DIVINE ELECTION: A MANIFESTATION OF DIVINE LOVE

A Brief Survey of Election, Gods Sovereignty, and Human Free Will

by Cher Bee Her
INTRODUCTION
Since creation, humanity continues to struggle with the issue of human freedom and
divine sovereignty. There are great ramifications to ones understanding of life, theology and
God depending on which of these two foundations one embraces. Therefore, it is important
that each individual search his or her own soul and make an intelligent choice as to which of
these two views should be his or her starting point. Traditionally, it has been called Calvinism
and Arminianism. However, the debate began long before John Calvin or Jacobus Arminius
even existed. In this paper, I will argue that human beings do not have absolute freedom or
libertarian freedom as is called in theology and therefore, divine election is the ultimate
expression of Gods love for human beings.
HISTORICAL VIEW
Historically, Calvinists took the position that God elects individuals out of the human
race to be saved while leaving others to death. Calvin states:
By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined
with Himself, whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are
not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal
damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends,
we say that he has been predestined to life or death.1
This doctrine represents the purpose of God as absolute and unconditional. It is independent of
the finite creation and originates in the eternal counsel of His will. 2 Human beings are viewed
1

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beverige (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1989) Book III, Ch. XXI, sec. 5.

as in bondage to sin and are incapable of moving toward God on their own volition.
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is a requirement before human beings can positively make any
decisions for Christ. Therefore, unless God elects an individual to receive His mercy by sending
the Spirit to regenerate that person, he or she will not have the desire to submit to Christs
kingship.
In 1618, the Synod of Dort was convened to resolve the Arminian/Calvinist controversy.
The Arminians had previously drawn up five articles to reject the Calvinists position called the
Arminian Article of Remonstrant. The result of the 1618 synod produced the Canon of Dort,
which is a document, containing five theological points to answer the Remonstrants
(Arminianism).3 These five points summarizes the Calvinists position:
I.

Fallen man is totally unable to save himself (Total Depravity)

II.

Gods electing purpose was not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)

III.

Christs atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for the elect
(Limited Atonement)

IV.

The gift of faith, sovereignl6y given by Gods Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect
(Irresistible Grace)

V.

Those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the
Saints).
Arminians, on the other hand, took the position that humanity still had enough freedom

after the Fall to make a decision for Christ or against him without regeneration. This ability was
given to all humanity through the power of the Holy Spirit in what John Wesley calls

Loraine Boetner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg: R & R Publishing, 1932) 13.
Stanley Grentz, Theology for the Community of God (Vancouver: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2000) 448-449.
3

prevenient grace.4 This position holds that Gods election of human beings was based on His
foreknowledge of how people would respond to the Gospel. It was not based on Gods
sovereign will or in the eternal decree of His counsel or for His own good pleasure but on
human ability. In rejecting Calvinism, Arminians set forth their views in five articles called the
Arminian Articles of Remonstrance in 1610.5 These five articles are as follows:
I.

God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who
through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and
unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by Gods
foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)

II.

Christ died for all men (not just the elect), but no one except the believer has remission
of sin.

III.

Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born
again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit.

IV.

All good deeds or movements in the regenerates must be ascribed to the grace of God
but his grace is not irresistible.

V.

Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through
the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a
believer to fall from grace.

What are the foundations for these two positions? At the heart of this issue is that Calvinism
sees God as absolutely sovereign while Arminianism sees man as absolutely free.
SOVEREIGN OR LIMITED SOVEREIGNTY
In the final analysis, this controversy of divine sovereignty and human freedom boils
down to our understanding of God. Either God is sovereign and human beings are not free or
human beings are freed (autonomous) and God is not sovereign. Bertrand Russell, the agnostic
4

John Wesley, On Working Out Your Own Salvation, Sermon 85, 1872, 9 March 2005
<http://www.gbgmumc/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-085.stm>
5
RC Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Babker Book House, 1997) 135-136.

philosopher, seems to have a better grasp of the ramification of this question than most
theologians. Russell understood that if God is sovereign, human beings could not be free. On
the other hand, if man is free, God could not be sovereign. If God is not sovereign, God simply
is not God. Therefore, as Russell surveys this world, he came to the conclusion that human
beings have the freedom to choose their own destiny.6 Therefore, he rejected theism.
The Reformers have always understood God as sovereign over His universe. The
Westminster Confession of Faith state in Chapter III:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.
God is sovereign and foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. If anyone rejects this assertion
than in essence, they reject theism. God can only be God if He is sovereign. This means that in
some sense, God controls the whole universe and if anything occurs, it occurs because He
permitted it. A. W. Pink defines Gods sovereignty as follows:
The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say
that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He made for His
own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the
clay, i.e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He choose, fashioning out of
the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is
under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself,
and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any.7
The Reform View sees God as the mighty king who directs the course of history down to its
most minute details. His decree is seen as eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and sovereign. It
extends not only to creation but also to all activities in heaven and on earth, from the angels of
6

Bertrand Russell, Is There a God? The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11, 1952, 9 March 2005
(http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rusisgodtm)
7
Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics) 2, 9 March 2005
<http://www.reformed .org/books/pink/pink_sov_01.html>

heaven to the demons in hell. His sovereignty encompasses the whole scope of creaturely
existence through time and eternity. Therefore, the finite creation exists only as a medium
through which God manifest His glory. It is dependent on God for its existence; and therefore,
it could not create any condition which would limit or defeat the purpose of God.8
God is understood to be the creator of all that exists. He has supreme authority over all.
Any other authority, in heaven and on earth, is derived and dependent upon Gods authority.
They exist upon Gods command or His permission. He is the author of all things. As a result,
He has the right to do as He pleases with it.9 In addition, all power in the universe flows from
the power of God. He is the first cause of all things. Everything else is a secondary cause that
derived its power from God, the first cause. They are subordinate to Him and therefore, there
is no power that is outside of God which can frustrate His will.
If human freedom can frustrate the will of God, then human beings are actually
sovereign and not God. If one molecule resides outside of Gods power, than that one molecule
may be the one that thwart all of Gods promises. His promises would be meaningless because
He does not have the power to bring it to pass or to sustain it. If created beings have absolute
freedom, then Open Theists are correct in their assessment of Gods ability: that God does not
know the future of free will creatures. They would be correct in saying that God was blindsided
by Satans rebellion as well as humanitys sin. God did not anticipate or know what free
creatures were going to do and now He has to adjust and work with what has occurred. 10 If
God can be frustrated by free creatures in the past (Satan, demons and human beings), whats
8

Boettner, 14.
RC Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1986) 24.
10
Clark Pinnock, There is Room For Us: A Reply to Bruce Ware, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Socity, June 2002, 213-219, 11 March 2005 <http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/45/45-2/45-2-PP213219_JETS.pdf>
9

to stop an ongoing rebellion in the future? What power can keep free creatures from another
uprising? Those who hold to a libertarian view of freedom cannot escape this dilemma. As long
as free creatures remain absolutely free, being able to choose one way or another, there is no
guarantee that God will not have countless rebellions throughout eternity. He will continue to
be surprised by what free creatures will do because His actions do not always have their
intended results as Open Theists have expounded.11 Therefore, God is neither sovereign,
omnipotent, omniscient, or immutable. To follow the logic through, He simply is not God.
If God is not sovereign, then he is not God. Therefore, those who do not hold to the
sovereignty of God would have to call themselves atheists. Whether they realize it or not, they
are in some sense atheists. They do not believe in the God of the Bible. God has revealed
Himself to us through the Scriptures as the Sovereign One. We must accept Him as He has
revealed Himself. If we tried to mold God into our own image, we are making our own idols.
Systematic Theology is the science of gathering facts from Scripture and then determine their
relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their
harmony and consistency.12 It does not begin with a philosophical thesis and then try to find
evidence in the Scripture to support it. As hard as the opponents may try, there is no biblical
evidence to support libertarian free will unless one is willing to twist the Scripture. Does
Scripture reveal a sovereign God who absolutely has total control of his creation? The answer is
in the affirmative.

11

John Sanders, Be Wary of Ware: A Reply to Bruce Ware, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
June 2002, 221-231, 11 March 2005 <http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/45/45-2/45-2-PP 221-231_JETS.pdf>
12
Charles Hodges, Systematic Theology, 11 March 2005 <http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/Hodge
V1/Int_C01.htm>

SCRIPTURAL PROOF
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 18:14 "Is anything too hard for the LORD?"
Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
Psalms 115:3 "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him."
Psalms 135:6 "The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the
seas and all their depths.
Jeremiah 32:17 Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great
power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you."
Isaiah 14:24, 27 "The LORD Almighty has sworn, Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I
have purposed, so it will happen. 27For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart
him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?"
Isaiah 46:9-11 "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no
other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from
ancient times, what is still to come. I say, My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
11
From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do."
Isaiah 55:11 " so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
Daniel 4:35 "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases
with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand
or say to him: What have you done?
Matthew 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Romans 9:20 "But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say
to the one who formed it, Why did you make me like this?
Ephesians 1:11 "In him we were also chosen,[a] having been predestined according to the plan of
him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will"
Scripture begins with the book of Genesis that proclaimed God as the creator of heaven
and earth, making all that is. God claimed that I am God and there is none else; I am God and
7

there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times when thing
are not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure...yea I have
spoken; I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it (Isaiah 46:9-11). If humanity
chooses to reject the plain teaching of Scripture, then they are rejecting God.
The Reform View understands God to be sovereign and human beings as his creatures.
Since God is sovereign, He has the right to make out of the same clay some for noble use and
others for dishonorable use. He is sovereign in: The delegation of His power to others; The
exercise of His mercy; The exercise of His love; The exercise of His grace. 13 God loves whom He
chooses not because there is something good in the creature to attract His love. His election is
not base on human response. The Bible clearly states that before the twins were born or had
done anything good or bad-in order that Gods purpose in election might stand: not by works
but by him who calls-she was told, the older will serve the younger (Romans 9:11-12). The
Bible further states that human beings are by nature, children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).
Therefore, the cause of Gods election is not in the creature but in God Himself. Divine
election, then, is not based on human merit or anything in the creature. It is based on Gods
sovereign love and choice. As the sovereign ruler of His universe, He has the right and power to
choose to whom to dispense His grace.
FREEDOM OF THE WILL OR BONDAGE OF THE WILL
Those who hold to the Arminian position do so because of their view of human
freedom. They maintain that in order for human beings to have true responsibility, guilt,
penalty, and especially eternal penalty, there must be in the agent a free will. This free will is

13

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 3.

understood to be the power, even in the same circumstances and under the same motives, the
ability to choose either way. David Bassinger stated that for a person to be free with respect to
performing an action, he must have it within his power to choose to perform action A or
choose not to perform action A. Both A and not A could actually occur, which will actually
occur has not yet bee determine.14 Alvin Plantiga defined it this way:
If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that
action and free to refrain from performing it; no causal laws determine that he
will perform the action, or that he wont. It is within his power, at the time in
question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.15
Those who hold to libertarian free will argue that no human beings can be justly damned for a
choice they cannot help. James Arminius argued that those who hold to the Reform view is
advocating a doctrine that is repugnant to the nature of God, especially to those Attributes of
his nature by which he performs and manages all things, his wisdom, justice, and goodness. 16
The foundation for this view is that God is a loving being who wants his creatures to
choose him out of their own free will. If they do not have free will to choose or reject God,
then they do not really have free choice and therefore, any love that the creature has for God is
not true love. Clark Pinnock put it this way:
God is a lover wanting to be loved. He awaits a response to the love that gave us
being. Having said, I love you, God asks, Do you love me? and gives us
countless chances to say yess...the freedom that make yes possible also makes no
possible. To the invitation of love, one may respond gladly or refuse. Force love
is a contradiction in terms, and God does not force his love on us. God took risks in
the decision to make significantly free creatures.17

14

David Bassinger, Middle Knowledge and Classical Christian Thought, Religious Studies 22 (9186) 416.
Alvin Plantiga, God, Freedom and Evil (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 29.
16
James Arminius, On Predestination, The Works of James Arminius, Vol I, Sec VIII, 11 March 2005
<http://www.godrules.net/library/arminius/arminius7.htm>
17
Clark Pinnock, Flames of Love (Downers Grove: InterVarasity Press, 1996)75.
15

This view of human freedom leads to human or creaturely autonomy. Human

autonomy and Gods sovereignty cannot be compatible; one has to go because both cannot coexist with each other. This fact is evident throughout church history. Those who hold to a
libertarian view must diminish Gods attributes (i.e. His sovereignty, omniscience, immutability,
impassibility, eternity, etc.) in order to maintain their libertarian position. Either they elevate
the creature above the divine (i.e. Satanism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Finneyism) or they bring
the divine to a creaturely level (i.e. Mormonism, Jehovahs Witness, Process Theism, Open
Theism).
The harshest criticism against the Reformed View is that it makes human beings nothing
more than automatons if human beings do not have free will. Some argued that if God has to
penetrate into the human heart to regenerate it, this might as well be a divine rape of the
soul.18 However, the Reformers never took the position that human beings are simply
automatons. In this next section, we will look at the history of the Reform view on human
freedom.
St. Augustine
St. Augustine was careful to differentiate between liberum arbitrium (free will) and
libertas (liberty).19 After the fall, Augustine argued that human beings still have free will but
lost their liberty. They were created as both rational and volitional creatures but the fall
affected their minds by darkening and clouding it. They did not lose their faculty of thought
and can still think and reason. However, the fall seriously damaged humanitys volition
18

Robert A. Pyne and Stephen R. Spencer, A Critique of Free Will Theism, Part One, Bsac, Vol 158 #631, July
2001, 262. 13 March 2005 <http://www.matblackmon.com/pyne/A%20Critique%20of%Free
Will%20Theism%20Part%Two.pdf>
19
RC Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997) 63.

10

although it did not destroy their will. As a result, he argued that human beings continue to
have free will in the sense that it is not coerce by any external agencies or powers. The will is
still free to make choices according to its own desires but at the same time is in a state of
corruption. They are free to do what they want but the problem lies in the what they want.
Augustine reasoned that human beings have lost all innate desire to seek God, please God, or
have God in their thoughts after the fall. Therefore, what humanity lacks then is their libertythe freedom to do or choose good as well as evil. In his writings against Pelagius, he argued
that before the fall, human beings had the ability to sin (posse peccare) and the ability not to
sin (posse non peccare). After the fall, human beings only have the inability to not sin (non
posse peccare).20 This was humanitys moral condition because of original sin. It left human
beings in a state of moral inability. They do not have the power to choose God because they no
longer have the desire for Him. John G. Reisinger sums it up in the following chart: 21
Pre-Fall Man
able to sin
able to not sin

Post-Fall Man
able to sin
unable to not sin

Reborn Man
able to sin
able to not sin

Glorified Man
able to not sin
unable to sin

Martin Luther
Luther, in his debate with Erasmus regarding free will and salvation, wrote what he
considers his greatest work, Bondage of the Will. In it, Luther expounded that man do not have
real free choice. For by free choice is meant,
That which can, and does do God-ward, whatever it pleases, restrainable by no

20

Benjamin B. Warfield, The Theology of Grace: Augustine and the Pelegian Controversy, Part 4, 12 March 2005
<http://www.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformation ink/bbqpelagian4.htm>
21
John G. Reisinger, Human Nature in its Fourfold States, Thoughts on Augustines View on the Will, 12 March
2005 <http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/four-fold.html>

11

by no law and no command.22

For Luther, this free choice can only belong to God. God alone is free to do what He desires.
Humanity, on the other hand, is under the subjection of God and therefore is not free to act on
his own. A better choice word that Luther suggested to Erasmus was veritable choice, or
mutable choice, but not free choice, for this is a misrepresentation of what humanity truly
is.
Luther further argues from the book of Romans that humanity is depraved and the
wrath of God is being directed against them. All human beings are without exception, sinners.
Therefore, they are ungodly and unrighteous. As a result, the wrath of God is being poured out
from heaven against them. Since they are wicked, there is no power within them to freely will
and do that which is good.23 For Luther, total depravity means total inability. Commenting on
Romans 3:10, he concludes,
Are not the words most clear? And do they not declare this that all men are ignorant
of God and despise God, and then, turn unto evil and became unprofitable unto good? 24
Luthers concluding remark in his book is that free choice is nothing but a slave of sin, death,
and Satan. It is not capable of doing or attempting to do anything but evil.
John Calvin
John Calvin, the Swiss Reformer, whose name has been linked to this great debate,
argues in his Institutes that Original sin did not stop with Adam but that it passed down from
generation to generation. Through Adam, not only has punishment been derived, but

22

Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, First Part, Sec. 135, 12 March 2005
<http://www.geocities.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html#exordium>
23
Ibid, Discussion, Third Part, Sec. 141.
24
Ibid, Discussion, Third Part, Sec. 140.

12

pollution instilled, for which punishment is just due. 25 He defined Original sin as the
hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all parts of the soul, which first
makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works, which in Scripture are
termed works of the flesh.26 Calvin argued that even infants who do not yet produce the fruits
of their sin already have in them the seed. Their whole nature then, is like a seed-bed of sin
and therefore cannot be but an abomination to God. Like Augustine and Luther, Calvin views
human beings as totally corrupt. Their whole intellect, will, soul, and body is defiled and
concupiscence.
As a result of Original sin, human beings no longer have knowledge of God. Calvin states
that the most ingenious are blinder than moles when it comes to the knowledge of God. 27 He
argues from Scripture that human beings cannot comprehend the things of God. When the
Bible declares that human beings are under darkness, it means that they are void of all spiritual
intelligence. This is why Jesus declares that believers are born not of blood, nor of the will of
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). Therefore, regeneration takes place
before human beings can understand the things of God.
In regards to free will, Calvin argues that because of sin, human beings do not choose or
pursue that which is good due to their nature. Instead, they follow their own natural desires
like the lower animals. Human beings are led to make decisions by their natural inclinations
and therefore, they cannot choose the things of God without the Holy Spirit. 28

25

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Ch. I, sec. 8.
Ibid, Chapter II, Section 8.
27
Ibid, Chapter II, Section 18.
28
Ibid, Chapter II, sec. 26.
26

13

Jonathan Edwards
Jonathan Edwards, the great American theologian, published his book, On the Freedom
of the Will, in 1754. He argues that the faculty of thinking and choosing are intimately
interrelated. He defined the will as the mind choosing. 29 He looked at the problem in
relation to the law of causality, which states that every effect must have a cause. Since human
choices are an effect, they must have a cause and the cause is found in the mind. To Edwards,
choices are made for a reason and they are based on what we deemed to be good for us and
what is pleasing to us. Therefore, the mind considers an action to be good and on that basis a
choice is made. He concluded that all choices are caused by our inclinations.30
Edwards sees people as complex beings with complex motives and conflicting desires,
but they will always and everywhere choose according to their strongest inclination at the
moment of choosing. Without inclinations, there would be no choice. This then is the essence
of freedom: the ability to choose what we want. However, Edward distinguished between
natural ability and moral ability. He argued that natural man has the natural ability to make
choices and be volitional but lacks the moral ability to choose the things of God. 31 Humanity
lacks this moral ability because, in the Fall, they lost the disposition, desire, and inclination for
God. Therefore, human beings cannot choose God because they do not want to until and
unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them.
The Reformed view has always espoused that human beings are free agencies as argued
by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Edwards. This means that human beings still retain their
29

Jonathan Edwards, On the Freedom of the Will, Part I, Sec. I, 12 March 2005
<http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/on_freedom_of_the_will/sect1.htm>
30
Ibid, Part I, sec. II.
31
Ibid, Part I, sec. IV.

14

minds and is capable of making decisions. However, their desires are corrupt due to the effects
of sin. They lost the ability to know God and desire Him. The light they receive from general
revelation is only enough to damn them and not enough to save them. Even with the
knowledge from general revelation, they still reject God due to their own sinful desires
(Romans 1). Since humanity chooses what they desire, their choices are free because that is
the essence of freedom: choosing what you want. Their choice is base on their desires and
therefore it is self-determined. Since they are self-determining agents, they are responsible for
their actions and choices.
Though human beings are free, their freedom is limited by sin as well as by Gods
greater freedom. Human beings have some freedom but God is more free. If our freedom runs
up against Gods freedom, we lose.32 That is why there is hell and punishment. Secondly, we
are free to make decisions but sin controls us and therefore, we are voluntary slaves to sin.
That is the essence of the human condition. Unless God send the Holy Spirit to change the
inner disposition and Christ atoned for our sins, there would be no salvation for humanity.
When the Bible says that salvation is of the Lord, it means just that. It is the monergistic work
of God and not synergistic as free will opponents contend. Synergistic cooperation occurs only
after regeneration when human beings are given the power and desire to work with the Holy
Spirit to live the sanctified life.
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF HUMANITYS MORAL CONDITION
This controversy of Gods sovereignty versus human free will did not begin with Calvin
and Arminius or end with their death. It began in heaven with the sovereign God and Lucifer, a

32

RC Sproul, Chosen by God, 43.

15

created angel who later was named Satan. It was Lucifers desire to become like God that
caused his fall (Isaiah 14:12-14). Lucifer wanted to be autonomous, to live outside of Gods
sovereign rule that started the rebellion in heaven. Yet, Scripture is very clear that no creature
can overcome the sovereign God. In the end, Gods will is done and the creatures will be in
their rightful place (Revelations 22:1-5).
After God cast the rebellious angels out of heaven and created human beings, Satan
tempted Adam and Eve with the same sin that was in him. That temptation was to deceive the
first two people to become autonomous and choose their own destiny: You will be like God
(Genesis 3:5). When they made that critical choice, choosing to eat from the tree that God
forbid them to eat, they are in essence choosing their own autonomy. That choice was their
sin. It was the desire to be more free than what God has already given them. In defying that
boundary, they overrule Gods sovereignty and set themselves above the most high. As a
result, God cursed and judged them.
What the opponent of the Reformed view failed to realize is that humanity is already
condemned (John 3:18). Human beings were already judged and found guilty. They are simply
waiting for execution. In the meantime, God granted mercy on certain individuals and
pardoned them by providing the means for the remission of sin through the work of Jesus
Christ. The great preacher, Charles Spurgeon, preached that human beings are already dead
legally, spiritually, will one day die physically and then be eternally separated from God. 33
Scripture is clear in regards to the human condition. There is no ambiguity about human
sinfulness. From Genesis to Revelation, human beings are portrayed as evil. The very first child
33

Charles H. Spurgeon, Free Will A Slave, a sermon deliver on December 2, 1885, 13 March 2005
<http://www.txdirect.net/-tgarner/chspur8.htm>

16

of Adam and Eve murdered his own brother (Genesis 4:8). Two chapters away in Genesis six,
Scripture revealed that God looks down and only saw the wickedness of human beings. As a
result, He sends a flood to eradicate the whole human race except for eight people. Is
humanity any different today than those in Noahs time? The answer is no. The Israelites,
who were Gods chosen people, was privileged to witness the manifestation of Gods power
and yet still rejected Him. God performed one miracle after another for their very own eyes as
well as descended into their mist and they still chose to follow their own sinful desires rather
than submit to His commands. Of the millions who came out of Egypt and witnessed the
miracles that God performed in the wilderness, only two, Joshua and Caleb, were allowed into
the promise land because they were faithful. The history of the Israelites proved that unless
the heart is changed by an outside power, God, the human disposition would never move
toward God even if He appeared in all of His glory. Who are we to think that we can choose
God out of our own volition? Only one who is blind and deceived would think there is such a
power within the human individual to choose God out of his or her own free will.
Jesus who is God in the flesh, taught that no one can come to me unless the one who
sent me (Father) draws him and I will raised him up at the last days (John 6:44) and no one can
come to me unless the Father enabled him (John 6:65). These texts clearly reveal human
inability in terms of choosing Christ. No one means just that. No individual can move toward
Christ unless the Father enables him or her. How does the Father enable? He enables by
sending the Holy Spirit to regenerate the individual as Jesus explained to Nicodemus. I tell you
the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit. Flesh
gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to spirit (John 3:5-6). The requirement for entering

17

heaven is a new birth by the Holy Spirit. This new birth cannot be initiated by human beings
through their own volition. All that the Father give me will come to me and whoever comes to
me I will not drive away (John 6:37). Only those whom the Father gives to Christ will go to
him. For Paul specifically stated that those without the Holy Spirit are hostile to God (Romans
8:7) and blind to the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). If one is blind to the things of God,
meaning that the things of God do not make sense to him or her, and at the same time is
hostile to God, how can such a person desire Christ to be his or her Lord? They dont.
In addition, as argued by the Reformed View, God does not love an individual because of
his or her meritorious work but Gods love is from within Himself. It is a gift from God to the
Christian. Therefore, there is nothing human beings can do to merit the love of God. What
then is the deciding factor that triggers the movement of the Holy Spirit towards the sinner to
cause a new birth? According to the above verses, it is the Father who gives to Christ by
sending the Holy Spirit to regenerate the human heart. That individual is able to make a
response to Christ because a new heart has been created to understand, desire and embraced
the things of God as promised by God in Ezekiel 36:26. God promised in Ezekiel that one day He
will be the one to give human beings a new heart so that it can follow his commands. That
promise was fulfilled in John chapter three when Jesus taught Nicodemus about the new birth.
In addition, Jesus and Paul clearly taught that human beings are slaves to sin (John 8:34;
Romans 6:15). This is why the Reformed View believes in total depravity. Human beings are
totally incapable of making a movement toward Christ because they are dead in their sin
(Ephesians 2:1). Since they are dead in their sins and unable to come to Christ, God must first
elects, choose whom to dispense His grace, and sends the Holy Spirit to make him or her alive

18

in Christ (Ephesians 2:5). Therefore, divine election is the ultimate manifestation of Gods love
towards humanity. Without election, there would be no mercy and therefore no love shown.
All that human beings would receive is Gods justice, not love.
CONCLUSION
If anyone holds to a libertarian view of free will, they must conclude that human beings
have the power within themselves to move towards God. If that is the case, then there is no
need for grace, mercy or the Holy Spirit. Their salvation would be based on their own
meritorious work. If Gods election of mankind were based on His foreknowledge of their
response as the Arminians believed, then justification would be based on human works. Paul
strongly refuted this notion in Romans chapter three. If salvation is based on human works
then it is no longer grace but justice. God would owe salvation to those who obtained it by
their good works of first choosing Christ while still dead in their sins. If while still dead in their
sins, they still posses the ability to choose Christ, why would they need grace, mercy or even
Christ. They can use that power of choice and live a holy life without a need for Christ at all.
While trying to assists God, Arminians or Libertarians has taken away the glory and honor that
alone belongs to God. Salvation is no longer of the Lord but of humanitys own choice.
A libertarian view of human freedom may be philosophically sustained but it is not
biblically possible nor does it correspond to reality. There is no evidence in the history of the
human race that anyone has reach perfection out of their own free will except Jesus Christ.
Human beings can deceive themselves to believe that they have within them the power to
attain salvation out of their own free will, but the reality is that God has reserved that duty,
glory and honor to Himself. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that God gave prevenient grace

19

to sinners so that they have the power to choose Christ. The Bible only teaches that all have sin
and fall short of the glory of God and that no one can come to Christ unless the Father enables
him or her (Romans 3:23; John 6:65). J.I. Packer summarizes these two views perfectly in his
introduction to John Owens book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save
Himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering
of lost mankind election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit
as directed toward the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The
other view gives each act a different reference (the object of redemption being all
mankind, of calling, all who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who
respond), and denies that mans salvation is secured by any of them. The two
theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes
salvation depend on the work of God, the other on the work of man; one regards faith
as part of Gods gift of salvation, the other as mans own contribution to salvation; one
gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between
God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing
operated it.34
May God alone receive all the glory and honor that He alone deserve.

34

Quote by J.I. Packer in his introduction to a 1958 reprint of John Owens The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ. 13 March 2005. <http://www.graciouscall.org/books/owen/death/preface.html>

20