That No Christian Really Believes in 'Free-Will'

This post is prompted by a conversation that has been taking place on on my friend Nathan White's blog, "Preach the Word." I encourage everyone reading this to check Nate's blog regularly as it is always a helpful source for exegesis and encouragement.

Why do some people reject the Gospel when it is clearly presented? The popular answer to this question within American evangelical churches is that humans have 'free-will' and that God will not violate our 'free-will' in order to bring us to faith in Jesus.
But the Bible account does not support this idea of 'free-will.' For where was 'free-will' when the apostle Paul was "still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:1 HCSB)? For Paul was in this depraved state when Jesus said to him, "For I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and a witness of things you have seen, and of things in which I will appear to you" (cf. Acts 26:16 HCSB). And we know that God's purposes in regards to individual salvation and everything else will stand and will never be thwarted by the evil intentions of sinful people for,

A king's heart is a water channel in the Lord's hand: He directs it wherever He chooses. (Proverbs 21:1 HCSB)

and the Apostle worships God, writing,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:3-12 NASB)

It is God who works all things according to the counsel of His will, overriding the will of blasphemers and kings in the process.
And if anyone is to place their faith in Christ, then God must work a fundamental change in their heart:
For “there is no one who seeks God” (Romans 3:11b HCSB);
For “you were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1 HCSB);
“And you were once alienated and hostile in mind because of your evil actions” (Colossians 1:21 HCSB)

On this last verse, I must point out that while most American evangelicals embrace the concept that our sin alienates us from God, there is a woeful lack of understanding concerning the fact that our sin is embedded within our own minds. Without a special work of reconciliation, no one would ever freely choose to follow Christ because we are all– in our sin– “hostile in mind” toward Him.

So, biblically, why do some people reject the Gospel when it is clearly presented?
The fact that most American churches have misunderstood the real cause of people either coming to faith in Christ or rejecting Him would be excusable if Jesus had not given clear teaching on this subject.
But this is not the case.

For Jesus said:

"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44 KJV)

And He said, “Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto Me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” (John 6:65 KJV)

As we all learned in grade school when asking if we can sharpen our pencils, "may" refers to permission, but "can" refers to ability. Our teachers all said, "I'm sure you can sharpen your pencil, the question is, may you sharpen your pencil?" Well, in the discussion concerning whether people can come to Christ without receiving a special work of grace, the question is not may sinful Man come to Christ or should sinful Man come to Christ, but, rather, can sinful Man come to Christ?
And what is the answer that Jesus gives to this question? Clearly, He declares that no person can come to Him unless the Father draws him. But how do we know that the Father is not drawing all men? I submit that in the context of the Gospel of John, chapter 6, Jesus' statements would be meaningless if He were not referring to a special work done in the life of some people and not others.

And, though many Christians have been deceived and have claimed to believe that ‘free-will’ is the determinative factor in whether a person comes to faith in Christ or rejects Him, no Christian truly believes in ‘free-will.’
For all Christians have a God-given concern for their lost family, friends, and acquaintances and are prompted by the Holy Spirit (at least on occasion) to pray for their salvation.
And how does a consistent proponent of 'free-will' philosophy pray for God to bring salvation to others?
For if God is drawing all men to Himself equally, as most ‘free-will’ philosophy would claim, then what is the use of praying for their salvation- God is already doing ALL HE CAN to save them, and it is up to their 'free-will' to seal the deal. If not- if there are some men that God chooses not to draw to Himself- then 'free-will' proponents have a doctrine of reprobation that they must deal with as well. Except instead of God choosing to save some and leave others in their sin, the 'free-will' doctrine (if God does not draw all men equally) would have God granting some men the chance for salvation- which chance they must cooperate with by a free act of their will- and leaving some men without a chance, or at least with a greatly reduced chance. If this is the way things are, then Paul was wrong in asserting that all men are equally dead in trespasses and sins, and by nature children under wrath (see Eph. 2:1-3), instead he should have said that some men are dead in trespasses and sins, some are only mostly dead, or comatose, and some are only in a light slumber in their peccadilloes.
And what if God is drawing some men to Himself with more fervor than others? Can those on which He is exerting less energy still be saved? If this is the case, then it seems as if those who persevere to come to God with less "drawing" would be given greater esteem for advancing toward God with less help.
Can those whom He is not drawing still freely choose Him? If this is the case, then Pelagius (the heretic that said that God’s grace is a help to salvation, but not necessary for salvation) is vindicated indeed.

All Christians know that God alone is given all glory for our salvation. We know this because of the Holy Spirit-given conviction of our sinfulness that we have felt in reaching the humiliation by which we initially cried out to God for salvation, we know this because of the way in which we pray for the salvation of others, and we know this, above all, due to the clear teaching of our Lord.

Blood Sacrifice

My problem is this: the language of blood sacrifice was appropriate to people used to the sacrifices that were part of ancient temple worship, but is totally alien to our world…
Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrificed his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to God. [John Dominic Crossan. Who Is Jesus? Westminster, John Knox Press: 1996. 115]

Reading the above quote from John Dominic Crossan of the “Jesus Seminar,” I am reminded of a story often told by R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries. Sproul relates:

Some parts of the Bible are so clear and simple that they are offensive to those suffering from intellectual arrogance. A few years ago I was lecturing about how Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled the curse motif of the Old Testament. In the middle of my lecture a man in the audience interrupted me, saying loudly, “That’s primitive and obscene.” I asked him to repeat his comment so that everyone present could have the opportunity to hear his complaint. When he repeated it, I said, “You are exactly right. I particularly like your choice of words, primitive and obscene.” The entire history of redemption is communicated in primitive terms from the episode of the encounter of Adam and Eve with the serpent to the devastating destruction that God visits on the chariots of Egypt in the Exodus to the crass and brutal murder of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible reveals a God who hears the groans of all of His people, from the peasant to the philosopher, from the dull-witted to the sophisticated scholar. His message is simple enough for the most simplistic of His fallen creatures to understand. What kind of a God would reveal His love and redemption in terms so technical and concepts so profound that only an elite corps of professional scholars could understand them? God does speak in primitive terms because He is addressing Himself to primitives. At the same time, there is enough profundity contained in Scripture to keep the most astute and erudite scholars busily engaged in their theological inquiries for a lifetime.
If primitive is an appropriate word to describe the content of Scripture, obscene is even more so. All of the obscenities of sin are recorded with clear and forthright language in the Scripture. And what is more obscene than the cross? Here we have obscenity on a cosmic scale. On the cross Christ takes upon himself human obscenities to redeem them. [Sproul. Knowing Scripture. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press: 1977. 15-16]

And so Crossan is not the first person to have a “problem” with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our redemption on the cross. In fact, people have always had a problem with the message of the cross, from the very beginning of the Church, as explained by the Apostle Paul:

18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.''
20. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23. but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24. but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
27. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28. and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29. that no flesh should glory in His presence.
30. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption
31. that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.'' (I Corinthians 1:18-31 NKJV)

Notice that in this passage, Paul entirely shatters the argument that "the language of blood sacrifice was [employed because it was] appropriate to people used to the sacrifices that were part of ancient temple worship." Rather, the sacrificial language used by the apostles was actually more offensive to the Jews due to their cultural background. For the religious Jews prided themselves on remaining entirely separate from anything that was ceremonially unclean, and certainly from anything that was cursed, but Paul taught:

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. (Galatians 3:13 HCSB)

And I Corinthians 1:23 also makes it clear that the apostles did not change their message to be more culturally relevant to their audience, even if they were scoffed at for the content of their preaching. So it is obvious that the Good News of the Christian faith is the message of the Cross- the message of a "blood sacrifice" made by Jesus on our behalf. Anyone who wishes to change this message should hear the words of the Apostle:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! (Galatians 1:8-9 HCSB)

A Simple Contradiction

Leading Jesus Seminar member John Dominic Crossan argues that Jewish belief in an afterlife originated after the close of what we know as the Old Testament canon, concluding, “So belief in life after death has certainly not always been a part of biblical faith” [Crossan. Who Is Jesus? Westminster, John Knox Press: 1996. 131].
But this statement is clearly seen as false when one examines the actual biblical text.
For in the second book of the Bible we read the recorded words of God to Moses, “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6 KJV). God here uses the present tense “I am” when speaking of men whom Moses knows to be long deceased. And so, if God is presently the God of these men when speaking to Moses, it is clear that these men are yet, in an entirely real sense, still alive, for God is not claiming to be a god over now-inanimate matter, but over living individuals.
This is not my argument, but rather the argument of Jesus Himself, as seen in the following passage:

On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Him and questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, Moses said, `If a man dies, having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up an offspring to his brother.'
"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. And last of all, the woman died.
"In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her."
But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
"But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. (Matthew 22:23-34 NASB)

The Pharisees were silenced at Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection. The question is, will Crossan display this same kind of common sense in light of the authority of Jesus, or will he persist in railing against the plain teaching of God’s Word, continuing to attack the doctrine of the resurrection with charges that have already been sufficiently answered by our Lord

The Bodily Resurrection

In a comment on the last blog entry, a reader of this blog wrote, "Perhaps Mr. [Crossan] has never read I Cor. 15:12-19. If there is no resurection, Christians are the stupidest people ever to grace the face of the earth...fortunatly there is."
Sad to note, however, John Dominic Crossan is well aware of First Corinthians 15. As he writes:

If you look at I Corinthians 15, you find Paul- and this is twenty to forty years before the gospels were written- defending the idea of bodily resurrection. But here's a very interesting twist: He never argues that resurrection was a special miracle only for Jesus. Just the opposite: Jesus' resurrection is for him one instance of a general resurrection...
Given his expectation of a general resurrection [as a Pharisee], his experience of Jesus would persuade him that it had in fact begun. Jesus isn't the only one to be raised, just the first.
It is significant that Paul does not say, "If Christ's tomb is not empty, vain is our faith," but, "if Christ is not risen, vain is our faith." He is not talking about the resuscitation of Jesus' corpse but about the presence of Jesus in a wholly new mode of existence. It is, for Paul, the same Jesus who once was an earthly presence limited by time and place, who now is a transcendent presence unlimited by time and place.
[Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan. Westminster John Knox Press: 1996. 126.]

On the first half of the above quote it seems that we could easily agree with Crossan's statements. After all, the quote from Crossan that "Jesus isn't the only one to be raised, just the first" is apparently consistent with the words of Paul, "He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything" (Colossians 1:18 HCSB).
But, when read carefully in context, it is clear that Crossan is undermining the unique work of Christ in being raised from the dead. Crossan's assertions would deny the apostle Paul's teaching elsewhere that Jesus was, "raised for our justification" (cf. Rom. 4:25). The resurrection of Jesus was certainly a "special miracle."
What of the second part of this quote? On the first read, it seems that Crossan is engaging in self-contradiction. For in the very first line of the entire quote, Crossan admits that Paul is "defending the idea of bodily resurrection," but then Crossan writes, "[Paul] is not talking about the resuscitation of Jesus' corpse." But when read more closely, it seems that Crossan is not denying that Paul believed in bodily resurrection, but that he denies that it is the physical nature of the resurrection that Paul teaches is of primary importance.
So, why is it important to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a physical resurrection?
First, the physical resurrection demonstrates the power and foreknowledge of Jesus Christ. As Jesus prophesies:
Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body, (John 2:19-21 KJV).
Also, though John Dominic Crossan has elsewhere says that he does not consider the question of whether there is an afterlife to be very important, the afterlife is of vital important to biblical teaching. And the Bible is clear that God has chosen to demonstrate His power over life and death by giving His people eternal life in physical bodies:
But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?...All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. . .So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory," (I Corinthians 15:35,39,42-44,53-54 KJV)
[For more information on the bodily resurrection, visit the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry website.]

My New Favorite Commands

Proverbs 5:15-19 NKJV:

15 Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well. 16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be only your own, And not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth. 19 As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love.


I'm not sure if we're technically supposed to have favorite commands from God's Word. One time I recall hearing Dr. Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, make a statement to the effect that all truth in Scripture is God's truth and that we should strive as Christians to worship God equally for all the truth that God has chosen to reveal.

Nevertheless...

"To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven:" (Ecclesiastes 3:1 NKJV)

And in this season of my life immediately following my wedding I am taking particular joy in the verses stated above.

In some of the most incredibly gracious commands of the Bible, these verses command husbands to rejoice, to be satisfied, and to be exhilarated [NASB] all in reference to their sexual relationship with their wives. The original Hebrew word for being satisfied is taken from the idea of being saturated with water and continues the imagery from the beginning of the passage. The original word for being exhilarated is taken from the word for being drunk.

As with all other biblical commands, the commands presented here reflect the character of Christ. As I am commanded in this passage to be singularly faithful to Abby, jealously guarding our sexual relationship from adultery, Christ is faithful to His Church and guards Her jealously. As I am commanded to rejoice, be satisfied, and be exhilarated in Abby’s love, Christ takes immeasurable delight in His saints. Hallelujah!

Finally, I would like to devote the last portion of this post to share the following prayer that Abby recorded while meditating on the verses above [she did not know that I would post this when she wrote it, though she said she does not mind if I do]:

Father, Your ways are perfect. Your ways enable us to live lives that glorify You and most satisfy us. You are so generous. Jehovah Jireh, You provide for our every need. Remind us that You are trustworthy when we want to stray from Your paths. Help me to help Andrew stay satisfied, exhilarated with me. Make me a creative lover. Make us both creative and also submissive, desiring to fulfill each other’s needs. Make us patient and understanding with each other, also fulfilling emotional and mental needs. Protect us from other relationships that may one day threaten our marriage. Help us see the way out when and if they come. Give us strength to take the way out. Keep us both humble so that we are always wanting to improve and never proud so that we can’t admit we need improvement. Show us how to encourage each other. Thank You, thank You, thank You for my husband. You have truly gone beyond all I could ask or imagine. I love You. Give me more love for You. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.

Wedding Day

Here is a portion of an email from my sister in Christ, Kari Matteson, who attended my and Abby's wedding ceremony last Saturday. This email is in reference to Kari's happiness in catching Abby's bouquet at the reception:

It was a special honor because this time it was actually the one the bride carried in the ceremony...and a double honor because she is a true servant of God, serious about ministry and spreading the gospel. I mean, her vows to her husband (my classmate Andrew) were 25 verses of MEMORIZED scripture - Proverbs 31:10-33 and Ruth 1:16-17. His vows to her were passages equally as impressive in length. They also demonstrated their pledge to serve one another by washing each other's feet...aaaahhhh! How utterly Godly and romantic! I was truly blessed to witness their union and take my catching the boquet as encouragement from God that He's preparing an astounding romance for me that will include an equally Godly ceremony and marriage.

Abby and I have earnestly prayed that our marriage will be a blessing to others, starting with our wedding ceremony, and I post this portion of Kari's email as a praise to God that He has begun to answer our prayers.
I ask for continued prayer for everyone that attended the ceremony who does not yet know the love of God through forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus, that the Good News of Jesus Christ as proclaimed at our wedding ceremony would be effective to bring them all to faith in Christ alone.