
do not involve a direct supernatural intervention in the world. Rather,
God works through special providence in unusual ways to accomplish
unusual things. But a God who does not know for sure what any future
free act will be is severely limited in His logistic ability to do things
that a God who knows every decision that will be made can do. So,
ironically, the extreme Arminian God is a liability to answered prayer,
which they consider so important to a personal God. Surely one can
have much more confidence knowing dtat God has not only infallible
foreknowledge of tire future but complete control of it (see chapter 1).
To pray to the extreme Arminian God who is Himself only guessing
about the future encourages little confidence in the devotee that he is
in firm hands.

A FINAL WORD
The Bible is a balanced book. It affirms both God’s sovereignty
(see chapter 1) and man’s free choice (see chapter 2). It teaches both
that God is in complete control and that humans can choose to re­
ceive or reject salvation (see chapter 3).16 Unfortunately, however,
"'John F. Walvoord wrote, “The immediate problem that faces the interpreter, however, is
that of human freedom. It seems endent from experience as well as from Scripture that
man has choices. How can one avoid a fatalistic system where everything is predetermined
and no moral choices are left? Is human responsibility just a mockery or is it real? These
are the problems which face the interpreter of Scripture on this difficult doctrine." (See
Lewis Sperry Chafer and John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Themes [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zon-
dervan, 1980], 233.)
W’HAT DIFFERENCE does it make? 149

there seems to be an incurable human propensity to go to one ex­

treme or the other. Extreme Calvinism (see chapters 4 and 5) and
extreme Arminianism (see chapter 6) are cases in point. And, as we
have shown in this chapter, extreme views lead logically, and often
practically, to extreme actions, whether they are in an extreme empha­
sis on God’s sovereignty or on man’s free will.
Again, it has been shown that there is no contradiction in the co­
working of sovereignty and free will. We can be assured that (1) God
is in control and that (2) we have been given the ability to choose. We
are indeed chosen but free.
 APPENDIX ONE

Great Christian
Church Fathers on
Free Will
With the exception of the later writings of St. Augustine, who after
his experience in die Donatist controversy (see appendix 3) con­
cluded that persons could be forced to believe, virtually all of the great
thinkers up to the Reformation affirmed that human beings possess
the power of contrary free choice, even in a fallen state.' None be­
lieved diat a coerced act is a free act. In short, all would have rejected
the extreme Calvinists’ view that God acts irresistibly on the unwilling
(see chapter 5).

JUSTIN MARTYR (a.d. 100-165)

God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create
them free to do righteousness. But if the Word of God foretells that some
angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it fore­
knew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God

'The citations up to St. Augustine follow Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston, God's Strategy
in Human History, 245f., emphasis mine in all citations.
GREAT CHRISTIAN CHURCH FATHERS ON FREE WILL 151

created them so. So if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy
from God (Dialogue, CXLI).

IRENAEUS (a.d. 130-200)

This expression, “How often would I have gathered thy children
together, and thou wouldst not,” set forth the ancient law of human
liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possess­
ing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compul­
sion of God, For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [toward
us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good
counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power
of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded
obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but
preserved by themselves. . . .
If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what
reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us coun­
sel to do some things and to abstain from others'? But because man is pos­
sessed offree will from the beginning, and God is possessed offree will in
whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep
fast die good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God
(Against Heresies, XXXVII).

ATHENAGORAS OF ATHENS
(SECOND CENTURY)
Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice
(foryou would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and
virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters
entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels (Em­
bassy for Christians, XXIV).

THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH
(SECOND CENTURY)
For God made man free, and with power over Himself... noir God
vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity,
when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on Himself;
so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procurefor Himself life
everlasting (To Autolycus, xxvii).
152 CHOSEN BUT FREE

TATIAN OF SYRIA (LATE SECOND CENTURY)

Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature.
We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free will
has destroyed us, we who were free have become slaves; we have been
sold through sin. Nodiing evil has been created by God; we ourselves
have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again
to reject it (Address, xi).

BARDAISAN OF SYRIA (c. 154-222)

How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and
incur condemnation?—If man had been made so, he would not have
belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that
moved him.... And how, in that case, would a man differ from a harp,
on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where
die praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the
steersman ... they being only instruments made for the use of him in
whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man;
but by freedom He exalted him to above many of His creatures (Fragments).

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150-215)

But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining

choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infalli­
ble criterion of faith, manifesting a willing Spirit, since we have chosen
life and believe God through His voice {Stromata, 2.4).
But nothing is without the will of the Lord of the universe. It re­
mains to say that such things happen without the prevention of God;
for this alone saves both the providence and the goodness of God. We
must not therefore think that He actively produces afflictions (far be it that
we should think this!); but we must be persuaded that He does not prevent
those that cause them, but overrules for good the crimes of His enemies
(Stromata, 4.12).

TERTULLIAN (155-225)

I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own
will and power, indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in
him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. . . .
 GREAT CHRISTIAN CHURCII FATHERS ON FREE WILL 153

You will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and
death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by
God’s calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and
this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for
obedience or resistance. . . .
Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered
in the gift to man offreedom in his will. . . (Against Marcion, 2.5).

NOVATIAN OF ROME (c. 200-258)

He also placed man at the head of the world, and man, too, made
in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and
foresight, that he might imitate God; and although the first elements
of his body were earthly, yet the substance was inspired by a heavenly
and divine breathing. And when He had given him all things for his
service, He willed that he alone should be free. And lest, again, an un­
bounded freedom should fall into peril, He laid down a command, in
which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree;
but he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he should exer­
cise his free will in the contempt of the law that was given (On the Trin­
ity, chap. 1).

ORIGEN (c. 185-254)

Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the
faidi of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on cer­
tain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone.... This
also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul
is possessed offree will and volition (De Principiis, preface).
There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which es­
tablish with exceeding clearness the existence offreedom of will (De Princi­
piis, 3.1).

METHODIUS (c. 260-311)

Now those who decide that man is not possessed offree will, and affirm
that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities offate . . . are guilty of
impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author
of human evils (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, xvi).
I say that man was made with free will, not as if there were already
154 CHOSEN BUT FREE

existing some evil, which he had the power of choosing if he wished ...
but that the power of obeying and disobeying God is the only cause (Con­
cerning Free Will).

ARCHELLAUS (c. 277)

For all creatures that God made, He made very good, and He gave to
every individual the sense offree will in accordance with which standard
He also instituted the law of judgment. To sin is ours, and that we sin
not is God's gift, as our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to
sin (TheDisputation with Manes').

ARNOBIUS OF SICCA (c. 253-327)

Does not He free all alike who invites all alike? Or does He thrust
back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all
alike the power of coming to Him?—To all. He says, the fountain of life
is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking ...
(Against the Heathen, 64. 1 replv).
Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us,
let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises.
This then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God,
but a childish and tain strife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is
so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unworthy, to reverse their
inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to
receive, and shrink from ... (ibid., 65).

CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 312-386)

Know also that thou hast a soul self-governed, the noblest work of
God, made after the image of its Creator, immortal because of God
that gives it immortality, a living being rational, imperishable, because
of Him that bestowed these gifts: havingfree power to do what it willeth
(Lecture, IV 18).
There is not a class of souls sinning by nature and a class of souls
practicing righteousness by nature; but both act from choice, the substance
of their souls being of one kind only and alike in all (ibid., 20).
The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not
the power to compel against the will He pictures to thee the thought of
fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator of
GREAT CHRISTIAN CHURCH FATHERS ON FREE WILL 155

necessity, then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou inert a doer of
righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did Cod prepare crowns
of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its
gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by
nature (ibid., 21).

GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335-395)

Being the image and the likeness ... of the Power which rules all
things, man hept also in the matter of a free will this likeness to Him whose
will is over all [On Virginity, 368, chap. XI1).

JEROME (c. 347-420)

It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant
that I condemn free will. Let him who condemns it be himself con­
demned. We have been created, endowed with free will; still it is not this
which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human free will, as I said,
depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by mo­
ment, a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your po­
sition is that once a man has free will he no longer needs the help of
God. It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision.
Still man does not act immediately on his free will but requires God’s aid
who Himself needs no aid [Letters, 133).
But tvhen we are concerned with grace and mercy, free trill is in
part void; in part, I say, for so much depends upon it, that we wish and
desire, and give assent to the course we choose. But it depends on God
whether we have the poxver in His strength and with His help to perform
what we desire, and to bring to effect our toil and effort [Against the Pela­
gians, Book 111, 10).
It is ours to begin, God’s to finish (ibid., 3.1; see also appendix 11).

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (347-407)

God having placed good and evil in our potver, has given us full
freedom of choice; he does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces
the willing [Homilies on Genesis, 19.1).
All is in God’s power, but so that our free will is not lost. . . . It de­
pends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then
He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our
156 CHOSEN BUT FREE

free will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us
much help.... It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s
to perfect and bring to the end (On Hebrews Homily, 12).2

EARLY ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430 )3

Free will, naturally assigned by the creator to our rational soul, is such
a neutral power, as can either incline toward faith, or turn toward unbelief
(On the Spirit and the Letter, 58).
In fact, sin is so much a voluntary evil that it is not sin at all unless
it is voluntary (Of True Religion, 14).
Either then, will is itself the first cause of sin, or the first cause is
without sin (On Free Will, 3.49).
Sin is indeed nowhere but in the will, since this consideration also
would have helped me, that justice holds guilty those sinning by evil cuill
alone, although they may have been unable to accomplish tvhat they
willed (Two Souls, Against theManichaeans, 10.12).
Our conclusion is that our wills have power to do all that God wanted
them to do and foresaw they could do. Their power, such as it is, is a real
power. IWzot they are to do they themselves will most certainly do, because
God foresaw both that they could do it and drat they would do it and His
knowledge cannot be mistaken (City of God, 5.9).
Because whoever has done anything evil by means of one unconscious
or unable to resist, the latter can by no means be justly condemned (Two
Souls, Against theManichaeans, 10.12).
For every one also who does a thing unwillingly is compelled, and every
one who is compelled, if he does a thing, does it only unwillingly. It follows
that he that is willing is free from compulsion, even if any one thinks him­
self compelled (Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans, 10.14).
The conclusion is that we are by no means under compulsion to aban­
don free choice in favor of divine knowledge, nor need we deny—God

•John Calvin consciously pitted himself against Chrysostom and virtually all die Fathers when
he said, “ H? must, therefore, repudiate the oft-repeated sentiment of Chrysostom, * Whom he draws,
he draws willingly'; insinuating that the Lord only stretches out his hand, and waits to see
whether we will be pleased to take his aid. grant that, as man was originally constituted, he
could incline to either side, but since he has taught us by his example how miserable a thing
free will is if God works not in us to will and to do, of what use to us were grace imparted
in such scanty measure?” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.2.3.10, 260-61).
’These texts are taken from Sl Augustine’s earlier writings before his position changed fol­
lowing the controversy with schismatics known as Donatists (see appendix 3), whom Augus­
tine believed could be coerced against their will into accepting the truth of the Catholic
Church.
GREAT CHRISTIAN CHURCH FATHERS ON FREE WILL 157

forbid!—that God knows the future, as a condition for holding free

choice (City of God, 5.10).

ST. ANSELM (1033-1109)

No one deserts uprightness except by willing to desert it. If “against

one’s will” means “unwillingly, ” then no one deserts uprightness against
his will. . . . But a man cannot will against his will because he cannot will
unwillingly to will. For everyone who wills, wills willingly (Truth, Free­
dom, and Evil, 130).
Although they [Adam and Eve] yielded themselves to sin, they could
not abolish in themselves their natural freedom of choice. However, they
could so affect their state that they were not able to use that freedom
except by a different grace from that which they had before their fall
(ibid., 125).
And we ought not to say that they [Adam and Eve] had freedom
for the purpose of receiving, from a giver, the uprightness which they
didn’t have, because we have to believe that they were created with upright
wills—although we must not deny that they had freedom for receiving this
same uprightness again, should they once desert it and were it returned
to them by the one who originally gave it. We often see an evidence of
this in men who are led back to justice from injustice by heavenly
grace (ibid., 126).
Don’t you see it follows from these considerations that no temptation
can conquer an upright will'? For if temptation can conquer the will, it has
the power to conquer it, and conquers the will by its own power. But temp­
tation cannot do this because the will can be overcome only by its own
power (ibid., 132).
Now, I wonder whether even God could remove uprightness from a
man’$ will. Could he? I’ll show you that He cannot. For although He can
reduce everything which He has made from nothing back to nothing,
He does not have the power to separate uprightness from a will that
has it (ibid., 136).

THOMAS AQUINAS (1224-1274)

The cause of a sin is the will’s not holding to the rule of reason and
divine law. Evil does not arise before the will applies itself to doing some­
thing (Aquinas, Theological Texts, trans. Thomas Gilby [London:
158 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Oxford University Press, 1955; reprint, Durham, N.C.: The Labyrinth

Press, 1982], 132).
Necessity comes from the agent when the latter so coerces some­
one that he cannot do the contrary. We refer to this as “necessity by
coercion.” Such necessity by coercion is contrary to the will. For we con­
sider violent whatever is contrary to a thing’s inclination. But the wall’s
own motion is an inclination toward something, so that something is
voluntary when it follows the inclination of nature. Just as something
cannot possibly be violent and natural simultaneously, so something
cannot be absolutely coerced or violent and simultaneously voluntary
(Aquinas, An Aquinas Header, ed. Mary T. Clark [Garden City’, N.Y:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972], 291-92).
Thus of necessity’ man wills happiness, and it is impossible for him
to will not to be happy or to be unhappy. But since choice does not
deal with the end but with the means to the end, as previously dis­
cussed (Summa Theologica, I-II. 13, 3). it does not deal with the perfect
good or happiness but with other particular goods. Consequently man
does not choose necessarily but freely (ibid., 293).
Some have proposed diat man's will is moved necessarily to mak­
ing some choice, although they do not hold that the will is coerced.
For not every necessity from an external principle (violent motion) is
coercive, but only that which originates from without where both cer­
tain natural movements are discovered to be necessary but not coer­
cive. For the coercive is opposed to the natural just as it is also opposed to
voluntary motion, because die latter comes from an internal principle,
while violent motion comes from an external one. This opinion [of the
Latin Averroists] is therefore heretical because it destroys merit and demerit
in human actions. For why should there be any merit or demerit for
actions one cannot avoid doing? It is, moreover, to be included among
the excluded opinions of philosophers: for if there is no freedom in us
but we are moved of necessity to will, then deliberate choice, en couragement,
precept, punishment, praise, and blame are removed, and these are the
very problems that moral philosophy considers. Not only is this con­
trary to the faith, but it undermines all the principles of moral philos­
ophy (ibid., 294-95).
Now sin cannot destroy man’s rationality altogether, for then he would
no longer be capable of sin (Aquinas, Philosophical Texts, trans. Thomas
Gilby [New York: Oxford University Press, 1960], 179).
To be free is not to be obliged to one determinate object (ibid., 259).
Man has free choice, otherwise counsels, exhortations, precepts,
GREAT CHRISTIAN CHURCH FATHERS ON FREE WILL 159

prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would all be pointless ... (ibid.,

261-62).
Man, however, can act from judgment and adaptation in the rea­
son; a free judgment that leaves intact the power of being able to decide
otherwise (ibid.).
Similarly, then, sin is caused by the free will according as it turns away
from God. Hence it does not follow that God is the cause of sin, although
He is the cause offree will (St. Thomas Aquinas, On Evil, trans. Jean
Oesterle [Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995],
106).
But nevertheless it must be noted that the movement of the first
mover is not uniformly received in all movable things, but in each ac­
cording to its own mode. . . . For when a thing is properly disposed to
receive the movement of the first mover, a perfect action in accord with the
intention of thefirst moverfollows-, but if a thing is not properly disposed
and suited to receive the motion of the first mover, an imperfect ac­
tion follows. And then whatever action is present is referred to the first
mover as the cause, but whatever defect is present is not referred to
the first mover as the cause, since such a defect in the action results
from the fact that the agent departs from the order of the first
mover.... And for this reason we maintain that the action pertaining to
the sin is from God, but the sin is not from God (ibid., 110).
However the deformity of sin in no way falls under the divine will but
results from this that the free will departs or deviates from the order of the
divine will (ibid., 111).

Aquinas added,
Similarly when something moves itself, it is not precluded that it is
moved by another from whom it has this very ability by which it moves
itself. And therefore it is not contrary to liberty that God is the cause of the
act offree will (ibid.).4
Sin wounded man in his natural powers so far as concerns his capacity
for gratuitous goods but not in such a way that it takes away anything of
the essence of his nature, and so it does not follow that the demon’s
intellect erred except about gratuitous matters (ibid., 496).

♦By this he apparently means God is the primary Cause who produced die fact of free will,
while humans are the secondary cause who perform (by the power God gives them) the
arts of free choice.
 * ™
APPENDIX TWO

Was Calvin a
Calvinist?
At first blush, it may seem absurd to ask whether John Caban was a
Calvinist. But he was not die first in the history of thought to have his
views be distorted by his disciples. In fact, many of the great thinkers
were misunderstood bv their followers.

DEFINING “CALVINISM”

If Five-Point Calvinism (T-U-L-I-P), as described in chapters 4 and

5 of this book, is taken as the definition of “Calvinism” in this ques­
tion, then it seems clear that Calvin was not a Calvinist, at least at one
crucial point: limited atonement.' This is why we have preferred to call
this view extreme Calvinism throughout this book; it goes beyond what
Calvin himself taught on the matter. The following texts support this
conclusion.

‘The position that Calvin rejected limited atonement is supported by the classic work of
R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford, 1979). Others have attempted
to provide alternative interpretations (see Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinist, The Banner
of Trulli Trust, 1982; Jonathan H. Rainbow, The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and
Theological Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Atonement, Pickwick Publications,
1990). However, Kendall’s view is not only one of a noted Calvinist, it is squarely based in
the texts of Calvin and not in a theological attempt to make Calvin consistent with one’s
preconceived concept of "Calvinism."
WAS CALVIN A CALVINIST? 161

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT IS UNLIMITED

While Calvin believed that the benefits of the Atonement are ap­
plied only to a limited group (those who believed), he held that the
extent of the Atonement is unlimited. That is, Christ died for the sins
of the whole human race.
Christ’s blood expiated (satisfied) God for all the sins of the world
Calvin wrote, “This is our liberty, this our glorying against death,
that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was
procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the
sins of the world ha ve been expiated.-

Christ suffered and provided salvation for the whole human race
“We must now see in what ways we become possessed of the bless­
ings which God has bestowed on his only begotten Son, not for private
use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be at­
tended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from
him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human
race is of the least benefit to us” (Institutes, 3.1.1).

The “many” for whom Christ died (in Romans 5) is all of mankind
“We should note, however, that Paul does not here contrast the
larger number with the many, for he is not speaking of the great number
of mankind, but he argues that since the sin of Adam has destroyed
many [all], the righteousness of Christ will be no less effective for the sal­
vation of many [all]” (Comments on Romans 5:15).

The guilt of the whole world was laid on Christ

“I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punish­
ment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is
evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of
the Epistle to the Romans, that ‘many’ sometimes denotes ‘all’ ” (Com­
ments on Isaiah 53:12).

The “many” for whom Christ died means the whole human race
“Mark 14:24. This is my blood. I have already wanted, when the
blood is said to be poured out (as in Matthew) for the remission of sins,
how in these words we are directed to the sacrifice of Christ's death,
’Comments on Colossians 1:15. Emphasis mine in all citations.
162 CHOSEN BUT FREE

and to neglect this thought makes any due celebration of the Supper
impossible. In no other way can faithful souls be satisfied, if they can­
not believe that God is pleased in their regard. The word many does not
mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race: he contrasts
many with one, as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one
man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. It is
incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole
world” (Eternal Predestination of God, IX.5).

Salvation is limited in its effect, not in its offer

“But if it is so (you will say), little faith can be put in the Gospel
promises, which, in testifying concerning the -will of God, declare that
he wills what is contrary to his inviolable decree. Not at all; for however
universal the promises of salvation may be, there is no discrepancy be­
tween them and the predestination of the reprobate, provided we at­
tend to their effect. We know that the promises are effectual only when
we receive them in faith, but, on the contrarv. when faith is made void,
the promise is of no effect" (Institutes, 3.24.17).

Christ’s death is only applied to the righteous (by’ faith)

“To communicate to us the blessings which he received from die
Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called
our Head, and die firstborn among many brethren, while, on the
other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him,
all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we be­
come one with him. And aldiough it is true dial we obtain this by faidi,
yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of
Christ which is made by die gospel, the very nature of the case teaches
us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of die Spirit,
to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings” (Insti­
tutes, 3.1.1).

Salvation is only applied to those who believe

“The apostle indicates that the fruits of it do not come to any but to
those who are obedient. In sating this he commends faith to us, for nei­
ther He nor His benefits become ours unless, and in so far as, we ac­
cept them and Him by faith. At the same time he has inserted the
universal term ‘to all’ to show that no one is excluded from this salvation
who proves to be attentive and obedient to the Gospel of Christ” (Com­
ments on Hebrews 5:9).
WAS CALVIN A CALVINIST? 163

Even the lost were purchased by Christ’s blood

“It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by
die blood of Christ” (Calvin, The Mystery of Godliness, 83).

No men are barred from salvation

“He had commanded Timothy that prayers should be regularly of­
fered up in the church for kings and princes; but as it seemed some­
what absurd that prayer should be offered up for a class of men who
were almost hopeless (all of them being not only aliens from the body
of Christ, but doing their utmost to overthrow his kingdom), he adds,
that it was acceptable to God, who will have all men to be saved. By
this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation
was not shut against any order of men; that, on the contrary, he had
manifested his mercy in such a way, that he would have none debarred
from it” (Institutes, 3.24.16).
Christ suffered for the sins of the world
“I would they were even cut off. His indignation increases and he
prays for destruction on the imposters by whom the Galatians had
been deceived. The word ‘cut off seems to allude to the circumcision
which they were pressing for. Chrysostom inclines to this view: ‘They
tear the Church for the sake of circumcision; I wish they were cut off
entirely.’ But such a curse does not seem to fit the mildness of an apostle,
who ought to wish that all should be saved and therefore that not one
should perish. I reply that this is true when we have men in mind; for God
commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ
suffered for the sins of the whole world' (Comments on Galatians 5:12).
"And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness in­
discriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think
the Redeemer has been sent to them alone. From this we infer that
the whole world is bound in the same condemnation; and that since
all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God,
they have need of reconciliation. John, therefore, by speaking of the
sin of the world in general, wanted to make us feel our own misery
and exhort us to seek the remedy” (Comments on John 1:29).
“We must now see in what way we become possessed of the bless­
ings which God has bestowed on his only begotten Son, not for private
use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be at­
tended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from
him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human
164 CHOSEN BUT FREE

race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings

which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in
us” (Institutes, 1.3.2).
While Calvin affirmed that the extent of the Atonement is unlim­
ited, he also held that its application was limited only to those who
believe. This is made evident in several texts.

UNBELIEF IS THE REASON THAT SOME DO NOT

RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST’S DEATH
“Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact ex­
tends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for
the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without
distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him" (Comments on Romans
5:18).
“To bear the sins means to free those who have sinned from their
guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all, as in Romans 5:15.
It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ’s death, but
this happens because their unbelief hinders them" (Comments on He­
brews 9:28).
Note: Even extreme Calvinist John Owen, translator of this passage,
said in a footnote: “It appears from this sentence that Calvin held general
redemption ” (emphasis added).

Only believers enjoy the benefit of salvation

“ ‘I am come a light into the world.’ The universal particle seems
to have been put in deliberately, partly that all believers without excep­
tion might enjoy this benefit in common and partly to show that unbe­
lievers perish in darkness because they flee from the light of their own
accord” (Comments on John 12:46).

UNIVERSALISM IS DENTED: SALVATION IS NOT

APPLIED TO ALL MANKIND
“He put this in for amplification, that believers might be con-
vinced that the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith em­
brace the Gospel But here the question may be asked as to how the sins
of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the
fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the repro­
bate and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth
WAS CALVIN A CALVINIST? 165

refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ
suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect. This
solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow the
truth of this, I deny that it fits this passage. For John’s purpose was only
to make this blessing common to the whole Church. Therefore, under
the word ‘all’ [in 1 John 2:2] he does not include the reprobate, but
refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through
various regions of the earth. For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really
made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world"
(Comments on 1 John 2:2).
Note: Calvin clearly denies universalism and affirms the sufficiency
of Christ’s death for the whole world, but he denies that this particular
passage can be used to teach this. Rather, he believes it teaches only
that all who believe will actually be saved by Christ’s death. The reason
Calvin does not include the reprobate under those for whom Christ
died here is that he is speaking of the application of the Atonement,
not its extent, as he does in other texts (see above).

Christ’s “blood” received in Communion is not for unbelievers

“How can the wicked drink Christ’s blood ’which was not shed to
expiate their sins’ and Christ’s flesh ‘which was not crucified for
them’?” (Theological Treatises, 285).3
Note: Some, like Roger Nicole,1 have given extensive arguments in
an atempt to show that Calvin really believed the Atonement was lim­
ited in extent. However, these arguments all fail because: (1) They are
contrary to the clear teachings of Calvin in the above texts; (2) There
is not a clear undisputed text to the contrary in Calvin; (3) Nicole’s
theological arguments are just that—theological arguments based on
a set Calvinistic system; they are not exegetical comments based on the
text of Calvin; (4) Nicole’s reasoning is circular. It begins with a lim­
ited atonement view in place and then tries to show how any view of
Cabin on this topic must be understood as consistent with this system.

’Calvin seems to have verbally overstated his point here in the heat of the battle against
Heshusius’s heretical claim that even the wicked can receive benefit from Communion “by
the mouth bodily without faith.” In context his point is clear, namely, only those who be­
lieve actually enter into the benefits of Christ’s death.
4Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s view of the extent of the Atonement" in The Westminster The­
ologicalJournal (Fall 1985).
166 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Conclusion
Whatever else Cabin may have said to encourage extreme Calvin­
ism’s T-U-L-I-P (see chapters 4 and 5), he certainly denied limited
atonement as they understand it. For Calvin, the Atonement is univer­
sal in extent and limited only in its application, namely, to those who
believe.
 APPENDIX THREE

The Origins of
Extreme Calvinism
A VIRTUALLY UNBROKEN TRADITION
There is an almost unbroken tradition among the great Fathers of
the church affirming the power of contrary free choice. This includes
the writings of Irenaeus, the early St. Augustine, St. Anselm, and
Thomas Aquinas (see appendix 1). This means that virtually the whole
of the Christian tradition up to the Reformation stands against the
characteristic views of what we have called extreme Calvinism in this
book. This includes not only the ability' of fallen human beings to ex­
ercise free choice in their own salvation, but the rejection of the doc­
trine of irresistible grace on the unwilling (see chapter 5) and, at least
logically and implicitly, the other concomitant doctrines of limited
atonement, unconditional election, and total depravity as conceived
by extreme Calvinism.

THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM

Were it not for one significant blip in pre-Reformation history,
there would have been no notable extreme “Calvinists” for the first
1,500 years of the church. This exception is found in the late writings
168 CHOSEN BUT FREE

of St. Augustine (a.d. 354-430). As a result of his controversy with the

Pelagians (who emphasized free will at the expense of grace), Augus­
tine overreacted with an emphasis on grace at the expense of free will.
Later, in response to the Donatists, a schismatic group that had broken
away from the Catholic Church, St. Augustine overreacted by affirm­
ing that heretics could be coerced to believe against their free choice
to confess the Catholic faith. The logic seemed irresistible to him: If
the Church can coerce heretics to believe against their will, then why
can’t God force sinners to believe against their will? This, of course, fit
with his long-held belief that infants could be regenerated apart from
any free choice on their part. Why, then, he reasoned, could not God
force adults to be saved against their will?
However, even in his early anti-Pelagian writings, Augustine never
adopted the radical view on free will and limited atonement that he
manifested in his later works, particularly those written after A.D. 417.
The hardening of Augustine’s theological arteries is manifested in sev­
eral areas. In his early view, die same one held by all the Fadiers
throughout church history up to Luther, he embraced unlimited
atonement; later he affirmed limited atonement. In the early period,
he held that God never coerces a free act; this was discarded in favor
of irresistible grace on the unwilling in his later years. This, of course,
resulted in a hardened view of predestination where God was active in
bodi the destiny of the elect and the non-elect, and in a denial titat
there are any conditions for receiving God’s gift of unconditional sal­
vation. In fact, for the later Augustine, in contrast to the earlier, man­
kind is so totally depraved that he has no free choice with regard to
spiritual matters. In short, Augustine moved from moderate “Calvin­
ism” to extreme “Calvinism” (see chapter 7).
Even John Calvin noted the difference between Augustine’s earlier
and later views, observing that the earlier Augustine explained God
“hardening” unbelievers’ hearts as His foreseeing their act of will,
while later on he held that God was actively hardening their hearts.
Calvin wrote, “Even Augustine was not always free from this supersti­
tion, as when he says that blinding and hardening have respect not to the
operation of God but to prescience (Lib. De Predestina. Et Gratia). But
this subtlety is repudiated by many passages of Scripture, which clearly
show that the divine interference amounts to something more than presci­
ence.” Calvin continues, “And Augustine himself, in his book against
Julian, contends at length that sins are manifestations not merely of
divine permission or patience, but also of divine power, that thus
THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM 169

former sins may be punished. In like manner, what is said of permis­

sion is too weak to stand. God is very often said to blind and harden
die reprobate, to turn their hearts, to incline and impel them, as I
have elsewhere fully explained” (Book I. c. xviii.).1

THE MODERATE “CALVINISM” OF THE

EARLIER AUGUSTINE
From the very beginning, Augustine followed the teachings of the
church fathers before him. Human beings, even fallen ones, possess
the power of free choice. This is true of his anti-Manichaean writings
as well as his early anti-Pelagian works. More precisely, as late as a.d.
412 (On the Spirit and the Letter), and perhaps later, Augustine still
held a moderate view. But by a.d. 417 (On the Correction of the Dona-
tists) his view had radicalized.2
All sin is voluntary
In fact, sin is so much a voluntary evil that it is not sin at all
unless it is voluntary (Of True Religion, 14).

Sin is nowhere but in the will

Sin is indeed nowhere but in the will, since this consideration
also would have helped me, that justice holds guilty those sinning
'John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.2.4.3, 267.
Select Early Works of Augustine
On True Religion (390)
On Two Souls (391)
On Free Will (388-95)
On the Spirit and the Letter (412)
City of God, Books 1-10 (413f.)
On Nature and Grace (415)
On Man's Perfection in Righteousness (415)
On the Proceedings of Pelagius (417)
Select Later Works of Augustine
On the Correction of the Donatists* (417)
On the Grace of Christ (418)
On Original Sin (418)
Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (420)
Enchiridion (421)
City of God, Books 11-22 (up to 426)
On Grace and Free Will (426)
On Rebuke and Grace (426)
On Predestination of the Saints (428-29)
On the Gift of Perseverance (428-29)
♦This was the turning point, manifesting the later extreme “Calvinistic” view of Augustine.
The works of Augustine listed above are found in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids. Mich.: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1956).
170 CHOSEN BUT FREE

bv evil will alone, although they may have been unable to accom­
plish what they willed (Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans, 10.12).

Free will is the first cause of sin

Either then, will is itself the first cause of sin, or the first cause is
without sin (On Free Will, 3.49).

Free will is neutral

Free will, naturally assigned by the Creator to our rational soul,

is such a neutral power, as can either incline toward faith, or turn
toward unbelief (On the Spirit and the Letter, 58).

All evil is resistible

Because whoever has done anything evil by means of one uncon­

scious or unable to resist, the latter can by no means be justly con­
demned (On Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans. 10.12).

God wills all to be saved

(On the Spirit and the Letter, cf. Reply to Faustus 12.36).

God’s will can be resisted

This being die case, unbelievers indeed do contrary to the will of

God when they do not believe the gospel; nevertheless they do not
dterefore overcome His will, but rob their own selves of the great,
nay the very greatest, good, and implicate themselves in the pen­
alties of punishment (On the Spirit and the Letter, 58).

God gives the power of choice but not the acts of choice

As He is the Creator of all natures, so is He the giver of all pow­

ers—though He is not the maker of all choices. Evil choices are not
from Him, for they are contrary to the nature which is from Him
(City of God, 5.9). '

Even the gift of faith must be freely received

A man cannot be said to have even that will with which he be­
lieves in God, without having received it.. . but yet not so as to take
away from the free will, for the good or the evil use of which they
may be most righteously judged (On the Spirit and the Letter, 58).
THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM 171

If evil cannot be resisted, we are not responsible

Because whoever has done anything evil by means of one uncon­

scious or unable to resist, the latter can by no means be justly con­
demned (Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans, 10.12).

Responsibility implies ability to respond

Our conclusion is that our wills have power to do all that God
wanted them to do and foresaw they could do. Their power, such as it
is, is a real power. What they are to do they themselves will most
certainly do, because God foresaw both that they could do it and
that they would do it and His knowledge cannot be mistaken (City
of God, 5.9).

An unwilling act is compelled and a compelled act is not free

For every one also who does a thing unwillingly is compelled, and
every one who is compelled, if he does a thing, does it only unwillingly.
It follows that he that is willing is free from compulsion, even if any
one thinks himself compelled (Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans,
10.14).

We sin freely, not because God foresaw it

For, no one sins because God foreknew that he would sin. In fact,
the very reason why a man is undoubtedly responsible for his own sin,
when he sins, is because He whose foreknowledge cannot be de­
ceived foresaw, not the man’s fate or fortune or what not, but that
the man himself would be responsible for his own sin. No man sins
unless it is his choice to sin; and his choice not to sin, that, too, God
foresaw (City of God, 5.10).

God’s predetermination is in accordance with our free choice

The conclusion is that we are by no means under compulsion to

abandon free choice in favor of divine knowledge, nor need we deny—
God forbid!—that God knows the future, as a condition for holdingfree
choice (City of God, 5.10).

The will to believe comes from ourselves

If we believe that we may attain this grace (and of course believe

voluntarily), then the question arises, whence we have this will?—If
from nature, why is it not at everybody’s command, since tire same
172 CHOSEN BUT FREE

God made all men? If from God’s gift, then again, why is not the
gift open to all; since “He will have all men to be saved, and to
come unto die knowledge of the truth? .. .” God no doubt wishes
all men to be saved and to come into the knowledge of the truth; but yet
not so as to take away from them free will, for the good or the evil use
of which they may be most righteously judged (On the Spirit and the
Letter, 57.58).

Soul must consent in receiving gifts from God

For the soul cannot receive and possess these gifts, which are here
referred to, except by yielding its consent. And thus whatever it pos­
sesses, and whatever it receives is from God; and yet the act of re­
ceiving and having belongs, of course, to the receiver and posses­
sor (On the Spirit and the Letter, 60).

We must consent to God’s summons

To yield our consent, indeed, to God's summons, or to withhold it,

is (as I have said) the function of our will (ibid.).

THE EXTREME “CALVINISM” OF THE

LATER AUGUSTINE
Working from his belief that infants could be saved apart from
their free choice and that schismatic Donatists could be forced to be­
lieve against their free choice, Augustine drew out the logic of these
positions in his later extreme “Calvinistic” views.

We killed ourselves in the Fall but can’t bring ourselves back to life

For it was by the evil use of his free will that man destroyed both it
and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive
when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and
cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free will
sinned, then sin being victorious over him, die freedom of his will
was lost (Enchiridion, 30).

True freedom lost in the Fall

Take the case of die will. Its choice is truly free only when it is
not a slave to sin and vice. God created man such a free will, but once
that kind offreedom was lost by man’s fall from freedom, it could be
THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM 173

given back only by Him who had the power to give it (City of God,
14.11).

God creates a new heart in us

We should remember that He says, “Make you a new heart and

a new spirit, ” who also promises, “I will give you a new heart, and a
new spirit will I put within you. "How is it, then, that He who says,
“Make you,” also says, “I will give you”? Why does He command,
if He is to give? Why does He give if man is to make, except it be
that He gives what He commands when He helps him to obey whom
he commands? . . . (On Grace and Free Will, 31).

God makes us act by efficaciously exerting power on our will

Of the same Lord again it is said, “It is God who worketh in

you, even to will!” It is certain that it is we that act when we act;
but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our
will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to
observe my judgments, and to do them” (On Grace and Free Will,
32).

Faith is the gift of God

And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own
faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this
same apostle, who says in another place that he had “obtained
mercy of the Lord to be faithful,” here also adds: “and that not of
yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should
boast" (Enchiridion, 31).

Even our free choice is a gift of God

And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed of his
works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged to
him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward he
had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he
says: “For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of
His own good pleasure” (Enchiridion, 32).

Double-predestination

As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the
damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and
for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to
grace (Enchiridion, 100).
174 CHOSEN BUT FREE

God turns evil wills of men as He wills

Furdiermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God

cannot turn the evil wills of men—as he willeth, when he willeth, and
where he willeth—toward the good? But when he actedi, he acteth
through mercy; when he dodi not act, it is through justice (Enchi­
ridion, 98).

God does not have to show love to anyone

For then he perceives that the whole human race was condemned in
its rebellious head by a divine judgment so just, that if not a single
member of the race had been redeemed, no one could justly have ques­
tioned the justice of God- and that it was right that those who are
redeemed should be redeemed in such a wav as to show, by the
greater number who are unredeemed and left in their just con­
demnation, what the whole race deserved, and whither the de­
served judgment of God would lead even the redeemed, did not
His undeserved mercy interpose, so that every mouth might be stopped
of those who wish to glory in their own merits, and that he that glo-
rieth might glory in the Lord (Enchiridion, 99).

Compelling Donatists is acceptable

Wherefore, if the power which the Church has received by di­

tine appointment in its due season ... be the instrument by which
those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies
and schisms—are compelled to come in, then let them not find fault
with being compelled, but consider whether they be so compelled (Correc­
tions of the Donatists, 6.24).

Christ used violence on Paul

Where is what the Donatists were wont to cry: Man is at liberty to

believe or not believe? Towards whom did Christ use violence? Whom
did He compel? Here they have the Apostle Paul. Let them recognize in
his case Christ first compelling and afterwards teaching; first striking,
and afterwards consoling. For it is wonderful how he who entered
the service of die gospel in die first instance under the compulsion
of bodily punishment, afterwards labored more in the gospel dian
all they who were called by word only; and he who was compelled by
the greater influence of fear to love, displayed that perfect love
which casts out fear.
II7iy, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her
THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM 175

lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction?
(Correction of the Donatists, 6.22-23).

Jesus says to compel people into the kingdom

Whence also the Lord Himself bids the guests in the first instance
to be invited to His great supper; and afterwards compelled', for on His
servants making answer to Him, “Lord, it is done as Thou hast
commanded, and yet there is room,” He said to them, “Go out
into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in." In
those, therefore, who were first brought in with gentleness, the for­
mer obedience is fulfilled; but in those who were compelled, the diso­
bedience is avenged (Correction of the Donatists, 6.24).
Let compulsion be found outside, the will will arise within. Whom
thou shalt find wait not till they choose to come, compel them to
come in (Sermons on the New Testament: LXII, 8).

God’s grace is irresistible

Great indeed is the help of the grace of God, so that He turns our
heart in whatever direction He pleases. But according to this writer’s
foolish opinion, however great the help may be, we deserve it all
at the moment when, without any assistance beyond the liberty' of
our will, we hasten to the Lord, desire His guidance and direction,
suspend our own will entirely on His, and by close adherence to
Him become one spirit with Him. Now all these vast courses of
goodness we (according to him) accomplish, forsooth, simply by
the freedom of our own free will; and by reason of such antece­
dent merits we so secure His grace, that He turns our heart which
way soever He pleases (On the Grace of Christ, 24).

God makes the unwilling willing

We read in Holy Scripture, both that God’s mercy ‘shall meet

me,’ and that His mercy ‘shall follow me.’ It goes before the unwilling
to make him willing, it follows the willing to make his will effectual.
Wiy are we taught to pray for our enemies, who are plainly unwilling
to lead a holy life, unless that God may work willingness in them? And
why are we ourselves taught to ask that we may receive, unless that
He who has created in us the wish, may Himself satis!}’ the wish?
(Enchiridion, 32).

God’s initial grace operative without our free will

He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but

when we will, and so will that we may act, He cooperates with us. We
176 CHOSEN BUT FREE

can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety

without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when
we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: "It
is God which worketh in you, even to will. "While of His co-working
with us. when we will and act by willing, the apostle savs, “We know
that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love
God" (On Grace and Free Will, 33).

God creates a new heart in unbelievers

... We should remember that He says, ‘Make you a new heart

and a new spirit,' who also promises, 'I will give you a new heart,
and a new spirit will 1 put within you.' How is it. then, that He who
says, ‘Make you,’ also says, ‘I will give you"? Why does He com­
mand, if He is to give? 117iy does He give if man is to make, except it
be that He gives what He commands when He helps him to obey whom
he commands?... (On Grace and Free Will, 31).

Even the free action to accept salvation is given by God

And further, should any one be inclined to boast, not indeed

of his works, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit
belonged to him, this very liberty of good action being given to him as
a reward he had earned, let him listen to this same preacher of
grace, when he says: “For it is God which worketh in you, both to
will and to do of His own good pleasure" (Enchiridion, 32).

We cannot will good without God’s grace

Therefore, when die will turns from die good and does evil, it
does so by die freedom of its own choice, but when it turns from
evil and does good, it does so only with the help of God (City of God,
15.21).

“All men” in 1 Timothy 2:4-6 means only all whom He wills

Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture dial He "will

have all men to be saved,” aldiough we know well that all men are
not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence
of God, but are radier to understand die Scripture, “ Who will have
all men to be saved, ” as meaning that no man is saved unless God
wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does
not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will, and that,
dierefore, we should pray to Him to will our salvation, because if
THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM 177

He wills it, it must necessarily be accomplished (Enchiridion, 103;

cf. 97).
“ ‘He wills all men to be saved,’ is so said that all the predestined
may be understood by it, because every kind of man is among them"
(On Rebuke and Grace, 44).

Matthew 23:37 doesn’t mean God wants all to be saved

Our Lord says plainly, however, in rite Gospel, when upbraiding

die impious city: "How often wotdd I have gathered thy children
together; even as a hen gathered! her chickens under her wings,
and ye wotdd not! ” as if the will of God had been overcome by the will
of men. . . . But even though she was unwilling, He gathered together
as many of her children as He wished: for He does not will some things
and do them, and will others and do them not, but “He hath done all
dial He pleased in heaven and in earth” (Enchiridion, 97).

John 1:9 doesn’t mean God enlightens everyone

And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the

Gospel: “The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world;” not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that
no man is enlightened except by Him (Enchiridion, 103).

God can change evil wills whenever He wants

And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say

that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever; whenever; and
wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good ? But when He
does this, He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is ofjustice
that He does it not; for “He hath mercy on whom He will have
mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth” (Enchiridion, 98).

Note: It is interesting to observe that in spite of the hardened and co­

ercive nature of God’s acts on human beings affirmed in Augustine’s
later wirings, he still held to the belief that unsaved persons possessed
the power of free choice. For example: “It is He who when He fore­
knew that man would in his turn sin by abandoning God and breaking
His law, did not deprive him of the power offree will, because He at the
same rime foresaw what good He Himself would bring out of the
evil...” (City of God, 22.1). Of course, as extreme Calvinists argue, this
power is for all practical purposes inoperative in fallen man. So the
question is whether this freedom is genuine or merely circumstantial.
178 CHOSEN BUT FREE

In heaven we are not free to sin

The souls in bliss will still possess the freedom of will, though sin
will have no power to tempt them. They will be more free than ever—
so free, in fact, from all delight in sinning as to find, in not sinning,
an unfailing source of joy.... Freedom is that more potent freedom
which makes all sin impossible (City of God, 22.30).

CONTRASTING THE EARLY AND LATE AUGUSTINE

There are many contrasts between the early and late Augustine
that bear on the origin of extreme Calvinism. The essential ones can
be summarized as follows:
Early Augustine ________ Late Augustine_____
God Wills All to Be Saved God Wills Only Some to Be
Saved
God Never Compels Free Will God Compels Free Will
God Loves All God Loves Only Some
Faith Is Not a Special Gift to Faith Is a Special Gift to Some
Some
Fallen Men Can Receive Fallen Men Cannot Receive
Salvation by Their Free Choice Salvation by Their Free Choice

There are, of course, several problems with the later position of

Augustine. For one tiling, it involves, in practice, a denial of human
free choice. As Augustine himself stated earlier, “he that is willing is
free from compulsion...For in the final analysis, man has no choice
in his own salvation. As Jonathan Edwards held, "free choice” is doing
what we desire, but it is God who gives the desire. But since God only
gives the desire to some (not all), this leads to die dilemma of extreme
Calvinism: either God is not omnibenevolent or universalism is tenable.

THE PAINFUL DILEMMA OF EXTREME CALVINISM

Extreme Calvinists cannot hold all the following premises:
(1) God can do anything He wills, including save all He wills to
save.
’St. Augustine, Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans 10.14, quoted in Norman L. Geisler,
What Augustine Says (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1982), 158.
 THE ORIGINS OF EXTREME CALVINISM 179

(2) God wills only to save some persons (the elect), not all.
(3) God is all-loving, that is, He loves all persons.
Yet extreme Calvinists cannot and do not deny (1) or (2). There­
fore, they must deny that (3) God is all-loving. For if God were all­
loving, then He would do tvhat He could do, namely, save everyone.
Since, according to extreme Calvinists, He does not do that, then He
must not be all-loving.
The problem can be stated as follows:
(1) If God is all-powerful, then He could save all persons.
(2) If God is all-loving, then He would save all persons.
But according to extreme Calvinism:
(3) God is all-powerful;
(4) God will not save all persons.
(5) Therefore, God is not all-loving.
If an all-powerful God can save all, but He will not save all, then
God is not all-loving. For a God who is all-loving would save all, if He
could save all.

AVOIDING THE DILEMMA BY MODERATE

CALVINISM
Given the other premises, the only way to avoid this conclusion is
to say that (1) even an all-powerful God cannot do what is impossible,
and (2) it is impossible to force free creatures to act contrary to their
freedom. This is the moderate Calvinistic view.

EXTREME CALVINISTS’ MISUNDERSTANDING

OF AUGUSTINE
R. C. Sproul admits that “at times Augustine seems to deny all free­
dom to the will of fallen man. In the Enchiridion, for example, he
writes: ‘When man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victori­
ous over him, the freedom of his will was lost’ ” (chapter 30).4 Yet he
acknowledges that elsewhere Augustine said, “ ‘There is ... always
within us a free will—but it is not always good,’ ” for “ ‘it is either free
from righteousness when it serves sin—and then it is evil—or else it is
free from sin when it serves righteousness—and then it is good’ ” (On
Grace and Free Will, chapter 31).

'Sproul, Willing to Believe, 63.

180 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Brushing aside the view dial the later Augustine hardened his view
against free will, Sproul attempts to reconcile these by making a dis­
tinction between liberty’ and free will. He argues that the former is lost
in the Fall but the latter is not. “For Augustine die sinner is both free
and in bondage at the same time, but not in the same sense. He is free
to act according to his own desires, but his desires are only evil....
This corruption gready affects die will, but it does not destroy it as a
faculty of choosing.’’5
However, this explanation fails for several important reasons. First,
die early Augustine admitted free will of fallen humans in the sense of
the uncoerced ability to do otherwise (see appendix 4), which Augus­
tine later gave up. Second, Sproul’s explanation of freedom being re­
duced to desire does not work. For one thing, it makes God responsi­
ble for die free choice of Lucifer and Adam to sin. Also, it is a clear
case of double-speaking, for while it denies that God coerces free acts
on the one hand, on die other hand it is forced to admit that God
gives the desire to love him by regenerating them contrary to free
choice. Finally, the idea that God regenerates only some, when He
could regenerate all, destroys our belief in His omnibenevolence.
Thus, Sproul violates his own charge diat “any view of human will that
destroys the biblical new of human responsibility is seriously defec­
tive." And “any new of the human will that destroys the biblical new
of God’s character is even worse.’’6

‘Ibid.
‘Ibid., 29.
■
I
1 APPENDIX FOUR

Answering
Objections to
Free Will
DEFINITION OF FREE WILL
Much, if not most, of the problem in discussing “free trill” is that
the term is defined differendy by various persons in the dispute. As
explained in chapter 2, logically there are only three basic views: self­
determinism (self-caused actions), determinism (acts caused by an­
other), and indeterminism (acts with no cause whatsoever). Indeter­
minism is a violation of the law of causality that every event has a
cause, and determinism is a violation of free will, since the moral
agent is not causing his own actions.
There are, of course, several varieties of self-determinism. Some
contend that all moral acts must be free only from all external influ­
ence. Others insist they must be free from both external and internal
influence, that is, truly neutral. But they all have in common that,
whatever influence there may be on the will,1 the agent could have
’The Bible makes it evident that there are divine influences on the human will both before
and after conversion (Rom. 2:4; Phil. 2:13).

i
1S2 CHOSEN BUT FREE

done otherwise. That is, they could have chosen the opposite course
of action.

SOME PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTIONS

TO SELF-DETERMINISM
Moral and spiritual self-determination, the ability' to choose the op­
posite, has come under several criticisms. The first has to do with the
principle of causality.

Self-determinism violates the principle of causality’

The principle of causality holds that every event has an adequate
cause. If this is so, then it would seem that even the act of free choice
has a cause and so on back to God (or infinity). In any case, if the act
of free choice is caused by another, then it cannot be caused by one’s
self. Thus self-determination would be contrary to the principle of
causality that it embraces.

Response
There is a basic confusion in tliis objection. This confusion results
in part from an infelicitous expression of the self-determinism view.
Representatives of moral self-determinism sometimes speak of free will
as though it were the efficient cause of moral actions. This would lead
one naturally to ask: What is die cause of the act of free choice, and
so on? But a more precise description of die process of a free act
would avoid this problem. Technically, free will is not the efficient
cause of a free act; it is simply the power through which the agent
performs the free act. I (my Self) act by means of my will. The efficient
cause of a free act is really die free agent, not die free choice. Free
choice is simply the power by which the free agent acts. We do not say
that person is free choice but simply diat he has free choice. Likewise,
we do not say man is thought but only that he has the power of
thought. So it is not the power of free choice that causes a free act,
but the person who has this power.
Now, if the real cause of a free act is not an act but an actor, then
it makes no sense to ask for the cause of the actor as though it were
another act. The cause of a performance is die performer. Likewise, the
cause of a free act is not another free act, and so on. Rather, it is a free
agent. And once we have arrived at die free agent, it is meaningless to
ask what caused its free acts. For if something else caused its actions,
 ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO FREE WILL 183

then the agent is not the cause of them and thus is not responsible for
them. The free moral agent is the cause of free moral actions. And it
is as senseless to ask what caused the free agent to act as it is to ask:
Who made God? The answer is the same in both cases: Nothing can
cause the first cause because it is first. There is nothing before the
first. Likewise, a person is the first cause of his own moral actions. If
he were not the cause of his own free actions, then they would not be
his actions.
If it is insisted that a person cannot be the first cause of his moral
actions, then it is also impossible for God (who is also a Person) to be
the first cause of His moral actions. Tracing the cause of human ac­
tions back to God does not solve the problem of finding a cause for
every action. It simply pushes the problem back further. Sooner or
later those proposing this argument will have to admit that a free act
is a self-determined act that is not caused by another. Eventually it
must be acknowledged that all acts come from an actor, but that the
actor (i.e., free agent) is the first cause of his action, and who, there­
fore, has no prior cause of his actions.
The real question, then, is not whether there are agents who cause
their own actions but whether God is the only true Agent (i.e., Person)
in the universe. Christians have always denounced as a form of panthe­
ism the belief that there is ultimately only one Person (Agent) in the
universe. But a denial of human free agency is reducible to this
charge.

Self-determinism leads to uncaused events

It is objected that if we say that human actions are not caused, then
we have admitted that there are uncaused events in the universe! If so,
this would be a violation of the principle of causality'.

Response
This charge is based on a misunderstanding of the difference be­
tween uncaused and self-caused actions. The moral self-determinist
does not claim there are any uncaused moral actions. He, in fact, be­
lieves all moral actions are caused by moral agents. But unlike the
moral determinist who believes all human acts are caused by another
(e.g., by God), the self-determinist believes that ultimately there are
more selves (agents) than God who cause actions. Either way, the self-
determinist believes that there is a cause for every moral action and
184 CHOSEN BUT FREE

that die cause is a moral agent, whether it is God or some other moral
creature.

Self-determinism is contradictory
It is further objected that self-determined acts are a contradiction
in terms. For are not self-determined actions self-caused? And is it not
impossible to cause one's self?

Response
Here again there is a confusion of act and actor. It is true that no
actor (agent) can cause itself to exist, for a cause is ontologically prior
to its effect. And one cannot be prior to himself; therefore, a self­
caused being (actor) is impossible. However, a self-caused action is not
impossible, since the actor (cause) must be prior to its action (effect).
So self-caused being is impossible, but self-caused becoming is not. We
determine what we will become morally. But God determines what we
are ontologically (i.e., in our being). So while man cannot cause his
own being, he can cause his own moral behavior.
Perhaps some of the confusion could be cleared away if we did not
speak of self-determinism as though one were determining his Self. For
moral self-determinism does not refer to the determination of one’s
Self but determination by one’s self. So it would be more proper not
to speak of a self-caused action but of an action caused by one’s Self Yet
even without this distinction, there is a significant difference between
a self-caused being and a self-caused action. The former is clearly im­
possible but the latter is not. For a being cannot be prior to itself, but
an actor must be prior to his action.

Self-determined actions are contrary to God’s foreknowledge

Traditional theists, both Calvinists and Arminians, hold that God
knows infallibly all that will come to pass. But how can this be, if there
are free creatures? It is not difficult to understand how God can bring
about a necessary end through necessary means (such as determining
in advance that the last domino in a falling series will drop, too). But
how can God bring about a necessary end through contingent means
(such as free choice)?

Response
The answer lies in the fact that God knows—for sure—(infallibly)
precisely how everyone will use his freedom. So, from the vantage
ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO FREE WILL its

point of His omniscience, the act is totally determined. Yet from the
standpoint of our freedom it is not determined. God knows for sure
what we will freely do. Both Augustine (see City of God, 5.9) and Aqui­
nas (Summa Theologica, la, 14, 4) answered this way. This is not to
deny that God uses persuasive means to convince us to choose in the
way that He desires. It is only to deny that God ever uses coercive means
to do so.

Self-determinism is contrary to God’s grace

The Bible teaches that all the regenerate (justified) will ultimately
be saved (see chapter 7). None shall perish (John 10:26-30) or ever
be separated from Christ (Rom. 8:36-39). Indeed, all believers are in
Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:4) and are part of His body (1 Cor. 12:13).
Hence, if any were severed from Christ, then part of Christ would have
to be severed from Himself! Man can be faithless to God, but God
cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). Salvation is not dependent on
man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation was not
gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore, it cannot be
lost by it. Salvation is totally of grace, not of works, lest anyone should
boast (Eph. 2:8-9).

Response
If salvation is conditioned wholly on God’s grace and not on man’s
will, then how can man’s free choice play any part in his salvation? The
answer to this question is found in an important distinction between
two senses of the word “condition.” There are no conditions for God's
giving of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But there is one (and only
one) condition for receiving this gift—true saving faith.
There is absolutely nothing in man that is the basis for God sating
him. But there was something in God (love) that is the basis for man’s
salvation. It was not because of any merit in man but only because of
grace in God that salvation was initiated toward man. Man does not
initiate salvation (Rom. 3:11), and he cannot attain it (Rom. 4:5). But
he can and must receive it (John 1:12). Salvation is an unconditional
act of God’s election. Man’s faith is not a condition for God giving
salvation, but it is for man receiving it. Nonetheless, the act of faith
(free choice) by which man receives salvation is not meritorious. It is
the Giver who gets credit for the gift, not the receiver.
Why, then, does one person go to heaven and another not? Be­
cause God willed that all who receive His grace will be saved and that
1SG CHOSEN BUT FREE

all who reject it will be lost. And since God knew infallibly just who this
would be, botlt the elect and non-elect were determined from all eter­
nity. And this determination was not based on anything in man, in­
cluding their free choice. Rather, it was determined on God’s choice
to save all who would accept His unconditional grace.

THE DEGREE OF INFLUENCE ALLOWED

The degree of influence self-determinists acknowledge as lo free

actions will vary according to their accepted degree of “Calvinism” or
“Arminianism.” The maximum allowable for a self-determinist is high
persuasion short of coercion. The minimum is zero. The scale of “per­
suasion allowed” ranges as follows:

• No influence allowed—Pelagian (no grace needed)

o Some influence allowed—Semi-Pelagianism (some grace needed)
• Much influence allowed—Arminianism (much grace needed)
0 Great influence allowed—Moderate Calvinism (great grace
needed; irresistible grace on the willing allowed)
• Overwhelming influence allowed—Extreme Calvinism (irresistible
grace on the unwilling needed)

Some illustrations of acceptable and unacceptable influence will

help make the point. If one decides to sit on his front porch where he
can view the mountains, and hornets come and chase him inside, this
last was not a truly free choice. He was coerced into doing it. If one
proposes to a lover and is turned down, yet continues to court and
woo her, this is compatible with free choice. However, if he attempts
to force her to love him against her will, this is not love. If one is of­
fered a dangerous job for S40,000 a vear and turns it down, yet later
accepts the same job for S80.000 a year, this is acceptable influence.
What about an “offer that is too good to refuse”? Is this compati­
ble with a self-determinist’s view of free will? Say that one is offered
S100 million a year for doing a job he hates. Is this not too good to
refuse, and would not the acceptance of such an offer be a violation
of self-determinism? The answer is no, since there is no coercion in­
volved. He could have turned it down. Take as an example a wife who
lives such a pure life that she would not even consider being unfaithful
to her husband for SI 00 million or more. The fact that an attractive
male offers her SI00 million to commit adultery with him is in no way
ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO FREE WILL 187

coercive. The faithful wife may be highly tempted, but she still has the
power to say NO.
No matter how tempting or how persuasive an overture may be, as
long as it is not coercive of the will, the act is still free. Again, just how
much influence, both of sin and grace, is appropriate will have to be
settled by other doctrines, particularly, how depraved human beings
are. But no matter what the influence, either for evil or good, a self-
determinist’s shew of free will demands that the act is not coerced,
whether externally or internally. This is in accord with what both good
reason and a proper understanding of Scripture teach (see chapters 2,
3, and 6, and appendices 1 and 9).
 APPENDIX FIVE

Is Faith a Gift Only

to the Elect?
Along with the other elements of tlte extreme Calvinists’ T-U-L-I-P
(see chapters 4 and 5) is the belief that faith is a gift of God given only
to a select group of people (die elect). The famous Calvinistic Canons
of Dort (1619; see appendix 8) uses Ephesians 2:8-9 to prove this
point. Louis Bcrkof declared that "the seed of faith is implanted in
man in regeneration.”1
The belief dial faith is a special gift of God fits with the extreme
Calvinist understanding of total depravity and the need for regenera­
tion prior to faith (see appendix 10). A dead person cannot believe,
they insist; he must first be made alive by God and given the faith to
believe.2 Objections against this view have already been set fordi (see
'Louis Bcrkof, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Ecrdmans Publish­
ing Co., 1977), 503.
-Commenting on John 6:44, Calvin himself said, “Faith does not depend on the will of men,
but that it is God who gives it." He adds, "He [Paul] does not say that the power of choos­
ing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we have afterwards to make our own choice....”
But "he says that we are God’s work, and that everything good in us is His creation....
Whoever, then, makes the very smallest claim for man, apart from the grace of God, allows
him to that extent ability to procure salvation" (Calvin, “Comments on Ephesians 2:10” in
Calvin’s Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker, and eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance
[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Ecrdmans Publishing Co., 1979]). Calvin seems to confuse
the source of salvation, which is absolutely God, and the receiver of salvation, who is man. Of
course, we cannot do anything to “procure” our own salvation, but we can receive it as a
gift from God, namely, we can believe (cf. John 1:12; 3:16). And believing is not a work in
any meritorious sense of die word.
 IS FAITH A GIFT ONLY TO THE ELECT? 189

chapter 4). It remains here to show that verses used by extreme Calvin­
ists to support their contentions are misinterpreted.3

SAVING FAITH IS NOT A SPECIAL GIFT OF GOD

TO THE ELECT

Ephesians 2:8-9
‘‘For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one
can boast.” Extreme Calvinists often take the “it” here to refer to
"faith,” mentioned just before this. Indeed, this reference was used by
the Calvinistic Synod of Dort (see appendix 8) to prove this very point
Zealous defenders of extreme Calvinism are so confident that this is
what the text means that they triumphandy conclude: “This passage
should seal the matter forever. The faith by which we are saved is a gift
of God.”4

Response
But even John Calvin said of this text that “he does not mean that
faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that
we obtain it by the gift of God.”5 In addition, however plausible this
interpretation may seem in English, it is very clear from the Greek that
Ephesians 2:8-9 is not referring to faith as a gift from God. For the
“that" (touto) is neuter in form and cannot refer to “faith” (pistis),
which is feminine. The antecedent of “it is the gift of God” is the
salvation by grace through faith (v. 9). Commenting on this passage,
the great New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson noted:
“ ‘Grace’ is God’s part, ‘faith’ ours. And that [it] (kai touto) is neuter,
not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis [faith] or to chans
[grace] (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace condi­
tioned on faith on our part.”6
While some have argued that a pronoun may agree in sense, but
not in form, with its antecedent, this view is refuted by Gregory Sa-
paugh, who notes that “if Paul wanted to refer to pistis (‘faith’), he
’Fora brief but solid discussion of this topic, see Roy Aldrich, “The Gift of God," Bibliotheca
Sacra (July-September 1965): 248-53.
4See Sproul, Chosen by God, 119.
’See Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 11, 145, emphasis mine.
6See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930;
reprint, New York: R. R. Smith, Inc., 1931), 4:525.
190 CHOSEN BUT FREE

could have written the feminine taute, instead of the neuter, touto, and
his meaning would have been clear.’’ But he did not. Rather, by the
“that” (touto) Paul refers to the whole process of “salvation by grace
through faith.” Sapaugh notes that “this position is further supported
by the parallelism between ouk hymon (‘and this not of yourselves’) in
2:8 and ouk ex ergon (‘not of works’) in 2:9. The latter phrase would
not be meaningful if it referred to pisteos (‘faith’). Instead, it clearly
means salvation is ‘not of works.’ ”7
Philippians 1:29
“For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to
believe on him, but also to suffer for him. . .This is taken to mean
that faith is a gift of God to certain persons, namely, the ones who are
elect.
Response
There are several indications here that Paul had no such thing in
mind. First, the point is simply that God has not only provided us with
the opportunit}’ to trust Him but also to suffer for Him. The word
“granted” (Greek: echaristhe) means "grace” or “favor.” That is, both
the opportunit)’ to suffer for Him and to believe on Him are favors
with which God has graced us. Further, Paul is not speaking here of
initial faith that brings salvation but of the daily faith and daily suffer­
ing of someone who is already Christian. Finally, it is noteworthy that
both the suffering and the believing are presented as things that we
are to do. He says it is granted for “you” to do this. It was not some­
thing God did for diem. Bodi were simply an opportunity God gave
diem to use “on the behalf of Christ” by their free choice.
Philippians 3:8-9
Paul prayed: “That I may gain Christ and be found in him, not
haring a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that
which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from
God and is by faith."
Response
Here it is not faith that comes from God but “righteousness.” And
the righteousness from God comes to us “by faith,” namely, by the
exercise of our faith.
7Sec Gregory Sapaugh, "Is Faith a Gift? A Study of Ephesians 2:8,” Journal of lhe Grace Evan­
gelical Society 7, no. 12 (Spring 1994): 39-40.
 IS FAITH A GIFT ONLY TO THE ELECT? 191

1 Corinthians 4:7
“What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive
it, why do you boast as though you did not?” The strong Calvinist in­
sists that if everything we receive is from God, then so is faith.
Response
It should be noted first that the apostle makes no application of
this verse to the faith that receives God’s gift of salvation. Rather, he is
referring to gifts given to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-11), which should
be exercised in humility. There is no thought here of giving faith to
unbelievers so that they can be saved. In addition, even if faith for
unbelievers had been envisioned here, there is no affirmation that
God gives it only to some. What is more, even if faith were a gift, it is
something we must “receive” or reject. It is not something forced on
us. Finally, the uniform presentation of Scripture is that faith is some­
thing unbelievers are to exercise to receive salvation (e.g.,John 3:16,
18, 36; Acts 16:31), and not something they must wait upon God to
give them.
1 Corinthians 7:25
“I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord
to be faithful” (kjv). St. Augustine used this verse {Enchiridion, 31) to
support his belief that faith is a gift of God prior to regeneration.
Response
In actual fact this verse is not speaking about unsaved persons (the
elect) receiving faith unto salvation but of believers receiving mercy
from God that enables them to be faithful. Yet it is only by a prior act
of our faith that we become believers in the first place (John 1:12;
Eph. 2:8-9). In fact, this verse is speaking about believing virgins hav­
ing the grace to remain faithful sexually. The quote begins: “Now con­
cerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord.” The niv cap­
tures the meaning: “Now about virgins: I have no command from the
Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mere}' is trust­
worthy.”
1 Corinthians 12:8-9
“To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to
another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to
another faith by the same Spirit. ...” It is evident that faith is spoken
of here as a gift of God.
 CHOSEN BUT FREE
1
192

Response
To be sure, faidi is referred to here as a gift from God. However,
Paul is not talking about faidi given to unbelievers by which they can
be saved. Radier. it is speaking of a special gift of faith given to some
believers by which they can serve (cf. w. 5, 12). One can plainly see the
difference by looking at the context.

Acts 5:31
“ ‘God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that
he might give repentance mA forgiveness of sins to Israel.' ” This is sup­
posed to support the extreme Calvinists’ contention that repentance
is a gift only to the elect. Second Timothy 2:25 adds that we “must
gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading
diem to a knowledge of die truth" (cf. Acts 11:18).

Response
First of all, die contention is that according to these verses repent­
ance is a gift in the same sense diat forgiveness is a gift, since they are
tied togedier. If diis is so, then all Israel must have been saved, since
both were given “to Israel." But only a remnant of Israel will be saved
(Rom. 9:27), not all. The same clarification is true of Acts 11:18, which
says, “ ‘God has granted even die Gentiles repentance unto life.’ ”
This clearly does not mean that all Gentiles will be saved but that all
have the opportunity to be saved. Likewise, it means that all have die
God-given opportunity to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).
Second, the opportunity to repent is a gift of God. He graciously
allows us the opportunity to turn from our sins, but we must do the
repenting. God is not going to repent for us. Repentance is an act of
our will supported and encouraged by His grace.
Further, if repentance is a gift, then it is a gift in the same sense
that forgiveness is a gift. But forgiveness w’as obtained by Jesus on the
Cross for “everyone who believes” (Acts 13:38-39), not just for the
elect (see chapters 4 and 5). Hence, by the same logic, all men must
have been given sating faith—a conclusion emphatically rejected by
extreme Calvinists.

John 6:44-45
“ ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets:
 IS FAITH A GIFT ONLY TO THE ELECT? 193

“They will all be taught by God.” Everyone who listens to the Father
and learns from him comes to me.’ ”

Response
It should be observed that it does not say here that faith is a gift of
God. It merely says that they were “taught” by God. The method of
obtaining faith is not mentioned. The Bible says elsewhere that “faith
comes by hearing, and hearing by the tvord of God” (Rom. 10:17
nkjv). Faith grows in the heart of the one who “receives it [the Word]
with joy” (Matt. 13:20).

Acts 16:14
“One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in
purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God.
The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” Acts 18:27 adds
that salvation is “to those who by grace had believed.” Without this gra­
cious work of God, no one would believe and be saved.

Response
Moderate Calvinists do not deny that God moves upon the hearts
of unbelievers to persuade and prompt them to exercise faith in
Christ. They only deny that God does this coercively by irresistible
grace (see chapters 4 and 5) and that He only does it on some persons
(the elect). The Holy Spirit is convicting “the world [all men, not just
some; cf. John 3:16-18; 1 John 2:15-17] of sin, righteousness, and
judgment” (John 16:8). And God does not force anyone to believe in
Him (Matt. 23:37).

Romans 10:17
“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the
message is heard through the word of Christ.” Here it would appear
that faith is produced in a person by the Word of God; the Word of
God is prior to faith, not the reverse.

Response
First of all, there is no reference here to faith as a gift. That is an
assumption that has to be read into the text. Second, the order of
events is sending, preaching, hearing the Word of God, believing, call­
ing on (Rom. 10:14-15). But it does not affirm that in every case the
prior is the cause of the latter. For not everyone who is sent goes. And
194 CHOSEN BUT FREE

not everyone who hears the Word of God believes to salvation (cf.
Matt. 13:19). Again, consider Acts 16:14: It is true that God opened
Lydia’s heart to believe, but (1) she did the believing, and (2) God
didn’t open her heart against her will. Finally, whatever role the Word
of God has in prompting sating faith, the faith must come from us,
for the context says faidt is something we are called upon to do. Paul
says, “If you ... believe in your heart that God raised him [Christ]
from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). For “it is with your
heart that you believe... and are saved” (10:10).

Romans 12:3
“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think
of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself
witli sober judgment, in accordance with the measure offaith God has
given you.”

Response
Paul is speaking to believers (1:7; 12:1-2), not to or about unbe­
lievers. This is not the faith that unbelievers exercise for salvation
(Acts 16:31); it is a special gift of faith given to some believers. Paul
lists it among die gifts of die Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12.

1 Peter 1:21
“ Through him you believe in God. who raised him [Christ] from the
dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.”
Response
The phrase “through Him you believe” does not necessarily mean
that faith is a gift of God. It simply means that apart from Christ we
would never have come to believe. As A. T. Robertson renders it,
“Who through him are believers in God.”8 Ellicott comments, “It is in
diat same God diat you have been led thereby to believe.”9 There is no
affirmation here, or anywhere else in die Bible, that God gives faith
unto salvation only to a select few.

2 Peter 1:1
“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who
through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have
received a faith as precious as ours.”

'■Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. VI, 91.

’See Charles John Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. VIII (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1954), 397, emphasis mine.
IS FAITII A GIFT ONLY TO THE ELECT? 19S

Response
Peter claims only that they have “received” or “obtained” (nkjv)
their faith, but does not inform us as to exactly how they got it. It
certainly does not say they got it apart from their free choice. Nor does
it affirm that God desires only some to have it. Indeed, Peter later
declares that God desires all to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9). Finally, it may not
refer to their own personal faith but to the Christian faith (cf. 5:9).

1 Thessalonians 1:4-6
“For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, be­
cause our gospel came to you not simply with tvords, but also with power,
with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.... You became imitators
of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the
message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.”

Response
It should be plain to anyone who examines this text that it says
nothing about faith being a gift of God only to the elect. For starters,
neither “faith” nor “gift” is present in the text. Further, the gospel is
“the power of God to those who believe” (Rom. 1:16). Or, as the text
here points out, it is God’s power to those who "welcomed” it. Finally,
here again it is faith that precedes salvation, not salvation preceding
faith.

TWO IMPORTANT POINTS

Even if it could be demonstrated from Scripture—and none of
these texts do this—that faith for salvation is a gift of God, there are
still some crucial problems with the extreme Calvinists’ view on the
matter.
First, salvation involves “gifts” that must be received or rejected.10
John wrote, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not
receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his
,0Conirary to popular belief, Arminius was so “Calvinistic" that he held that grace is abso­
lutely necessary for bestowing salvation; nonetheless, an act of free will is necessary for
receiving it. He wrote, “ ‘What then,’ you ask, ‘docs Free Will do?’ I reply with brent}’, ‘It
saves.’ Take away Free Will, and nothing will be left to be saved: Take away Grace, and
nothing will be left as the source of salvation.... No one, except God, is able to bestow
salvation; and nothing, except Free Will, is capable of receiving it" (The Works ofJames
Arminius: The London Edition, 2.196, 11; reprint, The Writings ofJames Arminius, trans.
James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. 19561).
 1
196 CHOSEN BUT FREE

name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:11-12)."

Second, if faidi is a gift from God, then it is offered to all men, not
only some. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
Son ...” (John 3:16). Christ "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and
not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2).
God is not willing that an}' should perish but that all should repent
(2 Peter 3:9). Numerous other passages affirm that Christ’s atonement
is unlimited in its extent (see appendix 6).

SAVING FAITH IS SOMETHING ALL CAN EXERCISE

Nowhere does the Bible teach that saving faith is a special gift of
God only to a select few. Further, everywhere the Bible assumes that
anyone who wills to be saved can exercise saving faith.1" Every passage
where the Scriptures call upon unbelievers to believe or repent to be
saved implies this truth. A few familiar passages will suffice to make
the point:
Luke 13:3—“ ‘But unless you repent, you too will all perish.’ ”
John 3:16—“ ‘For God so loved die world that he gave his one and
only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
life.’ ”
John 3:18—“ ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but who­
ever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not
believed in die name of God’s one and only Son.’ ”
John 6:29— “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘This is the work
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent’ ” (kjv).13
John 11:40—“ ‘Did I not tell vou diat if you believed, you would see
die glory of God?’ ”
John 12:36—“ ‘Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that
you may become sons of light’ ”
“Sproul succinctly describes extreme Calvinism by contrast: “To receive the gift of faith,
according to Calvinism, the sinner also must stretch out his hand. But he does so only
because God has so changed the disposition of his heart that he will most certainly stretch
out his hand. By the irresistible work of grace, he will do nothing else except stretch out
his hand’’ (Sproul, Willing to Believe, 133-34). But “irresistible” means this condition is
forced upon him, and we have seen that forced freedom is a contradiction in terms.
‘^Contrary to insistence of the extreme Calvinists (see Sproul, Willing to Believe, 99), this is
not merely a “possible” inference but a natural and reasonable one. For it would be unrea­
sonable to condemn someone for not doing something it was impossible for him to do
cither by himself or with God’s help.
’’“Believing” is not actually a work. Jesus uses the word “work” of faith in an ironic sense to
respond to the Jews’ preceding question, “What shall we do, that we might work the works
of God?”
IS FAITH A GIFT ONLY TO THE F.LECT? 197

Acts 16:31—“ 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—
you and your household.’ ”
Acts 17:30—“‘In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but
now he commands all people everywhere to repent.' ”
Acts 20:21—“ ‘I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they
must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.’ ”
Hebrews 11:6—“And without faith it is impossible to please God,
because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that
he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” There are numerous other
Scriptures that affirm the same truth (cf. Rom. 3:22; 4:11, 24; 10:9, 14;
1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:22; Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:7; 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:16).
Finally, the Bible describes faith as ours and not God’s. It speaks of
“your faith” (Luke 7:50), “his faith” (Rom. 4:5), and “their faith”
(Matt. 9:2), but never of “God’sfaith.”

EXERCISING FAITH IS NOT A

MERITORIOUS WORK

The dispute here is not over whether or not salvation is based on

works. All orthodox Protestants believe that salvation is not based on
works. The question is whether an act of “faith" on man’s part consti­
tutes a meritorious work. A negative answer to this is supported by
both Scripture and good reason.
First of all, faith is clearly contrasted and opposed to works in the
Bible. The Bible constantly places faith in opposition to works, as is
evident in the passages just cited and many more (cf., e.g., Rom. 3:26-
27; Gal. 3:11). Romans 4:4 affirms that “when a man works, his wages
are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.” It is either faith
or works, but not both. Thus, the faith exercised to receive the gift of
salvation is not a work. It is the admission that we cannot work for it
but must accept it by pure grace.
Furthermore, the act of receiving a gift by faith is not any more
meritorious than is that of a beggar receiving a handout. It is a strange
logic that asserts that the receiver gets credit for receiving a gift rather
than the giver who gives it! The act of faith in receiving God’s uncon­
ditional gift accrues no merit to the receiver. Rather, all praise and
glory goes to the Giver of “every good and perfect gift” (James 1:17).
198 CHOSEN BUT FREE

CAN FAITH NONETHELESS BE CONSIDERED

A WORK?
J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnson charge that Reformed Theology
condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome “be­
cause in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work... .”14 R. C.
Sproul seems to agree, adding, “The Arminian acknowledges that
faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious
one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a
person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation.”
Thus, “the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that
ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has
performed. He has ‘in effect’ merited the merit of Christ, which dif­
fers only slightly from the view of Rome.”15
This reasoning, however, involves an equivocation on the word
“do.” Faith is something we “do” in the sense that it involves an act of
our will prompted by God’s grace. However, faith is not something we
“do” in the sense of a meritorious work necessary for God to give us
salvation. Rather, it is something we exercise to receive salvation be­
cause we could not do anything to obtain salvation.
J. Gresham Machen, himself a strong Calvinist, emphatically de­
nied that faith is a kind of good work: “The faith of man, righdy con­
ceived, can never stand in opposition to the completeness widt which
salvation depends upon God: it can never mean that man does part
while God merely does tire rest; for the simple reason that faith con­
sists not in doing something but in rectyvtngsomething.”16

RECEIVING A GIFT IS NOT MERITORIOUS

Arminius asked these poignant questions: “A rich man bestows, on
a poor and famished beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain
himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the
beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety,
that ‘the alms depend partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly
on the liberty of the Receiver, though the latter w'ould not have
UJ. I. Packer and O. R. Johnson, “Historical and Theological Introduction,” in Martin
Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. Henry Cole (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1976), 59.
*5Sproul, Chosen by God, 25-26.
,GJ. Gresham Machen, cited in J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958), 172.
IS FAITH A GIFT ONLY TO THE ELECT? 199

possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his

hand?’ ” He continued: “If these assertions cannot be truly made
about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made
about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of
Divine Grace are required!”17

I7Arminius, Works, 2.52, article 27.

 APPENDIX SIX

Bibilical Support for

Unlimited
Atonement
VERSES THAT TEACH UNLIMITED ATONEMENT
Not only are there no verses that, properly understood, support
limited atonement (see chapter 5), but there are numerous verses that
teach unlimited atonement, that is, that Christ died for the sins of all
mankind. Extreme Calvinists have not offered any satisfactory inter­
pretations of these texts that support unlimited atonement.

CHRIST IS THE ATONING SACRIFICE FOR THE

WHOLE WORLD

The plain meaning of John 1:29

“The next dayjohn sawJesus coming towards him and said, ‘Look,
the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world'.' " In light of the
context and other uses of the word world in John’s gospel, it is evident
that the word world here does not mean “the church” or “the elect”
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 201

but all fallen human beings. The apostle records later that “ ‘God so
loved the world that He gave His one and only son’ ” (John 3:16).
What is meant by the word world is clarified only three verses later:
“ ‘This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved
darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.’ ” This is clearly
the whole fallen world, as is John 16:8: “When he [the Holy Spirit]
comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteous­
ness and judgment.”

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

In light of John’s explicit use of the word world in salvation pas­
sages to mean all fallen human beings, it is painful to watch the con­
torted logic of extreme Calvinists in response, claiming “that often the
Bible uses the words world and all in a restricted, limited sense,” add­
ing “it is clear that all is not alL"' Then, in support they cite passages
(like Luke 2:1-2) from another book, in another context, used in a
geographical (not a redemptive) sense in a futile attempt to prove
their point.-’ If “all” does not mean “all” fallen human beings, then
what does it mean in Romans 3:23: "All have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God”? (kjv). Does it mean that only the elect have
sinned?

The plain meaning of John 3:16-17

“ ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
tvhoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God
did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save
the world through him.’ ”
The clear statement is that God loves the “world,” and the clear
implication is that Christ was given to die for the world (cf. v. 14).
What is more, verse 17 makes it unmistakably clear that “world” here
means the whole fallen world, for it is the same world that is under
His condemnation (w. 17-18).

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

Arguably, the best defense of extreme Calvinism on limited atone­
ment comes from John Owen. His response to this passage is a

'Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 52.

•The attempt to show texts used in a redemptive context where “all” means "only the elect"
have failed. See comments on page 203 on 2 Corinthians 5:14-19 and elsewhere
(chapter 4) on 1 Corinthians 15:22.
202 CHOSEN BUT FREE

shocking retranslation to: “God so loved his elect throughout the

world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by’ him believers
might be saved”!3 This needs no response, simply a sober reminder
that God repeatedly exhorts us not to add to or subtract from His
words (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19).

The plain meaning of John 12:47

“ ‘For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world" ”
(nasb). It is evident that the word world stated in the first part of the
verse and in the last part is the same universal fallen, sinful world that
will be judged in “the last day” (v. 48).

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

As elsewhere, extreme Calvinists claim die world is used here in a
limited sense, meaning part of the world, namely, the elect. They point
to John 12:19 as an illustration of the limited use of die word world:
“The Pharisees said to one another. ‘See, this is getting us nowhere.
Look how the whole world has gone after him!’ ”
But this is a false comparison for several reasons. First, the word is
used geographically in John 12:19. not generically. Second, this is not
giving the words ofJesus but diose of die Pharisees.4 Finally, the state­
ment of the Pharisees is obviously an exaggeration or hyperbole. Yet
even die extreme Calvinists admit that this is not true of John 12:47,
where it is Jesus’ statement, and it refers to the whole fallen world
generically.5

The plain meaning of 1 John 2:2

John writes clearly, “He [Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our
sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." This
seems so evident that were it not for the skewed claim of extreme Cal­
vinists, no comment would be needed.

’John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1995), 214.
•Likewise, it was not Jesus but His unbelieving brothers who used the word world in an ex­
aggerated sense when they said, “ ‘No one who wants to become a public figure acts in
secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world’ ” John 7:4). Here, the
phrase "show yourself to the world” is used as a figure of speech meaning to do in “public”
and not in “secret," to use the very words of the text.
sPaul used the word world geographically in Romans 1:8 and in a limited sense in Colossians
1:5-6 (cf. v. 23), but no extreme Calvinist would admit that Paul does not use it generically
of the condemnation of the whole human race in Romans 3:19. Why then should they deny
it is used in an unlimited sense when referring to providing salvation for the world?
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 203

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

The unsupported claim of extreme Calvinists is that “world" here
refers to “Christian world,” namely, to the elect. The later St. Augus­
tine (see appendix 3) said John here “means ‘of the world,’ all the
faithful scattered throughout the whole earth.”G This is such an obvi­
ous case of eisegesis (reading into the text) that it does not deserve an
extensive treatment. One needs only to make a study of the generic"
use of the word world (cosmos) in John’s writings to confirm that he
speaks here of the fallen, sinful world (cf.John 1:10-11; 3:19). In fact,
John defines his use of the term “world” only a few verses later. In the
same chapter, he claims Christ’s death is a satisfaction for the sins of
the “whole world.” He says, “Do not love the world or anything in the
world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his
eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father
but from the world” (2:15-16). This is clearly a description of the
whole fallen, sinful world that includes the non-elect—for whom
Christ died (v. 2). Later he adds, "We know that we are children of
God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one”
(1 John 5:19). By no stretch of the imagination does this refer only to
the elect (if indeed to them at all)!

CHRIST “BOUGHT” EVEN APOSTATES

BY HIS BLOOD

The plain meaning of 2 Peter 2:1

Peter speaks of Christ purchasing the redemption of even those
who are apostate. Since Calvinists believe those who are saved will
never lose their salvation, and since this passage speaks clearly of lost
persons, then when it affirms Christ “bought” these lost souls, it means
the atonement is not limited to the elect. In Peter’s own words, “But
there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will
be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive

6St. Augustine, Epistle ofJohn: Homily V, 9, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Xicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. VII, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 491.
’Extreme Calvinists attempt in vain to avoid this conclusion by pointing to the limited geo­
graphical uses of words like “world” (“all" [Rom. 1:8] or "every nation" [Acts 2:5]). But
this misses the point that die generic use of these terms is truly universal (cf. Rom. 3:19,23;
5:12).
204 CHOSEN BUT FREE

heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing

swift destruction on themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). The terms used to
describe these people leave little doubt that they are lost souls. They
are called “false prophets,” “false teachers,” those “denying the
Lord" (v. 1), who are themselves “destructive” (v. 2 NKJV), and bring­
ing “judgment” (v. 3). What is more, they are compared to fallen and
unredeemable angels who were cast “into hell” (v. 4), the “wicked”
(v. 7 nkjv), the “unjust” (v. 9 kjv), “natural brute beasts” (v. 12 kjv),
a “dog" (v. 22), and “slaves of corruption” (v. 19 nkjv)—none of
which are descriptions of the elect in Scripture. What is more, for
diem “is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" (v. 17). It is these
apostate, reprobate, non-elects that Christ “bought" with His own
precious blood (cf. 1 Peter 1:19).

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

Commenting on this text, John Owen skillfully but futilely attempts
to shift the burden of proof onto those who claim that “sovereign
Lord” really refers to Christ, or dial “bought" refers to His redemp­
tion for us.8 As to the first point, (1) he admits that the word Lord
(Greek: despoten) is used elsewhere of Christ, as indeed it is. As a mat­
ter of fact, other than the few times it is used of earthly masters (cf. 1
Tim. 6:1-2; Titus 2:9: 1 Peter 2:18), as is the Greek word kurios (Lord),
all other references to despoten are of Christ or God the Father (cf.
Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim. 2:21: Jude 4: Rev. 6:10). In point of fact,
in the parallel book (ofJude) on the same topic the reference is made
clear: “For certain men whose condemnation was written about long
ago have secretly slipped in among vou. They are godless men, who
change die grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny
Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord {despoten)" (Jude 1:4). At
least two things are evident: (a) Jude is speaking of Christ, and (b) it
is in a redempuve context, not simply of an early deliverance from die
corruption of idolatry, as Owen suggests. For Jude refers to “salvation”
and God’s “grace” (w. 3-4). (2) Owen acknowledges that the term is
used of God, which amounts to the same thing, since even the Bible
speaks of God's blood (Acts 20:28).9 And even if it did not, since Christ
is God, His blood is die blood of God in the same sense that Mary is

’’Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 250-56.

’The NIV renders Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy
Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his
own blood.”
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 205

the Mother of God (cf. Luke 1:43), namely, it is the blood of the Per­
son (Christ), who is God. And Mary was the human mother of the
Person (Christ), who is God.
As to the second point, there are good indications that the word
bought (agorazo) refers to Christ’s redemptive work: (1) Otherwise,
why should they be lost unless they denied Christ’s redemptive work
for them? (2) Other than buying tangible things (cf. Matt. 13:44;
21:12), this word bought (agorazo) is almost always used redemptively
in the New Testament, and never of redeeming someone socially from
the corruption and pollution of idolatry. For example, Paul said to the
“saints” at Corinth (1:1), “You were bought at a price. Therefore
honor God with your body” (1 Cor. 6:20). He added, “You were
bought at a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor. 7:23). Likewise
John recorded the saints saying, “You are worthy to take the scroll and
to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you pur­
chased men for God from every tribe and language and people and
nation” (Rev. 5:9). He adds twice more, “No one could learn the song
[of redemption] except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the
earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for
they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes.
They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God
and the Lamb” (Rev. 14:3-4). In view of this New Testament usage,
the burden of proof rests on the extreme Calvinists to prove that Peter
is using this term in any other than a redemptive sense here. And this
means that Christ died for those who will not be saved.

CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY

The plain meaning of Romans 5:6

Romans 5:6 informs us that “Christ died for the ungodly.” Verse
10 adds, “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him
through the death of his Son, how much more, having been recon­
ciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
But it is not only the elect that were ungodly and enemies of God.
but also the non-elect. Therefore, Christ must have died for the non­
elect as well as for the elect. Otherwise, He would not have died for
all the ungodly and enemies of God. Further, if Paul meant Christ died
only for the “elect” he could easily have said it and avoided any mis­
understanding. The word “elect” was a regular part of New Testament
20G CHOSEN BUT FREE

vocabulary (cf. Matt. 24:24, 31; Mark 13:22, 27; Luke 18:7; 1 Peter 1:2),
including Paul’s (cf. Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; Titus 1:1). The
same is true of die words “some” and “few.” Not once does the Bible say
Christ died only for the elect.

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

John Owen repeatedly insists that in such passages the indefinite is
not to be confused with the universal. In short, he says we cannot
argue diat “because Christ died for sinners, therefore he died for all
sinners,”10 for in other places the Bible affirms that God “justifies the
ungodly” (Rom. 4:5 nasb), yet no one in this dispute believes that all
the ungodly are justified.
While this is so logically and formally, it is not true actually and
contextually in Romans 5:6, for die context indicates that Paul is
plainly speaking of “all” and “all men” as lost (Rom. 5:12, 18) and in
need of salvation: “Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation
for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justifica­
tion that brings life for all men' (5:18). Thus, the context makes it
evident dial Christ died for all the ungodly.

CHRIST RECONCILED THE WORLD TO GOD

The plain meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:14-19

According to die aposde Paul. “For Christ’s love compels us, be­
cause we are convinced dial one died for all, and therefore all died....
God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s
sins against diem” (2 Cor. 5:14, 19). He adds, “And he died for all, that
those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who
died for them and was raised again” (v. 15).
Now it is evident that this reconciliation of all did not guarantee
the saltation of all, but only their sat ability. For it goes on to say that
on the basis of tvhat Christ did on the Cross, we must still plead with
the world: “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God
were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s be­
half: Be reconciled to God" (v. 20). Thus, their reconciliation by Christ
makes their saltation possible. They themselves, by faith, must make it
actual Nonetheless, “One [Christ] died for all” (v. 14) to make this

'“See Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 260.

BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 207

possible. Further, the phrase “all died” plainly refers to "all men” for
whom Christ died.

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

Palmer claims: “Obviously, the all in both cases means all the be­
lievers—not the whole world, reprobate as well as elect.”" Here again,
this is the reading of one’s own theological system into the text rather
than reading the proper meaning out of the text. Palmer argues, "The
‘all died’ refers to the spiritual death of the believer.” Hence, “the ‘all
died’ cannot refer to the natural death of all men, for Christ’s death
is not the cause of man’s physical death.”
But this is implausible for many reasons. First, whatever the “all
died” means in verse 14, it is clear that Paul identifies the object of
Christ’s reconciliation in verse 19 as “the world," not only believers.
Second, verse 15 contrasts the “those who live”—Christians with eter­
nal life—with the “all” for whom Christ died, saying, “And he died for
all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves....” Third,
the connection in verse 14 between the “ [Christ] died for all” and the
“all [who] died” is to show why Christ’s love should impel us to reach
them with a “word of reconciliation,” pleading with the “world” to be
reconciled to God (w. 19-20). It has nothing to do with our spiritual
death but rather with our compassion toward the “world,” which is
spiritually dead and needs to be reconciled to God.

GOD DESIRES ALL TO BE SAVED

The plain meaning of 2 Peter 3:9

God is love, and as such “ [He is] not willing that any should perish
but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9 NKjv). He “wants
all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim.
2:4). And contrary to die unreasonable view of the extreme Calvinists,
this does not mean “all classes of men,” namely, the elect from all
nations. Words have limits to their meaning by context. And when
“any,” “all men,” and the “whole world” (1 John 2:2) are taken to
mean only “some” (unless used as figures of speech), then language
has lost its meaning.

1‘Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 49.

’OS CHOSEN BUT FREE

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

Extreme Calvinists are not unaware that many texts refer to Christ
dying for “the world." “all men,” etc. Some attempt to avoid the ob­
vious impact of these verses by creating an artificial distinction. They
speak of Christ as dying for all men without distinction but not all men
without exception.'2 While this is a clever turn of a phrase, it is both
without content and without ground. It amounts to saying that “all”
really means “some”—something they w'ould not tolerate in other
verses such as “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
(Rom. 3:23). Further, as we shall see, there is no basis in these texts to
support such an interpretation.
Others offer an even less plausible suggestion: that “God does not
will that any of us (the elect) perish.”13 Even if the “any” is rendered
“you” (Ntv), the “all” who need to repent cannot mean the “be­
loved,” (w. 1,8), since they were already saved and in no need of
repenting. It must refer to the “scoffers" (w. 4, 5). In addition, this
would mean that God is not calling on the non-clect to repent, which
is clearly opposed to other Scriptures where "he commands all people
everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). ".All people everywhere” does not
mean “some people everywhere” or "some people somewhere.” Fur­
ther, the “promise” is not for salvation but for condemnation (see w.
7, 9, 10, 11). Finally, even John Calvin’s comments on this text agree,
saying, “This is His wondrous love toward the human race, that He
desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perish-
ing into repentance, so that none may perish.”
The plain meaning of Matthew 23:37
Weeping over Jerusalem, Jesus said, “ ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you
who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have
longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, but you were not willing.’ ” What could be more clear: God
wanted all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved.
Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists
John Gill proposed this is to be understood not of gathering to
salvation but only of a gathering to hear him preach and thus to be
brought to historical faith “sufficient to preserve them from temporal
12Steelc and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, 46.
1’Sproul, Chosen by God. 197. R. K. McGregor offers the same reasoning. Sec his No Place of
Sovereignty (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 169.
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 209

ruin.” Likewise, the will of Christ to gather them “is not to be under­
stood of his divine will ... but of his human will, or of his will as a
man; which . . . [is] yet not always the same with it, nor always ful­
filled.”H A clear exposition of the extreme Calvinists’ view here is per­
haps the best refutation of it, for it forces us to believe that God's con­
cern for the temporal conditions of all men is greater than that of His
concern for their eternal souls!

GOD OFFERED SALVATION TO MORE THAN

THE ELECT

The plain teaching of Matthew 20:16

Jesus said, “Many are called, but few chosen" (Matt. 20:16 nkjv).
While God knew that only the elect would believe (Acts 13:48), He
desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). Thus, “God so loved
the world that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16 nkjv) to
protide an atoning sacrifice for the sins of “the whole world” (1 John
2:2). Since God called all, He provided salvation for all and com­
manded all to repent (Acts 17:30) and believe (Acts 16:31). Now, it
would be both deceptive and absurd for God to command all to re­
pent when He had not provided salvation for all.

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

John Owen offers the unlikely suggestion that “God’s commands
and promises had revealed our duty, not his purpose; what God would
have us to do, and not what he will do,”'5 This clever turn of a phrase
conceals hidden errors. First, it implies that God commands the im­
possible, which would make the Omniscient irrational: it is irrational
to expect someone to do what cannot be done. Second, it overlooks
the obvious, namely, that there is another alternative: God commands
not only what He would have us do but also what He actually desires
to be done. It is not, as Owen misleadingly suggests, what God “will
do,” but what He wills to be done that He commands.16

HJohn Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, (London, 1814, new ed.), 1.87-88: cf. 2.77.
*5Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 200.
,0Extreme Calvinists often offer God’s command to keep die laws as a parallel illustration of
commanding the impossible. But now it is not actually impossible to keep the Law, other­
wise Jesus would not have been able to do it (cf. Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 8:1-4). Anything God
commands is possible to do, cither in our own God-given strength or else by His special
grace.
210 CHOSEN BUT FREE

GOD DESIRES ALL TO BE SAVED

The plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:3—4

Paul expressly says, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who
wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
Even Charles Spurgeon, who believed in limited atonement, could not
deny the obvious meaning of this text.

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

From the time of the later Augustine17 this text has been manhan­
dled by extreme Calvinists. Spurgeon summarizes their attempts to
avoid the obvious. He said here is how “our older Calvinistic friends
deal with this text. ‘All men,’ say they—‘that is. some men’: as if the
Holy Ghost could not have said ‘some men’ if he had meant some
men. All men,’ say they; that is, ‘some of all sorts of men’; as if the
Lord could not have said ‘All sorts of men’ if he had meant that. The
Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,' and unquestionably
he means all men.”18 Spurgeon continues, “I was reading just now the
exposition of a very able doctor who explains tire text so as to explain
it away: he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by
way of expounding it” He apdy adds, “I thought when I read his ex­
position that it would have been a very capital comment upon tire text
if it had read: ‘Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a
knowledge of the truth.’ ”19
Of course, the problem is that this is what tire text should say if
limited atonement were true, but it does not. Even Spurgeon was
aware of his apparent inconsistencv here, saying, “I do not know how
that squares with this” but added, “Z would sooner a hundred times over
appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of
God.”20

The plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:6

Paul affirms that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all men—the
testimony given in its proper time” (1 Tim. 2:6). It is plain here that
Christ paid the price with His own precious blood (1 Peter 1:19) for
the sins of all men.

,7Sce appendix 3.
,eCited by Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, 150.
,9Ibid., 151.
MFrom Spurgeon’s sermon “A Critical Text—C. H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:3-4” cited in
Iain Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Carlisle, Pa.: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 150, 154, emphasis mine.
BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 211

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

Of this and like passages John Owen offers the dubious view that
“all” does not mean “all” here. His tactic is to divert the issue to other
passages where “all” does not mean the whole human race.21 This only
proves that “all” means “all” in its category or context, and that
sphere is designated by the passage. But here the category and context
is the whole human race, for the use of “all” as an object of God’s love
and redemption is used generically, not geographically. And what the
extreme Calvinist must do, and does not, is demonstrate that this and
like passages where “all” is used generically are not being used of the
entire human race.
Even if “all” can and does mean less than literally all men in some
passages, it still leaves open the question of what “all” means in this
particular passage. And there is ample evidence that Paul has refer­
ence to the entire human race in 1 Timothy 2:4-6.
First, he could have used the word “some,” if he had chosen to do
so, but he did not. Second, his reference to “men” in verse 5 is clearly
generic—meaning all men, since it is used as the other pole from God
that the Mediator, Christ, brings together. But generic usages of “all”
in a redemptive context are usually, if not always, of the entire human
race. Third, the desire for “all men” to be saved is parallel with that
same desire expressed in other passages (cf. 2 Peter 3:9). Finally, the
Bible tells us elsewhere that what hinders His desire from being ful­
filled is not the universal scope of His love (John 3:16) but the willing
rejection of some creatures—"you were not willing' (Matt. 23:37).

The plain meaning of Hebrews 2:9

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now
crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by
the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” Christ died for
everyone, not just the elect. This is the plain meaning of the text.

Implausible interpretation by extreme Calvinists

Responses to this follow the same line as those just discussed. Since
we have already replied to them, it will suffice to add here only a cou­
ple of words about the context. First of all, “everyone” is used generi­
cally of humans, as is indicated not only by the contrast of humans
with angels (v. 7) but also by the reference to human “flesh and

“See Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 222f.

212 CHOSEN BUT FREE

blood” (i.e., enfleshed human nature). This generic use is almost al­
ways universal. Furthermore, since die result of the death (and resur­
rection) of Christ destroys death and defeats the devil (v. 14), it must
have reference to all of Adam’s race. Otherwise, Christ was not victo­
rious in reversing what the devil did. In short, His victory would not
have been complete.

NOT ALL CHRIST DIED FOR WILL BE SAVED

The plain teaching of other Scriptures

The doctrine of limited atonement claims that all Christ died for
will be saved. But the above passages and many others reveal that: (1)
Christ died for all, and (2) All will not be saved (cf. Matt. 25:41; Rev.
20:10). Thus, not all Christ died for will be saved. The doctrine of
limited atonement is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS POSED BY

EXTREME CALVINISTS

Spurgeon’s question
Charles Spurgeon is often cited in defense of limited atonement
by insisting that it is the opponents, not the Calvinists, who limit the
Atonement, since they do not believe that: (1) Christ died so as to
secure the salvation of all men, nor that (2) He died to secure the
salvation of any man in particular. Then Spurgeon goes on to boast
that diose who believe in limited atonement believe that Christ died
for “multitudes that no man can number,” namely, the elect.22
However, diis inverted logic is a good example of Spurgeon’s elo­
quence gone to seed. It is an upside-down logic indeed that can get
anyone to think twice about the assertion that limited atonement is
more unlimited than unlimited atonement! For one thing, the first
assertion diverts the issue, for it is not a question of securing the salva­
tion of all (this is universalism) but of providing salvation for all (as in
moderate Calvinism and Arminianism), as opposed to extreme Calvin­
ism, which holds that Christ died to provide and to secure the salvation
of only the elect. So first, Spurgeon in the case of (1) gives the right
answer to the wrong question! Further, in the case of (2) he gives the
•■'Cited by Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, 40.
 BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED ATONEMENT 213

wrong answer to the right question, for both the moderate Calvinist
and traditional Arminian opponents of extreme Calvinism surely do
believe that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect and that
God foreknew from all eternity exactly who they would be.

Sproul’s question
Many extreme Calvinists believe they have trapped their opposition
by asking: “For whom was the atonement designed'"2-' If it was in­
tended for all, then why are not all saved? How can a sovereign God’s
intention be thwarted? If it was intended for only some (the elect),
then limited atonement follows. Thus the dilemma is this:
(1) Either Christ’s atonement was intended for all, or only for
some (the elect).
(2) If it was intended for all, then all will be saved (since God’s
sovereign intentions will come to pass).
(3) If it was not intended for all, then it was intended only for some
(the elect).
(4) Therefore, either universalism is true or else limited atone­
ment is true.
Of course, both moderate Calvinists and traditional Arminians
deny universalism. Therefore, they would seem to be driven by this
logic to accept limited atonement.
In response to the question and the dilemma it is only necessary
to point out that premise (1) is a false dilemma. There is a third alter­
native: (la) Christ’s atonement was intended to provide salvation for
all as wcl 1 as to procure salvation for all who believe. The false dilemma
wrongly assumes that there was only one intention for the Atonement.
Or, if understood in terms of a primary or single intention, then the
purpose of the Atonement was to procure salvation for all who believe.
But since God also wanted everyone to believe, He also intended that
Christ would die to provide salvation for all people. It is the denial that
God really wants all persons to be saved that is die crucial error of
extreme Calvinism.

CONCLUSION
The plain meaning of numerous texts of Scripture is that Christ
died for the sins of the whole world. Atonement is unlimited in its
"See Sproul, Chosen by God, 205.
214 CHOSEN BUT FREE

extent. Only by straining and stretching the texts can any other mean­
ing be attributed to these passages. The clear contextual meaning of
numerous texts is that Christ died for the sins of the whole human
race.
 APPENDIX SEVEN

Double*
Predestination

All Calvinists, like it or not, must hold some form of double­

predestination—the logic of their position demands it. St. Augustine
said, “As the Supreme Good, he [God] made good use of evil deeds,
for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punish­
ment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predes­
tined to grace.”' R. C. Sproul admits, “If there is such a thing as pre­
destination at all, and if that predestination does not include all
people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that
there are two sides to predestination.”2
Nonetheless, there is an intramural debate among extreme Calvin­
ists whether God actively predestines both the elect and non-elect or
whether the non-elect are predestined only passively. At the same time,
less radical Calvinists call the active predestination of both the elect
and the reprobate double-predestination. Those who hold it are called

'St. Augustine, Enchiridion, 100.

’Sproul, Chosen by God, 141.
21G CHOSEN BUT FREE

hyper-Calvinists.3 It can be differentiated from other forms of Calvin­

ism on how predestination is willed as follows:4

Hyper-Calvinists Other Calvinists

Active of both elect and non- Active only of elect
elect___________________
Active in choosing both Passive in not choosing non-elect
Positive election of both Positive of elect and negative of
non-elect
Faith given to the elect Unbelief given to the non-elect
Symmetrical relation Asymmetrical relation
Equal ultimacy Unequal ultimacy

WHAT BOTH HOLD IN COMMON

Both hyper- and non-hyper Calvinists hold to all articles of the ac-
ronvm T-U-L-I-P (see chapters 4 and 5). They both believe in T (total
depravity), that all men are so totally sinful that they cannot initiate or
attain salvation of their own free choice. As to the U (unconditional
election), they both believe that God chooses on the basis of uncon­
ditional grace alone—that some will be saved and that some will not
be saved. Likewise, they both hold that Christ died only for the elect
(L is for limited atonement), and that God will work with irresistible
grace (7) so as to ensure that all the elect will believe, and with effica­
cious grace to ensure that all the elect will persevere (P) in their faith
and enter heaven.

■'Hyper-Calvinism is a term that entails more than simply this stance on predestination. In its
English manifestation in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, it in­
volved people like James Wells (1803-1872) and Charles Waters Banks (1806-1886). Earlier
it was manifest in die works of Joseph Hussey, who wrote God’s Operations of Grace (1707),
and John Gill (1697-1771), audior of The Cause of God and Truth. Charles Spurgeon iden­
tified and opposed four characteristics of the movement (sec Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon
v. Hyper-Calvinism: A Battle for Gospel Preaching): (1) A denial that the offer of salvation is
universal; (2) A denial that the warrant to believe lies in the command and promise of
Scripture; (3) A denial that sinners are responsible to trust Christ; and (4) A denial dial
God desires the salvation of the non-elect. See Peter Toon, The Emergence ofHyper-Calvinism
in English Non-Conformity 1689-1765 (London: The Olive Tree, 1967).
4This chart is similar to one employed by R. C. Sproul in Chosen by God, 143.
DOUBLE-PREDESTINATION 217

HOW HYPER-CALVINISTS DIFFER ON

PREDESTINATION

There is, however, a significant difference between the hyper­

Calvinists and other Calvinists regarding election. It can be summa­
rized as follows:

Hyper-Calvinists Other Calvinists

God also elects unbelievers God elects only believers
God also elects to hell God elects only to heaven
God’s election of unbelievers is God’s election of unbelievers is
active passive

Three great Calvinistic confessions appear to oppose the hyper­

Calvinist view.

The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561)

“God then did manifest Himself such as He is: that is to say, mer­
ciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this per­
dition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere
goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to
their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein
they have involved themselves” (emphasis mine).

The Synod of Dort (1619)

“Of Divine Predestination,” Article VI states: "He [God] gra­
ciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines
them to believe; while he leaves the non-elect in his just judgment to
their own wickedness and obduracy” (emphasis mine).

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1648)

“As God has appointed the elect to Glory, so has He, by die eternal
and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means
thereto.. . . The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the un­
searchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds
mercy, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass
by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of His glorious justice” (III., 6-7, emphasis mine).
21S CHOSEN BUT FREE

GOD’S GENERAL REDEMPTIVE LOTTI

FOR ALL MEN
Hyper-Calvinists also deny that God has any redemptive love for
the non-elect. Even strong Calvinist Charles Spurgeon took a moder­
ate view of this, sating, “Beloved, the benevolent love ofJesus is more
extended than the lines of his electing love. . . . That [i.e., the love of
Christ revealed in Matthew 23:37] is not the love which beams resplen-
dently upon his chosen, but it is true love for all that.”
In addition, God has a special love for the elect that “is not love
for all men.... There is an electing love, discriminating, distinguish­
ing love, which is settled upon a chosen people . . . and it is this love
which is the true resting place for the saint.”5 The hyper-Calvinist be­
lieves only in electing love and no general redemptive love for die
non-elect. Arminians (Wesleyans), on the other hand, believe in no
special elective love but only in a general redemptive love for all sin­
ners.
As mentioned before, Spurgeon seemed to be aware of the incon­
sistency of his moderating view but said in comments on I Timothy
2:3-4: "I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent
with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.”6 (After all,
the text does say, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants
all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”)

THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST

HYPER-CALVINISM
.All the arguments protided elsewhere against extreme Calvinism
also apply to hyper-Calvinism (see chapters 4-5 and appendices 5-6).
In addition, a few can be put forward in particular against hyper-
Calvinism.
First, hyper-Calvinism makes God the direct author of evil. For God
does not merely permit evil, He causes it. But we know’ that God is
absolutely good (Matt. 5:48), and He cannot do, promote, or produce
evil (Hab. 1:13;James 1:13).
Second, hyper-Calvinists explicidy confess not only that God is not
all-loving but that He also hates the non-elect. John Owen blundy con­
fessed, “God hating 'made some for the day of evil,’ ... ‘hated them
5Cited by Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, 98.
"Ibid., 150.
DOUBLE-PREDESTINATION 219

before they were born' .. . ‘before ordained them to condemna­

tion’. .. .”7 William Ames affirmed, “There are two kinds of predesti­
nation: election and rejection or reprobation.”s He added that God
“hates” them. “This hatred is negative or privative, because it denies
election. But it has a positive content, for God has willed that some
should not have eternal life”!9 May it never be! Perish the thought!
God forbid!

A PASSIONATE PLEA
Charles Spurgeon, himself an ardent Calvinist, saw the dangers of
the deadly doctrine of hyper-Calvinism. He said, “I cannot image a
more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than
a minister who tells sinners it is not their duty to repent of their sins,”
and “who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he
teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no
reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so. O my breth­
ren! May the Lord save you from the charmer, and keep you ever deaf
to the voice of error.”10

’Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 115.

8Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 154.
’Ibid., 156.
,0Cited by Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, 155-56.
 APPENDIX EIGHT

An Evaluation of the
Canons of Dort
(1619)

Our purpose in proriding a selective analysis of this famous state­

ment of Calvinism is to expound on what is widely considered to be a
modern origin of extreme Calvinism and to express a moderate Cal-
rinistic view by way of interaction with it. In fact, in some respects Dori
appears not to support extreme Calvinism. In other cases, it is often
not what is said that is radical Calvinism, but rather what it leaves un­
said and what may be implied that could be a more extreme form of
Calvinism.

OF DIVINE PREDESTINATION

Article I
“As all men have sinned in Adam .. . God would have done no
injustice by leaving them all to perish...

Response
This does not give exclusive support to extreme Calvinism. It is
true as far as it goes, and moderate Calvinists could agree as well.
AN EVALUATION OF THE CANONS OF OORT (1619) 221

However, it is wrong to imply that God’s justice could have con­

demned all to hell without His love doing anything about it. God is
more than just; He is also all-loving. It is true that all men are justly
condemned because of their sin. But it is wrong to assume that one
attribute of God (justice) operates in isolation from another (love).
There was nothing in sinful man that necessitated any attempt to save
him, but there was something in a sinless God that did (namely, His
infinite love).

Article V
“The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is
nowise in God, but in man himself: whereas faith in Jesus Christ, and
salvation through him is the free gift of God ... (Eph. 2:8)."

Response
It is correct to say man’s unbelief is the “cause” of all his evil ac­
tions. Likewise, salvation is totally a gift from God. But there is no bib­
lical support, including Ephesians 2:8-9 (see appendix 5), for the idea
that faith is a gift of God to only the elect, “ft [neuter] is a gift of God”
does not refer to “faith” (which is feminine) but to salvation by grace.
It is doubtful whether any Bible text teaches that faith is a gift given
only to the elect. Faith is a gift from God, it is offered to everyone, and
it is not forced on anyone against his or her tvill (see chapters 4 and 5).
It must be received by' an act of free choice prompted by God’s per­
suasive and efficacious grace.

Article VI
“He [God] graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however ob­
stinate, and inclines them to believe; while he leaves the non-elect in
his just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy'.”

Response
This rightly avoids “double predestination” (see appendix 7),
which would attribute eternal condemnation directly to God. God
does graciously soften the hearts of the elect, and the non-elect are
left to condemnation in their own unbelief.
However, it would be wrong—and contrary to Scripture (1 Tim.
2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9)—to imply that God does not truly desire to save all
men (see chapters 4-6). To imply this suggests that God is not «/A
loving. Also, it would be fallacious to assume that the “obstinate” will
222 CHOSEN BUT FREE

always respond to “gracious softening” that is less than coercive. The

only guarantee that all the unwilling will respond is to ungraciously
force some against their wills. For most extreme Calvinists, regenera­
tion apart from (or prior to) faith is such an act.
Article VII
This article speaks of “election” of only a “certain number of per­
sons” who are “effectually” called. This is true to a degree. God fore­
knew, chose, and secured the salvation of only a limited number of
persons. Thus, the atonement is limited in its application. Moderate
Calvinists agree (see appendix 6), though they deny it is limited in
extent.
Response
However, it would be wrong to imply that God is partial and arbi­
trary in His choice, and not a/Aloving. God’s grace is effective on the
willing. But it cannot be “effectual" without being coercive when some
unsaved persons are set in stubborn unwillingness to believe (Matt.
23:37; Acts 7:51).
Article IX
“This election was not founded upon foreseen faith ... or any other
good quality or disposition in man. as the prerequisite, cause, or con­
dition on which it depended.’’
Response
This article correctly points out that God’s election is not based on
His foreknowledge of any good works man will do. Even so, it would
be wrong to assume, contrary to Scripture (e.g., Rom. 8:29), that elec­
tion is not “in accordance with the foreknowledge of God” (1 Peter
1:2). Further, man’s faith is not the ground of God’s choice to protide
salvation, but it is the means through which we receive His grace
(Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9). The ground for election is in God’s good will,
not in man’s good works. But while the gift of salvation is uncondi­
tional from the standpoint of the Giver (God), it is conditional from
the standpoint of the receiver. That is, the gift of salvation must be
received by faith in order to be obtained.
Article X
“The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious elec­
tion ... (Rom. 9:11-13).” This is true. For God alone is the total effi­
cient primary cause of salvation.
AN EVALUATION OF THE CANONS OF DORT ClG19) 223

Response
Nonetheless, we should not wrongly posit that God does not use
secondary causes (such as free choice) when He accomplishes this sal­
vation. Even the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of
human free will as a “secondary cause” of our receiving salvation. It
declares, “Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of
God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly,
yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to
the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingendy”
(V,ii).
Nor should we assume that God’s will operates independendy of
His “unchangeable” nature. If God is simple, as classical theists ac­
knowledge, then His nature and will are absolutely one. Hence, He
cannot will to love only some. An all-loving God by nature must love
all.

Article XVIII
“To those who murmur at the free grace of election, and just se­
verity of reprobation, we answer with the Apostle: ‘Nay but, 0 man,
who art thou that repliest against God?’ (Rom. 9:20).” Of course, it is
wrong to murmur against God (cf. Num. 11:1). He has a sovereign
right to choose what He chooses.

Response
However, it is wrong to imply that God is not consistent with His
own unchangeably just and loving nature (see chapter 1). Further,
doing systematic theology properly is not murmuring against God. It
must show how God’s own attributes of love and justice are not incon­
sistent. God Himself has told us to be “avoiding ... contradictions”
(1 Tim. 6:20 NKJV). Questioning a false concept of God (e.g., an arbi­
trary, partially loving God) is not the same as questioning the true God
(who is the all-just and all-loving One).

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST

Article III
“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice
and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundandy suf­
ficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” This is true, as such. It
2’4 CHOSEN BUT FREE
1
gives rise to the Cahinist’s dictum that Christ’s death is sufficient for
all and efficient for the elect.

Response
But this is not tvhat the debate is about between extreme Calvinists
and those who oppose diem. The question is whether Christ actually
died for die sins of the whole world. John Calvin seemed to think He
did (see appendix 2). And, die New Testament clearly affirms that He
did (see appendix 6).

Article VI
“Whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor
believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is . . . wholly to be im­
puted to themselves.” This is true. All who hear the Gospel are respon­
sible to repent and believe it. And “the Lord is . . . patient” (2 Peter
3:9).

Response
Regardless, since God is not irrational or unjust, He would never
hold persons responsible for actions they could not have avoided. Fur­
ther, their unbelief could not be ''wholly” their fault if, as extreme Cal­
vinists claim, it was because God could have but did not give them die
irresistible desire to believe and die faith to believe. How could they
jusdy be expected to repent or believe if neither is within their power
to do so and God chose not to give them die power to do so?

OF MAN’S CORRUPTION AND CONVERSION

Article I
"Man was originally formed after die image of God . . . and abus­
ing the freedom of his own will, he ... became wicked.. ..” This
makes it clear that Adam before the Fall had the power of free will to
obey or disobey God's command.
Response
If this is so, then extreme Calvinists, like Jonathan Edwards and his
modern-day proponents in John Gerstner and R. C. Sproul, are wrong
in claiming that a person always acts from his strongest desire. For
Adam had no evil nature, from which evil desires spring, before he
fell.
AN EVALUATION OF THE CANONS OF OORT (1619) 225

Article II
“All the posterity of Adam ... have derived corruption from their
original parents, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but
by propagation of a vicious nature.”

Response
The article is correct as far as it goes. It correctly rejects Pelagian-
ism and affirms that man is born with a fallen nature. The problem
only arises when extreme Calvinists carry depravity to the point of claim­
ing that fallen human beings do not even have the capability of receiving
God’s gracious and efficacious gift of salvation (see appendix 6).

Article III
“Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature ...
incapable of any sating good ... and without the regenerating grace
of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to
God. ...”

Response
It is true that man is incapable of doing any saving good, but this
does not mean he is incapable of receiving my saving good. And even
here moderate Calvinists can agree provided this grace is not irresisti­
ble on the unwilling (see chapter 5). For there is a difference in claim­
ing that grace aids the will and that grace forces it. The latter is con­
trary both to the nature of God and the nature of free will (see
chapters 1 and 2).
If this attitude is taken to imply that irresistible regeneration comes
before our willingness to accept it, then it is contrary to Scripture (see
appendix 10), which affirms that faith is logically prior to being regen­
erated or justified (Rom. 5:1; 1:17; Eph. 2:8-9).'

Article IV
“These remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of
natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural
things, and of the difference between good and evil.... But so far is
this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving

‘Faith is logically prior to justification in the sense that it is the condition for receiving justi­
fication. But faith and justification are actually simultaneous, since one is justified the very
instant he believes (see apendix 10).
226 CHOSEN BUT FREE

knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of

using it aright even in things natural and civil.”

Response
Following Cabin (Institutes, Book I), moderate Calvinists agree
with this statement. It correctly notes that there is a natural revelation
(cf. Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-14), although it is begrudging in the amount
of natural light (e.g., “glimmerings”). And it correctly notes that nat­
ural revelation is insufficient for salvation. It fits with Romans 1 by not­
ing that although depraved persons “know it,” for “God made it evi­
dent to them,” nonetheless, by an act of free will they “suppress the
truth” (Rom. 1:18) they clearly know.
Article VIII
“He [God], moreover, seriously promises eternal life and rest to as
many as come to Him, and believe on Him.”
Response
Here the universal offer of salvation to all men is affirmed. While
moderate Calvinists certainly agree, nonetheless, they deny that this is
consistent with the extreme Calvinists’ interpretation of limited atone­
ment and irresistible grace (see chapters 4 and 5). A sincere promise
to save all who believe implies that Christ died for all and diat all are
capable of believing this promise to be saved (see appendix 6).
Article X
“But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are
converted, is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will ...
but it must be wholly ascribed to God. . ..”
Response
If “wholly” is taken to mean that God is the sole source of bodi
the gift of salvation and the persuasive and effective grace to receive
it, then moderate Calvinists would agree. If, on the other hand,
“wholly" of God means it is irresistible apart from man’s free choice,
moderate Calvinists would respond that God would not be wholly
God (namely, wholly good) and man would not be wholly man
(namely, really free). Salvation is “wholly” of God in the sense that He
initiates and accomplishes it, but not in the sense that man is forced to
accept it against his will by some alleged God-given desires that are
“irresistible.”
AN EVALUATION OF THE CANONS OF DORT (1619) 227

Article XI
“But when God accomplishes his good pleasure in the elect or
works in them true conversion ... he opens the closed and softens the
hardened heart . .. infuses new qualities into the will, which, though
heretofore dead, he quickens . . . renders it good, actuates and
strengthens it. ..” (emphasis mine).

Response
If this means that God as primary cause does the work of actualiz­
ing salvation in the elect, then this is not unique to extreme Calvinism.
However, if words like “infuses” and “actuates” are taken to imply that
man is being treated as a passive object instead of a subject (an “it,”
not an “I”), then it is contrary to God’s Word as well as the Westminster
Confession, which speaks of God working through “secondary causes”
of free will (V, ii).

Article XIV
“Faith is therefore to be considered as a gift of God, not on ac­
count of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected
at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred, breathed, and
infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or abilitv
to believe and expects that man should, by the exercise of his own free
will, consent to the terms of salvation; but because he ... produces
both the will to believe and the act of believing also.”

Response
It is difficult to interpret this in any other than an extreme Calvin­
ist sense. Supposedly, both the gift and act of believing are caused by­
God. If so, then man has no choice in even receiving the gift. Grace
must be irresistible on the unwilling, and this view of God is open to
the charge that He is not all-loving, for though He has the power, He
does not have the will to save all. As discussed elsewhere (chapter 5
and appendix 6), there is no biblical support for this conclusion.

Article XV
“God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any; for how
can he be indebted to man who has no previous gifts to bestow as a
foundation for such recompense?”
228 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Response
There are several ways this can be understood as true, even by
moderate Calvinists. For it is true that God is in no way indebted to
man. Further, there is nothing in depraved humans that merits any­
thing except God’s justice, namely eternal separation from God.
However, this does not mean God is under no obligation of His
own unchangeably loving nature to show love to His creatures. God is
obligated by His own essentially losing nature to love all His creatures
(1 John 4:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:3-4).

Article XAT
“But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed
with understanding and will, nor did sin . .. deprive him of the human
nature ... so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as
senseless stocks and blocks, nor take awav their will and its properties,
neither does violence, thereto; but... sweetly and powerfully bends it
... [toward that wherein] true spiritual restoration and freedom of
our will consist.”

Response
This clearly and correctly affirms that even fallen man retains the
image of God, along with the power of free choice. However, it is in­
consistent with other statements (cf. .Article XIV) affirming that God
forces the elect to believe against their will by irresistible power. The
extreme Calvinist cannot have his cake (of unforced freedom) and yet
deny it, too (by forced freedom). This is not a mystery; it is a contra­
diction.

OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Article III
“But God is faithful, who hating conferred grace, mercifully con­
firms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end.”

Response
There is no disagreement here. Both sides concur with -‘once
saved, always saved.” This is not because we have in ourselves the
power to endure but because God will give us the power to do so.
AN EVALUATION OF THE CANONS OF DORT(1619) 229

Article VIII
“Thus, it is not in consequence of their own merit or strength, but
of God’s free mercy, that they do not totally fall from faith and
grace....”

Response
True again. The drowning man can claim no credit for his rescue;
all praise goes to the one who rescued him. Otherwise, he would have
drowned.
Even so, this does not mean that the act of believing is meritorious.
Faith is not a meritorious “work.” Faith and works are placed in op­
position in Scripture (Rom. 4:4-5), as are grace and works (Rom.
11:6).
 APPENDIX NINE

Jonathan Edwards
on Free Will
The extreme Calvinistic perspective on free will is rooted in the
radicalized view of the later Augustine (see appendix 3). This was born
out of his controversy with the Donatists, ■whom he maintained could
be forced to believe against their wills. Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of
the Will is an example of this theistic determinism. The late John
Gerstner and R. C. Sproul hold the same view. It is at the heart of
extreme Calvinism.
Ironically, as stated previously, R. C. Sproul declares that “Any view
of human will that destroys the biblical view of human responsibility is
seriously defective. Any view of human will that destroys the biblical
view of God’s character is even worse.”1 Yet, as we will see, this is ex­
actly what the extreme Calvinists’ view does, for it robs humans of
dieir responsibility and defrocks God of His essential omnibenevol­
ence (all-lovingness).

JONATHAN EDWARDS’ VIEW OF FREE WILL

Edwards argued that all actions are caused, since it is irrational to
claim that things arise without a cause. But for him a self-caused action
is impossible, since a cause is prior to an effect, and one cannot be
‘Sproul, Willing to Believe, 29.
JONATHAN EDWARDS ON FREE WILL 231

prior to himself. Therefore, all actions arc ultimately caused by a First

Cause (God). “Free choice” for Edwards is doing what one desires—
but God gives the desire to do good. Hence, all good human actions
are determined by God. Evil actions are determined by the strongest
desires of an evil nature left to itself.
Edwards wrote: “That which appears most inviting, and has... the
greatest degree of previous tendency to excite and induce the choice,
is what I call the ‘strongest motive.' And in this sense, I suppose the
will is always determined by the strongest motive.”2 Not only are our
choices determined by’ our natures but they are actually necessary.
And in this sense, adds Edwards, “Necessity is not inconsistent with
liberty.”3 As Sproul summarizes it, “The will cannot choose against its
strongest inclination.’
Jonathan Edwards saw a dilemma for all who reject his view: Either
there is an infinite regress of causes or else there is no motive to acL
On the one hand, “if the will determines all its own free acts, then
every free act of choice is determined by a preceding act of choice,
choosing that act” and so on to infinity.5 On the other hand, if there
is no cause of the choice, then one would never act. But we do act.
Therefore, our actions must be determined by our motives or desires.
As we shall see, Edwards has posed a false dilemma, since the ac­
tions can be caused by the Self and not by another. True, every action
is caused. But from this it does not follow that every actor is caused to
act by another actor. This is not true of God's free actions; they are
self-caused (i.e., caused by His Self). Likewise, creatures made in God's
image have the God-given power to cause their own moral actions.
This alternative is not only logically possible, but it is the only one that
can explain how’ Lucifer and Adam were able to sin (see chapter 2 and
appendix 4). On Edwards’ view’ that God could not have given them
the desire to sin, nor did they have a sinful nature to determine their
actions, then they must have been the first cause of their own evil
actions. But this is the very view’ of freedom that Edwards rejects.

THE PROBLEMS WITH EDWARDS’ FORM OF

DIVINE DETERMINISM
Opponents to Edwards’ determinism respond as follows. First,
defining free choice as “doing what one desires” is contrary to
-Edwards, Freedom of the Will, 142, emphasis mine.
’Ibid., 152.
■•Sproul, Willing to Believe, 163.
’Edwards, Freedom of the Will, 172-73.
 CHOSEN BUT FREE

experience. For people do not always do what the)' desire, nor do they
always desire to do what they do (cf. Rom. 7:15-16).
Second. Edwards also misunderstands self-determinism as free acts
being caused by other free acts. Rather, it means simply that a self can
cause something else to happen. That is, a free agent can cause a free
action without that free action needing another cause ad infinitum.
Third, Edwards has a fault)', mechanistic view of human person­
hood. He likens human free choice to balancing scales in need of
more pressure in order to tip the scales one way or the other. But
humans are not machines; they are persons made in the image of God
(Gen. 1:27).
Fourth. Edwards wrongly assumes that self-determinism is contrary
to God’s sovereignty. But God pre-determined things in accordance
with free choice, rather than in contradiction to it (sec chapter 3).
Even the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith declares that “al­
though in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first
cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same
providence he ordereth them to fall out. according to the nature of
second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently” (V, ii).

A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

There are three basic alternatives with regard to free actions.

Either (1) they are determined (caused) bv another (as Edwards
held); or (2) they could be undetermined (that is, uncaused), but this
is contrary to the principle of causalitv, which holds that every event
has a cause; or, finally, (3) they could be self-determined, that is,
caused by our Selves. According to this third view, a person’s moral
acts are self-caused (see chapter 4).

The arguments for self-determinism

The arguments for this view are as follows (see also chapter 2):
First, either moral actions are uncaused, caused by another, or caused
by one’s self. However, no action can be uncaused, since this violates
the fundamental rational principle that every event has a cause. Nei­
ther can a person’s actions be caused by another, for in that case they
would not be his actions. Further, if one’s acts are caused by another,
then how can he be held responsible for them? Both the early Augus­
tine (in On Free HWand On Grace and Free Will) and Thomas Aquinas
■
JONATHAN EDWARDS ON FREEWILL 233

were self-determinists, as were virtually all church fathers up to the

Reformation (see appendix 1).
Second, human beings have moral responsibility. But moral re­
sponsibility demands the ability to respond (free choice).
Third, the Bible insists that there are actions that people ought to
perform (cf. Ex. 20). But ought implies can (free choice)/1
Fourth, both the Bible and common understanding state that some
acts arc praiseworthy (e.g., heroism), and some are blameworthy (e.g.,
cruelty). But if one is not free to perform the act, then it makes no
sense to praise or blame him for doing it.
Fifth, if God determines all acts, then He, not Satan, is responsible
for the origin of sin. For if a free choice is doing what one desires, and
if God gives the desire, then God must have given Lucifer the desire
to rebel against Him (Rev. 12). But this is morally absurd, since it
would be God working against Himself.
Answering some objections (see also appendix 4)
One objection to self-determinism is that if everything needs a
cause, then so do acts of the will, in which case they are not caused by
one’s Self. In response, self-determinists claim that this confuses the
actor (agent) who causes the act and the act being caused. The princi­
ple of causality does not demand that every thing (or person) has a
cause but only that every event has a cause. God, the First Cause, is a
person, and He needs no cause. Now, all finite beings do need a cause.
But once they are caused (by the First Cause) and given free choice,
then they are the cause of their own moral actions. And if a free agent
(e.g., a human person) is the first cause of his own free actions, then
it is meaningless to ask, “What caused him to do it?” Again, God
caused the fact of free choice (by making free agents), but free agents
are the cause of the acts of free choice.
Others object that self-determinism is contrary to God’s predesti­
nation. But self-determinists respond that God can pre-determine in
accordance with His foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2), insisting drat “those
he foreknew he also predestined” (Rom. 8:29). God, they insist, can
determine the future by means of free choice, since He omnisciendy
knows how moral free agents will freely act.
Still others hold that, regardless of what free choice Adam may
have had (Rom. 5:12), fallen human beings are in bondage to sin and
bThis does not mean that everything God commands we can do in our own strength, but we
can do it by God’s grace (Phil. 4:13; 2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Cor. 10:13).
234 CHOSEN BUT FREE

not free to respond to God. But this view is contrary to both God’s
consistent call on all people to believe (e.g., John 3:16; Acts 16:31;
17:30) and to direct statements that even unbelievers have die ability
to respond to God’s grace (Matt. 23:37; John 7:17; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor.
9:17; Philem. 14; 1 Peter 5:2).
Finally, some argue that if humans have the ability to respond, then
salvation is not of grace (Eph. 2:8-9) but by human effort. However,
this is a confusion about the nature of faith. The ability of a person to
receive God’s gracious gift of salvation is not the same as working for
it. To think so is quite obviously to give the credit for the gift to the
receiver radier than to the Giver who graciously gave it.

CONCLUSION
Jonathan Edwards’ view of free choice, which is at the heart of ex­
treme Calvinism, is a form of determinism. It destroys true freedom,
lays die credit (and blame) for free actions on another (God), and
eliminates the grounds for rewards and moral responsibility. What is
more, it makes God ultimately responsible for evil.
Further, Edwards overlooks die only liable concept of free will,
namely diat it is the power of scf/kletermination. That is, a free act,
whatever persuasion is placed upon it. is the uncoerced ability to cause
one's own actions.
 APPENDIX TEN

Is Regeneration
Prior to Faith?
A fundamental pillar in the extreme Calvinists’ view is the belief
that regeneration is logically prior to faith. That is, we are saved in
order to believe; we do not believe in order to be saved. As one pro­
ponent succinctly states: “In regeneration, God changes our hearts.
He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for
Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless
we first desire him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes
faith.”'
As we will see, nothing could be more contrary to the clear state­
ments of Scripture. But before we look at the text, a clarification must
be made in the question. The word “prior” is not used in a chrono­
logical sense, but in a logical sense. For salvation and faith are simul­
taneous, since one cannot be saved without faith, and faith cannot be
present without our being saved. The question is: Which one is logi­
cally prior to the other? That is, which one is the logical condition for
receiving the other?

VERSES OFFERED BY EXTREME CALVINISTS IN

SUPPORT OF THEIR VIEW
As anyone familiar with Scripture can attest, verses allegedly sup­
porting the contention that regeneration precedes faith are in short
‘Sproul, Chosen by God, 118 (italics his).
2SG CHOSEN BUT FREE

supply. In fact, some extreme Calvinists acknowledge that this belief is

more of a logical consequence of their system than it is the result of
the analysis of any given verses. Nonetheless, many extreme Calvinists
do make inferences from some texts to support tlieir conclusion.

Ezekiel 36:26
“ ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will
remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.’ ”
This is used to ground their belief that humans are so depraved that
God has to give them a new heart before they can even respond to or
believe in God.

Response
(See pages 63-64 for further discussion.)

Acts 13:48
“When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the
word of die Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."
From the fact that all who were preordained to salvation eventually
believed, some extreme Calvinists conclude diat salvation is prior to
belief.

Response
The text does not say this. What it affirms is that all who are preor­
dained to be saved will eventually believe. It does not say that all who
are saved will believe, but that those whom God foreordained will even­
tually get eternal life. It doesn’t speak to the matter of whether faith is
a condition for getting this salvation, which the Bible everywhere says
is faith first and then regeneration.

Ephesians 2:1
“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins”
(NKJV). Extreme Calvinists deduce from this that since dead persons
cannot believe, they must be made alive (regenerated) first in order
that they can believe.

Response
This does not follow from the text for two basic reasons. First, spir­
itually “dead” persons can believe (see chapter 4 and appendix 5),
since “dead” means separation from God, not annihilation. The
r
IS REGENERATION PRIOR TO FAITH? 237

image of God is not erased by the Fall (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9) but only
effaced. Otherwise, God would not call on unsaved people to believe
(John 3:16-18; Acts 16:31; 20:21), and the second death (Rev. 20:14)
would be annihilation—which extreme Calvinists reject. Second, in
this very passage the aposde lists faith as logically prior to salvation.2
He declares: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and
this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (v. 8). Clearly, faith is
the means here and salvation is the end. But the means come before
the end. Hence, faith is logically prior to being saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." Strong Calvinists from the
later Augustine (see appendix 3) through the Synod of Dort (see ap­
pendix 8) to current extreme Calvinists3 have used this verse and oth­
ers to prove that salvation is prior to faith.

Response
These texts have been thoroughly examined and these interpreta­
tions refuted elsewhere (see appendix 5). Here we will only mention
that the “it” (ZouZo) is neuter in form and cannot refer to “faith” (pis-
tis), which is feminine. The antecedent of “it is the gift of God” must
be the salvadon by grace (v. 9). Commenting on this passage, A T.
Robertson noted, “ ‘Grace’ is God’s part, ‘faith’ ours. And that [it] (kai
touto) is neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis [faith]
(feminine) or to charts [grace] (feminine also), but to the act of being
saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.”4

VERSES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT FAITH IS

PRIOR TO SALVATION

Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses

properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead,
it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to

2Again, in a chronological sense, faith is simultaneous with salvation, for one receives salva­
tion the very moment he believes.
’In his zeal to defend this view, R. C. Sproul triumphantly concludes: "This passage should
seal the matter forever. The faith by which we are saved is a gift of God.” See R. C. Sproul.
Chosen by God, 119.
4See Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:525.
238 CHOSEN BUT FREE

salvation as a condition for receiving it. Consider the following selec­

tion of numerous texts on the topic.

Romans 5:1
“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” According to this
text, faith is the means by which we get justification; justification is not
the means by which we get faidi. Since the means is logically prior to
the end, it follows that faith is prior to justification.

Luke 13:3
“ ‘I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.’ ”
Here repentance is the condition for avoiding judgment. It is the
means prior to the end of salvation. This is the uniform pattern
throughout Scripture.

2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand
slowness. He is patient with you. not wanting anyone to perish, but [he
wants] everyone to come to repentance." The order here is the same: re­
pentance comes before salvation. Those who do not repent will perish.
Those who repent will not perish.

John 3:16
“ ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ ”
Again, belief is the precondition for salvation. If the extreme Calvinists
were correct it should affirm the opposite, namely, that hating eternal
life is the condition of believing.

Acts 16:31
“ 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your
household.’ ’’ Again, the order is the same: belief comes before salva­
tion. Faith is a condition of being saved.

Romans 3:24-25
“And [we] are justified freely by his grace through rhe redemption
that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atone­
ment, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his jus­
tice.” In this great didactic passage on justification Paul does not fail
IS REGENERATION PRIOR TO FAITH? 239

to mention that justification comes to us through faith. While God

planned it before the world was—and, hence, before we could be­
lieve—when we receive it, faith comes before justification. Nowhere is
this pattern broken in the New Testament: it is uniform in affirming
that faith is first.

John 3:6-7
“ ‘Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You
should not be surprised at my saying, “ You must be born again." ’ ”
The new birth is when regeneration occurs. It is when we get spir­
itual life from God. But Jesus makes it absolutely clear in this passage
that faith is the condition for receiving the new' birth. It is received by
“whoever believes in him” (v. 15). It is “whoever believes in him [that]
shall not perish but have eternal life” (v. 16). Faith is the means to the
end—regeneration.

Titus 3:5-7
“He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but
because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously
through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his
grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.”
It has been observed that this great passage on regeneration says
nothing about faith but simply that God regenerated us “by his grace."
However, this does not prove that regeneration precedes grace, for
two reasons. First, the very next verse affirms, “And I want you to stress
diese tilings, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to
devote themselves to doing what is good” (v. 8). Faith is logically prior
to regeneration,5 just as it is prior to good works. Second, the parallel
passage in Ephesians 2:8-9 by the same author (Paul) explicitly de­
clares that we are saved “by faith," as does virtually every other passage
in the New Testament that deals with the question.
Emery Bancroft put it this way:

Man is never to wait for God’s working. If he is ever regener­

ated, it must be in and through a movement of his own will, in
which he turns to God as unconsuainedly and with as little con­
sciousness of God’s operation upon him as if no such operation
of God were involved in the change. And in preaching we are to

5See C. C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 64-65.
240 CHOSEN BUT FREE

impress upon men the claims of God and their duty of immediate
submission to Christ, with the certainty that they who do so submit
will subsequendy recognize this new and holy activity of their own
will as due to a working widrin them of divine power.0

CONCLUSION
The extreme Calvinists’ view that regeneration precedes faith is
based on their extreme view of total depravity', which also lacks biblical
support (see chapter 4). Further, it is contrary to what the Bible (chap­
ter 2) and the church fathers (appendix 1) teach about the nature of
free choice. What is more, it is opposed to the character of God as all­
loving (omnibenevolent) and to the nature of free will as the ability to
choose otherwise (see appendix 4).

’’Emery H. Bancroft, Christian Theology: Systematic and Biblical, cd. Ronald B. Mayers, 2nd
rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1976).
 APPENDIX ELEVEN

Monergism vs.
Synergism
Extreme Calvinists maintain that the very first moment of conver­
sion (regeneration) is totally a result of God’s operation, without any
cooperation on man’s part. This is sometimes called operative grace, as
opposed to cooperative grace. It is also said to be a monergistic act (lit­
erally, “[God’s] work alone”), since at every point after that, man’s
will cooperates with God’s action. This cooperation is called synergistic
(literally, “work together”).1
For the extreme Calvinist, man is purely passive with regard to the
beginning of his salvation, but is active with God's grace after that
point. This view was held by the later Augustine (see appendix 3), Lu­
ther, Calvin, Edwards (see appendix 9), and Turretin. The Synod of
Dort (see appendix 8), following Augustine, even uses the illustration
of the “resurrection from the dead” of God’s work on the unregen­
erate {Canons ofDort, articles 11-12).2

SORTING OUT THE ISSUES

The issues involved as to which view is correct are discussed else­
where in this book. The extreme Calvinists’ view of an initial monergism

'See Sproul, Willing to Believe, 119.

’Ibid., 139.
242 CHOSEN BUT FREE

is based on their belief that irresistible grace is exercised by God on

the unwilling. We have shown that this is wrong for several reasons.

It is not supported by the Bible

There is no biblical support for the extreme Calvinists’ view of ir­
resistible grace on the unwilling (see chapter 5). The Bible affirms
that all can, and some do, resist the grace of God (Matt. 23:37; cf.
2 Peter 3:9).

It is not supported by the church fathers

With the explainable exception of the later Augustine (see appen­
dix 3), no major church fathers up to the Reformation held to irresis­
tible grace on the unwilling (see appendix 1). Even Luther’s view, the
first major one after the later Augustine, was reversed by his disciple
and systematize^ Melanchthon. And Cabin’s view was opposed by Ar-
minius and is rejected by all moderate Calvinists (see chapters 6
and 7).

It is not supported by the attribute of God’s omnibenevolence

One of the primary problems with extreme Calvinism (see chap­
ters 4 and 5) is the denial of God's essential omnibenevolence. By the
admission of this view, God is not all-loving in a redemptive sense. He
loves, sent Christ to die for, and attempts to save only the elect. How-
ever, this is contrary to Scripture (see appendix 6). An all-loving God
(1 John 4:16) loves all (John 3:16) and wants all to come to salvation
(1 Tim. 2:3-5; cf. 2 Peter 3:9).

It is not supported by man’s God-given free will

Since love is always persuasive but never coercive, God cannot
force any one to love Him—which is what irresistible love on the un­
willing would be. God’s persuasive, but resistible love, goes hand in
glove with human free choice. Free will is self-determination (see
chapter 2 and appendix 4). It involves the ability to choose otherwise.
One can either accept or reject God’s grace.

CONCLUSION
God’s grace works synergistically on free will. That is, it must be
received to be effective. There are no conditions for giving grace, but
there is one condition for receiving it—faith. Put in other terms,
■

monergism vs. synergism ’43

God’s justifying grace works cooperatively, not operatively. Faith is a

precondition for receiving God’s gift of salvation (see appendix 10).
Faith is logically prior to regeneration, since we are saved “through
faith” (Eph. 2:8-9) and “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1 NASB).
A fitting conclusion to this brief study on man’s needed response
by faith is to read the dynamic tvords of Revelation 22:17. Here, John
the aposde clearly holds out God’s gracious invitation to all; "The
Spirit and the bride say, ‘Cornel’ and let him who hears say, ‘Cornel’
Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the
free gift of the water of life.”
 APPENDIX TWELVE

Extreme Calvinism
and Voluntarism
At the root of extreme Calvinism is a radical form of voluntarism,
which affirms that something is right simply because God willed it,
rather than God willing it because it is right in accordance with His
own unchangeable nature (a view called essentialism). If voluntarism
is accurate, then there is no moral problem with irresistible grace on
die unwilling, limited atonement, or even double-predestination. If,
on the other hand, God’s will is not ultimately arbitrary, then extreme
Calvinism collapses.

AN EVALUATION OF VOLUNTARISM IN
EXTREME CALVINISM
All extreme Calvinists are voluntarists, either explicitly or implic­
itly, and no extensive passage in the Bible is used by them more than
Romans 9. Since few expositions of this passage are more comprehen­
sive than John Piper’s TheJustification of God, we will cite it extensively
on this matter. A selection of his quotes will set forth the view.
Or to put it more precisely, it is the glory of God and his essential
nature mainly to dispense mercy (but also wrath, Ex. 34:7) on whom­
ever he pleases apart from any constraint originating outside his own
will. This is the essence of what it means to be God. This is his
name. ...
r
EXTREME CALVINISM AND VOLUNTARISM 245

If we paraphrase and bring out the implicit understanding of

righteousness, the argument runs like this: since God’s righteous­
ness consists basically in his acting unswervingly for his own glory,
and since his glory consists basically in his sovereign freedom in the
bestowal and withholding of mere)', there is no unrighteousness
with God (Rom. 9:llff.). On the contrary, he must pursue his
“electing purpose” apart from man’s “willing and running,” for
only in his sovereign, free bestowal of mercy on whomever he wills is
God acting out of a full allegiance to his name and esteem for his
glory. ...
In a nutshell it goes like this: Paul’s conception of God’s righ­
teousness is that it consists basically in his commitment to act al­
ways for his own name’s sake, that is, to preserve and display his
own glory (cf. chapters 7 and 8). Therefore, since according to
Exodus 33:19 God’s glory or name consists basically in his sovereign
freedom in the bestowal of mercy (cf. chapter 4), there is no unrigh­
teousness with God when his decision to bless one person and not an­
other is based solely on his own will* rather dian on any human dis­
tinctive. On the contrary, he must pursue his ’purpose of election’
in this way in order to remain righteous, for only in his sovereign,
free bestowal (and withholding) of mercy on whomever he wills is
God acting out of a full allegiance to his name and esteem for his
glory. . . .
The thesis that I formulate in chapter 5 in ansiver to this ques­
tion is that for Paul the righteousness of God must be his unswerving
commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his
glory. If this is what it means for God to be righteous, and if his
glory (or name) consists mainly in his sovereign freedom to have
mercy on whom he wills, then the quotation of Exodus 33:19 as an
argument for the righteousness of God in unconditional election
does in fact make good sense.1

In brief, according to voluntarists like Piper, something is right sim­

ply because God wills it. And He wills whatever He pleases.

A CRITIQUE OF VOLUNTARISM IN
EXTREME CALVINISM
There are many serious, even fatal, flaws with voluntarism, both
biblical and theological. Consider the following:

‘Piper, The Justification of God, 89, 122, 157, 219 (italics his in all citations except noted
one*).
246 CHOSEN BUT FREE

First, neither Piper nor other extreme Calvinists offer any real bib­
lical proof of their position. All the verses they offer are capable of
interpretations contrary to voluntarism (see chapters 4 and 5).
Second, they are inconsistent with their own position on the na­
ture of God. On the one hand, they claim God’s mercy’ is based in His
supreme and sovereign will—He can will anything He wants to will
and show mercy on anyone to whom He wants to show mercy. On the
other hand, they claim that God’s holiness and justice are unchanging.
He cannot be unholy or unjust, even if He wanted to be. By His very
nature God must punish sin.
But they cannot have it both ways. For as a simple unchangeable
being, all of His attributes are unchangeable. If He is just (and He is),
then He must be unchangeably just at all times to all persons in all
circumstances. And if He is loving (and He is), then He must be un­
changeably loving to all persons at all times in all circumstances. To be
other titan this would be to act contrary to His unchangeable nature,
which is impossible.
Third, virtually all strong Calvinists hold to the classical view of
God's attributes. Some of them, like John Gerstner and R. C. Sproul,
give specific allegiance to Thomas Aquinas, and the rest follow Augus­
tine, who held the same position, namely, that God is simple, neces­
sary, and unchangeable in His essence. All God’s attributes are part of
this unchangeable nature. Further, God can will nothing contrary to
His immutable nature. But if this is the case, then voluntarism is
wrong, since it makes God’s will supreme over everything else, even
over whatever “nature” He has.
R. C. Sproul does not appear to see die inconsistency in his own
view. He says on the one hand, “Is not God necessarily good? God can
do nothing but good.”- Yet elsewhere he insists diat “God may owe
people justice, but never mercy.”3 If this means that God is not obli­
gated by His own nature to love sinners—all sinners—then God’s at­
tribute of mercy is not necessary. But God is a simple and necessary
Being, as even Sproul admits. Thus, while it follows that while there is
nothing in fallen human beings that merits God’s love, nonetheless,
there is something in God’s unchangeable love that necessitates that
He loves diem.
Fourth, there are serious theological problems with voluntarism.
Essential to voluntarism is the premise diat God has nothing either
’See Sproul. Willing to Believe, 111.
’Sproul, Chosen by God, 33.
r
EXTREME CALVINISM AND VOLUNTARISM 247

outside of Him or inside Him that places any limits on His will. What­
ever He wills is ipso facto right. If this were so, then God could will that
love is wrong and hate is right, or that injustice is right and justice is
wrong. But this is absurd and contradictory, for something cannot
even be in-just (not just) unless there is an ultimate standard ofjustice
(such as the nature of God) by which we know what is not just.
Finally, the voluntarism of extreme Calvinism is a classic example
of the fallacy known as a theologism. It takes a single theological prin­
ciple and uses it as the ultimate determiner of all truth. Often the
principle is: Whatever gives most glory to God is true. And since they
believe that making God’s trill supreme over everything else brings
more glory to Him, then it would follow that voluntarism is true.
However, one can challenge both premises. Not that it is wrong to
do everything for the glory of God, but that “glory” is an ambiguous
term that needs definition. When properly defined it refers to the
manifestation and radiation of God s eternal and unchangeable es­
sence, not His arbitrary will. Further, the second premise is likewise
flawed, for making God’s will supreme, even over His nature, does not
bring the most glory to God. In fact, it contradicts His unchangeable
nature. And nothing that contradicts God’s nature can be glorifving
to Him.

A DEFENSE OF CHRISTIAN ESSENTIALISM

Either voluntarism is true, or else some form of essentialism is

true. The former claims something is right because God willed it. The
latter contends that God wills it because it is right. Saints Augustine,
Anselm, and Aquinas defended this latter view, as did C. S. Lewis in
modern times.
There are two basic forms of essentialism: either God is bound to
will things in accordance to some standard outside Himself (as in
Plato’s Good) or else by the standard inside Himself (namely, His own
nature). The latter is held by Christian essentialists. Three basic lines
of argument in favor of this view are: ' philosophical, biblical, and prac­
tical. First, the philosophical view trill be discussed.

LSec Norman I.. Geisler, “Essentialism," in Baker's Encyclopetlia of Christian Apologetics

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1999), 216-18.
248 CHOSEN BUT FREE

PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS FOR

DIVINE ESSENTIALISM
Christian theist Thomas Aquinas offered three basic arguments for
God’s unchangeable nature in his famous Summa Theologica
(STI.2.3.).
The argument from God’s pure actuality
The first argument is based on the fact that a God of pure Actuality
(“I AM-ness”) has no potentiality. For everything that changes has po­
tentiality, and there can be no potentiality in God (He is pure Actual­
ity, Ex. 3:14). Whatever changes has to have the potential to change.
But as pure Actuality God has no potential; therefore, He cannot
change.
The argument from God’s perfection
The second argument for God’s unchangeability stands on His ab­
solute perfection. Briefly put, whatever changes acquires something
new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since He is absolutely per­
fect; He could not be better. Therefore. God cannot change. God is
bv His very nature an absolutelv perfect Being. If there were any per­
fection that He lacked, then He would not be God. To change one
must gain something new, but to gain a new perfection is to have
lacked it to begin with. If God could change, He would not be God;
rather, He would be a being lacking in some perfection, not the abso­
lutely perfect God He is. Hence, He cannot change.
The argument from God’s simplicity
The third argument for God’s immutability follows from His sim­
plicity. Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what
does not change. But there can be no composition in God (He is an
absolutely simple being). Again, then—God cannot change.
An absolutely simple being has no composition. But whatever
changes must be composed of what does change and what does not
change. For if everything about a being changed, then it would not be
the same being but an entirely new being. In fact, it would not be
change but annihilation of die one and recreation of another entirely
new. Notv, if when change occurs in a being something remains the
same and something does not, then the being must be composed of
these wo elements. But an absolutely simple being, such as God is,
has no composition. Therefore, it follow’s that God cannot change.
r
EXTREME CALVINISM AND VOLUNTARISM 249

BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR

DIVINE ESSENTIALISM
There are numerous Scriptures that declare that God is unchange­
able in His nature. First, the Old Testament passages will be discussed.
Old Testament evidence for God’s immutability
The psalmist declared: "In the beginning you [Lord] laid the foun­
dations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They
will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like
clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you re­
main the same, and your years will never end” (Ps. 102:25-27). 1 Sam­
uel 15:29 affirms that “ ‘He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or
change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his
mind.’ ” The prophet added, “For I am the Lord, I change not; there­
fore ye sons ofJacob are not consumed” (Mai. 3:6 kjv).

New Testament evidence for God’s immutability

The New Testament is equally strong about God’s unchangeable
nature. Hebrews 1:10-12 cites the psalmist with approval, repeating,
“ ‘You [Lord] will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be
changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end' ”
(v. 12). A few chapters later the author of Hebrews asserts, “God did
this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for
God to lie . ..” (Heb. 6:18). The apostle Paul adds in Titus 1:2, “God,
who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time... .’’James
1:17 points out dtat “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” (Kjv).
Now, if God is unchangeable in His nature, then His will is subject
to His unchangeable nature. Thus, whatever God wills must be good
in accordance with this nature. In fact, since God is simple His will is
identical to His unchangeable nature. God cannot will contrary to His
nature. He cannot lie. He cannot be unloving, nor unjust. In short,
divine essentialism must be correct in contrast to extreme Calvinism.

PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S

MORAL IMMUTABILITY
In addition to the philosophical and biblical arguments for God’s
nature being unchangeable, there are many practical arguments.
250 CHOSEN BUT FREE

The argument from moral repugnance

Divine essentialists insist that it is morally repugnant to assume, as
voluntarists do, that God could change His will on whether love is es­
sentially good and could will instead that hate be a universal moral
obligation. Likewise, it is difficult to conceive how a morally perfect
Being could will that rape, cruelty, and genocide be morally good.
Since it is morally repugnant for creatures made in God’s image to
imagine such a change in God’s will, how much more must it be for
the God in whose image we are made?

The argument from the need for moral stability

According to this argument, if all moral principles were based on
God's changing will, then there would be no moral security. For ex­
ample, how could one commit himself/herself to a life of love, mercy,
or justice only to find out that God could change at any moment the
fact of whether these were the right things to do? Indeed, how could
we serve God as supreme if He could will that our ultimate good was
not to love Him but hate Him?

The argument from God’s trustworthiness

The Bible presents God as eminently trustworthy. When He makes
an unconditional promise He never fails to keep it (cf. Gen. 12:1-3;
Heb. 6:16-18). Indeed, the gifts and callings of God are without
change of mind on His part (Rom. 11:29). God is not a man that He
should repent (1 Sam. 15:29 KJV). He can always be counted on to
keep His Word (Isa. 55:11). But dtis ultimate trustworthiness of God
would not be possible if He could change His will at any time about
anything. The only thing that makes God morally bound to keep His
Word is His unchangeable nature. Otherwise. He could decide at any
moment to send all believers to hell. He could reward the wicked for
murder and cruelty. Such a God would not be eminently trustworthy,
as is the God of the Bible, who is unchangeably good.
What is ironic here is that the very Calvinists who depend on an
essentially unchanging God to support their beliefs in unconditional
election and eternal security, depend on a non-essentialistic (i.e, vol­
untaristic) view of God to ground their view in limited atonement.
Thus, extreme Calvinism has at its heart an incoherent view of God.
r
EXTREME CALVINISM AND VOLUNTARISM 251

CONCLUSION
Extreme Calvinism stands or falls with voluntarism. It is at the root
of both its biblical interpretation and theological expressions. But, as
we have seen, Calvinistic voluntarism is biblically unfounded, theolog­
ically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repug­
nant. Thus extreme Calvinism is subject to the same criticisms.
 APPENDIX THIRTEEN

A Response to
James White’s
The Patterns Freedom

Since Chosen But Free has been honored by an extensive analysis

from a strong Calvinist's perspective, and since many have inquired as
to my reaction, a brief response is in order. First of all, let me express
my appreciation for James White and his admirable work for Christ
and His kingdom. It has been my honor to write an introduction for
one of his books and to commend others over the years. He is a good
brother in Christ with whom I have worked side by side in defending
the gospel. James is a committed and conservative young scholar who
zealously defends the great essentials of the Christian faith.

Appreciation for White’s Review

In spite of the fact that The Potter’s Freedom (hereafter PF) is a
sharp critique of my moderate Calvinism, strangely enough, I found
r
A RESPONSE TO JAMES WHITE'S THE POTTER'S FREEDOM 253

myself agreeing with much of what it says. The reason for this will be­
come apparent as I respond briefly to its contents.
PF raised many valid issues that occasioned minor revisions re­
flected in this edition of Chosen Bui Free (hereafter CBF). These re­
finements have helped me to sharpen my position and present it more
clearly. For this I am grateful to Mr. White.
In addition, I appreciate his skill revealed in pointing out errata in
the first edition; these now have been corrected. For example, PF cor­
rectly notes that God’s electing “in spite of' His foreknowledge could
better be rendered “independent of’ (PF, 67) and that “so dead”
(PF, 104) is redundant. (Parenthetically, there are similar errors in PF.
For instance, “world” should be "word” on 261 and 262, and PF mis­
quotes my statement about “unlimited” atonement [CBF, 199], calling
it “limited” atonement [PF, 248].)
PF also raises additional issues that, although they have been ade­
quately addressed by others, we did not have occasion to discuss in our
first edition. These too have been briefly included in the above text.
Also a response to Roger Nicole’s arguments that Cabin held to lim­
ited atonement have been included.

Misunderstandings and Misrepresentations

My main response to PF centers around an improper understand­
ing of the moderate Calvinistic view I express in CBF. Seldom have I
read a review that so thoroughly misunderstands the object of its crit­
icism. To begin, it misrepresents my view by claiming it has only two
Calvinistic elements (PF, 20), when, in fact, I agree with all but one of
PFs definitions of its six points of Calvinism—irresistible grace on the
unwilling (PF, 39-40).
In spite of clear statements to the contrary, PF claims I embrace
the Molinist view that God is passive in His knowledge of man’s free
choices (cf. CBF, 50-51, 53-54). This mistake is repeated over and
over again in PF (cf. 55, 61-65, 69, 133, 173). As I read the critique in
PF, much of which I was in full agreement with, I could not help but
wonder what book it was criticizing. It appeared to me, as to many
others who read it, that PF would often simply reduce my view to an
Arminian position and then use material readily at hand to critique
that viewpoint.
Indeed, PF sometimes attributes a view to me that 1 explicitly re­
pudiate. For example, PF claims I affirm that God’s election is “based
254 CHOSEN BUT FREE

on” man’s free will (PF, 55, 64). Amazingly, PF soon after offers a
quote from CBF that clearly refutes this criticism (PF, 66).
Sometimes my view is so distorted by stereotype that it seems al­
most impossible to believe that PFhad my book in mind. For example,
PF claims that I believe God is passive in His knowledge of our free
choices but that “God is enslaved to our free choices” (PF, 67). This
in spite of PF even quoting the passage where I say, “God is totally
sovereign in the sense of actually determining what occurs” (PF, 66).
Likewise, PF claims I hold election to be conditional (PF, 72) and
that it “depends on the will of man” (PF, 87), when I repeatedly af­
firm that I believe election is unconditional for God (CBF, U9f.).
Space only permits brief mention of other PF misrepresentations,
namely, that I hold: that fallen man can will to please God (96); that
being “dead” in sin means only separation from God (101); that the
unsaved can come up with righteous desires (102); that faith is the
moving cause of our election (131); that God doesn’t elect individuals
(174); that man’s will is supreme over God’s (181, 203); that God
didn’t ordain people but only a plan (196); that God “merely” pre­
dicted die hardening of Pharaoh's heart but was not active in doing it
(221); diat the clay can force the potter's hand (225); that the atone­
ment of Christ is only theoretical (226).
1 counted no less than forty times my view was misrepresented. Inter­
estingly, in one place PF even admits finding it difficult to understand
my new (58). One might ask how something can be properly evalu­
ated which is not properly understood. Nonetheless, this failure to
comprehend my’ position does not impede in the least the overly’ zeal­
ous, pedantic, and at times somewhat arrogant critique of it in PF.

Logical Fallacies
PF offers virtually unlimited opportunities for beginning theology'
students to identify’ logical fallacies. The following is an incomplete
list: (1) Straw Man (94); (2) Diverting the Issue (94); (3) False Analogy
(284); (4) Taking a text out of context (29, 105); (5) Avoiding the
issue (89); (6) Guilt by association (92); (7) Caricature of a view (140,
142, 145); (8) Non sequitur (136, 141); (9) Assuming an answer isn’t
right because it’s short (27, 181); (10) Overstatement (28); (11) As­
suming the unexplained isn’t explainable (106); (12) False disjunctive;
(13) Theologism; (14) Ad Hominem; (15) Name Calling; and (16)
r
A RESPONSE TO JAMES WHITE'S THE POTTER'S FREEDOM 255

Criticizing a parable for not making other points than it was intended
to make (307).

Theologism
Etienne Gilson, in his classic work The Unity of Philosophical Expe­
rience, identifies an error at the heart of PFs extreme Calvinism:
“theologism.” Briefly, this is the fallacy of assuming that the view that
seems to give the most glory to God is true. Extreme Calvinists resort
time and again to this position (PF, 39,178). Interestingly, this fits with
their associated view of voluntarism (see under "Sidestepping the Big
Issues,” page 260), which also has parentage in William Ockham.
After all, deists have argued that it gives more glory to God to believe
that He created a world in which He never intervenes in the same way
that it brings more glory to a mechanic to make a perfect machine
that never needs repair.
PF and other extreme Calvinists argue that the less credit given to
man, the more glory given to God. And, God will get the most glory if
creatures have absolutely nothing to do with their salvation, not even
exercising their free choice to receive it. However, this does not follow,
since truth is not determined by what appears to glorify God but by
what actually fits with the facts. As has been demonstrated in CBF, the
evidence of Scripture and good reason fit better with a form of mod­
erate Calvinism.

Ad Hominem
This fallacy literally means a response “to the man” (rather than
to the argument). Throughout PF, the author takes great pride in his
exegetical skills, while any exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled
not “consistent” (19), not “meaningful” (20), not “in depth” (136),
a “mere presentation” (29), or not based on “definitive” works (254).

Name calling
Another favorite technique of PF is the fallacy of name calling.
Consider only the following out of numerous examples. My reasoning
and conclusion are labeled “a non-response” (217), “shallow at best”
(253), “simplistic arguments” (253), a “source of great confusion"
(19), not “substantial” (25), “quite simply ridiculous” (23), “almost
frightening” (62), “tremendous confusion” (71), “utterly amazing”
(87), “completely fallacious” (165), “completely backward" (168),
2se CHOSEN BUT FREE

“the most amazing statement” (167), and even a “most torturous line
of reasoning” (169).

Poisoning the Well

The effect of all this name calling entails another fallacy called
“poisoning the well.” These statements work toward polluting the
reader’s mind against a view rather than reasonably considering its
merits. It is a debating technique geared to winning arguments, not to
discovering truth.
PFs favorite name-calling device is what its author believes is the
theologically toxic word “Arminian.” Despite the fact that 1 clearly and
emphatically disavow being Arminian, claiming to be a “moderate Cal­
vinist” who holds a less extreme version of all five points of Calvinism’s
TULIP (see chapter 7), PF persists in using this sinister term to de­
scribe my view. This is done even though on PFs own definition (39-
40), I could subscribe to five of its six points of Calvinism (TULIP plus
“die freedom of God”). Outside of PFs definition of irresistible grace
on the unwilling, I hold a Calvinistic view very close to the way PF
defines these points, though not always die way it spells them out. This
leads to comments on another fallacv.

Straw Man
By reducing my view to the dreaded Arminian position and then
castigating it, PF is largely a su'aw man attack. Repeatedly, I found my­
self agreeing widi PFs critiques and wondering whose view it was
scorching. I had the distinct impression diat since my moderate Cal­
vinism did not provide enough fuel for its extreme Calvinistic fire, the
author brought his own woodpile on which to chop. Unfortunately,
die weary reader may go away thinking PFhas succeeded in demolish­
ing a view it has not really addressed.

False Disjunctive
One of PFs most prevalent fallacies is a false disjunctive, used re­
peatedly (53, 63, 65, 72, 76, 108-109, 268). It wrongly assumes a rea­
soning process that goes something like this: Either Geisler’s view is
Calvinistic or it is Arminian. It is not Calvinistic as PF understands the
term. Therefore, it is Arminian.
This, of course, overlooks that there is at least one other view
between what PF insists is “Calvinism” and what is Arminianism,
namely, moderate Calvinism. This view is clearly spelled out for any-
A RESPONSE TO JAMES WHITE'S THE POTTER'S FREEDOM 257

one desiring to understand it in several chapters and appendices in

CBF, which need only be read with an open mind to verify. In fact,
there is very little, if anything, unique about my basic position. It has
been held by most of the great fathers of the church (see appendix
1), by the early St. Augustine (see appendix 3), by St. Thomas Aqui­
nas, by other Calvinists like William Shedd, James Oliver Bussveil, Ste­
phen Charnock and Emery H. Bancroft, by Dispensational Calvinists
like L.ewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Fred Howe,
and Robert Lightner, and others. For PF to pretend this moderate Cal-
vinistic view does not exist is not logically valid, historically accurate,
or intellectually fair.
Another important example of the false disjunctive is at the heart
of the PF argument. The author asks: “Does God’s foreknowledge de­
termine what he decrees or does God’s decree determine what He
foreknows?” (50). PA seems oblivious to another alternative. The
whole of CBF offers one, namely, that they are coordinate acts in the
simple and eternal Being of God. Thus, neither determines the other.
Rather, God knowingly determined and determinate!)' knew and
willed from all eternity everything that would come to pass.

Non Sequitur
The non sequitur fallacy occurs when the conclusion drawn does
not follow logically from the premises given. A classic example of this
occurs when PA attempts to argue for limited atonement from Christ's
intercession in heaven only for the elect (Heb. 7:25). PA affirms that
(1) Christ prays only for those for whom he died; (2) Christ prays only
for those who are elect. (3) Hence, Christ died only for the elect
(241).
However, this is an elementary error known as an undistributed
middle term. In short, even if there are not morefor whom He prays than
those for whom He died, nevertheless, there may be more for whom He died
than those for whom He prays. To make those for whom He died and
the elect one and the same group involves a fallacy of illicit conversion
of terms. It is like saying that if all horses have four legs, then all four­
legged things are horses. Although (1) All Christ died for are in the
only group for whom He presently intercedes in heaven, and (2) All
the elect are in the only group for whom He presently intercedes, it
does not follow that (3) All He died for are the elect.
25S CHOSEN BUT FREE

Internal Inconsistencies

There are also numerous internal inconsistencies that beset PF.

Space permits comments on only a few. First, on the one hand PF
warns against the use of human illustrations (mine). On the other
hand, PF approves of the use of human illustrations (its own) (cf. 307-
312). Second, PF affirms that God is free not to act according to His
moral attribute of mercy to save all men, yet He is not free not to act accord­
ing to His moral attribute ofjustice to condemn all men.
PF chides CBF for citing secondary sources, while it cites a second­
ary source of its own (Piper) on the same passage (24). It contends
that a "mere presentation” of my view is not sufficient (29), yet it
sometimes docs the same for its view and at times even no presenta­
tion at all, such as an explanation of one of the most difficult verses
for extreme Calvinists, 2 Peter 2:1 (251).
Ironically, PF rejects my position on predestination (that election
is according to. but not based on, foreknowledge), yet it appears to af­
firm a very similar view (49). PF claims that my view is “unique” (51),
but at the same lime classes it as Arminian (200). which is not unique.
It holds that man is not forced to do evil, yet he is controlled by his
nature and must do evil (84, 87-88). Persons “dead" in sin are not
free to reach out to accept the gospel (104), vet they are free to reject
the gospel (101).
Furthermore, according to PF. the unsaved can understand the
gospel, yet the words are empty (110). (How one can understand
empty words is not explained.) "Everyone" means all in Romans 5:9-
10; 8:7-8 (113), yet elsewhere when speaking of unlimited atonement
it means only some (231f.). On the one hand. PF uses “source” as
cause (210) when defending extreme Calvinism, while on the other
hand PF does not allow it to mean cause when I use it against extreme
Calvinism (186),

More Misunderstandings and Misrepresentations

Here is but a selection from PF: It claims that I could not agree
with Calvin that election is from God’s free choice (131), when, in
fact, I do; that praying for all men necessitates that we go dirough
each name in the phone book (140); that what CBF supposedly
“clearly says" is the opposite of what it actually says (173); that I be­
lieve the final factor in election is our free choice (173), while I be-
A RESPONSE TO JAMES WHITE’S THE POTTER S FREEDOM 259

lieve it is God’s choice; that clear statements are confusing (174); that
Arminianism holds what it docs not hold (269); that I am an Arminian
(123) when I state and demonstrate that I am not; that I believe salva­
tion “depends on will of man” (87), when I hold that it depends on
God’s grace alone, which is merely received by man's choice; that in a
synergistic view grace must be dependent on free will (91), when I
disavow this view; that I simply presuppose free will (93), when, in fact,
1 give both biblical and rational arguments for it (chapter 2; appendix
4); that I deny God’s active decree (59-60); that I hold God’s sover­
eignty is limited to giving the gift of freedom (60), when I affirm it is
not; that I “completely ignore” the arguments of Calvin, Hodge, and
Turretinus against free will (93-94), when, in fact, 1 treat them exten­
sively (chapter 2; appendices 1, 3, 4, 9); that my view of free will is that
man is autonomous (98), when I have a whole chapter affirming God’s
sovereignty over everything, including man’s free choices (chapter 1);
that I do not believe in the infallible work of the Holy Spirit (118),
when I even affirm it is irresistible on the willing.

Revealing Admissions by PF
One of the most illuminating claims in PF is that God does not love
all men in a salvific (saving) sense (302-303). This is a denial of the
core and classical attribute of God’s omnibenevolence. Nor does PF
comprehend that it is a category mistake to fail to understand that
God having power He does not use is not the same as having love He
does not show. For love, like justice, is a moral attribute of God that
demands action on its object, whereas power as a nonmoral attribute
does not. God can no more fail to act lovingly titan He can fail to act
justly.
PF also admits holding that there is no free will in any creature
(35), claiming that God is the only truly free being in the universe
(68). Since free will is part of the image of God, this amounts to a
denial that fallen man is in His image (which is clearly contrary to
Scripture; e.g., Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). It also robs humans of one of the
essential characteristics of their humanness—their ability to make free
moral choices.
PF further reduces humanness to “pots” of clay, taking an obvious
allegory literally and claiming that God has absolute authority over the
people He makes apart from any truly free choice on their part (36-
41, 61). This is reminiscent of the Muslim poet Omar Khayyam, who
260 CHOSEN BUT FREE

likened humans to pawns on a chessboard. Indeed, PF rejects human

free will without even attempting to give a real definition of it or de­
fense of its view.
PF also admits that God does not do all He can to save all (99).
Thus, it cannot escape the conclusion that God is not even as good as
a finite fallible human father who would do everything he could to
save all his drowning children.
Further. PFis seemingly unashamed to acknowledge that God com­
mands what is impossible (108), being apparently oblivious to the ir­
rationality this attributes to God. Again, if any earthly father com­
manded his offspring to do what was literally impossible and then
punished them temporally (to say nothing of eternally) for not doing
so, PF would surely condemn him. Yet it does not blush to say God
does this very diing.
PF admits there is a distinction between the potential and actual
salvation of the elect before the world and their actual salvation in the
world (268-269). Yet it denies this same distinction to moderate Cal­
vinists, who believe all men are potentially saved bv the Cross, while
only the elect are actually saved by it.

Sidestepping the Big Issues

PF attempts in vain to avoid the logic that the extreme Calvinist
must hold: that all good, free acts are caused by Another and. hence,
we can have no responsibility for them. Nowhere does it really grapple
with this crucial premise of extreme Calvinism.
Another big issue completely ignored bv PF is the charge of vol­
untarism against extreme Calvinism (CBF, 35-36, 40, 42, 59). In the
final analysis, for PF something is good onlv because God wills it; God
does not will it because it is good (in accordance with an unchange­
ably good nature). Not one of the many biblical and philosophical
arguments listed against voluntarism in an extensive appendix (CBF,
no. 4) is addressed. This is one of the central premises of extreme
Calvinism, and there is not a word of defense for it in PF.
Likewise, PF brushes aside the fact dtat the extreme Calvinist view
is an historic anomaly, hating the support of the late Augustine as the
only significant voice before the Reformation. This it calls a “mature”
view when it does not grow out of any significant position in church
history before it but is based on an overreaction against a schismatic
group (the Donatists) forced to believe in die doctrine of the Catholic
r
A RESPONSE TO JAMES WHITE’S THE POTTER'S FREEDOM 261

Church against their choice (see CBF, appendix 3).

While trumpeting its exegetical skills, /’/’’nowhere engages some of
the big exegetical issues. As mentioned, a crucial text in defense of
unlimited atonement (2 Pet. 2:1) is not addressed at all. Other texts
clearly refuting PF's limited atonement view are handled with the kind
of eisegesis in which “all men" is magically transformed into “some
men.” Nowhere does it address my challenge to produce even one
text where the word “all” is used generically of human beings in a
limited sense. Nowhere does it provide a single text that says in so many
words that Christ died only for the elect.
Likewise, PF sidesteps the force of all the many passages that depict
fallenness in terms of sickness, blindness, and pollution (as opposed
to its mistaken understanding of “dead” as the destruction of ability
to respond positively to God). Further, it affirms, contrary to Scripture
and the nature of God, that an all-loving God loves only some and
forces them contrary to their will to accept Him, while consigning the
rest to eternal and conscious punishment.

Redefining Terms That Hide Error

Another technique employed by PF to further its position is to re­
define terms that cover the harsh reality of a biblically, morally, and
rationally indefensible view. Irresistible grace on the unwilling is la­
beled a “middle ground” between persuasion and coercion (69-70).
This is a theological euphemism par excellence. How can an act of
God that is absolutely contrary’ to the desires and will of a totally de­
praved human being who is dead in sin be anything less than coercive?
Moving the coercive act of God to the point of regeneration
does not make it any less violent, for the totally dead person being
regenerated is both unaware and unwilling of the operation of God
upon him that is totally against his will and desires.

Theological Doublespeak
A similar problem emerges when /’/■’employs a kind of theological
doublespeak to forward its view. For example, it affirms that fallen hit­
mans can will, but yet they have no will (192); that grace is irresistible,
but yet it is not coercive (161); that depraved humans are dead but are
alive enough to hear and reject the gospel (101); that God does not
force anyone, but He regenerates them contrary to their will (200).
262 CHOSEN BUT FREE

Pride and Exclusivism

I am not alone in detecting a proud and exclusivistic undertone in

PF. For example, it calls its view “the Reformed” view (38, emphasis
added), while summarily dismissing other Reformed theologians CBF
cites who do not agree with major points in its presentation (e.g.,
William Shedd and R. T. Kendall). The author of PF immodestly an­
nounces, “I will be demonstrating” that Geisler’s view “is in error”
(30). Better to set forth one’s case and let the reader decide that. It
speaks of “such obvious errors” (103) of those who oppose it and of
the "only way” to interpret irresistible grace (137), when it is known
that there are other ways. It claims my position is "utterly without sub­
stantiation” (262) and that its own conclusion is true "without ques­
tion.”
PF even goes so far as to leave the realm of exegetical refutation
and to pass an implied moral judgment on those who disagree with its
interpretation, saying they express “unwillingness to accept what the
text itself teaches” (165). Good and godly scholars on every side of
this issue have long disagreed over how to interpret these and other
texts. In response, one might suggest that a bit more intellectual open­
ness, scholarly reserve, and spiritual humility would be appropriate.

Improper Exegesis
As readers of PF can detect for themselves, the author is convinced
of his exegetical skills and chides CBF for its alleged lack thereof. Yet
PF repeatedly reads "some men" into passages that clearly and em­
phatically say "all men” (140, 142). It insists against the context that
2 Peter 3:9 (where God desires that all men be saved) is not speaking
about salvation (146-147). It claims that John 1:12-13 does not say
"received” when lite very word is used by John in this text (185). It
overlooks die context that speaks of unrepentant people (Rom. 9:22),
claiming Romans 9 affirms that the “only difference” between vessels
of wrath and vessels of mercy is God’s action. It distorts the word
"saves” to "saves himself’ (64), and so on.

Other Significant Errors

PF furthers its agenda by confusing cause and effect in God’s de­
crees (57). It shows no understanding of the difference between a pri-
A RESPONSE TO JAMES WHITE S THE POTTER'S FREEDOM 163

mary cause (God) and a secondary cause (free choice) (68), which
even the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith recognizes (57). It
views our faith in God as a work (179) in order to eliminate any action
of man as legitimate in receiving his own salvation—even believing.

Conclusion
All in all., The Potter’s Freedom is a good critique. But unfortunately,
it is not a critique of my view. It often misunderstands, misrepresents,
and mischaracterizes the moderate Calvinistic presentation of Chosen
But Free. PF is permeated with logical fallacies and reveals an inade­
quate comprehension of the unjustified theological and philosophical
underpinnings of extreme Calvinism. By distorting the obvious, carica-
turizing the opposing, and sidestepping the difficult, PF futilely attempts to
make. the. implausible sound plausible and the unbiblical seem biblical.
My criticisms notwithstanding, 1 again would like to affirm mv
friendship with my brother in Christ and co-defender of the Christian
faith. I bid God’s blessing on him and His work for the kingdom, prav-
ing that he will channel his considerable talent and zeal toward the
more pressing need of defending Christianity against those who denv
the fundamentals of the faith, not those who affirm them.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich. Roy. “The Gift of God." Bibliotheca Sana (July-September 1965):

248-53.'
Ames. William. The Marrow of Theology. Trans, and cd. John D. Eusden.
Durham, N.C.: The Labyrinth Press. 1983.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. In The Basic Writings of St. Thomas
Aquinas. Vol. 1. Edited and annotated. Introduction by Anton C. Pegis.
New York: Random House, 1944.
Arminius, Janies. Remonstrance (1610). In The Creeds of Christendom. Ed.
Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983.
-------- . IVorfa. In The Writings ofJames Arminius. Trans. James Nichols and
W. R. Bagnall. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1956.
.Armstrong, Brian. Calvinism and theAmyraut Heresy. Madison, Wis.: Univer­
sity of Wisconsin Press, 1969.
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, Ill.: The Univer­
sity of Chicago Press, 1957.
Augustine. Saint. City of God. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church. Ed. Philip Schaff. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1956.
---------. Enchiridion. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of the Christian Church. Ed. Philip Schaff. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
---------. Epistle ofJohn'. Homily A', 9. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Ed. Philip Schaff. Vol. 7. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
---------. On the Correction of the Donatists. In A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Ed. Philip Schaff. Vol. 4.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
---------. Two Souls, Against the Manichaeans 10.14, 158. Quoted in Norman
r
bibliography 2G5

L. Geisler. What Augustine Says. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book

House, 1982.
Bancroft, Emery H. Christian Theology: Systematic and Biblical. Ed. Ronald
B. Mayers. 2nd rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1976.
Basinger, David, and Randall Basinger, eds. Predestination and Free Will
Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Berkof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.
Boyd, Greg. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Openness View
of God (Baker Book House, 2000).
--------- . Trinity and Process. New York: Peter Lang, 1992.
Buswell, James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol.
II. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962-63.
Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles. Trans. John W.
Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald. Eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F.
Torrance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
--------- . Calvin's Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Gala­
tians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. Trans. T. H. L. Parker. Eds.
David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
--------- . Calvin’s Commentaries: A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and
Luke and the Epistles offames and Jude. Trans. A. W. Morrison. Eds.
David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.
--------- . The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Henry Beveridge.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, and John F. Walvoord. Major Bible Themes. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing, 1974.
Charnock, Stephen. Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979, reprint.
Craig, William Lane. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: The Mac­
millan Press, Ltd., 1979.
--------- . The Only Wise God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987.
Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. Ed. Nora Darwin
Barlow. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1993.
Davis, Stephen T. Logic and the Nature of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.
Dillow, Jodie. The Reign of the Servant King. Hayesville, N.C.: Schoetde Pub­
lishing Co., 1992.
Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will. In Jonathan Edwards: Representative
Selections, rev. ed. Introduction, bibliography, and notes by Clarence H.
Faust and Thomas H. Johnson. New York: Hill and Wang. 1962.
--------- . Jonathan Edwards: Representative Selections, rev. ed. Introduction,
bibliography, and notes by Clarence H. Faust and Thomas H. Johnson.
New York: Hill and Wang, 1962.
2GG CHOSEN BUT FREE

---------. Works. In The Works ofJonathan Edwards. 2 vols. Carlisle, Pa.: Ban­
ner of Truth, 1974.
Ellicott, Charles John. Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Grand
Rapids. Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House. 1954.
Forster, Roger T.. and V. Paul Marston. God’s Strategy in Human History.
Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1974.
Friedrich. Gerhard, gen. ed. Theological Dictionary of the Neto Testament.
Trans, and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids. Mich.: Win.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964-76.
Garrigou-LaGrange, R. God: His Existence and Nature. St. Louis: B. Herder
Book Co., 1946.
Geach, Peter. Providence and Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1999.
-------- . Creating God in the Image of Man? Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers, 1997.
---------. “Essentialism.” In Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House. 1999.
-------- . “Prophecy as Proof of the Bible." In Bahn ’s Encyclopedia of Chris­
tian Apologetics. Grand Rapids. Mich.: Baker Book House, 1999.
-------- . What Augustine Says. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,
1982.
Geisler, Norman L, “Eternal Security: A Moderate Calvinist Perspective."
In Eternal Security, ed. Matt Pinson. Grand Rapids. Mich.: Zondervan,
2001.
Geisler, Norman L., and Thomas A. Howe. W7icti Critics Ask. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992.
Gill, John. The Cause of God and Truth. London: 1814, new ed.
Hasker, William. God, Time and Knowledge. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University
Press, 1989.
Haykin, Mike. One Heart and One SouL Phillipsburg. N.J.: Evangelical Press,
n.d.
Hodge. A. A. Outlines of Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1949.
Hume, David. The Letters of David Hume, ed.J. Y. T. Greig. 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1932.
Hussey. Joseph. God’s Operations of Grace. London: D. Bridge, 1707.
Kendall, R. T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford, 1979.
Lewis, C. S. The Great Divorce. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1946.
-------- . Screwtape Letters. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961.
-------- . Surprised by Joy. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1955.
Lidell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968.
Lightner, Robert. The Death Christ Died. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel
Publications, 1998.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In The Empiricists.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 267

Ed. Richard Taylor. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1961.
Lucas, J. R. The Freedom of the Will Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
--------- . The Future: An Essay on God, Temporality and Truth. London: Basil
Blackwell, 1989.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Trans. Henry Cole. Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1976.
Machen, J. Gresham. Quoted in J. I. Packer. Fundamentalism and the I1W
of God. Grand Rapids: Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.
Miley, John. Systematic Theology. Methodist Book Concern, 1892.
Morris, Thomas V. Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theol­
ogy. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991.
Murray, Iain H. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.
Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.
Nash, Ronald, ed. Process Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1987.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Carlisle, Pa.: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.
Packer, J. I. Fundamentalism and the Word of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.
Packer, J. I., and O. R. Johnson. “Historical and Theological Introduction.’'
In The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther. Trans. Henry Cole. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1976.
Palmer, Edwin. The Five Points of Calvinism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1972.
Payne, J. Barton. Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1973.
Pinnock, Clark. “Between Classical and Process Theism." In Process Theol­
ogy. Ed. Ronald Nash. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Book House, 1987.
Pinnock, Clark, et al. The Openness of God. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1994.
Piper, John. The Justification of God. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1993.
Rice, Richard. God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will. Minneapolis: Beth­
any House Publishers, 1985.
Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 5 vols. Nashville, Tenn.:
Broadman Press, 1930. Reprint, New York: R. R. Smith, Inc.. 1931.
Russell, Bertrand. VWiy I Am Not a Christian. New York: Simon and Schuster.
1957.
Ryrie, C. C. The Holy Spirit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
Sapaugh, Gregory. “Is Faith a Gift? A Study of Ephesians 2:8." Journal ofthe
Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1994): 7:12,31-43.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1983.
Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicnu Fathers of the
Christian Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1956.
2GS CHOSEN BUT FREE

Shank, Robert. Life in the Son. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,

1989.
Shedd. W. G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas
Nelson, Inc,, 1980.
Sproul. R. C. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986.
--------- . Willing Io Believe. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1997.
Spurgeon, Charles. "A Critical Text—C. H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:3, 4.”
Quoted in lain Murray. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gos­
pel Preaching, 150, 154. Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Trulli Trust, 1995.
Stanley, Charles. Eternal Security. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, Inc.,
1990.
Steele, David N„ and Curtis C. Thomas. The Five Points of Calvinism. Phil­
lipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963.
Stibbs, .Alan M. The Older Tyndale New Testament Commentary on First Peter.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1959,
Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming
H. Revell Company, 1907.
Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1977.
Toon. Peter. The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Non-Conformity
1689-1765. London: The Olive Tree. 1967.
Tozer, A. W. The Knowledge of the Holy. New York: Harper & Row. 1978.
Walvoord, John. The Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids. Mich.: Zondervan Publish­
ing House, 1958.
Watson, Richard. Theological Institutes: or .4 ITew of the Evidences, Doctrines,
Morals, and Institutions of Christianity. 2 vols. New York: T. Mason and
G. Lane, 1836.
Wright. R. K. McGregor. No Place for Sovereignty. Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Zagzebski, Linda. The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge. Oxford: Ox­
ford University Press, 1991.