Do We Need Proof For God

Was Richard Dawkins right in his book The God Delusion that claims belief in God is like a "virus that the naive catch"? You cannot prove God to the unwilling (neither can you disprove God to the willing), belief is a choice we make. ("If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know....") If I could prove God, then I would be equal to God intellectually. There is just enough evidence to believe in God if you want to, and enough darkness to not believe if you don't. "God's chief quarrel with man is that he doesn't SEEK Him," says John Stott.

The Bible presupposes the existence of God and doesn't try to prove His existence, but says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." I hope the following "proof's"shows the probability of God's existence to the objective searcher, and will silence the unbeliever who thinks believers are ignorant (actually agnostic means ignoramus). John R. W. Stott is quoted as saying, "We must not pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity." The problem is this: Man has the INCONVENIENT truth of believing in God because as Aldous Huxley said, disbelief liberates us sexually. We are going against the tide.

Blaise Pascal has said there is a "God-shaped" vacuum in our souls. St. Aurelius Augustine, bishop of Hippo, said that our souls are restless till they find their rest in God. Eccles. 3:11 says that God "has set eternity in the hearts of men." God cannot be proved because He is not measurable by scientific means; you cannot have 3 feet of love or 5 pounds of justice and likewise, God is not tangible, visible, nor audible--but you cannot deny their reality. In sum, These things cannot be verified by science.

History is another area of the fact that, since it is nonrepeatable, it is not verifiable scientifically. The evolutionist who denies God actually believes in infinite time plus sheer chance. Paul Little calls this the "junkyard mentality," where one believes that the cosmos or the earth just happened like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a jet plane, (or like throwing a 6 on a die 5 million times in a row). Even if the whole cosmos were filled with junkyards, it still would not happen. Chance is also compared to a blind man trying to solve Rubik's Cube, which would take 1.35 trillion years if he moved one time per second (according to Sir Fred Hoyle). Believing that life happened by chance is not even accepted by many scientists today. Instead, they believe in "Directed Panspermia," which is that life was somehow planted here from outer space! (This is called the principle of infinite regression, thought of by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.)

As for the complexity of life, one human cell contains more information in it than an entire volume of an encyclopedia. Chance is truly stretching it--there must be a designer for this design. Doesn't a building have an architect? "Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (cf. Heb. 3:4).

Several arguments for the existence of God have made a foothold into Christian theology. They are as follows:

The ontological proof (God exists because we have an idea of Him, like justice must exist because we have thought of it, for example, where did we get the idea of justice if it doesn't exist?--the greatest thought man can have is of God, for instance--there is a tug towards God like the moon's tides); the cosmological proof (every effect must have a cause, nothing happens by itself, God must be the uncaused cause, first cause, or unmoved Mover of the Universe, not that they have discovered the cosmos had a beginning, there must be a Beginner by deduction--therefore, that begins to exist has a cause);

the teleological proof (the purpose [atheists avoid this word because it implies there is purpose to life--existentialist philosophy denies any purpose for man], order, design, harmony and beauty, and intelligence in creation means someone must be behind it who has great taste or organized skill and is not haphazard--we are not a fluke; for instance, the Anthropic Principle says that the earth was designed perfectly for man, thus indicating ID or intelligent design (implying a Supreme Mind);

the moral argument says that God must care a lot about right and wrong--he is seen as a judge or arbiter, we all have a sense of right and wrong and appeal to a higher standard, a moral compass or higher law, that we assume everyone accepts, and the laws of nature are known to everyone innately ("They show that the requirements of the law are written in their hearts...their conscience either accusing them or excusing them.") and we all violate them, there must be a judge to mete out justice in the end or life would be a joke ("Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"), there are things universally accepted as wrong, and this is not a matter of social evolution or a matter of taste, like saying I don't like broccoli and you do; so one of us is wrong--examples would be incest or rape, which would be okay if there was no God--if there is no God, everything is up for grabs);

and finally, the ethnological argument (virtually every tribe known to man, no matter how primitive, has an awareness of God in some form--so it must be natural for us to believe in God that you have to teach a child NOT to believe in God, it is so inborn)--no one is BORN an atheist!--but note that there are two kinds of atheists: practical, who live as if there were no God; and theoretical, who have rational arguments they have thought out, which are usually more from bad experiences than philosophy.

There is no easy answer to evil, though, but faith sees things in a new light. They say: "How come bad things happen to good people?" Well, how come good things happen to bad people? Are we not all "bad" in God's eyes?  Remember, no religion has the complete answer to evil. God's relation to evil and sin is a mystery; however, God is holy and can have no contact with evil (like matter and antimatter) and cannot approve of it (cf. Hab. 1:13).

Napoleon, who called Jesus "The Emperor of Love," was once asked if he believed in God: He said, "But, monsieur, who made all that?" (pointing to the Heavens, which "declare the glory of God"). Kant said that two things inspired him to believe in God: The Heavens above and the conscience within. Mortimer Adler says that almost all of the great thinkers have strongly believed in God. More than 90 percent of astronomers today believe in God (don't forget the first major ones:  Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo). There certainly is more evidence for God than against Him.

Pascal offered his famous "wager," whereby he asked someone if they would want to be on the losing side of a bet where the ante is upped and the outcome is an eternity. If he were wrong in believing in God, nothing lost, but if the unbeliever was wrong, he would spend eternity in hell--not worth the risk, indeed!   It is said that ninety-nine percent of all the great thinkers have believed in God! Bertrand Russell was asked, according to D. James Kennedy, what he would say if it turned out that there was a God; he would ask Him, "Why didn't you give us more evidence?" Carl Sagan didn't want to say there was no God, but that there just wasn't any evidence for Him--there's never enough for the skeptic.

To the open mind, there is plenty of evidence (there is just enough light to see Him if you will, and just enough darkness to deny Him if you will). But God has left the matter an open question, and will not force Himself on anyone who doesn't want to believe. Someone has said that not believing in God frees one sexually--well, that about sums it up--they don't want to believe because they don't WANT to, and it would interfere with their sexual mores.

Needless to say, philosophers have debated the existence of God through the ages. Plato called Him the Supreme Good. But without revelation from God himself, we would never figure out what God is like. "Canst thou by searching find out God..." "And even though Jesus did many miracles...they WOULD not [not "could not"] believe in Him" (cf. John 12:37).

It is not for lack of evidence that one does not believe--but out of experiences in life that hardened one, or the condition of one's heart. Jesus said, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God...." We really don't have an intellectual problem, but a moral one. When they say, "What about the Pygmy in Africa?" they are just making a smokescreen. The real issue is "Jesus Christ" and who He is. Christianity is based on objective historical facts--the resurrection of Christ from the dead--which is arguably the most attested fact of antiquity. To the unwilling heart, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing, there is more than enough. We do not have blind faith, but faith based on evidence.

The problem with believers is having "blind unbelief" (which is not believing and not knowing why or looking at the evidence either way). People suppress their natural belief in God, because of moral considerations. Atheism is a universal negative, and you cannot prove a universal negative--how could you be everywhere in the cosmos at one time to prove that there were no little green men, for example? (To say that there is no God would require omniscience and/or omnipresence like God Himself.)  So, atheism is irrational and presumptuous.

The Christian doesn't need philosophical "proof" to believe, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to him and convicts him of the truth. But the "proof's" show the reasonableness of Christianity, and that one isn't ignorant to believe. The "proof" of the pudding is in the eating, as they say ("Taste and see that the Lord is good." (Ps. 34:8) Lee Strobel calls this "properly basic belief." We experience Christ in the here and now as the Holy Spirit bears witness; all philosophical proofs just reinforce and validate our faith as being reasonable.

Pascal is quoted by D. James Kennedy as saying that we do not have what appears to be the absence of God, nor His manifest presence, but the presence of a "hidden God" ("Oh, that I might know where I might find Him"). The point is that God desires to be found by those who seek Him. "He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." "Seek and you shall find." "You shall seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." It seems like if we have to prove God, the skeptic should have to disprove Him: there's no smoking-gun evidence for either position, both require faith.  However, it takes more faith to disbelieve in God.

Do not let anyone get your focus off the issue and the main thing: The gospel of Jesus Christ, the facts of which are based on objective historical proof and the experience would not happen if the facts weren't true. If there was no God, the cosmos would have no meaning, but we wouldn't know it. This is like a deaf man being aware of music by himself. Another question would be "Why do I feel gratitude if there is no one to be grateful to?" Where did we get the idea of justice? We must believe that He exists from all the fingerprints of His hand in all creation.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Can God Forget?

It is said in Holy Writ that God forgives and forgets. He wipes the slate clean. Like an Etch A Sketch's slate being cleaned, or a computer memory being erased, or a file deleted, giving us a fresh start. He puts our sins into the bottom of the sea, as it were, and puts up a no-fishing sign. "Yes, You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea" (Micah 7:19). "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions" ( Ps. 103:12).

We shouldn't keep "dredging up" old sins (as Rick Warren says) and reminding God of what He has forgotten. If we do confess a sin again and remind Him of it, He says, "What sin?" "For You have cast all my sin behind Your back" (Isa. 38:17). "...[H]e canceled every record of the debt we had to pay..." (Col. 2:14).

God doesn't hold any of our confessed sins against us, but we still may suffer the consequences of our actions (reaping what we sow). Sometimes we cannot forget, and we must learn to forgive ourselves. "I, even I, am He who blots out your sins for My sake, and will not remember your sins" (Isa. 43:25). "I have blotted out your transgressions like a thick cloud, and your sins like a heavy mist..." (Isa. 44:22). "...For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:12).

Yes, God does forget, and we should, too. Even if we have terrible sins, there is hope: "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow, and though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isa. 1:18).   Soli Deo Gloria!

Saved By Grace Alone

The Reformers believed in "Five Only's" (anything else is not Christianity) which are as follows: sola gratia (grace alone); soli Christo (through Christ alone); sola fide (by faith alone); sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as authority); and Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory). There are three possibilities of salvation scenarios: by man's effort alone, by a combination of man and God's effort, and by God's work alone. The only way we can have the assurance of salvation is if it is by God's work alone; otherwise, you never know how much work is enough for salvation.

Arminians believe that God gives equal grace to all and that believers just improved and took advantage of that grace by virtue of their works of faith, repentance, etc. In other words, they meet God half-way and cooperate with Him. They are really patting themselves on the back for their salvation. God wouldn't be God if He didn't get all the glory for our salvation. We don't get any of the glory for it. We share in HIS glory, it is not ours. Titus 3:7 says we are "saved by grace." "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

When you realize that faith is a gift of God you will realize that salvation is grace from beginning to end. It is the work of God, though it is our act--God doesn't exercise faith ("What do you have that you didn't receive?"). Christ is the "author and finisher of our faith". You have "believed through grace" (cf. Acts 18:27), and "it has been granted unto you...to believe..." (Phil. 1:29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:1). Actually, God opens our hearts to believe and overcomes our reluctance and makes the unwilling willing. "God opened the heart of Lydia to pay attention ..." (Acts 16:14). We did not psych ourselves up for faith, nor did we conjure it up or catch it like a fever; rather, it came to us by the preaching of the Word. ("Faith comes by the hearing, and by hearing of the Word of God.")

Repentance is the flip-side of faith and also is "granted." (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 5:31; 11:18) Faith and repentance go hand in hand, and  are complimentary. You cannot have saving faith without genuine repentance. But remember that the whole deal is the gift of God. Martin Luther says we contribute nothing to our salvation.  "Salvation is of the Lord"  (Jonah 2:9). 

Luther could not harmonize Paul and James on justification. James said we were justified by faith and works and Paul that we were justified by faith alone. What James is saying is that a mere profession of faith, a dead faith without any resultant work, does not justify. The Reformers formulation was that we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Paul was referring to the works of the law, and they do not justify. James is talking about any work proceeding from faith, and it is the natural consequence of true living faith, which is a living relationship with Jesus Christ. "If a man SAYS he has faith..." refers to a mere profession (just saying we have faith or lip service).

The demons believe the facts about God, but don't do acts of faith that result. A mere head knowledge or assent (known as "story faith" or "historical faith") will not do (this is called acquiescence). We are not justified by the works of the law, but if no good deeds result, our faith is useless and dead. We will all get the opportunity to demonstrate our faith and prove it by our actions, just like Abraham had his opportunity with Isaac. So Paul stresses the initial act of faith and James the evidential acts that follow. Mere profession of faith doesn't cut it.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Casting Lots In The Bible

There are a few examples of casting lots in the Bible, like when Jonah was aboard the ship to Tarshish (and they cast lots to determine who was at fault), and at Christ's crucifixion; however, there was no money involved and the people were simply using lots as a way of making a decision, like the apostles deciding who the twelvth apostle would be to replace Judas.

The Bible teaches clearly from Prov.16:33 that the "lot is cast," but the decision is "wholly from the Lord." God is sovereign, even in minutiae like so-called random throwing of dice. "God doesn't play dice," said Einstein, and that means there really is no such thing as luck or chance in His universe.

Jonathan Edwards said, he ascribes absolute sovereignty to God. Flipping a coin, as the modern-day version, at a football game, for instance, is not gambling either, but merely a convention. There is one type of "holy dice" in the Bible, and that is the Urim and Thummim, which was a "yes or no" proposition, in which God was asked a question of His will. But that does not mean we should "tempt" the Lord or put Him to the test and play dice to find out his will, like a sort of ouija board game with God. God expects us to use sound biblical principles like prayer, studying the Word, and counseling.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Is Playing The Lottery Sin?

Of course, gambling and playing the lottery are not mentioned in the Bible specifically as sin--so it's hard to make a case against it. God looks at the motive--does the individual desire to get rich, or does he have greed and love for money? Is he bored and looking for entertainment? ("The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil....") To be perspicuous, I am not a protagonist of any sort of gambling, since I cannot see Jesus doing it. "What would Jesus do?" is a good motto to live by. One should ask the questions: Can I ask Jesus' blessing on this? Can I invite Jesus with me in this? Many who play are obsessive-compulsive and in bondage like an alcoholic. They need to be set free and see the light. They think they've got the "bug," but really they've just been fooled by the lure of the destroyer-Apollyon (the devil).

There is no such thing as luck, so why believe in it? Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe." The Epicureans believed in chance, and the Stoics believed in fate--these are the two philosophies that seem to distinguish the gamblers. In essence, they are not trusting God to supply all their needs. Some say that if they tithe, they can do what they want with "their" money, but, as a matter of fact, all our money belongs to God, and the question should be "how much of God's money do I spend on myself?" We should trust in Providence, not happenstance. In the parable of the stewards, none of them used the money to gamble. As for stewardship, it is good advice to bet what you can afford to lose--not what you want to win if you must gamble.

Why should I be so concerned about this issue? Well, it has invaded the church as a condoned behavior that no one preaches about, like gluttony. Samuel Rutherford said that the more lively sense of sin, the less sin. What if you should win a million dollars? God sometimes gives us what we want, but are we prepared for it? The gambler can be guilty of worshiping at the shrine of "almighty chance," which is idolatry. In sum, gambling is not a sin per se, but it is unwise and should be avoided Many who condone it, don't do it themselves; why set a poor example and jeopardize your testimony, or do the devil a favor and love the world or the things of the world?

The call to holiness, "to come out from among them and be separate" is not something that can be commanded, one must get "convicted" on his own. So, don't think I condemn all lottery players, but I think there is a lot of abuse and slavery.

What may be a sin for me and my testimony, may not be for the baby believer for whom God doesn't require as much responsibility and testimony. Nothing is sin that isn't named or implied in Scripture, but the mature believer will see it as unwise.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Introduction To Science & The Bible

You know that in the early 20th-century modernism was the rule and society thought that science had all the answers. Evolution, a time-honored scientific tenet of FAITH has infiltrated philosophy and ethics, man even justifying himself by it. The so-called "survival of the fittest" and "law of the jungle" are the rules of nature. Today we are in danger of lapsing into "scientism" where we see science as a faith or religion and the ultimate authority. (It is actually deifying science.)  

Some things are out of the REALM of science--like ethics and morality. Some things simply cannot be measured, such as love or patience; for instance, you cannot take a foot of love or a pound of patience. If you cannot measure something is it out of the jurisdiction of science. Science, in other words, is only one way to truth. Miracles are not contradictory to science, they are just outside the realm of a scientific experiment.

In sum, there are LIMITS to our powers of observation, rationalization, experimentation, and knowledge via scientific endeavor. That is, when some scientists make deductions, they leave miracles outside of the pool of live options. (Lee Strobel refers to this as "inference to the best explanation.) There is nothing wrong with Sir Francis Bacon's scientific method, it's our presuppositions that are leading us astray. There is no such thing as total objectivity, except with God.

The main reason people believe in evolution is that they don't want the consequences of believing in God and that would affect their sexual mores, as Thomas Huxley maintained. There is absolutely no proof of it and it can't be proved, but they believe it nevertheless because the only alternative is unpalatable-- theism.

Science can tell us the "know-how" but not the "know-why." To existential and metaphysical questions we must turn to philosophy or religion. Jesus is the answer to the equation and he is also the "Answerer!" To know Christ is to know the truth. He did not just tell us the truth but became the embodiment of truth itself.

We must be careful not to personify science and make it an idol; anything that comes between us and God is idolatry. Truth does not go against reason, but beyond it.

St. Augustine said that "deep within man there dwells the truth." However, "the big lie of the West is that there is no absolute truth"--truth with a capital T! If there is no truth as Pilate thought then there is no God by inference. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it has no scientific absurdities, and where it does say something scientific, like the water cycle, it is accurate. The French Academy of Science in 1861 said that there were 51 "facts" in the Bible that were controverted by scientific fact--today not one of those scientific facts is believed and so you see that "science is a moving train," but the Bible stays the same. It is never outdated.

Theologians (viz.  Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine of Hippo) like to say that "All truth is God's truth." All religions have an element of truth mixed in with the error. They have just enough truth to be dangerous and religion has just enough reality to vaccinate you from the real thing. Psychology has some truth and Psychiatry has part of the answer and a piece of the puzzle, but the Scripture is sufficient to solve our problems and Jesus not only has the answer but is the Answerer! Christianity is not true because it works, as Lee Strobel says, it works because it is true. TM works for some, but that doesn't mean mantras are good, we should meditate on the Word only.

We all have preconceived ideas that prevent us from being objective--in fact, total objectivity is impossible, except for God. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. says that the scientific method cannot arrive at absolute truth. (Inference is flawed) We are all prejudiced and that means "being down on what was not up on." God gives enough light to see the truth if you can accept it and are looking, but he leaves it an open question and doesn't force truth on anyone. Truth cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we would be forced to accept it. If God were proved, then He would be no greater than the mind that proved Him! One needs faith because the "supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason." (Blaise Pascal) It is said, that if a scientist is not willing to go anywhere in his quest for the truth, he will not arrive at it.

Faith is prejudiced, and we all have some bias--there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, except with God. Sir Isaac Newton said, "No sciences are better attested than the religion of the Bible. Theology is known as the "queen of sciences."    Science is the stepchild of Christianity itself.  The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it does say something as a scientific fact, it is right--there are no "scientific absurdities."   And when it speaks of the rising of the sun, for example, it is merely using convention like we do. Newton wanted to reconcile science and the Bible--they are not antithetical at all.  Francis Schaeffer wrote, No Final Conflict between the two disciplines. It is said that if you think there's a contradiction, you either don't understand Christianity or science or both.

One can be a Christian scientist without committing intellectual suicide!  Theologians used to be students of science as well.  It has been said that he who thinks there is a conflict between science and the Bible understands neither.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Assurance Of Salvation

My area of expertise (quite ironically) seems to be the assurance of salvation since I have backslid so many times, I have been dogged by this issue, and have had to repent and do the first things over and go back to square one so to speak. Sometimes I have compared myself to other Christians and have been discouraged, e.g., when they say they hear God's voice audibly and I don't, I think something is wrong, but later God reassures me.

If you just go by feelings it seems like I have been saved many times over, but that is not biblical. The Bible makes it clear that if you could lose your salvation, you cannot regain it (See Heb. 6:1-9). God wants you to stand on the promises of God and "rely" on His Word, not go by experience or feeling. We do not walk in the "glow" of some mountaintop experience or cling to the memory of some emotional or ecstatic encounter, we learn to have faith that is tested and proven.  God isn't impressed with feelings as much as by faith!

I know the best assurance is that which comes from a holy and obedient life per Is. 32:17 which says, "The fruit of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance." Disobedience and consequent chastisement take away ones feeling of the joy of salvation and one may doubt his position in Christ.

My assurance comes from John 5:24, which says that He who comes to Christ will in no wise be cast out--that's my spiritual birth-certificate!  God said it in His Word, I believe it in my heart, that settles it in my mind!   No one is ever lost in the shuffle due to the Golden Chain of Redemption in Rom. 8:29-30.   Soli Deo Gloria!

Hearing God's Voice

I think some Christians are awful mystical and seem to think that they hear God talking to them when they are really mentally ill and need medications. I know of patients who take medications, and it sure seems to cure them. I don't doubt that there are legitimate prophets who are spiritual giants but this is not the norm. The normative way for God to speak to us is through the Word of God. We hear the still, small voice that is the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirit. Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice...." We may get impressions, hunches, or something may strike us as odd or providential; in the final analysis, God speaks to all Christians in some way, but let's be careful not to get too mystical or open ourselves up to the demonic activity.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Miraculous

For any of the skeptics, I recommend Jack Deere's Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, which delivers a coup de grace to the cessationist viewpoint (that the sign gifts have ceased). God does speak today, especially in the third world where "power evangelism" is taking effect and people witness miracles and by and large don't doubt the supernatural. Argentina has been having such a revival that obese people have been reported to have instantly lost 30 or more pounds! They say that the West brought the knowledge of God, and the third world, the power of God. I was told that the reason miracles aren't as prevalent in the Western world is that we have HMOs. God is alive and well in his church and there are miracles of healing quite often.   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Bondage Of The Will

"If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine..." (John 7:17, KJV).  


Martin Luther said that the freedom of the will is a grandiose term and fit only for God. Our wills are enslaved to the old sin nature and inclined to evil. They are biased and prone to evil, not good. Luther said that man has not ceased to be man, but ceased to be good. We are only free in the sense that God doesn't force us to do evil--we do it on our own volition. Augustine of Hippo said that we are free, but not freed. This is not a mind game, but only stressing that we don't have liberty, though we are responsible moral agents. We concur with our evil and no one forces us to do evil, which would be determinism or coercion. We are voluntary slaves to evil.

There are many Bible verses that stress the lack of freedom to respond to Christ on our own without the wooing of the Spirit. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy." "Who are born not of the flesh, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " "The way of man is not in himself, it is not in man who walks to direct his steps." "A man devises his thoughts, but the Lord directs his steps." (Cf. Prov. 20:24; Jer. 10:23; John 1:13; Rom. 9:16)

The freedom of the will so to speak is a curse, since we are free to do evil. Augustine said that we are non posse non peccare, which means we can only do evil. Luther said the will can only do evil, too. God does not make us do evil, we do it on our own initiative and willingly. There is no outside force making us do something, that would be determinism or coercion. We are free "to choose our own poison" (So to speak). We are free to go to hell.

According to Martin Luther, the will is enslaved to the old sin nature and not free. St. Augustine of Hippo said that the will is free, but not freed. He wasn't playing mind games but saying that we are responsible agents to God for our choices, but don't have liberty. He doesn't force us to do evil (known as coercion), because we do it on our own initiative. The freedom of the will is a curse because we can only do evil according to Luther.

Where did free will help Esau? There are many Bible verses that show that man doesn't have free will as far as the ability to choose and come to Christ apart from grace and the wooing of the Spirit. "For who can resist His will? [Rom. 9:19]" "It is not of him that willeth ..." "Who were born not of the flesh, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." "For the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jer. 10:23) We are biased or prone to evil, not good. Martin Luther said we have not ceased to be man, but have ceased to be good. The whole matter can be summed up in the phrase: "We don't need free will--we need WILLS MADE FREE!"

We are inclined to evil, not good--the ability lost at the fall. If you are different or virtuous, that is God's gift to you, not vice versa. "What do you have that you didn't receive [cf. 1 Cor. 4:7] Who makes you to differ?" "The heart devises the way, but the Lord directs his steps." That means God is sovereign!

This is one of the oldest debates in Christendom. Pelagius and Augustine debated it and so did Luther and Erasmus von Rotterdam (who wrote "In Praise of Folly" and made the Greek text of the New Testament available to scholars). The prevalence of the doctrine of freedom of the will in today's church is due to the influence of the Wesleyan Arminians. Don't let anyone make you think that the bondage of the will is a new doctrine or that it is not orthodox, because it is the original doctrine defended by the church Fathers and the Reformers. We are free moral agents, though, because we are individually responsible to God and without excuse for our sin.   Soli Deo Gloria!