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

Do humans have a free will? Calvinism says “No!”

By Jeremy Myers
63 Comments

Do humans have a free will? Calvinism says “No!”

Often wrapped up in a discussion of Total Depravity and Total Inability is a discussion of free will.

free will and calvinism

Though it is variously stated, most Calvinists believe that humans do not have a free will.

Some argue that humanity did have a free will before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and fell into sin by eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Others argue that a form of free will is awakened in the minds of the Christian. What almost all agree on, however, is that no unregenerate person has free will. Of course, even here, you will occasionally run across a Calvinist who claims to believe that unregenerate people have a free will, but that the free will of unregenerate people is only a free will to do evil. That is, though they can choose of their own free will to do what they want, their choices are only between various forms of evil, and they cannot choose to do any good.

Calvinism and Free Will

free will Here are some Calvinist quotes about Free will:

Free will is nonsense (Spurgeon, Free Will a Slave, 3).

Free will is the invention of man, instigated by the devil (David Wilmoth, The Baptist Examiner, September 16, 1989, 5).

Free will makes man his own savior and his own god (Tom Ross, Abandoned Truth, 56).

The heresy of free will dethrones God and enthrones man. … The ideas of free grace and free will are diametrically opposed. All who are strict advocates of free will are strangers to the grace of the sovereign God (W. E. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will, 35, 43).

To affirm that [man] is a free moral agent is to deny that he is totally depraved (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 138).

In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will… As the bird with a broken wing is ‘free’ to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able (Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 62).

Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam’s will was free before the Fall. Instead, man’s will, as the result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature (Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 19).

What are your thoughts on free will? Does it exist? Does it not? If it does, how can we have free will and God remain sovereign? If free will does not exist, how can we avoid the charge of fatalism or determinism?

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, sin, Theology of Man, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin

Advertisement

Total Depravity as Total Inability

By Jeremy Myers
19 Comments

Total Depravity as Total Inability

total inability total depravityYesterday we introduced the Calvinist concept of Total Depravity. We saw that in general, the basic understanding of this idea is pretty sound.

However, when most Calvinists speak of “Total Depravity” what they really have in mind is something they call “Total Inability.”

This is where the trouble with Total Depravity gets introduced.

Total Inability

Here is what Calvinists have to say about Total Depravity as Total Inability:

As a creature the natural man is responsible to love, obey, and serve God; as a sinner he is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel. But at the outset we are confronted with the fact that the natural man is unable to love and serve God, and that the sinner, of himself, cannot repent and believe (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 187).

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin. Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform (Canons of Dort, III/IV.3)

Inasmuch as Adam’s offspring are born with sinful natures, they do not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil. Consequently, man’s will is no longer free (i.e., free from the dominion of sin) as Adam’s will was free before the fall. Instead, man’s will, as the result of inherited depravity, is in bondage to his sinful nature (Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 19).

Natural (soulish) unregenerate men cannot comprehend the things of God. They are the unborn dead (spiritually) who know only darkness. They are totally depraved, wholly incapable of thinking, perceiving, or doing anything pleasing to God (Spencer, TULIP, 35).

In and of himself the natural man has power to reject Christ; but in and of himself he has not the power to receive Christ (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 128).

In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sinful, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment (Piper, Five Points, 22).

There is a fundamental incapacity in the natural man. He does not accept the things of the Spirit of God (willful rejection), for they are foolishness to him. Why are they foolishness? Because he is not a spiritual man. He cannot (not “does not” or “normally chooses not to”) understand them. This is another phrase of inability… (Hunt & White, Debating Calvinism, 69).

In future posts I will discuss why I am uncomfortable with the way Calvinists talk about Total Inability, but for now, what are your thoughts on this idea from Calvinistic teaching? Do you think we have total inability as the Calvinists describe it in the quotes above? Why or why not?

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, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity, total inability

Advertisement

Total Depravity According to Calvinists

By Jeremy Myers
20 Comments

Total Depravity According to Calvinists

Calvinism 5 point TULIPThe first point of Calvinism’s TULIP is Total Depravity.

Total Depravity forms the logical and theological foundation for the rest of the Calvinistic system, and as such, we will spend additional space laying out what Calvinism teaches about Total Depravity, and how it forms the foundation for everything that follows. If we can grasp all the intricacies and implications of Total Depravity, and see how it does not fit with Scripture, the rest of the Calvinistic system will fall like a set of dominoes.

It is not an overstatement to say, as does R. C. Sproul, that all five points of Calvinism stand or fall on the basis of Total Depravity.

If one embraces this aspect [inability] of the T in TULIP the rest of the acrostic follows by a resistless logic. Once cannot embrace the T and reject any of the other four letters with any degree of consistency (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 128)

Though my journey away from Calvinism ended by dropping Total Depravity, Sproul is correct: Total Depravity is foundational to TULIP Calvinism. As a result, I will be spending many posts discussing Total Depravity and related concepts.

what is total depravity

What is Total Depravity?

On the surface, the doctrine of Total Depravity seems acceptable. In fact, it is because of the surface level explanation of Total Depravity that I believed it for so long.

Just as many evangelists today begin their gospel presentation with the “bad news” about our sinfulness before God, so the five points of Calvinism also begin with the sinful condition that mankind finds itself in. The term “Total Depravity” refers to the sinfulness of humanity in relation to God’s righteous standards, and especially to our inability to do anything that helps us earn or merit eternal life from God.

I agree with this.

The reason I finally rejected Total Depravity, however, is not because I believe that people can “save themselves” or earn their way into heaven, or do anything good to merit eternal life. I believe nothing of the sort. Instead, I eventually rejected Total Depravity because I understood what most Calvinists meant when they talked about Total Depravity.

For Calvinists, Total Depravity means way more than just sinfulness.

But let us allow Calvinists to define and explain Total Depravity in their own words.

Total Depravity According to Calvinists

total depravity sinMany people, including many Calvinists, object to the term “Total Depravity” because it gives the impression that human beings are totally and completely sinful. When some people hear about “Total Depravity” they think of someone who always and only does the most evil thing possible.

This clearly does not happen. No person in history always does the most evil thing they can do in every situation.

Thankfully, Calvinists recognize this as well and so are careful to clarify that the teaching on Total Depravity is not the same thing as “absolute depravity,” and that in general, humanity is not without some good. They say instead that Total Depravity means that mankind is as bad off as man can be (Spencer, TULIP, 32).

Here are some other quotes on Total Depravity from Calvinists:

Total depravity does not mean that each man is the epitome of the devil. For, as a matter of fact, man does not commit all the sins possible; and those he does commit are not always as bad as possible. Furthermore, we see that he can even perform a certain amount of relative good. … Total depravity means that natural man is never able to do any good that is fundamentally pleasing to God, and, in fact, does evil all the time (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 12-13).

Human nature has been and is utterly corrupted by sin so that man is totally incapable of doing anything to accomplish his salvation (Rose, TULIP, 2).

When Calvinists speak of man as begin totally depraved, they mean that man’s nature is corrupt, perverse, and sinful throughout (Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism, 18).

Total Depravity means that unregenerate man is hopelessly enmeshed in sin, bound by Satan with the chords of spiritual death, and wholly disinterested in the things of the Creator (Spencer, TULIP, 36).

To be totally depraved, however, does not mean that a person is as intensively evil as possible, but as extensively evil as possible. It is not that he cannot commit a worse crime; rather, it is that nothing that he does is good. Evil pervades every faculty of his soul and every sphere of his life. He is unable to do a single thing that is good (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 9).

What total depravity is meant to convey is the idea that sin has affected the whole person down to the very core or root of his or her being (Boice & Ryken, Doctrines of Grace, 71).

By nature we are slaves to sin. This does not mean that the fall has destroyed or eradicated the human will. Fallen man still has all the faculties to make choices. WE still have a mind and a will. The problem is not that we cannot make choices. Natural men make choices all the time. The problem is that, in our fallen condition, we make sinful choices. We make these choices freely. We sin precisely because we want to sin, and we are capable of choosing exactly what we want to choose (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 130).

For the most part, though I would not state it in exactly the same way, I am not that opposed toward the teaching on Total Depravity as expressed in the quotes above.

I firmly believe that in and of ourselves, there is nothing we can do to earn or merit eternal life before God, or even to place ourselves in good standing with God. We cannot become righteous on our own. Even all of our righteous works are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). On this, I am in agreement with Calvinism.

Future posts will show, however, that Calvinists have numerous teachings that come from Total Depravity which I am not too excited about. We will look at the first of these tomorrow. Until then, what do you think about the doctrine of Total Depravity as expressed above? Is it biblical or not? Is it wise to base our theology on a foundational idea of sin?

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, sin, Theology of Salvation, Theology of Sin, Total Depravity

Advertisement

Jesus as the Divine Scapegoat

By Jeremy Myers
25 Comments

Jesus as the Divine Scapegoat

Yesterday we looked at the idea of God as a divine scapegoat. We pick up with this idea today, showing how Jesus also was a divine scapegoat. He not only revealed to us what God had been doing all along, but also unmasked the scapegoat mechanism for all to see. Through Jesus, we see the truth of violence, that it comes from us, and not from God.

Jesus as scapegoat

The way many Christians have come to understand and explain the crucifixion of Jesus, it almost seems as if God Himself was to blame for this violent act as well.

Did God Need an Innocent Victim To Suffer for the Sins of the World?

A large swath of Christian theology teaches that God sent Jesus to die on the cross, that it was God Himself who wanted an innocent victim to die for the sins of the whole world. Many forms of traditional Christianity even state that the only reason the death of Jesus could atone for the sins of the whole world is because He was an innocent victim.

In other words, one prominent and popular explanation for the crucifixion of Jesus was that God needed an innocent victim to pay for the sins of the world, and since the innocent victims of bulls and goats could not perfectly accomplish what God desired, God instead had to send the ultimate innocent victim, His only Son Jesus Christ, to pay for the sins of the whole world.

scapegoatThis interpretation of the cross makes God once again the violent perpetrator of this most violent of crimes. According to this view, God ordained the death of His Son because God demands the blood sacrifice of an innocent victim to appease His anger toward sin.

The Scriptures, however, paint a quite different picture.

We Killed Jesus as a Scapegoat for our own Sin and Shame

Jesus came to occupy an all-too-humanly constituted place of shame, violence, and death, and not hold it against us. There is an angry deity in this equation, and it is us, in whose midst God, quite without violence, manifests the depth of his forgiving love by plumbing the depths of, and thus defanging, our violence (Alison, We didn’t invent sacrifice).

Instead of God demanding a blood sacrifice to satisfy His wrath toward sinful humanity, Scripture indicates that it was mankind who put Jesus to death on the cross.

It was we who continued our age-old crime of scapegoating an innocent victim to appease our own guilty conscience.

We were the violent ones, and Jesus submitted Himself to our violence to both expose it and neutralize it once and for all.

Jesus went willingly to the cross, not because a blood sacrifice was necessary to pay the penalty for sin, but because going to the cross unmasked the scapegoat mechanism, revealed the violence inherent within the heart of men, exposed the myth of redemptive violence, and brought an end to the war that men had waged on God for centuries.

Unveiling the Power of Sin

Jesus on the crossOn the cross, Jesus removed the veil from the power of sin.

On the cross, Jesus laid bare for all to see the lie that violence toward an innocent victim helps alleviate the curse of sin and constant spiral of violence.

On the cross, Jesus showed us once and for all that God is not violent, but, quite to the contrary, has been taking upon Himself the violence of the whole world.

In Jesus, “God is revealed as the ‘arch-scapegoat,’ the completely innocent one who dies in order to give life. And his way of giving life is to overthrow the religion of scapegoating and sacrifice” (McDonald, Violence & The Lamb Slain).

God of the Old Testament and JesusHow can a God who says "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) be the same God who instructs His people in the Old Testament to kill their enemies?

These are the sorts of questions we discuss and (try to) answer in my online discipleship group. Members of the group can also take ALL of my online courses (Valued at over $1000) at no charge. Learn more here: Join the RedeemingGod.com Discipleship Group I can't wait to hear what you have to say, and how we can help you better understand God and learn to live like Him in this world!

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, crucifixion, Jesus, scapegoat, Theology of God, Theology of Jesus, Theology of Sin, violence, violence of God, When God Pled Guilty

Advertisement

God as the Divine Scapegoat

By Jeremy Myers
12 Comments

God as the Divine Scapegoat

The biblical symbol of the scapegoat helps us understand what God was doing when He allowed (or inspired) Old Testament authors to attribute violence to Him.

God Scapegoat

When we understand that God Himself is the primary scapegoat in Scripture, it helps us see that God is not violent, but He allowed violent people to attribute violence to His name so that He could bear their shame and guilt.

“God Himself reuses the scapegoat mechanism, at his own expense, in order to subvert it.” (Girard, One By Whom Scandal Comes, 43-4). To put it another way, God “allowed himself to be expelled so as to make of his expulsion a revelation of what he is really like” (Alison, “Girard’s Breakthrough”).

God Takes On our Violence

Though innocent of all violence attributed to Him, God allowed the violence committed by others to be laid upon His head so that He might take the blame and thereby rescue and deliver mankind from most of the self-destructive consequences of their sin, and reveal Himself to mankind as a loving Father who takes our sin upon Himself for our deliverance from the consequences of sin and for the sake of our relationship with Him.

God “is always ready to pay with his own person in order to spare men the terrible destiny that awaits them” (Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, 208).

God Rescues Mankind from Violence

By being the scapegoat for natural and human violence, God thereby rescues, redeems, and delivers mankind from the disastrous consequences of owning up to what is truly in our hearts. If given a true and complete glimpse of the blackness that resides in our own hearts, some would fall into deep despair and depression from which there is no escape, while others would embrace the evil as a justification for further evil actions toward others. When men get an honest glimpse of the evil that resides in our hearts, we either sink down into death or seek to incarnate the evil even further. When faced with the depths of our own depravity, some die and some kill.

God wanted to rescue humanity from either possibility and so He actively allowed men to blame Him for the evil of their own hearts. He bears the burden that no human being can bear. He became the scapegoat for their sin, allowing humanity to lay their sins upon Him so that He might carry their sins away.

In order to achieve God’s purposes, God will in effect “get his hands dirty.” It is necessary for God to enter into compromising situations, and work with whatever potential there is, in order to move forward God’s salvific goals. But God, too, will suffer violence in such situations. God will not only absorb the effects of the human misuse of power, but will “look bad” in the eyes of those who think that God’s possibilities should not be so limited (see 1 Cor 1:26-31) (See Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 76).

God as the Scapegoat and Leviticus 16

God becomes a victim

The imagery of the scapegoat comes from the description in Leviticus 16 of the goat chosen on the Day of Atonement to carry the sins of Israel out into the wilderness. On the Day of Atonement, the priest would select two goats and present them before God, and then cast lots to see which would be chosen as the scapegoat.

The goat which was selected by lot was offered to God as a burnt offering, while the one which was rejected became the scapegoat (Lev 16:7-10). The priest was to lay his hands upon the scapegoat, symbolically passing all of Israel’s sins upon the goat, and then the goat was to be sent away into the wilderness, where it (presumably) died, taking all the sins of Israel with it into the grave.

That God allows Himself to be the scapegoat for our sin is seen partly in the fact that the practice of “scapegoating” is found, not just in Leviticus 16, but in all cultures and all religions throughout history. From sacrificial animals to human sacrifices, all societies sought, in one way or another, to alleviate their own guilt and shame by laying this guilt upon someone or something else.

While this often took the form of blood sacrifice, the practice of “scapegoating” is also seen when a culture blames some person or people group within their society for all the woes that fall upon that society. This person or people group is then killed off, enslaved, or sent into exile, bearing the sins of society on their back. Those that remain are able to continue their lives as normal, thinking that the root cause of their problems has been eliminated.

The real problem, of course, is within each and every human being, and so it is only a matter of time before problems resurface and the quest for a new scapegoat must begin again.

The Scapegoat Mechanism

Sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists have noticed this “scapegoat mechanism” in various societies and cultures around the world and have attributed it to an evolutionary necessity for the survival of human society. Humans need someone else to blame for their sin so that humanity can continue. The practice of blaming others for our behavior enables the survival of society (See Girard, The Scapegoat). 

Without the scapegoat mechanism, inter-personal violence only continues to escalate on an ever-increasing spiral of retribution and destruction until society collapses upon itself. By bringing blame upon a scapegoat, two warring enemies are able to put aside their differences and unite in the common goal of destroying the scapegoat. The scapegoat bears the blame for what was done, even though the scapegoat is usually innocent of the wrongdoing for which it receives blame.

Whether one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis or not, it cannot be denied that the scapegoat mechanism exists in all societies and cultures, and that God Himself used it to help rescue and deliver Israel from the disastrous consequences of her own sin.

Could it be that in using the scapegoat imagery, God was not only giving Israel a way of escape for their own violent tendencies, but was also revealing to them (and us) what He Himself was doing about the violence of Israel, and indeed, the violence of the whole world?

Could it be that the scapegoat imagery of Leviticus 16 that God wasn’t just telling Israel that their sins were carried away into the wilderness by a goat, but that He Himself was bearing their sin on His own being, so that they might be delivered from the ever-increasing spiral of violence that threatened to consume them?

Yes, it seems entirely possible. When people wrote that God told them to kill and slaughter others, they were scapegoating God, but He was letting them do it—even inspiring them to do so.

Why?

For their own deliverance.

The Deliverance of God

God knew that without the violence of the scapegoat mechanism, mankind would only spiral into ever-increasing violence, which ultimately would end in our complete destruction. Without an innocent victim on which to pour our wrath and guilt, mankind metes out its violence upon each other in an ever-increasing spiral of violence. God knew this in the Old Testament (and even today), and so allows people to blame Him for the most horrendous actions, not because He has done these things, and not because He has commanded that such things be done, but because He knows that if He does not act as the scapegoat, we will destroy ourselves.

God has chosen to bear the people’s sins rather than deal with them on strictly legal terms. For God to assume such a burden, for God to continue to bear the brunt of Israel’s rejection, meant continued life for the people (Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 148).

This is especially seen when we consider that much of the scapegoat imagery is carried over into the New Testament and applied to Jesus Christ on the cross. By teaching Israel about the scapegoat, and indeed, implanting the scapegoat mechanism into the hearts of people around the world, God was preparing people for the ultimate scapegoat of human history—Jesus Christ. Jesus, the innocent victim, bore our sins on His own body, taking them with Him into the grave, so that we might not fall into death but might experience the life God intended for His creation. We will look at Jesus as the divine scapegoat tomorrow.

Until then, have you ever heard of this “scapegoat mechanism” in studies outside of Scripture and how it serves to allow the survival of human society? What do you think of this idea? Where do you see it functioning in your culture today?

God of the Old Testament and JesusHow can a God who says "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) be the same God who instructs His people in the Old Testament to kill their enemies?

These are the sorts of questions we discuss and (try to) answer in my online discipleship group. Members of the group can also take ALL of my online courses (Valued at over $1000) at no charge. Learn more here: Join the RedeemingGod.com Discipleship Group I can't wait to hear what you have to say, and how we can help you better understand God and learn to live like Him in this world!

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books by Jeremy Myers, Leviticus 16, scapegoat, Theology of God, Theology of Sin, violence, When God Pled Guilty

Advertisement

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • …
  • 17
  • 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