You Shall Be With Me In Paradise

Elsewhere on my blog I've argued that, in contrast with what most Christians believe,  those who have died are actually dead and must be restored by God to a living existence (which occurs when they're resurrected) in order for them to consciously go or be anywhere. For those interested in reading more on this important subject, the following are some articles on my blog in which I've defended my understanding of what Scripture reveals concerning the nature of death and the state of the dead: 

Life after Death (Part 3): http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/06/life-after-death-part-3.html (links to parts 1 and 2 of this series are included)

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-parable-of-rich-man-and-lazarus.html

A Defense of the Reality of Christ's Death: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/12/a-defense-of-reality-of-christs-death.html

Now, Christ's words in Luke 23:43 are commonly believed to be inconsistent with the view defended in the above articles. According to what most Christians believe, Christ promised the malefactor to whom he spoke that he would be in "paradise" on the day that he died (or rather, on the day his body died, as most Christians see it). By "paradise," most Christians believe that Jesus was referring to either heaven (where God sits enthroned) or to a mysterious region in the "netherworld" where the "disembodied souls" of the righteous dead were thought to temporarily reside. But is this interpretation required by the original inspired text? 

Here is how Luke 23:39-43 reads in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Now one of the hanged malefactors blasphemed Him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" Yet answering, the other one, rebuking him, averred, "Yet you are not fearing God, seeing that you are in the same judgment! And we, indeed, justly, for we are getting back the deserts of what we commit, yet this One commits nothing amiss." And he said to Jesus, "Be reminded of me, Lord, whenever Thou mayest be coming in Thy kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise."

The original Greek manuscripts had no punctuation, and so commas must be provided by the translators. In the case of this verse, the placement of the comma is just as much a matter of interpretation as it is of grammar, so the fact that most English translations place the comma after "truth" (or "you") instead of "today (or "this day") simply shows the preferred interpretation of the translators, and not how the Greek has to be translated in order to be grammatically correct. The Greek adverb translated "today" or "this day" (sēmeron) may qualify either legô ("I am saying") or esomai ("shall you be").

Because either option is grammatically possible, the question of where the comma should be placed when translating the verse into English must be determined by other considerations. Christ's words, "Truly, I say to you, this day you shall be with me in paradise," may just as legitimately be constructed as, "Truly, I say to you this day, you shall be with me in paradise." By placing the comma after "today" instead of "you," the fulfillment of Christ's promise need not be confined to the day in which they died, but may be understood as having its fulfillment at some time in the distant future. This translation is not only grammatically valid, but it makes Christ's words consistent with what the rest of Scripture teaches (as well as what Christ himself said) concerning the state of the dead.

In addition to the Concordant Version, J.B. Rotherham (in his Emphasized Bible) translates Luke 23:43 as follows: "Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise." It's interesting that Rotherham included a footnote giving the more traditional reading, even though he disagreed with it. Of course, he didn't have as much to lose as the people working on modern translation committees (who likely would not have been on the committees in the first place were it not for their commitment to what is commonly considered "historic evangelical orthodoxy"). While holding to the belief that the dead are actually dead (and thus functionally inactive and unconscious) would not be considered as serious an error as, say, a rejection of the doctrine of hell or of the trinity, this belief is still considered inconsistent with historic evangelical orthodoxy, and would likely disqualify someone from being on the translation committee to begin with.

Objection: "Don't these translations make the word "today" redundant and unnecessary?"

Answer: Not at all. The word "today" (or "this day") was often used by the Hebrew people idiomatically, to introduce a solemn and important statement. According to this Hebrew/Aramaic idiom, "today/this day" often follows a verb of declaration, testification, command or oath, and emphasizes the solemnity and importance of the occasion or moment. Paul, for example, used this idiom in Acts 20:26 when he declared, "Therefore I testify to you this day (semeron) that I am innocent of the blood of all of you" (Acts 20:26). 

This idiom actually occurs about 70 times in Scripture, with 42 instances being found in the Book of Deuteronomy alone (see, for example, Deut. 4:26, 39, 40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; 10:13; 11:2, 8, 13, 26, 27, 28, 32; 13:18; 15:5; 19: 9; 26:3, 16, 18; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 29:12; 30:2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19; 32:46; cf. Josh 23:14). Moreover, the word semeron appears in the LXX (the Greek Old Testament) and the New Testament 221 times. In 170 of these places, the adverb follows the verb it modifies (some examples of this in the NT are Luke 2:11; 5:26; 22:34; Acts 20:26; 22:3; 24:21; 26:29; 2 Cor. 3:14, 15). There are thus 170 witnesses against 51 in favor of placing the comma after "this day." 

It would, therefore, not only be grammatically legitimate to punctuate Luke 23:43 with the comma after "this day" (so that the adverb follows the verb it modifies), but it would also be consistent with how the word semeron is most frequently used in Scripture. When we take the Hebrew idiom into account it becomes evident that, in response to the malefactor's request, Christ was in effect saying, "I give you my solemn word that you will be with me in paradise." Christ didn't say when they would be in paradise together - only that they would be.

Moreover, the earliest translation of the Greek New Testament was in the language of Israel's nearest neighbor, Syria. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, which most scholars believe Jesus spoke at least on occasion, if not regularly (for example, Jesus' words on the cross, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" appear to be the Aramaic form of the words of Psalm 22:1). So it is a reasonable inference that, in his reply to the thief on the cross, Jesus spoke in the idiom that was common to both his own Aramaic language as well as the Hebrew language of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is therefore not surprising that in one of the oldest Syriac manuscripts of the Gospels (the 5th century Curetonian Syriac) the Hebrew/Aramaic idiom was evidently recognized by the translator. In this ancient manuscript the verse is translated so that the adverb "this day" clearly qualifies the verb "say" (and not "will be"): "Amen say I to you today that with me you will be in the garden of Eden."[1]

By introducing the word "that," the translator removed the need for any punctuation to determine the sense of Jesus' words. And while it's true that the Syriac Sinaitic (the only other Syriac translation of the 4 Gospels that is thought to predate the standard Syriac version, the Peshitta) has the more common translation, the Curetonian Syriac (which, like the Syriac Sinaitic, predates all the English versions by hundreds of years) is still a very ancient witness for this interpretation of Luke 23:43.

Objection: "Nowhere else is Christ's frequently-used formula, "Truly I say to you" modified by an adverb of time. Thus, semeron should be understood as most likely being part of the expression that follows the "Truly I say to you" formula."

Answer: This objection loses its force when we take into account the well-known Hebrew/Aramaic idiom that uses "today/this day" to emphasize the significance and solemnity of an occasion. And who can deny the profound importance and solemnity of this occasion? This was one of the last things Jesus said before he died, and was possibly the last thing the man being crucified next to him heard anyone say to him before he died. It would therefore make sense for Jesus to speak in such a way on this highly exceptional and solemn occasion.

Objection: "In the instances where this idiom appears in the LXX we do not find the same verb word used in Jesus' "Truly I say to you" formula (legô)."

Answer: While this is true, this objection is undermined by the fact that the Hebrew idiom exhibits some variation in the verbs used. The only constant in the idiom is that the word "today" modifies a verb of declaration, testification, command, oath (etc.). In the case of Luke 23:43, Jesus simply employed an idiom with which he and the thief would have been very familiar, and in a way that was most consistent with how Jesus normally declared things to people (i.e., using the word "legô").

There is simply no good reason to reject a certain translation based upon the premise that a particular construction must be found in other texts in order for it to be valid grammar. And it is not improbable that Jesus might have, on occasion, modified the introductory formula that he used most often during his earthly ministry. This is, in fact, the case in Luke 4:25. In this verse we read that Jesus modified the expression and said "ep alhtheias de legô humin" ("I say to you in truth"). Here, "ep alhtheias" adverbially modifies "legô humin." As a result, it seems reasonable to conclude that the expression is not to be taken as an inviolable grammatical mantra.

[1] F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels," Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

Click here for the updated article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-parable-of-rich-man-and-lazarus.html

A Critical Look at the Christian Doctrine of "Free Will"

"Free will is the modus operandi of destiny." C.S. Lewis 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that, for most Christians (especially those outside of the "Reformed" branch of Christianity), the doctrine of free will is vitally important to their theological system. Whether they realize it or not, this doctrine is one of the primary pillars upholding their particular religious worldview. Without this doctrinal pillar in place, their entire religious worldview would begin to collapse. Because of its great importance to so many Christians - as well as its bearing on the conflicting doctrines of eternal torment and universal salvation - I believe it behooves us to carefully examine it. 

Before I begin, however, a few words of clarification are in order. Among philosophers, the kind of free will in which most Christians (and many non-Christians) believe is known as "libertarian free will" or "libertarian freedom." This rather redundant-sounding terminology is intended to distinguish the kind of "freedom" in view from notions of freedom that are thought to be compatible with "determinism" (a philosophical position which holds that everything that happens is caused by a prior event or state of affairs, and thus has a sufficient, antecedent cause and an understandable reason for its taking place). 

In contrast to the freedom that is thought to be compatible with determinism (i.e., "compatibilistic freedom"), libertarian freedom is understood to be "indeterminist" in nature, meaning that the outcome of a future choice that is free in a libertarian sense is thought to be a probability rather than a certainty. To most people, the commonly-used expression "free will" basically means what philosophers mean when they speak of "libertarian free will." Thus, I will be using the expressions "free will" and "libertarian free will" interchangeably. 

I will also, on occasion, refer to the theological position held to by Christians who affirm free will as both the "Free Will" position as well as the "Arminian" position. The theological position known as "Arminianism" is named after 16th century Dutch theologian, Jacob Arminius, who, in contrast with the French theologian and Protestant Reformer, John Calvin (a near-contemporary of Arminius), affirmed that human beings have the free will to either believe the gospel or not, and taught that God elected people for eternal salvation on the basis of his foreknowledge of their faith. Because of his (and especially his followers') opposition to the theology of Calvin, any Christian viewpoint which affirms and emphasizes free will is commonly labelled as a form of "Arminianism."[1] 

What is "Free Will?" 

After coming to reject the Reformed theology I'd grown up believing, I began exploring the non-Calvinistic branches of Protestant Christianity, hoping to discover and know the true God, and to quench my thirst for truth. I was thrilled by the idea that such a large number of Christians believed that God really did love everyone, and that Christ had died to save everyone. Having already become convinced that God truly desired that everyone be saved - and that he had sent Christ for this purpose - I decided to make the "Arminian" theological camp my home. At the time, I didn't know of any other option; I had come to believe that if one wasn't a Calvinist or an Arminian, then one was either just uninformed, inconsistent or confused. 

Despite my eagerness to get as far away from Reformed theology as I could, I never quite felt at home in the free will-affirming camp of evangelical Christianity. While I found the emphasis that Arminian theologians tended to put on the universal love and mercy of God refreshing, I often found their interpretations of certain verses and passages (e.g., those which I'd formerly viewed as affirming God's complete sovereignty over all people and their destinies) somewhat strained and contrived. I also found the concept of free will extremely puzzling, and always thought I was missing something whenever I would read free will-affirming Christian theologians attempt to explain and justify their belief in it. 

For instance, in his book Most Moved Mover(2001), the late Clark Pinnock wrote (p. 127), 

What I call 'real freedom' is also called libertarian or contra-causal freedom. It views a free action as one in which a person is free to perform an action or refrain from performing it and is not completely determined in the matter by prior forces - nature, nurture or even God. Libertarian freedom recognizes the power of contrary choice. One acts freely in a situation if, and only if, one could have done otherwise. Free choices are choices that are not causally determined by conditions preceding them. It is the freedom of self-determination, in which the various motives and influences informing the choice are not the sufficient cause of the choice itself. The person makes the choice in a self-determined way. A person has options and there are different factors influencing us in deciding among them but the decision one takes involves making one of the reasons one's own, which is anything but random. 

In this passage we read of "contra-causal freedom" and of "choices that are not causally determined by conditions preceding them." And then Pinnock goes on to say that such a choice is "anything but random." But is this really the case? In response to Pinnock, one could ask, "Why does a person choose one reason over another when 'making one of the reasons one's own'"? According to Pinnock, the answer to this question cannot be because of any given factor or influence. It cannot be because of the circumstances in which the person happens to be at the time they're making their decision. According to the Arminian position, two people could, hypothetically, share the same exact motives and have the same exact influences operating on them when faced with the same exact decision, and yet they could still use their "libertarian freedom" to make two completely different decisions. 

Is there any rational explanation that could be given for why two different decisions could be reached in this hypothetical situation that does not involve pure randomness? I can't think of one. To say that a person has the "power of contrary choice" means that, given the same exact influences operating on them, and the same exact motives being present, a person could have made a different choice than the one that was actually made. But what, other than a purely random and inexplicable event taking place in a person's mind, could possibly account for a different outcome resulting? 

Consider the conversion of the apostle Paul. All Christians will agree that, as a result of his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul became a changed man. Instead of continuing in hard-hearted rebellion against Christ, he became humbly and joyfully submitted to him. But let's say that Paul's decision to submit to Christ was "free" in the sense that Arminian Christians believe our choice to believe the gospel is "free." If that were the case, then it would mean that Paul could have chosen otherwise. That is, in an identical state of affairs and with all things being equal (i.e., with the same exact influences being present and operating on Paul), a different outcome could have resulted. 

Think of it this way: if God were to "rewind the tape" of Paul's life and allow him to choose again, he could've made a completely different choice, given the same exact circumstances. But how could such a change in outcome be explained and accounted for? If nothing new enters into the equation immediately prior to Paul's decision, then this theoretical change in outcomes would be completely arbitrary and random. The only thing that could account for a different outcome taking place would be a purely random event occurring in Paul's mind. Thus, it follows that, if the choice Paul actually made was "free" in this sense, then it, too, was a completely arbitrary and random event. 

In Why I Am Not A Calvinist(2004), Arminian philosopher Jerry Walls writes (p. 103): 

The common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined. When we deliberate, we not only weigh the various factors involved, we also weight them. That is, we decide how important different considerations are in relation to one another. These factors do not have a pre-assigned weight that everyone must accept. Part of deliberation is sifting through these factors and deciding how much they matter to us. All of this assumes that it really is up to us how we will decide.

In response to Walls, one could very well ask, "But why does a person 'weight' one factor more or less than another factor when coming to reach a decision?" When "sifting through the factors," why would a person decide that one factor means more to them than another if they have no "pre-assigned weight"? According to his view, Walls might answer, "Because I chose to weight this factor more than the others." But in response to this, one could then ask, "But why did you choose to weight one factor more than the others?" And I believe the answer to this question exposes what the doctrine of free will really amounts to: things being determined by random, irrational and inexplicable events. For what non-circular answer could Walls give that is consistent with his position except, "I chose to just because." 

It would be circular (or else lead to an infinite regress) to respond with, "I chose to because I chose to." That's no different than saying, "It happened because it happened." According to his position, the real "reason" for his choice would ultimately have to be, "just because." But to say that something happens or occurs "just because" is simply to say that there is no reason for its occurring, and that it has no explanation. It's just a random, irrational and inexplicable event. And that is what a "free" choice (in the libertarian sense) would essentially be: a random, irrational and inexplicable event. 

In his book Making Sense of Your Freedom (1994), philosopher James W. Felt writes (p. 81): 

After the antecedent conditions have all been considered, as well as the temperament and motives of the agent, there is still room for freedom inasmuch as there is no strict necessity that one of the possible outcomes rather than another must emerge. Yet there is an outcome. A choice is made; a decision is reached. The mind in its drive toward intelligibility asks, "What is the ultimate reason why this rather than that outcome has resulted?" (Why did Lee, for instance, decide to go ahead and attack entrenched Union forces at Gettysburg?) If the act is free, then the only possible answer - admittedly still perplexing, yet perfectly adequate - is this: the sole, ultimate reason, given a variety of enabling motives, is the acting person, the agent. There is no possibility of looking farther, but then there is also no need. Given all the requisite circumstances, it is the agent who is explanation for the act and its outcome, in such a way as not to stand in need of further explanation. 

Here Felt asserts that the sole, ultimate reason why one outcome results rather than another is the person making the decision. In view of his answer to the question he poses, let's imagine a teenage girl asking her mother, "Why did you and dad get divorced?" According to Felt, a "perfectly adequate" (yet "still perplexing") answer to this legitimate question would be, "Your dad and I. We are the only explanation, and there is no need for any other." But what exactly does this mean? According to the libertarian free will position, it would mean that their decision to get divorced has no rational explanation. It "just happened," inexplicably. 

When we keep in mind that a choice that is free in the libertarian sense is essentially an inexplicable, random event, we can conclude that what Felt calls the "acting person, the agent" is (at least, at the time a decision is made) akin to a "random number generator," with the only difference being that what's being randomly generated are choices rather than numbers. Thus, when Felt says that "there is no possibility of looking farther" for an explanation, he is correct. If the choices that we make are being randomly generated by us (as the free will position entails), then the only possible explanation for any "free" choice is the "random choice generator" itself - i.e., "the acting person, the agent." 

Does Love and Moral Accountability Require Free Will? 

It is often argued by free will-affirming Christians that without free will human beings couldn't love, and that it is for this reason that God gave us free will. Christian author and theologian Dr. Gregory Boyd sums up this position in the first thesis of his "Warfare Worldview" as follows: 

By definition, love must be freely chosen. We are able to program computers to obey our commands perfectly, but we don’t consider them "loving." They lack the capacity for love because they have no choice but to do what we program them to do. Humans would be in the same category as computers if God merely "programmed" our actions. In order for creatures to be loving, they must have the freedom to do otherwise (to not love).[2] 

By "freely chosen," Dr. Boyd does not merely mean that a person loves because their heart is such that this is what they truly want and desire to do, and is (for this reason) what they choose to do. Rather, the kind of "freedom" that Dr. Boyd has in mind is libertarian freedom - i.e., the "power of contrary choice." That is, Dr. Boyd believes that, whenever something is "freely chosen," it means that a different outcome could have been effected given the same exact circumstances in which the choice was made, and given the same exact influences the person was experiencing at the time. 

In other words, if my decision to propose to my wife was "freely chosen" in the sense of which Dr. Boyd speaks, then I could've chosen not to propose to her. If God were to "rewind the tape" of my life, I could've made a different decision if my decision was "free" in the libertarian sense. But if everything leading up to my choice (i.e., the various influences and factors involved in the circumstances) remained unchanged - if everything else remained the same - then the only possible, non-deterministic explanation for a different outcome being realized is that a truly random event took place in my mind and changed the outcome. So if love truly "requires freedom" (i.e., libertarian freedom), then it would mean that what love actually requires is the occurrence of an inexplicable, random and irrational event. Thus, for Dr. Boyd, our love for one another is actually a result of pure chance. 

In addition to asserting that love requires free will, it is commonly claimed by Christians that free will is the only basis for which people could be held morally accountable by God for their choices and actions. But as we've seen, a choice that is free in the libertarian sense is actually a completely random event - and how such bizarre randomness can possibly be a prerequisite for a person's being held accountable for their actions is just as inexplicable as "free will" itself. 

Ironically, then, it is the Free Will position which, by ultimately reducing our choices to random, irrational and inexplicable events, eliminates any meaningful way of accounting for moral accountability. To quote philosopher J.J.C. Smart, "Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug."

Is the God of Free Will Christianity Loving? 

According to Arminian Christians, the faith by which believers are saved and avoid being "eternally lost" is the result of the exercise of their free will. Thus, they can blame the unbeliever - rather than God - for the lack of faith that (they believe) will ultimately send them to hell if they die in their unbelief. For most Christians, it is mankind's God-given free will that "lets God off the hook," so to speak, from being responsible for people dying in unbelief, and for the supposed eternal consequences of their "free" decision. However, as we've seen, the kind of free will in which most Christians believe is akin to a random number generator. It is a mysterious power by which choices are randomly and inexplicably generated by a person. A choice that is free in the libertarian sense is essentially an irrational event that has no explanation for its taking place. Whether one outcome results rather than another would, if the free will position were true, be a matter of pure chance. But remarkably, it is on just such a chance event that most Christians believe God has suspended the eternal destinies of all of his human and angelic creatures. 

For most Christians, that which will determine where and how people will "spend eternity" is how they exercise their free will during this relatively brief lifetime (with some lifetimes being much briefer than others)! At some point - either sometime before death, or at the point of death - the "window of opportunity" closes, and there is no "second chance" to make the right decision and be saved.[3] And according to those Christians who believe this to be how things really are, whose ultimate decision was it that this would be so? Who is responsible for the existence of such a bizarre and nightmarish state of affairs in which the eternal destinies of billions of created beings is essentially left to chance? Answer: the God who chose to give his creatures free will, of course! Thus, the "loving" and "wise" God in whom most Christians profess to believe would, if he existed, actually be a depraved being who has decided to let chance determine the eternal destinies of his human (and angelic) creations. 

If this seems too hard to believe, simply ask any Christian who believes in free will the following question: "Why did you make the eternally-significant decision to believe the gospel, while so many others don't?" If the free will-believing Christian is being consistent, he or she will not be able to answer in any of the following ways: 

"God gave me the desire to know him, but he has not yet given this desire to everyone."

"God drew me to Christ, and Christ made God known to me, but he has not yet drawn all." 

"God opened my heart so that I could believe the truth, but he hasn't yet opened the hearts of everyone." 

"God granted me repentance so that I could come to a knowledge of the truth, but he has not yet granted this repentance to all." 

"God gave me the faith to believe the truth, but he has not given faith to all." 

What do all of these responses have in common? Answer: They all acknowledge God as the ultimate explanation and reason for why someone is a believer rather than an unbeliever. And this, I believe, is consistent with what Scripture teaches. According to Scripture, God is completely sovereign over all that takes place. We read, for example, that God "declares the end from the beginning" and accomplishes whatever he purposes (Isaiah 46:9-11). Paul sums up the extent of God's sovereignty when he declares that God works "all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11).[4] 

In view of God's sovereignty, it is evident that, apart from his graciously bringing about faith in our hearts, no one would believe. It is ultimately because of God's sovereign will and purpose that anyone becomes a believer or remains an unbeliever in this life. The faith that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is not something that the believer originates by his own "free will," and for which he or she can take any credit. According to Christ, no one knows God except those to whom Christ has chosen to reveal him (Mt. 11:25-27), no one knows the "mysteries of the kingdom" or can receive Christ's teaching except those to whom it has been granted (Mt. 13:11), and no one can come to him unless they have been drawn [lit. "dragged"] by the Father (John 6:44). We cannot receive even one thing unless it has been given to us from heaven (John 3:27). God alone is ultimately responsible for whether one receives the truth or not. 

According to Paul, a person becomes a believer rather than an unbeliever because God chose them before the foundation (or "disruption") of the world and predestined them for adoption as sons through Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4). Those who believe were chosen beforehand as the "firstfruits" to be saved (Rom 8:28-30; 2 Thess. 2:13). It was granted to them by God that they should believe (Phil 1:29), and thus God graciously assigned to them a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). In order for one to come to a knowledge of the truth and escape the snare of the devil, they must be granted repentance by God (2 Tim. 2:25-26; cf. Acts 11:18). Paul understood that it was God's grace - not his own innate goodness or willingness - that was the source of his faith and love (1 Tim 1:13-14). When a person believes and becomes a "new creation in Christ," this is no less the sovereign work of God than the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is all God's doing (2 Cor. 5:17-18). 

Although God certainly works through the instrumentality of human beings in reconciling people to himself, it is God alone who "gives the growth" (1 Cor. 3:5-9). There is nothing that we contribute to our salvation that does not ultimately have its source in God. Apart from God's Spirit at work in one's mind and heart, one would have no interest in spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Our hearts must be opened by God just so that we will pay attention to what is being said when the gospel is proclaimed to us (Acts 16:14), and those who hear and believe the truth do so only because they were appointed by God for this (Acts 13:48). No one becomes a believer or remains an unbeliever apart from the divinely-controlled circumstances that God is using to accomplish his redemptive purpose in the world. 

Now, let's return to the question we posed earlier to the free-will believing Christian: "Why did you make the eternally-significant decision to believe the gospel, while so many others don't?" If they are consistent, they will have to answer something like this: "Because I chose to, and they didn't." In other words, "I chose to because I chose to, and they didn't because they didn't." And if you then ask them, "But why did you choose to, when so many others don't?" they will most likely either shrug their shoulders or say something along the lines of, "I don't know why; I just did, and they just didn't." 

And they would be correct. For if their faith (and someone else's unbelief) was a result of a choice that was free in the libertarian sense, then the choice was a completely random event that simply can't be explained or accounted for. The fact that they chose one way (to believe the gospel), while someone else chose another (to remain in unbelief), would be due to chance alone. And so it is chance which their "loving God" decided would determine who will, and who won't be, eternally saved. 

But it gets worse. Not only has the God of Arminian Christianity left the eternal destiny of all people up to pure chance, he (according to most Arminian Christians) foreknew before the creation of the world who would and who wouldn't choose to believe. In other words, the God of Arminian Christianity - before he ever created anything - knew full well that billions of his creatures (both human and angelic) would fail to exercise their "free will" properly, and yet he callously brought them into existence and allowed them to "freely" damn themselves for all eternity.

Consider the following argument: 

1. The God of Arminian Christianity foreknew before creation how every created person would exercise their free will in response to his grace if he were to create them.

2. The God of Arminian Christianity foreknew that some (most) created persons would fail to meet the requirement(s) of salvation if he were to create them. 

3. The God of Arminian Christianity created - and will forever sustain in existence - those whom he foreknew would never be saved, and who will spend eternity in hell. 

4. Any being who would do this is depraved and malevolent. 

5. The true God is not depraved and malevolent, but perfectly good.

6. The "God" of Arminian Christianity is not the true God. 

But let's be generous and say (as some Arminians do) that God does not have foreknowledge of any choices that are free in the libertarian sense, and thus did not have certain knowledge of who would and who wouldn't be eternally saved. This position within the Arminian camp is known today as "Open Theism." But with this view, we still have a God who has suspended the eternal destinies of his creatures on pure chance by giving them "free will" and making them the arbiters of their eternal destiny. And there is absolutely nothing "loving" about this. Only a depraved God - a "God" who was completely indifferent towards the best interests of his creatures - could gamble with their eternal destinies in such a way. 

For God to actualize such a state of affairs would be entirely inconsistent with the best interests and ultimate well-being of his creatures, since he would have no way of knowing which of his creatures (if any) would exercise their free will in such a way that they would become eternally happy rather than eternally miserable. A truly good and benevolent God would never actualize a state of affairs having a possible outcome that is inconsistent with the best interests and ultimate well-being of his creatures. 

Consider now the following argument against the Open Theism position: 

1. Before creating, the God of Open Theism would've either expected that all would be saved or he wouldn't have had this expectation. 

2. If it was his expectation before creation that all would be finally saved, and all are not finally saved, then he would be a fool for expecting this outcome, and would not be worthy of our trust and confidence.[5] 

3. If it wasn't his expectation before creation that all would be finally saved, then the God of Open Theism would be malevolent for bringing persons into existence whom he had no expectation of being saved. 

4. The true and living God is neither a fool nor malevolent, but is worthy of our full trust and confidence.

5. The "God" of Open Theism is not the true and living God. 

Conclusion

So what's the final verdict? In view of the above arguments, I cannot help but conclude that the "God" of Arminian Christianity - no matter how attractively he may be presented by those who profess (and desire) to love and trust him - is just as much a fraud as the "God" of Reformed Christianity. Although he is said to love everyone and to genuinely desire that everyone be saved, the reality is that he is no more loving (and no more sane!) than the depraved, tyrannical being whom the Calvinists believe has predestined a select few for an eternity in heaven while the vast majority of his human creatures are doomed to an eternity in a place of eternal conscious torment. The "God" of Arminian Christianity (who so callously gambles with his creature's eternal destinies and lets chance decide their fate) is neither Christ's God nor Paul's God, and he should not be our God, either.

---

[1] It should be noted, however, that the free will-affirming theology of Jacob Arminius did not in any way originate with him. Most of the post-apostolic "early church fathers" of the first few centuries - along with most Catholics throughout church history - strongly believed that all human beings have the "free will" to do or believe whatever is necessary for salvation. See, for example, the well-researched appendix in God's Strategy in Human History, by Roger Forster and Paul Marston (the appendix can be read online here: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5237P.pdf). 

The most well-known exception to this widely-held belief in human free will within the post-apostolic church was Augustine of Hippo, who (in famous opposition to the free will-affirming theology of the British monk, Pelagius) believed that it was God - rather than man - who decided who would be eternally saved and who wouldn't. If Augustine's position sounds familiar, it's because John Calvin was heavily influenced by the works of Augustine, and the "Reformed" theological position that bears his name is really "Augustinianism," repackaged.

[2] http://reknew.org/2007/12/what-are-the-main-principels-of-the-warfare-worldview/

[3] It's telling that one of the most common responses by Christians to the doctrine of universal salvation is that there is no "second chance" after death.

[4] If by "free will" one meant the ability to make choices that are not constrained by circumstances external to oneself, then we could say that God is the only being who has free will. For it is God who is the Author and Creator of all the circumstances in which creatures find themselves. However, even God's freedom to choose is constrained - not by circumstances external to himself, but by his own nature. We are told that "God is love" (1 Jn. 4:8). Assuming this refers to his divine nature or essence, we can conclude that all God does is constrained by a perfectly loving disposition. This would explain why God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), since lying would be inconsistent with God's loving nature. 

[5] As my friend Phillip Garrison noted after reading an earlier draft of this article, the God of Open Theism would, in this case, be like the foolish man of Christ's parable who decided to build a tower but, after having already laid the foundation, realized he did not have enough money to finish what he started (Luke 14:28-30). Such a "God" would be deserving of mockery and pity rather than our devotion and worship.

The Truth about Election

The fact that most people have not been chosen by God and will never believe the gospel in this lifetime does not mean God does not love them, or that he has forsaken them. Most Christians believe that there will be a permanent and eternal division between the members of the human race. It is believed that there will be a permanent division between those who are presently “holy and blameless in God’s sight,” and those who aren’t; a division between those who presently love and obey God, and those who don’t; a division between those who get to spend eternity in God’s presence, and those who must remain eternally separated from him. 

There are, of course, certain passages of Scripture are relied upon as supporting this common view. However, while Scripture does, in fact, speak of a division between people that has lasted – and will continue to last – for much of human history, it also reveals that God's story of redemption is not going to end this way. The few glimpses of the final scene of redemptive history which God has provided for us in Scripture (through the apostle Paul) do not depict a permanent division between human beings, and of multitudes of human beings in a state of eternal separation from God. Not only would this be a terrible and tragic ending to redemptive history, it would mean that God is either unable to accomplish his redemptive plan for all people, or that God is unwilling to save all people (and is thus less loving than he calls his children to be). Fortunately, the final scene with which Scripture presents us is much more beautiful and God-glorifying than this. Consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 1:9-10:

“…making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him unto a dispensation of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth…” (ASV)

What’s fascinating about this passage is that Paul is not only telling us what God’s will is with regards to the ultimate destiny of everything in the universe, but he's telling us that this “mystery” has been made known to God’s elect – i.e., those whom God has chosen beforehand to believe Paul’s gospel and become members of Christ’s body. So what is the "mystery" of God's will that has been made known to those who are members of Christ’s body? It is this: that “all things” – both “in the heavens” and “upon the earth” - will be summed up “in Christ!” 

The Greek word variously translated as “sum up” (ASV), "unite in" (ESV), "summing up of," (NASB), "bring unity to" (NIV), "gather together in one" (RSV) and “bring into one the whole” (YLT) is anakephalaiomai. It is found only here and in Rom 13:9, where Paul speaks of the entire law being "summed up" in the commandment to love. In his “Modern English” translation, J.B. Phillips beautifully captures the meaning of Paul’s words in verse 10: “For God had allowed us to know the secret of his plan, and it is this: he purposes in his sovereign will that all human history shall be consummated in Christ, that everything that exists in Heaven or earth shall find its perfection and fulfillment in him.”

According to Paul, Jesus Christ is ultimately destined to “fill all things” (Eph 4:10). Christ has already sacrificed himself on behalf of all sinners as the divine pledge of their redemption from sin and their reconciliation to God (John 1:29; 12:32; 2 Cor. 5:19; Col 1:19; 1 Tim 2:3-6; 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 3:4-8). He was raised from the dead as the pledge that death itself will one day be abolished, and that all people will ultimately be made immortal (1 Cor. 15:20-22, 50-57; 2 Tim 1:10). And he has been made Lord over all and given all authority in heaven and on earth to bring about this glorious victory (Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom 10:12; 14:9; Matt 28:18). However, we do not yet see this victory fully manifested. 

What was accomplished prospectively through Christ’s death and resurrection has not yet been fully realized in the universe. The kingdom of Satan has yet to be overthrown, and both sin (which John calls the “works of the devil”) and death (which Paul calls the “last enemy”) have yet to be abolished. Christ has not yet subjected all to himself (1 Cor. 15:25-28; Heb 2:8-9), since many created beings – both human and angelic – remain in a state of rebellion against him. Only a relative few can be said to have been “subjected to Christ” and (prospectively) brought into his kingdom at this present time (Col 1:13). But just as the church is presently subjected to Christ and under his headship (Eph. 5:22-24), so shall all created beings ultimately be subjected to him. And when this time comes, all things in heaven and on earth will finally be unified under Christ, Christ will finally “fill all things,” and God will finally be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

When understood correctly, I submit that the scriptural doctrine of election is fully consistent with this understanding of the consummation of redemptive history, and does not entail such a deeply unsettling view of God as that found in Calvinistic Christianity. Although (as noted earlier) the traditional Christian view is that certain people were selected by God to spend eternity with him in heaven while the rest are doomed to be eternally separated from him in a place of conscious, fiery torment (which is traditionally thought to be the “default fate” for sinners), election in Scripture has nothing to do with avoiding such a fate. It is not about where or how one will spend eternity. It is not about one’s final destiny at all.

To better understand the subject of election in the Bible, consider the following examples of both individuals and corporate groups that were “chosen” or “elect” according to God’s redemptive purpose: Israel (Isaiah 45:4; Deut 7:7; Acts 13:17; Romans 9:11; 11:28), Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 9:35; 23:35; 1 Peter 2:4, 6), the twelve disciples (Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Acts 1:2, 24-25) and the Apostle Paul (Acts 9:15; see also Acts 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1, 15). In none of these cases does election have anything to do with one’s being chosen by God to spend eternity with him in heaven rather than being eternally separated from him in “hell.” 

This is especially evident with Christ’s election: while Christ is said to be “chosen” and “elect,” his being chosen and elect has nothing to do with his spending his eternal destiny in one location rather than another (for of course, Christ’s eternal destiny was never in question). Rather, Christ’s election was all about his unique vocation and divine calling. Christ was chosen for a certain redemptive mission, and that mission involved his perfectly manifesting the will and character of God to the world, and his faithfully doing the work of his Father (a work which culminated in his sacrificial death on the cross for the sins of the world). And I submit that Christ’s election is the paradigm for how the election of the believer should be understood. Election is essentially about God’s choosing individuals or groups of people ahead of time for certain important roles or tasks (e.g., lineage and/or service). As was the case with Christ, to be elected or chosen by God involves being given a certain office or vocation (which carries with it both blessing/privilege and responsibility).

To better understand the significance of election, we should take a look at Israel’s purpose in the Hebrew Scriptures or "Old Testament." In these Scriptures we find that God singled out the nation of Israel to ultimately be a blessing to the rest of the world. It is significant that God is recognized as not just God over Israel but over the whole earth and all nations (e.g. Psalm 24, 96, 1 Chron. 29:11, etc.). Early in the Scriptural narrative, then, we find that God has a purpose and a goal in regard to the inhabitants of this planet: blessing all the families and nations of the earth through the (Jewish) offspring of Abraham (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Ps. 22:27; 67:2; 72:11; 82:8; 86:9; Isaiah 25:6-8). 

God’s special favor toward Israel stood at the center of his plan to eventually bless the entire world. Just as God singled out Joseph from among his brothers to be a blessing to the entire nation of Egypt, so the nation of Israel was marked by God as the divinely chosen agent in ultimately mediating blessing to all nations (see Isaiah 61-66). As many students of Scripture have noted, Jesus seems to be alluding to the original purpose of Israel in choosing twelve Jewish disciples to continue God’s redemptive plan for the world. Just as Israel was to be a light to the nations, the twelve disciples were chosen to be a light to the rest of the darkened world (Matt 5:14), so that the world would know God and glorify him (5:16). The number twelve is, of course, significant, as twelve is also the number of the tribes of Israel.

Just as national Israel is to be the agent through which God will ultimately mediate redemption to the nations on earth, so the body of Christ is to be the agent through which God makes known his manifold wisdom to the rulers and authorities "among the celestials" (Eph. 3:10; cf. Eph. 2:4-7). Paul said that those who are “in Christ” by faith (i.e., those who are “members of his body”) were chosen to be “holy and blameless in God's sight” (Eph. 1:4). They are also said to be “predestined to be adopted through Jesus Christ” (v. 5). Paul isn’t talking about anyone being chosen for one eternal destiny rather than another here; he’s talking about what's true of believers now, and what will be true of believers during the coming ages or "eons" of Christ’s reign (Eph. 2:6-7). 

Being “in Christ,” believers are presently considered holy and blameless in God’s sight (that’s why they’re said to be “justified,” and are always addressed as “saints” – even the ones who were in obvious need of further spiritual growth!). Believers are also given the special status of being “adopted” (a beautiful metaphor which Paul elaborates on in greater depth in Galatians 3:23 through 4:7). Although this status enjoyed by believers brings with it great privileges, believers are not blessed for their own sake alone. Rather, believers are called to serve others (both now and in the future) and to "wrestle" against the “principalities and powers” that are in rebellion against God and hostile towards humanity (Eph 6:10-17). In the Bible, election is always a vocational calling; the election of believers is inseparable from their calling to humbly serve and be a blessing to others.

Elsewhere Paul writes that believers are "[God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance for them to walk in" (Eph 2:10).

God’s election of Jacob instead of Esau, and his “hating” Esau and “loving” Jacob (Rom. 9:13; Mal. 1:2-3) is sometimes thought to support the idea that God has permanently divided humanity into two groups, with one portion of humanity destined for an eternity in heaven and another destined for an eternity in “hell.” However, as noted earlier, God's election of individuals or groups is always to historic and redemptive vocation (e.g., lineage and service), and does not entail that those who weren't elected are eternally doomed. God's "hatred" of Esau was no more a literal, personal hatred of Esau and his national descendents than was Jacob’s "hatred" of Leah (Gen 29:30-31). Nor was it any different than the "hatred" Christ says we are to have toward our family and our own lives (Luke 14:26). It was an idiomatic way of speaking common among the Hebrew people to use the terms "love" and "hate" in a comparative sense, with "love" denoting a greater regard or affection for someone, and "hatred" denoting less regard or affection for someone (as opposed to positive hatred or indifference). 

God's "hatred" of Esau (that is, the nation of Edom - Gen 25:23; Mal. 1:3-4) simply meant that, in contrast to Jacob and his descendents, God had less regard towards Esau and his descendents in relation to the outworking of his redemptive plan in history. In other words, God’s love of Jacob (Israel) and his hatred of Esau (Edom) simply had reference to the higher and more preeminent position of the Hebrew nation in God’s sovereign purpose. Before Jacob and Esau were even born, God determined that Esau’s nation, Edom, would not to be the chosen people and vessel through which the Messiah would come, and through which he would ultimately bless all the nations of the earth. To affirm that God literally and absolutely hates some would be completely inconsistent with the God revealed by Jesus and his apostles. According to Christ, God loves the world, including those who do not (yet) love him (John 3:16; Mt. 5:43-48). And according to the apostle John, God’s love for this sinful world defines his very essence (1 John 4:8-9, 14; cf. 1 John 2:2; 5:19).

But are not the non-elect said to be "vessels of wrath" (that is, under God’s wrath), and to be "vessels of dishonor?" Certainly, but nowhere does Scripture say or suggest that God’s wrath should be understood as eternal conscious torment in “hell.” As far as Scripture reveals, any divine wrath that fell upon Esau’s national descendants was confined to this life (Isaiah 34:5-10; Mal. 1:2-3). It did not extend beyond this mortal, earthly existence. Moreover, throughout his epistle to the Romans, Paul nowhere speaks of God's wrath as something that will take place in “eternity,” during the immortal state of man’s existence (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32; 12:19; 13:2, 4). Like the wrath that fell upon Edom, the destruction of the "vessels of wrath" of which Paul spoke (Rom 9:22) is also spoken of as being an imminent temporal judgment “upon the earth”: 

"Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: 'Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.' And as Isaiah said before: 'Unless the LORD of Hosts had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.'" Romans 9:27-29

What Paul quotes in verses 27-28 was spoken originally of the few Israelites that were saved from the ravage of the Assyrian army (Isaiah 10:22-23). This historical judgment - like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 29; cf. Luke 17:29-30; 2 Peter 2:6) - was completely temporal (as opposed to "eternal") in nature - and the salvation of the "remnant" of which he speaks was no different in this regard. Paul never said a word about God's “wrath” or "indignation" being experienced by immortal human beings in an eternal state of existence. Like God’s wrath upon Edom, it is solely confined to those sharing in this temporal, mortal existence. Those of whom Paul wrote as being "vessels of wrath" were his unbelieving, first-century Jewish brethren. And the judgment for which they had been prepared was not endless torment in an immortal state of existence, but a judgment that would be similar in nature to the judgments that came upon the unrighteous previously in history.

But what about "predestination?" Does this word not imply that some have a different eternal destiny than others? Not at all. To "predestinate" simply means to "designate beforehand"; the word doesn't tell us what a person was predestined to or for. Whenever it is used by Paul in reference to believers, it never need be understood to refer to our final, eternal destiny. Instead, it refers to the destiny of certain people (i.e., members of Christ’s body) before the final consummation (i.e., before the time when all are subjected to Christ and God becomes “all in all”). The destiny given to believers is their being conformed to Christ’s likeness, before anyone else (Eph. 1:4-7; Rom 8:29-30). This is a process that begins now (2 Cor. 3:18). It is this noble destiny which God marked out for those whom he "foreknew" - i.e., those whom God graciously chose beforehand for a special purpose, as part of his redemptive plan for the universe. 

Unlike the rest of mankind, those who are chosen to become members of Christ’s body are granted the faith that leads to reconciliation with God and a deliverance from sin’s dominion in this present life. And it is these whom God is going to be showing “the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness” in Christ (Eph. 2:7) – not in eternity (with everyone else eternally excluded), but in “the ages [plural] to come.”[1] But this in no way means that only those who are called to be believers in this life will be finally saved, for Paul calls God "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10). Believers – those whom God has chosen before the foundation (or rather, “disruption”) of the world are being saved now, and enjoy God’s grace during this life and in the ages to come. Those not chosen by God will be saved later, when the future ages of Christ’s reign reach their conclusion and he subjects all to himself.

The elect are essentially God’s pledge on behalf of the rest of humanity, and as such may be understood as a prophetic sign to the rest of the world revealing their ultimate destiny. An illustration of how God elects some on behalf of others can be seen from the scriptural theme of "firstfruits" and the "firstborn." Israel, as God’s elect nation, was known as the "firstfruits" (Jer. 2:3) and "firstborn" (Ex 3:22). But "firstfruits" serve as the pledge of the whole harvest. To offer up firstfruits to God meant that the rest of the harvest belonged to him as well. The New Testament uses this imagery as well; as those who are included in Christ’s body in this age of redemptive history, believers are known as "firstfruits" (2 Thess. 2:13; cf. James 1:18; Rev 14:4) and possess the "firstfruits of the Spirit" (Rom 8:22). But such language can only mean that an even greater, more inclusive harvest is yet to come in the future. In the same way, the "firstborn" involves and includes (in the divine economy) the whole family. Jesus is the firstborn of not the elect only, but of all creation (Colossians 1:15). While the firstborn and firstfruits are few in number, they have relation to the entire creation - all who are in need of being reconciled to their Creator.

---

[1] While Christ often spoke of the “age to come” during his ministry, Paul makes it clear that there is more than one age to come. Thus, the “age to come” is not an endless duration of time, since it is to be followed by another age. The “age to come” of which Christ spoke refers to the coming age of the millennial kingdom (to which every Israelite looked forward and hoped to inherit). And since this coming age is not eternal, we need not understand the age to follow it to be eternal, either (and Scripture elsewhere reveals that it is not).