Are Calvinists and Arminians both wrong?

I would suggest Calvinists and Arminians make the same mistake and are both equally wrong in a vital area.

The tension between the total sovereignty of God and man's full responsibility and accountability is a debate that has gone on since the beginning of the church and still continues. I would propose that in large part it is simply because the scripture teaches both. God is totally sovereign in every sense of the word and man is fully accountable in every sense of the word. We should not water down one to accommodate the other simply so we can make it work for us logically. Scripture certainly appears not to.

And herein lies the rub. We, finite mortals, do not like tension, paradox or seeming contradictions. It is not comfortable. Instead of believing what God says, and trusting what we cannot fully grasp, we would rather “figure it out.” So both sides try to make everything fit into nice, neat, logical boxes to the point they dismiss the other side of the discussion. As a result, both sides fall into the same error. They both tend to depend on logic more than scripture.

There are plenty of verses or passages given by both sides to support their “conclusions.” However, if we stop to consider it, can the finite (us) fully grasp the infinite (God)? Rom 11:33-34; Isa 55:7-9

The problem with taking a hard line ¹logically on the sovereignty/accountability debate is it will cause us to totally miss the significance of our accountability and responsibility to make choices i.e. we will downplay that ability by overstressing God's sovereignty and miss the valuable and highly significant truth that lies in accountability and our God-given freedom to choose or not choose God.

On the other hand, if we stress our ability, responsibility, and our total accountability for our choices, to the point we can't logically reconcile it with God's sovereignty, we will miss out on the comfort and joy we were meant to derive from the greatness of God's power, wisdom, control and his "electing" love that caused him to pick us as his child.

We can not and must not dismiss one side of these seemingly opposing and contradictory realities to the point of minimizing or even eliminating the other, simply because we have challenges making them work logically. Neither can we try to force one side over the other out of a need to be in control of (i.e. understand) how God operates. 

Using logic to give us a false sense of control is the opposite of faith or trust in God. In doing so, we will miss out on the vital significance each side reveals about God and about ourselves.  As the scriptures say, let God be true even if every man is a liar. God's ways are not our ways and our ways are not His.

I propose God is God and answers to no man i.e. what we cannot fully put together logically we must trust. Moreover, I believe this is exactly the point and importance of this seeming contradiction or any other paradox in scripture -- to trust God is good when and where our understanding (logic) comes up short. 

There is no contradiction or conflict within God. It is only an apparent contradiction due to our finite understanding. God is infinite in understanding and in every other way. We are not. 

God says without faith it’s impossible to please Him. God is after our trust in Him; to develop and increase it. How does He do that? Often by asking us to trust what we do not understand. It happens all the time. He often asks, “do you trust me, when it looks like I am not trustworthy and things happen that make no sense at the time? Do you still believe I am good, that I love you and am working for good - your good - when things look terrible and appear the opposite?"

The ability to reason is a gift of God but like all good gifts, it is limited because we are limited - finite. Reason can take us only so far. We should not discard reason, but we must recognize reason is limited simply because we are finite. 

All gifts, including the ability to reason, can be used to either honor God or as an attempt to control our world and try to put God in a box (a very logical one at that). Where logic comes up short, faith must begin. And when it comes to our infinite God, our finite reasoning - logic - often comes up short. 

God is good, He is wise, He’s running the show and working all things for His glory because He says He is, and we are fully responsible to believe Him or not, logic aside. 

Do we trust God and believe His word and trust there is no real contradiction (as opposed to an apparent one) or do we fall into the arrogant error that is a leftover of the “age of reason” by setting our ability to understand all things above the necessity to trust God? To depend exclusively on logic can become a form of control and the opposite of faith.

Gen_50:15 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the EVIL that we did to him."

Gen_50:17 'Say to Joseph, "Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they DID EVIL to you."' And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father." Joseph wept when they spoke to him.

Gen_50:20 As for you, you meant EVIL against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Does God use evil for good? Yes. He is sovereign over all things.

Were Joseph’s brothers fully responsible for their actions? 100%.

Act_2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Did God plan the death of His Son? Yes. (see also Acts 4:27-28 and 1Pe 1:19-20) 

Did He use the hands of lawless man to carry out His plan? Yes. 

Will those men be held accountable for their actions? Yes, 100%.

So where does this leave us? The only legitimate response to the truth that God is all powerful, all wise and all loving in the face of  seeming contradictions is as follows:

Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" 35 “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

The following links address the tension and different aspects of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.

• Our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser"click here
• Why freedom of choice is important, click here
• Do we have a "free" will or are we heavily influenced? click here
• Is God free? click here. 
• The value of paradox and truths in tension click here
• How big is God? click here
• Does God use evil for good? click here
• The greater the evil the greater the potential healing click here
• For a discussion on the knowledge of good vs evil click here
• For a discussion on the question of fairness click here
• The necessity of mercy click here
• Is the election and wrath of God unreasonable? click here
• The practical importance of God's electing grace click here

_________________________________________

¹as opposed to simply trusting it's true and not trying to force it to make sense where it doesn't work logically with accountability.

Is God free?

Can God act against his honor?

If God is all glorious - as He claims - to act against His honor would be contrary to his character and living a lie. God will not act contrary to his nature. In fact, He can not.

So is God not free? In this sense, He is not. His choices are determined by his character. This is not a limitation of God, it simply means God is who He is and He acts accordingly.

We would never say God is not free because he freely chooses to do whatever he wills and whatever He wills, he does. Nothing outside of God can ¹prevent Him from choosing what He wills or from carrying it out. But he also wills what his character "dictates" i.e. His choices are determined by his nature; who he is, what he is like, etc.

And what is God like? He is love, life, and light, and acts accordingly. These are some of his primary attributes that determine his choices.

What about us? 

How do our choices come about? We were designed for life, not ²death so we naturally choose whatever we ³think best brings us life, good, blessing, etc., not harm or destruction.

We are also free to choose whatever we want. But, what we want is determined by what we ³believe will be in our best interests i.e. what will bring us good, not evil, life not death, light not darkness. Unlike God, we don't know everything that needs to be known, to know with certainty our choices are best for us. Since we choose to be our own god, we cut ourselves off from the Source of infinite knowledge and must base our choice on what we believe is best. But we have no way to truly know what is best in the overall scheme of things because we are not all-knowing but finite. For a further discussion on this point click here. 

Also, in our current state of rebellious distrust of God, we cannot see God as He is - or ourselves as we truly are - and therefore we do not see what is best and why God is best for us. The Bible says we are spiritually blind and dead in our sin (the essence of sin is unbelief). Outside of Christ, we are rebels and enemies of God. To act as if we are god when he is the only true God is contrary to Him and actually opposed to Him i.e. we are taking the posture of being His enemy. If this seems harsh, it's simply because there is only one God. To claim we are Him when we are not is in opposition to reality i.e. God Himself, whether consciously or not. This disposition cuts us off from seeing and knowing him as he truly is. In a word, we are spiritually blind. 

So is humankind free to choose what they want? Yes, they are. This is not our problem. What we want is. We want the wrong thing. And we want the wrong thing because we died spiritually at our rebellion and can no longer see clearly spiritually. The bible characterized us as being spiritually blind. We want to be our ⁴own god when he alone is the only true God. 

This does not work and can not work because being our own god is contrary to the reality of what is i.e. who God is and how He designed us and the rest of creation to operate. It is actually living a lie.

For a discussion on why free choice is real and necessary click here. 

For further discussion on free will click here. 

For a discussion on how our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser" click here.

For a discussion on how we are free yet bound click here. 

For a discussion on why Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong, click here, 

For a discussion on how hell is our own choice click here.

For a further discussion of how everyone lives by faith, including atheists, click here.

_____________________________________

¹Or cause God to choose what he does. God is his own cause. Nothing outside of him causes him to do what he does. 

²Due to our rebellion from God as the true source of love and life, we cut ourselves off from him resulting in death. Now we go about seeking to fill the void created by God's absence i.e. The absence of ultimate life - God Himself.

³What we believe, is shaped by our rebellion and therefore is skewed i.e. Since we rejected God by seeking to be our own god, we have set out to obtain life apart from him i.e. we have rejected God as a viable option. However, finding life apart from God is simply not possible because all life comes from and through him.

There is no permanent life outside of God but only temporary life through creation, which is soley sustained by God i.e. The life we find in creation is indirectly life from God.

⁴The inherent problem of being our own god is this requires infinite knowledge and power i.e. We must know what is best (which requires being everywhere present to know all there is to know about all that is, in order to determine what is best) and have the ability (power) to obtain it. In short we must be all knowing (omniscient), everywhere present (omnipresent), and all powerful (omnipotent) i.e. we must be infinite in every way, which we clearly are not. When we "get" this it clearly exposes the foolishness of trying to be our own god or even believing we could be.

The different "flavors" of Christianity

I came to Christ my senior year in high school at a Nicky Cruz Crusade in 1971. Cruz came to Christ through David Wilkerson who was of a more charismatic persuasion. 

My first church was a fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church (the John Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack Van Impe legalistic variety...if you are old enough to remember those dudes). Before that I was unchurched. Neither of my folks were practicing faith of any kind, though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad grew up in the Church of Christ, but had walked away from the church as a young man and never returned. 

A year after I came to Christ, I went to Lynchburg Baptist College (now Liberty U) and then transferred to Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International U) after two years. I graduated from Columbia in 77. Columbia's theological roots were in the Keswick or "deeper life" movement. 

While at Columbia, I was exposed to a whole spectrum of views through the various students and faculty, from Reformed, to Arminian, to deeper life, to charismatic. I also started reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis and some works out of a more Reformed tradition. I eventually landed in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after College for a couple of years -- which is on the far right theologically and the most conservative spectrum of Reformed churches. Solid doctrinally for the most part, but very little life. I found the label "the frozen chosen" to be appropriate. They were all "up in their heads" and somewhat oblivious in their approach to the mysteries of the Spirit and how to live in God's presence (or possibly it was more my lack of spiritual maturity, and I was not ready to hear whatever they offered in this area). I learned a ton theologically while there, however, and became more convinced and grounded in a Reformed theological outlook.

With my then-growing family (2 already born and one on the way) we moved to Massachusetts in 1982 to open a sales office for my business. While there we attended a Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) for about 4 years, then a Congregational Church for about 6 years eventually landing in a Baptist church for around 6 years (my wife had left our marriage and the Baptist church had a strong youth group which I attended for the benefit of my 4 kids, ages 12, 11, 9 and 7 at that time). 

After living in Massachusetts for approximately 16 years, I moved to the West Coast and attended an Evangelical Wesleyan Church for 4 years, eventually landing in a non-denominational Charismatic Church (co-pastored by 2 brothers) for 13 years, where I taught an adult bible class for 12 of those years.

I moved to Texas - since my daughter and her husband were considering starting their family (they have a son now) - and attending a Baptist church (in name only...which they keep under wraps) that operates more like a Presbyterian church in its form of government (e.g. a plurality of elders/pastors) and also in their eschatology, but also like a charismatic church in their style of worship.  

The main thing Baptist about them is that they practice adult Baptism. Otherwise, they even enjoy a good glass of wine or a beer - definitely not the kind of Baptist Church I used to attend. (They also do not emphasize the "cultural mandate" and exercising dominion over all aspects of culture, which is more common in Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles).

Why my church history? I have seen a lot of shapes and varieties of churches and the full theological spectrum within the church as a whole. I have observed what I feel are the good and not-so-strong sides of these various groups and drawn some conclusions along the way. The following are the differences I have seen. I am not suggesting I am right necessarily, only giving you my observations and understanding. In the following thoughts, I will discuss these and mainly compare and contrast the broader groups of Charismatic to non-Charismatic.

Charismatics

Charismatics tend to draw their sense of God's love through his present work and activity, such as experiences and manifestations of his love in and through his Spirit and various spiritual gifts. They are more experience and feeling-oriented in how they approach God, tending to look to experiences/manifestations as much as God's word, sometimes giving personal encounters with God more weight than scripture. Given the inclination of our fallen hearts, I have concluded this ¹can be and often is very shaky ground to stand on. They tend to be so focused on present experience that they can lose sight of the significance, importance, and completeness of God's past work in and through Christ and the vast depth and richness of that work for us in our day-to-day lives i.e. they tend to chase present experiences/manifestations of God instead of appreciating the rock-solid realities of God's presence due to Christ's work on our behalf, despite present circumstances, experiences, and manifestations or lack of them.

Other Evangelicals

On the other hand, non-charismatic types i.e. Calvinists, Reformed, Baptists, and non-charismatic evangelicals, tend to focus more on God's past work and Christ's future return, with minimum emphasis on his present work i.e. the necessity of ²operating "in the Spirit" and what that means exactly. They have a tendency to draw their sense of God's love through the depth and breadth of Christ's past work - if they do at all. 

My observation is many evangelicals within the non-charismatic part of the church know more about God - in their head - instead of having an ongoing, vital, daily personal relationship and experience of God. This was also true of me for a long time and is something I am constantly discovering more about. 

I find this is where Charismatics are stronger than most other evangelical churches. They at least have some life in them and seek to operate in the Spirit, if not always as strongly grounded in God's word. The downside of this, however, is that Charismatics can confuse some subjective experiences as proof they know God, when their experience may have nothing to do with God. Non-Charismatics, on the other hand, are propositional or doctrine-oriented (even among those who do not consider themselves cessationists or recognize the validity of all the gifts and the various activities of the Spirit). In fact, non-charismatics are so focused on propositional truth in scripture that they confuse knowledge about God with knowing God. (I discuss this further here.) There is little emphasis on seeking God's presence or experiencing manifestations of his presence ²through His Spirit and what that looks like in our day-to-day walk with God. They are so focused on Christ's past work, they can lose sight of God's present ongoing work by His Spirit and what it means and looks like. This is especially true of those in reformed circles, from my experience. 

Both Christ's past work and the Spirit's present work are necessary means by which God shows his love and grace to us and through us. They are equally vital. I would also suggest that for us to experience the latter (the work of the Spirit) as God intends, we must be firmly grounded in the former (the work of Christ). I address this tension throughout the various posts on this blog. To focus primarily on one to the exclusion of the other is missing out on all the vital means by which God reveals himself to us, no matter which side you fall on. 

We cannot emphasize one to the point of minimizing the other or we will miss out on the full benefit of both and the vital connection between them. A key work of the Spirit is to reveal to us the things of Christ. And not just propositionally, but in the day-to-day experience and manifestation of his presence through the various gifts and other means of grace i.e. worship, prayer, meditation, etc. 

Now, in saying all of this, these differences are not absolute distinctions but tendencies. All groups for the most part would say they believe what the other groups emphasize, but from my experience and observation, there is a very definite distinction in practice, even if there is a verbal acknowledgment by each of the other's views and approaches.

I would also add that the last church I attended (Baptist in affiliation) was more "charismatic" than most, and the former charismatic church I was in was far more scripturally oriented than most, with a slight reformed leaning in eschatology, while Arminian in their soteriology. But even with these two more "centrist" churches, there is still a considerable difference between them when you look "under the hood" and see how they operate and what they emphasize. 

For the non-charismatic groups, seeking and knowing the work of the Spirit is vital and a key missing piece. We are under grace because of the past work of Christ. But to be under grace is also to operate in the presence of God by His Spirit. I touch on this more here.  

My last church emphasized the past work of Christ and minimized the present work of the Spirit, as is typical of most non-charismatic churches.

Where I have landed... at present

I have personally been heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758 who was instrumental in the first Great Awakening during the 1730's and 40's) and those who have studied him, such as John Piper (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), and Kyle Strobel, (a professor at Talbot Seminary - also the son of Lee Strobel, author of "A Case for Christ").

Strobel is considered an Edwards scholar and did his Ph.D. about his understanding of spiritual formation - often referred to as sanctification. Edwards is wordy and also uses the 1700s variety of English - not unlike King James type English minus the "thee's and thou's" etc - which makes him hard to read.  Strobel, however, wades through this and does an excellent job of distilling his work and bringing out key aspects of Edwards's understanding of God in a way we can understand. I highly recommend all his work. The book at this link is a good summary overview by Strobel of what Edwards addresses regarding "spiritual formation" or what most evangelicals call sanctification. 

I have also posted some main truths Edwards discusses, summarized by Strobel here. 

While Edwards (along with the others mentioned) is within the reformed wing of the church, Edwards understands the importance of operating in the presence of God and the role of both our affections and our reason. As some may be aware, he's written an entire treatise on "Religious Affections" in an attempt to address and assess the increase in emotional displays during the "Great Awakening" in the 1730s - e.g. folks loudly crying out to God for mercy, going into trances or convulsions, fainting, weeping sometimes for days, etc. Though he felt there were excesses and counterfeit displays of "the Spirit" he also believed much of this was the work of God. 

(by "religious" Edwards means spiritual, as we would use it today. Not the legalistic performance-based variety common within the Evangelical community today) 

Interestingly, Edwards stresses (correctly I believe) that Christ is the eternal Word of God i.e. the truth and light (knowledge) of God revealed in the flesh and the Spirit is the passion and love of God poured out on us, through which Christ is revealed and the grace of Christ's work is applied (for a further discussion on this click here). Or as Edwards also likes to say, Christ is the light of God and the Spirit is the heat of God. Both knowledge and affection are vital in experiencing all of who God is and offers according to Edwards. So Edwards would not fit well in either a Charismatic or a stereotypical Evangelical church today, or maybe, to say it more positively, he could possibly work well with either. 

The balance and conclusion

Our current walk with God and the presence of the Spirit are anchored in the past work of Christ i.e. the gospel of grace. Without that work and a clear grasp of grace, there wouldn't be our present walk with in and by the Spirit. Our present experience of God is based on a clear and full understanding of this past work.  The truer our understanding, the greater our faith and the stronger we will experience the presence of God through His Spirit and day-to-day walk with God right now, this moment. We are not to focus just on Christ's past work or our future hope of glory but on our present ongoing dependence on/faith in/walk with God. Our experience of God does not start and end with the past work of Christ but only begins there. This past work is the vital foundation for our ongoing participation in the ever-present love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As scripture says, "the just shall live (present continuous action in the original Greek) by faith" and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25) - it is worth noting the context of Galatians is a discussion of being under grace and not the law i.e. there is a direct tie into operating in the Spirit and being under grace. For a further discussion on how the Spirit and grace are connected, click here. 

God did what he did in the past so we might know Him and walk with him in joy and power in every present moment today for the glory of His name. 

___________________________________________________________________

¹Early on in his ministry, George Whitefield approached God in this way but later abandoned it after making a decision on "an impression from the Lord" that later proved to clearly not be His leading. 

²For a discussion on what I believe it means to operate in the Spirit, click here and here. 

For a discussion on being empowered by the Spirit, click here and here. 

the necessity of God's mercy

We are told we will not and can not come to Christ unless the Father draws us. 

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day... And he (Jesus) said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." - Jesus. Joh 6:44, 65

Why are we in this condition? How did it come about? 

We died spiritually when we chose to rebel from our dependence on God. When we did we unplugged from God, if you will, who is the source of love, life, and the sustainer of all things. 

The life (Spirit) of God departed from us at our rebellion. We immediately #died spiritually. Evidence of this is Adam and Eve's attempt to cover their shame, hide from God and blame-shift (a fruit of shame/guilt). Prior to their rebellion there was no shame. 

#We are told that we alone had God directly breath his life/breath into us. Not just any life but the very life/breath of God himself.  

Gen 2:7  then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 

The Holy Spirit will not and does not live inside rebellious (¹impure) image bearers. When we choose to rebell and rejected God (and our dependence on him), he left (we could say his life/Spirit left. Though a residual of life lingered, as evidenced by our not immediately dying physically). 

Why did the Spirit/life of God depart from us? We are real beings with real choices that have real consequences. 

God honors us, our dignity, our being in his image, when he honors our ²choices.

Because of these realities, we not only died spiritually but we eventually died ³physically as well. 

Generally death (separation/ disconnection) is a permanent condition. We remain in this state unless something is done to reverse it i.e. unless God intervenes. Without God's intervention all men and women go into eternity separated from God spiritually and physically. 

Consider angels

When we consider angels, this is exactly what happened to them i.e. we have no indication that any of the fallen angels turned, can turn or ever will turn back to God. The only difference between them and us appears to be God's intervention (i.e. his mercy); his reversing the "natural" outcome of their rejection of him.  

The fact that our choosing to rebel from God was so complete/final, has nothing to do with the justice of God (at least, by God's mercy, it was not final as it was with the angels, yet no one thinks God unjust in leaving them in their chosen state of rebellion). God clearly warned our first parents (Adam directly and Eve via Adam) that the day they eat (a choice to no longer depend on God) they would die. By eating from the forbidden tree, they cut themselves off from God. It was their choice and they were warned of the consequences. Though certainly possible, we have no indication such a warning was given to the angels. 

Did Adam and Eve understand the consequences?

Whether they understood the full significance of this is neither here nor there. In fact not fully understanding the significance only affirmed the importance and necessity of complete trust by Adam and Eve in God's promise/warning. God requiring they trust him is simply expecting them to be who they were; finite and dependent creatures in his image. God was only asking them to believe he was all wise and knew what was best, not them. They certainly had no indication/evidence otherwise. They simply doubted this to be true based on a lie they were told ("...you will be like God..." i.e. no longer dependent but independent) and chose to believe it. 

Why would and did God create us in such a way this could even happen. Because love forced is no love at all and a choice forced is not a choice. In other words, if I follow you because I am programmed to do so, it would not be me choosing you out of trust and love for you, it would be the program directing me to do so. Without real trust there is no real love or real choice. 

If a husband is programmed to bring flowers to his wife, how does his wife feel (knowing his programming was the reason)?

When God reveals himself to us, he is intervening in and reversing our fallen (self imposed and deserved...after all they were clearly warned) condition/blindness. He's not violating our choice, he's awakening our hearts again to his love. Once awakened, we naturally go after the one who is all lovely and beautiful. This is in fact our response (choice) to seeing and experiencing his love and beauty. But it is God in his mercy opening our eyes so we might see him again as he truly is. A blind man can not heal his own blindness. 

To illustrate, what if you were blind and deaf (better yet what if you were dead) and someone placed a pot of gold in front of you and told you this is yours and it's value is a billion dollars. How would you respond? What would you do? Well, you would do nothing simply because you wouldn't be aware this had just occurred. Now, what if by some miracle all your senses were restored (or somehow you came back to life) while this pot of gold was there in front of you and now in this restored state, the offer was made again. How would you respond? Well, I dare say you would say YES and thank you. 

What changed? We're you forced to take the gold? Were you somehow given the will to choose the gold that you didn't previously see? No, you were now able to see what was there and responded (chose) based on how you were already designed i.e. you were attracted, draw to and choose that which is highly valuable (because we were designed to be attracted to God who is all valuable/worthy). 

Christ tells us unless we are born again we can not see the kingdom of God (the beauty, glory and joy of the King and being reunited with him). Birth and sight go hand in hand. The capacity for life was still there but dormant (dead). We just needed God's breath, breathed into us again, just as the original Adam did after being formed from the ground. 

Given this set of conditions/ circumstances, if God were to do nothing to remedy the problem (our spiritually dormant/dead state) created by the rebellious choice of Adam and Eve, it would have been perfectly just. To do anything to remedy the problem they created is rather an act of mercy by God. He was and is in no way obligated to resolve the dilemma they had created. 

Adam and Eve's choice was clearly a violation of trust on their part. A choice that totally ruined and destroyed their trust through which their relationship with God was sustained, alienating themselves from him, themselves, each other as well as the rest of creation.

Thank God our choice was not the final word, his mercy was. 

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
    or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
    that he might be repaid?”

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11. 

·       The question of fairness click here. 

·       Is the election and wrath of God unreasonable? click here.

·        "Free" will or heavily influenced? click here

·        Why Calvinists and Arminians are both wrong click here, 

·        Our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser" click here 

·        Why freedom of choice is important click here

·        The primary end for which we are chosen click here

________________________________________________________________

¹not singularly focused on the source of true and lasting life but believing life can be found outside and apart from God.

²God still honored our choice when he called us back to himself. He simply opened our eyes to see his beauty resulting in our choosing him again. He did not override our choice in so doing he simply removed our blindness so that we might truly see him again and choose rightly.

³Some have questioned the warning from God as untrue since man did not physically die immediately upon eating the forbidden fruit. But possibly this is because physical death is all we can relate to (since we are now born spiritually dead so we have nothing to compare it to), when in fact spiritual death was the primary caution God was giving which lead to Adam and Eve's death physically. 

This also may say something very significant regarding what is more vital: spiritual life or physical life? Both are certainly important but spiritual death (the loss of God's life/Spirit) was more vital as everything else (physical death, the curse upon the ground, pain in child bearing etc) flowed out of our disconnect spiritually (death) to God.