Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry
You are here: Home / Archives

What I believe about Free Will

By Jeremy Myers
18 Comments

What I believe about Free Will

The term โ€œfree willโ€ is highly problematic, for in reality, there is no such thing as a โ€œfree will.โ€ All our so-called โ€œfree choicesโ€ are not only influenced by our mental, emotional, and physical state of being, but also by our genetics, the environment in which we live, the situation in which we find ourselves, the relationships in our lives, and even by things like how much sleep we got last night and what we ate for lunch. โ€œFreedom is not the absence of influencesโ€ (Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 202).

free will

Even God, I would argue, does not have a completely โ€œfreeโ€ will, for He too is influenced by the Trinitarian Godhead, by His creation, by His goal to glorify Himself, and by His own character. Though God is the most free being, even His will is not completely free to do anything.

For example, He cannot sin, as this would be contrary to His nature. Nor can He do that which is logically impossible, such as make a round square or create a rock too heavy to lift. Also, God cannot break the rules He has set up for Himself regarding the governance of His creation. For example, if He has given humans the freedom to make choices, He cannot stop them from choosing things He does not like.

So rather than โ€œfree will,โ€ it might be best to talk about โ€œtrue will.โ€

That is, can a person make genuine decisions, or are all decisions subject to something like fate or divine predetermination? We will talk more about predetermination and foreordination in theย future postsย about Unconditional Election and the Sovereignty of God, so I donโ€™t want to use a lot of room to discuss these issues here, except to say that Scripture, reason, and experience all seem to point pretty clearly to the fact that God expects us to make wise choices and holds us accountable for the choices and decisions we make.

If our decisions were fated or predetermined by God, then God could no more hold us accountable for the decisions we make than we could hold accountable a wind-up toy car for driving off a table if we are the ones who wound it up, put it on the table, and sent it driving off toward the edge. Or to use a more complex example, though most modern people have had the experience of yelling at our computers in frustration for what they do, we all know that the fault is never with the computer, for it is simply doing what we (or some computer programmer) have told it to do.

Sin is Evidence of Free Will

free willI would argue further that sin is the greatest proof for the existence of human true will (or free will, if you prefer that term). Why?

To begin with, given the facts that God has a will and that sin exists, we are only left with a few options as the origin of sin and evil: We must say either that God willed sin into existence or He did not.

We will see later in the discussionย on the Sovereignty of God that Calvinists are divided on this issue. Most Christians, however, agree that God did not will sin into existence. And if He did not will sin into existence, then it had to have come from some other willโ€”a will outside of Godโ€™s will.

Sin cannot have come from Godโ€™s will, for sin is contrary to and opposed to Godโ€™s will.

Therefore, sin must have its origination in a will that is separate from God, or else God would be divided against Himself. Since all people sin, the will of an individual person must be one such will that is separate from God. Curiously then, the sinfulness of mankind does not disprove the existence of the will of man, but proves it!

Self-caused actions founded in the wills of men are the best explanation for the origin of evil.

If, therefore, self-caused actions help account for the origin of evil, then the origin of evil helps prove the existence and reality of self-caused actions. In other words, if there is no true will, we would have no way to explain the origin of evil unless it were attributed to God.

But since evil cannot have its origin in God, the origin of evil must be explained through the real decisions of Godโ€™s creatures. He created beings with true wills, knowing that they might misuse and abuse this amazing gift for the purpose of rebellion, but also knowing that without such a gift, there could be no way for Him to receive the goal and purpose of a true will, namely, true love. God knew that without a true will there could be no true love; and God, desiring to have loving relationships with His creation, decided that the gift of a true will to His creatures was worth the risk.

What Happened to Free Will when Sin Entered the World?

When Adam and Eve misused their wills in the Garden of Eden by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin entered into the world, and with it came death, decay, and destruction. Earlier in this chapter, in the discussion on Romans 7:15-20, we saw that when Adam and Eve sinned, they died spiritually and sin corrupted their body, which also began to die.

But what about the soul? Was it corrupted by sin? Did the soul also begin to die?

Scripture seems to indicate that the death which affected the bodies and spirits of people, does not affect the soul in the same way. We cannot speak of soulish death the same way we can speak of physical or spiritual death. The reason is because the soul is the โ€œlifeโ€ of a person. It is the breath of life, the animating principle of a human being (cf. Gen 2:7). To speak of soul death would be to speak of life death, which makes no sense.

Though the Bible occasionally speaks of the death of the soul (cf. Ezek 18:4; Matt 16:25-26; Jas 1:21; 5:20; 1 Pet 1:9) these texts do not refer to the death of the soul itself, but to the separation of the body from the soul, which results in physical death (see the following articles by Bob Wilkin: โ€œSoul Talk, Soul Food, and Soul Salvationโ€;ย โ€œSaving the Soul of a Fellow Christian (James 5:29-20)โ€; โ€œSaving Your Soul By Doing Good (James 1:21)โ€;ย  โ€œGaining by Losing (Matthew 16:24-28)โ€; โ€œSuffering which results in Abundant Life (1 Peter 1:9)โ€).

When there is no โ€œlifeโ€ (soul) in the body, the body is dead. Though the soul can live without the body, the body cannot live without the soul.

All this is to say that the faculties of the soul, which include imagination, memory, reason, and emotions, were not themselves damaged by sin. Certainly, since these faculties of the soul are dependent upon the health of the physical brain, and the brain is dying as a result of being part of the physical body, our imagination, memory, reason, and emotions are not used to their full capabilities.

Nevertheless, the soul is able to utilize its capacity to imagine, create, remember, reason, and feel emotions. The will, being an interplay of all of these soulish capacities, is therefore also able to function. It interesting that those who teach the inability of the human will to function almost never teach the inability to function of the imagination, memory, reason, and emotions. Just as these are able to function, so also is the will.

Scripture Calls People to Exercize their Free Will

Therefore, it is no surprise that Scripture contains frequent calls for people to exercise their wills in the practice of obedience and righteousness.

From the very beginning with Cain, God wanted him to turn from His sin so that He might escape the disastrous consequences of it (Gen 4:7). Through the periods of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Twelve Patriarchs, and into to the days of Moses and the Judges, and into the times of the Kings and the Prophets, God constantly and unceasingly calls on all people to turn from their wicked ways and follow Him (Deut 30:19-20a; Josh 24:15; 1 Kings 18:21; Isa 1:18-19; etc.). Even Jesus, during His ministry, constantly pled with people to leave their sin and follow Him (John 5:39-40; 7:17, 37-38; Matt 11:2-8; 22:3; 23:37-38). The preaching of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles all contained the same message. Even the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11).

Yet note that although the practice of obedience and righteousness is called for in Scripture, this in no way means that such practices result in eternal life.

Even if someone was as good as Mother Theresa or Gandhi, they could not earn their eternal life by their good works any more than could Hitler or Pol Pot by their evil works. I point out the biblical call for people to respond to God, not to say that people can contribute to the reception of eternal life, but only to show that if God expects people to hear His truth and respond, who are we to teach that they cannot do so?

Furthermore, if humans do not have free will and are unable to respond to the call of God, then all the calls of God in Scripture are little more than farcical games in which God taunts humans to do something they cannot actually do.

cs lewis free willHere then is where we arrive at the point: Just as God calls people to respond to His Word with obedience and righteousness through the exercise of their choices (non-meritorious though they might be) and fully expects them to be able to do so, in the same way, God calls people to believe in Jesus for eternal life, and fully expects them to be able to do so (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47).

The Will Can Exercise Faith

The difference between faith and works, of course, is that while the latter are โ€œworksโ€ and no one can have enough works to earn or merit eternal life, faith is not a work, is not meritorious, and does not help a person earn or gain eternal life. Faith is the simple reception of a gift freely offered.

Yes, faith is a function of the will, but since the will has the ability to function, it is not unreasonable for God to invite people to believe in Jesus for eternal life. And if it is not unreasonable for God, it is not unreasonable for evangelists and missionaries, as they go about loving others and proclaiming the gospel, to invite people to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Free Will Does not Threaten God’s Plan

If this is the case about the true will of mankind, then how can God guarantee that anyone will actually believe? Is God up in heaven wringing His hands with worry saying to Himself, โ€œI hope they believe and this all works outโ€? Is Godโ€™s plan of salvation threatened when He gave mankind the freedom to believe?

To ask this question is to answer it. If Godโ€™s plan of salvation were threatened by giving mankind the freedom to believe, God never would have done it! God is not so impotent and foolish as to put Himself and His plan of redemption at risk due to the simple and rebellious wills of mankind. No, like the perfect chess player, God knows that no matter what move His creatures make, He has a wide variety of moves which can direct His creation in the direction He wants it to go.

God is so supremely and infinitely wise, He can give genuine freedom to His creatures without any threat or risk whatsoever to His ultimate goals and plans. It is only a foolish god who must control every though, action, word, and deed in order for his plans to not be thwarted. But our God is not foolish. He is wise, loving, kind, merciful, and gracious. He wants everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth, and calls everyone to believe in Jesus for eternal life, which is possible through the will.

Is Eternal Life Dependent Upon Human Free Will

The primary objection to this, of course, is that it seems to make eternal life at least somewhat dependent upon humans. In other words, if people do not receive eternal life unless they believe in Jesus for it, and their belief is a function of their own will, then are not humans in some way responsible for their own eternal life, even if faith itself is not meritorious? The answer, of course, is โ€œYes!โ€

God has given us responsibility. As free beings, we are responsible. He holds us responsible. If we were not responsible, God would not be just in giving eternal life only to a few and sending the rest away into eternal separation from Him. The only way God can avoid the charge of being unjust is to give the responsibility of receiving the free gift of eternal life from Him by faith.

But againโ€”and I cannot emphasize this enough!โ€”faith is not a work. Faith is not meritorious. Being responsible to believe in Jesus for eternal life is not at all the same thing as working to gain, prove, or keep eternal life. Faith is not a work, but since God cannot and does not force eternal life upon all people whether they want it or not, He gives to humans the responsibility to believe in Jesus for the free gift of eternal life. This is not eternal life by works; this is eternal life by grace along through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Why then do some believe and others not?

Can those who believe in Jesus for eternal life somehow take credit that they were good enough, wise enough, or smart enough to understand the free offer of eternal life and respond by believing in Jesus for it? Can Christians after all give themselves a pat on the back and congratulate each other for being better and smarter than the rest of the humanity?

Never!

While much of it remains a mystery and I do not know how it will all work out in Godโ€™s economy or in eternity, we know from Scripture that each person on earth is given enough revelation from God to respond positively to Him, even if this revelation is only through creation and conscience. This does not mean that what is revealed through creation and conscience is sufficient in itself to grant eternal life to those who believe in what is revealed to them.

No, it means that God calls people to respond by faith to the revelation that they have been given, and when they do, God makes sure that they receive further revelation. Romans 1 and other biblical texts state that God has revealed certain truths about Himself in nature so that men are without excuse. I think that as people respond to the revelation they have received, God obligates Himself to provide more revelation to them, so that they receive enough revelation from God to either accept the offer of eternal life by faith alone, or to reject such an offer (Seeย What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?).

So why does one person believe and another not?

I do not have an answer to this any more than the Calvinist has an answer (in their theology) for why God chooses to regenerate some and not others.

If I were to look into my own life, I am tempted to say that I believed in Jesus, not because of anything good in me, but due to a variety of circumstances and situations which include a combination of (1) the Holy Spirit convicting me of sin, pointing me toward righteousness, and warning me of coming judgment, just as He does with everybody in the world; (2) common grace which is shown to all; (3) being born in a โ€œChristianโ€ nation; (4) Godly parenting; and (5) natural and divine revelation being impressed upon me by God and others in my life.

Note that I was not responsible for a single one of these. All of them were out of my control. They all โ€œhappenedโ€ to me. Other than the first two, which God gives to all people, it could be argued that the people who were not โ€œluckyโ€ enough to have the final three circumstances in their lives are at a distinct disadvantage to being able to believe in Jesus. I would agree. But I also believe that God knows where each person is at, and He knows what circumstances each person is in, and God will hold each person accountable for the revelation they have received (Luke 12:48). Also, as stated above, I believe that God obligates Himself to make more revelation available to those who believe and follow the revelation they have been given.

An extended quote from Robert Wilkin provides further insight into why some believe in Jesus and others do not, and also what God is doing to help all people believe in Jesus for eternal life:

Unbelievers are capable of responding to God. However, no unbeliever would seek God on his own initiative (Rom 3:11, โ€œThere is none who seeks after Godโ€). God is drawing all people to Himself (John 12:32, โ€œAnd I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myselfโ€). Because of that, they can respond.

โ€ฆ Unbelievers โ€ฆ are not incapable of seeking God. And, as we have already seen, Godโ€™s work in the life of unbelievers does not wait until He opens their hearts. He is continually drawing people everywhere to Himself.

God has determined that anyone who diligently seeks Him will ultimately find Him: โ€œHe has made from one blood every nation … so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of usโ€ (Acts 17:27); โ€œHe is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Himโ€ (Heb 11:6); โ€œIn every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Himโ€ (Acts 10:35).

โ€ฆ God has given enough information for us to know both that God is sovereign and that we are capable of responding to Him. No one is saved apart from God’s drawing him and opening his heart. Yet God doesnโ€™t force anyone to be saved and He doesnโ€™t hold anyone responsible for something which he canโ€™t possibly do. All who are born again have freely responded to Godโ€™s drawing and have trusted in Christ and Him alone for eternal life (Seeย Bob Wilkin, โ€œThe Lord Opened Her Heartโ€;ย โ€œWhat About Those Who Die Without Hearing the Message of Christ?โ€)

All people have the ability to respond to the light of revelation that they have received, and if people respond, God has obligated Himself to make sure that they receive more light so that they too may believe in Jesus for eternal life.

This function of the will, though it is the responsibility of a person, is not meritorious in any way, for faith is not a work (Rom 4:5), but is simply being persuaded or convinced about what is true, which, in the case of eternal life, is being persuaded that eternal life is the free gift of God to all who believe in Jesus for it.

What do you believe about Free Will? Why do you believe it? What questions do you still have about free will? Weigh in below!

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, free will, Theology of Man, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, TULIP

What I believe about Total Inability

By Jeremy Myers
17 Comments

What I believe about Total Inability

what I believe about total inabilityPreviously we looked at what Calvinist’s believe regarding Total Inability. Here is what I believe.

I am in basic agreement with Calvinists that there is no good work by which a person may earn or merit eternal life from God. Though there is much good that unregenerate people do, none of it is meritorious before God. He recognizes their good work and can even praise them for it, but these works in no way help them earn eternal life.

Humans do not contribute the tiniest bit to the free gift of eternal life. The free gift of eternal life is given completely by Godโ€™s grace.

If eternal life is by grace alone, then there is nothingโ€”absolutely nothing!โ€”we can do to earn, keep, or prove Godโ€™s free gift of eternal life.

Eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

We are not able to save ourselves or reform ourselves or do anything to produce or secure eternal life for ourselves.

We are able to believe

But our complete inability to contribute to our eternal life is quite different from our inability to receive the free gift of eternal life by faith. Believing in Jesus for eternal life is the polar opposite of trying to gain, keep, or prove eternal life by our own good works. As such, there is no boasting in faith or merit to faith.

If someone freely offered $1 million to a homeless personโ€”or even to another millionaireโ€”it would be ludicrous to say that the recipient of that gift somehow earned the $1 million because they received it with gratitude and joy. Imagine if there was a reword ceremony for this generous gift, and as the giver wrote out the check for $1 million, the receiver said, โ€œI deserve this $1 million because when it was offered to me, I said yes. I earned this money!โ€ The idea is preposterous.

There is no merit or effort of any sort involved in receiving a free gift.ย 

It is not meritorious to receive a free gift

Some might say that there is merit or effort involved in understanding that a free gift is being offered. In the case of the offer of eternal life, some argue that unbelievers are unable to even understand their condition of being unregenerate sinners, or understand their need of eternal life as a free gift from God, and so while the reception of the free gift of eternal life by faith might not be meritorious, the โ€œworkโ€ of understanding the need for that free gift is meritorious.

Returning once again to the analogy of the free gift of the $1 million, the Calvinist would say that when the person is offered the $1 million, they either cannot even understand what is being offered, or they deny that they even need it.

all are guilty - Psalm 143:2

In terms of eternal life, before a person can believe in Jesus, they first need to understand that there is a God, that God is righteous, that we are unrighteous, and that God offers His righteousness to those who will believe in Jesus for it. Many people must also understand that Jesus is God incarnate, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and rose again from the dead. It is these sorts of truths that a Calvinist says an unregenerate person is unable to understand and believe on their own.

And I would agree.But thankfully, God has not left us on our own.

We cannot take the first step

He has sent Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6).

He has sent the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). He has given us Scripture, by which we can learn more about Godโ€™s ways in history and the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. He has given us other believers, who may share the truth of the Gospel with us. He has given us creation, which is a visual testimony of His character and power. He has given us a conscience, wisdom, reason, feelings, and desires, all of which may lead us to the truth. God may even use angels, visions, and dreams to impress upon someone the necessity and importance of believing in Jesus for eternal life.

Based on what the Scripture teaches, it seems that all of the things God has given to humanity are sufficient to persuade and convince a person to believe in Jesus for eternal life. While I may disagree that regeneration precedes faith, I wholeheartedly defend the truth that revelation precedes faith.

People are able to believe because God has revealed Himself to humanity in numerous ways. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17). And the Word of God comes, not just through the pages of Scripture, but through the self-revelation of God in all its forms.

God enables people to believe because He has reveals Himself to them. The following discussions of free will, sin, faith, and regeneration will explain this in more detail.

What are your thoughts about total inability? Are people able to believe in Jesus for eternal life? Or must God first regenerate people so that they can believe?ย 

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: believe, Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, faith, Theology of Salvation, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Why 1 John 5:1 does not teach that regeneration precedes faith

By Jeremy Myers
7 Comments

Why 1 John 5:1 does not teach that regeneration precedes faith

1 John 5:1 is sometimes cited in reference to the Calvinistic idea that regeneration precedes faith. The statement in question is found in the first part of the verse, as quoted below:

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God โ€ฆ (1 John 5:1a).

In his article about the Calvinistic teaching that regeneration precedes faith, Dr. R. C. Sproul cites 1 John 5:1 as evidence for this teaching.ย In doing so, he quotes from the NRSV translation of the Bible, which more clearly brings out the point that Sproul is trying to make:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (1 John 5:1).

Note that by translating the verse this way, being โ€œborn of God,โ€ or regeneration, seems to precede faith, which in context is the belief that Jesus is the Christ.

R. C. Sproul is not the only Calvinist to have this understanding of 1 John 5:1. The view is quite common. Here, for example, is a quote from leading Calvinistic author and apologist, James White:

And what is the inevitable result of being born of God? Belief that Jesus is the Christ. …this means that in 1 John 5:1 the belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him. … Therefore, sheer consistency leads on to the conclusion that divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ as well as good works (James White, The Potterโ€™s Freedom, 288).

The Greek in 1 John 5:1

Calvinistic scholars and commentators defend such a view by pointing to the Greek tense in the text.

greek of 1 John 5:1

The word for โ€œbelieveโ€ is in the present tense participle, and the verb for โ€œbornโ€ is in the perfect tense. Since the perfect tense can carry the meaning of past action with present results, and since the participle โ€œbelievingโ€ is in the present tense, it is argued that being born of God in the past results in faith in the present. It is also pointed out that the perfect tense verb โ€œhas been bornโ€ is in the passive voice, which means that God alone accomplishes this birth, with no help or requirement from humans.

I donโ€™t want to get too lost in the technical weeds on this text, which would be easy to do, since there is a great debate among top Greek scholars about how to understand the โ€œtimeโ€ of present participles in Greek.

For now, let me just say that 1 John 5:1 is not the only place in Johnโ€™s writings where he pairs a present participle with a perfect tense verb. In John 3:18, for example, John quotes Jesus as saying, โ€œHe who believes [present participle] in Him is not condemned [perfect tense verb].โ€ I do not think that even Calvinists would say that people believe in Jesus as a result of not being condemned. To the contrary, according to the Calvinists, the whole world lies under condemnation, and even though they would say that regeneration precedes faith, I have never heard of any Calvinist who claims that being freed from condemnation, or being declared โ€œnot guilty,โ€ or being justified, precedes faith as well.

In the typical Calvinistic ordo salutis (โ€œorder of salvationโ€), while regeneration precedes faith, justification follows faith.

The Context of 1 John 5:1

In the more immediate context, 1 John 5:10 is also helpful. John writes that โ€œhe who does not believe [present participle] God has made Him a liar [perfect tense].โ€

It seems quite obvious from this verse, that God being made a liar does not precede a person refusing to believe God, but vice versa. When a person does not believe God, it is as if they are claiming that God is a liar. The perfect tense, โ€œmaking God a liar,โ€ is a result of the present participle, โ€œnot believing.โ€

We could go on and provide numerous similar examples, not just from the writings of John, but from other New Testament authors as well, but we have seen from just a couple of examples that present participles in connection with perfect tense verbs do not clearly indicate anything about the timing of one compared to the other. To say that they do is to read oneโ€™s theology into a text in order to get it to say something it does not.

Born Again in 1 John 5:1

Some Calvinists recognize this, and so avoid the โ€œverb tenseโ€ argument and point instead to the Greek word for being born (Gk., gennaล) in 1 John 5:1.

regeneration precedes faithThey argue that wherever this word is used in 1 John, it produces various results. Along with faith, they say that being born of God produces righteousness (2:29), the ability to stop sinning (3:9), and love for God and others (4:7). In every one of these cases, the verb for โ€œbornโ€ is in the perfect tense, matching almost perfectly the tense usage in 1 John 5:1. And since practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving God and others are all results of being born again, rather than conditions to it, it seems that faith also must be a result of being born again, rather than a condition of it.

1 John 5:1 is not teaching the Regeneration Precedes Faith

There is an alternative understanding to 1 John 5:1, however, that does not resort to the idea that regeneration precedes faith.

In this first letter of John, he is describing the conditions and characteristics for fellowship with God and with one another (1 John 1:3). He is not giving tests of life or doctrinal and behavioral indicators by which to determine whether or not you have eternal life. No, John is writing to believers who are facing an early form of Gnostic heresy and is instructing them to turn away from that false dualistic teaching, and instead come into a fuller understanding of God who is light and love. In this way, they will have true fellowship with God and with one another.

Related to this, the idea of being born (Gk., gennaล) in Johnโ€™s letter is the way he is describing the new life which all believers share with God and through which we come to know Him more intimately. The phrase โ€œborn of Godโ€ which is frequently found in the letter, is not exactly a reference to being justified or having eternal life, but is a way of speaking about the new divine characteristic that is created inside each and every believer.

To use Pauline terminology, being โ€œborn of Godโ€ is to be new creation, to have a new man (cf. Col 3:9-10). So when John writes about being โ€œborn of God,โ€ he is describing the characteristics of this aspect of our life, and contrasting it with the part of us that is โ€œof the world.โ€ Again, Paul would write about being โ€œof the flesh.โ€

This helps make sense of what John writes in 1 John 3:9 where he says that โ€œWhoever born of God does not sin.โ€ He is not saying that true Christians never sin, for that would blatantly contradict what he wrote earlier in his letter, where he said that everybody does sin, and the one who claims he does not sin is a liar (1 John 1:8-10).

Instead, what John is saying in 3:9 is that sin does not come from the โ€œborn of Godโ€ part of us. Just as God is light and love and there is no darkness in Him (1 John 1:5), so also, the part of us that is โ€œborn of Godโ€ is light and love and there is no darkness in it. The โ€œborn of Godโ€ part of us does not sin. It cannot sin, because it is born of God. When sin comes, as it always does (1 John 1:8-10), it does not come from the โ€œborn of Godโ€ part of us, but from the world and the flesh (1 John 2:16).

This helps us make further sense of the various places in 1 John where we read about what it means to be โ€œborn of God.โ€ The part of believers that is โ€œborn of Godโ€ helps us practice righteousness (1 John 2:29), helps keep us free from sin (1 John 3:9), helps us love God and others, (1 John 4:7), and helps us continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 5:1).

When understood this way, it becomes clear that 1 John 5:1 is not referring at all to the initial faith which grants a person eternal life, but rather to the ongoing faith which is necessary for sanctification and godliness.

Certainly, as believers in Jesus we need ongoing faith, and what would be more natural and right than for the new birth to serve as an instrument of God whereby our faith in Christ grows and multiplies?

The Christians to whom John was writing were already believers, but they were in danger of falling prey to unhealthy teaching about God. In writing to them, John encourages these believers to rely upon their new birth in God for teaching, instruction about righteousness, abiding in faithfulness, and remembering that Jesus is the Christ, and that by Him, they have life in His name.

So 1 John 5:1 is not a verse which proves that regeneration precedes faith. But nor is it a verse which proves that faith precedes regeneration.

John is not concerned with that question at all. Instead, John is concerned that these genuine believers to whom he is writingโ€”who already have been regenerated, who already have eternal life, and who are already born of Godโ€”will abide and remain in that position of being born of God, so that their righteousness, fellowship, and faith will grow and increase daily.

He wants them to live in the light they already have, and not be swayed by darkness and lies of the false teachers in their midst.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: 1 John 5:1, Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, regeneration precedes faith, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, TULIP

How to be as Smart as Martin Luther (Use Logos 6)

By Jeremy Myers
3 Comments

How to be as Smart as Martin Luther (Use Logos 6)

There are certain people in the history of Christianity whoย shock and amaze me at what they accomplished in life. Martin Luther is one of them. He translated the entire Bible into German, wrote over 70 volumes on theological topics, was a prolific hymn writer, and created the Lutheran Catechism.

I remember reading somewhere that Martin Luther was so well acquainted with the Greek and Latin biblical texts, that his mind worked like a Bible concordance in both Greek, Latin, and German. As he was writing, he made connections between texts and passages using key words, key ideas, and key phrases.

It is amazing what the human mind is capable of when saturated with the Word of God.ย 

But here’s the crazy thing:

Any person today can have more information about the Bible at their fingertips than Martin Luther ever dreamed of.

Of course, more information does not necessarily mean better theology, but the gathering of information is at least the starting point… comprehensive biblical data forms the foundation of good biblical theology.ย 

So how can you have more information about the Bible available at your fingertips than Martin Luther ever dreamed of?

Three words: Bible Study Software

I have been using Bible study softwareย for over 20 years. Initially, I used a simple concordance program, but as Bible Study software has become more advanced, I have found myself using it more and more to write my blog posts and my books.

One of my favorite Bible Study Software packages is Logos Bible Software. It also happens to be the industry leader.

And guess what? Logos just came out with their brand new Logos 6 platform. If you have used Logos Bible Study Software before as I have, then let me tell you a bit about the changes in Logos 6, and if you have never used Logos at all, you will be amazed at what it does for your Bible study and theology research.

Logos 6 Bible Study Software

Logos 6 makes it easier than ever to study the connection between texts, not just using key words, but also phrases and ideas. Check out the new “semantic relationships search” capability. It is SO cool:

Logos 6 uses all sort of cultural, archaeological, and geographical insights to help you understand the background information on a text.

Maybe some videos about Logos 6 will explain it better. Check these out:

How to Use Logos 6

If you are unfamiliar with how Logos 6 Bible study software works, these videos will help:

Perform an Inline Search

The fastest way to find words or phrases in English or the original languages without leaving your Bible.

How to Search your Entire Library

The simplest form of search that will gather information from across your library. Related resources, maps, Bible references, specific resources, and more.

Use the Ancient Literature Tool

Study the Bible against its cultural and linguistic background by making connections between the Bible and ancient texts.

Gain Insight onto Cultural Backgrounds

A new addition to the Passage Guide that helps you connect concepts that are common to the Biblical world, and explore them in other ancient texts.

Use the Logos 6 Factbook

The first stop for researching Biblical people, places, events, concepts, or things mentioned in the Bible.

Get Big Picture Overviews of Each Book of the Bible

Create Bible introductions for any book of the Bible. Find everything your library has to say about a book of the Bible in one place.

Do you Preach Sermons? Let Logos 6 help!

Build stunning presentation with inspirational quotes as you study.

Which Version of Logos 6 Should You Purchase?

If you are looking to purchase Logos 6, here is a brief video which explains the various packages and what they contain. Check out that Collector’s Edition … It’s valued at over $100,000!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIwYkfZlx9A

Right Now, Logos 6 is 15% off!

I use Logos 6 all the time for my writing and research, and if you want to get Logos 6 for yourself, it is available right now at 15% off. Just click the image below, select a software package from Logos, download it, and get studying!

Make sure you enter “JMYERS6” at checkout to get 15% off.

Logos Bible Software discount

Launch your Bible study capabilities to the next level with Logos 6 today.

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: bible software, Bible Study, Logos

Is the World Controlled by the Devil? 1 John 5:19

By Jeremy Myers
21 Comments

Is the World Controlled by the Devil? 1 John 5:19

There are a few verses that are sometimes used to defend the Calvinistic idea of Total Depravity. They seem to say that the world is under the control of Satan. Three of these verses are 1 John 1:8, 10 and 1 John 5:19. Here they are:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8).

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:10).

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one (1 John 5:19).

world under the control of wickedness 1 John 5:19

1 John 1:8, 10

The first two texts, 1 John 1:8, 10 do not require much explanation.

It is obvious that John is not teaching any sort of doctrine of Total Depravity, but is simply saying that everybody sins, and that if anybody claims to be without sin, they are sinning by making such a claim. No non-Calvinist disagrees with this.

Almost all Christians of all types believe that everybody sins. It is a straw-man fallacy and non-sequitur to say that if a person denies the Calvinistic idea of Total Depravity then they donโ€™t believe that all people are sinners.

You can deny Total Depravity and still accept the biblical teaching about the universal sinfulness of humanity.

1 John 5:19

The third passage quoted above, 1 John 5:19, is sometimes quoted in reference to total inability.

Like 1 Corinthians 2:14 and 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 1 John 5:19 is used to say that people are under the control of the devil, and therefore, cannot see or understand the truth of the gospel, nor respond to it, for the devil, who controls them, will not allow it.

control of the devilThe first thing to note about 1 John 5:19 is that the words โ€œcontrolโ€ or โ€œswayโ€ are not found in the Greek at all. These words are added by the translators in an attempt to make sense of what John writes. The addition of these words is due in large part to a second translation issue in this verse.

The second difficulty with 1 John 5:19 is with the phrase โ€œthe wicked one.โ€ Technically, the word โ€œoneโ€ in โ€œwicked oneโ€ is not there. This is why the King James Version, for example, translates the word as โ€œwickednessโ€ rather than โ€œthe wicked one.โ€ The Greek word is a substantival adjective, which means that it is an adjective used in the place of a noun. We do this in English, as with the Clint Eastwood movie, โ€œThe Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.โ€

So in 1 John 5:19, translators have to decide whether the substantive adjective (Gk., tล ponฤ“rล) is referring a thing (wickedness) or to a being (the wicked one). Those translators that opt for โ€œa beingโ€ called โ€œthe wicked oneโ€ then add additional words to the verse to show how the world lies on the wicked one. They say it lies under โ€œthe powerโ€ or under โ€œthe swayโ€ of the wicked one (NIV, NAS, NKJV). Those translations that opt for a thing, โ€œwickedness,โ€ need no additional words to explain Johnโ€™s point (KJV, Rheims).

I am generally uncomfortable in adding words to the biblical text to smooth over translations, and so prefer what is found in the KJV on this text.

John is saying the world lies in wickedness. It is covered in wickedness. This point would be identical to what John wrote earlier in his letter, that everyone is a sinner (1 John 1:8-10). Even if, however, we accept what is found in the majority of other modern translations, and John is understood to be saying that the world lies under the power, control, or sway of the wicked one, this verse still does not teach total inability for at least two reasons.

1 John 5:19 Does not teach Total Inability

First, since the words โ€œpower,โ€ โ€œcontrol,โ€ or โ€œswayโ€ are not found in the text, the translator is free to add whatever words he wants to help the reader understand what John is saying.

world power of the devil 1 John 5 19Usually the translator will try to add words that fit best with the overall context of the passage and book, but more often than not, the translator will add words that also fits with their own preconceived theology. This is why the NIV, which is heavily influence by Calvinistic scholars, chose the word โ€œcontrol.โ€ This is the strongest of the possible words that could have been used here, as it implies that Satan is in complete control of this world and therefore, unregenerate unbelievers have no ability to understand, respond, or believe the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The NKJV, however, uses the much more ambiguous word โ€œsway.โ€ This does not imply complete control, but instead is closer to the idea of โ€œinfluenceโ€ or โ€œguidance.โ€ Obviously, I prefer this sort of idea, for it better matches my theology.

Calvinists may criticize me for choosing a translation of this text which matches my theology, but that is exactly the point. This verse is ambiguous, and all sides of the debate need to understand that we tend to force our theology upon the text to get it to say what we want, rather than allow it to remain ambiguous and move on to other texts which might be more clear.

Nevertheless, there is at least one additional reason from the context of 1 John for why the Calvinistic teaching of total inability cannot be found in 1 John 5:19.

Even if we say that the verse is properly translated as Calvinistic theology requires, and we allow John to be saying that the โ€œwhole world is under the control of the evil one,โ€ this does not mean that the whole world is unable to believe in Jesus for eternal life. Earlier in his letter, John has written about the โ€œwhole worldโ€ and has stated that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

We will look at this verse in more detail when we discuss the Calvinistic idea of Limited Atonement, but for now, it is enough to note that even if the whole world lies under the control of the wicked one, Jesus has done what is necessary to liberate the whole world from the evil one so that they can respond to the gospel and believe in Jesus for eternal life (cf. 1 John 5:7-13).

The entire book of 1 John is engaged in this idea about good and evil, light and darkness, truth and error, and John is intent on showing his readers that based on who God is and what Jesus has done for all people, we can choose to live in love, light, and righteousness, rather than abide in hatred, darkness, and evil. That is how to understand Johnโ€™s final exhortation of his letter.

John is not making a statement about Total Depravity or total inability in 1 John 5:19, but is calling upon his readers to โ€œChoose this day whom you will serve.โ€

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: 1 John, 1 John 5:19, Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Coffee – The Elixir of Life

By Jeremy Myers
4 Comments

Coffee – The Elixir of Life

In my family, we call coffee “The Elixir of Life.” This is what it does for me:

coffee helps

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Blogging, coffee, humor, laugh

All Theologians are Thieves

By Jeremy Myers
34 Comments

All Theologians are Thieves

I read a book this past week (Iโ€™m not going to say which one) where the author (Author A) clearly, consistently, and blatantly plagiarized the ideas of another author (Author B) without giving due credit. I guess it wasn’t “blatant.” It was only obvious to me because I have read most of the books by Author Bย and was shocked to see so many of his ideas and insights being written about as if they belonged to Author A.

Whileย over the course of 50 pages or so, Author Aย did included two footnotes to the works of Author B,ย I didn’t feel that this was nearly enough.

stealing your theology

When nearly 90% of your ideas are coming from someone else, I think more than 2 footnotes are required.

Ok… so it wasn’t exactly full-scale plagiarism. At least Author A reworded and summarized the ideas which are found in the books ofย Author B, but again, I feel that if most of an authorโ€™s ideas and content are being pulled from the ideas of authors in other books, it is only right and fair to give them more credit than two footnotes.

Part of the reason I am saying this is because it caused me to wonder about the origin of the rest of his book. If I was aware that the vast majority of his ideas in 50 pages of the book were simply the summaries of ideas from some other author, it made me wonder about the other 150 pages in his book. Where did those come from? Were they also “lifted” from others who didn’t get proper credit?

And now we get to the real point of this post …

… and this is going to sound quite arrogant … (Sorry about that) …

… There were two chapters of this man’s book which sounded shocking similar to several of the blog posts I wrote last year. As I was reading these chapters, the thought flow, argument structure, and illustrations were almost identical to what I had written on this blog in 2013. His book came out a couple months ago.

Needless to say, I didn’t get a single footnote in the book.

Can I be certain he read my posts and “borrowed” them for his book?

No. I cannot.

theologians are thievesI know for a fact that I was reading a lot of books at the time I was writing those posts in question which led me to the beliefs and ideas I wrote about on my blog. Maybe this other author was reading the same books and coming up with the same ideas. That’s possible.

Maybe the Holy Spirit is at work around the world to bring multiple authors and pastors and theologians to similar ideas about similar things all at once, and so when I read something in someone else’s book that sounds a lot like something I have written, but they don’t give me credit, it is not that they “borrowed” from me, but because both of us were listening to what the Spirit has been whispering to minds all over the world. The Spirit blows where He wills….

All this sounds arrogant, right?

I’m either saying,”He stole his ideas from me!” or “Both of us are so spiritual, we have gained the same truth from the Holy Spirit!”

I wasn’t going to write anything about this, but then I decided to do a bit of Google research on this author, and I discovered that very early this year, he did in fact briefly mention my posts on one of his social media accounts. So this tells me he was reading my posts …

So OK … reading is still not the same as plagiarizing, and even though his book came out a couple months ago and he apparently read my posts about 10 months ago, this still doesn’t mean he “borrowed” my content for his book. I mean … for all I know, he submitted his manuscript to the publisher before he ever even read my posts …

I’m guess I’m not really upset. I suppose if I had some influence on him, I am thrilled that those ideas are having a wider impact on the world through what he wrote, and hopefully in his church as he preaches on Sundays. I am just saying that if he did in fact rely on my posts for the content of these two chapters in his book, some footnotes would have been nice …

Look, I will fully admit it: As a theologian, I also am a thief.

There are very few ideas bumping around in my head which did not originate in some form or another with other theologians and authors. Even the ideas which I think are original with me owe a large debt to the foundational ideas and writings of other authors and teachers.

In other words, even if I come up with โ€œIdea Dโ€ it is only because I learned Ideas A, B, and C from someone else. I could be wrong, but I think this is true of every theologian. This is why I say that all theologians are thieves.

But thatโ€™s okay. Itโ€™s expected and desired. Itโ€™s wanted, even.

sermon stealing

Theology is nothing if not the interplay of ideas and minds over some of the biggest questions about God in our day. Of course, the right thing to do when you steal an idea is to give credit to the people who taught it to you. Itโ€™s impossible to do this completely, but that is no excuse for not trying.

I honestly and truly try my absolute hardest to always reference and footnote and give credit to other authors, thinkers, writers, bloggers, and theologians when I know that what I am writing originated with them. It is not uncommon for me to spend hours trying to track down sources for where my ideas came from. I have re-read books, re-listened to podcasts, and spent hours scouring the internet, all in the attempt to remember where I read or heard something.

I am not going to call this author out. I donโ€™t really care too much (Although maybe this post says I care more than I think? Ha!)

I honestly try to live by the principle that Harry Truman once said: โ€œIt is amazing what you can accomplish when you donโ€™t care who gets the credit.โ€

I am glad that if people find my posts and books helpful, that they turn around and teach the ideas they contain to others.

However, I am always delighted and encouraged when a blogger mentions my ideas in a post or an author includes a footnote to one of my books. I try to my best to do this for others, as I hope you all do as well.

Are you and author, blogger, or writer?

Please, do your best to reference and footnote those to whom you owe a debt of ideas.

You will always miss a few (I knowย I do), but if you develop this discipline early, it will serve you well throughout your writing life. (In case you are curious, one invaluable tool I use to help me with this is Endnote Software. What a time saver in my writing!)

Has this sort of thing ever happened to you? It happens more often than we think… If you have a story to tell, share it in the comment section below! (Try to refrain from naming names though!)

God is z Bible & Theology Topics: Blogging, Books by Jeremy Myers, Books I'm Reading, footnotes, Theology - General, writing

If Judaizers are Right, then they’re Wrong (Titus 1:15)

By Jeremy Myers
7 Comments

If Judaizers are Right, then they’re Wrong (Titus 1:15)

paul titus 1Titus 1:15 is sometimes referenced as further proof for the doctrine of Total Depravity and its twin, total inability. The text says this:

To the pure all thing are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15).

Pulled out of context, this passage appears to be quite similar to some of the others we have looked at previously, and similar arguments could be used to understand Paulโ€™s point.

Upon closer inspection within the context, however, Paulโ€™s argument contains a surprising point we have not yet specifically encountered. This verse contains a warning about those types of โ€œChristianโ€ theologies that condemn other people and other things as being impure and depraved. In other words, although Calvinists sometimes use Titus 1:15 to defend their doctrine of Total Depravity, this verse might actually condemn theologies that include teachings like Total Depravity as being โ€œunchristian.โ€

Paul is Writing to Titus Who was Struggling with Judaizers

To see this, we must understand that Paul was writing a letter to a young pastor named Titus who was ministering in Crete but was facing numerous problems in the church. Chief among these problems were certain teachers who had risen up within the church and were leading people astray by what they taught. Though we cannot know everything these false teachers in Crete were saying, the context does give some indication about their ideas and words.

Apparently, certain Cretan Christians were teaching the ideas and theology of a group called the โ€œJudaizers.โ€

The Judaizers were not necessarily Jewish in heritage (though many of them were), but might also have included Gentile coverts to Judaism. In Titus 1:10, Paul calls them โ€œthe circumcision.โ€ Due to Paulโ€™s emphasis on grace, he encountered opposition from these Judaizers almost everywhere he went. His letter to the Galatians is written against the influence of the Judaizers, and there are numerous hints in his others letters about his opposition to their teachings (e.g., Col 2:22).

Judaizers Taught the Necessity of the Mosaic Law

The main teaching of the Judaizers was that they wanted all followers of Jesus to continue to obey the Mosaic Law. Though these Judaizers considered themselves to be Christians and professed to know God (Titus 1:16), they believed that Jesus, as a Jew Himself, wanted all His followers to practice and obey the Law of Moses, including the laws of the Sabbath, the laws of circumcision, and the laws of ceremonial and personal purity.

One of the specific things these Judaizers were teaching was the necessity of keeping the Mosaic purity laws.

titus 1 judaizers

The Mosaic Law stated that if a person became unclean through touching a dead body, having an emission of blood, or getting a disease like leprosy, they polluted everything they came into contact with. If someone who was pure touched someone who was impure, the impurity passed to the pure person as well, making both impure.

This is why Paul says that โ€œto the defiled โ€ฆ nothing is pureโ€ (Titus 1:15). He is not saying that certain people sin all the time or that they do not and cannot understand the things of God. To the contrary, Paul is referencing a point drawn from Jewish purity codes that impurity passed from that which is unclean to that which is clean, and not the other way around. One who was clean could not cleanse the unclean by touching it, but would instead become unclean himself. As will be seen, Paul does not agree with this idea, but he references it because this is what the Judaizers were teaching.

It appears that these Judaizers in Crete were teaching that everything was impure, everything was sinful, everything was wicked, evil, and depraved, and so in order to remain pure, believers needed to keep themselves separate from the โ€œimpureโ€ people of this world. They could not have โ€œimpureโ€ friends, could not eat with โ€œimpureโ€ Gentiles, and could not spend time with โ€œimpureโ€ sinners lest they themselves become impure (cf. the teachings of the Judaizers in Galatians). The Judaizers taught that all unbelievers were impure sinners who should be shunned and avoided.

A Saying from a Cretan Judaizer

A specific example of their own teaching is found in Titus 1:12, where Paul quotes one of these Cretan Judaizers as saying that โ€œCretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.โ€ It is extremely unlikely that all Cretans acted this way, and Paul knew it. Such a statement is a prejudiced stereotype.

titus 1 15Yet Paul quotes it, and then โ€œapprovesโ€ of it by saying โ€œThis testimony is trueโ€ (Titus 1:13), not because he thinks it is right, but because the person who said it is a Cretan himself, and Paul wants to use this false teacherโ€™s own words against him to show how foolish this teaching really was.

So after stating his โ€œapprovalโ€ of this prejudiced condemnation of all Cretans, Paul tells Titus to rebuke the Cretan Judaizers who teach these things (Titus 1:13). Why? Because if all Cretans are liars, evil, and lazy, then this must be true as well of the Cretan Judaizers as well! Therefore, they should be rebuked.

Paul builds on this idea in Titus 1:15, stating that โ€œto the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure.โ€ It is possible the Judaizers were teaching something similar, and it may be that this is another example of where Paul is using a literary technique called epistolary diatribe to quote and refute the false teachers, but either way, Paulโ€™s point is clear. According to a legalistic interpretation of the Mosaic Law (which Jesus Himself rejected time and time again), Godโ€™s people needed to stay separate and distinct from the defiled and unclean โ€œsinnersโ€ of this world, because eating with them and hanging out with them causes the defilement of the โ€œpure.โ€

The example of Jesus and the instructions of Paul reveal the exact opposite: that the righteousness of God in our lives has a redemptive and reconciling effect on the world. We bring light and love to the world by befriending sinners and living among them with grace, mercy, and forgiveness. The impure do not defile the righteous, but the righteous help sanctify the impure.

If the Judaizers are Right, then They’re Wrong

To sum up then, in Titus 1:15, Paul is saying that if the Judaizers are right in teaching that impurity makes everything it touches impure, then the fact that they are Cretans and all Cretans are liars, evil, and lazy, means that according to the theology of these Judaizers, even their mind and conscience are defiled.

In other words, if the Judaizers are right, then they are wrong. If the Judaizing theology is correct and that which is impure makes everything it touches impure, then the thought process of Cretan Judaizers is impure for all Cretans are lazy, evil, and liars. And if their thought process is impure, then their theology cannot be trusted either. It too must be wrong.

Paul is not teaching some sort of doctrine of Total Depravity or total inability in Titus.

Instead, using a brilliant strategy of using his opponentโ€™s teaching against them, Paul shows that those who teach that everybody else is evil and defiled have painted themselves into a theological corner. Their own logic disproves their position.

Therefore, it is highly improper to apply Titus 1:15 to the unregenerate person. This verse is more applicable to the religious teacher who legalistically hangs on to the principles of the Mosaic Law as guidelines for followers of Jesus, and specifically for those who teach that all people are liars, evil, lazy, corrupt, and depraved.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Judaizers, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Titus 1:15, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Are All Gentiles Depraved in the Mind? (Ephesians 4:17-19)

By Jeremy Myers
4 Comments

Are All Gentiles Depraved in the Mind? (Ephesians 4:17-19)

Ephesians 4:17-19 is often quoted along with 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, and Ephesians 2:1-5 as evidence that the unregenerate person has no ability to understand, comprehend, or respond to the truth of God and the gospel.

This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness (Ephesians 4:17-19).

futility of the mind Ephesians 4

Note several things about this passage.

1. Paul is Warning Believers

First, Paul is calling upon his readers to stop walking in the way that other Gentiles walk. While Paulโ€™s readers are most likely regenerate, Paulโ€™s exhortation implies that walking in darkness is a distinct possibility for believers. This will be seen more later when we look at the Calvinistic doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.

2. Walking in Futility is a Choice

knowledge ignorance futilitySecondly, however, and more to the point about Total Depravity, it appears that even these Gentiles who walk in the futility of their mind do so because they have chosen to do so. In Ephesians 4:17-18, Paul strings together several perfect participles, which means that they are dependent upon the time of the main verb in his statement. The main verb is the past-tense (aorist) found in Ephesians 4:19 where Paul says that โ€œthey have given themselves over.โ€ In other words, this means that the reason these Gentiles are futile in their minds, have their understanding darkened, have blindness of their heart, and are past feeling, is because they gave themselves over to lewdness, uncleanness, and greediness.

There is no doctrine of Total Depravity or total inability here. What there is, however, is the all-important biblical message that first we make our choices, and then our choices make us. Paul is saying that the Gentiles of whom he is speaking made the conscious choice to live in sin, and as a result, they have become darkened in their mind, feelings, and understanding. We might say that their conscience is seared, that they live in willful ignorance, and their past choices are reaping present results.

Both Believers and Unbelievers Choose to Live in the Futility of their Mind

Based on this understanding, it only makes sense then, that Paul warns his believing readers to not make the same choices. Choices for sin, though they do not cause someone to lose their eternal life once they have it, can cause serious long-term consequences in the life of the believer. Paul wants his readers to put off that old way of conduct, and live their new life in the Spirit with the new man which was created by God for righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:22-24).

Ephesians 4:17-19 is not teaching about Total Depravity or total inability, but about the devastating results of choosing sin over righteousness.

These truths apply not just to unbelievers, but to regenerate believers as well.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Calvinism, Ephesians 4, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability, TULIP

Did Martha actually believe what Jesus said in John 11:25?

By Jeremy Myers
34 Comments

Did Martha actually believe what Jesus said in John 11:25?

We are all familiar with the story in John 11 of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11 and the little conversation that Jesus had with Martha before He raised Lazarus.

John 11 Jesus Lazarus MarthaHere is how I have usually read John 11:39-44:

Scene: [Mary and Martha are upset with Jesus because they had sent a message to Jesus that Lazarus was sick (John 11:2), and Jesus had not come. Now, four days after Lazarus has died (John 11:39), Jesus decides to finally show up. Mary couldnโ€™t bear to face Jesus, but Martha went out meet Him (John 11:20).]

Martha: Too bad you didnโ€™t get here five days ago โ€ฆ when Lazarus was still alive โ€ฆ when we called you to come. Iโ€™m angry at you, but I still believe that God is with you (John 11:21-22).

Jesus: Your brother will rise again (John 11:23).

Martha: (Rolls her eyes and thinks, โ€œWhat a terrible thing to say at a funeral. How does that help me now?โ€). Of course he will, in the future resurrection along with everyone else (John 11:24).

Jesus: Iโ€™m not talking about the future resurrection event. I am talking about me. I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, even though he dies physically, will then live physically, and will never die for all eternity. Do you believe this? (John 11:25-26).

Martha: Absolutely! Of course I believe that (John 11:27).

Scene: [Jesus goes and raises Lazarus from the dead. Big party ensues (John 11:41-44).]

Is that pretty much how you have understood this event, and especially the answer that Martha gives to Jesus in John 11:27?

Recently, I have begun to wonder if I have been reading this text wrong all along.

John 11:27 and John 21:15-17

What got me wondering is the little conversation Jesus has with Peter at the end of John, where Jesus asks Peter three times โ€œDo you love me?โ€ and Peter answers three times, โ€œYes, you know that I love youโ€ (John 21:15-17)

We all know, of course, that the first two times Jesus asks Peter this question, Jesus uses the word โ€œagapeโ€ for Godโ€™s divine love, but Peter answers with โ€œphileo,โ€ which is brotherly love. The third time, Jesus uses โ€œphileoโ€ also, indicating to Peter that he knows that Peterโ€™s love will never be perfect, and thatโ€™s okay.

But what got me thinking was that with the first two questions, even though Peter said โ€œYesโ€ what he was really saying was โ€œNo.โ€ Jesus asked, โ€œPeter, do you agape me?โ€ and in saying, โ€œYes, I phileo you,โ€ Peter was actually saying, โ€œNo, I do not, cannot, and will not be able to agape you. But I do phileo you, and thatโ€™s the most I can honestly offer.โ€

The night of Jesusโ€™ crucifixion gave Peter a glimpse into his own soul, and he knows what resides there, and so he answers Jesus honestly.

Anyway, the fact that Peter says โ€œYes,โ€ but actually gives a modified โ€œNoโ€ made me wonder if Martha wasnโ€™t doing something similar in John 11, for if you look at the text carefully, she does not say that she believes what Jesus asks her. Instead, she states her belief in something else entirely, and in fact, a few verses later, when Jesus tells her to have some men roll away the stone, she proves that she did not believe what He said, because she argues with Jesus about rolling away the stone! This is where Jesus reiterates to her what He told her previously, that He was the resurrection and the life. If she had truly believed Him, she would not have argued with him later in the chapter.

Jesus Martha Lazarus

A New Reading of John 11

So now, I am wondering if John 11 could be read this way. The setup is the same, but the results are much different:

Scene: [Mary and Martha are pissed off because they had sent a message to Jesus that Lazarus was sick (John 11:2), and Jesus had not come. Now, four days after Lazarus has died (John 11:39), Jesus decides to finally show up. Mary couldnโ€™t bear to face Jesus, but Martha went out meet Him (John 11:20).]

Martha: Too bad you didnโ€™t get here five days ago โ€ฆ when Lazarus was still alive โ€ฆ when we called you to come. Iโ€™m angry at you, but I still believe that God is with you (John 11:21-22).

Jesus: Your brother will rise again (John 11:23).

Martha: (Rolls her eyes and thinks, โ€œWhat a terrible thing to say at a funeral. How does that help me now?โ€). Of course he will, in the future resurrection along with everyone else (John 11:24).

Jesus: Iโ€™m not talking about the future resurrection event. I am talking about me. I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, even though he dies physically, will then live physically, and will never die for all eternity. Do you believe this? (John 11:25-26).

Martha: Thatโ€™s kind of crazy talk. Look, I believe you are the Christ, the promised Jewish Messiah. Isnโ€™t that enough? (John 11:27).

Scene: Jesus says nothing, but looks at her with love filled eyes. They travel to the tomb of Lazarus. Jesus weeps. The people wonder why Jesus, if He loved Lazarus so much, couldnโ€™t have healed him from his sickness (John 11:37).

Jesus: Take away the stone from the tomb (John 11:39a).

Martha: Are you okay Jesus? Heโ€™s dead. If you wanted to say your final goodbye, you should have done that four days ago when we called you. By now he stinks. Let him rest in peace (John 11:39b).

Jesus: Didnโ€™t I tell you that I am the resurrection and the life? You didnโ€™t really indicate that you believed me, but now I am going to show you that itโ€™s true. Tell them to roll the stone away (John 11:40).

Scene: [Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. Big party ensues (John 11:41-44).]

There is something compelling to me about this reading, but the main problem I have with it is that it messes with my understanding of John 20:31.

But what about John 20:31?

In the past, I used to think that John 20:31 was teaching that believing that Jesus is the Christ was the same thing as believing in Jesus for eternal life. But now I am not so sure.

Maybe, if this alternative reading of John 11 is true, then an alternative explanation for John 20:31 is also required.

Maybe John 20:31 is not teaching that believing that Jesus is the Christ is the same thing as believing in Jesus for eternal life, but rather, believing that Jesus is the Christ helps lead a person to believing in Jesus for eternal life.

This, after all, seems to be what happened to Martha.

Jesus said to her, โ€œI am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will have eternal life. Do you believe this?โ€

She said, โ€œNo, but I believe you the Christ.โ€

Based on this belief, Jesus went on to show her that as the Christ, she could also believe in Him for eternal life.

Remember, at that time, most Jewish people thought that the Messiah, the Christ, would just be another human being with a special connection to God. They did not believe the Messiah would actually be God incarnate. Maybe Jesus is trying to move Martha from belief in Him as the Messiah to belief in Him as God in the flesh?

This also may explain why the apostles went about preaching what they did in book of Acts (see Acts 5:42; 9:22; 17:2-3; 18:5, 28).

Anyway, I am just curious what all of you think about that. Let me know!

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: belief, Bible Study, christ, eternal life, faith, John 11, John 20:31, Lazaraus, Martha, resurrection, Theology of Salvation

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • …
  • 243
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework