Moral Government Theology on Free Will, Sin Nature, Original Sin, Total Depravity, Omniscience, etc… – Jesse Morrell



This is Chapter Thirty Five from my book, “Cleansing the Temple: A Call to Radical Christianity.” This is a powerful book about purity, prayer, preaching, and persecution.

I’m giving this book away for free to everyone who signs up to receive our email updates. Every once and a while I email out teaching videos, salvation testimonies, encouraging and edifying articles, etc.


For FREE Christian Books by Jesse Morrell


This was an email dialog I [Jesse Morrell] was having with a man over the topic of Moral Government Theology as it relates to free will, sinful nature, original sin, total depravity, spiritual death, omniscience, etc:

“I am in 100% agreement with you in your defense of Free Will. I also believe the same.  I do not believe in the early Gnostic doctrine.”

Yes, that is good. The doctrine of free will, that every man has the choice between obedience and disobedience, is an essential Christian doctrine. The doctrine that man cannot help but to sin and is forced by necessity to sin is a Gnostic heresy that has no place in Christian theology.

“I remember Ray Comfort once said “Because God wants mankind to worship and love Him, He gave Adam and Eve the free will to choose whether to obey or disobey Him.” 

Yes that’s right, Adam and Eve had a good nature given to them by God and yet they freely chose to sin against that nature. They did not have a sinful nature. If your nature necessitated your will, Adam and Eve would never have sinned. So we see that the relationship between nature and will is not causation but influence and men are capable of choosing against their nature. The ability to choose against your nature is free will.

“I also remember Ray Comfort saying “Gays argue that they did not make a conscious decision to be that way, so it must be natural. They are born that way—just as all of us are born with a sin nature and sinful desires (Ephesians 2:1–3).”

Actually, the Bible says that homosexuality is “against nature.” It is not a person’s nature to be a homosexual. They are not born with a homosexual nature. They are actually choosing that which is against their nature. The Bible says that it is not the “natural use” of the body. In other words, God had a design for our body and it was not for sin. Sin is against our nature because it is against our design.

Furthermore, the Bible says that the Gentiles “do by nature” the things contained in the law. It is our human nature to be good, not evil. When a man does good, his own conscience approves of him. When he does evil, his own conscience condemns him. Our conscience is the supreme faculty of our nature. And since it is against our human conscience to sin, it is against our human nature to sin. All sin is unnatural as it is both against our design and against our conscience. When a man sins and feels guilty about it, this feeling of guilt is not by free choice but by nature. That shows that we were designed for virtue, not vice.

But the Bible does talk about the ability to sear your conscience and develop a sinful nature. While we are born with a nature that is against sin, by free will choices we can develop a sinful nature. Thus the Bible says that by our conversation or manner of life we “were by nature children of wrath.” The word nature there refers to “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer). Through habitual free will choices, sinning can become your second nature. By habitual free will choices it can become your nature to be a rotten selfish person, even though this is contrary to your original design and is against the conscience God put into your nature.

“I asked somebody about Ray Comfort’s two comments above, and this person said “Technically, man’s will is not “free”. Man’s will or desire is always in bondage to his nature. Just like a pig will choose slop over fragrant bath water because the nature of the pig is to go to the slop. Likewise, we will never desire anything that’s against our nature.”

This is the reasoning of R. C. Sproul. Sproul teaches that man can only choose according to his nature. That is why his son, R. C. Sproul Jr. teaches that God must have given Adam and Eve a sinful nature. Otherwise, they never could have sinned.

But a man’s will is free to choose contrary to his nature. Adam and Eve are perfect examples of this, so are homosexuals.

However, man’s nature can be divided into higher and lower. Man’s higher nature is his intellect, conscience, etc. Sin is certainly contrary to man’s higher nature. God’s law is written on our hearts. Conscience is the supreme faculty of our nature which claims authority to regulate all other faculties of our nature. And sin is contrary to the conscience God has put into our nature.

But then there is the lower nature of man. His lower nature is his passions, emotions, feelings, physical desires, sensibilities, etc. God designed our nature with these passions, etc, and He gave us a natural and lawful means of their gratification. The devil tempts men to gratify these natural desires in unnatural and unlawful means. Temptation is a suggestion to the mind to gratify your lower nature in a way that God did not design or intend. This is what happened to Eve in the garden by the serpent. The Bible says she saw that the fruit was good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and desired to make one wise.

So it is not that God gave Adam and Eve a sinful nature, or that your will must choose according to your nature, but that the will is free to gratify your nature lawfully or unlawfully, naturally or unnaturally. Sin is the free choice of the will to gratify your lower nature in an unnatural and unlawful manner.

“Jesus said, “He who commits sin is a slave to sin.”  and over and over again throughout scripture we see man’s slavery to sin, his deadness in sin and his unwillingness to come to Christ.”

Yes, Jesus said he that committeth sin is the servant of sin. So our free will choice to sin is what makes us servants of sin. It is not that we choose sin because we are servants of sin, but that we are servants of sin because we choose to sin. Paul said that you are the servant of whomever you yield yourself to. He said that if you yield yourself to righteousness, you are the servant of righteousness. But if you yield yourself to sin, you are the servant of sin. So men are not forced or necessitated to sin, as if they had no choice in the matter or could not have chosen otherwise. Men are voluntarily and freely servants of sin. They choose to serve wickedness when they are fully capable of serving righteousness instead. It’s a matter of free will.

Thus, a person who is a servant of sin is not a poor victim who couldn’t help it. They are a criminal who deserves endless torment in hell. If a person was simply born with a nature that forced them to sin, then their servitude to sin is unfortunate but not criminal. They were born with a hereditary disease. You cannot punish a man for being born with a disease! That would be cruel, unjust, and unreasonable. Sin is a crime and as a crime it relates to law and choice. Men, after they are born, choose to be servants of sin and therefore they deserve damnation and are in need of salvation through Christ.

“This is not because man is morally neutral and just wasn’t smart enough to choose Christ. In reality, every aspect of his being is under the curse of sin…otherwise known as total depravity.”

When a man is born, he hasn’t made any moral choices yet. So he is what the Bible calls “morally innocent.” The Bible says when Israel would sacrifice their children that they were shedding “innocent blood.” Babies are morally innocent because they haven’t sinned yet. The Bible says that the children being in the womb haven’t yet done any good or evil. Infants are incapable of sinning because they don’t know good and evil yet the Bible says. And Jesus said if you were blind, you would have no sin. So infants have no sin as their conscience is not yet developed and they haven’t made any free will choices yet. Sin is the free choice of the will to do what you know is wrong. Thus, it is only after the age of accountability that men can become sinners.

And the Bible says that all men have chosen to be sinners. It says all we like sheep have gone astray, we have all turned to our own way. So it is not the fault of your birth that you are a sinner. It is the fault of your free will. You chose to be a sinner. That is why you deserve to burn in hell. And that is why you need forgiveness through Christ.

There were consequences that God declared as the result of Adam’s original sin. That is what is referred to as “the curse.” For example, sweaty labor, painful child bearing, the death of the body, etc. But God never declared in those consequences that mankind was going to lose their free will, that mankind was going to be given a sinful nature so that those born after Adam couldn’t help but to sin, or that all of mankind would deserve hell from birth because of a sin that they didn’t even commit. Those are the teachings of men, not Scripture.

Thus Moral Government Theology fully teaches the total depravity of man. Men choose to be totally morally depraved. Total depravity is not constitutional but moral. Total depravity is not total inability, but total unwillingness. Sinners know what their moral obligations are through their nature or conscience, they are fully capable of obeying their moral obligations through their free will, but they are utterly unwilling to do what they know God requires of them. Thus their moral character is totally depraved.

“His nature is one of darkness; therefore, he hates the light. He’s spiritually dead and unable to receive spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14). What he needs is a new heart that will spring forth new desires…this is God’s work in regeneration as prophesied in Eze. 36:26-27.

Yes, man has developed a sinful nature by his free choices and he chooses to hate the light and love the darkness. For this man is fully responsible because it is entirely his fault. If man couldn’t help this because of the necessity of his nature, it wouldn’t be his fault and he could not be blamed for it.

And yes, men are spiritually dead. That is the result of their free choice to sin. The Bible says your sins have separated you from your God. Notice that men are spiritually dead for their own sins, not because of Adam’s sin. The Bible says that you were dead in your trespasses and sins in the plural sense, making it personal. At the age of accountability when you chose to be a sinner, you consequently became spiritually dead. Paul said I was alive without the law once but sin revived and I died. The prodigal son was relationally dead to his father by his choice to leave, but he became relationally alive again to his father by his choice to return. Thus being spiritually dead or spiritually alive is a matter of free choice. If we choose to be sinners are estrange ourselves from God or are spiritually separated from Him and the life that is in Him. But if we choose to come to Jesus Christ, we now have the life that is in Christ.

The work of regeneration is synergistic, not monergistic. That is, man must cooperate with God in regeneration. Man has a role and responsibility in regeneration so that God is not the only agent involved. Thus God said in Ezekiel that He will give them a new heart but also said in Ezekiel for them to make unto themselves a new heart. Regeneration is the transformation of your moral character. And as moral character is derived from free will choices, it is impossible for a man to be regenerated or have his moral character changed and transformed apart from His will free choice. Thus the instrument that God employs in regenerating our moral nature is the truth. It is by the influence of the truth presented to our mind that the free will choices of our will are changed. Regeneration is by grace, not by force. And grace is God’s “divine influence upon the heart” (Thayer).

Regeneration is not when man’s constitution receives the ability to obey, as that ability was given at creation and was not lost by Adam’s original sin. Regeneration is when man’s character is totally changed and transformed by the influence of grace through the power of the truth. It is when a man goes from being a totally depraved sinner to a entirely sanctified saint.

To be fair though, most people probably use the term “free will” simply to mean the ability to make choices. Yes, we all make choices; however, our nature will dictate the direction.”

Free will is not merely the ability to make choices, but that the choices that are made are free and not necessitated. In other words, free will is the power of contrary choice. Men choose to sin but they are free not to sin. Men choose to serve Jesus but they are free not to serve Jesus. It is against man’s nature to sin and yet man does it anyways. The devil tempts us to gratify our passions through sin but we are free to deny ourselves. Thus our will is free to obey or disobey our nature, to gratify or deny our nature, and we always have the power of contrary choice in the free choices that we make.

“My problem is not with free will; it’s that it denies the omniscience of God, and also denies the doctrine of original sin. Now do you see my concern?”

Moral Government Theology does not deny the omniscience of God, but many of us do hold to Open Theism. Open Theism says that the future is not exhaustively predetermined or fixed but is open because of free will choices. Thus when God said I set before you life and death, choose life, this means that the future has two alternative possibilities. There are alternative or multiple courses for the future. God is omniscient because He knows all that can be known. And His omniscient mind perfectly corresponds to the nature of reality. Since the future has alternative possibilities, God’s mind knows these alternative courses as possibilities. In fact, if God did not know that the future was open, when in fact it is, then He would not be omniscient.

The debate between Open Theism and Calvinism is not whether or not God’s mind is omniscient, but over the nature of the future that God knows. We contend that because of free will the future has openness and therefore God’s mind knows it as such. They contend that because of Sovereign decree the future is closed and therefore God’s mind knows it as such. They say that God knows the future as consisting in necessities and certainties, whereas we affirm some necessities and some certainties but also say that God knows that the future has possibilities.

That the future is not eternally fixed but has possibilities is seen by the fact that God has at times changed the future. For example, God prophesied that He was going to wipe out mankind from the face of the earth but then Noah found favor with God. God prophesied that He was going to destroy Nineveh but then they turned from their sins so God repented of His plans. God said He wanted to destroy Israel and make a nation out of Moses but Moses persuaded God to change His mind. God prophesied that Hezekiah would die and not recover but then reversed the prophecy because of Hezekiah’s prayer and said he would live and not die and added fifteen years to his life. Adding fifteen years was evidently God changing the future. Jesus even said that for the elect’s sake God has shortened those days, thus changing the future. And Jesus said pray that your flight not be in winter, implying that the future was open and not yet fully decided.

Thus we can see from Scripture that the future is not eternally settled and certain but has alternative possibilities and courses which God and man can choose between by free will. And since the future is not entirely certain but has possibilities, God’s omniscient mind knows the future as not entirely certain but as having possibilities.

And in regards to original sin, Moral Government Theology certainly does not deny that Adam and Eve were real people and that they committed the original sin that has negatively affected all of mankind. This we fully acknowledge. The Bible is clear that physical death has come to all of us as a consequence of Adam’s original sin and that Adam’s original sin has been, in some way, the occasion for all of mankind choosing to become sinners.

But the original doctrine of “original sin” as taught by Augustine in the Roman Catholic Church was that because Adam sinned God punished all of mankind by taking away free will and making it impossible for man to choose anything good. This the Bible nowhere states.

Augustine also taught that sexual desire was a negative result of Adam’s original sin, a curse upon human nature, and that this sexual desire is what constitutes our “sinful nature.” He did not teach that our nature merely inclined us towards sin, but that our nature itself was a sin. This, of course, the Bible nowhere teaches but is in fact a version of a Gnostic heresy. Augustine viewed sex itself as sinful because it involves these sexual desires, which were sinful. Therefore Augustine believed that all men were born in sin because all men are born through sexual desire. This is why Augustine taught that Christ alone was born without original sin, because Christ alone was born without sex and without that sexual passions that were involved. This is not Scriptural at all. God has given us our sexual desires and He wants us to gratify them lawfully and to control them. That are a part of our God given nature. He told Adam and Eve before the fall to be fruitful and multiply.

And Augustine also taught that the soul is hereditary, not created at conception, so that we literally sinned in Adam. Our soul was literally in Adam’s loins so when he acted, we acted. When he became a sinner, we became a sinner. But this would of course make us guilty of all the sins of all our ancestors, not just Adam’s. It would mean that are shared in the righteousness and salvation of Noah, since we existed in his loins. This theory known as traducianism, which was essential to Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, is contrary to the Scriptures. The Bible is clear that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father, but the soul that sinneth it shall die.

I am very interested in supporting your ministry further because I feel led to do so. I also really want to see you in action and I would also like to be a part of helping to create a school. I just need to understand what you think of this. I hope I addressed my concern correctly this time.

Have a great week



I hope that my answers were direct enough. In this email I am really simply rewriting what I already expounded on in my book, “The Natural Ability of Man: A Study on Free Will and Human Nature.” In that book I teach with a abundance of Scriptures and Early Church Fathers these truths; the will is free to choose according to or contrary to our nature, sin is contrary to the nature God has given us, Adam’s original sin did not take away our free will or turn our nature into a sin, the soul is created at conception and is not hereditary, each individual is responsible and accountable for their own personal sins, sin is a free choice of the will not a substance of our nature, men become sinners by choice at the age of accountability, men make themselves servants of sin, men are spiritually dead as a result of their own sins, etc.

If you are interested in supporting our ministry I would recommend reading my book so that you fully understand what I believe and why I believe it. Your support would be appreciated and I am glad that you feel lead of the Lord to do so. It is the vision of our ministry to start a School of Evangelism to train believers and we no doubt need supporters for that task. But you must understand that my theology is very non-Calvinist. It is our heart to teach our students good theology, which is non-Calvinist theology. The website that you said you like a lot, CARM, is a Calvinist website started by Matt Slick. Matt Slick asked me to debate him one time but then later backed down. I find that the articles on his website relating to moral government, governmental atonement, open theism, etc, are very inaccurate and lack real scholarship. I also wrote a lengthy refutation to an article posted on CARM by Tony Miano against Mark Cahill. That article can be found here: A Rebuttal to Tony Miano’s Attacks on Mark Cahill, Jesse Morrell, Kerrigan Skelly, and other Non-Calvinists

In that article, I outlined my major objections to Calvinism:

Reformed Theology denies orthodox Christian doctrines like:

1. Man’s free will to obey or disobey God, which is the basis of man’s responsibility and accountability (Gen. 4:6-7; Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; Jer. 38:20; Eze. 18:30; Acts 17:30-31);

Augustine said, “By Adam’s transgression, the freedom of’ the human will has been completely lost.”[1]

Augustine said, “By the greatness of the first sin, we have lost the freewill to love God.” [2]

Augustine said, “by subverting the rectitude in which he was created, he is followed with the punishment of not being able to do right” and “the freedom to abstain from sin has been lost as a punishment of sin.”[3]

Martin Luther said that “the law demands of men what they cannot do…”[4]

Martin Luther said, “For if man has lost his freedom, and is forced to serve sin, and cannot will good, what conclusion can more justly be drawn concerning him, than that he sins and wills evil necessarily?”[5]

2. That each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sins committed in their own life, and will not be damned for the sins of anyone else (Lev. 18:29; Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-6; Eze. 18:20; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:5-6; Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 11:15; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 20:11-12; Rev. 22:12);

John Calvin stated, “Adam drew all his posterity with himself, by his fall, into eternal damnation.”[6]

 3. Christ died for everyone (Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Jn. 2:2), and His unlimited atonement does not make salvation automatic for anyone, but available for everyone (Jn. 3:14-17; 12:46; Acts 10:43; Rom. 10:11; Rev. 22:17), and that those for whom Christ died can still perish (Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1);

Custance said, “No man can be held accountable for a debt that has already been paid for on his behalf to the satisfaction of the offended party. But a double jeopardy, a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect are to be punished for sins which the Lord Jesus Christ has already endured punishment.”[7]

Boettner said, “For God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards to the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them.”[8]

Wayne Grudem said, “Reformed people argue that if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double payment, and it would therefore be unjust.”[9]

Joshua Williamson said, “If Christ died for everyone, everyone would be saved.”[10]

4. The universal benevolence or love of God, which wants all sinners to repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; John 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 3:19);

John Calvin said, “not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing.”[11]

John Calvin said, “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.”[12]

John Calvin said, “At this point in particular the flesh rages when it hears that the predestination to death of those who perish is referred to the will of God.”[13]

Alan Kurschner said, “God desires that his sheep are saved. God desires that his people are saved. He does not desire that every single individual who has ever lived, live in glory with him forever. If that were the case, we have an incompetent, unhappy, and impotent God.”[14]

Matthew McMahon said, “I reject anything which makes God a cosmic bell-hop tending to the commands and demands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which removes God’s sovereignty to place man as the Sovereign as another gospel. I reject anything which denies the sovereign decrees of God and His electing grace to put salvation into the hands of sinful men as another gospel. I reject anything which denies man’s total depravity and exalts his fictitious free will as another gospel. I reject anything which places the perseverance of man to glory in the incapable hands of a sinful man as another gospel. I reject anything which endeavors to treat God as the great Grandfather in the sky beckoning and pleading with man to be saved as changing the true God into a pitiable wimp.”[15]

Erwin Lutzer said, “The revealed will was that all men be saved, but the hidden will was that the greater part of mankind be damned.”[16]

John Calvin said, “His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect.”[17]

John MacArthur, comments: “His patience is not so He can save all of them, but so that He can receive all of His own…”[18]

5. The conditional security of believers or the possibility of falling away from the faith (Matt. 24:13; Jn. 15:6; Acts 11:23; Acts 13:43; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:13; Rom. 11:20-21; 1 Cor. 9:27; Heb. 2:1-3; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Pet. 2:20-21);

Martin Luther said, “Be a sinner and sin boldly… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”[19]

Westminster Confession of Faith said, “They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.”[20]

6. Man’s role, responsibility, and choice to cooperate with God in regeneration or in the changing of his heart (Deut. 10:16; Eze. 18:30-32; Ps. 78:8; Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:15; Act 7:51; 17:30-31; Jas. 4:8; Col. 3:9-10; Eph. 4:22, 24; 1 Tim. 4:16);

Martin Luther said, “I say that man… when he is re-created does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves…”[21]

 A. W. Pink said, “The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part in it.”[22]

7. That there is deliverance available from all sin in Jesus Christ, or the possibility of overcoming sin in this life by the grace of God (Matt. 1:21; Jn. 8:36; Rom. 6:18, 20, 22; 8:2; 1 Cor. 10:13; 1 Thes. 3:13; 1 Thes. 5:23; Titus 2:11-12; Jude 1:24; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Jn. 1:9; 3:9).

The Westminster Catechism says, “No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God; but does daily break them in word, thought, and deed.”[23]

8. That God is not the author of sin, nor the sovereign cause of its entrance into the world (Gen. 1:31; 6:5-6; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 19:5, 32:35; Isa. 5:4; Zeph. 3:5; Ecc. 7:29; Matt. 6:10; Lk. 7:30; 1 Cor. 14:33; Heb. 1:9).

Martin Luther said, “Since, therefore, God moves and does all in all, He necessarily moves and does all in Satan and the wicked man…”[24]

Martin Luther said, “God worketh all things in all men even wickedness in the wicked…”[25]

John Calvin said, “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God.”[26]

See also the article,Is God the Author of Sin?

There are many other orthodox doctrines which are taught in the Scriptures and which were held by all of the Early Church which are denied by Augustinian and Reformed Theology, but the above is sufficient for this article.

As much as Calvinism claims to be orthodox, its doctrines are utterly opposed to the doctrines of the Early Church Fathers before Augustine, and they have more in common with the heretical teachings of the Gnostics and Manicheans.

See the article, “Did He Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?

Sadly, many Calvinist groups function as a cult today, claiming exclusively that Calvinism is Christianity, that their doctrine of T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel itself, and that anyone who disagrees with their doctrine is a “heretic,” “false teacher,” or “false convert.” They are quick to break fellowship with, and falsely accuse, any Christian that contradicts their own theology.

I have always found it interesting that these groups will hail John Calvin as a hero, but will label Charles Finney a heretic. Charles Finney was America’s greatest revivalist, who lead a quarter of a million people to the Lord. The vast majority of his converts stayed in the faith until their dying day, unlike other evangelists like D. L. Moody or Billy Graham, who’s converts mostly fell away. John Calvin on the other hand had excommunicated and even killed countless individuals. Calvinists overlook this and often seek to justify it, while they are quick to condemn Finney because he used “altar calls.” I can supply story after story of Finney winning sinners to Christ, but Calvinists have been unable to provide for me even a single story of John Calvin ever personally leading a sinner to Jesus. There are plenty of stories of John Calvin burning sinners at the stake, but not a single one of him leading souls to Christ like Charles Finney did. Yet, they exalt Calvin as a hero and criticize Finney for calling sinners to repentance at the altar.

See also the article, “The Secret of Success In The Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Gordon C. Olson

God Bless,

Jesse Morrell


Is Moral Government Theology Heretical for Teaching Free Will?

Are Babies Sinful or Innocent? Jesse Morrell

Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? Jesse Morrell

Was Augustine A Gnostic Heretic? Did He Corrupt The Church With Gnostic Doctrine? Did The Early Church Agree With Pelagius?

Is God the Author of Sin? Calvinism Refuted – Jesse Morrell

A Rebuttal to Tony Miano’s Attacks on Mark Cahill, Jesse Morrell, Kerrigan Skelly, and other Non-Calvinists

Early Church, Augustine, Original Sin, and Free Will

On Original Sin, Sinful Nature, and Romans Chapter Five – Jesse Morrell

Does Free Will Come From Creation or Pentecost?




This is Chapter Thirty Five from my book, “Cleansing the Temple: A Call to Radical Christianity.” This is a powerful book about purity, prayer, preaching, and persecution.

I’m giving this book away for free to everyone who signs up to receive our email updates. Every once and a while I email out teaching videos, salvation testimonies, encouraging and edifying articles, etc.

Sign up here to receive you free copy:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Moral Government Theology on Free Will, Sin Nature, Original Sin, Total Depravity, Omniscience, etc… – Jesse Morrell

  1. Gabe says:

    I enjoyed your reply.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s