Romans 5:12-21 - Original Sin Proof Text Exposed

Romans 5:12-21

Original Sin Proof Text Exposed

Ever since Augustine introduced Platonic philosophical thought into theology, the church had been plagued with various brands of determinism.  Today Calvinism and Universalism are the two main deterministic trends of this branch of thinking.  Neo-Calvinism can be considered the core theology of fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. and many Christians today question the validity of free will.  It is not at all surprising that the idea of determinism has such strength considering American secular thought in education, art and the media teach it's own brand of determinism; naturalistic determinism.  The only difference between naturalistic determinism and the Christian brands is the replacement of "nature" with some concept of "god" as the primary determiner.  Christian determinism is rooted in several key concepts, one of which is the idea of Original Sin in which all men are made sinners because of Adam's sin.  The loss of relationship between God and mankind is due to the supposed choice of one man.  Thus all men are born sinners and are not ever capable of making any good choices.  Man is totally depraved and has no free will.  Faith and salvation are gifts of God given to those whom He has chosen, at his own discretion.  The difference between Calvinism and Universalism lies only in the idea that Universalism states all mankind are or will eventually be given faith and salvation.

Many of the key proof texts for Original Sin are found in Paul's letter to the Romans.  The choice of English words loaded with deterministic nuances to translate the original Greek by biased determinism believing translators muddle a true understanding of the text but even with the current English translations, one need not succumb to a Calvinistic nor a Universalistic conclusion that Paul in the letter to the Romans supports Original Sin in any way.  The main error of those who claim the passages clearly support determinism is found in the cut and paste method of exegesis where three or four verses that appear to support their belief are taken out of context and interpreted by themselves.

The Importance of Contextualization

In this writing I would like to take a close look at the Romans 5:12-21 text, but before that I want to take a little aside to demonstrate the importance of sound hermeneutics in the area of contextualization.  Consider the following story.

(Paragraph 2) Before he went to his friend's house to play, John asked his mother if it was all right if he got a chocolate bar on his way home and his mother said "OK" and give him some money.  John played with his friends all afternoon and come 4:30 p.m. he thought it was time to go home.  He left his friend's house and dropped into the convenience store on his way home.  After he got home, he ate dinner, watched TV and went to bed.  The next morning John's brother Mark got up went downstairs and thanked his mother for the chocolate bar he ate the day before.  His mother smiled, said "You're welcome." and went on about her business.

Now I don't know about you but I have some problems with the way Mark's mother reacted.  Shouldn't she have been surprised at Mark's statement?  Shouldn't she have asked him where he got the chocolate bar?  Or if she thought John was involved, wouldn't she have asked, "Oh did John share his chocolate bar with you?"  And if John shared his chocolate bar wouldn't Mark have thanked John instead of his mother?

The fact is, there is no mention of Mark asking for money for a chocolate bar or receiving any in the paragraph.  There is no mention of him buying a chocolate bar,though we can infer that John did.  There is no mention of Mark at all until he came downstairs the next day.  Was Mark with John playing at his friends house?  Did he receive money for a chocolate bar too?  Could that be the reason why his mother reacted the way she did?  But the paragraphs doesn't say so does it?  This is the problem we run into when we look at only part of the context of a story.  Had we read the paragraph before paragraph 2 we could have understood the story better.

(Paragraph 1) John and Mark are brothers.  John is 10 and his brother is 7.  They are very close and often play together.  In fact Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does.  One day their mother took them to play with their friends down the block.  She was a good mother and she told John he was to look after his brother and come home in time for dinner.  John promised he would.

Wow, all of a sudden we understand what happened.  John and Mark both went to their friends house to play.  Mark was there when John asked for the money for the chocolate bar.  Their mother gave money to both of them.  She's a good mother.  Both of them went into the convenience store, bought chocolate bars and ate them.  Both of them ate dinner, watched TV together and in the morning Mark thanked his mother.  We understand this because of the extra information of paragraph 1.  Paragraph 1 is a part of the context of paragraph 2.  Now let me rewrite paragraph 2 in light of what we know from paragraph one.  I could write it in the following way:

(Paragraph 2, rewritten.) Before he (John) want to his friends house to play (with his brother Mark, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does and because his mother took both of them there), John asked his mother if it was all right if he got a chocolate bar on his way home (and his brother Mark whom he often plays together and follows John around all day and does pretty much everything John does and was with him because his mother took him with John to their friend's house watched on expectantly) and his mother (who was a good mother) said "OK" and give him (that is John, and his brother who often play together with John and follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does) some money.  John played with his friends all afternoon (along with his brother because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does and because his mother took both of them there) and come 4:30 p.m. he (John) thought it was time to go home (with his brother whom his mother told him to look after, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does).  He left his friend's house and on the way home dropped into the convenience store (with his brother whom his mother told him to look after, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does) on his way home. (The two boys bought chocolate bars and ate them.) After he (John) got home, he ate dinner (with his brother....ah forget it, you get the point),watched TV (with his brother....) and went to bed.  The next morning John's brother Mark got up went downstairs and thanked his mother for the chocolate bar he ate the day before.  His mother smiled, said "You're welcome." (because she was a good mother) and went on about her business.

Now of course this revision of the second paragraph is a lot more understandable than the original because there is no need to make any inferences or add back any of the "understood" information, but it would be extremely boring because of all the redundancy.  Nobody writes like that, but anyone who has studied Noam Chomsky's generative grammar knows that all of the inferences and extra understood information that I have put in parentheses (and much more) is actually understood in the minds of both the writer and the reader.  Understanding language is a combination of both bottom up and top down strategies.  Contextualization and infrencing are absolutely necessary in understanding any linguistic information, spoken or written whether it be in English or in Greek. 

Therefore to understand one verse, Romans 5:18 for instance, one must understand what was written before and after the verse.  Information in chapter 1 to 4 may be just as vital to the understanding of what is in 5:18 as verse 18 itself.

The Contextualization of Romans 5:12-21

Now let us take a look at the passage.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned —  13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.  14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!  16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.  19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 

Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If verse 18 is taken alone it would appear that Paul is making a case for Original Sin and Universal Salvation.  "Condemnation" for "all men" was the result of the "one trespass" by Adam and "justification" for "all men" was the result of the "one act of righteousness" by Jesus Christ.  And if verse 18 was all the information we had then it stands to reason that both Original Sin and Universal Salvation were valid.  But as I stated before, we must look at the context and find what is already "understood" by the writer and should be understood by the reader; the redundant information that Paul chose not to repeat.

The key to understanding Paul's teaching about Original Sin is found six verses earlier in verse 12.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

Paul does not say death came to all men because Adam sinned; he says death came to all men because all sinned.  In other words Paul believes all men are held accountable for their lifestyle just like Adam and Eve and Cain and Able were.  And because all men sin, they all receive the exact same punishment for sin; they are separated from God in relational death.  In verses 13 to 14, Paul states that this accountability is not influenced by the absence of the written law.  Humanly speaking there is no guilt if no law was broken.  That's why societies make laws about everything.  Men are not held accountable (at least not to the same measure) for sin unless they know what they are doing is wrong.  Hence we say to our children, "Well next time you do this you are going to get a spanking."  We make allowance for ignorance.  But from God's perspective, a person is a sinner if he doesn't "do what is right" (Genesis 4:7), regardless of whether he has received a specific law against a specific sin or not.  Thus Paul says, "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command."

What Paul is doing in Romans 5, is eliminating any discussion about whether the Gentiles can be let off for their sinful behavior on account of not having the written law, like the Jews had.  Paul's contention is that everyone is judged by how he or she lived, regardless of whether they had specific laws against sinful behavior.  All are sinners because all sin and all are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

Now understanding verse 15 to 21 is a little bit trickier than verses 12 to 14.  In verses 12 to 14 Paul added the qualifier "because all sinned"; "death came to all men, because all sinned".  In verse 15 to 21 he doesn't add the qualifier because it's understood.  In leaving out the qualifier verse 18 is left open for interpreters to believe Paul is making a case for Original Sin. But that's not the only qualifier Paul leaves out.  In speaking about salvation from sin, he leaves out the qualifier, "for those who believe in Jesus Christ." thus opening the door for some interpreters to make a case for Universalism, that people are saved by Christ's death and resurrection regardless of whether they have faith or not.

Let's take a look at the qualifiers for faith in Christ.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.  There is no difference,  23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Notice the two uses of the word "all" here!  Firstly, "all" who "believe" receive righteousness which comes "through faith".  Secondly, "all" have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 4:23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone,  24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.  25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. 

There is no way from these two verses that Paul believes in Universalism.  Salvation and righteousness comes by faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Now lets look at verses 15 to 21 and add the qualifiers, the understood information back into the text.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (because like him all sinned), how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many (who believe in him)!

When we add back the qualifiers that Paul previously gave then his meaning becomes clear.  Everyone, everywhere, whether Jew or Gentile is a sinner because we sin like Adam our ancestor.  And everyone, everywhere, whether Jew or Gentile are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.  There is no difference between Jew or Gentile, in Christ we are one people, one church, one holy nation.  That's what Paul's been arguing for since verse 1 of chapter 1, and will be what he argues for until the end of the letter.

Now lets read verses 16 to 20 again, adding back the qualifiers.

Romans 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (because all sin), but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification (for all those who believe).  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (because all sin), how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (because all sin), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (who believe in Christ).  19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (because all sin), so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (who believe in Christ). 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

The reason Paul chooses to contrast Adam and Christ here in chapter 5 is because both Jews and Gentiles are descendants of Adam.  Earlier in chapter 4 he dealt with Abraham, but Gentiles cannot relate to Abraham, but they can relate to Adam. But in no way does Romans 5 teach Original Sin. Paul states several times, including verse 12, and 3:23 that separation from God in relational death occurs in mankind because everyone sins.  Neither sin nor the penalty for Adam's sin is inherited.  The only thing that can be said to be "inherited" or passed down is the accountability for sin.  All men are held accountable for their actions just as Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were.  Adam "died" because of his one sin.  We die because of our sins.

Romans 5 also does not teach universalism.  Paul states several times including verse 17, 3:22 and 4:23 that God's grace and gift of eternal life is only for those who receive it in faith.  All who have faith in Christ receive the gift that brings justification.  Those that have no faith are left in their sins.

The reason Paul leaves out the qualifiers is for brevity.  He doesn't want to be redundant.  We need to be careful not to take scripture out of context and make it say the opposite of what it does.  Romans 5 cannot be used in support of determinism in any form.

Does God React? - A Response to one Calvinist's Ravings.

Does God React?

A Response to one Calvinist's Ravings.

The following was written by Josiah Luke Spencer in his facebook note.  My Response will follow.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/josiah-luke-spencer/does-god-react/498456539053

What Spencer wrote.

"And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren."  Genesis 29:31.  Did God react?  There is much language in the Bible that would seem to declare that God reacts to human events just like we humans do. 

    There seems to be more to the issue, however.  When we look at James 1:17 we read this: Every good gift and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, or shadow of turning."  So, God does not/cannot change.  How could God alter His course of action if He does not change? 

    And yet, we see a few places that say God repents.  What about Numbers 23:19: God is not a man that he should lie: neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?  How do we coalesce the two?

    What about Ephesians 1:11  In whom we also have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.  

    God is eternal, is He not?  There is much in the Bible that speaks of God in terms that men can understand.  Human emotions and human actions/reactions are ascribed to God because we could understand no other way.  If God had explained this all in detail to us in the Bible, we'd still be lost. 

    The problem is that we cannot understand how an eternal God interacts with a time-bound Creation.  How does that happen?  How is it possible?   This quandary is what has led to the Arminian/Calvinist argument.  Calvinists protect God's sovereignty and Arminian's protect God's fairness.  The only problem is, God doesn't say anything about being fair.  He says He will do as He pleases (Romans 9).  He will have mercy on whomever He chooses.

    So, did God react to sin by sending Jesus Christ?  Well, Revelation 13:8 calls Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.  So, no.

    God does not react.  Somehow He interacts with us, but we cannot understand this.  We, real active agents, are working out a plan that He works according to His own will.

My Response

Introduction

Really this whole discussion is about free will isn't it?  Is God in total control of everything that happens?  If every event in the universe is determined by God including every action man does, including man's predestination to salvation or damnation, then it can't be conceivable that God could actually change his mind.  If every action in the universe is determined, then every action of God within the universe must be written in stone.  He can never make a mistake.  He can never change his mind.  He can never repent.  He can never react.  He can never respond.  He is just as mechanical as the universe he makes.  Let's take a look at the passages used.  And for the record I use the terms "react" and "respond" interchangeably.  They mean the same thing.

Genesis 29:31

In Genesis 29:31 God blessing Leah rather than Rachel is a way to bring about his covenant promise to make Jacob into a great nation.  He used the situation of the two sisters to his advantage to bring about his promise, otherwise he wouldn't have interfered.  Did he react?  Of course he did.  The feud between the two women was too good to pass up and it helped God make a nation.

James 1:17

James 1:17 is a statement about God's faithfulness to keep his covenant.  He is trustworthy.   It is not a statement about God's not being able to change or altar His course of action.  He is a freewill being.  His determination to keep his word does not in any way hinder his ability to make choices and adjust them as he pleases.

Numbers 23:19

Numbers 23:19 is also about God keeping his covenant promises.  If you look at the parallelisms it's quite clear.  Once God promises something he fulfills it, he acts upon what he has said and he doesn't change his mind (repent) about keeping his covenant.  That would make him into a liar.  This verse again does not limit God's ability to change his mind in any way.  All it says is he will keep his agreements.

But God does change his mind.  Genesis 6:1-8.  God regretted making man because man was a lot more sinful than he calculated he would be.  Such is the limitation of God when it comes to free will beings.  When God made Adam and gave him free will he limited himself to dealing with man in our universe's time dimension.  One cannot know  the choices of a free will being.  The fact is, he made a mistake in the calibration of man's life span and he started over after the flood, giving mankind a 120 year maximum life span as compared to 1000 before the flood.  In this way God limited mankind's expression of sin.  (Notice God miscalculated the depth of man's sin, a miscalculation is not a sin.)

Ephesians 1:11

In Ephesians 1:3-14, God's will and plan is for salvation to be through the New Covenant in Christ, not through the law or any other covenant.  In verse 3 the promises of the covenant are stipulated to be spiritual in nature and he elaborates what they are.  In verse 4 it says that before the creation of the world, it was planned (predestined) that through Christ ( in him) the Ephesians would be made holy and blameless in God's sight.  Salvation through Christ is what is predestined not specific individuals.  Calvinism perverts this verse.  Again verse 6 states that the adoption to be God's sons was predestined to be through Jesus Christ.  Verse 6 states that God's grace, (salvation through the New Covenant) is freely given.  Now if as the Calvinists say, that specific people are already predestined for salvation, how can salvation be said to be freely given?  There is no freedom involved at all.  Verse 7 again emphasizes that it is through Christ that redemption and forgiveness of sins is lavished on the Ephesians.  Verse 9 states that the mystery was made known and proposed through Christ, and was implemented when the (end) times (of the Old Covenant) reached their fulfillment.  All heaven and earth are brought together in Christ.  Then in verse 11-12 he states again that the plan of God is predestined again in Christ.  So that those who hope in Christ, through the New Covenant might give God praise and glory.  Verse 13 states how the Ephesians received the predestined covenant promises.  They were included "in Christ" by hearing and believing the word, the gospel of salvation and were given the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of the inheritance till Christ's parousia and redemption.

Let's review  the passage in a different way.  The promises of the New Covenant are specifically listed and are through Christ.  In fact Christ and the Covenant are almost synonymous to Paul.  Simply put, the parties of the New Covenant are God and anyone who is IN CHRIST.  The terms of the covenant are for believers to be LIKE CHRIST.  And the promises are that they will be WITH CHRIST.  So Christ is all in all.

The New Covenant promises listed in the passage are:

1. "every spiritual blessing in Christ" (3)

2. "in him....to be holy and blameless in God's sight" (4)

3. "to be adopted as his sons though Jesus Christ" (5)

4. "in him we have redemption...the forgiveness of sins" (7)

5. "made known...the mystery of his will...which he proposed in Christ" (9)

6. "to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ (10)

7. "in him...we might be the praise of his glory" (12)

8. "marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Sprit...guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption" (13-14)

Notice the promises are all "in Christ" given to those "in Christ".  The covenant and the promises are what are predestined though Christ.  Those who hear and believe the gospel and join the New Covenant through baptism into Christ receive them.  God's GRACE to us is THE NEW COVENANT IN CHRIST.  It is a free gift.  We receive the gift in faith through our free will.  Deterministic Calvinism kills covenant.  Deterministic Calvinism kills Christianity.

Anthropomorphism

Spencer says, "Human emotions and human actions/reactions are ascribed to God because we could understand no other way.  If God had explained this all in detail to us in the Bible, we'd still be lost."  That's an often used appeal to dismiss God's emotions.  It's called anthropomorphism.  But if God's emotions as recorded in the Bible can't be trusted then how can we trust Jesus?  Was Jesus' emotions faked so that we could understand him?  Are God's love, anger, regret, sadness, joy all faked?  Is God a deceiver and liar?

Does the parable of the lost son actually portray God's emotions or is it all anthropomorphism?  If God as the Calvinist claims, knows all future events then how can he have joy when one sinner repents?  If he is controlling and giving the sinner faith in the first how can he have joy when the sinner repents?  And if he already knows who will or won't be saved then how  much fun is that?  It's like watching the same sports game over again.  No fun if you already know  who is going to win.  How can the father display so much joy if he knows if that the prodigal will return, when the prodigal with return, and what he will say when he returns?  There is no joy in that.  Give me a break!  Calvinism turns God into a mechanistic monster.

If the scriptures cannot be trusted about God's emotions then how can we trust it about anything else?  Anthropomorphism is a Calvinistic way to depersonalize God, because free will and personality go together.

Romans 9

The whole point of Romans 9 is not the individual election of some to be saved and others to be damned.  The point of Romans 9 is that God makes the rules when it comes to salvation and if he decided it should be through the New Covenant in Christ, nobody has any authority to challenge his decision.  The Old Covenant Jews cannot complain that they are the pottery made to be an "object of his wrath" to shortly be destroyed. The Old Covenant had it's purpose in God's plan.  Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law  and in so doing paid the price for sin.

Verse 30 makes it very clear that the Jews were complaining about the Gentiles.  They were saying God's unfair in verse 14.  But Paul says no.  God will have mercy on who he will have mercy.  If he decides to grant mercy to the Gentiles too than that's his prerogative.  If he decides it must be through faith in Christ in the New Covenant rather than the Old Covenant then that's his prerogative too.

God chose to fulfill his promise to Abraham through Isaac rather than Ishmael.  Abraham tried to bring about the promise on his own.  God said no, it is I who decides.  The promise does not come through one's own efforts.  God chose to fulfill his promise through Jacob instead of Esau.  It is not though firstborn birthright that the promise is brought about.  God decides not man.  And notice in both cases it is the younger rather than the older that is chosen.  Paul says this is figurative of God choosing the New Covenant to bring about his promise rather than the Old. (Galatians 4:21-32)

Pharaoh was raised up to bring about God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:13-16.  So also, Israel was raised up for it's purpose to bring about the New Covenant and then be destroyed.  The Jews cannot complain.  God decides how he wants to bring about his salvation plan.

Romans 9 describes God's prerogative to set up salvation through Christ in the New Covenant.  It is not about individual predestination as the Calvinists want us to believe.  All scripture must be read in context.  Pulling verses out of context is bad exegesis.

Revelation 13:8

Finally we come to Revelation 13:8.  Spencer says that "Revelation 13:8 calls Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."  It is central to his argument that the sending of Jesus wasn't in response to man's sin because he was the lamb of God prior to man's creation.  Although I agree with Spencer that Jesus' death was planned before the foundation of the world this verse cannot be used to defend it.

Although NIV and KJV put the phrase "from the foundation (creation) of the world at the end of the verse, the NASB and NRSV do not.  The latter two are clearer.  Everyone who has ever lived from the foundation of the world, regardless of whether their names are written in the book of life or not, will worship the Lamb that was slaughtered.

Revelation 13:8 And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.  (NASB)

8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.  (NRSV)

I also need to note that there are theologians, Max King for instance, that interpret the phrase "foundation of world" as "foundation of the New Covenant world", and this is equally possible.  But even if Christ's atonement was pre-planned before the foundation of the world.  It is no argument that God does not change his mind or respond/react to free will decisions made by mankind.

The Personality of God disproves Calvinism

The answer to this problem is not knowing whether God reacts in our universe's timeline but whether he and we are free will beings.  Deterministic Calvinism is a lie.  Free will is what we experience.  Free will is the foundation of covenant.  If man who was made in the image of God has no free will then it stands to reason that neither does God.  And that is exactly what Spencer has been arguing.  He claims, God cannot change, He cannot make a mistake, He cannot respond, He cannot react, He has no emotions, He is not personal.  That's not the description of a powerful God that's the description of an impotent one.  If God is only a machine then there really is no difference between Christianity and Naturalism.  God becomes nothing more than nature in extra-dimensions, nature in the spiritual world.  Hence the syllogism: God is machine.  Nature is machine.  God is nature.  (Might as well become Buddhist then, because that is exactly what they teach.)  Is this the road we want to travel?

Free will is an extension of personality and if Francis Schaeffer was right and God is personal then He must exercise free will.  Man is made in the image of God.  The personality of God disproves Calvinism.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism - Relationship, Power, Love and Free Will

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Relationship, Power, Love and Free Will

The Calvinist vs. Arminian conflict is not a God's will vs. Man's will one.  God's will is understood through the words of Jesus, "Thy kingdom come thy will be done."  There is a parallelism here.  The coming of God's New Covenant kingdom IS God's will.  Neither the Calvinist nor the Armenian is against the Kingdom of God.  Both want the kingdom to come and to thrive.  Both desire God's will to be done.  There is no conflict here.

The Calvinist vs. Arminian conflict stems from a different emphasis of God's attributes.  The Calvinist champions God's power.  The emphasis of power comes from the influence of Platonic ideology that God must display absolute power in order to be almighty.  God cannot be limited by anything because it would mean he is weak and without power.  Thus all the Greek gods practiced both good and evil.  If God was not in control of everything he would be seen as weak.  Thus anything in the Bible that detracts from God's power, such as man exercising is own will, is explained away as God allowing the man to think he is exercising his free will but in reality, his fate is already foreseen, planned, predetermined and predestined.  God attribute of power is important but is it all important?

The Arminian on the other hand champions relationship.  In order for relationship to exist, God self limits his power.  He chooses to act in the best interests of the other party in the relationship.  God limits his power to doing good rather than evil.  He choses to love the other party.  (Love is power restrained.  The ability to restrain power is more powerful then power, because it stops power and controls it.  God could wipe us out for sin, but gracefully restrains his power to grant us mercy and a chance to be forgiven if we repent.)

Relationships don't work when one party forces his will on the other.  Love cannot exist in such a system.  God cannot demand someone to love him.  A person must be free to love for love to be genuine.  Thus God does an incredible thing.  He limits his power to make free will beings and although he could control them if he wants to, he chooses not to.  He allows them to sin though it is his desire (will) that they do not.  He could force them to their knees but restrains his power to persuade (or draw) them to him by loving them first and asking them to love him back.  Christ's death on the cross is the ultimate act of love; the ultimate act of restrained power; the ultimate act of persuasion.  That's why the gospel is powerful.  Paul says the gospel is God's power for salivation.  One is free to accept the gospel or reject it.

But it's more complicated than that.   Another great attribute of God is his justice.  Calvinism negates justice.  If men's actions are predetermined and he has no will but to abide by God's predestination then he cannot be held accountable for them.  The basis of all justice is the idea of "eye for an eye", and justice requires repayment.  Repayment in most cases must be forced (an exercise of power).  Thus God must exercise power to bring about justice.

The beauty of the New Covenant is that it brings all these wonderful attributes of God into play.  Man's sin requires repayment because God is a just God.  The repayment is described as "eternal destruction".  Man must repay by the forfeiture of his eternal life.  But God in grace, restrains his power and offers man forgiveness provided he repents out of free will.  God exercises his power through the gospel.  Christ dies in place of man and satisfies the demands of justice for those who choose to have a relationship with him.  Those who don't want a relationship with God are not forced to have one.  They are allowed (given over) to go their own way to destruction.

The relationship God offers man is through Christ in the New Covenant.  It is a loving relationship because both parties agree to to become covenant parties out of their own free will.  The parties of the New Covenant are God and anyone of his own free will who, believes, repents and allows Christ's blood to cleanse him of sin through baptism.  The primary term(s) (obligations of the weaker party) of the New Covenant is the free will response of the believer to love God in return and to act in God's best interests (chesed).  To love God includes love of one's neighbor as well.  Thus the believer, out of his own free will, resolves to live like Christ and seek to save the lost like Christ did.  The promises (obligations of the stronger party) of the New Covenant are forgiveness of sins, restitution of eternal life and inclusion in the kingdom of God a relationship that will last forever.

Justice can only be exercised on free will beings.  Love can only be given by free will beings.  Relationship cannot be forced, it must be freely chosen by both parties.  Restrained power is greater than power.  The New Covenant relationship allows God to exercise, justice, power and love in harmony.