Category Archives: Free Will

Sovereign Election, Human Responsibility, Evangelism and the Gospel

Posted on by
Reply

These two messages by Dr. John MacArthur are exceptional. Taken from the recent the two sessions I make mention of here seek to provide biblical answers to questions such as “How are we to harmonize divine sovereignty with human responsibility? How can we understand that salvation is a matter of God’s will and God’s choice and God’s purpose, and God’s timing, and at the same time, make man in any sense responsible for what happens? How do we harmonize the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility with our evangelistic duty.”

I am delighted that these teaching sessions have now been made available in this way and I hope a great many people take the time to watch them. Get ready for deep insights into God’s word, the fruit of a lifetime of service from Dr. MacArthur.

As each of us learn and inwardly digest the contents, I am confident that the biblical truths learned here will have deep and profound effects as to how each of us conduct Christian ministry helping us become more informed and effective servants of Christ. I cannot recommend these videos highly enough.

Part 1 – An Introduction to the Sovereign Gospel (44 minutes) – found here.

Part 2 – An Explanation of the Sovereign Gospel (45 minutes) – found here.

(Full transcripts of the messages are available at the above links also)

“God never violates the free will of man” – Really?

Posted on by
4

My friend John Hendryx (the man behind the amazing monergism.com theological website) has deep insight into the Scriptures and is particularly skilled when it comes to answering questions. John is gifted with a tender heart towards the Lord and His people, as well as a very sharp mind. I have had the privilege of serving with him for almost six years as a writer on the reformationtheology.com blog and am often amazed with the precision and care he shows in handling objections. Here’s two such recent cases:

(1) Someone recently declared to me (John Hendryx) that “God’s fulfills his plan without ever coercing our volition” – But is it an axiom that in order for there to be true love, God must never violate our so-called “free will?”

My response: First and foremost, it must be said that such an idea is nowhere to be found in the Bible. But in order to demonstrate that this idea does not even fly in everyday life, I have a simple story for you: Two parents see their disobedient toddlers run out into oncoming traffic. The first parent runs up to the curb to tell their toddler to use their will to get out of the way of traffic, but does NOTHING more because he does not want to interfere with the toddler’s will. The SECOND parent sees the cars coming and runs out into the street at the risk of their life to SCOOP up the child to MAKE CERTAIN their child is safe. WHICH parent loved their child ? We would all view this second parent as having GREAT love for their child and GET THIS, he was not concerned AT ALL about the child’s will because the parent knew better than the child what was good for him . AND How much more does God love his own? God’s love for us is not conditional as you believe. He does not first see how we use OUR WILL to determine whether he loves us, as you seem to believe. He loves us too much to leave us in our own hands. No, God saves us in spite of our rebellious will. The synergist’s idea of love then is flawed since they believe God’s love for us is CONDITIONAL. Rather, “we love God BECAUSE he first loved us.” Jesus does for us what we are unable and unwilling to do for ourselves.

Again, when you used the phrase “fulfilling God’s plan without coercing their volition” — this seems to be a “basic assumption” which is the driving force behind your theology. You guys have talked about this idea for so long that it has become axiomatic for you, even though it is nowhere found in the Bible. Your most precious doctrine, it seems, that drives everything else is, therefore, this false idea which is READ INTO the Scriptures. It is a logical deduction but, I would argue, is wrong. Continue reading →