Free Yet Bound

The following original article can be found at the link below. I have reproduced it in order to highlight and comment on particular points. Anything that is either emboldened, italicized, underline, (in parentheses) or *starred are by me - except for the title and Roman numerated section headings, which were already emboldened in the original article.

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freewill_chantry.html

_____________________________________

Man's Will- Free Yet Bound
by Walter J. Chantry

    For more than fifteen hundred years the Church has engaged in a heated debate over the freedom of man's will. The major issues came to general attention in the early fifth century when Augustine and Pelagius did battle on the subject. Through medieval times the nature of man's freedom received a great deal of attention. As they studied the Scriptures, Bernard and Anselm made significant contributions to the doctrine of the human will. In the sixteenth century the freedom or bondage of the will was one of the chief issues dividing Reformers and Roman Catholics. To the mind of Martin Luther, it was the key to his dispute with Rome. In the seventeenth century the nature of man's freedom was at the heart of the debate between Arminians and Calvinists. The conflict surfaced again in the eighteenth century during the Great Awakening. Finney's approach to revival in the nineteenth century led the church astray through a misunderstanding of the human will. So too the nature of man's will continues to bring intense disagreement between Reformed and Fundamentalist believers.
     
A proper understanding of the content of the gospel and the use of GOD-honouring methods in evangelism are dependent on one's grasp of this issue.
     
Some theologians, both Arminian and Calvinistic, have been quite lucid in their discussions concerning man's will. Others, for example, Jonathan Edwards, have soared into the lofty clouds of philosophy where many a believer faints in the thin air of difficult logic and complex thought. But none is so refreshingly clear as our holy LORD. His instruction on the subject is laced with vivid illustrations to assist our groping minds:
     
Matthew 12.33-37 says, *'Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.  

But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'

*The ERV gives a helpful interpretation of the above passage so I offer it here for your edification...

33 “If you want good fruit, you must make the tree good. If your tree is not good, it will have bad fruit. A tree is known by the kind of fruit it produces. 34 You snakes! You are so evil. How can you say anything good? What people say with their mouths comes from what fills their hearts. 35 Those who are good have good things saved in their hearts. That’s why they say good things. But those who are evil have hearts full of evil, and that’s why they say things that are evil. 36 I tell you that everyone will have to answer for all the careless things they have said (the evidence of an evil heart which is the underlying reason they will be judged). This will happen on the day of judgment. 37 Your words will be used (as evidence) to judge you. What you have said will show whether you are right (in your heart) or whether you are guilty (have an evil heart).” ERV

     In this passage are three verbal windows through which the light of Christ's lesson passes. Each presents a familiar scene. (1) A tree that has fruit - v. 33. (2) A man who brings treasures out of a chest - v. 35. (3) A stream that overflows from a fountain. This last is rather more obscure than the first two, but it is suggested by our LORD's choice of words in v. 34. The word 'abundance' suggests superfluity or overflow.
 
     I. Man has a will and that will has a certain freedom. Our LORD clearly teaches that man has a power of choice. It is important to begin here to disarm opponents of all the foolish accusations that have been brought against the Biblical doctrine of man's will. Every man has the ability to choose his own words, to decide what his actions will be. We have a faculty of self-determination in the sense that we select our own thoughts, words, and deeds. Man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires.

     No one ties fruit on a tree's branches, not even GOD. The tree bears its own fruit. Evil men sin voluntarily; they take evil treasures out of their chests, that is, evil words and deeds. Righteous men are holy by choice; they select good treasures, that is, good words and works. The person who is speaking and acting is completely responsible for his moral behaviour. This power of the will is a vital part of human personality. It always exists in you and me and in all to whom we witness or preach.

     GOD never forces men to act against their wills. By workings of outward providence or of inward grace, the LORD may change men's minds, but He will not coerce a human being into thoughts, words or actions. When GOD in His holy wrath sent the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from their land, He also sent hornets against them. There is a children's song which tells the story of these hornets stinging the Canaanites, causing the pagans to flee the land. The chorus then sings:

GOD never compels us to go, Oh no,
He never compels us to go;
GOD does not compel us to go 'gainst our will,
but He just makes us *willing to go.

*A contemporary expression we hear often can also illustrate this. We have heard it said "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" - however you can always salt its oats. The horse may still refuse to drink, but given the nature of its being - how it was created - it must have water to live. And if water is offered, it is likely to drink it, but only by its own free choice.

When Saul was converted, the LORD did not compel him to edify the church instead of persecuting it. He *added a new factor of inward grace in his soul. Consequently, Paul changed his decision. GOD may renew (or excite) the will but He never coerces it.

*I would say God restored that which was lost when we turned away from Him, i.e. Paul was given a new awareness of God's presence or you could say God revealed himself to Paul. This revelation was gracious because it is undeserved. Some may assert it's unfair Christ revealed himself to Paul but not others in the same way. However scripture says God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. When Christ meet Paul on the road to Damascus Paul humbled himself. He could have chosen to not do so. 

     The Westminster Confession is very careful to assert the liberty of the human will. When it speaks of GOD's eternal decrees, we are told, 'GOD from all eternity did . . . freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is GOD the author of sin, nor is violence offered to - i.e. done against - the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.' When discussing Free Will, the Confession begins, 'GOD hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.' Neither by creation nor by subsequent acts of GOD are man's decisions made for him; he is free to choose for himself.

     This sort of freedom of the will is essential to responsibility! Having a will is a necessary ingredient to being morally accountable. This is clearly implied in our LORD's words in verses 36 and 37: 'I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For *by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.' A man can be condemned only because the words are his own (and give evidence of the condemned status under which he already exists). He was free to bring them out of his treasure chest. They were the overflow of the fountain of his own heart. They are the fruits of his own tree of nature. No one imposed the words on his lips. He chose them. Society, companions, parents cannot be blamed. Idle words are the product of the man's own will.

*our words and deeds are evidence of the true condition of our heart i.e. whether our heart is in rebellion to God or in receipt of God's love. If the former, our deeds will be bad and if the latter they will be good. 

      It is vital for every minister to appreciate the importance of man's will. For in evangelism the will must be addressed. In preaching the gospel we are not only to shine the light of truth upon darkened minds. We are also to appeal to men's perverted wills to choose Christ. Faith is as much (I would add primarily and fundamentally) an act of the will as it is of the mind. When by the Spirit a mind understands essential truths, by the same Spirit the will must (choose to believe those truths and) trust Christ. Repentance is a selecting of good and a refusing of evil. Volition is central to faith and repentance.
 
     Indeed, in conversion, a man must make a decision. We shy away from that term because in modern jargon a 'decision' has come to be identified with an outward expression, such as raising the hand or going forward to the front. While such external acts have nothing to do with forgiveness of sins, the heart must make a decision to be saved.

     When Christ stood to cry 'If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,' He was soliciting a willing choice of Himself as satisfying drink for the soul. GOD urges all sinners to come just because they may come. And it is our duty to inform the sinner that he has a warrant, a right to choose Christ. Beyond this, we must assure him that he has a positive duty to embrace the Saviour.

     The great guilt of sinners under the gospel is that they will not come (not that they committed certain sins but they refuse God's remedy for those sins i.e. the only remedy for their heart of rebellion to God). Christ complained in John 5.40: 

'Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.' And to Jerusalem He sobbed, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not!' There is in the unregenerate hearer of the gospel an obstinate, willful choice not to come (i.e. a rebellious heart). Hence it is that in flaming fire Christ will come to take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel [2 Thess 1.8]. In the free exercise of their uncoerced wills men have rejected the Son of GOD.

     In speaking of responsibility we have implied nothing regarding ability, as will be seen below. But the point is that men have wills which must be addressed as powerfully and directly as their minds and emotions in gospel preaching. Men must be confronted with their responsibility. 'This is the work of GOD, that ye believe into Him whom He hath sent' [John 6.29].
 
     II. Man's Will is not a Sovereign Faculty. Although man does have a will, it is neither *independent of all influences nor supreme over all other parts of his personality. This is the next point to be seen in our LORD's teaching.

*by virtue of being created - i.e. a creature and not the Creator - mankind is dependent. This is obvious and as simple as man must have food, air, and water to stay alive. When faced with the prospect of losing his life due to the absence of any of these, does he look to God or attempt to be his own god. Am I saying man should not seek food, air, and water? No, I am asking whether he recognizes and acknowledges God as the giver and sustainer of these things i.e. does he thank God for them. 

     Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Arminians and Finneyites have all held one common view of the nature of man. They suggest that the will of man is in some way neutral, that it exists in a state of moral suspension. It is their understanding that with equal ease the will can choose good or evil; it can receive or reject Christ. With only degrees of difference and variety of explanation, this is their common opinion. Pelagians have taught that the will is neutral because man's heart is morally neutral. Arminians, on the other hand, acknowledge the human heart to be evil. But they suggest that prevenient grace has hung the will upon a 'sky hook' of neutrality from which it can swing either to receive or to reject the gospel. The common ground, however, is this idea of neutrality. The will, they tell us, is disinterested. Ultimately this controls their entire view of conversion and of sanctification.

     It will be noted that our Master taught that the human will is not free from the other faculties of the heart. Far from the will reigning over a man, the will is determined by the man's own character. It is not raised to a position of dominance over the entire man.

     Man is like a tree. His heart, not his will alone, is the root. There is no possible way by which the will can choose to produce fruit contrary to the character of the root. If the root is bad, the tree is bound by its very nature to produce evil fruit. Man is like a person standing alongside his treasure chest. There is no possibility of bringing pure gold out of a box filled only with rusty steel. The contents of the heart determine what words and deeds may be brought out. Far from being neutral, the will must reach into the heart for its choices. Every thought, word and deed will partake of the nature of the treasure within. Man is like a stream which cannot rise above its source. If the fountain is polluted, the outflow will be evil. If the source be sweet, the stream will not be bitter and cannot choose to be so.

     These three illustrations alike contain the same lesson. What a man is determines what he chooses. Choices of the will always reveal the character of the heart, because the heart determines the choices. Men are not sinners because they choose to sin; they choose to sin because they are sinners. If this were not so, we could never know a tree by its fruits, nor could we judge a man's character by his acts.

     In modern times we observe rockets fired so that they escape from the earth's gravity. To accomplish this there is a great complex of electrical wires all woven into one control centre, called in the U.S. 'Mission Control.'

According to the Bible, the heart is the Mission Control of a man's life. The heart is the motivational complex of a man, the basic disposition, the entire bent of character, the moral inclination. The mind, emotions, desires, and will are all wires which we observe; none is independent but all are welded into a common circuit. If mission control is wired for evil, the will cannot make the rockets of life travel on the path of righteousness. The will cannot escape the direction of thoughts, feelings, longings and habits to produce behaviour of an opposite moral quality. 'Will' may be the button which launches the spacecraft. But the launching button does not determine the direction. Direction is dependent upon the complex wiring system.

     If the will were able to make decisions contrary to reason, and to the likes and desires of the heart, it would be a monster. You would find yourself in a restaurant ordering all the foods you detest. You would find yourself selecting the company you loathe. But the will is not a monster. It cannot choose without consulting your intelligence, reflecting your feelings, and taking account of your desires. You are free to be yourself. The will cannot transform you into someone else.

     This is most profoundly true in the moral and religious realms. When the mind is at war with GOD, denying His truth; when the emotions hate Christ His Son; when the desires wish GOD's law and gospel were exterminated from the earth; the will cannot be in a position to choose Christ. If it were, a man would not be truly free to be himself.  Here is the tragic truth about man's will. While free from outward coercion, it is in a state of bondage (inward vs outward bondage). It is not in a state of neutrality. It is not a lever with which to move a man's personality from sin to righteousness, from unbelief to faith. This brings us to the third element in Christ's words.
 
     III. Man's Will is in Bondage to Sin. The chains which bind a man's will to sin (rebellious unbelief) do not result from the *actions of the Omnipotent GOD. The binding chains are the man's own depraved faculties. The prison is his own nature.

*God does not coerce man to act a certain way but rather the absence of God results in man choosing to act contrary to God and His design. God's absence was the result of man choosing to believe he could do better independent of God vs dependent on Him. He believed he could be his own god instead of trusting in and depending on the only true God. However mankind was not designed to operate as his own god. Therefore he flourishes when he is in union with God, not in rebellion to him. 

     Our LORD's rhetorical question in verse 34 brings this home with force: 'O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?' Our wise LORD is suggesting that a man must speak as he does because of what he is. To sinners He was saying 'You are unable to choose good words because you possess an evil heart. If the tree is bad, if the treasure chest is filled with evil things alone, if the fountain is bitter, your will cannot produce good words [fruits, treasures, overflow].'

     At this point there are very many scriptures which attest to a man's bondage to sin by his own nature. To mention but a few - Jeremiah 13.23: 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil;' John 6.44: 'No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him;' Romans 8.7: 'The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of GOD, neither indeed can be.'
 
     Pelagian, Arminian and modern Fundamentalist support for the moral and spiritual freedom of the will usually centers on one point. We have admitted that man has a responsible freedom. He is free to be himself. He is held accountable for his words and deeds, especially for his receiving or rejecting Christ. On all of this we agree. They use this toehold to argue that the will is not in bondage to sin but has the power of contrary choice. It can do either good or evil, at least when confronted with the gospel. They insist that the responsibility of the will to choose Christ implies ability of the will to choose Christ.

     There is no scriptural defence of this belief, none that I have ever seen in print. The argument is completely philosophical. It runs as follows: If a man cannot do good, it would be unjust to punish him as evil. Furthermore, if a sinner cannot repent, it would be foolish to command all men everywhere to repent. GOD is not foolish and He has commanded repentance. Therefore men are able to repent.

     We can only reply that those who applaud the powers of the will with such arguments have not read the Bible very carefully. To maintain their philosophical premises they will have to argue with Christ their LORD. For our Prophet tells us in verses 36 and 37 of our text that in the day of judgment men will be held responsible for their evil words. Yet in verse 34 our Teacher tells the very same men that they cannot speak good words because they are bound by their evil character.

     Lazarus in his tomb had no ability to respond when our LORD commanded, 'Come forth.' The man who had been impotent for 38 years had no native ability to obey when Jesus commanded him to take up his bed and walk. Nor have modern sinners ability to believe when we preach. 'This is his commandment, that we believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ' [I John 3.23].

     When a sinner refuses to come to Christ, he is guilty because he has made a free choice. It reflects his own state of mind, feeling and attitude toward GOD and His Son. He has acted voluntarily without coercion. It is his decision. But the poor sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, could not do otherwise, being evil. It is not necessary for him to have a neutral will, or the ability to do both good and evil, for his action to be held accountable before the Judge of all hearts.

     Anselm is very helpful on this matter. This medieval theologian points out that if ability to sin is necessary to true liberty or responsibility, then GOD is neither free nor praiseworthy. For the scriptures teach us that GOD cannot lie. Similarly, saints in glory will be neither free nor responsible; for in eternity the LORD's people have confirmed righteousness. Anselm goes on to show the Biblical emphasis of freedom. True liberty rests in the ability to do good whereas he that does sin is the slave of sin. If true liberty rests in the ability to do good in GOD's sight, then the highest liberty rests in the inability to do otherwise. This highest freedom belongs to the sons of GOD in glory. How Biblical were Anselm's insights!
 
     No doubt Anselm's thinking has influenced the Westminster Confession's wording in the chapter 'Of Free Will.' For it says that Adam 'had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well pleasing to GOD.' Yet this freedom was mutable, subject to change. Man could and did lose his liberty in the sense of being able to do good. This is not the same as a man's liberty to be himself. 'Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself thereto.'

     Bernard was very near the truth when he wrote of our condition in Adam: 'The soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free.'

     We have seen that man is free to be himself and therefore is enslaved to sin by a wicked heart. And this brings us to the most profound truth regarding the salvation of souls. It is crucial to our preaching. It is vital to saving impressions in our hearers.
 
     IV. Man's Will is not his Hope. Our LORD has taught that the tree must be made good. Man must be renewed in his entire character. He must have a new heart to bring forth good fruit; the will cannot make the tree good; it may only exercise liberty to be what the tree already is. The will cannot reload the treasure chest with a new kind of goods; it may only freely bring forth what is there. The will cannot cleanse the fountainhead; it may overflow only with the waters available in the soul.

     Any gospel preaching that relies upon an act of the human will for the conversion of sinners has missed the mark. Any sinner who supposes that his will has the strength to do any good accompanying salvation is greatly deluded and far from the kingdom. We are cast back upon the regenerating work of the Spirit of the living GOD to make the tree good. Unless GOD does something in the sinner, unless GOD creates a clean heart and renews a right spirit within man, there is no hope of a saving change.

    While we address the wills of men in gospel preaching, they are wills bound in the grave clothes of an evil heart. But as we speak, and the LORD owns His word, sinners are quickened to life by divine power. His people are made willing in the day of His power [Psa 110.3]. All who are adopted as sons of GOD were 'born not of the will of man, but of GOD.' [John 1. 13] We stand to preach with no power to make the tree good. The 'trees' before us cannot make themselves good, so no gimmicks or policies of men can persuade them to make the change. But our glorious GOD, by inward, secret, transforming power, can make the tree good, the treasures good, the fountain good. Thus all glory be to GOD and to the Lamb! Salvation is of the LORD!

“ This article reproduced by permission from THE BANNER OF TRUTH magazine, Issue 140, May 1975.”

· "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 question of fairness click here. 

·       The necessity of mercy click here.

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

·   Is God free? click here to find out more.

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.

chosen for love, the essence and end (goal) of grace

The doctrine of election has been controversial since the early days of the church. The controversy first arose in the public eye through an ascetic moralist named Pelagius in the 380s. During this time he began to challenge Augustine, the highly regarded Bishop of Hippo, and Augustine's emphasis on the total depravity of man. 

Pelagius asserted man's will was not corrupted but free. (I touch on this more in-depth in several additional posts listed at the bottom). His view was eventually declared heretical by the Council of Carthage (418 AD). 

For almost 1200 years after this there was no significant public debate on this teaching again until Dutch Theologian Jacobus Arminius (the "father" of Arminianism) began questioning some of the points raised in John Calvin's "Institutes" in the late 1500s and early 1600s. Ironically, Calvin and Arminius never actually met or debated. Calvin passed away a few years before Arminius even gained notoriety. It was not Calvin himself directly, but others who argued and asserted the now somewhat famous [or infamous] 5 points of Calvinism.  These students of Calvin argued 5 counterpoints to 5 questions raised by Arminius's followers in the Five articles of the Remonstrants. This occurred years after the death of both Arminius and Calvin. 

It's worth noting that Arminius was more "Calvinistic" than some realize. Today's Arminianism is far more afield of scripture (and Calvin) than Arminius himself but his conclusions did plant the seeds for what is known as Arminianism today.

Years later, the controversy arose again when Arminianism was promoted by John Wesley -- and to a lesser degree, his brother Charles. This occurred during the First Great Awakening in the 1730s, resulting in it gaining a significant foothold in the church in America. Though *George Whitefield (a softspoken but committed Calvinist) and the Wesley's started together in England what would be later called Methodism (so named primarily due to their disciplined and methodical approach to the Christian life), they were at odds over this doctrine during their entire ministry. John strongly opposed Whitefield openly and publicly on this and sought to engage Whitefield in a debate several times over the years. Whitefield generally avoided the debate to avoid the controversy. For him, the teaching of sovereign grace was something to be relished, not debated. He even eventually relinquished full leadership of Methodism to Wesley -- though it can be argued that Whitefield was the greater influence in its inception and development. 

Later, towards the end of their ministries, John Wesley's brother Charles came around to a more Calvinist position and reconciled with Whitefield. It is also worth noting that John Wesley did not directly oppose Whitefield personally but more on his adherence to a Calvinistic view. John Wesley shared his respect and praise for Whitefield's ministry at his funeral. 

Controversy has obscured a vital truth

Because of this long-standing historical debate, which continues even today, the key takeaway I believe God intends from this biblical teaching has been somewhat obscured. 

What is that takeaway? 

God choosing us (i.e. election) is not about election per se - i.e. to debate it or try to make sense of it logically i.e. is it fair he picks some and not others etc - it is about love. Election is simply the means to that end for which we are chosen i.e. by and for love. The focal point (end) in scripture is love, not the means or mechanism of salvation. 

To say it another way election is important insofar as it demonstrates the extent and nature of God's love for you and me personally. 

Ephesians 1:4

To say God chose you is to say He set his love upon you. He did so at his own expense, by no merit of your own, and pursued you by various means - be that his written or spoken word regarding Christ's sacrificial love, the kindness of other believers, revealing himself to us through creation or other circumstances, etc. - until you finally saw, accepted, and embraced him in love. If you are not a follower of Jesus, your reading this right now is evidence that God is seeking to draw you to Himself. 

God's specifically choosing you for a personal relationship with him, when clearly understood, is intended to communicate the most practical and impactful reality of the personal nature of God's love. God specifically "picking" us is simply evidence of how personal his love is. "Election" is the means/mechanism by which we come into a personal relationship with him; knowing and experiencing him to the fullest extent possible is the end/goal. 

While hanging on the cross and taking our pain and suffering into his own body and soul, he specifically had you in mind. In fact, you have been on his mind from all eternity past. There wasn't a time he did not know of you (and have his good designs intended for you and set upon you). He had you in mind when his eternal plans were determined and made to restore you to himself through Christ. 

We have allowed ourselves to get so sidetracked and caught up by theological debate that we miss out on this most vital truth: God didn't have just anyone in mind when he died to restore fallen men and women; he had you personally in mind.  

Knowing his love was fixed upon you from all eternity past communicates the intentionality and specificity of that love i.e. God is not only or just love generally, but he also loves you specifically, deliberately, and personally. He didn't pick everyone to pour out his love on, he picked you. The fact that he didn't pick everyone is what makes this so significant.

You may be thinking this is unfair. What was Paul's response to this concern?

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” - ‭Romans 9:14-15‬

Should we feel undeserving? Yes, because we are undeserving. Is this fair? I'll address this more shortly. For now, we will say it certainly is gracious and merciful for those God redeems. And the offer for redemption is to any who will receive it. 

He knew what all your strengths would be, as well as your rebellion and your flaws. Christ was fully aware that it was your pain and suffering he was embracing and feeling, and your rebellion he was judged for. He was doing it not out of his love generally but out of love for you specifically. Again, Christ didn't die for the world generally, hoping some might come; he died for you, one of his lost sheep, knowing you would come (Jn 10:2-4;11, 15-16, 26-27; 17:6, 9-10, 24, 26). God's love wasn't a random shotgun blast into the air, hoping it would land on someone; it was a single rifle shoot aimed specifically at your heart by the perfect marksmen of love, knowing it would hit its mark. 

When we truly grasp (believe) that God's love is that specific and that personal, it transforms us. Not until we grasp it in this way, will we gain from this reality what God intends and be fully impacted by it as he intends and desires i.e. you can not appreciate the full extent of his love until you know the personal nature of it, that you specifically were chosen by him for love. The more we grasp this the more we are transformed. And that is exactly the point of his targeting you for mercy, so you would know the full extent (laser-sharp precision and focus) of his love and to experience that love in all its fullness as much as is possible for you, his infinitely beloved child, to experience. 

I propose that getting sidetracked into a theological debate regarding "election" is designed by "the adversary" (aided by our pride) to keep us from seeing this very vital truth of God's personal love and experiencing it to the greatest extent possible. Without seeing it clearly and truly you will not experience the full transforming power God intends his love to have on you and in you. This in turn will keep you from being most effective in spreading his love and glory to others. 

But it's not fair

Why is this teaching in scripture so hard for us to accept, and why are we so offended by it? The biggest challenge and complaint is that it's not fair. However, our very complaint is evidence of our ongoing rebellion against God - we are described in scripture as his enemies for good reason - and believe that we know better than God what is best (just as Adam did in the garden). In truth, our doubts of God's goodness are evidence of how set we are against him. You do understand that your very ability to question or disagree with God was given to you by him. Stop to ponder this. 

It's okay to admit we don't understand everything about salvation. Our problem is it's also humbling i.e. we don't like to admit we are not able to figure things out and are not the judge of our own lives, much less the judge of God himself. We think God should answer to us, not the other way around. 

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Rom 9:20

Since we, in our limited understanding, find election unreasonable (illogical), we question his goodness and whether this is a good plan (much less his perfect plan). We set aside the claim (and fact) that God is all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful, and all-loving (good). God can do no wrong, and he does no wrong, ever! How do we know? Because he tells us so. Simply because we can't (as limited/finite beings) understand how this is the perfect, wise, and good purpose of God, does not make it otherwise. He says He's good. We are called to believe him. Either we do or don't, limited logic aside. 

However, it is not a completely unreasonable position. The key to understanding election is not that God is unfair and unjust in choosing some instead of all; it is that God is merciful to some instead of none. We must clearly understand that no one deserves God's kindness and mercy.

To illustrate: if 10 men were on death row for committing a capital offense and confessed to doing so, would any of them feel the judge unfair if he carried out a death sentence on them? Especially considering they were all clearly warned that if they committed something forbidden, they would die. I trust we can all agree this is fair. However, what if the judge decided at the last minute to extend mercy to one of them? Would that be unfair to the other 9? They would likely not like it and may wish it were them that received mercy, but none would say this was unfair. They were getting exactly what they were warned of and deserved.

Nor do any seek God if left to themselves. Humanity actually runs away from God and has declared him their enemy. If God is who he claims to be and we do not like his claims or acknowledge him to be who he claims, we, in effect, are saying he's a liar and are opposed to him. 

It is only by the mercy of God that any seek him (and only some do), much less all.  Mankind left to his own devices never seeks God. If and when he does, it is only because God is drawing him. God could have justly walked away from Adam and Eve and left them to their own devices, but he did not.

Entitlement...a major problem

Our other problem is we experience his bounty and blessings (particularly in North America and the west in general) to such an extent we are used to the abundance his goodness, kindness, and mercy granted to us (it is so much a part of all our daily lives we take it for granted). As a result, we have become jaded, ungrateful, and even feel entitled to it. We are offended at the idea that in truth, we rightfully deserve God's condemnation for "biting the hand that feeds (made) us" and may even have come to feel we deserve his grace and mercy (if we did, however, it would no longer be grace and mercy would it?). 

Pride, not logic, is at the heart of our problem

Our sense of prideful independence is offended when we are asked, "does not the potter have a right to make from the clay the vessel of his choosing?"

But the reality is God is not being unfair to many, he's being kind and merciful to some who don't deserve it i.e. all who receive His offer of salvation. The reality is God is not obligated to be merciful to any, much less some. 


God's actions do not "complete" him

Nor does he need to be merciful, as if doing so somehow makes God complete. He chooses some out of the fullness of who he is and at his own expense, not out of something lacking within himself (which, if we are honest, is likely what we suspect. We do so because we project on to God our brokenness and lack resulting in our desire to do everything for personal gain).

It is against this backdrop the Father sent his Son (who willingly came) to take on the consequences and suffering for our rebellion and offer to remove it so he can extend kindness to those who receive his love as a gift. That is not being unfair to others, it is being kind, merciful, and gracious to those who don't deserve it. Could God not have rightfully let us all continue in our rebellion and eternal separation from him? Yet in his mercy, he chose to spare some from the destruction of it. His mercy is not deserved or earned.

Accountable for what we don't know?

Some may argue that who God is and what his designs are is not clear. However, scripture says otherwise, and that the only reason we do not see the true reality of these things is we submerge these truths in the depths of our hearts out of our rebellion (unbelief) to God. 

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." - Rom 1:18-21

A summary of our trouble with this teaching

The reasons God choosing some for salvation and not others is so hard for some to accept are 

• We do not understand the full extent of humanity's rebellion and the just deserts of condemnation.
• God's total justice if he had chosen to walk away from all of humanity in their rebellion.
• It makes God appear unfair, which creates suspicion/doubt of his claim to be good and loving.

When we recognize God did not pursue mankind out of guilt for letting things get so messed up (we are the one's who messed up, not God) or out of a need for creation to fill some kind of void in him, but rather he did it because he is a being of overflowing love and goodness and mercy, willing to take upon himself the full and justly deserved consequences of our rebellion so we might gain what is only rightfully his, then we can see his true nature of love. 

And once we do, we experience overwhelming gratitude for his infinite mercy extended to us in and through Christ. 

Election, the ultimate expression of grace and grounds for humility.

I would propose that you can never truly understand the fullness of God's grace and mercy (and therefore his love) until you understand the sovereignty of God in salvation i.e. election.

By this I mean we know that God chose us (saved us) based solely on his sovereign choice and not on any "righteous deeds" of our own i.e. anything that we accomplish (or attempt). It is only then we begin to understand how everything about our relationship with God is based on grace (i.e. a gift initiated and extended to us by him) that we begin to grasp the true nature of God's love. God is the initiator and cause of our right standing as well as our ongoing faithfulness to him (i.e. he alone by his Spirit/Love drives our God-honoring behavior), not us or anything we do. Our "work" is simply to believe in his offer of perfect unearned righteousness extended to any and all who believe.

This is the foundation on which [2]humility is built -- he resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. To be truly humble we must understand the grace of his sovereign choosing/election. To say it another way, we can in no way take credit for our salvation. Not just our initial salvation but our ongoing salvation. He does it all from start to finish. He reveals himself to us and only because he does, do we respond; not just in our initial coming but our ongoing obedience. It is us moving, but it is God - who he is - that moves us. 

Our part

It is us responding, not God. We do play a real part; our role is vital but we respond for two reasons, both of which are due to him. 

1. He designed us for love (i.e. he made us this way [in his image], we didn't make ourselves. Because he did, we can respond to love) and... 
2. He reveals himself as he truly is i.e. lovely, so we might respond. When he does and because he does, we respond accordingly and are moved to action (to say this practically, your reading this now is no accident). If he did not, we would not come.

God must open our eyes before we can see his beauty and willingly choose to pursue him. And when we do it is truly our choice.

The key to understanding "whosoever will may come" is that man comes freely by their own will; he is not coerced. But this is only because their eyes have been opened to see their dreadful state and antagonistic disposition towards God and his beauty simultaneously, thereby being drawn to him. If he was not love and did not initially reveal his beauty/loveliness to us, we would never have sought him. By grace and nothing but grace are we saved.

If he was not love and did not continue to reveal his beauty/loveliness to us, we would not pursue him now. By grace (our ongoing receiving and believing it) and nothing but grace, we are being saved in our daily life.

These reasons are why it is vital (not just theologically but practically) election be stressed and must be understood well in order for us to fully experience the extent of God's love and properly give him the full and rightful credit he deserves. Without understanding this we will not be properly empowered to respond to him as we were designed to. 

We still must choose

The challenge is to understand that election does not eliminate the responsibility of choice. Our "chooser" is still intact. We make choices every day and those choices are solely and truly our own, not God's. For example, God didn't make you read this blog. He may have led you here (through curiosity or some other reason) but whatever the reason, you are the one that decided to read this and what, if anything, you will do with the things discussed. 

The problem is our "wanter" is broken, not our "chooser." We choose the wrong things because we want the wrong things. And we want the wrong things because we are ^[1]blind to the best thing i.e. God himself and the fullness of love and life that only he is. And we are blind because we are spiritually dead...the fruit of (and warning for) our rebellious independence from God. 

Joh 3:3  Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless (i.e. until) one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 

When we clearly - though not yet fully - see the best thing i.e. God, we desire him. And when we desire him we choose him every time. So our prayer must always be, "God help me to see you as you truly are in all your beauty, majesty and glory so I will desire you more fully as you truly are and rightly deserve, the greatest and most desirable, beautiful and lovely of all."

So what do we do if we don't desire him?

You may be thinking "I have no desire to seek or know God." Maybe so, but you are reading this, so on some level, you do have an interest. Pray for God to mercifully reveal himself to you until you find him. Even if you don't want to pray, ask him to give you the desire. That is your choice and something you can do. If you are sincere, he will reveal himself to you. If you are not sincere in your prayer, pray he enables you to be. If you refuse to, that too is your choice but this reveals the true nature of the problem, not your inability to choose but your rebellion i.e. it is no longer a choice issue but a trust issue...you simply choose not to trust God. 

However, the very fact you are reading this and asking this question (assuming you are) is an indication he is drawing you. Pursue this as if your eternal destination depends on it...because it does. Otherwise, your desire may go away. 

If you are not asking these questions, pray they haunt you until you do. This too is your choice. 

C.S. Lewis once said, "God, in the end, gives people what they most want, including freedom from Himself. What could be fairer?"

How right he was. 

So are you chosen? 

For you and I, this is the wrong question. The only question God presents to us that matters is will you accept his free offer and gift of salvation i.e. will you come? He certainly invites you to. If you do and turn in trust to Him and away from your distrust of him (i.e. repent), he will never turn away from you. And what could be more kind or fair? 

Joh 3:15  that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 

Joh 3:18  Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

Joh 5:24  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 

Joh 6:47  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even 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 for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." Eph 1:3-6

Romans 8

Election is hugely significant in Romans 8 in a very practical way. God is saying nothing is more important than his choosing you i.e. the fact that he has chosen you supersedes and overrides any other experience you are now having or may have. It is your direct assurance that because you are the object of his affection, nothing (no circumstances) can or will ever change his affections toward you regardless of what happens. 


Ongoing salvation (after you have come to Christ)

Rom 8:30-39  "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." 

Rom 8:33  Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 

·        "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 

·       The necessity of choice click here. 

·        Why freedom of choice is important click here

·       The question of fairness click here. 

·       The necessity of mercy click here.

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

_____________________________

^[1]we are spiritually blind because we are spiritually dead, which was the warning God gave in the garden "…The day that you eat (i.e. go contrary to my will and good design for you) you will die..." The day that Adam chose to break away was the day that God's Spirit departed and left man merely as a physical and soulish creature, yet still with the capacity for spiritual engagement and life upon our new birth and the Spirit's reentry i.e. being born again. 

[2] Humility is also the gateway through which grace (and therefore God himself) comes to us. 

Jas 4:6  But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” 

If you wish to know the grace of God you must first recognize your need for it. This is the heart of humility. The extent to which you do is the extent to which you will experience and appreciate God himself. Without it none of us will see God much less see him as he truly is. 

*For those who assert a "Calvinist" view (I prefer to call it a more biblical view) inhibits outreach, Whitefield was arguably the greater influence in the Great Awakening, though both he and the Wesley's played a key role. Whitefield spoke to crowds estimated as large as 30,000 at a time, preaching at least 18,000 times to perhaps 10 million listeners in the US and England. His understanding of election was a key driving factor

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.