Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?

[Marvin Knox]

It is a stretch to take the free will of men and angels and then make God responsible for their sins and iniquities.

True.

That is why both I and the confession statements made that point clear from early on ----- again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

The Bible makes it crystal clear that sinful choices come under God's righteous judgement immediately (Gen 2:16,17; Jn 3:36). Were it not for the grace of God, and the Finished Work of Christ, all humanity would join the Devil and his angels in the Lake of Fire (which was created specifically for them).

So true.

I couldn't agree more.

God's foreknowledge and omniscience do not automatically make Him responsible for evil. Indeed sin and evil arouse His wrath.

So true.

I couldn't agree more.

What His foreknowledge and omniscience of what the consequences of giving free will to His creatures will assuredly be does do, however, is make His decree that they be created with that free will the initial or first cause of all that will assuredly follow.

The confession makes it clear that the sin itself only proceeds from the creature's bad choices and not from the creator Himself.

Indeed, as I have said several times now, sin (by it's very nature) can only proceed from the creature.

Obviously God can never fall short of His own glory.

As the confession says, "..........neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established................Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.............the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

I couldn't have said these thing any better than the hundreds of theologians involved in writing the words so stated.

Anyone who is offended by their choice of language as to God being the "first cause" should try to make the same points using other language.

But you must be sure to make all of the points covered by the framers of the confession or you are blowing in the wind.

Anyone can say over and over again that God is not a sinner. Anyone can say over and over again that sin can only come from the direct actions of the creature. Everyone knows those things and everyone agrees with those things.

The task at hand is to put those two points together with many other concepts given us in the scriptures concerning God's providential control of His creation in a manner that will be understood by the layman.

 

[Steeno7]

Excellent reproduction of the words from the WCF.

Pretty well covers it doesn't it?

God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass and He did it in such a way that He cannot be said to be the author of sin.

Who could argue with that?

And your point?

I hope it isn't just to say that God is not the author of sin. That's been said many times here by Calvinist and non Calvinists alike.

It's been agreed on by Reformed theologians for centuries including me.

It is also agreed on by almost all non Reformed theologians as well.

Simply repeating the obvious doesn't add anything to the conversation IMO.

My point is that the premise of your OP is obviously flawed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass and He did it in such a way that He cannot be said to be the author of sin.

Who could argue with that?

I could. By virtue of the meaning of the word "ordain". From the on-line Merriam-Webster thesaurus:
ordain
verb
Synonyms and Antonyms of ORDAIN
1
to determine the fate of in advance <he is stoic in the face of adversity, bolstered by his faith that everything in life has been ordained by a higher power>
Synonyms doom, fate, foredoom, foreordain, ordain, predestine, predetermine, preordain
Related Words predestinate; augur, forecast, foretell, predict, presage, prognosticate, prophesy;preconceive, prejudge; condemn, sentence; bode, forebode (also forbode), portend; anticipate,divine, foreknow, foresee
2
to request the doing of by virtue of one's authority <a new bill that would ordain the funding of public schools through state lottery revenues>
Synonyms call, decree, dictate, direct, mandate, ordain, order
Related Words ask, petition, request; demand, require
Near Antonyms cancel, countermand, rescind

If God actually ordained everything, then sin would HAVE to be included. So, plug in the definition of 'ordain' into the WCF and we have God determining in advance all sin that will occur. iow, God determines the sins of man, not man. Duh.

And your point?

God did not ordain everything. If He did, then He alone is the author of sin and the SCF is contradictory.

Excellent example from Scripture: King David ordained the murder of Uriah to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba. He was the first cause of Uriah's murder.

I hope it isn't just to say that God is not the author of sin. That's been said many times here by Calvinist and non Calvinists alike.

It's been agreed on by Reformed theologians for centuries including me.

Then admit the WCF is contradictory.

One can say "A = B, but A does not = B" all day long, but it's still contradictory and wrong all day long.

 

[GillDouglas]

Where did sin come from? Who created sin ?

Sin is not something created. It is an act. An immoral act considered to be a transgression against God. It may have been written into the Story that man would fall, but the sin was a result of his choice not something He created.

There is no question that God is sovereign over all things, but trying to pin the blame of sin on God seems inexcusable. That goes against His character and would cause our whole belief structure to crumble.

 

[GillDouglas]

So in the Reformed mindset if that is what they believe then Christ didn't die for the sins of man but died for the sins caused by God. Now the absurdity in that is beyond reproach!

This happens when believers put all their trust and belief in church doctrine and creeds written by men not Divinely inspired by God.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If God actually ordained everything, then sin would HAVE to be included. So, plug in the definition of 'ordain' into the WCF and we have God determining in advance all sin that will occur.

That is correct.

God predetermined that sin would occur.

.......iow, God determines the sins of man, not man. Duh.

That's an appropriately placed "duh".

The fact that man makes a choice to sin does not mean that God did not predestine that that particular choice occurs.

The freedom of choice for men is not incompatible with predestination. One can say that it is all day long. But they would be wrong.

Witness the activities of Joseph's brothers, those of the anti-Christ and the false prophet, and those who crucified our Lord - just for starters.

God did not ordain everything. If He did, then He alone is the author of sin and the SCF is contradictory.

Excellent example from Scripture: King David ordained the murder of Uriah to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba. He was the first cause of Uriah's murder.

Actually (using the particular terminology chosen by the writers of the WCF) God was the "first cause" or the one who predestined the sin of David.

David's free choice to sin came somewhere down the line as the secondary or actual cause of the sin. David was the one held responsible for the choice he made and that particular sin - as sin by it's very nature can only be actually done by the creature and not the creator.

Then admit the WCF is contradictory.

One can say "A = B, but A does not = B" all day long, but it's still contradictory and wrong all day long.

One can say that both God and evil men did not crush God’s Son all day long. But because we are dealing with God, the source of all things, they would be wrong all day long.

One could say that both God and Pharaoh did not harden Pharaoh’s heart all day long. But because we are dealing with God, the source of all things, they would be wrong all day long.

Because we do not have independent being apart from being in God makes these considerations a whole different ballgame doesn’t it?

Of course you have gone on record elsewhere that you do not believe in the omni-presence of God. So I doubt that we’ll get very far along these lines,

I've often said that it seems to me that people who do not believe in God's sovereignty and His intimate involvement in all things concerning His creation must of necessity jettison many basic doctrines along the way.

 

[rnmomof7]

Is the will of God to sin or not sin?

All things ..even sin are for His glory ... Did God ordained the kidnapping of Joseph ? Was the murder of the babies in Egypt ordained by God ? Was the betrayal of Jesus ordained? The scripture is full of events that were evil, but ordained by God for HIS purposes .
God uses sin to achieve His purposes ...

The mystery is that although God ordains all things man remains responsible for his actions

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"If God actually ordained everything, then sin would HAVE to be included. So, plug in the definition of 'ordain' into the WCF and we have God determining in advance all sin that will occur."

That is correct.

No, not really.

God predetermined that sin would occur.

I cited the definition of ordain from Merriam-Webster. It was about causing. Your statement can easily be taken as omniscience knowing ahead that "all sin that will occur". The meaning of "ordain" includes the idea of causation.

Actually (using the particular terminology chosen by the writers of the WCF) God was the "first cause" or the one who predestined the sin of David.

This cannot be shown from Scripture, from any stretch of the imagination. Nathan clearly showed that David was responsible for his sin of murder. While God certainly always knew what David would do, that is NOTY ordaining what David would do. It was David ALONE who ordained the murder of Uriah.

David's free choice to sin came somewhere down the line as the secondary or actual cause of the sin.

This is mere conjecture from a pre-conceived idea that cannot be found in Scripture. God did NOT ordain Uriah's murder, but He omnisciently knew everything about it.

David was the one held responsible for the choice he made and that particular sin - as sin by it's very nature can only be actually done by the creature and not the creator.

So, God in NO WAY was the so-called "first cause" of it.

The whole idea of "first cause of everything" is not found in Scripture.

Because we do not have independent being apart from being in God makes these considerations a whole different ballgame doesn’t it?

Says who? Why is it a "whole different ballgame"? Man does have independent freedom of choice.

Of course you have gone on record elsewhere that you do not believe in the omni-presence of God. So I doubt that we’ll get very far along these lines,

Uh, nonsense. I absolutely do believe in God's omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. I have never rejected any of these three. Most likely, my post was misunderstood, or misrepresented.

I've often said that it seems to me that people who do not believe in God's sovereignty and His intimate involvement in all things concerning His creation must of necessity jettison many basic doctrines along the way.

Whatever. God is sovereign. But that doesn't mean that God is the "first cause" of everything.

Such an idea means that car makers are the first cause of car accidents, when mechanical failures aren't taken into account.

Or gun makers being the first cause of all misuses of their products.

The idea is not found in Scripture. Only the WCF.

 

[Awakened Sin]

I believe, that God is not the cause of everything and sin. God gave his children free will. We don't have to listen to God. Should we? Of course! Bad things happen because God does it to test us. Bad things happen because of Satan wanting more souls to burn in the pits. Satan wants us to damn God. That is why evil exists.

 

[Marvin Knox]

My point is that the premise of your OP is obviously flawed.

Simply agreeing with the clear statement in the WCF that says that God is not the author of sin does not make the statement that God is the first cause of sin flawed.

This is especially true since the WCF and I have made it a priority to say that this language is not meant to insinuate that God is the author of sin.

Not that that should be necessary to say since the very meaning of the term sin precludes the possibility that God could sin.

Use any term you would like if the word "cause" gives you pause.

The point is still the same. God gave free choice to His creatures while knowing full well and in great detail every single calamity that would follow from that second on throughout the history of the world from Him doing it. He had free choice to do it or not. He chose to do it. Therefore He is the "first cause" or originator of all that has followed.

That is a fact. We don't need to beat around the bush concerning that fact. God is not reticent about letting us know that this is a true picture of how it happened.

Our only concern should be that we make sure when teaching disciples or on the internet that no one comes away from our teaching believing that God is in any way evil for doing so.

The WCF (and I) have made that a priority to do that very thing from the start. Our consciences are clear. We can and have gone on to lay out God's absolute sovereignty in no uncertain terms.

I expect that I (and the framers of the WCF) will receive some kind of reward for teaching the entire council of the Word of God.

That would be nice - but I intend to cast that reward and any others I might receive at the feet of the Savior as anyone saved by grace would do.

 

[rnmomof7]

I believe, that God is not the cause of everything and sin. God gave his children free will. We don't have to listen to God. Should we? Of course! Bad things happen because God does it to test us. Bad things happen because of Satan wanting more souls to burn in the pits. Satan wants us to damn God. That is why evil exists.

The problem with" free will" theology is it fails to take into account man can not choose outside of his nature and the choices available to him..

So our "free will is limited .

Can a man that is blind choose to see? Can a man born without arms will them to grow?


What is true in the natural is also true in the spiritual ...

A man born spiritually dead , can not choose to be spiritually alive ... He needs someone else to give Him spiritual life

A man must be born again BEFORE He can see the Kingdom of God to even desire i .. the natural man will never will what he does not see .. The gospel is foolishness to him .

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned..

Man has a "free will" to choose within his nature and the choices available.

 

[Steeno7]

Simply agreeing with the clear statement in the WCF that says that God is not the author of sin does not make the statement that God is the first cause of sin flawed.

This is especially true since the WCF and I have made it a priority to say that this language is not meant to insinuate that God is the author of sin.

Not that that should be necessary to say since the very meaning of the term sin precludes the possibility that God could sin.

Use any term you would like if the word "cause" gives you pause.

The point is still the same. God gave free choice to His creatures while knowing full well and in great detail every single calamity that would follow from that second on throughout the history of the world from Him doing it. He had free choice to do it or not. He chose to do it. Therefore He is the "first cause" or originator of all that has followed.

That is a fact. We don't need to beat around the bush concerning that fact. God is not reticent about letting us know that this is a true picture of how it happened.

Our only concern should be that we make sure when teaching disciples or on the internet that no one comes away from our teaching believing that God is in any way evil for doing so.

The WCF (and I) have made that a priority to do that very thing from the start. Our consciences are clear. We can and have gone on to lay out God's absolute sovereignty in no uncertain terms.

I expect that I (and the framers of the WCF) will receive some kind of reward for teaching the entire council of the Word of God.

That would be nice - but I intend to cast that reward and any others I might receive at the feet of the Savior as anyone saved by grace would do.

The WCF does not say that God is the cause of sin. Your premise is flawed.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The WCF does not say that God is the cause of sin. Your premise is flawed.

III.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS, yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

V.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, ALL THINGS come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

*NOTE It specifically says "first cause" and not just "cause" as you have pointed used.

Then it makes sure that everyone knows that first cause does not mean direct cause.

Others, including you apparently, are not content with their explanation of the language they chose.

Anyone, including you, who can make the same points while using another word than "cause" - knock yourself out.

The problem is (AND THIS IS MEANT FOR MANY PEOPLE HERE AND NOT JUST YOU) it really isn't just the use of the word cause is it?

The truth is that, even when "first cause" is clarified again and again, they cannot bring themselves to agree with the teaching concerning God's plan to use, for His preplanned purposes, the sins that would absolutely and assuredly result from His decision to give men free will.

The reason is that people who major in "free will" also almost always reject predestination and total sovereignty.

If it was the words "first cause" that were being rejected - that could have been cleared up long ago. But in actuality a great portion of the Word of God is being rejected because it seems to interfere with the sovereignty of man.

That puts these things on an entirely different level of theological discussion than it would be if there really was just a misunderstanding from the use of the word cause in the WCF.

 

[Steeno7]

III.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS, yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

V.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, ALL THINGS come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

*NOTE It specifically says "first cause" and not just "cause" as you have pointed used.

Then it makes sure that everyone knows that first cause does not mean direct cause.

Others, including you apparently, are not content with their explanation of the language they chose.

Anyone, including you, who can make the same points while using another word than "cause" - knock yourself out.

The problem is (AND THIS IS MEANT FOR MANY PEOPLE HERE AND NOT JUST YOU) it really isn't just the use of the word cause is it?

The truth is that, even when "first cause" is clarified again and again, they cannot bring themselves to agree with the teaching concerning God's plan to use, for His preplanned purposes, the sins that would absolutely and assuredly result from His decision to give men free will.

The reason is that people who major in "free will" also almost always reject predestination and total sovereignty.

If it was the words "first cause" that were being rejected - that could have been cleared up long ago. But in actuality a great portion of the Word of God is being rejected because it seems to interfere with the sovereignty of man.

That puts these things on an entirely different level of theological discussion than it would be if there really was just a misunderstanding from the use of the word cause in the WCF.

Yep, as it says, God is not the author of sin nor the cause as "sinfulness proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin."

That God is the creative cause of all things created, is not meant to imply or even suggest that He is the culpable cause of sin.

 

[EmSw]

The problem with" free will" theology is it fails to take into account man can not choose outside of his nature and the choices available to him..

Funny, how did Adam and Eve choose outside their nature?

So our "free will is limited .

Can a man that is blind choose to see? Can a man born without arms will them to grow?

What does physical seeing have to do with man's nature? Likewise, physical growing has nothing to do with man's nature.

Let's put it in proper perspective - Can a man with a sinful nature choose not to steal? Can this man also choose not to murder? According to your doctrine, he cannot choose these things, because they are outside of his nature. These are the laws of God and he is adverse to them and will not obey them.

Thankfully, God gave man the ability to freely choose to obey His commandments.

Also, how is it those with a new nature freely choose to lie, cheat, hate, and so forth? This is against their nature.

What is true in the natural is also true in the spiritual ...

A man born spiritually dead , can not choose to be spiritually alive ... He needs someone else to give Him spiritual life

Sorry, a man with a sinful nature can freely choose to obey God's commandments. Your logic is flawed in the real world. But in the Calvinist world, it doesn't matter if against reason and logic; that's what they freely choose to believe, and reason will not hinder their belief.

A man must be born again BEFORE He can see the Kingdom of God to even desire i .. the natural man will never will what he does not see .. The gospel is foolishness to him .

Why is it some think they are born again and can 'see' the kingdom, when they don't even acknowledge, nor believe the Sovereignty of God's sovereign word on how a man gets a new heart?

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned..

Man has a "free will" to choose within his nature and the choices available.

Again, how is it a man with a sinful nature can freely choose to follow and obey God's sovereign commandments?

This world would be an absolute chaotic mess if man couldn't freely choose to obey God's commandments. Who could you trust not putting a knife in your back? Who could you trust not breaking into your house and stealing your possessions? Who could you trust not committing adultery with your mate? According to your doctrine, natural man cannot help but do these things.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The problem with" free will" theology is it fails to take into account man can not choose outside of his nature and the choices available to him..

So our "free will is limited .

There is no problem with free will theology. The error is to claim that man cannot choose outside of his nature. Of course all of man's choices are WITHIN his nature. So it's just a false claim.

The whole issue of free will is whether man is able to understand and respond to God's promise of eternal life. Yes, he is. Proven by the fact of how many have heard the gospel and didn't believe it. One must understand in order to either believe or reject. Those who reject have understood it.

Can a man that is blind choose to see? Can a man born without arms will them to grow?

These are silly non issues. The issue is that man is free to accept or reject the gospel promise.

A man must be born again BEFORE He can see the Kingdom of God to even desire i ..

Uh, let's not add to Scripture. There is nothing about "even desiring…" in John 3:3. And v.5 says one must be born again to ENTER into the kingdom. So seeing and entering are equated. iow, one must be born again in order to enter heaven.

Man has a "free will" to choose within his nature and the choices available.

Which includes accepting or rejecting the gospel.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yep, as it says, God is not the author of sin nor the cause....................

I have reproduced it below as I supplied it originally.

It does not say what you just said.

You added to it purposefully - I suppose hoping that no one really reads these things.

It's one thing to disagree with us that God gave free will to men knowing what would happen throughout history so that He could use the results for His own purposes.

It's quite another to misrepresent the statements of another Christian because you disagree with him.

That God is the creative cause of all things created, is not meant to imply or even suggest that He is the culpable cause of sin.

Who has said otherwise?

Instead - the confession and I have said over and over again just the opposite of what you just charged us with.

We have gone out of our way from the start to show that the language was not meant in any way to suggest culpability.

How can you misrepresent us with a clear conscience?

Marvin Knox said:
III.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS, yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

V.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, ALL THINGS come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What we are seeing here in many cases is an example of what I have said occurs all too often among believers discussing theology in this section of the forum.

People often become so entrenched and embittered in their opposition to so called Calvinism that they feel justified in misrepresenting what a traditional Reformed Christian is saying.

Often even common sense logic and or scriptural texts are ignored or argued against because to agree with the Reformed interpretation even a little might make your case a little less successful.

Sometimes it's done even though agreeing wouldn't really win the day for evil Calvinism at all. It would just make a point that scripture makes so that we can both understand things better from the Holy Spirit's standpoint.

The same things are done from the side of the Calvinist as well.

It really is a shame.

 

[Steeno7]

I have it reproduced it below as I supplied it originally.

It does not say what you just said.

You added to it purposefully - I suppose hoping that no one really reads these things.

It's one thing to disagree with us that God gave free will to men knowing what would happen throughout history so that He could use the results for His own purposes.

It's quite another to misrepresent the statements of another Christian because you disagree with him.


Who has said otherwise?

Instead - the confession and I have said over and over again just the opposite of what you just charged us with.

We have gone out of our way from the start to show that the language was not meant in any way to suggest culpability.

How can you misrepresent us with a clear conscience?

Marvin Knox said:
III.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS, yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

V.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, ALL THINGS come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

What exactly is the purpose of your thread then?

You stated at the onset that, "It seems that the idea that God is the first cause or "ultimate source" of all things in this world including sin is repugnant to all but we who are Reformed."

A statement that you asserted was supported by the Confession, but which we know is not. It seems it is you have some confusion about what it is you are trying to assert.

 

[rnmomof7]

There is no problem with free will theology. The error is to claim that man cannot choose outside of his nature. Of course all of man's choices are WITHIN his nature. So it's just a false claim.

The whole issue of free will is whether man is able to understand and respond to God's promise of eternal life. Yes, he is. Proven by the fact of how many have heard the gospel and didn't believe it. One must understand in order to either believe or reject. Those who reject have understood it.


These are silly non issues. The issue is that man is free to accept or reject the gospel promise.


Uh, let's not add to Scripture. There is nothing about "even desiring…" in John 3:3. And v.5 says one must be born again to ENTER into the kingdom. So seeing and entering are equated. iow, one must be born again in order to enter heaven.


Which includes accepting or rejecting the gospel.

The nature of fallen men is spiritual death ... THS is why one must be born again ...the dead can not choose t live..

Could I have some scripture where "free will ' is taught ?