The problems which concern us here arise on four points: Godнs omnipotence, Godнs justice, Godнs goodness, and Godнs omniscience.

First, the problem arises due to the conflict between Godнs transcendent power and human power. Christians are committed to both, but, if humans have the power to choose and act without external determination, then doesnнt that preclude Godнs omnipotence? Second, the human power to choose freely is apparently the basis for human responsibility, and thus for Godнs justice in judging. But, if God is all-powerful, then isnнt He responsible for everything that happens? Christianity is based on the insight that humanityнs problem is not an ignorance for which people might be reasonably unaccountable, but a deliberate, willful rebellion against Godнs moral sovereignty testified to by conscience.

Third, if God is all-powerful and therefore the direct agent of everything that happens, then we are faced with the Problem of Evil. Not only does God seem unjust in judging, but He seems to be capricious and malevolent in nature since He causes all the evil in our lives.

Fourth, if God knows everything that will happen, arenнt future events predetermined, such that human agency is an illusion. If so, then isn't God unjust?

These issues are intensified by Biblical passages which speak of мthe elect,о мchosen before the creation of the world,о мforeknew,о and most of all мpredestination.о Philosophy of History inevitably frames significant portions of the discussion, since Godнs purpose in creating freedom and his judging sin at the end of time, for example, are key ingredients of a Christian Philosophy of History.

There is probably nothing you hate more than the hollow, meaningless issues intellectuals sometimes debate. Me too. The issues in question here, I am convinced, are among the most relevant and important we can study and debate.

Predestination. If God predetermines our salvation or damnation, can we trust God to be just? Can we pass on a faith this offensive? If we cannot be assured of our salvation in any way on earth, how can we love God freely?

Contradiction of free will-predestination. If on the most basic point of our beliefs, God makes no sense at all, this should and does show in our worship. Unable to believe one or the other in an intelligible way, we find ourselves acting sometimes as if there is free will and sometimes as if not, never sure what is true. Sometimes we act as if God has inflicted something on us and deny our own responsibility. We become easy targets for Keswicks, who teach that we should мLet go and let God.о We are unable to enjoy the freedom of being made in Godнs image without wondering if we are really pawns. We arenнt able to make responsible decisions and spend countless hours trying to coax Godнs will out of him when faced with important decisions. We unwarrantedly search the Bible and take passages out of context in a desperate attempt to find guidance because we arenнt sure if we really do have the responsibility to make significant decisions ourselves.

Philosophy of History. What we do with our lives and what ideals we hold are all related to our understanding of the purpose of history. If all history is aimed at the earth growing cold and extinguishing the creature man that once contemplated it, we wonнt conclude that any one thing is much better to do than any other. If all history is aimed at producing a communist state, we will devote our lives towards furthering that end. If all history is aimed at producing a superman out of survival of the fittest, we won't care much for the weak and elderly and will strive to step on others to be sure we are the fittest. If we believe the laws of karma allot to every person the status they deserve, if indeed we believe with Hindus that history has no purpose, we will not devote much effort to changing the status of untouchables (or ourselves). These are all, of course, non-Christian philosophies of history. But the same holds for Christian philosophies of history: if Godнs aim is to bring the most people into the Church as possible, we will not hesitate to мforce them to come inо (i.e. forceful conversion), as Augustine interpreted Luke 14:23. If we conclude with Moody that the world is a sinking ship and our only task is to save whom we can, we will forget social work and intellectual issues, and just evangelize. If we believe God will coerce people to believe, we wonнt hesitate with Charles Finney to conduct revivals and write мhow-toо books on revivals based on psychological principles most likely to evoke a response. If we think, with liberation theologians and postmillennialists, that God is going to establish his Kingdom on earth soon, we will work toward this end and ignore the problems of the heart and evangelism. There is indeed much at stake here.

Sovereignty/Providence. Is God in control or not? Do we have any basis for confidence in the face of a confusing, disarrayed world full of evil? If God is in control, how is he in control? If our child dies, what does this mean? Is God punishing sin, committing an incomprehensibly good act, or something else?

Incompatibalism: Free-will and personal responsibility are incompatible with determinism; either one or the other is true; Freedom consists of origination and voluntariness

a) Libertarian Free-will: Humans have uncaused choices between good and evil (limited, though real, freedom) (Early Augustine, Pelagianism, Arminius)

b) Hard Determinism: Human action is determined only by God or natural law

1) Psychological (Freud)

2) Sociological (B.F. Skinner, Behaviorism)

3) Chemical (Marquis de Sade, Francis Crick)

Compatibalism: Free-will and responsibility can coexist with determinism

a) Theistic: Godнs predeterminism and human free will are simultaneously and mysteriously operative in all human choices (Late Augustine, Calvin, Luther)

b) Materialistic: Natural law and human free will are both true (Hume, Moore)

Freedom consists in voluntariness, in not being compelled or coerced, in an agentнs ability to do otherwise had he or she chosen otherwise (though the choice itself may be determined).

Existentialist Freedom: Freedom = Autonomy (Kant, Rousseau, Berdyaev, Nietzsche, Sartre)

Pelagianism: The early 5th century heresy combated by Augustine which rejected original sin and held that humans were capable of living sinlessly

Double-predestination (supralapsarianism): Even before the Fall, God ordained individuals to heaven and to hell (Late Augustine, Luther, Calvin). Godнs active damning of the nonelect is called Reprobation.

Infralapsarianism: After the Fall, God elected some to salvation but had no active will toward the others. Godнs мpassing byо the nonelect is called Preterition.

Calvinism: <<<<

Arminianism: <<<<

Here, we will look at how Christians have answered the problem through the course of Church history. The record of history indicates that Jesus, Paul, and the Bible

are sufficiently ambiguous to allow for the diversity of interpretation we observe. Specific exegetical debates will be considered later.

The early Eastern Church, мwhile by no means denying the grace of God, believed in the freedom of manнs will and in the ability of the individual man to do what God commandsо (Latourette 177). The Church father John Crysostom held that мmen can choose the good and that when they do so grace comes to their aid to reinforce them in their effort to do what God commandsо (Latourette 177). In the Western Church, on the other hand, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine all taught original sin (the term was first used in Augustineнs Confessions). According to Ambrose, мGodнs grace begins the work of salvation and that, when grace has initiated it, a man through his will cooperatesо (Latourette 177).

Augustineнs views were crucial for the entire course of the later Western Church, both Catholic and Protestant, though ultimately Protestants would accept his views on predestination, while Catholics would reject them. Augustine changed his views between writing On Free Choice of the Will and later Confessions and The City of God: In On Free Choice of the Will , Augustine argues for Libertarian Free-will. Later in life, Augustine accepted double predestination and the view that all human goodness (both to choose the good and to do the good) is impossible without Godнs gracious enablement which human will cannot refuse; the only free choice of which we are capable is the freedom to do evil. Augustine sharpened this view in response to the Pelagian heretics who denied original sin and held that people were capable of willing sinless lives. According to Augustine, мall men share the sin of Adam and therefore deserve judgment. Of His great mercy, however, God has predestined some to salvation. The others he has predestined to the punishment which their sin deserves. All men, being stained by sin, deserve damnation, but God, of His grace, has by His free choice selected some to be saved and also has chosen those whom He will not saveо (Latourette 179). He believed that, мa gift, unless it is wholly unearned, is not a gift at allо (Latourette 178), that baptism removed the effects of original sin, and that a believer could not be assured of his salvation (predetermined election) because this might lead to pride. As a result of the final belief, Augustine spent the last days of his life alone in a cell singing penitential songs.

In his Confessions, Augustine develops these themes. In a famous passage, he says to God, мYou command continence? Grant what you command, and command what you willо (Confessions 202). In other words, he lacked the ability, even after salvation, to choose to do the good without Godнs granting him the grace to do it. Elsewhere he writes, мSo it was your doing that those who have never been drunkards have been free of this viceо and мit is by your gift that the command is keptо (Confessions 205, 206). He makes the same point again: мI also attribute to your grace whatever evil acts I have not done. . . . everything has been forgiven, both the evil things I did of my own accord and those which I did not do because of your guidance. No one who considers his frailty would dare to attribute to his own strength his chastity and innocence, so that he has less cause to love you-as if he had less need of your mercy by which you forgive the sins of those converted to youо (Confessions 32). Augustine discredits all good human action as Godнs grace for which the individual can claim nothing as to having chosen or willed it. He rebukes Christians who мclaim good qualities as their own when you have bestowed them, or because they do not recognize them to be your gifts and think they have earned them by their meritsо (Confessions 217). He makes this point extremely clear: мIf anyone lists his true merits to you, what is he enumerating before you but your gifts?,о мYou yourself are all my good qualitiesо (Augustine Confessions 177, 182).

In numerous other passages involving responsibility, however, Augustine writes as if he had an active will. He writes, мrelease us from the chains we have made for ourselves,о мI had no motive for my wickedness except wickedness itself,о мNo one is doing right if he is acting against his will, even when what he is doing is good,о мme, a deserter of you,о : мthe nub of the problem was to reject my own will and to desire yoursо

(Confessions 47, 29, 14, 37, 155). He even refers to specific incidences of willful sin for which he is responsible, distinguishing them from original sin: мall the evils I had committed against you, against myself, and against others-sins both numerous and serious, in addition to the chain of original sin by which лin Adam we dieíî (Confessions 82).

Augustine says, мI was utterly certain that none other than myself was willing or not willing. . . . there lay the cause of my sinо (Augustine Confessions 114). In other words, Augustine committed the sin of pride and independence, not acknowledging his dependence on God. But for Augustine, this is an absolute dependence, which does not even give him so much as the ability to choose the good.

Many found Augustineнs views unsatisfactory. One of these, a monk from the East, John Cassian (c.415) wondered мif God chooses those who are saved and no sinner can take even the first step towards repentance and God without the impulse of Godнs grace, and if God will find a way of making His grace effective for the elect, why should any one trouble himself to attempt to do what is right?о (Latourette 181). Cassian concluded that God wishes all men to be saved, that humans can will and do good, and that мwhen God sees in us even the smallest spark of a will towards goodness He strengthens itо (Latourette 182). The Synod of Orange was called in response.

The Synod of Orange in 529, approved by Boniface II in Rome, was an important event for settling Catholic orthodoxy on the issue. With Augustine, the Synod affirmed original sin and held that humans can turn to God only through a gift of grace. With him, the Synod condemning the view that human will can anticipate divine action. Against Augustine, the Synod anathematized those who taught that some are predestined to evil, thus opening what would later be called the supralapsarian-infralapsarian debate. Against Augustine, the Synod made no mention of irresistible grace. Against Augustine, the Synod declared that the baptized can successfully achieve all those things necessary for salvation and be assured of their salvation (Latourette 361, 182). Against Augustine, the Synod held that free will is weakened by Adamнs sin, though not totally depraved; мno one is as able to love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do anything for God which is good, except the grace of God comes first to himо (Latourette 182). These views were known as semi-Augustinianism or semi-Pelagianism.

A important argument concernening foreknowledge was introduced by Boethius, a Christian philosopher from Rome (b. 480). Boethius wrote that Godнs foreknowledge is мnot a kind of foreknowledge of the future but the knowledge of a never ending present. . . . God sees all things in his eternal presentо (Lane 80).

The Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) developed an elaborate theology of his own, but was committed to a fairly thoroughgoing Augustinianism. Taking the book of Job as the basis for his theodicy, Gregory argues that all pain, evil, and suffering, mediately inflicted by Satan, are directly traceable to God. Gregoryнs own life was filled with chronic illness, famine, plague, and war, and he held that all such suffering was to be welcomed with gladness as a divinely-preordained means of instruction towards spiritual ends (Straw 197, 12). This was indeed hard teaching to his the will and mind of man must submit. Because of original sin, transmitted through sexual intercourse, Satan has мaccess to the human heart, which he holds as triumphant conquerorо until being ejected by мdiligent penance, confession, works, and of course, Godнs graceо (Straw 124). Because of a comparatively strong emphasis on works and on the value of ascetic practices, Gregory has been accused of semi-Pelagianism (Straw 182n). However, he held that Godнs omnipotence meant that humans could have no merit of their own, so that мWhen we offer good works to God, we are only offering God his own worksо (Straw 177). Godнs ways, while mysterious, are never unjust; humans should not мcontend with Godо by trying to understand the justice of suffering (Straw 139). All human life is planned from eternity, and unfolds мlike the pages of a bookо (Straw 139). Gregory does depart slightly from Augustine to embrace the compatibalist position of the Synod of Orange: мOur evils are purely our own, but our goods are both Godнs and our ownо; мeven the predestination itself to the eternal kingdom is so arranged by the omnipotent God that the elect attain it from their own effortо (Straw 140).

During the Carolingian period, the debate rose again. This time it was Gottschalk, a former monk of Fulda, who with Augustine, held that мfor reasons which we cannot fathom, God predestines some to eternal life and that those so predestined cannot fail of that life, while on the other hand-and here was the chief point of the debate-those who are not predestined to eternal life were predestined to eternal deathо (Latourette 361). Opponents such as Raban Maur and Hincmar were willing to grant Godнs foreknowledge of the sin of those not elected to salvation, but not that he foreordained it (Latourette 362). The opponents won the debate and Gottschalk was deposed from the priesthood and imprisoned in 849. The Irish scholar John Scoutus Erugena declared the disjunction between foreknowledge and foreordination false, since God can know only what He does. The great theologian Anselm (1033-1109) was struggling with the problem of reconciling free will with Godнs foreknowledge and predetermination even in the very last hours of his life (Latourette 502).

The theology of Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), with its heavy emphasis on empirical knowledge and natural reason, tended to dwell much less on issues of the will than on issues of the intellect. For Aquinas, human will was corrupted by original sin, by human reason was not; reason was autonomously capable of arriving at many Christian truths. Aquinas did remain committed to both free will and predestination and made some attempts to reconcile the two. Here is a typically enigmatic statement: мWhence, the predestined must strive after good works and prayer; because through these means predestination is most certainly fulfilled . . . and therefore predestination can be furthered by creatures, but it cannot be impeded by themо (Fromm 88).

The medieval scholastics placed a heavy theological emphasis on Godнs omnipotence. Duns Scotus (1266-1307), against Aquinas, argued that God is under no necessity of conforming to reason, and may act contrary to reason. Further, God was under no obligation to be incarnated and die an atoning death in order to preserve the moral order of the universe (мto be just and the justifierо-Romans 3:26), as Paul, Anselm, and others had claimed. Scotus attributed to humans more freedom than did Augustine or Aquinas. He accepted original sin, but it did not believe that it meant the loss of power of free decision-a crucial point.

William of Ockham (1290-1347) went even further and in him the traditional Christian marriage of reason and faith was solidly divorced. The rationality and uniformity of the universe were a limitation on Godнs omnipotence; nothing necessarily follows from anything else; there are no necessary or causal relations between anything and anything else; God is not bound by concepts of fairness or justice; and universals are mere words, for their existence would place a limitation on God. For Ockham, salvation is granted on the basis of free divine choice with no ground in humanity (Kung 134).

Nominalism became widespread, but in England there was an Augustinian revival led by Bradwardine, an Oxford theologian who later became Archbishop of Canterbury. The most famous Augustinian in England at the time was John Wycliff, who held strongly to the omnipotence and arbitrary will of God (Latourette 662).

The dominant view on the eve of the Reformation was expressed by the Humanist Erasmus in 1524 in his tract, On the Freedom of the Will. Erasmus held that God shows grace, not in saving humans, but in making it possible for them to save themselves (Luther 48). Against Lutherнs revived Augustinianism, Erasmus protested that мGod would be unjust and immoral if he were so to order the universe that man could not of himself fulfill the conditions which he ordained for salvation and then were arbitrarily to choose some to be saved and by doing so condemn others to hellо (Latourette 724). Erasmus held that humans could, on their own, save themselves by meritorious action, albeit very limited in scope (Luther 48). After a believer earned some merit through pursuit of spiritual things, God would in His mercy strengthen the believer with grace (supernatural spiritual energy), which made even higher good works possible. The process repeats itself until the believer has earned his salvation. The purpose of this complex conception of salvation was to hold together the reality of human merit for salvation and Godнs sovereignty in giving salvation (since he gives the grace which creates merit) (Luther 49).

Martin Luther, the great sixteenth-century Reformer, specified his views on freedom and Godнs sovereignty in The Bondage of the Will, his reply to Erasmusн tract. In it, Luther defended an Augustinian conception of grace, total depravity, and double predestination. Lutheran orthodoxy, however, has departed from Luther himself and followed a more semi-Pelagian conception. In his book, Luther attacks Erasmusн theory on the grounds that all ideas of merit in principle mean that human performance independent of God can put God into obligation to give humans salvation, a violation of his omnipotence. Luther argues that if human salvation can ultimately be earned by a very small meritorious action, then the moral demands of Godнs character must be frightfully low: мPelagianism is bad enough, for it tells us that we are able to earn our salvation, and this is to flatter man; but semi-Pelagianism is worse, for it tells us we need hardly do anything to earn our salvation, and that is to belittle salvation and to insult Godо (Luther 50). Natural humanity in its fallen state can do nothing but sin. While Augustine held that we could freely do evil, Luther held that even in doing evil we are being controlled by Satan: мManнs will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. . . . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold itо (Luther 103). However, behind this fighting is God energizing Satan such that Satanнs actions are expressions of Godнs omnipotent will. For Luther, grace is the transformation of the sinner, making possible good action for the first time.

John Calvin is known for systematizing Reformed Theology (essentially Augustinianism) in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. The best summary of his doctrine is the мFive Points of Calvinismо:

1) Total Depravity: humans unable to respond to God without His initiative;

2) Unconditional Election: God elects according to His good pleasure;

3) Limited Atonement: Christ died for the elect only;

4) Irresistible Grace: God irresistibly draws the elect to Christ and salvation;

5) Perseverance of the Saints: the elect cannot lose their salvation (Boa 65).

Little more need be said about Calvin, since everything already mentioned about Augustine and Luther applies.

Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Bucer were among other notable Reformation theologians that followed Lutherнs and Calvinнs doctrine on predestination and sovereignty. The only major Protestant theologian who disagreed was Balthasar Hubmaier, the leading Anabaptist theologian who was trained in a Catholic seminary.

Within the Dutch Reformed Church, theologians argued over supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism at the end of the sixteenth-century. A third party, the Remonstrants, objected to both positions. Jacob Arminius set out to refute the Remonstrants and ended up adopting their position, which subsequently became known as Arminians. In contrast to the five points of Calvinism, Arminians hold that:

1) Though sinners, humans are nevertheless able to do good and to respond to God;

2) God elects on the basis of foreseen faith;

3) Unlimited atonement: Christ died for all people;

4) Humans can resist Godнs call to salvation through stubbornness and rebellion;

5) Through persistent sin, the believer may fall from grace and be lost (Boa 65).

A widely represented synod of the Reformed Churches met in 1618-19 at Dort, and condemned Arminianism. Calvinists accused Arminians of semi-Pelagianism, a return to Rome, a betrayal of the Reformation, an мa renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaismо (Luther 59). Their contention was that Arminians denied manнs utter helplessness in sin by affirming the human capacity to choose faith, thus making faith a meritorious work. Nevertheless, the мRemonstrants continued in Holland as a distinct church and again and again where Calvinism was taught Arminianism raised its headо (Latourette 765).

Protracted theological battles between Dominicans and Jesuits over free will, foreknowledge, and how grace influences human action, spanned the latter part of the sixteenth century. No clear resolution was achieved and the issue tended to polarize the two groups between the emphases on Godнs omnipotence and on human freedom. The Augustinian and Calvinist influence infiltrated French Catholics through Jansenism, a movement of which Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a part.

The next major predestinarian theologian was the American Calvinist Congregationalist Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), a leading figure in the First Great Awakening. Edwards vigorously denounced Arminianism while combining the mystical virtues of Neoplatonism with the theological rigor of Calvinism. The Calvinist spirit is obvious in the title of his most famous sermon, мSinners in the Hands of an Angry God.о Edwardsн famous book, The Freedom of the Will, essentially reiterated the argument for the traditional Reformed doctrine of the bondage of the will. Edwardsн successors moved the мNew England Theologyо in an Arminian direction.

Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881), the Russian novelist, made a justly-famous contribution to the free will-predestination debate with his мGrand Inquisitorо passage from The Brothers Karamazov. In this passage, Dostoevsky presents the stupendous implications for God and humans in Godнs giving humans true free will. The passage takes the form of a monologue; a Catholic Inquisitor attacks Jesus (who has come to 15th Century Spain) for overestimating the human capacity to handle the responsibility of true free will. He does so by arguing that Jesus made the wrong decision at each of his three temptations; fortunately, though, the Church has corrected his mistake. I quote at length, for the passage contains profound insights:

Dostoevsky appreciated that freedom entailed an all-but-unbearable responsibility for people. Religion has continually tried to minimize this terrible and terrifying burden of freedom by limiting it through miracle (which eliminates the free love of choice by coercive evidence and convenient need-satisfaction), through mysteries such as predestination (which eliminate the responsibility to think clearly for oneself, to love, and to make a free choice), and through authority (which eliminates the responsibility of conscience and of resolving conflict).

In the twentieth century, much has been written about the free will-predestination issue. Libertarian Free-will is becoming increasing favor among contemporary American philosophers of religion. One attempt to reconcile predestination with free-will is to say that God has мmiddle-knowledgeо of counterfactuals of freedom, i.e. what would happen if we chose differently than in fact, we did. In this way, He can place individuals in situations in which he knows that they will accept Christ, though there are some who will not accept him under any circumstances. Then, the question arises why didnнt God make a different world from this one, in which more people could be saved. Defenders of this view answer the objection with мTrans-world Depravity,о i.e. this is the best possible world, because in every possible world depravity is unavoidable due to human freedom, though it is greater in all worlds beside this one.

In summary, Christians through the years have struggled significantly to reconcile predestination and free will. While there are any number of intermediate positions that can be (and have been) held, Augustinianism/Calvinism and Arminianism are the two which are systematically thought-through and which place a heavy emphasis on biblical teaching (as against say, the authority of the church overriding a biblical teaching).

Christianity is somewhat unique in that it is мbuilt upon a structure of theology which denies the distinction between having faith and assenting to truthо (Carnell 103). Faith, according to Augustine is мreason with assentо (Carnell 69). In other words, Christian theology is grounded upon the principle that all truth is Godнs truth, both truth naturally accessible by unaided reason and truth supernaturally revealed in the Bible. So, the two are continuous; both give insight into the understanding of the other. The Christian theologian is committed both to Biblical exegesis and philosophical inquiry.

In the free will-predestination debate, we can either start with reason and use the Bible to criticize our formulations, or start with the Bible and afterwards consider the exegetical formulation philosophically. The latter method is inefficient, for there is an unending stream of relevant passages that can be considered. What is more significant, the latter method can lead all too easily to contradictory formulations which are excused as мmysteriesо or мparadoxesо without reason as a guide to Scripture. Unfortunately, the Bible is not totally clear, and many interpretations have been gleaned from it on a host of issues. When issues that are exegetically ambiguous can be clarified philosophically, the theologian is absolutely justified in doing so. This will be the method used here. Many objections to Christianity apply equally to Calvinism and Arminianism and the answers to these are very often the same. These objections will all be treated under мObjections to Arminianismо following the objections that pertain specifically to Arminianism.

The cardinal virtue of Calvinism is that it presents a thoroughgoing transcendent, omnipotent God who can be put under no obligations by his creatures, including the obligation to reward meritorious action or faith with salvation.

1) Calvinism inaccurately denigrates humans beings made in Godнs image. Augustine writes, мYou are so high among the highest, and I am so low among the lowest, a mean thingо (Confessions, 138). Carnell writes, мthere are two orders of being included in this universe: Almighty God and dustо (Carnell 310). A more rigorous and Christian analysis would clearly indicate at least a third order of being, namely the sinful, fallen creatures who bear the image of the eternal Creator!

2) Calvinism negates the possibility of a meaningful understanding of Godнs nature. The statement мGod is good,о taken by itself, is philosophically absurd. If Godнs essence is defined by something other than himself, to which he must conform Himself, then that standard is God. So, Calvin argues that мthe good is what God does.о Hereнs is Calvinнs classic statement:

Consider Augustineнs statement, мThat is the Catholic view: a view that can demonstrate a just God in so many and great punishments and torments of little childrenо (in Kung 85). However, Augustine gives no such demonstration. The only demonstration a Calvinist can give is the claim that мWhatever God does is the good and just. Who are you, O man, to tell God what is good and evil, just and unjust?о Godнs willfully tormenting children may be just and good and my tormenting children unjust and evil because God says so, but that thoroughly destroys any significance to the terms goodness and justice. I might as well say, мGod is ryhuklqо as мGod is good,о for both terms are equally foreign and meaningless to me. E.J. Carnell writes, мThe ten commandments are good and Godнs damning . . . is good, solely and only because God approves of such actsо (Carnell 312). Similarly Blaise Pascal writes,

Calvinists willingly conceed that belief in Godнs good and just nature in light of their doctrine (especially infant damnation) is a mystery, impossible and incomprehensible yet somehow true.

Many atheists and skeptics have made significant objections to Christianity on this basis. The atheist Bertrand Russell wrote, мthe whole problem of evil is the problem of reconciling divine power with the requirements of what we ordinarily consider to be moral and social standardsо (in Carnell 305). The Unitarian William Channing wrote, мnow we object to the systems of religion which prevail upon us, that they are adverse, in a greater or less degree, to these purifying, comforting, and honorable views of God, that they take from us our father in heaven, and substitute for him a being, whom it cannot love if it would, and whom we ought not love if we couldо (in Carnell 306). John Stuart Mill wrote a famous challenge:

Besides Arminius, other Christians have found Calvinism too offensive for the mind and the heart of humanity. G.K. Chesterton, an early 20th century Catholic thinker summarized the difference between Arminian and Calvinist predestination: мIt is the difference between believing God knows, as a fact, that I will choose to go to the devil; and believing that God has given me to the devil without my having any choice at allо (Chesterton 59). He argues that the Calvinists мwere so confident in their logic, and in its one first principle of predestination that they tortured the intellect and imagination with dreadful deductions about God, that seemed to turn Him into a demonо (Chesterton 20). Perhaps the French art historian Charles Baudelaire expresses this objection best: мIf there is a God, then He is the Devilо (in Schaeffer 296).

3) Calvinism provides no satisfactory answer to the Problem of Evil. The Calvinistнs double predestination views commit him to the above answer to the Problem of Evil, namely that мevilо so-called is really good because God willed it. Far from solving the Problem of Evil, Calvinism seems to be admitting an inability to solve it; not only does changing the name of what I call evil still leave me with unexplained circumstances that are evil, it decrees that there is no explanation but my misunderstanding of evil. This is hardly different from Christian Scienceнs claim that evil is an illusion.

Luther admits this candidly enough, but makes an appalling appeal to faith against all the evidence, making the distinction between faith and stupidity all but invisible:

Luther concedes that all reason points to an unjust God; he appeals to the hope that in glory, Christians will understand how God is still just in damning the sinner who could not do otherwise.

In wrestling with the Problem of Evil, Augustine writes, мI inquired what wickedness is; and I did not find a substance but a perversity of will twisted away from the highest substance, you O God, towards inferior things, rejecting its own inner lifeо (Confessions 125). Here Augustine slips into talking as if autonomous free will was true, which contradicts his position. A little later, he makes a better attempt: мthere are certain elements which are thought evil. If I were to regard them in isolation, I would indeed wish for something better, but now even when they are taken alone, my duty is to praise you for themо (Confessions 126). This brings us exactly to the Calvinist answer: what you call evil is not really evil; in fact, itнs good, and whatнs more, you should praise God for it. Any solution to the Problem of Evil which tells me that the Holocaust was a lessor good than Mother Teresaнs work in Calcutta, and that I should praise God for it is a poor solution indeed. Carnell claims that мthe universe, with all the evil in it, is the best of all worlds, for the very reason that God, the standard of good, has called it goodо (Carnell 300). In other words, a protest against evil is meaningless since God decrees that this world is the best of all possible worlds. This is not an answer to the Problem of Evil, but a claim that the problem itself is out of order.

4) Calvinismнs combatibalist salvage operation fails. In order to preserve an intelligible notion of responsibility, Calvinist have held that predeterminism and free will are both simultaneously true. According to Carnell, human freedom is the secondary means by which God superintends history. Carnell writes, buried in a footnote,

In the end, Carnell must resort to mystery and magnificence language to avoid mentioning the overt contradiction. He resorts also to the decree of God over the contradiction as the final basis for responsibility. This is not very convincing nor is it the least bit satisfying. The continual rise of Arminianism testifies to this. According to another contemporary Calvinist, J. I. Packer, мMan is a responsible agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agentо (Packer 23). All this double-speak amounts to is obscurantism. However, Calvinists continually invoke divine mystery to resolve this contradiction. Kenneth Boa writes, мBut because so many people refuse to let God be wiser than men, they insist on rationalizing the principles of divine sovereignty/human responsibility mysteryо (Boa 64). When asked why someone should believe that an overt contradiction may be resolved in a higher order of being, Boa responds, мI believe it because God says it in the Bibleо (Boa 56). But one must first come to trust that it is God speaking in the Bible and not fallible men. How does one come to believe this, when the central doctrine of the Bible as Calvinists interpret it is a huge contradiction?

Moreover, this salvage operation makes the Calvinistsн solution to the Problem of Evil yet worse. If free will and determinism can coexist, then God could have created a world with human freedom and still avoided the risk of evil. It is only by making human agency totally independent of God that God is not immediately responsible for the evil humans will. It is only by making human agency totally independent of God that good without the possibility of evil is impossible.

5) Calvinism offers no reason to believe it. Seeing as Calvinism has no answer to the problem of evil, an unintelligible doctrine of the nature of God, and a demonicly unjust God, there is no reason for anyone to choose to believe any of this. It is hard to see how anyone would ever enter this system of belief except by some form of dramatic religious experience in which one is convinced that he is utterly empty and helpless to even choose the good. But even if I were to take my religious experience as evidence of the complete lostness and helplessness of humans, even that would in principle be natural theology, i.e. bringing something of my own with which I prove Calvinism. The Calvinist agrees with this objection, but insists that it is a misguided attempt at self-justification by natural theology or reasonable faith. The gospel comes to you as a scandalous revelation, both Luther and Calvin taught. It is something which speaks to you, which you listen to, and which stands in judgment over everything human, including your best reason and experience. Thomas Torrance, a Calvinist scholar, explains Lutherнs doctrine of scandal:

Since Calvinists claim grace is irresistible, then one may as well just wait until his mind changes and he can no longer resist it. Anything else would be justification by works. The real trouble with revelation claims like this is that they donнt submit themselves to any kind of test by which we can come to accept them as genuine revelation in a world full of competing false but purported revelations. To be born within the system is the only way to enter it besides some irresistible force, which you must wait for. If I am to believe Calvinism just because Calvin says this is Godнs revelation, despite the glaring problems with Calvinism, I might as well accept anything else that makes similar claims.

Many Calvinists recognize this problem. Augustine writes of his religious journey towards Christianity, мI had already established that the incorruptible is better than the corruptible, and so I confessed that whatever you are, you are incorruptibleо (Augustine Confessions 114). In other words, Augustine started with a preconceived notion of what God had to be as a criteria in his attempt to find God. This falls into the мGod is Xо rather than мX is what God doesо category. E.J. Carnell makes an admirable attempt to at a rational proof of Calvinism through a presuppositionalist test of systematic consistency (i.e. the presuppositions of a system are assumed and it is then tested by seeing how self-consistent the system is and how well it explains the facts). But his test runs into the other problems mentioned above, so it can hardly be considered an adequate proof.

A proof of this problem with Calvinism is the conclusions it has led to in theology. A liberal Calvinist, Karl Barth concluded that God is so мwholly otherо that nothing could be known about him and we could only know God мas the One we cannot know.о With no rational basis to accept the Bible as literally authoritative (as Calvin did), Barth concluded that the Bible only contained the revelation of God. The meaning of Christianity for Barth was that nothing can be known at all and that even beliefs are works by which we seek to domesticate the unutterable mystery of the universe (Harvey xvi, 132). For Calvin, faith involved learning Godнs truth; for Barth, faith is simply to know that one does not know (Harvey xvii). To be a Christian is to be one who accepts the radically ambiguity and rational unknowability of everything. This is the logical conclusion of Calvinism since it gives no rational basis for any particular belief.

6) Calvinism takes grace further than necessary to defend Godнs omnipotence. According to Lutherнs doctrine of monergistic regeneration, мthe faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowed by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual callingо (Luther 58). In other words, Godнs grace does not consist only in the justification of unworthy sinners, but in the calling of the sinner so totally depraved that he or she is unable to come to faith. Not only are people unable to do the good, they are even unable to choose it. Lutherнs reasoning was that if people can choose to put their faith in Christ, then they are making a meritorious contribution to their own salvation, such that they can put God under obligation and salvation becomes ultimately dependent on an independent human activity (i.e. belief and faith). For Luther, as for Augustine and Calvin, belief and faith are themselves works if we think that by them we can obligate God to give us salvation. This understanding of grace holds that мto rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the otherо (Luther 59). It protests against a picture of God and humans as parties coming on nearly-equal terms, both with a contribution to make, and both dependent on the other for the salvation-a picture in which мGod exists for manнs convenience rather than man for Godнs gloryо (Luther 60).

Lutherнs concerns may be answered without such radical views of grace. Arminians hold that humans are capable of choosing some good on their own, but are corrupted by original sin and their own free choice of evil so that they cannot meet the righteous requirements of an all-holy God. Therefore, Christнs atoning death is an act of Godнs grace which makes salvation by faith possible. The choice of faith, though, is a free choice of the individual, undetermined by God. According to the Arminian position, humans and God are not coming together on anywhere near equal terms, and the acceptance of a free gift cannot be construed as a contribution which places God under an obligation in violation of His sovereignty. If God elects to give humans undetermined free will, and if He elects to offer them justification if only they accept Christ, then he is only under the obligation of His own promise. Surely the Calvinist would not argue that God is will break his covenants and promises. A free act of relinquishing power for determination does not violate freedom; all Godнs covenants are based on this principle. It is intrinsic to the nature of commitment that a commitment to something entails the exclusion of all contradictory though possible commitments. For God to choose to redeem the cosmos certainly excludes the possibility that he will not redeem it; but has he has thus limited himself denying his omnipotence? To say yes would be effectively to deny that God can commit himself to anything because as soon as He willed it, He would be limited not to do its opposite.

7) Calvinism leads to fatalism and apathy. This was, as you may recall, one of John Cassianнs chief objections to Augustinianism. Calvinists will vigorous protest this claim. Calvin himself believed that Godнs sovereign decree and control in everything that happens are grounds for confidence in worldly endeavors to bring civilization and order to society. Accordingly, he devoted his live to creating a model society in Geneva.

Philosophy of History is the point in question here. What is the Calvinist philosophy of history and what view do the people living by it have of their action in the present? Does this view encourage fatalism or active participation in reforming the fallen world? According to the Calvinist philosophy of history, everything that happens is constantly under Godнs sovereign control in the sense that He actively wills it to occur. The purpose of history is for God to glorify Himself. He actively willed for sin and evil to enter the world (under compatibalist free will, God could have created free creatures without the possibility of their sinning) so that he could achieve yet greater glory for Himself by overcoming the evil of sin through the redemption in Christнs atoning sacrifice and by shedding abroad His love to His elect. Even though evil is present because it is decreed by God and even though everything that happens is determined by God, Christians are to obey Godнs command to fight evil. Carnell explains,

This is much easier said than done. If one really believes that all is determined by God, then oneнs activity or inactivity may both be Godнs will. There is no sure reason to think one way or the other. Moreover, why should one actively choose to do anything if God has already decreed exactly what one is going to do? This goes for praying, too. Why pray, if God has already decreed what will happen and your prayer is at best something God answers if the request conformed to His will and at worst something God does not answer because the request does not conform to His will. In the final analysis, the only reason to fight evil or to pray is because God says so. But without any understanding of why God says so, especially in light of the fact that God has actively willed for evil to be in the world, this is very hard to apply in practice.

As a case in point, consider the Calvinist trying to discern Godнs will for his education choice, career choice, and marriage choice. At least in most moral situations, the Bible offers counsel of Godнs will (though this is no guarantee, since Godнs will is simply whatever He does). In these difficult decisions, particularly, it is impossible to know Godнs will ahead of time. While afterwards, it will be certain that whatever you choose was Godнs will, this is no help at all in trying to decide what to do. Instead of making a wise, responsible decision on the basis of available information, many Calvinists pray and fast and look for signs, all to get some indication of what Godнs will is.

4) Arminianism offers a secure basis for significant moral freedom and responsibility. In contrast, Calvinism makes human action and faith almost trivial since God does it all anyway.

1) Arminianism repudiates Godнs omnipotence (or, Godнs freedom entails human necessity). This is the Calvinistsн key objection, since their entire position is developed out of this principle. Carnell explains, мIf God is not free always to do the whole counsel of His will, something antecedent to God is preventing him from so doing. But anything which is potent enough to be antecedent to God is powerful enough to reduce the later from the status of Almighty to that of a finite Deityо (Carnell 309). Carnell is not alone in making this objection. It has been around at least since Plato, and figures prominently in Bertrand Russellнs famous essay, мWhy I am not a Christian.о A philosophy dictionary explains,

It would certainly be a mistake for a Christian theologian to follow Plato and moral philosophers like him who subordinating divinity to law or Form/Idea. This is what Bertrand Russell accuses Christians of doing. Carnell also phrases the objection this way: мThis conflict is an old story to us by now; it is the finite God, the God that must preserve human values, verses the Almighty that sovereignty rules heaven and earth. Believing that the latter is a sovereign tyrant unworthy of our love, modern man has rejected Jehovah, and in His place, put another God in heaven, one that suits the temper of a scientific ageо (Carnell 343). This objection is really quite trivial.

To begin, we observe that God may willingly express his omnipotence in deferring so as to give humans freedom, as mentioned in the final problem with Calvinism. To deny that God cannot do such a thing is itself a denial of Godнs omnipotence. At this point, it is instructive to consider what Godнs omnipotence means. Christian history provides examples of those such as Ockham who took omnipotence so far as to deny any possible knowledge at all. Most Christian theologians, though, have agreed that Godнs omnipotence is limited, first in that God cannot execute contradictions. Some, of course, such as Scotus, Ockham, and Descartes, held that God could execute contradictions. Their claim is that to say мGod is logicalо places limits on God, makes him finite, and makes logic God. However, this does not necessarily follow. Carnell explains, мSince God is the definition of consistency, for consistency is what He does, it is well to point out that the law of contradiction has final meaning only in relation to God. God is above the law of contradiction in the sense that God is consistent by natureо (Carnell 60). So for example, the old question мCan God make a rock so big he canнt move it,о is quickly answered, мNo, for that involves a contradiction.о As soon as we admit a departure from logic, there is no solid intelligibility anywhere in our system.

It is odd that Carnell sees this so clearly in relation to Godнs logical nature but not in relation to Godнs moral nature. Most theologians have also held that Godнs omnipotence is limited, secondly, in that he cannot act against his nature. For example, since God is loving, he cannot act unlovingly. This limitation is actually nothing more than an extension of the law of contradiction into Godнs moral nature. However, Carnell insists that there are only two options: мGod is goodо (which means a finite God) and мGood is what God does, even if one instance seems just an another unjustо (Calvinism). There is, of course, a third way, мGod is good by nature and had given us innate appreciation for that good.о Indeed, the Calvinist is put in an uncomfortable corner when asked why God has made human understanding of the good such that we can only recognize a demon or devil in Godнs action. This answer is thoroughly Biblical, too. Remember that Scotus, on the basis of Godнs omnipotence, rejected Anselmнs argument that God had to be incarnated and undergo sacrificial atonement in order to save humanity from sin in order not to break the moral order of the universe. However, against all those theologians so overzealous for Godнs omnipotence that they allow Him to contradict his nature, Romans 3:26 is quite clear that Christнs death was required so that God could be both мjust and the one who jusifies.о The Bible is very clear: Godнs has willfully limited his omnipotence. He has done so with every covenant He has made, with every promise He has made. The Incarnation is the most obvious example of all, when God мmade himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness . . . humbl[ing] himself and be[coming] obedient to deathо (Philippians 2:8). Therefore, God could certainly have elected to limit his power by giving humans libertarian free will. To insist on the Calvinistsн objection, one must deny the covenants, the promises, the Incarnation, and Godнs ability to make any commitment at all.

Granted that God could limit his power by giving humans libertarian free will, but why would He do so since it brings the possibility of evil into existence? Libertarian free will is the precondition for personal love, which most people agree is well worth that price, costly though that price may be. As C.S. explains:

2) Arminianism is Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. Refer to objection to Calvinism #7. Arminianism is certainly not Pelagianism, for it affirms original sin and denies that humans can achieve sinful perfection or earn their salvation by works. However, because people can make the free choice to accept Christ as their Savior, having repented of their sin and accepted his gift of justification by faith, made possible by Christнs atonement, the Calvinist considers this in principle a form of semi-Pelagianism. If so, then the point will be conceded, though Arminianism is certainly far from the semi-Pelagianism of the Synod of Orange, which held that humans can achieve salvation after receiving the grace of baptism. Then, the Calvinistsн objection simply reduces to name-calling.

3) Arminianism leads to an irreverent attitude toward God by making Him less than the Almighty. While it is certainly true that Arminians are far less likely to talk about мfear and tremblingо and мsinners in the hands of an angry Godо than are Calvinists, it in no way follows that Arminians regard God as anything less than the Almighty that they do not treat him with proper respect. It may be the case that some Arminians do not treat God with fitting reverence, but this is equally true of some Calvinists; the matter is not inherent in the belief system. Arminians do hold that Godнs will is not arbitrary, that he is determined inasmuch as he cannot contradict His own nature. As already discussed, this does not place limits on Godнs omnipotence. If Godнs will is arbitrary, it certainly follows that one ought to be constantly in fear and trembling, but this is not the proper мfear of the Lord,о a phrase which refers to a sober moral life which keeps Godнs holiness in view. Nor can the Calvinist be reassured by Biblical claims that God is good and loving, for good and loving are the arbitrary acts that God does. This is a God of which one can be frightened, no doubt; it does not seem to be a God one can love. Rather than destroy the basis for proper reverence to the Almighty, Arminianism is a precondition for the мfear of the Lordо which God desires, a fear which is not incompatible with love.

4) Arminianism doesnнt account for the freedom of believers in heaven or the present freedom of the angels. This is a significant objection. Christians claim that a) there will be no sin in heaven, b) there are angels who always choose to love God, and c) there are angels/demons who always choose to rebel against God. In all three cases, supposedly free creatures always choose either good or evil; but if freedom requires the possibility of doing otherwise (libertarian free will), then are they really free? Kenneth Boa writes, мResurrected believers will never sin. . . . If we extend this into the past we can see that God could have kept His creatures from sinning without interfering with their free will. This is precisely what will happen in heavenо (Boa 85). In other words, donнt these three beliefs require a compatibalist conception of freedom? Moreover, if God has given us libertarian free will on earth, then to take it away in heaven would nullify his purpose of allowing evil in the world in the first place. Before attempting to reply, it should be pointed out that to concede this point is to lose the free will defense for the Problem of Evil: if God could have kept his creatures from sinning without interfering with their free will, and he clearly did not, we are back to believing in a just God against all the evidence.

One inadequate reply sometimes given is that in heaven our understanding of God and sin will be so much clearer that we will cease to sin. Certainly in heaven, believers know fully as they never have on earth. The problem, though, is that projected backwards, this implies that our problem with sin now consists primarily of ignorance, not rebellion. If this is so, how can Godнs judgment be just? Clearly a better reply is needed. The Bible explains that in heaven, the effects of original sin both on the will and on the understanding will be gone. For an Arminian, this means we get back our whole capacity to choose freely (without the tendency towards sinfulness we have while in this body) as well as to know rightly. In this case, it is fully conceivable that we will choose the good freely in heaven because the weight of original sin will not drag us down, though we are still accountable (and justly judged) for rejecting Christ on earth. Note that the Arminian is not saying humans are justly judged for not being perfect (as Godнs holiness requires), which is impossible due to original sin, but that they are justly judged for rejecting Christ.

The Calvinist will object to this reply on the grounds that it places God under an obligation to redeem mankind, such that Christнs death was not a free gracious act on Godнs part, but a necessity in order for him to judge justly. The Arminian grants the objection, but not that it negates Godнs grace. He also points out that this objection presupposes a notion of justice by which we analyze God to which the Calvinist is not entitled because for him, the just is whatever God does. Christнs death was necessary if God was to be мjust and the justifierо (Romans 3:26). He could have theoretically justified sinners without Christнs atonement, but that would make him unjust. But could he have remained just if he had not enacted the atonement to make possible the justification of sinners, leaving them in the fallen state? The Arminian answers that God could have remained just without redeeming mankind from the state of original sin, but He could not justly punish sinners in Hell without offering the option of redemption through Christ. God could have left the world мin bondage to decayо; he could not have condemned the world for not being perfectly decay-less. Godнs grace in demonstrated in that he did not leave the world to rot and human beings unable to overcome sin, but enacted a rescue plan to redeem the cosmos. Furthermore, God foreknew that humans in their freedom would sin, and out of grace he committed himself to the atonement before the creation of the world. In is on the basis of rejecting redemption in Christ and not on the basis of falling short of sinless perfection that God justly judges unbelievers.

The key point of misunderstanding is that the Calvinist seems to think that in a truly free environment, sin must occur. This is not the case at all. Nor is it the case that if any of us had been in Adamнs place, we would have sinned just as certainly. Nor is it the case that given enough time, it was certain that Adam would sin. The early Augustine explains, мGod who gave them the power to will, did not force them to sin; and there are angels who never have sinned and never will sin. . . . So be sure that such a creature exists in the higher places and in the splendor of the heavens, since if the Creator manifested his goodness in creating something that he foresaw would sin, he certainly manifested his goodness in creating something that he foreknew would not sin. . . . They did not persevere in their good will because they received this activity; rather, they received this activity because God, who gave it to them, foresaw that they would persevereо (Free Choice 80-81, 94). So, in the case of the angels and the saints in heaven divested of original sin, it is fully reasonable to suppose that they will always freely will the good.

Before continuing to the next objection, here is a good place to insert some consideration of what heavenly freedom will be like. The life on earth is the time, more than anything else, for individuals to choose to follow God or reject him. The Bible records, мToday, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heartsо and мnow is the day of salvationо (2 Corinthians 6:2). The earthly life is the opportunity we have to choose our eternal destiny, a destiny of sin or a destiny of righteousness. Our decisions now will have eternal consequences; there will not be additional opportunities to change oneнs mind after death. Here we must bring in another understanding of freedom. Jesus speaks of a bondage to sin from which he can free people (John 8:32-34) and Paul makes it clear that мit is for freedom that Christ has set us freeо (Galatians 5:1). On the other hand, Jesus insists that his followers obey him and Paul writes that мI am not free from Godнs law but am under Christнs lawо (1 Corinthians 9:21) and мhe who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lordнs freeman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christнs slaveо (1 Corinthians 7:22). Clearly then, there is a type of Christian freedom which is not the same as the existentialistsн conception of freedom as autonomy. For Kant, Rousseau, Berdyaev, Sartre, and others, humans were free from any external controls such that they could and should create their own moral systems. The Christian holds up a different notion of freedom entirely, a notion which Augustine calls мgenuine freedom.о Thomas Williams explains this subtle but profound concept in Augustine:

In other words, this is issue is not so much being free from any set of norms but to be free to be and become what God had created us to be as humans, to be free for love and service to others. Anything else would be non-human and non-free in the highest sense. This does of course, presuppose a human essence, something the existentialists are quick to deny with their cry that мexistence precedes essence.о However, for the Christian, there is no question that there is a human essence, a human nature and order of being below God and above trees and rocks to which humans belong. The Christian diagnosis for humans is that they are most in need of liberation, not from others to be autonomous, selfish selves, but from themselves and from sin to be unselfish, loving, giving selves.

So what follows from this? It follows that Christians in heaven will be free in the highest sense, i.e. genuinely free, because while on earth they used their libertarian freedom to choose to be genuinely free in Christ for eternity. On the other hand, non-believers have used their libertarian freedom to choose a different kind of freedom, namely autonomy, thereby rejecting the chance to be genuinely free in Christ for eternity. Milton made the same point when he wrote that lost souls were those who assert, мBetter to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.о There is nothing unjust in Godнs setting a time at which we will receive the full consequences of our decision rather than postponing that time forever. The following two quotations from C.S. Lewis illustrate this point clearly:

So, we can confidently claim that both the saved and the damned are in their respective states of genuine freedom and autonomy precisely because God honors their free choice between the two options. Heaven would be hell for a true rebel. Christians are those who choose now, to have no possibility of sin in heaven.

In heaven, Christians will attain something like the freedom of God. Just as Godнs freedom is limited by His nature (e.g. he cannot be unjust), so too the Christian will, in the absence of original sin, finally be capable to not violating his own nature, of finally being truly himself. The highest freedom is to be determined by oneнs nature, uncorrupted by sin.

The process of moving towards or away from genuine freedom begins on earth. The Bible states that мevil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceivedо (2 Timothy 3:13) and describes the process by which those who have suppressed the plain evidence of Godнs existence and of right and wrong become increasingly enslaved to idolatry, to sinful desires, and to shameful lusts; their thinking becomes futile and their foolish hearts are darkened (Romans 1:18-32). What happens is that not only do unregenerate sinners become less and less capable of doing the good, they also become less and less capable of even choosing the good. As he or she lives out his rebellion, he or she becomes less and less human, less and less capable of freely choosing, more and more enslaved to his own selfishness. C.S. Lewis writes about such a man, мyourself, in a dark grumbling mood, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do it no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machineо (Martindale 293). This is, in fact, a quite obvious observation form general experience: the more we do something wrong, the lazier we are, and the more we ignore problems, the easier it becomes to continue doing these things. The more we do them, the more habitual they become, the less self-conscious of them we become. Sometimes we catch ourselves naturally saying something simply appalling, once someone points out to us what we said totally oblivious to its evil import. On the other hand, those who practice careful, willful attentiveness to moral activity and responsible thinking and living tend to purify themselves of the power of bad habits. They begin to experience the liberation from sin and selfishness which allows them to become increasingly who they really are and to increasingly overcome the effects of original sin.

5) Arminianism doesnнt reconcile foreknowledge and free will. This is also a significant objection. Some libertarian free will Christians have been so bothered by this problem that they have denied Godнs foreknowledge. The Russian existentialist philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev, for example, claimed that God willingly renounced his foreknowledge in order to give humans free will. Not only that, but God put himself inside time in order to prevent himself from knowing the future. However, this solution will not do. It denies foreknowledge and sovereignty, making God a kind of finite, helpless spectator. This position cannot adequately defend itself against the first objection to Arminianism.

The early Augustine formulates the problem as follows in On Free Choice of the Will:

Augustineнs reply has several parts. First he simply denies that the argument is sound. It is clear, when one thinks about it, that foreknowledge is passive and foreordination active; there is a real distinction between the two. мSimply because God foreknows your future happiness-and nothing can happen except as God foreknows it, since otherwise it would not be foreknowledge-it does not follow that you will be happy against your willо (Free Choice 76). Next, he argues that to deny that it is within our power to will to do otherwise is nonsense, because one must will something and find that he lacks the power to do it only by first willing to do it. Then, Augustine makes his key point by analogy:

The analogy from memory is an excellent illustration of the fact that knowledge does not necessarily impinge on will. Another analogy that might be cited is a spectator at a stop light who watches two cars, unseen to each other, move so rapidly toward the intersection that it is impossible they avoid a collision. The spectatorнs certain foreknowledge of the event in no way means that his foreknowledge in any way determined that the drivers would crash.

Another consideration is that God stands outside of time. Therefore, мforeknowledgeо is a misnomer inasmuch as it implies that Godнs knowledge is temporally conditioned. Because all of history stands before God in his eternal present, His knowledge cannot be considered the cause for temporal events. C.S. Lewis writes, мWhy that creative act leaves room for free will is the problem of problems, the secret behind the Enemyнs [Godнs] nonsense about лLove.н How it does so is no problem at all; for the Enemy does not forsee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded Now. And obviously to watch a man doing something is not to make him do itо (Lewis Screwtape 128).

6) Arminianism denies Godнs sovereignty and the doctrine of Providence, making it impossible to trust God in the events of history and oneнs life. A cursory overview of Arminianism may give this impression. If God lets human beings determine their choices and the consequences that follow from them, then arenнt we left with a Deist system? No, but we are left with an open and free system-open in the sense that God is free to intervene whenever he wills, sometimes to bring judgment, sometimes reward, and sometimes answers to prayer; free in the sense that God does not will every event mediately through humans as secondary causal agents. This system and its consequences are powerfully illustrated in Dostoevskyнs мGrand Inquisitorо passage. God has given up some of his power in order to let humans create glorious achievements and to create unfathomable distress and banality. He has given humans the power to destroy their world, each other, and themselves. Truly this freedom comes at a tremendous cost! God was willing to allow human beings to desecrate his image and to think themselves justified in condemning Him as the faulty agent in all the worldнs ills. He would not limit human freedom even by coercive evidence of his existence. He lets humans freely ignore Him, deny Him, and reject Him. Truly the responsibility He has given humans is great! It is so immense as to be frightening. Who is worthy to the task we have been given?

What is at issue here is the philosophy of history. Refer back to the seventh objection to Calvinism for a statement of the Calvinist philosophy of history. In contrast to Calvinist sovereignty, which means determination, Arminian sovereignty means permissive supervision with freedom to intervene at any time. Instead of a factory worker grinding a machine, it is more like a father present with his son allowing his son to make mistakes and learn, but always present to intervene if the son is really in desperate need of help. Everything that happens is under Godнs sovereign control in the sense that He knows what will happen and is allowing it to occur and that He will intervene when he deems necessary. The goal of history for the Calvinist and the Arminian are fairly consistent. God is to be glorified, humans are to enjoy him forever (Westminster Confession), God will мredeem us from all wickedness and . . . purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is goodо (Titus 2:14), in order мto bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christо (Ephesians 1:10). These ends are crucial to for a Christian to keep in mind when interpreting Godнs activity in the Bible and in history.

While the Calvinist believes that evil and sin entered the world through Godнs decree, the Arminian believes that there was no divine preordination of evil, and that it was (and is) entirely the result of mishandled freedom. However, God responds to evil by transmuting it into a greater good. Godнs glorious power is displayed in turning what human malice intends for evil and making a good come out of it. The classic biblical text is Romans 8:28, which says, мGod works all things together for good for those who love him . . .о There is no evil so evil that God cannot transform it into a greater good. Augustine gave the name to this doctrine, felix culpa. (The Catholic liturgy for Holy Saturday explains, мO happy guilt, that did deserve such and so great a Redeemer!о). Looking back, we can see that even the heinous Fall of man was not so evil that the counteracting, superabundant love could not overcome it and turn it into the good of human freedom in the full cognizance of good and evil and redemption in Christ. In this sense, it was a good thing that we fell, so that God could achieve the greater good. As the British theologian Dorothy Sayers explains,

Sayers also explains that this doctrine can be easily misinterpreted to suggest that God needs our sin, that we should sin on purpose for the fun of watching God fix it, that evil doesnнt matter since God will overcome it in the end, that we should adopt a facile optimism, or even (like the Calvinist) that He makes us sin мin order to demonstrate his power and gloryо (Sayers 15-16). Significantly, Christianity is able to attribute a positive value and significance to the evil and suffering we endure because of Godнs transformative activity. Sayers writes,

For individuals dealing with sinful lives, the felix culpa doctrine gives the only possible solution: мIn contending with the problem of evil it is useless to try to escape either from the bad past or into the good past. The only way to deal with the past is to accept the whole past, and by accepting it, to change its meaningо (Sayers 60).

With most of this analysis of evil in historical perspective the Calvinist would agree. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism on evil in historical perspective is that the Calvinist holds that the whole process was ordained by God, while the Arminian holds that God did not ordain the evil, but responds to it by transforming it into a greater good. To the Calvinist, this smacks of a finite god, reacting to human events as if they were out of his control. However, God foreknows the evil humans will and he foreknows when and how he will respond, so he is only reacting as the event would appear from the human side. We see this in the Bible; for example, Abraham sacrifices Isaac and God tells him, мNow I know that you fear Godо (Genesis 22:12). Of course, God didnнt just discover that, as if he was reacting to it, but foreknew it; Abraham, though, and the race he would father, needed the test to see his faith demonstrated. In reply to the Calvinist, it should also be insisted that not only does God respond in a foreknown way, but he also initiates at will in making covenants, in special revelation, in bringing blessing we havenнt even asked for, and most of all in the Incarnation and Redemption.

Several important examples of Godнs responsiveness in judgment are the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Conquest of Canaan. As mentioned earlier, Godнs activity at this point is to be interpreted in light of Godнs purposes in history, his teleology. Up until the time of the Flood, God allowed humans to go from bad to worse to the point that мevery inclination of the thoughts of [humansн hearts] was only evil all the timeо (Genesis 6:5). So, God brought a corporate judgment against all people, allowing only the righteous Noah and his family to survive, so as to renew humanity for Godнs purpose of creating a pure people eager to do good. Was this judgment just? Certainly. Godнs judgment was in fact an act of mercy for the human race, a kind of мputting it out of its miseryо and making it possible for a renewal of human potential. There comes a time, as all parent knows, when they must intervene in the affairs of their children to prevent them from harming themselves irreparably. The downward spiral of sin must be checked before it destroys everything.

However, the Noahic renewal did not last long, for by the time of Babel, human rebellion against God had become a unified, concerted, organized program. The Babelites intended to build a мtower that reaches to the heavens, so that [they might] make a name for [themselves] and not be scattered over the face of the earth [as God had commanded Noah and his descendants]о (Genesis 11:4). God observes that мIf as one people speaking the same language, they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for themо (Genesis 11:6). In other words, this concerted rebellion would no more serve Godнs purpose of creating a holy, pure people for himself than the state of humanity just before the Flood. What follows is something like a new мdivide and conquerо strategy on Godнs part: he gives the people different languages, then scatters them across the earth, then appoints one nation as His representative and witness to the world. He tells Abraham that He will bless his descendants and make them a blessing to all the nations on earth. God initiated a covenant relationship with Abraham and the Jews, not as an arbitrary selection of a chosen people to patronize, but as a means of fulfilling his purposes in history of redeeming a people from all nations to be pure heirs of his Kingdom.

Understood in this way, the selection of the Jews makes perfect sense. Moreover, this is clearly the Biblical presentation of the Jews. Throughout the Old Testament are references to Godнs concern for the nations and his use of Israel to be a witness to them. Perhaps the clearest statement of this is Ezekiel 36:22-23. God instructs Ezekiel to tell Israel that мIt is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things [restore Israel], but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, then I show myself holy through you before their eyes.о

The Conquest of Canaan is important to address here because it is so often cited as evidence for the unjustness of God or for a different God in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The conquest was not God giving Israel somebody elseнs land because he favored them more. The conquest was explicitly a divine judgment upon the nations inhabiting Canaan for their extreme wickedness. Deuteronomy 9:4-6 explains to Israel,

Earlier, God had told Abraham that it was not yet time for him to possess the promised land because мthe sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measureо (Genesis 15:16). The full measure of sin of the Canaanites is described in passages like According to Leviticus 18, мthis is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiledо: child sacrifice by burning to the god Molech, homosexuality, and sexual intercourse with relatives, mothers, sisters, granddaughters, aunts, daughters-in-law, sisters-in-law, neighborнs wives, and with animals. God explains that if they too defile themselves and the land, they will be мvomited upо just as the Canaanites were about to be vomited up for their own sin. As the Old Testament records, this is exactly what happened: Israel defiled itself by adopting these wicked practices and was conquered by Assyria and Babylonia. In light of this historical understanding of Godнs purposes, it is much easier to understand Godнs apparently vengeful and unjust commands in the conquest, for example, that Israel utterly destroy the Canaanite towns, мput[ting] to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeysо (1 Samuel 15:3-4). What did the infants do to deserve death? Godнs judgment here was an act of mercy for all involved. It was an act of mercy to put the Canaanite adults out of their misery, it was an act of mercy to cut short the lives of children who would be raised in wicked societies, and it was an act of mercy to prevent this vile kind of society from influencing other people and societies.

It is important to consider also, especially with regard to the children, that there are much worse things that can happen to a person than death; a life of utter wickedness is surely one of them. The case of the children is especially significant in light of the apparently unjust words of Exodus 34:7: мYet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.о It would seem that punishment for what a great-great grandfather did would surely be unjust. Another passage, Ezekiel 18:20, says that мThe son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him and the wickedness of the wicked man will be credited to him.о Therefore, Exodus 34, must mean something different in its reference to мsins of the father.о What the passage most likely means is that sin entails consequences which often get passed on from one generation to the next. The sins of the father transmit consequences, but not guilt. Without much observation, it is clear that this is in fact the case. Children raised on welfare in single-parent homes where the father has left the mother and both parents are on drugs rarely escape the long-term consequences of these sins. Children whose parents are sexually promiscuous learn these behaviors are repeat them to their own destruction. Alcoholic and drug over-dosed mothers pass on these consequences to their infants. The wages of sin are so terrible that they donнt stop with the person who commits them. Not only do the effects of sin cross generational lines within families, but they cross into other families as well. The family of a murder victim suffer just as surely as the victim and the criminal and the criminalнs family. Some of this suffering will likely result in hate and perhaps escalate to countermeasures like revenge. The greediness of many capitalists and avaricious employers has made the lives of the poor difficult and miserable.

Sin is a beast that devours not just individuals, but families, societies, cultures, and civilizations, and can do so in a very short time. For God to halt this process by collective judgment is surely a great mercy. But is it just for God to allow children to be effected by the sins of the father? It seems that God is no more obligated to prevent the consequences of sin spreading from father to child than he is to prevent a murder victim from being murdered because he wasnнt doing the murdering. In both cases, the tragedies are simply what must happen when humans abuse their freedom. But Christianity offers hope of real justice in Godнs judgment at the end of time. In this world, there is no justice, but in the next world, we are assured that мHe will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or by what he hears with his ears [the bases of imperfect human justice]; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions to the poor of the earthо (Isaiah 11:3-4). God will take into consideration all the unfairness in every life when he judges perfectly. He will apportion punishment in accordance with responsibility, knowledge, and influences from sins of the father. Luke 10:12 indicates (as we would expect if God takes these matters into account) that there are degrees of punishment: мit will be more bearable on that day [of judgment] for Sodom than for that town [which did not welcome the disciples Jesus sent out to preach].о 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 indicates also indicates degrees of reward; there are so who will be saved and receive rewards according to their good works, but other will мbe saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.о

So, death is not the worst that can happen to a person; the worst is to choose a gradual descent into complete bondage to sin apart from the freedom of God. Children born with the weight of the sins of the father enter adult life with greatly diminished freedom; they are born into lives in which the bondage to sin has advanced far beyond the baseline corruption of original sin. We can conclude that God intervenes in history in corporate judgments when a) evil has passed a certain threshold beyond which God says, мNo more!о and b) the bondage to sin has advanced so far that children will effectively have no free will to choose Christ at all (which would then make God unjust if he punished them for rejecting Christ). God will tolerate injustice an evil to a point and then the axe falls.

The Conquest of Canaan is strikingly similar to the case of Sodom and Gomorra, from which God was willing to withhold judgment if only ten righteous people lived in the entire city. As in other cases in history, Godнs intervention to judge was fully just and in keeping with his historical purpose (which spans the Old and New Testaments) to purify a people to be heirs of His kingdom. In more recent times, consider the cases of the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas. The Aztecs were so wicked that in a single day, they sacrificed 20,000 people to their gods in present-day Mexico City. Their great empire of roughly 5 million people toppled like dominos when Cortez came when a force of 600 men. The Mayas, experts think, vanished almost overnight when genocide had pushed down the population below a critical mass. The Incan empire, the size of the Roman Empire with a population of 6 million people, fell in a day to Pizarroнs force of 180 men, a witness to its moral weakness among other things.

As mentioned above, Godнs intervention is not limited to responsive judgments, but includes blessing as well, both responsive (e.g. in response to prayer) and initiative (e.g. unrequested reward). The greatest initiated blessing was of course the Incarnation and Atonement, the center point of history. Why did Christ come when he did? Galatians 4:4 says, мBut when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.о What does it mean, мwhen the time had fully comeо? Some Christians speculate that God sent Christ at this moment because the conditions of the Mediterranean world (the Pax Romana) were more ideal for the spread of the gospel than any other time in history before or since. Others speculate that it had to do with the coming together of Hebraic and Greek thought and culture, which found something of an enduring synthesis in Christianity. Both of these explanations are very plausible in an Arminian view of history in which God is always at work in the world without violating human free will and the ways it steers history. On the other hand, all the Calvinist can say is that the Incarnation occurred at the best time because that is when God did it and whatever God does is the definition of best.

A final component of any Christian philosophy of history is the return of Christ and the consummation of time. The Old Testament refers to this as the Day of the Lord and the Kingdom of God. Christians typically refer to it as the Tribulation and the Second Coming. It will happen when the мtimes shall have reached their fulfillmentо (??). When will that be? Peter explains, мthe Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thiefо (2 Peter 3:9-10). Paul speaks of the time when мthe full number of the Gentiles has come in [into Godнs family]о (Romans 11:25). Jesus declared, мAnd this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will comeо (Matthew 24:14). There is an appointed time when everyone who would be saved from every nation (the Greek word ethnos suggests ethno-linguistic groups rather than political countries) on earth will be saved; then the end will come, though no one knows exactly when this will be.

Much of Biblical prophecy is esoteric and a number of attempts have been made to project a clear picture of the exact sequence of events at the end of time. The annotations of the NIV Study Bible for Revelation 20:2 present the following summary of these attempts:

The details of these views are unimportant except inasmuch as they influence Christiansн understanding of their present situation with respect to the fulfillment of Godн purposes. Premillennialist, for example, have rightly emphasized evangelism and missions as important aspects of their role in the present world. However, they have emphasized evangelism to the exclusion of social issues such as poverty, welfare, decaying culture, and participation in the now-largely-secular intellectual leadership of society. Dwight Moody is a case in point:

Conversely, the postmillennialists often concentrated their effects on social action to the exclusion of evangelism. Both mistakes are betrayals of Christнs holistic ministry that includes this world and the next, the body and the spirit. To take either extreme on the basis of largely unclear Biblical prophecy and use it to mitigate the clear purposes of God in history is a grave mistake for Christians to make in their philosophy of history.

In conclusion, the Arminian philosophy of history in no way negates Godнs sovereignty by granting humans significant moral freedom. Nor does it violate the doctrine of providence, i.e. Godнs skillful, wise, and benevolent guidance of history and the universe. It does make providence less immediate than does Calvinism, for it is surely less immediate to say that God guided my life in precisely such and such a manner than to say that God allowed me in freedom to choose in such and such a manner, at time offering guidance, at time correction and judgment, and at times blessing. Also, the Arminian claim that humans have freedom independent from God means that their choices and will are not determined by Him. Still, their very existence and possession of freedom place them in complete dependence upon God. In this sense, too, God remains Sovereign Lord (sovereign means independent and undetermined, as in a sovereign nation) since nothing in all creation is independent of Him, even though humans may be undetermined (within the boundaries of Godнs ability to intervene, of course).

7) Arminianism makes predestination a meaningless concept. In other words, why does the Bible talk about predestination, election, and God choosing if all this means is that he foreknew these things? Apparently, God responds to foreknowledge in a more active way which does not take away human freedom since it is based on knowledge, not initial determinism.

8) Arminianism fails to explain why God would create people and angels he foreknew would reject him and that he would have to condemn for that reason. The early Augustine treats this problem skillfully in his On Free Choice of the Will:

Augustine rightly points out that the possession of existence and a soul and free will are goods for which people ought to praise God, not condemn him. He adds, мLet them not moan and complain! God, who gave them the power to will, did not force them to sinо (Free Choice 80-81). We must be careful here, for it seems Augustine has overlooked original sin. To clarify, we should say that мGod, who gave them the power to will, did not force them to sin inordinately or to reject Christнs Atonement.о Augustine also argues that if weнre honest, we will admit that existence is manifestly better than non-existence. While some people claim they would rather die or never have existed or cease to exist (Buddhists), what they really want is peace, not non-existence. For example, none of us wants to be unhappy, but we know that it is better to exist unhappily than not to exist, if only because existence is the precondition for happy existence.

9) Arminianism denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Godнs intervention in history in human affairs is a central Christian doctrine called salvation history. Certainly, God intervenes in history to aid believers in living out the Christian life through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, just as he intervenes to judge and to bless. In fact, this aid may be considered a form of blessing. What God does not do is co-opt believersн free will and take over the willful operations of their lives. The Holy Spirit does not animate and drive a believer in the way a person enters a car and drives it wherever he or she wants. Since the time of John Wesley, a number of movements have urged that the Holy Spirit will take over oneнs free will in just this way through its stress on the operation of gifts of the Spirit: the Keswick movement in England which spread to the United States, the Holiness Movement in the late nineteenth century, and the Pentecostal movement of the twentieth century which has spread all over the world, particularly in Latin America. All these movements speak of a мsecond grace,о typically the мBaptism of the Holy Spirit,о which made the perfectly sanctified life an actuality through the Spiritнs living inside a person. The most famous epigram of this belief is Henry Drummondнs мLet go and let God.о Clearly, this kind of doctrine is much closer to Calvinism, with its Sovereign, Omnipotent God who wills everything and human free will which exists nonetheless, somehow, incomprehensibly, and unexplained, than to Arminianism, which stresses significant human freedom. The Greek word describing the Holy Spirit is Paraclete, which means helper or councilor. The Holy Spirit certainly offers a ministry of guidance and help, but not of superseding human free will. The Holy Spirit walks beside us, with us, but assuredly not on top of us.

10) Arminianism denies the believersн assurance of salvation. Arminius taught that through persistent sin, the believer may fall from grace and be lost. This point needs elaboration. James 2 makes it clear that saving faith expresses itself always in good works. Paul was clear, too, the believer upholds the law through his life of faith (Romans 3:31) and meets the righteous requirements of the law through living according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4). Elsewhere, Paul writes, мCircumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what countsо (1 Corinthians 7:20) and мFor in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through loveо (Galatians 5:6). To have perfect faith without love, Paul says, is to be nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2). Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote at length against the мcheap graceо modern antinomians who believed in мgrace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnateо (Bonhoeffer 47). The only faith that is saving faith is faith that demonstrates itself in works. Works are not the basis for salvation, but works invariably follow when salvation by grace has occurred. This said, though, faithful believers may still have confidence in their salvation. They need not, like Augustine, spend their last days in cells singing penitential songs because they are not sure if they are saved. They need not, like Calvin, insist that it does not matter (and in fact is better) not to know if one has been saved. John wrote one of his epistles to м[those] who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal lifeо (1 John 5:13). Paul speaks of believers becoming new creations (2 Corinthian 5:17) and of their receiving the Holy Spirit мas a deposit guaranteeing what is to comeо (2 Corinthians 5:5). Faithful Christians observant of the difference God has made in their lives by justification and ongoing sanctification with the aid of the Holy Spirit can and should take this as a guarantee of their forgiveness and future glorified state. Believers who are sinning without improvement have good reason to doubt they were ever really saved to begin with, because saving faith expresses itself in works. Repeating the words of the мsinnerнs prayerо or мwalking down the aisleо at a revival service as if these were mysterious efficacious rites does nothing; this is superstition. Saving faith begins through a change of heart, a genuine repentance, which can be expressed sitting alone in a chair as well as by repeating the sinnerнs prayer or walking down the aisle at a revival service. There is assurance of salvation; these rites are not the basis for that assurance, though.

Arminius may well have believed that saved Christians could lose their salvation, not (as I have just described) that illegitimate Christians might never have been saved. If so, this point is not essential to Arminianism as I understand it, so I will not attempt to defend it.

11) Arminianism denies that believers undergo a new creation. If humans in their natural state can freely choose the good and can choose to put their faith in God without Godнs actively willing these things, then they must not really be spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1,5) and must not really be spiritually recreated (2 Corinthians 5:17) and resurrected (Ephesians 2:6, Romans 6:5) in faith. In these passages, Paul is speaking metaphorically. To be spiritually dead is to be living without God, not to have no will (though denial of God eventually leads to the complete loss of knowledge and will). To be spiritually recreated and resurrected is to be restored to oneнs proper state of being in relationship to God, to receive the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and to be freed from the control of sin to whatever extent it has advanced in oneнs life (the spectrum ranges from the comparatively minimal control of original sin to the complete and overwhelming tyranny of sin in an unregenerate, persistent sinner). As evidence that Paul is speaking metaphorically, he says also in Romans 6 that believers have been crucified with Christ мso that the old body of sin might be done away withо (v.6). So, if unbelievers needed to be crucified with Christ, they must have already been spiritually alive. Now, unbelievers canнt be both dead spiritually and alive spiritually. Therefore, Paul is speaking somewhat metaphorically of deadness and resurrection. This is not to say that salvation does not bring real and far-reaching changes (it clearly does!), but only that the choice of unbelievers is free: they may choose to do the good (though they may be unable to so it) and they may choose to put faith in Christ-both without Godнs doing it for them.

12) Arminianism fails to explain natural evil. (This objection applies to Calvinism also.) Natural evil, the Bible teaches, is a consequence of the misuse of creaturely free will. According to Romans 8:19-23,

In other words, the Creation itself partakes in the Fall of humans, a fall which is cosmic in its ramifications. The curse is recorded in Genesis 3:14-19. Part of the curse was that Adamнs work would involve pain, toil, and frustration because God cursed the ground itself. Death, God had earlier warned Adam, was a consequence of sin: мyou must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely dieо (Genesis 2:17). Romans 5:12 records that мsin entered the world through one man, and death though sin.о According to Revelation 22:3, in the New Jerusalem, мNo longer will there be any curse.о So, natural evil, including death, is unnatural. It is just as much a source of grief for God as for humans. The theologian Francis Schaeffer explains, мAs Jesus stood [at Lazarusн tomb], He not only wept, but he was angry. The exegesis of the passages John 11:33 and 38 is clear. Jesus, standing in front of the tomb of Lazurus, was angry at death and at the abnormality of the world-the destruction and distress caused by sin. . . . Christ hated the plague. He claimed to be God, and He could hate the plague without hating himself as Godо (Schaeffer 117). For the Calvinist, God intends the plague for good (not just transforms evil into good in a responsive way), so it hard to see how God could hate the plague.

But someone may object, how can natural evil be a source of grief to God if God, under no obligation was the agent of the curse? Sure, humans sinned and brought moral evil into the world, but why did God have to compound the problem by subjecting the creation to frustration and introducing natural evil? In reply, we must consider the doctrine of dominion. God had set up humans, the god-like creatures made in his own image, as the rulers of the earth: мLet us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the groundо (Genesis 1:26). Psalm 8:5-8 is another statement of the doctrine of dominion: мYou [God] made him [humans] a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, all the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.о

So, since humans were to rule over creation (this was how God made them to be), and humans were fallen while the creation was still perfect, God had to curse the creation. Kenneth Boa explains, мBecause Adam fell, the universe likewise was cursed, for fallen man could not have dominion over a fallen creation. . . . [But] When we are raised and glorified, the curse will also be removed and nature will be redeemedо (Boa 86). For God not to curse the creation would be like appointing a semi-conscious drug-addict to be the President of the United States!

13) Arminianism fails to defend Godнs justice in light of the unevangelized. (This objection applies to Calvinism also.) More specifically, how can God be just if he damns those who have not responded to Christ simply because they have lacked the knowledge of him? In this case, isnнt the problem ignorance and not rebellion, and doesnнt ignorance remove responsibility? Seven types of replies have generally been given to this important question: 1) All souls will eventually be saved (Universalism); 2) God will destroy all the damned so they wonнt have to suffer (Annihiliationism); 3) God can be approached equally well through any religion (Pluralism); 4) Godнs atonement in Christ will save those who respond to the general revelation of creation and conscience and who demonstrate faith, hope, and love, but do not know of Christ (Inclusivism); 5) Those who do not confess Christ and do not know of him will be damned (Exclusivists); 6) God will give those who havenнt heard a second chance after they die; and 7) God will somehow get word of Christ to all those who respond to the general revelation of Creation and conscience. The objection applied chiefly to #5 (Exclusivism). While the others are admirable attempts to get out of this problem, only #4, 5, 6, and 7 can be considered really Christian or Biblical in substance. Since there is no Biblical support for #6 and the testimony of creation is such that мmen are without excuseо (Romans 1:20), #6 is a poor reply.

Numerous Biblical passages teaching what seems to be Exclusivism: м[W]hoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Godнs one and only Sonо (John 3:18); мSalvation is in no one else, for there is no other name [than Christ] under heaven given to men by which we must be savedо (Acts 4:12); мThat if you confess with your mouth, лJesus is Lord,н and believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. . . . how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?о (Romans 10:9,14). However, we know that even today there are billions of people who have never heard the gospel, so how can God be just to damn them? The Calvinist replies, мGod has mercy on whom he will and hardens whom he will; the nonelect are predestined to hell anyway, so whether or not they hear makes little difference. God is just because whatever God does is the standard for justice.о For the Arminian, though, this renders the meaning of мjustо unintelligible and fails to solve the Problem of Evil.

Inclusivism seems to ignore or distort the passages just cited; it does make God more seem more just, though. The German theologian Karl Rahner has popularized a version of Inclusivism within the Catholic Church which views the unevangelized as potentially мAnonymous Christians.о The real problem with Inclusivism is that it turns the good news into the bad news. Once a Christian shares the gospel with someone who has not heard, they may be worse off than before, not better, for they are more accountable if they reject it. Since only those who explicitly reject the gospel are damned, this makes the situation yet worse; sharing the gospel is opening up the possibility of damnation (McQuilkin мLostо in Winter A-150). If Inclusivism is true, then Christнs Great Commission to bring the gospel to all nations doesnнt make much sense. One attempted reply from the Inclusivist is that the benefits of the gospel are not just related to salvation and eternal life, but to the present reality of social problems, human relationships, and societal well-being. Therefore, Christians should still be inspired to obey the Great Commission because they bring benefits of the Christian worldview with the gospel. While it is certainly the case that the benefits of the gospel, the Christian worldview, and redemption are far-reaching into a civilization, and that these goods should give us all the more reason to share the gospel, still these goods are not outweighed by the burden of increased eternal accountability for rejecting Christ after hearing of him.

The possibility that bringing the gospel might still be just because those who would hear the gospel and reject it would have rejected it anyway because they were not responding properly to the natural lights of general revelation in creation and conscience brings us to the final option #7. The early Augustine gives the rationale behind this response: мThere are two ways in which one can sin before becoming wise: either by not applying oneself to receive the commandment, or by not obeying it once it is received. . . . If the soul does not know what it ought to do, it is ignorant because it has not yet received such knowledge. But it will receive it, if only it will make good use of what it has received: the power to search diligently and piously if it wills to do soо (Free Choice 119, 115). So, the unevangelized have sufficient lights in general revelation to make them capable of, and hence responsible to, pursue further knowledge (special revelation) if they will to do so. God, in turn, will honor the righteousness of there will to overcome their ignorance, by somehow providing the need knowledge for salvation in Christ.

It may be objected that this is only a theoretical solution which has nothing to do with the real world. In other words, it might be that God brings testimony of Christ to the responsive unevangelized, but it sure doesnнt look like it! It seems rather that there are sincere people who adhere to every religion. Similarly, Rousseau objected to Christian apologists who claimed that angels would bring the gospel to those among the unevangelized who respond to general revelation. This seemed ridiculous to him. Nevertheless, there is evidence that this may be the case. Don Richardsonнs book, Eternity in Their Hearts, documents a number of cases around the world where Christian missionaries have been welcomed with joy as the answer to peoplesн prayers for God to reveal the truth to them. Obviously missionaries arenнt always welcomed like this, but this doesnнt mean that the people are completely satisfied with their own religions; there are numerous other reasons, many of them cultural, why they would not be friendly to missionaries. Also, there are numerous reported cases of God intervening in miraculous ways, sometime through visions and dreams, to bring the gospel to the unevangelized. Finally, as John Piper and Steve Hawthorne note, the best motivation for missions is to give people the opportunity they would not otherwise have to experience relationship with God and worship of Him, which is glorifying to God as well as satisfying to humans. As for the sincerity of those of other faiths ignorant of Christianity, we can offer that they have contented themselves with what they do have, have abandoned hope for something better. As for the sincerity of those of other faiths who know about Christianity, we can offer that they may not understand it or be may not be willing to accept its diagnosis of the human problem as sin.

Regardless of which answer one accepts to the Problem of the Unevangelized, the principle point in question is Godнs justice. Whenever Godнs justice is in question, it is important to keep the Atonement in view. The fact that God allowed the Atonement in order to be мjust and the justifierо (Romans 3:26) is extremely significant. In Islam, Allah forgives at will; this means his standard of justice is much lower than the Judeo-Christian Godнs. That God insists on the Atonement to preserve His justice in offering gracious forgiveness demonstrates that He is a trustworthy and just God. It is also important to remember that God мwill not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judgeо (Isaiah 11:3-4).

14) Arminianism fails to defend Godнs justice in light of those who die as infants, babies born without brains, the mentally retarded, etc. (This objection applies to Calvinism also.) In some ways, this question is parallel to the question of the unevangelized: there is no clear answer given in the Bible, but the resources to argue for different possibilities are given. But whatever possibility seems most likely, none can be subsequently considered certain, for the very reason that the Bible contains no clear answer. As with the unevangelized, the final answer for these hard cases, the answer with which we may rest contentedly, is that God has demonstrated unfathomable justice in Christ.

The early Augustine dealt with this problem. He notes that infants are born with the ignorance and difficulty of original sin. He then writes, мif ignorance of the truth and difficulty in doing right are the natural state of human beings [natural only in the sense that we were born this way, not that God created humanity this way], from which we must rise to the happiness of wisdom and rest, no one is rightly condemned for this natural beginning. But if someone refuses to go on from there, or falls back from the progress that he has made, he pays a just and well-deserved penaltyо (Free Choice 115). Therefore, the infant who dies with the stain of original sin is not justly damned. The strict Calvinist teaches infant damnation, but the Arminian find this doctrine an appalling insult to Godнs justice. Catholic insistence on infant baptism is based at least partly on the idea that since baptism removes the effects of original sin, an infant who dies will not go to Hell because of the stains of original sin. This too seems to belittle Godнs justice, for the point is not whether or not the stains are removed, but whether or not the stains are a just basis for condemnation. Augustine continues, мWho knows what reward God has prepared for them in the hidden depths of his judgments? For while it is true that they never acted rightly, they suffered without sinning. It is not without reason that the Church celebrates as martyrs the children who were killed when Herod sought the life of the Lord Jesus Christо (Free Choice 117).

The same principles used with reference to those who die as infants apply to the other related cases. But what exactly does happen to the individuals involved in all these cases? As Augustine says, мWho knows?о Here the speculation begins. Some suggest they may be given another chance to be reborn in a different body. Others suggest they may get a chance to decide on Christ after they die. The answer, of course, is not clear, and the tentativity of these suggestions in no way indicates the weakness of Christianity as a system just because a few speculative responses appear ad hoc. Since Christianity offers the best possible reasons to believe in Godнs justice in all but the most obscure cases where no answer is clear, belief that God will address these issues adequately is certainly well justified.

15) Arminianism fails to explain what will happen to those who died before Christ was born. (This objection applies to Calvinism also.) This is a common objection of those unfamiliar with the book of Romans. Paul explains that nothing has changed in terms of the means of salvation with the advent of Christ. According to Genesis 15:6, мAbraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.о Thus, Abraham, the father of the Jews was justified on the basis of faith, i.e. belief in the trustworthiness of God and His promises. Similarly, King David writes of justification apart from works, мBlessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against himо (Psalm 32:2). It would be a great mistake to think people in the pre-Christian era were saved on the basis of obedience to the Law or even on the basis of sacrificial offering. Hebrews 10:4 explains that the Hebrew sacrifices were reminders of sin, not the means of its expiation, for мit is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.о Because these offerings were inadequate for the forgiveness of an infinite offense before an infinitely holy God, God himself had to atone for human sin (this is Anselmнs famous argument, see Latourette 501). Christнs atonement was мonce for allо (1 Peter 3:18); his death atoned for the sins of his contemporaries, predecessors, and those who would live after him. The Old Testament sacrifices were an object lesson in the holiness of God which prepared the Hebrews for the coming of the Messiah; they were a reminder of the awful reality of sin and its offense to an all-holy God. The faith of the Hebrew sinner who presented the sacrifice was the basis for forgiveness, not the sacrifice itself. Justification by faith, made possible by Christнs once for all atonement, runs throughout the Bible, through both the Old Testament and New Testament eras. Paul makes this expressly evident: мGod presented [Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this at the present time to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunishedо (Romans 3:25). In other words, anticipating the Atonement, God delayed the punishment for Old Testament era sins so that it would fall on Christ.

16) Arminianism fails to explain Godнs justice in judging in view of original sin. (This objection applies to Calvinism also.) This is an important objection, though we have already answered it elsewhere (refer to objection to Arminianism #3). God does not condemn on the basis of imperfection (which is impossible due to original sin), but on the basis of rejecting Christ and the testimony of conscience and creation in the case of the unevangelized. The early Augustine writes on original sin,

In this passage, Augustine shows that the basis for guilt is not the failure to act perfectly, but the failure to accept the Christнs assistance in overcoming sin (through the ministry of the Holy Spirit), an assistance made possible through his Victory over sin in the Atonement. Augustine also points out that there was no inevitability that Adam sin nor that we persevere in the ignorance and difficulty of inherited original sin.

But isn't original sin by its very nature unjust? Why would God unite all human beings to Adamнs sin, so that our intellect and will were corrupted such that we couldnнt even begin life with a chance of living sinlessly? God didn't do this with the angels, so why did He do so with humans? The concept of original sin is found is Romans, so we will look there for answers. Paul explains, мsin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men . . . [and] just as the result of one trespass was the condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of one [Adam] the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man [Christ] the many will be made righteousо (Romans 5:12,18-19). God made Adam the father of a race and deals with that race collectively to a large degree. We act and are responsible for our acts and are justified all on the basis of personal, individual sin; at the same time, he allows the consequences of sin break individual boundaries. However, the flip-side of Godнs dealing with sin collectively (through the мfederal headship of Adamо) is that it is the precondition of his effecting redemption collectively (through the federal headship of Christ). According to Romans 11:32, мGod has bound all men over to sin that he might have mercy on them all.о This is precisely where humans differ from the angels. The angels were each created as distinct creatures; they do not reproduce and are not a race. Therefore God does not deal with them federally, while he does deal with humans federally. For God to redeem the fallen angels, he would have to die for them all individually. So original sin is the precondition of universal human salvation. It is not unjust, for God has made it possible to overcome it, nor does it need to be viewed negatively. The early Augustine suggests that it may even be viewed positively: мignorance and difficulty in newborn souls are not a punishment; they are a spur to progress and a beginning to perfectionо (Free Choice 109). Why did not God undertake to save the fallen angels (some like Origen suggest that even Satan will be saved)? He was under no obligation; he chose not to undergo death for all of them; they received what they justly deserved. Why did not God unite angels federally, forseeing they would sin? For this answer, refer to the objection to Arminianism #7, i.e. why did God create those he foreknew would sin and thus be damned? The answer is parallel.

17) Arminianism fails to explain why Godнs Word should be amenable to such contrary interpretations as Arminianism and Calvinism. (This objection applies to Calvinism also.) As with most of these objections, this objection is significant and has been the cause for some to reject Christianity. However, the ambiguity of the Bible should be considered carefully. First, since all truth is Godнs truth, the fundamentalist view of the Bible is not valid. In other words, to interpret the Bible literally without recourse to reason or consideration of a more complex meaning than is immediately apparent, is an illegitimate use of the Bible. Second, since no informed Christian holds to the inerrancy of the present text and translation (conservatives hold to the innerancy of the autographs), careful and thoughtful reading are a must. Third, since the Christian understanding of inspiration is not a dictation theory (like the Muslim or Mormon view of inspiration), Christians should expect the Bible to be a thoroughly human product as well as Godнs Word, even as Christ was simultaneously fully-man and fully-God. For this reason as well, Christians should not read the Bible as a book dropped from the sky or something to passively absorb. Active interpretation is necessary, and active, well-informed interpretation, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the responsibility of anyone who makes claims about what the Bible teaches, especially on predestination and free will.

The passive fundamentalist reception of the Bible accounts for much disagreement about particular teachings, I believe. This is especially true in the case of free will and predestination. Recall Lutherнs teaching on the scandal of Scripture: the point where мour natural reason is offended by it, and where we are flung into tumults, is the very point where genuine interpretation can take place and profound understanding can be reached. It is then and only then that the Word of the Lord actually gets across to us, that we can let ourselves be told something which we cannot tell ourselves, and really learn something which we cannot think up for ourselvesо (Torrance 158). Calvin had the same view of revelation as something you just accept, even when it doesnнt make sense-especially when it doesnнt make sense, without further considerations.

This is not to say that all Calvinists are uninformed fundamentalists, which is certainly not the case. Augustine, for example, arguably the greatest philosopher in history, fully aware of the implications of both free will and predestination, late in his life accepted (what would later be called) Calvinism, mostly on the basis of Romans 9 (which we will address shortly). Nor can it be argued that Calvinists are insincere. The problem remains. I will leave it to my readers to decide whether or not they find the following exegetical analysis sufficiently convincing to mitigate against the problem of biblical ambiguity.

Having carefully examined the philosophical dimensions of Calvinism and Arminianism, we now turn to an exegetical analysis, seeking to interpret the teaching of the whole Bible on this issue and bring as many relevant passages to bear on it as possible. Since philosophically, Arminianism is the far more rational answer of the two, we will first examine the Biblical support for Arminianism, then consider the Biblical objections on which Calvinists contest the sureness of their doctrine.

Because Calvinism holds that free will and predestination are both true (despite their manifest contradiction), exegetical support of Arminianism must indicate not only that humans do have free will and responsibility, but that they possess it in such a way that their will can resist, contradict, or be independent of Godнs will. This means that countless passages which appeal to free will as if it were undetermined and which should seem adequate refutation of Calvinism are actually insufficient. Because the Calvinist wants, in effect, to have his cake and eat it too, we must demonstrate that he cannot have it both ways and that he has to have it the way which grants significant human freedom.

As already mentioned, the Biblical accounts of the Flood and Babel indicate that God was acting in a way which was responsive to independent human free will. In Number 12:11, Gods asks Moses, мHow long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?о Here, the Calvinist must picture God working at counter-purposes to himself, willing to be treated with contempt and being angry for being treated with contempt.

The message of Deuteronomy is very much in keeping with Arminianism. God tells Israel that if they obey His Law, they will prosper in the land He is giving them, and if they disobey, He will bring judgment. Calvinist compatibalism cannot accommodate this as mysterious free will because several texts present Godнs will as contradicting human will. Deuteronomy 29 records that when Israel persists in going its own way, and receives judgment, мAll the nations will ask: лWhy has the Lord done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?н And the answer will be: лIt is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord . . . the Lordнs anger burned against this land, so that he brought on it all the curses written in this book. In furious anger and in great wrath the Lord uprooted them from their landо (v. 24-25,27-28). It makes little since to speak of God as either becoming angry or lamenting rebellion which he has directly caused. The famous appeal at the end of Deuteronomy is: мSee I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase . . . But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient . . . you will certainly be destroyedо (30:15-18). The appeal is made as God setting before the people two options, which are dependent only on the direction of their hearts; God will respond according to their free choice. A combatibalist interpretation strains the natural meaning of text considerably. A similar appeal is found in 2 Chronicles 7:14: мIf my people . . . will humble themselves . . . and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.о This verse uses strong imagery to portray God as waiting from afar for people to repent, not as causally involved in their rebellion, repentance, and forgiveness.

The ministries of the prophets also make little sense when subjected to a Calvinist interpretation. God sends Isaiah to rebellious Israel with a message He foreknows the Israelites will reject. Isaiah asks God, мFor how long [should I preach to them]?о God answers, мUntil the cities lie ruined and without inhabitantо (Isaiah 6:11). In Isaiah 65:2, God laments, мAll day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations-a people who continually provoke me to my face.о God explicitly distinguishes between мtheir own imaginationsо and obstinacy in conflict with his outstretched hands of mercy. Similarly, God sent Jeremiah to people whom he foreknew would reject that message altogether. It would seem God was working at counter-purposes with himself if He was simultaneously making Israel reject Jeremiah. Jeremiah 18:1-12 describes Godнs sovereign activity among the nations. God declares,

This passage is strong support of Arminianism, for it indicates that Godнs sending of prophets to pronounce blessing or disaster is aimed at appealing to human will. As in the case of God telling Abraham, мNow I know. . .,о here God seems to be learning in the process of history, which mitigates against his omniscience. Again, we should interpret the passage in light of the human perspective to which God is accommodating his speech. God does not change his plans based on undetermined human response because He foreknows everything. He does make appeals through the prophets to give humans additional chances to an independently willful repentance or additional prodding to persevere ethically through independent willful effort. These appeals, announcements of blessing or destruction, are conditional, in that their fulfillment is dependent on how free humans respond.

In Ezekiel, God says, мDo I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? . . . Repent! Turn away from your offenses . . . Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!о (18:23,30,32). The Calvinist would suspect that God gains glory through death as well as life, for He wills them both. This verse says precisely the opposite. This chorus is repeated elsewhere as well: мI take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and liveо (Ezekiel 33:11); мWhy bring such great disaster on yourselves . . . Why provoke me to anger . . . You will destroy yourselvesо (Jeremiah 44:7-8); мHow can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israelо (Hosea 11:8); мFor [God] does not willingly bring affliction to the children of menо (Lamentations 3:33); мThough I often speak [in judgment] against [Ephraim], I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for himо (Jeremiah 31:20). All these verses protest vigorously against Calvinism.

Jesusн Parable of the Tenants makes a similar point (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19). In the Parable, a landowner rents his vineyard to some farmers, goes on a journey, then sends servants to collect his fruit. The tenants beat, kill, and stone his servants. After sending more servants whom the tenants treat the same way, the landowner sends his son. Instead of respecting the son, the tenants kill him as well. As a result, the landowner returns and gives the vineyard to others. The landowner represents God, the tenants, the Hebrews; the servants, Godнs prophets; the son, Jesus Christ. Jesus concludes, ìëThe stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruitо (Matthew 21:42-43). The whole thrust of the parable describes God as acting reactively to independent free will, not at counterpurposes with Himself. It surely violates the natural sense of the passage to insist otherwise, or to fail to recognize the two independent wills at work in the builders who reject the stone and the Lord who makes it the capstone.

Perhaps the best support of Arminianism in the Bible is found in Matthew 23:37. Here Jesus says, мO Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather you together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.о This verse clearly indicates that human will can and does resist Godнs will. Jesus gives the aforementioned example of the prophets as well as the example of his contemporaries. Consider how Luther handles this text in The Bondage of the Will:

It hardly needs to be said that Lutherнs exegesis of this text is extremely weak.

Another passage which strongly supports Arminianism is Isaiah 6:9-10, quoted again in Matthew 13:11-15, Mark 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29. Isaiah records Godнs words: мGo and tell this people [Israel]: ìëBe ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.н Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.о Jesus quotes the passage from Isaiah when his disciples ask him why he teaches in parables. Jesus answers,

Mark reports Jesus saying, мThe knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so that лthey may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!о Lukeнs version is just a truncated version of Markнs. John records, мEven after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. . .. For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says . . . лHe has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn-and I would heal them.íî Acts records,

These verses have sometimes been cited in support of Calvinism; the Marcan and Lukan versions appear to be saying that Jesus spoke obscurely to deliberately prevent the nonelect (мthose on the outside,о in contrast with His chosen apostles) from being understanding his message and being saved. Even this interpretation, however, undercuts Calvinism because it indicates that Jesus had to use covert techniques to prevent people from coming to faith. If so, then they had free will independent of His power. If He had predetermined their responses, why did He have to speak obscurely to prevent them from repenting? In light of numerous other passages which state Godнs desire for all to repent, it seems wise to consider the parallel passages as we interpret Mark and Luke. Any Christian who believes in the inspiration of Scripture will agree that God inspired four gospels with the intention that they be interwoven and that we consult parallel accounts whenever possible when exegeting a passage.

The first part of the Matthean passage speaks of the disciples as the recipients of secrets not give to the multitudes. Does this indicate a kind of spiritual elite predetermined by God? No, because the implicit question is, Why are they the recipients of these secrets? The next verse gives the answer, мWhoever has will be given more, and . . . Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.о Isnнt this more support for Calvinism, viz. doesnнt this verse teach that the elect are given more knowledge of God while the nonelect are deprived of even what little they do have? Not exactly, for Jesus paraphrases Isaiah in Matthew: мthis peopleнs heart has become callused; they hardly hear with their ears . . .о The peopleнs heart was not made this way, but became this way, presumably through their suppression of the knowledge of God they did have. This is in keeping with Romans 1, which describes the descent into utter ignorance and vice of sinners who do мnot think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of Godо (1:28). The citation of Isaiah in John and Acts confirms this interpretation. In John, Godнs blinds the hearts of those who persist in unbelief despite miraculous signs. In Acts, Isaiah is quoted with the Matthean paraphrase which does not identify God as the hardening agent. But are Jesus (in Matthew) and Paul (in Acts) justified in paraphrasing Isaiah, so as to change the meaning? Isn't this misquoting Isaiah? No, for Jesus and Paul are giving a clarifying interpretation; they are giving the spirit of the message if not the verbatim letter of it. Consider the Lordнs prayer: was Jesus providing a text that believers should recite whenever they prayed, or was he giving the spirit of prayer as an explanation of the general themes and attitudes of prayer? The latter, clearly; the same applies to quoting from the Old Testament or to describing past events (both of which require interpretation). But is this interpretation given by Jesus and Paul a legitimate reading of Isaiah? The context of Isaiah 6, namely the whole book of Isaiah and the whole of Isaiahнs ministry, as discussed earlier, was God calling out to a stubborn and rebellious people, in effect, мI am the Lord. Choose me! Why are you doing this to yourselves?о But then, is there a contradiction between the Mark-Luke version and the Matthew-John-Acts version over the agency of the blinding? No, because Godнs blinding people is a response to their own decision of unbelief. He confirms their decision, he willingly lets them go down the spiral of increasing ignorance and blindness. His мblinding themо is analogous to his confirmatory hardening of Pharaohнs heart and his мgiving them [i.e. sinners] overо to ignorance and the controlling power of sin. Thus, the ministries of Jesus, Paul, and Isaiah were all of the same ethos: preaching a message of repentance and salvation to a people who did not want to listen and whose hearts had collectively grown cold through their unbelief and unwillingness to retain the knowledge of God.

One question remains: why then did Jesus preach so obscurely to the masses and only clearly to his disciples? Jesusн words in Matthew 7:6 are apposite: ìëDo not give to dogs what is sacred; do not through your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.о Jesus knew there was no reason to give a clear statement of his message to people he knew would only despise and reject it. This willful resistance suggests the inefficacy of simple, clear explanations. Consequently, Jesus avoided simplicity and clarity along with theology and systematic teaching. If he had taught clearly and systematically in public, people would not have listened openly or understood. Much of his teaching involved parables, which have hidden meanings that Jesus reveals only to those who inquired or who, like his disciples, were already committed to him. Jesusн entire teaching strategy was aimed at making people disturbed and disquieted about their sinfulness so they will open their hearts to receive his teaching and embrace it with repentance and faith. For example, Jesus taught that people should cut off limbs and gouge out eyes that cause them to sin (Mark 9:42-50) to emphasize the gravity of sin. He taught that people needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:53-54). He made impossible demands such as мBe perfect... as your heavenly Father is perfect о (Matthew 5:48), мstop sinningо (John 5:14, 8:11), and мunless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heavenо (Matthew 5:20). The entire Sermon on the Mount conveys the message that external righteousness is worthless unless the heart and motives, too, are pure. Jesusн teaching strategy is further affirmation of Arminianism, for Jesus consistently refuses to violate peopleнs free will: they must come to him of their own choice and accept him on his terms.

The classic verses in John that summarize the gospel support Arminianism. John the Baptist can to testify to the light of Christ, мso that through him [Christ] all men might believeо (John 1:7). This verse denies limited atonement and double predestination. John the Evangelist continues,

Acts 13:39 gives the same message: мeveryone who believes is justified.о Romans 1:16 and 3: 22 are additional examples: мthe gospel . . . is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believesо; мThis righteousness from God comes through faith to all who believe.о These verses are not quite so compelling as John 1:7, since the Calvinist can reply, мYes, but only those predestined to believe or reject Christ will do so.о This combatibalist interpretation is very unnatural given the iterations of all, everyone, and whoever, which would make little sense if Calvinism is true.

John 6:24 refers directly to Godнs will and so is an excellent prooftext against Calvinism: мfor my Fatherнs 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.о John states that Godнs will is for the salvation of everyone who believes, not only for an elect subset.

Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:2 are the basis for the Arminian claim that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith. According to Romans 8:29-30, мFor those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.о 1 Peter 1:2 speaks of the saints as мchosen according to the foreknowledge of Godо and connects that concept to the word elect in v.1, suggesting that мelectо should be understood this way whenever it is encountered in the New Testament. Romans 8:29-30 is the fullest description of Godнs redemptive activity in individuals in the Bible. Some passages speak of foreknowledge, others of chosenness, still others of predestination, justification, or glorification. Only Romans 8 brings them all together and explains their relationship. In this relationship, predestination is on the basis of foreknown faith.

2 Peter 3:9 is a verse which directly contradicts Calvinism. While the Calvinist holds to double predestination, the verse states, м[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.о Does God want everyone to repent or not? The Calvinist cannot have it both ways. Moreover, this verse is given as the reason why God is patiently waiting to end time and bring about the Day of the Lord. Accordingly, 2 Peter 3:12 says that Christians can speed the coming of the Day of the Lord. In other words, when the Day of the Lord comes is dependent on human free will which God does not direct; God is patiently waiting. 1 Timothy 2:4,6 records the same anti-Calvinist message: мGod our Savior . . . wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. . . . [Christ] gave himself as a ransom for all men.о Here both predetermined predestination and limited atonement are both refuted.

One of the advantages of the approach taken in this paper, namely first philosophical then exegetical inquiry, is that the exegete comes to the text fully aware of the consequences of the positions that are vying for recognition as the right interpretation. If reason and revelation are both guides to truth, since all truth is Godнs truth, this is a sound method. It may be objected that the philosophical analysis prevents the exegete from being objective. It certainly influences him, however it probably does so in a more conscious manner for the philosophically-informed exegete than the exegete who comes to the text with unexamined assumptions and prejudices about what the Bible says. In the absence of pure objectivity, a well-informed self-conscious exegesis in which the alternative positions and their implications are clearly understood is a much sounder method than uniform unself-conscious exegesis. As might be expected from the long centuries of controversy over free will and predestination, there are passages which seem at first to be more favorable to Calvinism than to Arminianism; we will treat these as carefully and fairly as possible. To discredit Arminianism, the Calvinist must find verses that say not only that God predestines (which the Arminian grants that God does on the basis of foreknowledge), but also that He predetermines.

In Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that the evil they did him мGod intended for goodо (50:19). In Genesis 45:5,7, he tells them that мit was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. . . but God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.о The first verse gives the impression that God willed the evil so that a good would come. As with Pharaoh, as we will see, God works all things towards his purposes, including the actions of both cooperative and uncooperative people. God has not coerced their free choice. The good Joseph speaks of is providing food for the whole world and to preserve a remnant to make good his promise to Abraham, which would not be fulfilled until universal salvation had been achieved by the Seed (Christ) (Galatians 3:8). Thus, Godнs use of the brothers in accordance with their willful evil to further his own plans is fully consistent with everything we have concluded thus far (see also exegesis of Romans 9 below).

The story of God hardening the Pharaohнs heart in Exodus is another passage often cited in defense of Calvinism. The key to understanding this event is to recognize that Godнs active hardening of Pharaohнs heart (7:13-14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34-35) follows the Pharaoh persistently hardening his own heart (9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8). Through the first five plagues, Pharaoh hardens his own heart; God hardens his heart starting with the sixth plague. His reason for hardening the Pharaohнs heart is fully consistent with His general purposes in history of redeeming a people for himself from all nations; through hardening Pharaohнs heart, God multiples miraculous signs and wonders (the last five plagues) in Egypt so that мthe Egyptians will know that I am the Lord (7:5). While God foretold that he would harden the Pharaohнs heart before Pharaoh hardened his own heart (4:21; 7:3), this was foreknowledge rather than predeterminism. As we will see later when exegeting the reference to this episode in Romans 9, the message is that God can do what he wants with someone who has chosen to reject him and head for destruction without being the least bit unjust. And his purposes are not merely to glorify Himself, but to redeem a people from all nations for Himself.

Several Old Testament passages challenge the Arminian solution to the Problem of Evil. In Exodus 4:11, God asks Moses, мWho gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.о In Isaiah 45:7, God says мI form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.о Amos 3:6 asks, мWhen disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?о In the New Testament, Jesus explains why a man was born blind: мNeither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his lifeо (John 9:3). While the verse doesnнt attribute the manнs blindness to God directly, it suggest so because the blindness occurred so that he might be healed by Jesus; the verse does not suggest that God is acting responsively to evil of another origin. Donнt the passages indicate that God directly wills evil, as the Calvinist holds? These passages are admittedly quite difficult, but they need not necessarily be given a Calvinist reading. Godнs comments to Moses are to be read in context primarily as a reproof for his unwillingness to trust Godнs ability to help him overcome his slowness of speech rather than as a teaching on the origin of natural evil. Godнs words may mean that Godнs sovereignty extends over all evil inasmuch as He allows bad things to happen. Godнs power over all creation is the point of the comment, to show Moses that He should accept the task God has given Him to speak to Pharaoh. The second and third passages seem in context to refer to Godнs judgment of sin rather than causing evil. The New Testament verse may be understood teleologically. In other words, from the standpoint of Christнs audience, the blindness happened so that Godнs work would be displayed.

In Deuteronomy 29, Moses reproves the Israelites for failing to comprehend the lesson of Godнs miraculous activity in the plagues and the Exodus, which they saw with their own eyes. мBut,о Moses says, мto this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hearо (v.4). Doesnнt this prove the total bondage of the will and that God controls peopleнs wills? This verse presents a common Biblical teaching, that of Godнs blinding of sinners; for details refer to the exegesis of Romans 1:1. This verse has an interesting twist, though: rather than saying God has blinded peopleнs minds, he says that God has never (to this day) given the Israelites understanding minds. We must read this verse in context, and the context is a passage renewing the Sinaic covenant; it is nothing less than an appeal to Israel to мCarefully follow the terms of this covenantо (v.9). But does Moses believe they are capable of this, given his comments is v.4? He must, for in 30:11,14, Moses says, мNow what I am commanding you is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. . . . No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so that you may obey it.о Also, the whole idea of renewing a covenant with a people incapable of even understanding it, much less following it, is absurd. In light of these considerations, it seems likely that v.4 is to be read in context primarily as a reproof of Israel who have a remarkable ability to not see the miraculous work of God all around them. Moreover, the verse probably refers to the effects of original sin. Why has God not given them understanding minds? Because they have not responded positively to the light of general and special revelation given to them. Therefore, God has not sharpened their minds but weakened them (as described in Romans 1). If any people was without excuse for acknowledging Godнs eternal power and divine glory, it was surely the Israelites of Mosesн day!

Several verses from Psalms and Proverbs suggest predetermined sovereignty. In all these verses and others like them, which at first appear formidable, it must first be remembered that the musings of the Psalms and the aphorisms of Proverbs are not the best places to look for theological truths. In the Psalms are recorded such statements as мBlessed is the one who dashes the heads of infants on the rocksо (??); мIf only you would slay the wicked, O God! . . . Do I not hate those who hate you?о (139:19,21); мHow long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?о (13:1). Consider the following verses and the exegesis provided:

1) мBut the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generationsо (Psalm 33:11). Here, Godнs sovereign plans do not necessarily mean that He actively wills everything that happens; it can also mean he guides history and individualsн lives through initiative and responsive intervention, including blessings, and judgments

2) мUnless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. In vain you rise easily and stay up late-for he grants sleep to those he lovesо (Psalm 127:1-2). A verse like Psalm 127:1-2 may be intended to point out that in everything we are dependent upon Godнs provision, which is in keeping with the rest of the psalm, rather than that if God is not actively willing a house to be built, it will not be built.

3) мAll the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to beо (Psalm 139:16). Isn't this irrefutable evidence that God predetermines everything? Not exactly. David, it must be remembered, had a very unique role in the divine plan. God can single out individuals, as he did David through the prophet Samuel, for unique purposes in history; this by no means suggests that this is always the case with everyone. Further, what does мall of the days ordained for meо mean? Many exegetes believe this refers to his lifespan, rather than every event in his life.

4) мThe Lord works out everything for his own ends-even the wicked for a day of disasterо (Proverb 16:4). Again, Godнs sovereign plans and directing of steps does not necessarily mean that He actively wills everything that happens, nor that he planned for someone to be wicked so as to deliver him over to disaster. The verse does not refer to Godнs intent in wickedness, but to what God works out of wickedness.

5) мIn his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his stepsо (Proverbs 16:9). Once again, Godнs sovereign directing of steps does not necessarily mean that He actively wills everything that happens; here it can also mean he provides guidelines of historical possibility and moral law which the individual must follow, willing or unwilling. A verse like Proverbs 16:9 may have a similar meaning to 16:25: мThere is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death,о i.e. human plans which are outside the boundaries of Godнs moral will inevitably fail because of Godнs moral design of the universe. This interpretation is consistent with some of the themes in context.

6) мThe lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lordо (Proverbs 16:33). Lots were not used in everyday decision-making, but on very rare occasions or else in priestly ritual (see Exodus 28:30, Numbers 26:53, Nehemiah 11:1, Psalm 22:18, Jonah 1:7, Acts 1:26).

7) мMany are the plans in a manнs heart, but it is the Lordнs purpose that prevailsо (Proverbs 19:21). Refer to #4.

8) мA manнs steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?о (Proverbs 20:24). Refer to #4. The second sentence may refer to the impossibility of understanding the direction oneнs life is proceeding, not the mechanism of decision-making. The future is Godнs, not because he predetermines it, but because He alone knows it.

9) мThe kingнs heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleasesо (Proverbs 21:1). First, God often intervenes with kings more frequently than with ordinary people. Consider Daniel 4:31-32,35; Isaiah 45:1-3; and Ezra 6:22. Second, if the verse is typical of others in this portion of Scripture, the point is that even the highest, most powerful human being, the king, has no power above or independent from God in the sense that he only possesses what freedom God has given him. Third, Godнs directing of the kingнs ways need not necessarily mean that He actively wills everything the king does; it can also mean he guides history and the kingнs decisions through initiative and responsive intervention, including blessings, and judgments.

10) мThere is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord. The horse is made ready for battle, but victory rests with the Lordо (Proverbs 21:30-31). The point of this verse, the same as for #8, is in the first sentence: the greatest human achievements and efforts cannot rival God; he is to be worshipped and obeyed, not rebelled against. This is the meaning of the verse directly preceding: мA wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his waysо (v.29). Verse 31 does not mean that the outcome of every battle and sporting event is directly Godнs will. It does mean, though, that God and not horses should be the object of human trust. It could also refer to battle successes of ancient Israel, which were to be a sign to the nations of Godнs righteousness and holiness.

11) мa manнs life is not his own; it is not for a man to direct his stepsо (Jeremiah 10:23). Refer to #4. A recurring theme in these passages is that human live is not independent of God; we are to be obedient to him, submissive to His law-His direction for our steps, and in relationship to Him. This, recall, is genuine freedom.

In Isaiah 65:1-2, God says, мI revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said лHere am I, here am I.íî This seems to indicate that a special grace is a precondition for the possibility of faith for individuals or groups. However, this passage is about Israel, with whom God has a covenant relationship to bless them and make them a blessing to all the nations. As in the book of Hosea, He continues to woo Israel even when the nation is unfaithful to Him. God is free, of course, to initiate with whomever He chooses whenever He chooses. Further, the verse says nothing about Israel responding in faith, which in fact they did not do. Finally, God reveals himself in numerous ways to every person alive, including those who ask for him and those who do not. This verse has no explicit Calvinistic contents. Isaiah 29:10 reports to the people of Jerusalem, мThe Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers).о Doesnнt this teach that God controls human wills however He pleases? No, for Godнs action is in response their preceding persistent sin. This theme, Godнs blinding of sinners, recurs often in the Bible; refer to the exegesis of Romans 1 below.

God tells Jeremiah, мBefore I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nationsо (Jeremiah 1:5). Doesnнt this indicate that God predetermines peoplesн lives? This verse in no way requires such an interpretation or one-case induction. It says that God foreknew Jeremiah before he was born and that he set him apart; Godнs setting Jeremiah apart may well be on the basis of that foreknowledge, just as the Arminian says God predestines (but does not predetermine) on the basis of foreknowledge. And even if God had set apart Jeremiah as a prophet, that would not mean he predetermines the details of anyoneнsн lives or their eternal destinies. God may (and does) gift certain individuals with some gifts and other with other gifts so as to set them apart for those tasks.

Jeremiah 18:6 records, ìëO house of Israel, can I not do with you as the potter does?н declares the Lord. лLike clay in the hands of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.íî Certainly Godнs sovereign power means that he can intervene in history at will. It does not mean that he can do whatever he pleases if мwhatever he pleasesо means contradicting his just nature. The verses immediately following (cited earlier) support an Arminian reading:

The words мelectо and мchosen ones,о while they occur in a number of places in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 24:22,24,31; Luke 18:7; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 John 1; Revelation 17:14), need not be taken as evidence for Calvinism, for the real question is not whether or not there is an мelectо (the New Testament is clear that there is), but whether the elect are chosen according to Godнs foreknowledge or predetermined to be saved.

Jesusн Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14, Luke 14:16-24) ends with the words, мFor many are called by few are chosen,о sometimes cited by Calvinists as evidence for predetermined predestination. The version in Luke, it should be noted, does not contain this verse. Both passages suggest that there are two groups of people: those who are invited to the banquet first, but do not come; and those who are invited second, because the first group did not come. The Parable seems to identify the Jews with the first group and the Gentiles with the second group. But then, if God did not invite the Gentiles at first, was this exclusivism just? Here is important to recall the meaning of мchosen people.о What were the Jews chosen for? They were chosen to receive special revelation (Romans 3:2, 9:4-5) and to be мa light for the Gentiles, that [they] may bring [Godнs] salvation to the ends of the earthо (Isaiah 49:6), to be blessed and to be a blessing to all nations (Genesis 12:1-3). The invitation is not the invitation to eternal salvation (remember that general revelation is accessible to all), but to be partake of a special task, both a privilege and immense responsibility, to display Godнs glory to the nations that they, too, might come into the kingdom. The similar structure and language (e.g. мThe rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them,о v. 6) of this parable and the Parable of the Tenants (which Matthew, a thematic grouper, places immediately before this parable) strongly supports this interpretation. But if the invitation is not about eternal salvation but about the special task of Israel, why does the king have the cities of the first guests burned? For Israel to reject their covenant with God brought judgment, though the Gentiles were not obligated to receive the same covenant nor were they responsible for abusing what they did not receive. But the parable becomes especially interesting in Matthew 22:11-14. The king finds a man from among the second group of invitees who is not wearing wedding clothes, and the king has him thrown into мthe darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are invited but few are chosenо (v.13-14). The most common exegesis is that this part of the parable refers to individual salvation and that the wedding clothes symbolize imputed righteousness, without which there is only hellfire. The sticky point is the chosen part in v.24, but we have already given ample reason to interpret chosen as мchosen according to the foreknowledge of Godо (1 Peter 1:2).

In John 6, Jesus teaches, мAll that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last dayо (v.37,44). In verse 65, he concludes, мThis is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.о Donнt these verses support the Augustinian view that even our faith decision is a gift of Godнs grace? First, we should note exactly what the text does and does not say. It does say that no one can come to Christ unless the Father enables him; no Arminian would contest that no amount of human goodness can bridge the gap between God and sinful human beings. It does not say that no one can choose to come to Christ unless the Father enables him, which is what the Arminian objects to. Second, in the context of this same passage, Jesus says, мmy Fatherнs will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life,о which makes sense from an Arminian interpretation than from a Calvinist interpretation (i.e. yes, but only those predetermined to believe will do so). Third, we should look to the context to see what Jesus means when he says, мThis is why. . .о in v.65. Jesus had just taught that people had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life in them; many disciples find this a hard and unacceptable teaching; and Jesus asks them, ìëDoes this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit give life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believeн. . .лThis is why . . .о Jesus was teaching that everyone who would be saved must do so by appropriating his broken body and blood, i.e. his sacrificial atonement for their sins. (This is not about receiving the sacramental Mass.) Many did not understand his teaching; many found it repulsive; and many no doubt persisted in unbelief because they believed they could come to God and Christ on their own terms, without the enabling of God through Christнs atonement. The enabling of God also includes the proclamation of the gospel, for no one can believe on whom they have never heard, and they cannot hear unless someone tells them (Romans 10:14). Jesus has spoken words of spirit and life, without which none can be saved; many do not believe; the flesh counts for nothing and this is why he told them they needed Godнs enabling. Just after v. 65, many disciples abandon Jesus and he asks the Twleve if they too will do so. Peter responds, мLord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal lifeо (v.68). Notice the contrast between the unbelievers who would not accept that they needed Godнs enablement through Christнs atonement and teaching and Peter who sees that he has no where to turn for salvation except to Christ the Savior, and from whom he has received the words of eternal life. This interpretation is also supported by Jesusн teaching a few chapters later that мno one can come to the Father except through meо (John 14:6).

The status of free will surrounding Christнs crucifixion is a classic test case for the free will-predestination question. Mark 14:21 records Jesus saying, мThe Son of Man will go as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.о Acts 2:23 records part of Peterнs address to fellow Jews: мThis man [Jesus] was handed over to you by Godнs set purpose and foreknowledge; and you with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him on the cross.о Acts 4:27-28 records a prayer: мHerod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentile and the people of Israel interpretation his city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you appointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.о Donнt these three verses support a combatibalist understanding of free will? First, even if they did for a few isolated individuals, this would not mean that compatibalism was and is true throughout the rest of history. Second, even if God forced them to act in certain predetermined ways, he would judge them accordingly. However, the woe pronounced on Judas indicates that he was held fully responsible for the act and that he must have acted freely. It is perfectly conceivable that Judasн and the High priestsн resentment of Jesus and Herod and Pilateнs wanting to calm the Passover ruckus Jesus was creating in Jerusalem would lead them by their own choice to crucify Jesus. The key question is, what exactly was predetermined? The verses arenнt very clear on this point. The Mark 14 verse speaks of Christнs мgo[ing] as it is writtenо (perhaps an allusion to Psalm 22), but not entirely clear. Conceivably, Jesus could have been executed in a different way (so long as the prophecies, e.g. about no bones being broken, were still fulfilled) than crucifixion, for мgo[ing] as it is written may refer only to an atoning death. The Mark 14 verse also distinguishes between the determined going as it is written and the agent. Conceivably, someone other than Judas might have betrayed Jesus. The Acts 2 verse indicates that his being handed over to Jewish authorities was determined, but connects this to foreknowledge, so even this may not be predetermined. The Acts 4 verse refers ambiguously to мwhat your power and will had decided beforehand should happen,о but makes no attempt to fill in what was decided beforehand and what not. In summary, these verses offer no compelling argument for Calvinist compatibalism.

Romans 1 is an important passage for clarification of the process of God hardening hearts, so often cited by Calvinists as proof of their doctrine. According to Romans 1, God has made his eternal power and divine nature perspicuous in creation so that people are without excuse for glorifying and thanking God. Many, however, suppress the this knowledge of God and as a result, мtheir thinking be[comes] futile and their foolish hearts [are] darkenedо and they becomes fools, worshipping idols (v.21-23). мTherefore God [gives] them over in the sinful desires of their hearts for the degrading of their bodies with one another.о They worship other creatures and мBecause of this, God [gives] them over to shameful lusts . . . and [they receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversionо (v. 27). Finally, since they have worked to abolish their knowledge of God, мhe [gives] them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be doneо (v.28). The phrase мGod gave them overо occurs repeatedly in this passage. The phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture, too: мBut my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devicesо (Psalm 81:11-12) and мBut the children [of Israel] rebelled against me . . . I also gave them over to statutes that were no good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled . . . that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lordо (Ezekiel 20:25-26). It appears that the process alluded to in these two verses and described at length in Romans 1 is the gradual loss of genuine freedom as one becomes absorbed in the illusory pursuit of autonomy. This process was described above in objection to Arminianism #4. Always in response to humansн free rejection of Him, God allows them to fall increasingly under the power of sin, which increasingly distorts their ability to think clearly and see clearly what is happening to them. The phrasing мgives them overо indicates Godнs passivity in this process; He lets it happen without intervening to stop the accelerating downward spiral. While the Calvinist might see in this passage evidence of God hardening human hearts, the passage lends itself much more naturally to an Arminian interpretation. Isaiah 44:17-18 also describes this process of sin resulting in blindness and ignorance: мFrom the rest [of his firewood] he makes a God, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, лSave me; you are my god.н They know nothing; they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand.о As a result of sin, humans becomes idolaters and then become impervious to the plain evidence of experience and reason; as a result they know and understand nothing.

Romans 9 is the notorious passage most often cited by Calvinists in support of their doctrine. This was the passage that made the late Augustine repudiate libertarian free will and accept double predestination and irresistible grace. Luther deals extensively with this passage in The Bondage of the Will. Carnell cites it as express evidence that Godнs will is arbitrary, мmak[ing] this point so clear that not even the slow of understanding could miss itо (Carnell 304). The crux of the passage is Romans 9:10-24:

As with all exegesis, the first step is to read this passage in context. Paul begins a new section of his letter in Romans 9:1 which continues to the end of chapter 11; we shall exegete this entire section. It will be most helpful to start with an outline of this entire section, to get an idea of the principle messages, then proceed to exegete through the textual details. Here is the outline provided in the NIV Study Bible:

3. Godнs ultimate purpose is mercy (11:25-36) (Barker 1704).

Now, we shall consider the passage, piece by piece:

A. The Justice of the Rejection (9:1-29)

9:1-5: Paul turns his attention from joyful contemplation of the richness of life in Christ to the depressing fact that most of the nation of Israel has rejected the gospel.

9:6a: But, Paul states, мIt is not as though Godнs word had failedо (9:6), introducing the theme of chapter 9. Paul seeks to explain the status of Godнs covenantal relationship with the nation of Israel in light of her rejection of Him. How can Godнs promises to Israel stand when Israel as a nation has rejected God in Christ?

9:6b-9: Paul now repeats an argument he has already made in 2:28-29; 4:16-17, namely: there are natural Jews and spiritual Jews, i.e. physical descendants of Abraham and spiritual descendants, who like him are justified by faith. So мIsraelо should be understood as the latter and not the former whenever personal salvation is in question. This passage is different from the others, though, in that when he is speaking here of spiritual Israel, he is not including the Gentiles, since the issue at hand is the promises to the nation of Israel. Paul distinguishes here between natural children and children of the promise. So, he answers his question here: Why is it not as though Godнs word had failed? Because of this distinction, Godнs promises find fulfillment in the spiritual (believing) Israel, not in national/natural Israel, which includes the majority of Jews, who are unbelievers. Paul cites Abrahamнs two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, as evidence of the historical roots of this distinction.

9:10-13: Paul cites the example of Isaacнs sons, Esau and Jacob, as another case of this distinction; here the two sons even had the same mother. However, in the middle of this example, Paul changes gears and begins to talk about Godнs sovereign plans with the nation of Israel and not eternal salvation. This is evident in the Godнs words to Rebekah, which Paul quotes in part: мTwo nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the youngerо (Genesis 25:23). The issue is not that Jacob is saved and Esau damned, but that Esau would serve Jacob and the nation of Edom (Esauнs descendent) would serve the nation of Israel (Jacobнs descendants). This is also apparent in Godнs words to Israel through Malachai, which Paul quotes in part: ìëWas not Esau Jacobнs brother?н the Lord says. лYet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.н Edom may say, лThough we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.н But this is what the Lord Almighty says: лThey may build but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Landíî (Malachai 1:2-

4) This passage makes quite explicit that the nations are being designated by their respective forefathers. Election here is not election to eternal salvation, but election of Israel to a special purpose in mediating to the nations Godнs historical purpose to redeem and purify for Himself a people eager to do good from every nation. Godнs purposes in election are the same as his purposes in general: evangelism of the nations. Godнs historical purposes are sovereign and cannot be thwarted, though as many as will resist His gospel for eternal salvation God will allow to do so. God has given Israel a special purpose which He elected not to give to Edom, and Paul is clear that this election is not related to foreseen works (if it had, Jacob would surely have been dismissed as rapidly as Esau). Edomнs destruction, according to Malachai, is related to her wickedness.

9:14-18: Not to be elected to a special divine duty as was Israel is no injustice towards Edom; Godнs election of Israel was an act of mercy to Israel (if you donнt see this, reread the story of Jacobнs life in Genesis), for on the basis of works, both Esau and Jacob were both quite unworthy of the privilege and responsibility God elected to give Israel. Just as a philanthropist is just in distributing his gifts to whomever he chooses, so God is just in the mercy of using some nations to advance his purposes and not others. This is the point of Paulнs quotation about mercy and compassion from Exodus 33. Paul extend the point: мIt [i.e. Godнs election] does not therefore depend on manнs desire or effort, but on Godнs mercyо (v.16). In this epistle of Godнs grace, Paul is again reinforcing that there was nothing Jacob could have done to merit this privilege and responsibility, nor was there anything Edom could have done to merit it. Merit is out of order; human merit could not achieve worthiness of the blessing and mission God elected to give Israel. So, in his question about Godнs promises to Israel, Paul is giving a second answer. First, he noted that Godнs promises to Israel were fulfilled in the believing remnant. Now, he urges readers to recognize that Godнs covenantal relationship with Israel has never been based on the works on response of Israel itself; it has always been an act of mercy which could be withdrawn at will. Paul next cites Pharaoh as an example of Godнs elective purposes in Israel. But Pharaoh was elected play a negative role in advancing His purpose; is that mercy? Paul, in v.18, says God will apportion mercy and harden whomever he chooses to. Exodus tells us that God hardened Pharaohнs heart, so Pharaoh was a case of hardening, not mercy. But, recall that Godнs hardening of Pharaohнs heart was only a confirmation and temporal extension of Pharaohнs willful spite. It is related to the process of increasing bondage to sin and ignorance that follows persistent sin as a judgment (see the exegesis of Exodus and Romans 1 above). So God punished Pharaoh and had mercy on Jacob; his purpose stood in both cases, and in both cases was the same: to Pharaoh, God uses Pharaoh мto display my power in you . . . that my name might be proclaimed in all the earthо (v.17; Exodus 9:16); God promises Jacob that мAll peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspringо (Genesis 22:14). The message is that Godнs historical purposes will succeed despite human resistance. God can use a Jacob and a Pharaoh; he can use those who cooperate with His will and those who resist His will. In every case, Godнs elective action is related to the existing situation, the present moment of salvation history, and how it can further Godнs historical international evangelistic purposes. But Exodus says that God raised Pharaoh up so he might display His power through Pharaoh, not that he hardened his heart to display His power. Granted, but God can raise up whomever He chooses to positions of authority whenever He chooses (just a few examples are Lucifer, Adam, Abraham, Esther, David, Jezebel, Judas, Pilate, Paul) to further his historic purposes. How they choose to let God display His power in them, whether for good or evil, is their choice-God can and will use them either way.

9:19-21: Paul now anticipates the objection, Why does God blame us, since no one can resist His will? Paul counters that this question smacks of the kind of blind arrogance that inverts Godнs and peopleнs roles in the universe. God has the sovereign plan which will prevail whether we cooperate or not; we have no right to contend with God as if we were the wronged party or the determiners of the nature and destiny of humanity and the purposes of history. The clay and potter image is used by the Old Testament prophets on several occasions to make this point. Paul cites Isaiah: мWoe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, лWhat are you making?н Does the work say, лHe has no hands?н Woe to him who says to his father, лWhat have you begotten?н or to his mother, лWhat have you brought to birth?íî (Isaiah 45:9-10); and мWoe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the Lord, who do their work in darkness and think, лWho sees us? Who will know?н You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, лHe did not make me?н Can the pot say of the potter, лHe knows nothingн? (Isaiah 29:15-16). These passages do not suggest anything about God predetermining eternal salvation or about God making people unwilling play roles in a drama in which every movement is already determined. Paul, accordingly, defends the potterнs right to make some pots for noble purposes and some for common purposes, according to His own will. It would be a serious distortion of the text to suggest that мnoble purposesо signifies salvation and мcommon use,о damnation (supralapsarian) or even perterition (infralapsarian). Noble purposes refers to those, usually in positions of authority, whom God raises up in order to display His mighty power and further His historical purposes. Finally, it must be noted that the question мFor who resists His will?о refers to his overarching purpose in history, which is indeed irresistible, but not to any supposed will God has for how exactly God will use them or for the details of life. Therefore, this verse does not in any way teach irresistible grace.

9:22-24: Now Paul states in the form of a rhetorical question that God has chosen to show His wrath and make His power known. He has done so by forbearance toward the мobjects of His wrath-prepared for destruction.о In doing so, He intends to мmake the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-even us, whom he called,о including both Jews and Gentiles. Doesnнt this passage teach that God has foreordained some to be saved (objects of mercy) and some to be damned or passed over (objects of wrath)? No. As we have seen, God chooses and prepares and forebears according to His foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2). Godнs forbearance displays His glory to his people to fill them with yet greater awe and humility in light of Godнs gracious mercy and salvation wrought in Christ. Similarly, Paul says in chapter 3 that God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement in order to demonstrate his justice because in His forbearance He left pre-Christ sins unpunished until Christ (3:25-26). In both cases, believers are to be inspired and humbled: at Godнs immense mercy that tolerates humans to sin so freely and so destructively to honor their freedom (expressed so powerfully in мThe Grand Inquisitorо) and at Godнs unfathomable justice and love, which undertakes human salvation at the cost of Christнs death, which alone can satisfy Godнs justice. Why does God not care to make His glory known to the objects of wrath? He tries, but they refuse; as described in Romans 1, they grow increasingly self-enclosed until they have sunk into utter depravity and ignorance and lost the knowledge of God entirely. God does not show them His glory because they have chosen to see only their own glory, which without God is a truly miserable sort of glory.

9:25-29: Next Paul quotes twice from Hosea and twice more from Isaiah. The passages from Hosea (2:23, 1:10) are prophecies of Israelнs future spiritual restoration; Paul cites them as proof of his last point in v.24, i.e. that Godнs people include both Jews and Gentiles. Then, concerning Israel, Paul quotes the verses from Isaiah (10:22-23, 1:9) to prove that only a small remnant of the nation of Israel will be saved.

Summary: Despite Israelнs unbelief, God has not failed. The promises to the nation of Israel are fulfilled in Jewish Christians. Godнs rejection of Israel is not unjust because He elected Israel out of His mercy in the first place. God elected Israel to participate in fulfilling His historical evangelistic purpose, just as he elected Pharaoh to do so. Both the rebellious and the cooperative cannot resist Godнs ultimate purpose, though how God achieves that purpose-through mercy or judgment (hardening) is entirely up to the individuals involved. God has not failed and His dealings with Israel are just.

B. The Cause of the Rejection (9:30-10:21)

As history has proven, Romans 9 is very susceptible to misinterpretation. However, this is not entirely Paulнs fault, for He devotes the end of chapter 9 and the whole of chapter 10 to arguments that Israelнs rejection is a result of her free choice to disbelieve in God in Christ.

9:30-33: Here Paul asks why Israel has not obtained righteousness when the Gentiles have. His answer, fully consistent with the rest of Romans: Israel мpursued [righteousness] not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stoneо (v.32). Paul quotes Isaiah (8:4, 28:16) as the source of this imagery. What is this stumbling stone? Peter clarifies: Jesus is the мliving Stone-rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to himо (1 Peter 2:4). Why do they stumble? мThey stumble because they disobey the messageо (1 Peter 2:8).

10:1-4: Paul laments that most Israelites have sought to establish a righteousness of their own by obedience to the law, rejecting the imputed righteousness that God provides in Christ. Indeed they are zealous for God, but their zeal lacks the understanding that righteousness can come only in Christ and cannot come by the way of the law.

10:5-13: Next, Paul quotes Moses (speaking about the Law) to make the point that the

word of faith is not inaccessible or impossible, but мnear you; it is in your mouth and in your heart.о What is the word of faith? It is the gospel message Paul proclaims, namely that the verbal confession that мJesus is Lordо and heart belief in the resurrection will bring salvation. This salvation is accessible to Jews and Gentiles alike.

10:14-21: But is Israel really guilty of disbelief?, is the next question Paul sets out to answer. He answers the question in two parts: first, by defining the conditions of possibility for anyone to be saved (v.14-17); and secondly, by arguing that these conditions have been met in Israelнs case (v.18-21); therefore Israel bears the responsibility for rejecting the word of Christ. The conditions of possibility are: a preacher being sent, a preacher preaching to them, their hearing the preacher, their believing the word of Christ proclaimed by the preacher, and their calling upon the Lord to be saved (Paul lists these in backwards order in the form of rhetorical questions). So, did Israel hear? Paul quotes the Psalms about general revelation to argue, мOf course they didо (v.18). (Paulнs giving general revelation as the accountability factor for receiving the word of Christ is interesting support for the answer suggested to the Problem of the Unevangelized, objection #13 to Arminianism above). Did they understand? In reply Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:21 and Isaiah 65:1 to make the point that the Gentiles, without any special revelation, understood, so how much more should the Israelites have understood! No, Israel has not understood that justification comes by faith alone. Paul quotes Isaiah 65:2, мAll day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people,о as final proof that willful obstinacy is the cause of Israelнs rejection of God in Christ.

Summary: The cause of Israelнs rejection is Israelнs obstinate, stubborn refusal to accept the righteousness that comes from God through faith.

C. Facts That Lessen the Difficulty (ch.11)

1. The rejection is not total (11:1-10)

11:1-6: Paul asks, Does all this mean that God has totally rejected his people? No, for Paul himself is an example of Godнs faithfulness to Jews. мGod did not reject his people, whom he foreknew,о Paul says. In other words, God foreknew the remnant from the nation of Israel who would be saved, and it is on the basis of these Jewish Christians that Godнs rejection of Israel is not total. Paul compares the situation in his day with that of Elijahнs day. In both cases, only a very small proportion of the nation of Israel believed in God and walked in His ways. In both cases, as an act of grace, God has allowed a remnant of believing Jews to exist. In Elijahнs day, it was a matter of preserving them from death; in Paulнs day, Godнs grace is manifested in the glory of Christ, by whom God allows any to be saved at all. It is a matter of grace, not works, Paul says.

11:7-10: Paul writes, мWhat Israel sought so earnestly [righteousness] it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: лGod gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very dayн [Deuteronomy 29:4, Isaiah 29:10].о Paul speaks of hardening in the passive voice, suggesting that the hardening was at least as much their own work as Godнs (see above exegesis on Romans 1 and Deteronomy 29:4). Paul quotes the Psalms to make the same point.

2. The rejection is not final (11:11-24)

Israel has not fallen beyond recovery, because there is a believing remnant that will be included in Godнs people, though as a nation, God has rejected Israel. The difficulty in this v.11 is мbecause of [Israelнs] transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.о It would seem that God would have never bothered with saving Gentiles unless Israel had been unfaithful, and that Godнs concern for the Gentiles is only a strange sort of indirect exclusive love for Israel. It sounds rather like a jealous lover trying to win back his estranged beloved by arousing her jealousy about his new, pretended beloved. Surely God does not act in such petty, parochial ways! As we have seen, Israelнs мchosen nationо status did not mean that she was a cul-de-sac of Godнs blessings, but rather a conduit of them to all the nations. I take the meaning of this verse to be as follows: Because Israel persisted in unbelief and sin during Old Testament times, God мdecidedо on the basis of this foreknowledge to offer salvation directly to the Gentiles without the mediation of Israel. Whereas, God originally purposed to reach the Gentiles through the mediation of the Jews, now he has revealed his purpose to reach the Jews through the mediation of the Gentiles! Just as once God blessed Israel to make the nations envious for the blessings of faith in the one, true God, so now God blesses the Gentiles to make Israel envious for the blessings of faith. This is indeed a tremendous humiliation for the Jews, but a humiliation which will bring a remnant back to God. Paul urges the Gentiles to remember that salvation has come through Jesus, the Jew, and not to arrogant because they stand in Godнs family on the basis of faith. there is no basis for boasting over rebellious, sinful Israel.

3. Godнs ultimate purpose is mercy (11:25-36)

Paul says that мIsrael has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in[to Godнs Kingdom]. As so all Israel will be savedо (v.25-26). This verse is somewhat unclear, but it probably means: мthe nation of Israel has experienced a hardening as a result of willful sin (chapter 10); many merely natural Jews will see the salvation of Gentiles, grow jealous, and be saved; then the full number of Israelites who would be saved (all Israel) will be saved, just as the мfull number of Gentilesо will have then come in. In v.29, Paul writes, мGodнs gifts and his call are irrevocable.о Isn't this proof of irresistible grace and double predestination? No, Paul refers this statement to the promises of the Patriarchs, which were fulfilled in Christ and the believing remnant. Paul summarizes: the Gentiles have direct access to the Gospel because of the Jewsн disobedience in rejecting the responsibility to be agents of Godнs blessing to all nations; now the Jews will be saved through the mediation of the Gentiles, and thereby all the foreseen elect will finally be saved. Thanks be to God for this incredible plan, revealing such indescribable justice, mercy, grace, and love!

After Romans 9, Ephesians 1 is the second fortress of the Calvinist defense. By now, we have all the exegetical background to deal with this passage quickly. Paul writes, мFor [God] chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and willо (v.4-6). In this passage, Paul also writes, мIn 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 willо (v.11). Here, predestination and chosenness are to be understood, of course, as contingent upon Godнs foreknowledge. Is v.11 proof of direct determinism of everything (i.e. Calvinistic divine sovereignty)? No, this verse does not require such an interpretation, and should not be given it, in light of the extensive philosophical and exegetical reasoning already presented. No, мall thingsо can refer loosely to the irresistible ultimate historical purposes of God.

As mentioned in the objection to Arminianism #9, many Calvinists hold that even Christians are unable to choose or to do good unless God does it for them through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. These people are descendants of the Keswick movement in England. They typically cite five passages in support of this position: John 4:13, John 15:5, 2 Corinthians 4:7; 2 Corinthians 12:10; Galatians 2:20; and Philippians 4:13. According to John 4:13, whoever drinks Jesusн living water мwill never thirst.о Hudson Taylor took this to mean that he would never struggle with sin or feel distant from God again. This is not at all what the passage is discussing. The verse refers to salvation. John 15:5,9 reports Jesus as saying, мI am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. . . . Now remain [or, abide] in my love.о From this passage, Keswicks claim that without God we can do nothing and that we should cease striving, and concentrate on abiding in God. First, it is true that we can do nothing without God in the sense that we owe our existence and our free will to Him. It is not true that we can do nothing without God in the sense (as Keswicks take it) that our independent free choice is incapable of anything without God or that we completely lack an independent free choice. Furthermore, мYou can do nothingо refers to мnothingо in the area of bearing spiritual fruit (doing anything positive with reference to God), not мnothingо in any area of life at all. Second, to remain (or abide in God) does not mean to мlet go and let Godо; verse 10 states what it means to remain: мIf you obey my commands, you will remain in my love.о 2 Corinthians 4 speaks of Christian as earthen vessels in which the мlight of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ [is a] . . . treasure [we have] in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and New Testament from usо (v.6-7). Paulнs analogy of the clay jar has had the unfortunate effect of leading many people to the conclusion that humans are on the level of clay jars in terms of free will. In the next few verses, Paul describes how Godнs supernatural power is manifested in Christians: in extreme suffering, persecution, and difficulty, which any would be impossible to bear without Godнs strengthening and encouraging presence. The treasure in the clay jar is not the Holy Spirit; it is the knowledge of God in Christ! The passage does not support the Keswicks at all.

In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul pleads that God remove a weakness or problem he has. But Christ tells him, мMy grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weaknessо (v.8). Paul draws the lesson, мTherefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christнs power may rest on me. . . . For when I am weak, then I am strongо (v. 9-10). So, the Keswick concludes, even if Christians have some natural strengths, those are not the areas they should cultivate, because those are areas in which we could live in natural strength rather than in the supernatural strength that comes whenever we offer to let God use us in our weaknesses. This theme is continually emphasized in Keswick songs about мsurrendering our all to Christ.о However, this passage certainly does not support their position. Paul says in the same verses that Christнs power rest on him in weakness, insults, hardships, persecutions, difficulties. The thrust of this message is about the sufficiency of a sovereign, omnipotent God to help us get through every weakness and difficulty we may possibly encounter in life, especially those that have to do with missionary activity. Galatians 2:20 states, мI have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live I the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.о From the immediate context and from Romans 6, we know that crucifixion refers to dying to sin and the old way of trying to justify oneself by the Law. мI no longer liveо refers to the old Paul, the sinner who persecuted Christians, and lived independent of God. мChrist lives in meо should not be taken to mean that Christ is the only person who lives in Paul, as if Paulнs body were a robot which God controlled. Paul goes on to clarify: he still lives in his body, and does so by faith, i.e. a new way of life in reliance upon God and taking oneнs direction in life from Godнs value system. Philippians 4:13 says мI can do everything through Christ who gives me strength.о Thus, Keswicks hold that the Holy Spirit enables them to heal and do an unlimited assortment of things. The context indicates that Paul is talking about the мsecret of being content in any and every situationо (v.12). Paul is saying in effect, мhungry or well-fed, rich or poor, persecuted or welcomed, I can handle whatever comes my way through Christ, who helps me in hardships by giving me strength.

James 4:13-16 counsels believers not to make confident claims about what they will accomplish in the future, but rather to say, мIf it is the Lordнs will, we will live and do this or thatо (v.15). Doesnнt this teach a Calvinistic version of sovereignty? Not necessarily. The main point of the message is that people should not forget that they are humans bound in the limitations of humanity and time, and therefore not to make claims befitting only for God; мAll such boasting is evilо (v.16). Assuming the prerogatives of God alone is almost the definition of sin. мIf it is the Lordнs willо probably refers to what we can plan and accomplish and which God does not prevent, which He is, of course, free to do at any moment.

1 Peter 2:8 says of unbelievers, мThey stumble because they disobey the message-which is also what they were destined for.о This verse should be interpreted in light of 1 Peter 1:2, which speaks of the saints as мchosen according to the foreknowledge of God.о Similarly, unbelievers were destined to disobey according to Godнs foreknowledge.

The exegetical evidence and the philosophical evidence coincide: Calvinism is a philosophically weak and Biblically unwarranted position which hurtsн Christiansн abilities to love a God they cannot know, to share an unwarrantedly offensive gospel, and to live the fully free, fully free responsible lives God intended for them.

Allan, J.D. The Evangelicals: An Illustrated History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989.

Augustine. Henry Chadwick, trans. Confessions. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1981.

Augustine. Thomas Williams, trans. On the Free Choice of the Will. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.

Barker, Kenneth, gen.ed. The NIV Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985.

Boa, Kenneth. Unraveling the Big Questions about God. Grand Rapids, MI: Lamplighter-Zondervan, 1988.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Rev. Ed. New York: Collier-Macmillan Publishing Company, 1963.

Calvin, John. Henry Beveridge, trans. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.

Carnell, Edward J. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Fourth Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952.

Chesterton, Gilbert K. The Thing: Why I am a Catholic. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1930.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Pevear and Volokhosky, trans. The Brothers Karamazov. New York: Vintage-Random House, 1990.

Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. New York: Avon Books, 1969.

Harvey, Van A. The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Knowledge and Christian Belief. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996.

Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.

Kung, Hans. Great Christian Thinkers. New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1996.

Lane, Tony. Exploring Christian Thought. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Revised Ed. 2 vols. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1975.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Collier, 1960.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962.

Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan, 1977.

Luther, Martin. Packer and Johnston, trans. The Bondage of the Will. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming-Baker, 1957.

Martindale, Wayne and Jerry Roots, eds. The Quotable Lewis. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1989.

Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967.

Pascal, Blaise. A. J. Krailsheimer, trans. PensИes. New York: Penguin Books, 1966.

Sayers, Dorothy. Creed or Chaos? Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 1974.

Schaeffer, Francis. Trilogy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990.

Straw, Carole. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988.

Torrance, Thomas. The Hermeneutics of John Calvin. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988.

Winter, Ralph and Steven Hawthorne, eds. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Rev. Ed. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1992.