What Is Textual Criticism?

What is Textual Criticism?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Definition of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of textual studies, which comprise various disciplines whose aims are to transcribe, edit, or annotate texts and documents. Textual criticism is a branch of philology (the study of language in oral and written historical sources) and literary criticism, which is interested in the identification of textual variants or different versions of books or manuscripts. Simply put, textual criticism is a method by which scholars try to determine what an original text actually said. Whereas *higher criticism* is concerned with the origins of the original text (e.g. its authorship, date & place of composition), *lower criticism* (i.e. “textual criticism”) seeks to determine the original linguistic-grammatical structure of the text.

The Process of Textual Criticism

In ancient times, prior to the 15th century invention of the printing press, scribes were usually employed to copy documents by hand. During the copying process, however, intentional and unintentional alterations were made, the former sometimes due to political or religious reasons, the latter out of sheer misunderstanding or negligence. Thus, the aim of the textual critic is to understand the historical composition and transmission of a text and its variants. In so doing, the textual critic may be able to produce a so-called “critical edition,” which is a scholarly edition of a corrected text in conjunction with a critical apparatus that records editorial changes, names of manuscripts, and the like.

As already noted, prior to the printing press, literary works were copied by hand and, as expected, copyists produced different variations at certain places in the text. Given that different scribes introduced various errors, the task of textual reconstruction usually requires a selection of readings gathered from multiple sources. Such an edited text is called “eclectic.” In contrast to the multiple-sources approach, however, a number of textual critics will only seek to identify the best extant text with regard to textual reconstruction. When considering various documents (i.e. “witnesses”) of an original text, the linguistic or grammatical differences or variations are called “variants” or “variant readings.” So, through various comparative methods, textual criticism tries to ascertain how the variants were introduced into the text——whether accidentally (via duplication or omission) or intentionally (by way of censorship or harmonization)——as scribes copied from the original autograph and then transmitted these writings across the then-known world.

Guidelines of Textual Criticism

We have hundreds of extant copies of ancient works, thousands as far as the Bible is concerned, but their relationship to the original text is often unclear. Thus, in order to ascertain which readings are faithful (most closely related to the autograph), textual scholars typically debate which sources appear to be derived from the original text. Typically, when there’s no known original manuscript but only several extant copies or versions, certain guidelines/methods of textual criticism are employed in an attempt to *reconstruct* the original text (i.e. the autograph) as faithfully as possible. In order to determine the most accurate readings of a text, scholars have devised certain guidelines (i.e. “canons”) of textual criticism. Without going into great detail, one of the most prominent rules was established by Koine-Greek scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who also produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentaries, Bengel (aka Bengelius) established the rule that “the harder reading is to be preferred.” That’s because the most difficult reading is probably the one that is less tampered with. A number of these guidelines, which were initially designed for Biblical textual criticism, are now applied to all literary texts that have been exposed to errors of textual transmission!

Conclusion

Textual Criticism is important in determining the original words of texts. But it’s especially important in Bible studies with regard to establishing “the word of God” (Hebrews 4:12), that is, the things that God originally said and revealed in holy writ, since it is said therein that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)!

—

If the Bible Warns Against Future False Christs, then How Is the End-Times Earthly Messiah Not a Deception?

By Author Eli Kittim 🔎

—

False Christs & False Prophets

The New Testament warns that the end of days will be characterized by great deception. Matthew 24 tells us that many false christs will appear, saying “I am the Christ” (v. 5), and will deceive many. And many false prophets will also appear (v. 11). If they tell you “here is the Christ,” don’t believe them, for many false Christs & false prophets will perform great signs so as to deceive even the elect (vv. 23-24). In the text, Christ says (Mt 24.25-26 NRSV):

Take note, I have told you beforehand. So, if

they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the

wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, ‘Look!

He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

But one may raise the question, “if the Bible warns against future false Christs, then how is the end-times earthly messiah not a deception?”

I will try to answer this question using an excerpt from my book, “The Little Book of Revelation,” chapter 11, the section entitled “THE CORPSE: A MISSING LINK IN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS,” pp. 237-238:

// However, we must challenge the reader to go further. Because if you do not understand the specific timeline of these end-time events, the biblical script will become very confusing. For example, Matthew 24:23 reads, “if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.” Some argue that this verse exhorts us to distrust any earthly Messiah that might appear in the last days. But this is simply not true. For one thing, Christ himself appears for the first time in the last days! (Heb. 1:2, 9:26; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9-10; Acts 3:20-21; Rev. 12:5). Not to mention that the Jews themselves are still awaiting the Messiah. Furthermore, Matthew’s gospel sets up the context of this exhortation in its proper chronological order. For instance, notice that Matthew first introduces Daniel’s prophecy of “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION . . . standing in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15) as the backdrop for this exhortation. This event is set to take place when the antichrist will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4).

Next, we are warned that when this event transpires, we should “flee to the mountains; . . . for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (Matt. 24:16-21). But we must remember that Christ will most certainly die before the antichrist could reveal himself to the world (Matt. 24:28). Paul writes, “He [Christ] who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). That Christ’s arrival precedes that of the antichrist is further demonstrated in John’s gospel, Jesus says, “I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me” (14:30, cf. Dan. 9:26). Hence, “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION” serves as the context in which the previous exhortation was made. So during this particular time period, we are rightly urged to distrust any physical being that claims to be the Messiah.\\

—

The Day of Christ

Here’s another excerpt from “The Little Book of Revelation,” ch. 3, the section entitled “FIRST COMES CHRIST; THEN COMES THE ANTICHRIST,” p. 101:

// Christ, then, must be the first horseman of “Revelation,” whose “robe” (body) was “dipped in blood” (Rev. 19:11-13, cf. Rev. 6:2). This episode marks the first of several incidents that lead up to the cosmic apocalypse. We already know that the anticipated child born during the end-times is clearly the Messiah (Rev. 12:1-5). And more than that, we are now in a better position to understand the preceding events leading up to his foretold ascension: being “caught up” into heaven (Rev. 12:5). These include his incarnation, death and resurrection, when he “will arise” from the dead (Dan. 12:1) “to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19). We are also told that the antichrist “will be revealed” during the interim in which Christ will be “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). Hence, it was very much the scriptural intention to instill insight in its advocates so that they might firmly distrust those who claim “that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:2).\\

—

The Septuagint’s Clue to the Identity of Gog of Magog

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

The Hebrew Bible

‎כֹּ֤ה הִרְאַ֙נִי֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֔ה וְהִנֵּה֙ יוֹצֵ֣ר גֹּבַ֔י בִּתְחִלַּ֖ת עֲל֣וֹת הַלָּ֑קֶשׁ

‎וְהִ֨נֵּה־ לֶ֔קֶשׁ אַחַ֖ר גִּזֵּ֥י הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃

In the Masoretic Text, the Book of Amos, chapter 7 and verse 1, mentions ham·me·leḵ (the King). It also employs the term gō·ḇay, which means “grasshoppers” or “locusts.”

But let’s not forget that the Masoretic text arrived late on the scene. It began to circulate between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. In fact, the oldest, complete copy is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from the 11th century CE. And we also know that there was not one version but several. This can clearly be shown in the Jewish theological writings of the Talmud and the Mishnah where different versions are being adduced (see the textual history of the Hebrew Bible explained by Drs. Emanuel Tov & Michael S. Heiser).

The Septuagint

By contrast, the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was translated between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. So, it’s a much older text than the Masoretic. Not surprisingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to roughly 200 BCE, corroborate the accuracy of the Septuagint’s translation!

When comparing the Masoretic text with that of the Septuagint (aka LXX), we know from Deuteronomy 32.8, for example, that the LXX has the correct reading (sons of God) as opposed to the Masoretic text which has (sons of Israel), a late theological redaction. We can demonstrate the correct reading by comparing these texts to the older Dead Sea Scrolls, which corroborate the LXX version. The point is that the LXX is a lot older than the Masoretic and we need to pay closer attention to this text!

The Prophetic Book of Amos in the LXX

Amos 7.1 (LXX English translation by L.C.L. Brenton) reads:

ΟΥΤΩΣ ἔδειξέ μοι Κύριος ὁ Θεός, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων ἐρχομένη ἑωθινή, καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γὼγ ὁ βασιλεύς.

Translation:

Thus has the Lord God shewed me; and, behold, a swarm of locusts coming from the east; and, behold, one caterpillar, king Gog.

So, the LXX gives us an insight into Bible prophecy and eschatology. The name Γὼγ (Gog) is also referenced in Ezekiel 38.2 ff. (LXX):

υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, στήρισον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου

ἐπὶ Γὼγ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Μαγώγ, ἄρχοντα

Ῥώς, Μοσὸχ καὶ Θοβέλ, καὶ προφήτευσον

ἐπ’ αὐτὸν.

Translation:

Son of man, set thy face against Gog, and

the land of Magog, Rhos, prince of Mesoch

and Thobel, and prophesy against him.

As I’ve mentioned in previous publications, the LXX translates the term “Rosh” (Ezek. 38:2) with the Greek word Ρως, which stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia). Furthermore, the LXX’s Μοσόχ seems to be a close approximation to the modern-day term Μόσχα (the Greek word for Moscow, the capital and largest city of Russia). The earlier Ezekiel quotation referred to “the land of Magog.” In ancient times, it comprised the lands where the Scythians once lived, and thus represents contemporary Russia. Wikipedia confirms that this view was held by some credible historians of antiquity:

Jewish historian Josephus knew them as

the nation descended from Magog the

Japhetite, as in Genesis, and explained

them to be the Scythians.

Today, most Bible Prophecy scholars identify Magog as a reference to modern day Russia! Moreover, Amos corroborates Gog’s location as “coming from the east” (7.1 LXX).

(For further evidence, see “The Magog Identity” by Bible-prophecy expert Chuck Missler: https://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/427/print/).

The Gog of Amos (LXX)

The prophet’s use of the name Γὼγ (Gog) in the LXX suggests that Amos 7 may be a dual fulfilment of prophecy, that is, it may have both a short-term (prophecy of the northern kingdom of Israel) and a long-term fulfilment (prophecy of the end-times invasion of Israel). Similarly, Ezekiel 38 names a confederacy of nations that will invade many countries, including Israel, in the last days. According to Ezekiel 38 (LXX), the leader of that powerful coalition will be Γὼγ (Gog), the leader of Ῥώς (Gk. Ρωσία = Russia) and Μοσὸχ (Gk. Μόσχα = Moscow). If that’s the case, then Amos’ Gog would suggest that certain Biblical references to “locusts” and “grasshoppers” might have some relevance to Ezekiel 38 and the battle of Gog and Magog (cf. e.g. 1 Kings 8.37; Psalm 105.34; Isaiah 33.4; Joel 1.4; 2.25; Nahum 3.15).

Gog: The King of the Locusts

If Gog (Γὼγ) is the king of the locusts, according to Amos 7.1 (LXX), then the 5th trumpet of Revelation 9, which talks extensively about an invasion of locusts, may be about Gog of the land of Magog. In other words, Amos 7.1 (LXX) would suggest that the king of the locusts in Revelation 9.11 may represent the Russian Gog (Γὼγ) of Ezekiel 38. Perhaps the famous saying in Proverbs 30.27 (ESV) means that the king of the locusts is not a mere mortal:

the locusts have no king, yet all of them

march in rank.

Similarly, in Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” and who holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)! Revelation 9.1-11 (NRSV) reads as follows:

And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I

saw a star that had fallen from heaven to

earth, and he was given the key to the shaft

of the bottomless pit; he opened the shaft

of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft

rose smoke like the smoke of a great

furnace, and the sun and the air were

darkened with the smoke from the shaft.

Then from the smoke came locusts on the

earth, and they were given authority like the

authority of scorpions of the earth. They

were told not to damage the grass of the

earth or any green growth or any tree, but

only those people who do not have the seal

of God on their foreheads. They were

allowed to torture them for five months, but

not to kill them, and their torture was like

the torture of a scorpion when it stings

someone. And in those days people will

seek death but will not find it; they will long

to die, but death will flee from them. In

appearance the locusts were like horses

equipped for battle. On their heads were

what looked like crowns of gold; their faces

were like human faces, their hair like

women's hair, and their teeth like lions'

teeth; they had scales like iron breastplates,

and the noise of their wings was like the

noise of many chariots with horses rushing

into battle. They have tails like scorpions,

with stingers, and in their tails is their power

to harm people for five months. They have

as king over them the angel of the

bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is

Abaddon, and in Greek he is called

Apollyon.

Conclusion

Thus, if we read the Bible in canonical context and according to the principle of expositional constancy, we will come to realize that both the linguistic and symbolic elements of Scripture with regard to Gog, the king of the locusts, refer not only to the Russian Gog of Magog in Ezekiel 38 but also to the king of the locusts in Revelation 9.11, namely, “the angel of the bottomless pit,” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” or *Antichrist*!

—

(P.S. I’d like to offer a supplementary observation of Revelation 9.9-10. The aforementioned images of “iron breastplates” with noisy “wings” and “tails like scorpions” would certainly suggest some type of modern aerial warfare)!

—

The Heresy of the “Grace Road Church” of Korea

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

A Cult Movement

According to Wiki,

The Grace Road Church is a South Korean

quasi-Christian new religious movement

and cult (although its members call it a

Church) founded in 2002.

This so-called “church” is currently based in Fiji. It moved there because its pastor Shin Okjoo predicted a famine in Korea. This is a shrewd and calculating woman who demanded strict obedience as she seized the passports of about 400 followers so that they wouldn’t leave. Many nearby churches have hurled accusations that this is a cult movement.

The church has diversified and raised funds by opening businesses across Fiji that range from the hospitality industry to construction to agriculture. Footage has emerged of physical abuse and violence, including slave labor. In 2019, its leader Shin Okjoo was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail.

The Grace Road Church Claims that the Holy Spirit Is a Woman & that Jesus Is Not God the Son

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). Note that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit don’t use the feminine but rather the masculine, third-person pronoun “he.”

The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the Son of God, such as in Jn 1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1.2 (God’s “Son, … through whom he also created the worlds”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

Hence, the Grace Road Church’s Biblical claims that the Holy Spirit is a woman and that Jesus is not God the Son are completely bogus and misinformed!

—

Calvin’s Refutations from His Own Published Work: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim

Excerpted from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian religion, Book 3, ch 23.

——-

Calvin’s god Chooses Whatever He Pleases and We Have No Right to Question his Choices

In Institutes, Book 3, ch 23, Calvin says that god chooses whatever he pleases, and we have no right to question his choices. But isn’t that tantamount to saying that “he does as he pleases” as opposed to acting according to the principles of truth and wisdom? Calvin writes:

Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did

so, we must answer, Because he pleased.

But if you proceed farther to ask why he

pleased, you ask for something greater and

more sublime than the will of God, and

nothing such can be found. … This, I say,

will be sufficient to restrain any one who

would reverently contemplate the secret

things of God.

Yet isn’t that precisely what Calvin is doing? Inquiring into the “the secret things of God”? Calvin’s argument can be summarized as follows: men are, by nature, wicked, so if god has predestined some to eternal hellfire, why do they complain? They deserve it. He exclaims:

Accordingly, when we are accosted in such

terms as these, Why did God from the first

predestine some to death, when, as they

were not yet in existence, they could not

have merited sentence of death? let us by

way of reply ask in our turn, What do you

imagine that God owes to man, if he is

pleased to estimate him by his own nature?

As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but

be hateful to God, and that not from

tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice.

But if all whom the Lord predestines to

death are naturally liable to sentence of

death, of what injustice, pray, do they

complain?

He continues his thought that even though god condemned them to hellfire long before they were even born, or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin says:

Should all the sons of Adam come to

dispute and contend with their Creator,

because by his eternal providence they

were before their birth doomed to perpetual

destruction, when God comes to reckon

with them, what will they be able to mutter

against this defense? If all are taken from a

corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are

subject to condemnation. Let them not,

therefore, charge God with injustice, if by

his eternal judgment they are doomed to a

death to which they themselves feel that

whether they will or not they are drawn

spontaneously by their own nature.

But if this decree was foreordained by an absolutely sovereign god even before people were born and prior to having committed any transgressions, why are they held accountable for their sins? It appears to be a contradiction. Curiously enough, John Calvin,

admit[s] that by the will of God all the sons

of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness

in which they are now involved; and this is

just what I said at the first, that we must

always return to the mere pleasure of the

divine will, the cause of which is hidden in

himself.

So he admits that we all sinned “by the will of God” and that god does as he pleases, yet he concludes: who are we to question god’s decisions? But is this a proper explanation of predestination that fully justifies god’s justice, or is it rather an incoherent and unsatisfactory answer? Calvin asserts:

They again object, Were not men

predestinated by the ordination of God to

that corruption which is now held forth as

the cause of condemnation? If so, when

they perish in their corruptions they do

nothing else than suffer punishment for that

calamity, into which, by the predestination

of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his

posterity headlong with him. Is not he,

therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his

creatures? … For what more

seems to be said here than just that the

power of God is such as cannot be

hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he

pleases?

Calvin says “How could he who is the Judge of the world commit any unrighteousness?” But Calvin doesn’t explain how that is so except by way of assumptions, which are based on the idea that god acts as he pleases and does as he wills. But that’s circular reasoning. It’s tantamount to saying that something is true because I assume that it is, without any proof or justification that it is true. It’s a fallacious argument. Calvin argues thusly:

It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek

to subject that which has no bounds to the

little measure of their reason. Paul gives the

name of elect to the angels who maintained

their integrity. If their steadfastness was

owing to the good pleasure of God, the

revolt of the others proves that they were

abandoned. Of this no other cause can be

adduced than reprobation, which is hidden

in the secret counsel of God.

Reprobation, according to Calvin, is based on the notion “that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election.” But if no one deserves the merits of salvation, and if no one obeys the will of god except by god’s grace, then how is god’s election justified? Calvin’s response that it’s justified because god is just is not an explanation: it is a tautological redundancy. Calvin’s reply would be: god decided not to save everybody, and who are we to criticize him? Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate or satisfactory answer.

God’s decision to save some people is called election, and his decision not to save other people is called preterition. According to Calvinism, god chooses to bypass sinners by not granting them belief, which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to creating unbelief (by omission) in them. In other words, god chooses to save some, but not others. And it pleases him to do so.

Is this truly the love of Christ that is freely offered to all? By contrast, according to Scripture, God wishes to save everyone without exception (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). When Matthew 22.14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” it clearly shows that those that are not chosen are still “called.” It doesn’t mean that god did not choose them for salvation. It means they themselves chose to decline the offer of their own accord. How can one logically argue that god wants all people to be saved but only chooses to save some of them? It is a contradiction in terms. And then to attribute this injustice and inequality to what appears to be an “arrogant” god who does as he pleases is dodging the issue.

Biblical Predestination Doesn’t Imply god’s Sovereignty But God’s Foreknowledge

Calvinists employ Ephesians 1.4-5 to prove that god clearly elected to save some (and not to save others) before the foundation of the world. But that is a misinterpretation. The entire Bible rests on God’s foreknowledge, his ability to see into the future: “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46.10; cf. Jn 16.13; Rom. 1.2; Acts 2.22-23; 10.40-41). In other words, God did not choose to save some and not to save others. Rather, through his *foreknowledge* he already knew (or foreknew) who would accept and who would decline his offer. That’s why Rom. 8.29 (BLB) says, “because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” This explanation is consistent with God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, as well as with the justice and righteousness of God! It is reprehensible to suggest that god would choose by himself who would be eternally saved and who would be eternally condemned. That would not be a fair, just, and loving god. However, Calvin rejects prescience on account “that all events take place by his [god’s] sovereign appointment”:

If God merely foresaw human events, and

did not also arrange and dispose of them at

his pleasure, there might be room for

agitating the question, how far his

foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but

since he foresees the things which are to

happen, simply because he has decreed

that they are so to happen, it is vain to

debate about prescience, while it is clear

that all events take place by his sovereign

appointment.

So, Calvin ultimately places all responsibility and accountability on god, who has foreordained all events “by his sovereign appointment.” But if hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if god is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Therefore, according to Calvinism, it would logically follow that god is ultimately responsible for evil, which would implicate himself to be ipso facto evil! There’s no way to extricate god from that logical conclusion.

god Created Evil at his Own Pleasure

In Calvin’s view, god decreed that Adam should sin. In other words, god decrees all sin, which is a sign of his omnipotence and will. How revolting! He writes:

They deny that it is ever said in distinct

terms, God decreed that Adam should

perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who

is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he

pleases, could have made the noblest of his

creatures without any special purpose.

They say that, in accordance with free-will,

he was to be the architect of his own

fortune, that God had decreed nothing but

to treat him according to his desert. If this

frigid fiction is received, where will be the

omnipotence of God, by which, according to

his secret counsel on which every thing

depends, he rules over all?

Invariably, Calvin places the blame indirectly on god. Calvin holds to an uncompromising hard determinism position, without the slightest possibility of free will, by claiming that even god’s foreknowledge is “ordained by his decree”:

it is impossible to deny that God foreknew

what the end of man was to be before he

made him, and foreknew, because he had

so ordained by his decree.

If this isn’t an evil doctrine I don’t know what is. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He writes:

God not only foresaw the fall of the first

man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but

also at his own pleasure arranged it.

Wasn’t Satan the one who supposedly arranged it? Hmm, now I’m not so sure … If god is the author of evil, why would he involve Satan in this script? In fact, Calvin insists that the wicked perish not because of god’s permission but because of his will. He says that “their perdition depends on the predestination of God … The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.” What a dreadful thing to say. It’s as if Calvin was under the inspiration of Satan, teaching “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1 NKJV). Calvin writes:

Here they recur to the distinction between

will and permission, the object being to

prove that the wicked perish only by the

permission, but not by the will of God. But

why do we say that he permits, but just

because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any

probability in the thing itself--viz. that man

brought death upon himself merely by the

permission, and not by the ordination of

God; as if God had not determined what he

wished the condition of the chief of his

creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore,

simply to confess with Augustine that the

will of God is necessity, and that every thing

is necessary which he has willed.

Calvin attempts to show that there’s no contradiction in his statement but, instead of providing logical proof, he once again resorts to circular reasoning, namely, that the accountability rests with an authoritarian god who does as he pleases:

There is nothing inconsistent with this when

we say, that God, according to the good

pleasure of his will, without any regard to

merit, elects those whom he chooses for

sons, while he rejects and reprobates

others.

Instead of admitting that this is his own wicked view of god, which certainly deserves rebuke and criticism, he suggests that this is the way god really is. In other words, he indirectly blames god by way of compliments. By insisting on god’s Sovereignty and omnipotence, he sets god up to take the blame for everything. Yet in his evasive and largely indefensible argument, he ends up justifying the seemingly “capricious” acts of god by saying that god is still just:

Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to

charge God with dispensing justice

unequally, because in this predestination he

does not observe the same course towards

all. … he is free from every accusation; just

as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the

debt to one, and exact it of another.

Conclusion

Just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a philosophical contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism).

The Calvinist god is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. He is neither trustworthy nor does he equally offer unconditional love to all! In fact, this view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

Calvin’s deity is surprisingly similar to the god of the Gnostics, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world! This is the dark side of a pagan god who doesn’t seem to act according to the principles of truth and wisdom but according to personal whims. With this god, you could end up in hell in a heartbeat, through no fault of your own. Therefore, Calvin’s god is more like Satan!

This is certainly NOT the loving, trustworthy, and righteous God of the Bible in whom “There is no evil” whatsoever (Ps 92.15 NLT; Jas. 1.13). Calvin’s god is not “the God of truth” (Isa. 65.16; cf. Jn 17.17), who “never lies” (Tit. 1.1-2), and who is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18). Calvin’s theology does not square well with the NT notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5 NRSV)!

Thus, Calvin’s argument is not only fallacious, unsound, and unbiblical, but also completely disingenuous. For if “life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God,” including the prearrangement of sin “at his own pleasure,” as Calvin asserts, then “to charge God with dispensing justice unequally” is certainly a valid criticism! Calvin harshly accused his critics of promulgating blasphemies, but little did he realize the greater blasphemies and abominations that he himself was uttering! A case in point is that he makes God the author of sin!

——-

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

🔎 By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

In discussing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to the Christian doctrine which holds that salvation is related to the act of water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a “conversion experience” where an individual has a personal encounter with the power of God (cf. John 3.3) in the Wesleyan sense. Many denominations——especially fundamentalist, evangelical, and pentecostal Christians——emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can be saved.

From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit. In Matthew 3:11 (NKJV), John the Baptist says:

I indeed baptize you with water unto

repentance, but He who is coming after me

is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not

worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the

Holy Spirit and fire.

In Mark 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone, but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text is not referring to an immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit:

He who believes and is baptized will be

saved; but he who does not believe will be

condemned. And these signs will follow

those who believe: In My name they will

cast out demons; they will speak with new

tongues.

According to some of the Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom, baptism was considered to symbolically represent a form of rebirth——“of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5). Although Baptism is defined as a sacrament or a rite of admission into Christianity——typically by immersing in water——this ritual is symbolic of being cleansed from sin (1 John 1.7), and it also represents the death of the old self and the beginning of a new life! Similarly, 1 Peter 3.20-21 says that the salvation by water is not a baptism of the flesh that cleanses our filth but symbolic of a good conscience.

In Romans 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life”:

do you not know that as many of us as

were baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into His death? Therefore we were

buried with Him through baptism into death,

that just as Christ was raised from the dead

by the glory of the Father, even so we also

should walk in newness of life.

Similarly, in reference to his crucifixion and death, Jesus says in Luke 12.50 (cf. Mark 10.38–39):

I have a baptism to be baptized with,

and how distressed I am till it is

accomplished!

In this context, the term “baptism” obviously doesn’t refer to water but to death, which will be eventually followed by resurrection and rebirth. It is, in fact, part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self and the rebirth of the new self (Ephesians 4.22-24). The best example of the baptism of the Spirit, as a requirement for spiritual growth, is in Acts 2.1-4:

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come,

they were all with one accord in one place.

And suddenly there came a sound from

heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it

filled the whole house where they were

sitting. Then there appeared to them

divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat

upon each of them. And they were all filled

with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with

other tongues, as the Spirit gave them

utterance.

—