Thesis Statement
Hosea 4: 6 is a sobering passage that discusses a people being destroyed for a lack of knowledge. Because these people rejected knowledge and forgot God, God in return forgot their children. In today’s post-modern culture the rejection of the sovereignty of God, the belief in the self-sufficiency of man and the perversion of the free will has created a vacuum in the body of Christ where the fear of the Lord no longer exists and the fate of Christianity hangs in the balance.
Introduction
There appears to be a significant relationship between the deficiency of the fear of the Lord found within the body of Christ and the denial of the sovereignty of God, the trust in the self-reliance of man and the distortion of the free will. Within the next few pages this paper will attempt to gain understanding on the doctrine of the sovereignty of God within the body of Christ. It will explore the increasing dependence on the self resulting in the belief of the sovereignty of man. Also, it will shed light on the views of the free will of man found within the church. Lastly, it will investigate these concerns in relation to the diminishing understanding and practice of the fear of the Lord within the body of Christ.
The Sovereignty of God
The sovereignty of God has been a point of discussion with theologians for many years. Is God sovereign? If He is, how does that affect human will? Why does a sovereign God allow bad things to happen in the world? These and many other questions emanate from the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. It is important for the purpose of this paper to gain an understanding of the sovereignty of God and the effects of that sovereignty on human nature and will.
There are many Scriptures that focus on God’s sovereignty either directly or indirectly. Hebrews 1:2 states, “[God] hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” The last part of this verse may seem to refer to creation, but according to Vernon McGee, “The Greek word here for ‘worlds’ is aion, which means ‘ages’.”[1] This would mean more than just creation or Creator, it would include time and purpose in the act of creation. God made the ‘ages’ for a purpose, He had a reason for the things He did and continues to do today.[2]
Psalm 103:19, Daniel 4:17 and 7:14 are three more Scriptures that clearly promote God as king, ultimate ruler, and lawgiver of the entire universe. “The sovereignty of God thus expresses the very nature of God as all powerful and omnipotent, able to accomplish his good pleasure, carry out his decreed will, and keep his promises.”[3] It is unmistakable that He has an intended purpose for the history of the world, and is working it out to that end as seen in Ephesians 1:11. The sovereignty of His will is not subjective, authoritarian, or established; it is only determined by His integrity and purity, as well as many other characteristics.[4]
Views on the legitimacy of the sovereignty of God vary among theological traditions. Augustinian and Calvinistic tradition agree on the importance of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God while Pelagian, Arminian, and liberal traditions either deny or compromise the doctrine by claiming there are many levels of self-sufficiency found within the human subject.[5]
This compromise of the doctrine has led to discussions as to the part God’s sovereignty plays in the violation of the integrity of man. There are three views that criticize the doctrine, holding it responsible. First, relationally, there is the claim that the doctrine gives credence to only one acting participant. The human is in need of and submissively receives God’s divine intervention, but God doesn’t benefit from the actions of man at all. The feminist theologian will interpret this as a power imbalance and justification for mutuality among the Christian community.[6] Second, there is the claim that since a sovereign God by definition cannot be responsible for evil, so then the responsibility must be on man’s shoulders regardless of how he/she chooses to act. Process theologians state the future is determined by the inaction or action of humans and not any manifestation of the kingdom of God coming closer.[7] The third violation claims that the sovereignty of God limits the influence humans have on their lives, making them feel powerless, lonely, and fearful. Humanity appears inadequate next to divinity. Liberal theologians feel belief in a sovereign God will encourage compliance and disgrace leading to an acceptance of injustice.[8]
It is clear that the “idea that God is the governor of the events of the universe can be viewed with great suspicion, for it seems to supplant the agency of human beings.”[9] If God establishes all life, can humans really have a role to play in influencing history, partnering with God? [10]
The doctrine of God’s sovereignty also brings to mind choice. It appears with sovereignty comes freedom of choice, no excessive responsibilities, no physical limitations, no restricting rules, no unwanted relationships, and unlimited power. If God with freedom of choice and unlimited power chooses on behalf of another, it would not be out of a sense of obligation. “Indeed, the idea that God could have chosen otherwise than to love us is offered as a means to laud further the exceptional nature of God's love.”[11] However, having this much power and freedom of choice can cause a sovereign God to appear to be a capricious ruler who has no liability. It is important for this discussion that God’s sovereignty not be limited to a freedom to choose among options, but to be seen as a freedom for God to be God.[12] “To proclaim that God could have chosen to do things differently than what God has done is to posit that God can be different from who God is.”[13] The incarnation of God through Jesus is an example of an event where God appeared to limit Himself and therefore was not able to be Himself. The incarnation was not God limiting Himself in order to take on human flesh, but it was more an expression of His character and His love for humans. Barth writes. "It is not that God first lives and then also loves; but God loves, and in this act lives."[14]
God’s sovereignty can also be understood through the redemption afforded those who believe, as well as through the authority of Scripture. “Scripture is God-breathed (2Tim. 3:16), cannot be broken’ (John 10:35), and will be fulfilled and accomplished (Matt. 5:18); Luke 24:44).”[15]
A particularly interesting point of thought that seems to arise with the discussion of the sovereignty of God is the balance between the sovereign will of God and the free will of man. God in His providence harmonizes in thousands of ways with the free will of man, ingratiating Himself into the human, causing their hearts to turn in His direction. Man’s free will then becomes the determination of God.[16]
In today’s post modern world the sovereignty of God is easily dismissed as the emerging sense of self-sufficiency becomes more acceptable. Wells states, “Secularism has marginalized God, removing him from effective engagement with society, and modern life has churned up so much chaos and pain that it has rendered the doctrine of providence, of God’s sovereign control over all of life, unbelievable.”[17] This will be discussed further later as the belief in the sovereignty of man is explored.
It can been seen that God has a purpose and plan for creation and within that plan His sovereignty appears to test the obedience of His creation through the use of free will. God has been doing this for generations as seen in the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law. There is the idea today that God just created the universe and left it to fend for itself. Deism promotes God’s lack of interest in His creation. The thought that we are a universe speeding through time with no driver at the wheel, seems to insinuate that a wreck is inevitable. However, this has been going on, according to scientists for millions of years and yet with not one accident recorded. The sun and the moon come up and set every day right on time, they are predictable and can be relied on. The universe has a purpose and the sovereignty of God is what gives it purpose.[18]
Belief in the Sovereignty of Man
A consequence resulting from the Deistic belief surrounding the Enlightenment is a worldview that appears to be emerging within our post-modern culture; a humanistic self serving mentality that has all but forgotten the God who created them. “This individualistic worldview is somewhat more difficult to describe, but it entails a belief that individuals are in the center of their world and in charge of their own destinies. This goes beyond a simple belief in free will, however, to a conviction that individuals transcend all social forces and are personally responsible for all of their own achievements and failures.”[19] With this self-serving view of life, man no longer wants to do good for others but adopts the principle, ‘charity begins at home’; creating friction between what God wants and what man wants. Man no longer makes God and His Kingdom a priority; instead his own interests take up his time.[20]
The postmodern worldview “is skeptical of any grounded theoretical perspectives.”[21] For every area of society the outlook is pessimistic, rejecting certainties of modernism. It has difficulty believing there can be meaning or truth in life, and is suspicious of the motives of those who do. This has enormous implications for the Christian worldview. Not only do post-modernist view the Christian perspective as suspect, they also hold to the principle that there is no ultimate meaning in any text, therefore the Bible must also be suspect as it claims to be authoritative.[22] It is common for a postmodernist to view authoritative speaking as “an imposition of a truth claim on another person, an assault on the individual’s autonomy, and something dangerous that ought to be resisted.”[23] Since the Bible speaks into the realm of feelings, choices, and ethics, postmodernists are bewildered and consider it dangerous that someone would allow a book to determine their ethics.[24]
This view easily leads to a sense of license to do whatever the individual deems appropriate. It is as if free will has been replaced with license; however there is a difference in free will and license. “License is selfishness unrestrained by moral considerations - a state in which men do as they wish, with no fear of God before their eyes, and follow out their own selfish ends without moral restraint.”[25] They have an underdeveloped or seared conscience from a lack of moral training and restraint. They posses no faith in their fellow man or God, even living as if there were no God.[26]
The consequences of the postmodern worldview have left society and the church in a state of confusion and hopelessness. The church no longer possesses a moral code as this individualistic worldview has permeated every part of society resulting in a dismissal of ‘sin’ altogether. “In the last quarter century, clergy have joined with psychologists and biologists in explaining away ‘sin’ as a characteristic of finitude and therefore not really as sin… going so far as to “proposing to replace the confession that ‘we are by nature sinful and unclean’ with the statement that humans are ‘by nature limited and unfinished.’” [27] Within the context of the church body the postmodern worldview can be seen in the ‘marketing’ of the church. The church leaders’ attempt to boost attendance and revenue has led to bowing to the sovereignty of the social need. The consumer always has a need and anyone who attends the church becomes a consumer with a need to fulfill. The church has become a modernized business that seeks to offer products and services that meet the present ‘felt needs’ of the consumer encouraging the adopting of the self centered worldliness of the post modern age.[28] However, according to Wells, “neither Christ nor His truth can be marketed by appealing to consumer interest, because the premise of all marketing is that the consumer’s need is sovereign, that the customer is always right, and this is precisely what the gospel insists cannot be the case.”[29]
Free Will of Man
According to Erasmus, in Luther’s The Bondage of the Will, “Free-will is a power of the human will, which can, of itself, will and not will to embrace the word and work of God, by which it is to be led to those things which are beyond its capacity and comprehension.”[30] In considering this definition, it is important to take into account that trying to explain man’s behavior only in terms of causes would be erroneous. Choice is an attribute that distinguishes man from animals and as such man cannot be bound by the same physical or biological laws. [31] “It is the will that makes each individual choice of whether we will sin or obey. It is the will that chooses to yield to temptation, or to say no. Our wills, then, ultimately determine our moral destiny, whether we will be holy, or unholy in our character and conduct.” [32]
There are many views as to the legitimacy and responsibility of the free will of man. In The Bondage of the Will, Luther argues that although the Scripture that states if you will keep My commandments they will sustain you, it is not necessarily giving man a choice as it appears. He states man is divided into two kingdoms, one where he is led by his own counsel and the other where he is led by the will and counsel of God. So, this Scripture clearly takes man’s free-will away subjecting him to the will and precepts of God[33] Luther later comes to the conclusion that, “For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His prescience and predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to his will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no ‘Free-will’ in man, in angel, or in any creature!”[34] Luther goes on to state that because Satan is also captive under the divine power of the Spirit, he also does not possess free will.[35] This theory sets into motion many questions as to man’s part in sin and destruction within the earth. The Armenians felt if man did not have certain freedoms within the context of free will, the freedom of contingence, the freedom of indifference, and the freedom of self-determination, then he/she could not be blamed for their depravity or praised for their righteousness.[36]
The debate over the legitimacy and responsibility of the free will of man has gone back and forth over the centuries. One of the views that can be found among theologians that disagree with Luther on the point of legitimacy is Augustine. “In the fourth century, Augustine argued that human beings have free will, explaining that God does not cause us to act in a particular way but, rather, foreknows what decisions we will make. In the sixteenth century, Calvin taught that everything that happens is willed by God, but human beings are nonetheless culpable for evil because they are not intending, when they sin, to serve God's will”[37] From a postmodern standpoint, “North American culture teaches that power, freedom, and choice are closely related.” [38] This viewpoint replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of man, in the context of free will.
The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology brings insight into the definition of free will. It sates there are three schools of thought regarding free will, self-determinism, determinism, and indeterminism. It is important in understanding the free will of man that these be examined closer. Self-determinism as defined within this context is “the belief that people determine their own behavior freely, and that no causal antecedents can sufficiently account for their actions.”[39] The Bible offers freedom of choice to all mankind virtuous and depraved alike (Matt 23:37; John 7:17; Rom. 7:18). It also states that God has already determined by His foreknowledge who will be saved (1 Peter 1:2). God laid out His commands to man within the Scripture in such a way as to imply that they should comply. So the self-determinist would say that if all man’s acts are determined by God, then it must be God who is responsible for evil and not man. This is clearly a self-serving interpretation that has no foundation in Scripture.[40]
The second view of free will is determinism, this is “the doctrine or belief that everything, including every human act, is caused by something and that there is no real free will.”[41] According to Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, who held to the determinist view, human freedom is contrary to God’s sovereignty. This cannot be true as humanity was given freedom when God created them as free creatures. God’s sovereignty allows man to implement that freedom as He upholds him in life. So human freedom does not impede God’s sovereignty, but instead glorifies it as God brings about His purposes within man without violating his free will.[42] In the psychological sense the determinist believes that men cannot be free, as their actions are predictable. The popular view that moral law determines the morality found in man is rejected on the grounds that man’s behavior can be explained through the rewards and punishments placed upon him by society.[43] This leads to the deterministic position that, “At best, man's belief that he is free is a useful device, a means for perpetuating the social order. At worst, man's belief in his freedom has done no more than perpetuate the great moral authorities, religious and legal, and has prevented him from using all his resources for the promotion of his own welfare.” [44]
The last view on the free will of man to be examined is indeterminism. This is the philosophical theory that human beings have free will and their actions are not always and completely determined by previous events.[45] The indeterminist is distressed that morality in a society can be dictated by external authority. He believes a deterministic view will only lead to the collapse of morality in that freedom of choice as he sees it does not exist. Morality, according to the indeterminist is obtained through a natural sense found in every man to know what is good. This sense of morality comes first before more moral behavior can be acted out.[46]
“Indeterminism is unacceptable for a Christian. For if indeterminism is true then either the existence of God or any causal connection between God and the universe would have to be denied. But clearly a Christian could not hold this, for the Christian position is that God created the world and providentially sustains it and intervenes in its affairs.”[47]
Some would contend that morality in the context of free will comes through heredity or the environment; however the element of personal choice cannot be discounted. Those with quality training and the finest up bringing can still yield wrong choices. Judas is a great example of someone who after living with Jesus still betrayed Him.[48] “An old Rabbinic legend says that at the time of conception of every new human life, the angel of conception takes the drop of human seed and in response to a divine command scatters it in 365 parts on the ‘threshing floor.’ God then decides its fate, whether it is to be male or female, weak or strong, poor or rich, short or tall, ugly or handsome, stout or thin, despised or honored. But on one matter, whether it is to be righteous or wicked, God does not decide. That lies in the hands of the person himself.”[49]
Fear of the Lord
The fear of the Lord is a position in which one lives his life in a state of awe, reverence, and understanding that God is greater than man. It is also a place of obedience and relationship with God. Karl Barth states without the fear of the Lord man betrays himself, he thinks only of himself, he wobbles like a drunkard not discerning good from evil, and he is judgmental and condemning of those who don’t follow his ways. However, the man who does fear the Lord understands his need for wisdom and discernment, he lives by the command to love God with all his heart and love his neighbor as his self. He will turn to God to be taught to discern good from evil. He will seek only after God and is content to trust Him for his needs.[50]
There are many Scriptures that give insight into the fear of the Lord as well as instruction for living life under its protection. The fear of the Lord and the sovereignty of God are closely related. Psalm 34 brings to light within its verses the interconnection of the two doctrines and reveals relationship and obedience as the hinge that hold them together.
In Psalm 73:25, Asaph also talks about relationship in regard to the fear of the Lord and God’s sovereignty, when he says, “Whom have I in heaven but You? And I have no delight or desire on earth besides You.” Asaph understood the interconnection of the fear of the Lord and the sovereignty of God when he came to the conclusion that nothing satisfied him on earth as much as God. It is out of relationship that we come to know who He really is and want to obey Him, and it is out of obedience that we truly step into who we were created to be in the first place, imitators of Christ. Living under the fear of the Lord, and in relationship and obedience to Him releases all the promises in His Word over our lives. For the believer the fear of the Lord initiates from the knowledge of the sacrifice God made in sending His Son for mankind. It springs from the discovery that humanity in its depraved state did not deserve the gift of salvation. It is revealed in the uncovering of the relationship between God and man that has been there all along, and yet was ignored. The fear of the Lord creates a desire in man to live as they were created to live, as God’s elect set free by the blood of Jesus from sin and misery. The fear of the Lord awakes the call of God in man. [51] “When the fear of the Lord takes possession of man’s heart, he is both lost in amazement and struck by awe, even terror; for he discovers that God, since the beginning of time, has loved and chosen him, making a covenant with him, and helping him long before he knew it.”[52]
When man enjoys the fear of the Lord he is fulfilled and satisfied, unfortunately with the encroachment of the post modern ideals into the body of Christ the fear of the Lord has all but been replaced. Just as the sovereignty of God has been replaced with the sovereignty of man, so to the fear of the Lord appears to have been forgotten. John talked about Christ as the light that came to the world but the darkness did not understand the light. (John 1:5) Wells describes this darkness as something “inherent to and pervasively present throughout human nature” that has no fear of God.” [53] Without the fear of the Lord the free will that has been so generously bestowed on a depraved people will be exploited. The inherent darkness found within mankind is a strong force and must be tamed. It is the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God and the fear of the Lord that springs from that knowledge that directs the free will of man, ordering it in accordance to truth and willing it towards obedience. It is sad to think that the body of Christ has slowly allowed postmodern ideology to turn hearts away from the only one sure thing on which it can depend.“The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace is too ordinary, his judgment is too benign, his gospel is too easy, and his Christ is too common.”[54]
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to examine the diminishing sovereignty of God, the invading belief in the sovereignty of man, the free will of man, and how each relates to a loss of conviction regarding the fear of the Lord. It was expressed that the many ideals concerning the sovereignty of God have weakened the doctrine allowing a growing belief in the sovereignty of man. This belief squeezes out reliance on God by bring accusation and suspicion to the doctrine and the character of God. As an individualistic worldview grows and spreads throughout society, the social need of man becomes more important than the spiritual need, creating a marketing of the church. Free will is affected as it no longer has a moral foundation from which to choose, stripping society and the church of its security both physically and spiritually. The result is a negation of the fear of the Lord, as it is no longer needed, as a viable resource for life. “God gives people great freedom to be selfish and hurtful, because this freedom may one day be the freedom though which they choose His ways. As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, ‘If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad…Why then, did God give [humans] free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”[55]
In Philippians Paul talks of all the things he has gained in his life, but yet would give up or count as loss for the sake of Christ. Everything he is, his identity is nothing compared to the knowledge of Christ. He found the real secret of life, for him to live was Christ and to die was gain. He also states that God wills and works within man for His pleasure, when man’s will is weak He is strong, enabling man to be able to do all things through Him.[56] Paul understood the benefits of living under the fear of the Lord recognizing God as sovereign over his life and allowing Him to direct his free will.
[1] J. Vernon, McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary Series: The Epistles, Hebrews Chapters 1-7, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), 21.
[2] Thru the Bible Commentary Series: The Epistles, Hebrews Chapters 1-7, 21.
[3] F. H. Klooster, “Sovereignty of God,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell, 1 vol. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2001), 1131.
[4] Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1131.
[5] Ibid 1132
[6] Cynthia L. Rigby, “Free to Be Human : Limits, Possibilities, and the Sovereignty of God,” Theology Today, 53 no 1 (April 1996): 49.
[8] Ibid 49.
[9]Ibid 48.
[10]Ibid 48.
[11] Ibid 51.
[12] Ibid 51.
[13] Ibid 52.
[15] “Sovereignty of God,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1131.
December 1979): 344-353.
[17] David F. Wells, God In The Wasteland: The reality of Truth in a world of fading dreams, (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994) 38.
[18] Thru the Bible Commentary Series: The Epistles, Hebrews Chapters 1-7, 22.
[19] God In The Wasteland: The reality of Truth in a world of fading dreams, 204.
[20] Charles G. Finney, Crystal Christianity: A vital guide to personal revival. (Pittsburgh, PA:
Whitaker House, 1985) 54.
[21] Amy Orr-Ewing, “Postmodern Challenges to the Bible,” in Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith
We Defend, ed. Ravi Zacharias, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007) , 3.
[23] Ibid 6.
[24] Ibid 12.
[25] Louis Gifford, Jr. Parkhurst, ed., Principles of Liberty: More Great Themes on Romans from the
Writings of Charles G. Finney. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1983) 109.
[26] Principles of Liberty: More Great Themes on Romans from the Writings of Charles G. Finney. 110.
[27] Kathryn A. Kleinhans, “The Bondage of the Will as Good News for Postmodern Selves,”
Dialog, 39 no 2 (Summer 2000): 93.
[28] God In The Wasteland: The reality of Truth in a world of fading dreams, 75-76.
[29] Ibid, 82.
[30] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. Henry Cole (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), 127.
[31] Robert C. Bolles, “Psychological Determinism and the Problem of Morality,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2 no 2 (Spring 1963): 182.
[32] Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness, (Colorado Spring, CO: Navpress, 1978) 125.
[33] The Bondage of the Will, 142-43.
[34] Ibid 390.
[35] Ibid 390.
[36] Stephen A. Wilson, “The Possibility of a Habituation Model of Moral Development in Jonathan Edward's Conception of the Will's Freedom,” Journal of Religion, 81 no 1 (January 2001): 54.
[38] Ibid 50.
[39] N. L. Geisler, “Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell. 1 vol. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2001), 467.
[40] “Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism.” 470.
[41] Ibid 467.
[42] Ibid 469.
[44] Ibid 189.
[45] “Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism.” 469.
[47] Ibid 469.
[48] Thomas Francis Glasson, “Factors in Character Formation,” Theology Today, 14 no 4 (January 1958): 486.
[49] “Factors in Character Formation,” 487.
[50] Karl. Barth, “Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom,” Interpretation, 14 no 4 (October 1960): 435-436.
[52] Ibid 438.
[53] God In The Wasteland: The reality of Truth in a world of fading dreams, 42.
[54] Ibid 30.
[55] Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries In Marriage. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1999), 229.
[56] “Factors in Character Formation.” 11.
Bibliography
Barth, Karl. “Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.” Interpretation, 14 no 4 (October
1960): 433-439.
Bolles, Robert C. “Psychological Determinism and the Problem of Morality.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 2 no 2 (Spring 1963): 182-189.
Bridges, Jerry. The Pursuit of Holiness. Colorado Spring, CO: Navpress, 1978.
Cloud, Henry and Townsend, John. Boundaries In Marriage. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing, 1999.
Finney, Charles G. Crystal Christianity: A vital guide to personal revival. Pittsburgh, PA:
Whitaker House, 1985.
Geisler, N. L. “Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd
ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 1 vol. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2001.
Glasson, Thomas Francis. “Factors in Character Formation.” Theology Today, 14 no 4
(January 1958): 478-490.
December 1979): 344-353.
Dialog, 39 no 2 (Summer 2000): 93-98.
Klooster, F. H. “Sovereignty of God.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. Edited by
Walter A. Elwell. 1 vol. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2001.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Translated by Henry Cole. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976.
McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible Commentary Series: The Epistles, Hebrews Chapters 1-7.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991.
Orr-Ewing, Amy. “Postmodern Challenges to the Bible.” In Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith
We Defend, ed. Ravi Zacharias, 3-20. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
Parkhurst, Louis Gifford, Jr., ed. Principles of Liberty: More Great Themes on Romans from the
Writings of Charles G. Finney. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1983.
Theology Today, 53 no 1 (April 1996): 47-62.
Wells, David F. God In The Wasteland: The reality of Truth in a world of fading dreams. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.
Wilson, Stephen A. “The Possibility of a Habituation Model of Moral Development in Jonathan
Edward's Conception of the Will's Freedom.” Journal of Religion, 81 no 1 (January
2001): 49-77.
Posts
