BIBLE EXEGESIS RESOURCES LIST (ONLINE)

BIBLE EXEGESIS RESOURCES LIST (ONLINE)

Compiled by Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Critical Bible Commentaries

https://libguides.twu.ca/religiousstudies/ecommentariesNT

Bryan College Library - Bible Study Resources - Compiled by Kevin Woodruff, M. Div, MS

https://library.bryan.edu/christian-studies-subject-guide/bible-study-resources

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)

https://archive.org/details/InterlinearGreekEnglishSeptuagintOldTestamentPrint/page/n5

Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Interlinear Greek English Septuagint Old Testament (LXX)Does not include the deuterocanonical books. New Testament is here...

Hebrew---English Interlinear Bible (Old Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_ot1.htm

Greek—English Interlinear Bible (New Testament)

https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/interlinear_nt.htm

Academic Bibles: The Hebrew OT, the Greek NT, the Septuagint, and the Latin Bible—which scholars prefer to use for research and publications—share the same link:

1) Hebrew Old Testament following the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

2) Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament 5. Edition.

3) Greek Old Testament following the text of the Septuagint (ed. Rahlfs/Hanhart)

4) Latin Bible (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) following the text of the Vulgate (ed. Weber/Gryson)

5) King James Version

6) English Standard Version

7) NetBible

8)Luther-Bible 1984

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/

The Eli Kittim Confession of Faith

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, who is

both God and man, who for the sake of the

human race, and for our salvation, came

down from heaven in the fullness of time,

and was made man; he appeared once in

the end of the world, and suffered, and was

buried, and the third day he rose again,

according to the Scriptures, and ascended

into heaven, and sat on the right hand of

the Father; from thence he shall come, with

glory, to judge the living and the dead.

——-

Η ομολογία της πίστης του Έλι Κιττίμ

Πιστεύω εις ένα Θεό παντοκράτορα, ποιητήν

ουρανού και γης, ορατών τε πάντων και

αοράτων. Και εις ένα Κύριον Ιησούν Χριστόν

τον Υιόν του Θεού τον μονογενή. Φως

εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν, ομοούσιον τω

Πατρί, δι’ου τα πάντα εγένετο. Τον δι’ημάς

τους ανθρώπους και δια την ημετέραν

σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ των ουρανών και

σαρκωθέντα εκ Πνεύματος Αγίου και

ενανθρωπήσαντα εἰς τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ

χρόνου. Και παθόντα και ταφέντα. Και

αναστάντα τη Τρίτη ημέρα κατά τας

Γραφάς. Και ανελθόντα εις τους ουρανούς

ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων και ἐκαθέζετο εκ

δεξιών του Πατρός. Και ερχόμενον

μετά δόξης κρίναι ζώντας και νεκρούς, ου

της βασιλείας ουκ έσται τέλος.

——-

A Response to Bill Mounce’s God's Gracious Gift of Suffering (Phil 1:29)

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Bill Mounce is a well-known scholar of New Testament Greek. He serves on the Committee for the NIV translation of the Bible, and has written a classic biblical Greek textbook, “Basics of Biblical Greek,” among other things. He blogs regularly on New Testament Greek at BillMounce.com.

Does God Give us the Grace to Suffer? Or the Grace to Endure Suffering?

Recently, I came across a piece of writing by Greek scholar Bill Mounce. In that paper, Mounce took issue with what “a popular preacher” was saying, namely, that “All suffering … is outside of God’s will.” Mounce shot back at the pastor for making an “absurdly non-biblical statement.” In calling him out, Mounce began to expound Phil 1.27–30. He writes:

Translations generally are not able to bring

out the nuances of this verse, nor the

awkward Greek. Paul begins, ‘for it has

been granted (ἐχαρίσθη) to you on behalf of

Christ.’ χαρίζομαι means ‘to give freely as a

favor, give graciously’ (BDAG). χαρίζομαι is

the cognate verb for the familiar noun,

χάρις, meaning ‘grace.’ The NLT translates,

‘you have been given ... the privilege.’ The

following are gracious gifts to Christians: 

to believe in him (τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν),

and

to suffer for him (τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν).

The theology of the “popular pastor” denies

God’s gracious gift of suffering.

In other words, Mounce believes that our suffering——regardless of what form it takes——is actually a gracious gift from God. Thus, one can reasonably argue that if a person has cancer, or if he has lost all his limbs, as well as his eyesight or hearing, then this is a wonderful, gracious gift from God, and, therefore, the person should thank him for it! Not only does this view attribute the cause of all evil to God (cf. 1 John 1.5), but it also calls evil good (cf. Isaiah 5.20). Paradoxically, it is a glorification of suffering and evil. Mounce writes:

I have heard sermons on God’s gracious gift

of faith to his children; I have yet to hear a

sermon on God’s gracious gift of suffering.

That’s unfortunate, to understate it in the

extreme.

But just because we may have faced similar struggles with our fellow Christians, or we may have suffered for righteousness’ sake, doesn’t mean that these evils were deliberately sent our way. And just because suffering can test us, through which we may be purified, doesn’t mean that God himself is behind these temptations, orchestrating them, one by one. It would be far more accurate to call it God's "permissive will” in allowing suffering and evil to exist.

This idea is often misunderstood by other writers as well. For example, if the followers of Christ are said to experience the same sufferings that the Apostles in the New Testament experienced, then it means that they, too, have entered into the kingdom of God, renewed their minds, and shared in God’s consolation. In other words, the afflictions exist to frighten us from walking along the spiritual path (cf. Phil. 2.12). It doesn’t mean that these obstacles, temptations, and afflictions are ipso facto created by God. That’s what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 1.6-7:

If we are being afflicted, it is for your

consolation and salvation; if we are being

consoled, it is for your consolation, which

you experience when you patiently endure

the same sufferings that we are also

suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for

we know that as you share in our sufferings,

so also you share in our consolation.

Mounce then goes on to enumerate the various benefits that suffering brings to the followers of Christ. He says “Suffering binds us together,” “strengthens our faith,” purifies our faith, and so on. And he rightly says that “if we are not suffering, then we need to ask if we are living out our allegiance to Christ.” That is quite true. He correctly points out that suffering is “so essential that without it one’s salvation is in question.” But he confuses the *benefits* of suffering with the *causes* of suffering. He assumes that since suffering brings the Christian so many blessings, then it must be part of God’s plan. God must be behind all this. It must be part of his sovereign will. Mounce writes:

Not only is belief a gracious gift from God,

but so also is entering into suffering on his

behalf. To deny the reality and the gift of

suffering is to rip out half of God’s gracious

gifts to us that Paul is discussing.

Then he admits that he’s reformed in his theology. To show the importance and necessity of suffering, he quotes Paul who says that “we are children of God, … and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him” (Romans 8.16-17 NRSV). I concur with Mounce that “Our glorification depends on our suffering,” and that our suffering depends upon our courage to follow Christ no matter what the cost may be. Mounce concludes:

Suffering for Christ as we live out our lives is

a gracious gift from God, confirming and

strengthening his gracious gift of faith to us.

As Fee writes (quoting Lightfoot), “suffering

should not surprise or overwhelm them; it is

rather evidence that ‘God looks upon you

with favor’” (171).

Anyone who teaches otherwise is teaching

false doctrine and is robbing God’s children

of the joyful benefits of suffering.

Conclusion

Bill Mounce is essentially saying that suffering itself “is a gracious gift from God.” It’s a sign of God’s love for you. He’s basically saying that God gives us the grace to suffer. But I think that Bill Mounce is wrong. By contrast, I hold that God gives us the grace to endure suffering. In other words, God doesn’t predestine suffering; he foreknows it, and therefore gives us the grace to overcome it. Otherwise, God would be accused of being the author of evil. Mounce interprets Philippians 1.28-29 as if it is saying that God *causes* us to suffer. However, I think it teaches that God gives us the grace to *endure* suffering.

Philippians 1.28-29 (Stephens 1550 Greek

text):

28 καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν

ἀντικειμένων ἥτις αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστὶν

ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῖν δὲ σωτηρίας,

καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ,

29 ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ

μόνον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ

τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν

My Translation (Philippians 1.28-29):

28 And don’t be terrified by anything with

regard to your adversaries, which to

them, on the one hand, is an indication

of perdition, but to you, on the other, of

salvation, and that of God.

29 Because unto you the grace has been

given concerning Christ, not only to

believe in him, but also to suffer for his

sake.

Biblical Greek Exegesis

The Greek text of Philippians chapter 1 verse 28 says σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ, meaning that salvation is by God alone. That is, it’s granted only by God; it’s a grace. Verse 29 says ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη, meaning, “to you the grace has been granted.” But what type of grace has God given us? The grace to suffer or the grace to endure suffering? The former view implies that God himself gives us the suffering. The latter position implies that God allows suffering, but gives us the ability to endure it. Being of the reform tradition, Mounce implies that God creates evil and thus brings suffering into our lives. However, this is not necessarily the only possible exegesis from the Greek. Verse 29 could also mean that God’s grace has been given to us not only to believe in Christ, but also to *endure* suffering for his sake!

For further details on the theological implications of Bill Mounce’s exegesis, read my paper:

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists

Eli of Kittim

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim ——- Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

——-

The Genesis Flood Narrative & Biblical Exegesis

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Biblical Flood: Universal or Local?

Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal

reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its

passages as historically accurate; they use

the Bible's internal chronology to place the

Genesis flood and the story of Noah's Ark

within the last five thousand years.

Scientific analysis has refuted the key

tenets of flood geology. Flood geology

contradicts the scientific consensus in

geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,

paleontology, biology, anthropology, and

archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-

disciplines and other scientific disciplines

utilize the scientific method. In contrast,

flood geology does not adhere to the

scientific method, making it a

pseudoscience. — Wikipedia

According to Bible scholarship, Noah is not a historical figure. And we also know that the legendary flood story of the Bible was inspired by an earlier epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia, namely, “The Epic of Gilgamesh." Moreover, if we zero in on the mythical details of Noah’s Ark, the story has all the earmarks of a legendary narrative.

The Bible is an ancient eastern text that uses hyperbolic language, parables, and paradox as forms of poetic literary expression, akin to what we today would call “theology.” In the absence of satellites or global networks of communication, any catastrophic events in the ancient world that were similar to our modern-day natural disasters——such as the 2004 tsunami that killed 228 thousand people off the coast of Indonesia, or Hurricane Katrina, one of the most destructive hurricanes in US history——would have been blown out of proportion and seen as global phenomena. This would explain the sundry flood myths and stories that have come down to us from ancient times. And, according to Wikipedia:

no confirmable physical proof of the Ark

has ever been found. No scientific evidence

has been found that Noah's Ark existed as

it is described in the Bible. More

significantly, there is also no evidence of a

global flood, and most scientists agree that

such a ship and natural disaster would both

be impossible. Some researchers believe

that a real (though localized) flood event in

the Middle East could potentially have

inspired the oral and later written

narratives; a Persian Gulf flood, or a Black

Sea deluge 7500 years ago has been

proposed as such a historical candidate.

Bible Exegesis: Literal versus Allegorical Interpretation

My primary task, here, is not to weigh in on the findings of science as to whether or not a historical flood took place but rather to offer an exegetical interpretation that is consistent with the Biblical data. Taking the Bible literally——as a standard method of interpretation——can lead to some unrealistic and outrageous conclusions. For example, in Mark 9.50 (ESV), Jesus says:

Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its

saltiness, how will you make it salty again?

Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace

with one another.

Question: is Jesus literally commanding his disciples to carry salt with them at all times? In other words, is Jesus talking about “salt” (Gk. ἅλας) per se in a literal sense——the mineral composed primarily of sodium chloride——or is he employing the term “salt” as a metaphor to mean that his disciples should *preserve* their righteousness in this life of decay?

Obviously, Jesus is using the term “salt” as a metaphor for preserving godliness in the midst of a perishing world. This proof-text shows that there are many instances in the Bible where a literal rendering is completely unwarranted.

The Judgment of the Flood: There’s No Judgment Where There’s No Law

If one re-examines the flood story, one would quickly see that it doesn’t square well with history, science, or even the theology of the Bible. For example, Paul says in Romans that human beings became aware of sin only when the law was given to forbid it. But there is no judgment where there is no law. Romans 5.13 says:

for sin indeed was in the world before the

law was given, but sin is not counted where

there is no law.

So, my question is, if the law was given after Noah’s epoch, and if there was no law during Noah’s time, how could “sin … [be] counted [or charged against anyone’s account] where there is no law.”?

How, then, could God “judge” the world during the Pre-Mosaic law period? It would appear to be a contradiction in terms.

What is more, if we know, in hindsight, that no one is “saved” by simply following the law (Galatians 2.16) or by sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10.1-4), how could people possibly be “saved” by entering a boat or an ark? It doesn’t make any theological sense at all. But it does have all the earmarks of a mythical story.

The Flood as Apocalyptic Judgment

There’s no scientific evidence for a world-wide flood (Noah’s flood). Moreover, the Book of Revelation predicts all sorts of future catastrophic events and natural disasters that will occur on earth, where every island and mountain will be moved from its place, coupled with earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors, etc. The frequency & intensification of these climactic events is referred to as the “birth pangs” of the end times. In fact, it will be the worst period in the history of the earth! Matthew 24.21 puts it thusly:

For then there will be great tribulation,

such as has not been from the beginning of

the world until now, no, and never will be.

And since it is possible that Old Testament allegories may be precursors of future events, so the flood account may be alluding to an apocalyptic judgment. For example, if we examine and compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon *Egypt* with the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place: see e.g. Locusts: Exod. 10.1–20 (cf. Rev. 9.3); Thunderstorm of hail and fire: Exod. 9.13–35 (cf. Rev. 16.21); Pestilence: Exod. 9.1-7 (cf. Rev 6.8); Water to Blood: Exod. 7.14–24 (cf. Rev. 8.9; 16.3-4); Frogs: Exod. 7.25–8.15 (cf. Rev. 16.13); Boils or Sores: Exod. 9.8–12 (cf. Rev. 16.2); Darkness for three days: Exod. 10.21–29 (cf. Rev. 16.10). Apparently, the darkness lasts 3 symbolic days because that’s how long the “great tribulation” will last, namely, three and a half years (cf. Dan. 7.25; 9.27; 12.7; Rev. 11.2-3; 12.6, 14; 13.5). All these “plagues” are seemingly associated with the Day of the Lord (Mt. 24.29):

Immediately after the suffering of those

days the sun will be darkened, and the

moon will not give its light; the stars will fall

from heaven, and the powers of heaven will

be shaken.

In the same way, the Old Testament flood narrative may be representing a type of **judgment** that is actually repeated in the New Testament as if taking place in the end-times (cf. Luke 17.26-30): “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17.26)! In the Olivet prophecy, Mt. 24.39 calls the flood “a cataclysm” (κατακλυσμὸς) or a catastrophic event. And as 1 Pet. 3.20-21 explains, Noah’s flood is a “type” of the endtimes, and we are the “antitype” (ἀντίτυπον). As a matter of fact, in reference to the end-times destruction of Jerusalem, Dan. 9.26 says “Its end shall come with a flood.” In other words, there will be utter destruction and devastation, the likes of which the world has never seen before (Gen. 6.13; Dan. 12.1; Mt. 24.21).

Creation in 6 literal 24-hour days?

In Genesis 1.5, we are told that “there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” By comparison, Genesis 1.8 says “there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” What is puzzling, however, is that God made the moon & the sun on the 4th day (Genesis 1.14-19). How do you explain that?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a literal 24-hour day model is inexplicable and does not seem to be part of the authorial intent. How could you possibly have mornings and evenings (or 24-hour “days”) if the sun & moon were formed on day 4? Obviously, they are not meant to be literal 24-hour days (see e.g. Gen. 2.4 in which the Hebrew word “yom,” meaning “day,” refers to the entirety of creation history). The creation days are therefore symbolic or figurative in nature.

Part of the internal evidence is that there are *allegorical interpretations* that are applied to scripture from within the text, such as 2 Peter 3.8, which reminds us of the following Biblical axiom:

But do not forget this one thing, dear

friends: With the Lord a day is like a

thousand years, and a thousand years are

like a day.

Similarly, Paul instructs us to interpret certain parts of the Bible **allegorically.** For example, Paul interprets for us certain Old Testament passages **allegorically,** not literally! Paul says in Galatians 4.22-26:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons,

one by a slave woman and one by a free

woman. But the son of the slave was born

according to the flesh, while the son of the

free woman was born through promise. Now

this may be interpreted allegorically: these

women are two covenants. One is from

Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery;

she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in

Arabia; she corresponds to the present

Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her

children. But the Jerusalem above is free,

and she is our mother.

So, as you can see, there are not necessarily 6 literal days of creation, or 6,000 years in earth’s history, or a global flood, nor are there any talking donkeys holding press conferences and doing podcasts, there’s no evil that is caused by eating fruits, there are no trees of immortality on earth, no human angels wielding futuristic laser guns, and there are certainly no mythological beasts with seven heads walking around on park avenue in Manhattan. Proper Biblical exegesis must be applied.

But it’s equally important to emphasize that this allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation in no way diminishes the reliability of the Bible, its inerrancy, its divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3.16-17), or its truth values! The reason for that will be explained in the next two sections.

Biblical Genres Require Different Methods of Interpretation

The Bible has many different genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **parables and metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking serpents and talking donkeys, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. For example, the “beasts” in the Book of Daniel, chapters 2, 7, and 8, are interpreted by scripture as being symbolic of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Similarly, the so-called “locusts” and “scorpions” in the Book of Revelation, chapter 9, seemingly allude to modern-day warfare. No one in their right mind would dare say that the beasts of Daniel or those of Revelation are **literal beasts.** Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.

Just as Ancient Philosophical Inquiry Was Discussed Through the Language of Poetry, So too Theological Truth Was Expounded Poetically in Sacred Scripture

It’s important to stress that a refutation of the historical flood narrative is not equivalent to a refutation of the “truths” of the Bible. The scriptural “truth values” work on many different levels. Truth can be presented in poetic form without necessarily compromising its validity.

For example, Lucretius’ only known work is a philosophical *poem* that is translated into English as “On the Nature of Things,” in which he examines Epicurean physics through the abundant use of poetic and metaphorical language. Similarly, the single known work by the Greek philosopher Parmenides——the father of metaphysics and western philosophy——is a *poem* “On Nature” which includes the very first sustained argument in philosophical history concerning the nature of reality in “the way of truth."

What is of immense interest to me is that both of these ancient philosophers explored their “scientific” and philosophical “truths” through the richly metaphorical language of *poetry*. So, why can’t the ancient books of the Bible do the same? Is modern science and literary criticism correct in dismissing biblical “truths” on historical grounds simply because of their richly poetic or metaphorical language? Perhaps our modern methodologies can be informed by the ancient writings of Lucretius and Parmenides!

OPEN ACCESS AND THE BIBLE: The Bible and Interpretation

This is Eli Kittim’s academic monograph——published in the Journal of Higher Criticism, vol. 13, no. 3 (2018), page 4—-entitled, "The Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Christ According to the Greek New Testament Epistles."

To view or purchase, click the following link:

https://www.amazon.com/Journal-Higher-Criticism-13-Number/dp/1726625176

_______________________________________________

A Response to Brendan Stupik’s John Calvin and The Authorship of Evil

By Bible Researcher & Author Eli Kittim 🎓

Mr. Brendan Stupik is a writer, a Reformed Calvinist, and a musician. As far as I can tell, he has no degrees in higher education, not even a bachelors degree, no published books or articles, and no formal Biblical training in an academic or seminary setting. Yet he excoriated me after reading one of my articles “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists” in which I conclude that under Calvinism, God creates evil. He publicly criticized and rebuked me sharply and promised to formally refute my views on his blog, apologeticsrepo.wordpress.com, which he did with his article “John Calvin and The Authorship of Evil: A Critique and Review of Eli Kittim’s Answering the Calvinists.” I heartily disagree with Mr. Stupik on many issues relating to Calvinism, but I will nevertheless try to take his views seriously.

Stupik (no pun intended) has written a scathing review of “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists” on his Wordpress Blog. In his essay, he’s trying to portray my thesis as “a weak argument” because he claims that “no textual evidence is cited to support” my interpretation. What is more, he accuses me of “attacking a straw man.” That is, he assumes that I create an imaginary Calvinist that is cut out of whole cloth, and then I proceed “to ‘refute’ this imaginary Calvinist.” He, therefore, concludes that mine is not a “sound refutation of Calvinism.” These attacks are sustained throughout his post, and they sometimes become personal. So, to put this matter to rest, I will present a great deal of evidence, especially from Calvin’s own works.

Stupik begins his criticism by taking aim at my credentials, trying to paint a false picture of me as one who lacks writing skills, who mishandles quotations, and whose competence in literary matters must be doubtful. And yet, for those of you who don’t know me, I’m a Bible Scholar and a graduate of the Koinonia (Bible) Institute as well as the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity. I’m a native Greek speaker, fluent in Koine Greek, and I read the New Testament in the original language. I also hold a masters degree in psychology. I’ve been writing and publishing articles for over 40 years. I have published articles in numerous prestigious journals and magazines, such as the "Journal of Higher Criticism," "The American Journal of Psychoanalysis," the "Aegean Review" (which has published work by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, Alice Bloom), and the "International Poetry Review" (a literary translation journal), among others. I’m also an award-winning book author of “The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.” Not to mention the hundreds of articles that have been posted on my blog in the past decade: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/

eli-kittim.tumblr.com

Eli of Kittim

Eli Kittim is a Biblical Researcher and an Award-Winning Goodreads Author of the...

So, this type of ad hominem attack certainly doesn’t help his cause. He writes:

The ever-so frustrating lack of quotation

marks and citations once again blurs the

lines between Mr Kittim and his source

material’s words.

Stupik continues:

Mr. Eli Kittim abruptly begins his critique …

with a quote from prominent reformed

theologian Dr. R.C Sproul. ‘There is no

maverick molecule if God is sovereign’ he

transcribes, and then, interjecting,

elaborates that ‘if God cannot control the

smallest things we know of in the universe,

such as the subatomic particles known as

“quarks,” then we cannot trust him to keep

His promises.’ At first glance of the article

itself, one may be justifiably met with

confusion. Are these the words of Dr.

Sproul, or of Mr. Kittim? Granted, Dr. Sproul

has previously expounded upon his

‘maverick molecule’ catchphrase in similar

fashion, but there are no quotations, and

there is no citation!

Apparently, Stupik is not familiar with block quotes, which are offset from the main text, indented, double-spaced, and require no quotation marks. Just to give the reader an idea of Stupik’s misrepresentation, here’s the actual page. Notice how R.C. Sproul’s quote is very clearly distinguished from the main text by being indented and double-spaced: “Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/656643262452531200/does-god-create-evil-answering-the-calvinists

Eli of Kittim

Does God Create Evil?: Answering the Calvinists

By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim ——- Calvinism Has Confused God's Foreknowledge With His Sovereignty Dr. R.C. Sproul once said:

As you can see, there’s absolutely no question as to which are Dr. Sproul’s words and which are mine. Moreover, famous quotes by famous authors are in the public domain. They require no citation. This smacks of underhand tactics to taint my reputation from the outset——so as to manipulate the readers——and portray my essay as if it involves nothing but literary incompetence.

Furthermore, his refusal to acknowledge the obvious meaning of Dr. Sproul’s statement shows a lack of familiarity with the theological literature. He writes:

Kittim, continues, ‘Just because God sets

the universe in motion doesn’t mean that

every detail therein is held ipso facto to be

caused by him.’ … Kittim however, …

provides no biblical evidence to the contrary

of omnicausality, fatalism, or determinism.

Additionally, in the aforementioned quote,

Dr. Sproul makes no such claim of

omnicausality, fatalism, or determinism;

he’s simply making a point of God’s

sovereignty– that is to say, his

omniordinance.

All these points are disingenuous and misrepresent both Dr. Sproul and Calvinism. As I will show, there is overwhelming evidence of omnicausality and theological determinism in Calvinism. And anyone familiar with Dr. Sproul——who has read and heard his lectures on this topic—-knows quite well that this is exactly what he means when he says “There is no maverick molecule if God is sovereign.” Stupik also criticizes me for introducing the doctrine of foreknowledge without sufficiently explaining it. But anyone undertaking a critical review of my work on this topic should be thoroughly steeped in this concept and should not require preliminary definitions, especially when Calvin himself rejected it as a theological alternative to his doctrine of sovereignty. Moreover, he quotes me as saying “God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will.” To which he adds: “Again, this is also agreeable in a general sense. … John Calvin held virtually the same position – albeit in a more nuanced way.” No, he didn’t! This is a complete fabrication and an utter misunderstanding of Calvin’s thought, as I will show in due time.

Actually, Stupik himself does the very thing he accuses me of doing when he’s sometimes mingling his quotes with mine, adding irrelevant citations, coupled with a few punctuation errors and typos where we don’t even know exactly which New Testament letter he’s referring to. He mentions Cor 2:7, but is it 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians? It’s anyone’s guess. Just like his essay, his citations are sometimes vague and ambiguous, off-topic, and in short supply.

Then he says something that conveys his lack of theological understanding: “The reason why God predestined some for salvation does not matter, and so Kittim’s apparent reason (that God foreknew them) is not a sound refutation of Calvinism.” Of course it matters! If God is held accountable for orchestrating everything according to his sovereign will, then neither the devil nor human beings can be held morally responsible for all their crimes against humanity. Besides, there can be no free will. How can he possibly say that the criteria upon which God predestined a limited few to salvation——and a great deal more to damnation——“does not matter”?

He asks:

If God predestined his elect because He

foreknew them, why must he predestine

them to do anything at all? In other words, if

God foreknew that someone would ‘freely

choose’ him, of what use is predestination?

This is mentioned in the Bible in order to reject the theological notion that God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense. It lets us know that God can indeed foresee the future as well as those who will accept or reject his invitation to salvation (cf. Isaiah 46.10). The ability to see events in the future not only certifies and authenticates the message and character of God, for the purpose of putting your trust in the Lord, but it also reveals his omniscience through the inscripturated words: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isa. 45.5; 46.9 NIV; cf. Deut. 18.20-22). Thus, through the doctrine of foreknowledge or predestination, the Lord informs us that he is truly God and that he’s able to foresee those who will inherit eternal life and be glorified! It’s Stupek’s view that is actually incomprehensible. Why would scripture tell us that some have been predestined to hell and some to heaven before their birth? How does that justify a just and righteous God?

Then Stupik challenges my interpretation of the parable of the vineyard workers found in Matthew 20:1-16. I write:

The point of the parable is that God is fair.

No one gets cheated. However, in

Calvinism, God is not fair. He does as he

pleases. He creates evil and chooses who

will be saved and who will be lost. … That’s

why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement.

Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone,

but only for a select few.

To which Stupik responds:

As for Kittim’s first point, that God is ‘unfair’

in Calvinism, no explanation is given as to

why this Calvinist God is ‘unfair.’ Is God

unfair because he does what he pleases?

No, because he cannot desire sin. Is God

unfair because he doesn’t save all? No,

because we are not deserving of God’s

mercy and grace, and so his necessary

judgement is merely a form of God’s perfect

righteousness.

Just as he rarely uses citations to support his views, he similarly offers no proof, here, not even a passing reference to show how God’s arbitrary judgments to save some, but not others, can be reconciled with “God’s perfect righteousness.” He further compounds his mistakes by neither acknowledging nor addressing the well-known fact that Calvinist predestination is based on God’s will, not man’s. He brushes that aside by trying to excuse the unjust decrees of the Calvinist god——when he randomly predestines people to hell——as something we actually deserve, even if those decrees were formulated before we were born. How ironic is that?

In fact, he goes so far as to say:

As John Calvin himself wrote, ‘Though their

perdition depends on the predestination of

God, the cause and matter of it is in

themselves.’ Of course, God does not have

to create evil in order for the reprobate to

exist. In our fallen state, we are incapable of

salvation. Although He ordains all that

comes to pass, God has never been the

direct and efficient cause of evil; he is

inversely incapable of doing so.

This is actually a misleading description of Calvinist theology. It will become apparent shortly that it is completely bogus and misinformed! Initially, I wrote that “Calvinists often use Bible verses out-of-context to support the idea that God is partial: that he plays favorites with human beings. They often quote Exodus 33.19b.” Yet, Stupik asked for proof whether this is, in fact, the case. This is a rather silly point which reveals a certain degree of incompetence and immaturity on his part, and it’s also a dead giveaway that Stupik is not quite so literate as he would have us believe. To ask for proof that Calvinists use Exodus 33.19 to support that God is partial is like asking for proof that the pope is Catholic.

Then he tries to shift the focus and explain away Calvin’s view of divine bias through a sort of glorification of favoritism. In other words, he suggests that god’s discrimination isn’t so much about the inequality of injustice and partiality as it is about the glory of election. Yet, the idea that the Calvinist god predestinates the doom of the reprobate is conveniently neither discussed nor even acknowledged by Stupik.

Stupik’s language is often vague, ambiguous, and difficult to understand, forcing us to guess what he means. He first defends god’s bias and partiality, even though it is not a flattering attribute of the Calvinist god who randomly and arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will be lost, but later he will contradict himself by defending the Calvinist god as just, ethical, and righteous. In attempting to exegete Romans 8.28-29, he says:

the very semantics of the verse create a

much better case for partiality. If the verse

is a proof of impartiality, why is the verse

about ‘οτι ους (those whom) God foreknew’,

and not simply ‘all’? As it deals with a

specific group – ‘οτι ους,’ there is inherent

partiality present in Rom 8:28-29.

Additionally, … there are plenty of verses

which create a strong case for partiality –

chiefly in the very existence of the

reprobate. Presented in short-form for

brevity, see Matt. 13:49-50, 1 Thess. 1:9,

Matt. 5:22, and 2 Thess. 1:7b-8 for

yourselves. Clearly, if the Calvinist

soteriology is correct, the New Testament

more definitively describes a God of even

bare-minimum partiality – insofar as not all

will be saved..

Incidentally, in Romans 8.29, the reason God speaks about those whom he foreknew (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω) is because he’s only speaking about the elect: those who will inherit eternal salvation. He’s obviously not talking about the unsaved: those who will NOT inherit eternal salvation. So why would we expect him to speak about “all” people in the context of salvation? Romans 8.29 is not talking about God’s partiality in choosing some over against others but rather about the salvation of the elect: “those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” It would be an eisegesis to interpret this verse as evidence of partiality. That’s not what it’s talking about. And that’s precisely why the context doesn’t warrant a reference to “all” people. Besides, to say that God foresaw the elect beforehand is not the same as saying that God caused some to be the elect and others to be reprobates. Here Stupik is positing his own private interpretation, which is based on poor research methods.

But notice the 180 degree turn in the opposite direction where Stupik now claims to agree with me and argues that “God ‘does not cause everything to happen as it does,’ because … he is never the efficient cause of evil”:

As clarified earlier, God is not the direct, or

in Aristotelian terms, the efficient cause of

evil. In other words, God is not creating evil.

Kittim asks ‘What ever happened to the

attribute of omnibenevolence, the doctrine

that God is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1;

135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18)? Isaiah 65.16 calls

him “the God of truth” (cf. Jn 17.17), while

Titus 1.1-2 asserts that God “never lies.” ‘

The answer is simple, Calvinism shares that

very doctrine (Institutes 3:23:2-5).

Stupik continues:

A most common misunderstanding of

Calvinism is that Calvin did not believe in

any form of free will. As stated earlier,

Calvin did in fact believe in a form of human

agency, as he details in Institutes Book 1

Chapter 15 Section 8.

I will prove that this is actually not true. In fact, you cannot look an atheist in the eye and tell them that Christ died for you. You’d be lying because, according to Calvinism, he may not have died for them. So the story goes…

So, there seems to be a theological confusion in Calvinism about what God does and doesn’t do. In my view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, not on the impulsive whims of a capricious deity. To “cause” is one thing; to “foreknow” is quite another.

Predestination

Predestination is, by definition, the doctrine that all events in the universe have been willed by God (i.e. fatalism). It is a form of theological determinism, which presupposes that all history is pre-ordained or predestined to occur. It is based on the absolute sovereignty of God (aka omnipotence). However, there seems to be a paradox in which God’s will appears to be incompatible with human free-will.

The concept of predestination is found only several times in the Bible. It is, however, a very popular doctrine as it is commonly held by many different churches and denominations. But it’s also the seven-headed dragon of soteriology because of its forbidding controversy, which arises when we ask the question, “on what basis does God make his choice?” Not to mention, how do you tell people God loves them and that Jesus died for you?

But if we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice. For example, John MacArthur argues that “the offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”

Let’s take a look at the Old Testament. Isaiah 65.12 (ESV) employs the Hebrew term וּמָנִ֨יתִי (ū·mā·nî·ṯî) to mean “I will destine,” which is derived from the word מָנָה (manah) and means to “appoint” or “reckon.” But on what basis does God make his choice of predestination to damnation (aka the doctrine of reprobation)? God says:

I will destine [or predestine] you to the

sword, and all of you shall bow down to the

slaughter, because, when I called, you did

not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen,

but you did what was evil in my eyes and

chose what I did not delight in.

It’s important to note that those who are condemned to damnation are predestined to go there because when God called them, they didn’t respond to his call. When God tried to enlighten them, they “did not listen,“ but instead “did what was evil” in his sight. In fact, they did what God disapproved of! That’s a far cry from claiming, as the Calvinists do, that God willed it all along. Notice that God’s predestination for the reprobates is not based on his will for them not to be saved, but rather because they themselves had sinned. This is an explicit textual reference which indicates that it was something God “did not delight in.” So, it’s not as if God predestined reprobates to hell based on his sovereign will, as Calvinism would have us believe, but rather because they themselves chose to “forsake the LORD” (Isa. 65.11).

The New Testament offers a similar explanation of God’s official verdict pertaining to the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that condemnation depends on human will, not on God’s will. John 3.16 (NIV) reads:

For God so loved the world that he gave his

one and only Son, that whoever believes in

him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):

Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

but whoever does not believe stands

condemned already because they have not

believed in the name of God’s one and only

Son.

Verse 19 puts this dilemma in its proper perspective and gives us the judicial verdict, as it were, that we are ultimately responsible for our actions:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the

world, but people loved darkness instead of

light because their deeds were evil.

Similarly, Mt. 22.14 clearly shows that those that are not chosen are nevertheless called: “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Why would God call them if he already knew that they wouldn’t be chosen? Would he be calling them out of spite? What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his soteriological invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV): “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” First John 2.2 reads:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our

sins, and not for ours only but also for the

whole world.

In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says: “Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely [δωρεάν].” That doesn’t sound to me like a predestined election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all: “[he’s] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that god is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.

If, in fact, God predestined some to salvation and some to perdition, so that Jesus didn’t die for all people but only for a limited few, then it wouldn’t make any sense for the New Testament to say that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” Nor would God contradict himself by saying that “he desires everyone to be saved.” First Timothy 2.3-6 (NRSV) reads:

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of

God our Savior, who desires everyone to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the

truth. For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave

himself a ransom for all [ὑπὲρ πάντων].

So Christ “gave himself a ransom for all [not for some].” Notice that Christ’s atonement potentially covers even sinners who are not yet part of the “elect.” In the following verse, observe what the text says. There were apostates who denied “the Lord who bought them.” This means that Christ’s atonement is not “limited”; it covers them, as well. Second Peter 2.1 (NKJV) reads:

But there were also false prophets among

the people, even as there will be false

teachers among you, who will secretly bring

in destructive heresies, even denying the

Lord who bought them, and bring on

themselves swift destruction.

Prescience (Foreknowledge)

The Greek term that is typically used for predestination is also used in Rom. 1.4 (ESV), namely, the term ὁρισθέντος (from ὁρίζω), which carries the meaning of “determining beforehand,” “appointing,” or “designating.” However, notice that, here, this term is translated as “declared”:

and was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by

his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ

our Lord.

But was Jesus Christ predestined to be the Son of God? No. He already was the Son of God. Nevertheless, what he would perform in the future was “declared” beforehand, or announced in advance. This verse, then, demonstrates that the word “foreknown” would be a more accurate translation than “predestined”!

Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God already predestined some, but not others, before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.

Acts 4.28 does say that God’s will προώρισεν (predetermined beforehand) what will happen. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything that has occurred in human history is based on the will of God (i.e. fatalism). And we don’t know to what extent God influences reality. So, we cannot jump to any conclusions that God is behind everything that happens. Why? Because with absolute responsibility comes absolute blame. Is God responsible for murder, or rape, or genocide? I think not! So, we are on safer ground if we acknowledge that God “foreknew” what would happen and declared it beforehand (cf. Isa. 46.10). This Arminian notion would be far more consistent with the Bible than placing the full blame for everything that has ever occurred in the world on God. This seems to be the Achilles’ heel of Calvinism!

The fact that God created the universe obviously implies that he had a purpose for it. So, I’m not discounting the notion that all things are, in a certain sense, guided by his ultimate purpose. However, I take issue with those thinkers who take it to the extreme and portray the deity as an authoritarian and capricious God who bypasses the principles of truth, justice, and wisdom and intervenes by forcibly coercing man’s free will. That type of God is inconsistent with the infinitely wise, holy, true, and good God of the Bible. That is precisely why “Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil” (Wiki)!

Quotations From Calvin’s Works

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

Calvin’s chief 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 accusatory thought that even though god condemned people to hellfire long before they were born or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin callously 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 insensitively 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?

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. So, is the god of Calvinism just?

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 Tim. 2.4; 2 Pet. 3.9; Ezek. 18.23; Mt. 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.

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. And many Calvinists admit that God creates evil. Jim Brown of Truth & Grace Ministries is one of them.

Calvin Says that 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? Calvin 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. I’m not sure how much more blasphemous or heretical it can get. This is a far more dangerous doctrine than, say, that of the Snake handling Christian cults. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He further expounds his abominable view by writing:

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 and the author of sin, 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 continues:

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. He goes on to say:

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 severe 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 and robust 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!

Jonathan Edwards (who was of the Reformed tradition), in his treatise on The Freedom of the Will, wrote:

I do not deny that God is the Author

of Sin.

Therefore, in Calvinism, God has become Satan!

——-