“He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
Jesus speaks these words in the Sermon on the Mount. The immediate context is love for enemies. The theological implication is enormous:
God’s benevolence is not limited to the redeemed.
“Causes to rise” — anatellō
Meaning: to bring forth, to cause to shine, to spring up.
“Sends rain” — brechō
Meaning: to rain, to water.
The verbs are present active indicatives — continuous divine activity.
This is not deism.
This is ongoing providence.
The term “common grace” was later systematized by Reformed theologians, but the concept predates them.
Augustine acknowledged that unbelievers possess genuine virtues — though not salvific ones.
Calvin wrote in Institutes (II.2.15):
“Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God's excellent gifts.”
Calvin was not denying depravity — he was affirming residual image-bearing capacity.
An atheist doctor saving lives is not operating outside God’s providential order.
Rain falls on both believer and unbeliever.
This destabilizes simplistic “God blesses only His people materially” thinking.
“In Him all things hold together.”
Greek: synistēmi — to cohere, to stand together.
“Upholding all things by the word of His power.”
Greek: pherō — to bear, to carry continuously.
The picture is not of a clockmaker who walked away.
It is of a King sustaining the ontological fabric of reality.
In Summa Theologiae I.105, Aquinas argued:
God moves all things according to their nature.
Meaning:
Fire burns because that is its nature.
Humans choose because rational will is their nature.
God does not override secondary causes — He empowers them.
Thus meteorology does not eliminate providence.
It describes the mechanisms through which providence ordinarily operates.
Scripture repeatedly affirms dual causation.
“You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.”
Hebrew word study:
“Meant” — chashav
Meaning: to plan, devise, reckon, weave.
Same verb used twice.
Two agents.
Two intentions.
One event.
Joseph’s brothers acted freely.
God sovereignly incorporated the act into redemptive design.
No metaphysical mechanics are given.
Only layered affirmation.
Job includes:
Natural disaster (windstorm)
Human violence (raiders)
Satanic accusation
Divine permission
Job’s friends assume:
Suffering = punishment.
God rebukes them.
The lesson:
Theology that explains too quickly is often wrong.
The word “will” in Greek:
thelēma — desire, wish
boulē — counsel, determined plan
Uses boulē — counsel, deliberate purpose.
Uses thelō — desire.
This lexical distinction matters.
God may desire something (moral will) that He does not decree (sovereign will).
Failure to distinguish categories creates confusion.
Calvin emphasized:
“It depends not on human will…”
He was combating works-based religion.
Strength:
Protects grace.
Risk:
Overextension into exhaustive determinism.
Emphasized human response.
“Choose life.”
Strength:
Protects responsibility.
Risk:
Over-centers human initiative.
“Delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,”
“You crucified and killed.”
Greek:
“Definite plan” — hōrismenē boulē
“Foreknowledge” — prognōsis
Divine determination.
Human culpability.
No philosophical explanation.
Only coexistence.
In On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine wrote:
God foreknows our choices without forcing them.
He affirmed:
Grace is necessary.
Will is real.
Evil originates in misused freedom.
Augustine resisted simplistic fatalism.
Proposed:
God knows what any free creature would do in any circumstance.
This preserves:
Sovereignty
Libertarian freedom
Exhaustive foreknowledge
Critics argue it philosophically speculates beyond explicit biblical revelation.
Primary texts:
“Delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.”
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…”
Pro = before
Ginōskō = to know relationally, to recognize, to perceive
Important distinction:
In biblical usage, “know” often implies relational intimacy, not mere data awareness.
Example:
“You only have I known…”
Hebrew: yada — covenantal knowing.
Thus debate arises:
Does “foreknowledge” mean:
Mere awareness of future events?
Or relational fore-love?
Argued that foreknowledge does not cause human choices.
Understood foreknowledge as rooted in divine decree.
Understood it as God foreseeing human response.
The text itself does not fully explain mechanism.
It affirms foreknowledge without philosophical breakdown.
Key passages:
Greek:
Pro = before
Horizō = to determine, mark out, appoint (root of “horizon”)
Meaning: to mark out beforehand.
But what is marked out?
In Romans 8:
“Predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.”
The object of predestination is conformity to Christ.
Debate:
Is predestination about:
Individuals chosen unto salvation?
Or destiny prepared for those in Christ?
Argued that election is centered in Christ — Christ is both electing God and elected man.
Barth reframed election as primarily Christological, not abstractly individualistic.
“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”
Greek:
Ek = out of
Legō = to gather, to pick out
Used in contexts of selecting individuals for purpose.
But note the phrase:
“In Him.”
Corporate election scholars argue:
The choosing is covenantal — Christ is chosen, and those united to Him share in that election.
Emphasized recapitulation — humanity summed up in Christ.
Election may therefore be:
Individual
Corporate
Christ-centered
The text allows layered interpretation.
Primary example:
“He hardens whom He wills.”
Greek: sklērynō — to make firm, stiff, resistant.
But consider Exodus narrative:
Pharaoh both:
Hardened his own heart
Had his heart hardened by God
Dual agency again.
Suggested hardening is judicial — God confirming prior resistance.
Hardening may be:
Active judicial confirmation
Or permissive withdrawal of restraint
Scripture affirms both divine action and human stubbornness.
“No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.”
Greek: helkō — to draw, drag, pull.
Used elsewhere for:
Dragging nets (John 21:6)
Dragging Paul into marketplace (Acts 16:19)
Debate:
Is drawing irresistible?
Some argue yes.
Others argue drawing enables but does not coerce.
The verb itself does not specify irresistibility.
It specifies divine initiative.
Themes:
Jacob and Esau
Mercy and hardening
Potter and clay
Historical context:
Paul addressing Israel’s unbelief.
Key question:
Is Romans 9 about:
Individual eternal destinies?
Or redemptive-historical roles?
Interpreted Romans 9 corporately.
Interpreted it individually.
The chapter resists simplistic reading.
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy.”
Quoted from Exodus.
Mercy by definition is undeserved.
The text emphasizes divine freedom.
But Romans 10 immediately emphasizes human responsibility.
Paul holds both together without apology.
Repeated phrase:
“In Christ” / “In Him”
Election is not abstract.
It is located in union with Christ.
Greek participles emphasize:
Blessing, predestination, adoption — all “in Him.”
Christocentric focus tempers abstract determinism.
“Having believed, you were sealed…”
Sequence:
Hearing
Believing
Sealing
Grammatically, belief precedes sealing.
Debate continues:
Is faith enabled irresistibly?
Or genuinely responsive?
The text affirms both divine initiative and human belief.
The crucifixion is the clearest example of:
Predetermined plan (hōrismenē boulē)
Foreknowledge (prognōsis)
Human guilt (“you crucified”)
No biblical writer attempts to philosophically reconcile the tension.
They proclaim it.
This becomes the model for understanding providence:
Divine sovereignty does not eliminate human responsibility.
“You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.”
Hebrew verb: חָשַׁב (chashav)
Meaning: to plan, weave, account, devise.
The same verb describes:
The brothers’ malicious intention
God’s redemptive intention
One event. Two intentions. One verb.
The text does not say:
God reacted.
It does not say:
God caused the evil morally.
It affirms:
Simultaneous intentionality.
This is compatibilism in narrative form:
Human intent and divine intent coexist without explanation of mechanism.
“I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.”
Hebrew: בָּחַר (bachar) — to choose, select.
This is covenantal language.
Important context:
Israel had already been chosen corporately.
Choice operates within covenant relationship.
The tension:
Divine election of Israel precedes human response.
Yet response is commanded.
Election and responsibility coexist.
“Who desires all people to be saved.”
Greek: pantas anthrōpous
Debate centers on “all.”
Options:
All without exception
All without distinction (kings and commoners, Jew and Gentile)
Argued for “all kinds.”
Argued for universal scope.
Context:
Verse 1–2 speaks of “kings and all in authority.”
Paul’s emphasis may be social breadth, not metaphysical universality.
The verse affirms divine desire.
It does not explain why not all are saved.
“Not wishing that any should perish…”
Greek:
“Wishing” — boulomai (to intend, to desire deliberately)
Audience question:
Is “any” referring to:
Humanity universally?
Or the beloved community (v.8)?
Theological tension:
If God does not wish any to perish, why do some perish?
Scripture affirms divine patience.
It does not resolve philosophical implications.
Narrative sequence:
Pharaoh hardens his heart.
God hardens Pharaoh’s heart.
Hebrew verbs:
חָזַק (chazaq) — strengthen
כָּבֵד (kaved) — make heavy
The alternation suggests:
Progressive judicial hardening.
Argued God hardens by withdrawing grace.
The text resists simplistic fatalism.
Wrote The Bondage of the Will.
Wrote On Free Will.
Luther:
Human will is bound by sin.
Erasmus:
Moral exhortation implies capacity to respond.
Luther’s strength:
Emphasized grace.
Risk:
Minimized experiential human agency.
Erasmus’ strength:
Protected moral responsibility.
Risk:
Underestimated depravity.
In Freedom of the Will, Edwards argued:
Freedom means:
Acting according to one’s strongest inclination.
If God governs inclinations,
human choices are still voluntary.
This is theological compatibilism.
Critics argue:
This collapses libertarian freedom.
Supporters argue:
It preserves moral responsibility without denying sovereignty.
Wesley taught:
Prevenient grace restores enough freedom for genuine response.
Grace precedes faith.
Faith responds freely.
This attempts balance:
Neither Pelagian autonomy nor strict determinism.
Barth reframed election radically:
Christ is:
The electing God
The elected man
Election is centered in Christ,
not abstract decrees about individuals.
Strength:
Christocentric focus.
Criticism:
Ambiguity regarding individual salvation.
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!”
After discussing election, hardening, mercy —
Paul does not conclude with a system.
He concludes with worship.
This is instructive.
Theological tension culminates in doxology.
Determinism, philosophically defined, is the view that:
Every event is necessitated by prior causes such that no alternative outcome was possible.
Strict determinism leaves no room for contingency.
Important distinction:
Theological determinism ≠ naturalistic determinism.
Theological determinism argues:
God ordains all that comes to pass.
Naturalistic determinism argues:
Impersonal physical laws exhaust causation.
Classical Christian theology rejects impersonal determinism.
But some argue certain Calvinist formulations approach theological determinism.
“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”
The verse affirms divine sovereignty,
but does not define metaphysical necessity.
Scripture affirms governance,
not mechanistic fatalism.
Libertarian freedom (philosophical term) means:
At the moment of choice,
a person could genuinely choose otherwise.
This view is often associated with Arminianism.
Key text often cited:
“Choose this day whom you will serve.”
Libertarians argue:
Commands imply capacity.
Critics respond:
Commands may reveal moral obligation, not moral ability.
The debate hinges on:
Does moral responsibility require alternative possibilities?
Scripture affirms responsibility.
It does not define metaphysical freedom categories.
Compatibilism argues:
Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible.
Freedom is defined not as:
“Could have done otherwise”
But as:
“Acts according to one’s desires.”
Defined freedom as acting according to strongest inclination.
Scriptural example:
“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”
Human desire is real.
Divine sovereignty is real.
Mechanism remains unexplained.
Does God know the future because:
He determines it?
Or because:
He exists outside time?
Argued God exists outside temporal succession.
God does not “foresee.”
He eternally sees.
“With the Lord one day is as a thousand years…”
This verse is not a metaphysical treatise,
but it gestures toward divine transcendence of time.
If God is timeless,
foreknowledge does not imply causation.
Classical theism teaches:
God is simple — not composed of parts.
This means:
God’s will is not separate from His nature.
God does not deliberate like humans.
Argued God’s knowledge and will are identical with His essence.
Implication:
God’s sovereignty is not reactive.
It is intrinsic to His being.
Yet simplicity deepens mystery.
It does not solve tension.
The core question:
If God is sovereign and good,
why does evil exist?
Classical categories:
Moral evil — human sin
Natural evil — disaster, disease
Defined evil as privation (lack of good).
“I form light and create darkness…”
Hebrew word for “create” (bara) emphasizes sovereignty.
Yet moral evil is never attributed to God as author.
The tension remains:
God permits what He does not morally approve.
Open Theism argues:
The future is partly open,
even to God.
God knows all possibilities,
but not all future free decisions.
Associated thinkers include:
Open Theists cite:
“The Lord regretted…”
They interpret divine regret as genuine change.
Critics argue:
This undermines omniscience.
Open Theism prioritizes relational dynamism.
Classical theism prioritizes exhaustive foreknowledge.
Process theology, influenced by Alfred North Whitehead,
argues:
God does not control history.
He persuades.
This departs significantly from biblical theism.
“None can stay His hand.”
Biblical narrative portrays decisive sovereignty,
not mere persuasion.
Process theology attempts to solve evil,
but at cost of traditional omnipotence.
“The secret things belong to the Lord…”
“How unsearchable are His judgments…”
Scripture repeatedly affirms:
Some aspects of divine governance are beyond human analysis.
Mystery is not contradiction.
It is epistemic limitation.
Both Calvinism and Arminianism attempt coherence.
But Scripture:
Speaks narratively
Speaks poetically
Speaks covenantally
Speaks doxologically
It does not present systematic metaphysics.
When systems try to flatten tension,
they exceed Scripture.
The Bible’s method is layered affirmation,
not philosophical reduction.
And perhaps that is intentional.
One of the most practical objections:
If God already knows and ordains everything,
why pray?
“You do not have because you do not ask.”
“Ask, and it will be given to you.”
Scripture presents prayer as:
Meaningful
Effective
Commanded
Argued prayer does not change God’s eternal will,
but changes us and participates in God’s ordained means.
Called prayer “the chief exercise of faith.”
God ordains both:
Ends
Means
Prayer is a means within providence.
Is a miracle a violation of natural law?
Or an event beyond ordinary patterns?
Water becomes wine.
The Greek word often used for miracle:
sēmeion — sign.
Miracles in Scripture:
Reveal divine authority
Authenticate revelation
Signal redemptive turning points
They are rare in biblical history,
clustered around key epochs:
Exodus
Elijah/Elisha
Christ and apostles
This suggests:
God usually works through ordinary providence,
occasionally through extraordinary intervention.
Paul’s thorn in the flesh remained,
despite prayer.
Encourages prayer for healing.
Both are biblical.
The conclusion:
God heals.
God sometimes does not.
Both occur under sovereignty.
Avoid two errors:
Claiming lack of healing = lack of faith
Denying healing entirely
Scripture affirms tension.
If someone prospers financially,
what caused it?
Skill?
Market conditions?
Timing?
Favor?
Luck?
Providence?
“It is He who gives you power to get wealth.”
Hebrew:
koach — strength, ability, capacity.
God gives capacity,
not necessarily direct deposits.
Secondary causes matter.
Prosperity is not automatic proof of divine endorsement.
“Do not be surprised at the fiery trial…”
Not all suffering is:
Judgment
Demonic attack
Personal failure
Sometimes suffering is:
Participation in Christ
Refinement
Mystery
Spoke of the “theology of the cross.”
God works hidden beneath weakness.
“We wrestle not against flesh and blood…”
Spiritual warfare is real.
But Scripture never attributes:
Every inconvenience
Every sickness
Every setback
To demons.
The book of Job shows:
Satan operates within divine permission.
This guards against paranoia.
When someone gets hired:
HR decision
Qualifications
Interview performance
Organizational needs
All are real.
“The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.”
Hebrew:
kun — to establish, make firm.
Planning is real.
Divine establishment is real.
Is there such thing as luck?
“Time and chance happen to them all.”
Hebrew:
pegaʿ — occurrence, happening.
Ecclesiastes observes unpredictability.
From human perspective:
Events appear random.
From divine perspective:
Nothing is outside providence.
Scripture allows phenomenological language (“chance”),
without denying sovereignty.
Wisdom books emphasize:
Cause and effect
Patterns
Probability
Proverbs:
Righteous living tends toward stability.
Ecclesiastes:
Life defies simplistic formulas.
Together they prevent:
Prosperity theology
And fatalism
If sovereignty is true,
fatalism is unnecessary.
If responsibility is true,
passivity is sinful.
“Work out your salvation… for it is God who works in you.”
Greek:
“Work out” — katergazomai (to bring to completion)
“Works in” — energeō (to energize)
Human effort.
Divine energizing.
Simultaneous.
This verse may be one of the clearest compatibilist texts in Scripture.
Classic Calvinism affirms:
Those truly regenerated will persevere.
Key text:
“No one will snatch them out of My hand.”
“He who began a good work… will bring it to completion.”
Greek:
“Bring to completion” — epiteleō (to finish fully)
These texts emphasize divine preservation.
Yet Scripture also contains warnings.
Describes those who:
Have tasted
Have shared
Have fallen away
Debate:
Are these genuine believers?
Or those near salvation?
Affirmed real possibility of falling away.
Argued such people were never truly regenerate.
The text warns seriously.
It does not provide a systematic explanation.
“That you may know that you have eternal life.”
Assurance involves:
Faith in Christ
Evidence of transformation
Inner witness of the Spirit
Spoke of religious affections as evidence.
Assurance is not fatalistic certainty,
nor anxious insecurity.
It is grounded in Christ.
Is election primarily about:
Individuals?
Or covenant communities?
“He chose us in Him…”
Plural language dominates.
Argued election is centered in Christ and shared corporately.
Old Testament precedent:
Israel chosen corporately.
Corporate election does not eliminate individual responsibility.
“A partial hardening has come upon Israel.”
Hardening is:
Partial
Temporary
Purposeful
Paul affirms:
God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable (11:29).
This reinforces layered providence.
Throughout Scripture:
Elijah thought he was alone.
God preserved 7,000.
Remnant theology:
God preserves a people within broader unbelief.
Election and faithfulness intersect historically.
End-time texts emphasize divine culmination.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega.”
History is not random.
It is teleological — moving toward divine consummation.
Yet human actions still matter in the unfolding.
“We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ.”
Judgment implies:
Accountability
Real choice
Moral agency
Divine sovereignty does not erase moral evaluation.
Vessels of wrath.
Vessels of mercy.
Interpretive tension:
Are these eternally fixed categories?
Or redemptive-historical roles?
The text emphasizes divine patience:
“Endured with much patience…”
Mercy and justice coexist.
After 11 chapters of wrestling with:
Election
Hardening
Mercy
Israel
Gentiles
Paul concludes:
“How unsearchable are His judgments…”
This is critical.
The apostle does not end with:
Philosophical closure.
He ends with:
Worship.
This is the biblical boundary line.
Two dangers:
• Fatalism (“Nothing I do matters.”)
• Autonomy (“Everything depends on me.”)
Scripture rejects both.
“The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the Lord.”
Preparation matters.
Outcome belongs to God.
Human responsibility and divine sovereignty operate simultaneously.
“You ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills…’”
Greek: ean ho Kyrios thelēsei — conditional humility.
James does not condemn planning.
He condemns arrogant certainty.
The biblical posture is:
Active effort, humble dependence.
“Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord.”
Divine sovereignty does not eliminate diligence.
Developed theology of vocation:
Ordinary work is sacred calling.
Providence includes ordinary labor.
Not all suffering is:
• Demonic
• Punishment
• Discipline
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned…”
Jesus rejects simplistic causation.
The mature believer resists:
Blame reflexes.
“Give thanks in all circumstances.”
This does not mean:
Call evil good.
It means:
Trust divine providence even in incomplete understanding.
“If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought.”
Systems can become idols.
Calvinism and Arminianism both attempt coherence.
Neither exhausts divine mystery.
Theologians must remain worshipers.
Scripture calls for trust, not metaphysical mastery.
“My thoughts are not your thoughts…”
The gap between Creator and creature is not accidental.
It is ontological.
“Truly, You are a God who hides Himself.”
Divine hiddenness is biblical.
Spoke of the “hidden God” (Deus absconditus).
God’s ways are often concealed within ordinary processes.
When choosing:
• Career
• Marriage
• Location
Scripture emphasizes wisdom over deterministic signs.
“Trust in the Lord… He will make straight your paths.”
Hebrew: yashar — make smooth, upright.
Guidance is often gradual, not mechanical.
Faith does not eliminate uncertainty.
“He who observes the wind will not sow.”
Action requires risk.
Sovereignty encourages courage, not paralysis.
The crucifixion remains the clearest example of layered causation.
“To do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined…”
Yet:
Human rulers acted freely.
At the center of history:
Sovereignty and responsibility converge.
“For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.”
Prepositions matter:
From Him — origin
Through Him — sustenance
To Him — purpose
This is teleological sovereignty.
Blaming demons for:
• Every setback
• Every illness
• Every inconvenience
Undermines:
• Secondary causes
• Wisdom
• Responsibility
Spiritual warfare exists.
But Scripture is restrained.
Explaining everything as:
• Biology
• Psychology
• Sociology
Eliminates divine governance.
Christian theology affirms:
Natural explanations are not anti-theistic.
They describe mechanisms within providence.
Mystery does not imply randomness.
“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?”
Even lament assumes sovereignty.
Mystery invites trust, not nihilism.
“Walk humbly with your God.”
Theological maturity is measured not by:
• Systematic precision
But by:
• Reverent humility.
We conclude where Paul did:
“How unsearchable are His judgments…”
This 77-part journey has shown:
• God is sovereign.
• Humans are responsible.
• Nature operates consistently.
• Miracles occur selectively.
• Prayer matters.
• Evil is real.
• Mercy is real.
• Judgment is real.
• Mystery remains.
Calvinism preserves divine initiative.
Arminianism preserves human response.
Neither fully exhausts biblical revelation.
The Bible does not give a metaphysical blueprint.
It gives a King.
The mature believer:
Plans.
Works.
Prays.
Repents.
Trusts.
Acts.
Endures.
Worships.
Not because everything is explained —
but because everything is held.
And the One who holds it
is wise.
The Holy Bible.
Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text).
Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland 28th Edition).
Key biblical books cited extensively in this work:
Book of Genesis
Book of Exodus
Book of Deuteronomy
Book of Joshua
First Book of Kings
Book of Job
Book of Proverbs
Book of Ecclesiastes
Book of Isaiah
Book of Micah
Book of Lamentations
Book of Daniel
Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of John
Acts of the Apostles
Epistle to the Romans
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to the Colossians
First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle of Peter
Epistle of James
First Epistle of Peter
First Epistle of John
Book of Revelation
Irenaeus. Against Heresies.
Origen. On First Principles.
Augustine of Hippo.
On Free Choice of the Will.
Enchiridion.
City of God.
Pelagius. Commentary on Romans. (Fragments)
Thomas Aquinas.
Summa Theologiae.
Summa Contra Gentiles.
Anselm of Canterbury. Cur Deus Homo.
Martin Luther.
The Bondage of the Will.
Desiderius Erasmus.
On Free Will.
John Calvin.
Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Jacobus Arminius.
Works of Arminius.
Synod of Dort (1618–1619). Canons of Dort.
Jonathan Edwards.
Freedom of the Will.
Religious Affections.
John Wesley.
Sermons on prevenient grace.
Notes on the New Testament.
Karl Barth.
Church Dogmatics II/2.
Clark Pinnock.
Most Moved Mover.
Greg Boyd.
God of the Possible.
Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology.
Millard Erickson. Christian Theology.
Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology.
R.C. Sproul. Chosen by God.
Roger Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.
Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality.
William Lane Craig. The Only Wise God.
Alvin Plantinga. God, Freedom, and Evil.
Robert Kane. The Significance of Free Will.
Brown, Driver, Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB).
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG).
Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Louw & Nida. Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains.
This volume draws from theological reflection in areas including:
Divine sovereignty
Human freedom
Compatibilism
Libertarianism
Molinism
Open Theism
Process Theology
Common Grace
Providence
The Problem of Evil
Election
Perseverance
Apostasy
Eschatology
Doxology
This 77-part theological construction stands within the broad stream of historic Christian orthodoxy while acknowledging unresolved tensions.
It draws from:
Patristic theology
Medieval scholasticism
Reformation debates
Evangelical systematic theology
Philosophical theology
Without collapsing into any single camp.
Your Date and Time
Greg Loucks is a writer, poet, filmmaker, musician, and graphic designer, as well as a creative visionary and faith-driven storyteller working at the intersection of language, meaning, and human connection. Born and raised in Phoenix, Arizona, he has lived in Cincinnati, Ohio; Hot Springs, Arkansas; Williams, Arizona; and Flagstaff, Arizona—each place shaping his perspective, resilience, and creative voice.
United States of America and Europe
Arizona: (928) 563-GREG (4734)
Tennessee: (615) 899-GREG (4734)
Toll-Free: 888-457-GREG (4734)
Comments