Calvinism - Tumblr Posts

The effect of our knowledge rather ought to be, first, to teach us reverence and fear; and, secondly, to induce us, under its guidance and teaching, to ask every good thing from him, and, when it is received, ascribe it to him. For how can the idea of God enter your mind without instantly giving rise to the thought, that since you are his workmanship, you are bound, by the very law of creation, to submit to his authority?–that your life is due to him?–that whatever you do ought to have reference to him

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

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:

There is no maverick molecule if God is

sovereign.

That is to say, 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. But 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 contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism). It seems that Calvinism has confused God’s foreknowledge with his sovereignty.

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 (ESV):

I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,

and will show mercy on whom I will show

mercy.

But the only thing that this verse is saying is that God’s grace is beyond human understanding, not that God is partial and biased (cf. Rom. 11.33-34). By contrast, the parable of the vineyard workers (Mt 20.1–16) promotes equality between many different classes of people. One interpretation of this parable would be that late converts to Christianity earn equal rewards along with early converts, and there need be no jealousy among the latter. This can be understood on many different levels. For example, one could view the early laborers as Jews who may resent the Gentile newcomers for being treated as equals by God. Some seem to get more rewards, others less, depending on many factors unbeknownst to us. But 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. This view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

That’s why Calvinism speaks of limited atonement. Christ’s atoning death is not for everyone, but only for a select few. 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...

But that’s a gross misinterpretation. Romans 8.29-30 doesn’t say that at all. It’s NOT saying that God used his powers indiscriminately to influence Individuals in some cases, but not in others. Nor does it follow that God played favorites and decided at the outset that some will be saved, and others not (tough luck, as it were). Not at all. All it says is that God can *foresee* the future!

God doesn’t CAUSE everything to happen as it does, but he does SEE what will happen. So, insofar as God was able to “see” who would eventually submit to his will (and who would not), one could say that God “foreknew” him. In Romans 8.29, the Greek term προέγνω comes from the word προγινώσκω (proginóskó), which means “to know beforehand” or to “foreknow.” It doesn’t imply determinism, the notion that all events in history, including those of human action, are predetermined by extraneous causes, and that people have no say in the matter, and are therefore not responsible for their actions. It simply means to know beforehand. That’s all. Case in point, Isaiah, Daniel, and John the Revelator saw the future; but they didn’t cause it.

God would never have predestined some people to be eternally lost and some to be eternally saved. That would not be just. Similarly, Romans 8.29-30 is only referring to those individuals whom God “foreknew” (προέγνω) that would meet the conditions of his covenant, those are the same he predestined (προώρισεν), called (ἐκάλεσεν), justified (ἐδικαίωσεν), and glorified (ἐδόξασεν)! Otherwise, how could God have possibly predestined those who he foresaw that would NOT meet the conditions of his covenant?

The Greek term προώρισεν (proōrisen; predestined) is derived from the word προορίζω (proorizó), which means “to predetermine” or “foreordain.” In other words, those whom God could *foresee* in the future as being faithful, those same individuals he pre-approved to be conformed to the image of his son. So, by “predestination” God simply means that he’s “declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46.9-10 NASB). It’s not as if God was the direct cause of their decision or free choice. He simply foresaw those who had already chosen to be conformed to the image of his son of their own accord. Notice that in Rom. 8.29 (Berean Literal Bible), the text says that BECAUSE God foreknew them, he predestined them. This means that the *foresight* came first. Since God could see the outcome, he “foreknew” who would be lost and who would be saved:

because those whom He foreknew, He also

predestined to be conformed to the image

of His Son.

——-

Does John Piper represent Biblical Christianity?

Theologian and pastor John Piper cites Acts 4.27-28 (ESV) to prove his point that God determines everything that happens:

for truly in this city there were gathered

together against your holy servant Jesus,

whom you anointed, both Herod and

Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and

the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your

hand and your plan had predestined to take

place.

Piper says, when you understand the complete sovereignty of God, that is to say, how he is behind everything, that he is implicated in every aspect of existence, you’ll go crazy. Why? This occurs, I suspect, because the person you thought was your best friend turns out to be your worst enemy. How can you trust him? Piper says,

He [God] governed the most wicked thing

that ever happened in the world, the

crucifixion of my savior.

Piper says that there is no randomness in the universe, and that God is behind the Tsunamis and everything else that occurs on our planet. That would imply that God is behind the earthquakes, the hurricanes, the train wrecks, the airplane crashes, the massacres, the terrorist attacks, the racist attacks, the rapes, the violent riots, the Holocaust, the Third Reich, the Manson murders, the serial killings, cannibalism, the world wars, the abortions, the beheadings, the heinous crimes, the shootings, beatings, & stabbings of the elderly, and the filicides and genocides of history. God’s behind it all. And if you contemplate this idea, it will drive you mad, says John Piper. So, in order to stay sane, he suggests that we focus on the Cross. We have to believe that God nevertheless loves us and that he was behind the murder of Jesus for our salvation. This will keep us safe from harm; from going mad, that is. Really?

In other words, God’s dictatorist regime or tyrannical authority works much like the Mafia, a secret organization or crime syndicate which controls everything from the street corner thugs to the highest levels of government. God is like a mafia boss who puts out a contract to “whack” somebody but, instead of killing him himself and taking the blame, he orders an underboss (Satan) to do his dirty work. In other words, he hires accomplices to kill people on his behalf because he’s such a coward that he doesn’t want to take the responsibility and do it himself, or to be seen as evil, yet he’s the real cause of everything, good and evil. A literal or fundamentalist interpretation of the Old Testament will no doubt lead to that conclusion (cf. Isa. 45.7). This is also the god of the Gnostics, the inferior creator-god (or demiurge) that was revealed through Hebrew scripture, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world!

But is this a sincere, honorable, and reliable person whom you could trust? Or is this a vile, dishonest, and despicable person who pretends to be something he is not? Does this god deserve our worship? Is he not a liar? Is this a truly loving, Holy God, or is he rather a cruel, deceitful, and merciless beast that hides behind a veneer of righteousness, much like the mafia bosses and the corrupt heads of state?

Then, after depicting a gruesome picture of a cold blooded killer-God who would order a hit on women and innocent children (cf. 1 Sam. 15.3), Piper cites Isa. 53.10:

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him

[christ] with pain.

He concludes:

Therefore the worst sin that was ever

committed was ordained by God.

Piper exclaims, “The answer is yes, he controls everything, and he does it for his glory and our good.” This is the God of Calvinism, fashioned from the pit of hell itself, which depicts God’s rule as a deep state or a totalitarian government, “A celestial North Korea,” in the words of the critic Christopher Hitchens.

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.” Psalm 92.15 (NIV) declares:

The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and

there is no wickedness in him.

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

At a deeper, philosophical level we’re talking about the problem of evil: who’s responsible for all the suffering and evil in the world? Piper would say, God is. Blame it on God. I would say that this teaching not only contradicts the Bible but also the attributes of God. 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. Besides, doesn’t scripture say that Christ “went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil”? (Acts 10.38 ESV). Yet, according to Calvinism, God not only creates evil but is himself ipso facto evil! Thus, neither John Piper nor Calvinism represent Biblical Christianity! Rather, this is an aberration, a contradiction, a false doctrine. 1 Timothy 4.1 (CEV) warns:

God's Spirit clearly says that in the last

days many people will turn from their faith.

They will be fooled by evil spirits and by

teachings that come from demons.

In the following video, a question was posed to Calvinist pastor John Piper:

Has God predetermined every detail in the

universe, including sin?

To which Piper replied:

YES!

Therefore, in Calvinism,

God has become Satan!

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!

——-

What is Predestination?

By Bible Researcher, Eli Kittim

——-

Introduction

Predestination is 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?

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!

——-

Free Will

John MacArthur argues that the salvation “offer is always unlimited, otherwise why would we be told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?” He went on to say, “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.

This conclusion can be easily illustrated. In Rev. 3.20 (KJV), does Christ imply that man’s free will doesn’t really matter at all? Does he say?:

Behold, I stand at the door. Don’t worry, I

won’t bother knocking on the door. Your

your response is unnecessary. You don’t

even have to open the door. I will break it

down and force my way inside.

Is that what he says? No. He says:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if

any man hear my voice, and open the door,

I will come in to him, and will sup with him,

and he with me.

God respects our free will. Notice the condition that is set before us: someone has to open the door, which is equivalent to granting Christ permission to come in and become a part of them. But the choice ultimately rests with us, not with God. Unless we say yes, nothing happens. We must answer the call (cf. Isa. 65.12) and respond in the affirmative, just as Mary did in the gospel of Luke (1.38 NASB):

‘may it be done to me according to your

word.’

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

‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’

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 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.

Unlimited Atonement

There seems to be a comparison and contrast between the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (in Rom. 9.22), and the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (v. 23). But we cannot jump to any conclusions because the text doesn’t explicitly say that both classes of people are predestined either to election or condemnation by the sovereign will of God. Furthermore, the terms that are used, here, are not the same as the ones used for predestination elsewhere in the Bible. For example, the Greek term often used for “predestination” is προορίζω or proorizó (cf. Acts 4.28; Rom. 1.4; 8.29; Eph. 1.5, 11). However, the Greek word used in Rom. 9.22 is καταρτίζω (katartizó), which means to complete or prepare (not predestine). It could simply refer to the remainder of the population that will miss out on salvation. it doesn’t necessarily follow that these are predestined (κατηρτισμένα) to destruction.

The next verse employs the term προητοίμασεν (prepared) to refer to the elect, or the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.” But caution is advised. The term used is proētoimasen (prepared), not proorizó (predestined). This expression can refer to that portion of the population that God adopted into his family and nourished into maturity. The text is unclear as to whether the term “prepared” suggests that God coerced them into “election” by overriding their free will, while they were kicking and screaming. Besides, their personal choice may have been *foreknown* and acknowledged from the foundation of the world. It still doesn’t prove predestination, as defined by Augustine and Calvin.

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 [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 term 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 actually chose to save some and not to save 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.

Conclusion

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 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.

Ephesians 1.5 is another controversial verse. The Greek term used is προορίσας (from προορίζω), meaning “foreordain,” “predetermine,” or “pre-approve beforehand.” The verse reads:

he predestined us for adoption to himself as

sons through Jesus Christ, according to the

purpose of his will.

But what exactly does the term “will” mean, here? Does it refer to God’s choice to save only a limited few and no one else, or to his overall plan of salvation that includes all people? It seems as if God saved those who answered his invitation, as it were, which would explain why he has “foreknown” them and predestined them for glory. I think that the latter explanation seems far more compatible with the Bible by a preponderance of the evidence.

Finally, let’s look at Ephesians 1.11. The Greek term that is used is προορισθέντες (from proorizó), meaning to “predetermine” or “foreordain beforehand.” The verse says that we have been predestined according to his purpose. Granted, it does say that all things work according to God’s will. However, to be fair, we don’t know exactly how that works, and so we can’t offer premature assumptions and presuppositions, especially when they contradict other passages in the Bible.

It would be utterly foolish to suppose that the God of the universe does not affect, influence, or sustain his creation. The fact that he 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 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)!

——-

Is Open Theism Biblical?

By Bible researcher Eli Kittim

Open Theism

“Open theism” (aka openness theology) is a theological movement which holds that God doesn’t exercise complete sovereignty over the universe but allows it to be “open” to the contribution of human free will. Put differently, because God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense, the future is not predetermined by him. Paradoxically, even though open theists seem to affirm God’s omniscience, they nevertheless deny God’s foreknowledge and claim that he doesn’t know everything that will occur. In his book “The Grace of God, The Will of Man,” Clark Pinnock, a Christian theologian and proponent of open theism, writes:

Decisions not yet made do not exist

anywhere to be known even by God. They

are potential— yet to be realized but not yet

actual. God can predict a great deal of

what we will choose to do, but not all of it,

because some of it remains hidden in the

mystery of human freedom … God too faces

possibilities in the future, and not only

certainties. God too moves into a future not

wholly known …

Similarly, in his book “Letters from a Skeptic,” author Greg Boyd, a leading advocate of open theism, explains it thusly:

In the Christian view God knows all of reality

—everything there is to know. But to assume

He knows ahead of time how every person

is going to freely act assumes that each

person’s free activity is already there to

know—even before he freely does it! But it’s

not. If we have been given freedom, we

create the reality of our decisions by

making them. And until we make them, they

don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there

simply isn’t anything to know until we make

it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the

good or bad decisions of the people He

creates until He creates these people and

they, in turn, create their decisions.

Open theism is basically a new model through which scholars have tried to explain the relation of God’s foreknowledge to the free will of human beings. Their argument runs as follows: humankind could not really be free if God knew absolutely everything pertaining to the future. And since open theists believe that human beings are completely free, it follows that God cannot absolutely know all there is to know about the future. This argument would carry over to our understanding of Biblical eschatology and would suggest not only that the future is unknowable, but also that God doesn’t know the future.

Invalid Arguments

However, it seems to me that open theists are committing a logical fallacy, namely, equating the foreknowledge of God with determinism. If that were the case, their conclusion would be correct, to wit, that a deterministic foreknowledge of God would necessarily be incompatible with human free will. But the premise is misconceived. Foreknowledge in and of itself doesn’t necessarily presuppose determinism. Just because God can foresee the future doesn’t mean that he causes it. Calvinism, of course, is the other extreme which maintains that God is the cause of all events, thereby postulating hard determinism without apologies. However, If we, as free agents, were to act in whichever way we chose, and God could foresee our decision, God’s foreknowledge and human free will would be perfectly compatible!

What is more, Open Theism asserts that although God knows all truths, there are certain possibilities which cannot yet be established about the “open” and undetermined future, and thus even God himself doesn’t know their outcome. But this, too, seems to be a logical fallacy. They create a strawman argument in which they falsely equate foreknowledge with logical impossibilities. Once again, the premise is invalid. Just because the “truth” of what will happen is based on many complex, contingent factors, and is unknowable to human beings, doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s equally impossible for God to know it. On the contrary, it wouldn’t be considered illogical for God to know the outcome of any given event. Yet Open theists claim that it’s as logically impossible for God to create squared circles or make 2 + 2 = 5 as it is for him to know the future. But foreknowledge is not a logical impossibility like a squared circle or a married bachelor.

This, of course, can take the form of a very deep and protracted philosophical discussion about the nature of free will and the essence of God’s sovereignty, namely, to what extent are we free agents, and so on. According to open theism, instead of God exhaustively knowing the course of history in toto, God gradually gains knowledge of events as they occur. This is viewed as the “open view of God” since it considers God as open and receptive to new realities. Thus, in contradistinction to classical theism, open theism suggests that God is, in some sense, dependent on the material world to enhance his knowledge.

There is, however, a contradiction in this premise. How could one compare God’s learning curve from the point of view of time if God is said to be timeless? And how could a transcendent God possibly be dependent upon an “inferior reality” (as both Paul and Plato put it) to gain knowledge?

Bible Proofs of God’s Immutability

Opponents of open theism accuse the latter of employing anthropopathisms (i.e. the practice of ascribing human emotions to God). Moreover, Open theist interpretations of the Bible comprise anthropomorphic characterizations of God as “changing His mind” or “seeming to gain knowledge” or even “being surprised” (see Gen. 6.6; 22.12; Exod. 32.14; Jon. 3.10). But these passages should not be read out of context. God is simply trying to describe himself in ways that we can relate to. God’s language of being disappointed with humanity doesn’t mean their actions caught him by surprise. The idea that he “changes His mind” is to illustrate in human terms that he responds to human behavior and allows our free will to make an impact, especially through prayer, not that he literally is unaware of future events. In fact, the immutability of God can be demonstrated Biblically. For example, in Malachi 3.6 (NRSV), God declares “For I the Lord do not change.” In Numbers 23.19, Scripture reads:

God is not a human being, that he should

lie, or a mortal, that he should change his

mind. Has he promised, and will he not do

it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it.

1 Samuel 15.29 says:

the Glory of Israel will not recant or change

his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he

should change his mind.

Bible Proofs of Future Prophecies

Not a few scholars think that in dismissing classical theism’s doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, open theism is dangerously reinterpreting the God of the Bible. In this radical re-envisioning of the God of Scripture, how can a clueless God, concerning the future, guarantee the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies? Yet contrary to this position, Psalm 139 verses 4 & 16 read:

Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord,

you know it completely … Your eyes beheld

my unformed substance. In your book were

written all the days that were formed for

me, when none of them as yet existed.

How could God predict explicit details about Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Bible if he doesn’t even know what the future holds? And, more importantly, how could God possibly guarantee our salvation if he doesn’t have the slightest clue about the future? Furthermore, did God lie in Isaiah 46.9-10 where he declared that he can see the future?:

I am God, and there is no one like me,

declaring the end from the beginning and

from ancient times things not yet done,

saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will

fulfil my intention.’

Conclusion

Open Theism is an attempt to balance God’s foreknowledge and humanity’s free will. Open theism’s conclusion is that God doesn’t possess an infallible knowledge of the future. But just as Calvinism is an extreme form of “theological determinism,” turning humans into pre-programmed robots, so open theism goes to the opposite extreme by turning God into a human being who hasn’t the foggiest idea of what the future looks like. Besides rejecting the credible evidence of eschatology and Bible prophecy, on which our faith and hope depend, open theism ultimately fails to demonstrate its key points both scripturally and philosophically!

—

Divine Providence & Concurrence

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

——-

The Doctrine of Providence

The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.

However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.

According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):

τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν

τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11

SBLGNT).

Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.

In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.

——-

The Doctrine of Concurrence

The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:

it is also evident from Scripture that there is

some kind of divine co-operation in that

which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11

Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The

Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine

anger, the staff in whose hand is mine

indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.

He goes on to say:

The work of God always has the priority, for

man is dependent on God in all that he

does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without

me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field

of endeavor.

However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:

If we begin by defining sovereignty

deterministically, the issue is already

settled; in that case, Arminians do not

believe in divine sovereignty. However, who

is to say that sovereignty necessarily

includes absolute control or meticulous

governance to the exclusion of real

contingency and free will?

In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.

In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:

The understanding here of God's

‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle

and needs to be understood very carefully.

In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are

acting freely even though God is really

behind the scenes making them do what

they do. We experience our actions as free

actions even though God is really directing

them. This is a position that William James

called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.

——-

Conclusion

The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!

——-

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!

——-

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:

——-

On the Subject of Susan

I'm going to be a little blunt and my words may seem antagonistic here. But no hate, please. I'm just trying to analyze and provide my analysis based on the very simple facts. Now.

I've never quite understood the anger at C. S. Lewis for how he ended Susan's tale. Mainly, I suppose, because I had the whole story.

Everyone gets angry that Susan is "banned from Narnia" because she likes lipstick and nylon stockings and being a teenage girl in the 1940s, but no one seems to understand that that's not quite how it went, much less that Susan still has a chance.

Let me work backwards a moment and explain the latter. You see, to quote Lewis himself, in a letter to a girl called Marcela in 1955,

"...Haven’t you noticed in the two you have read that she is rather fond of being too grownup? I am sorry to say that side of her got stronger and she forgot about Narnia... ...She is left alive in this world at the end, having been turned into a rather silly, conceited young woman. But there is plenty of time for her to mend, and perhaps she will get to Aslan’s country in the end—in her own way. I think that whatever she had seen in Narnia she could (if she was the sort that wanted to) persuade herself, as she grew up, that it was ‘all nonsense’”

Now, there's a lot to unpack here, but first and foremost, my point is quite simple. "Perhaps she will get to Aslan's country in the end-in her own way." It was always meant to be open ended, for Susan. Narnia is not forever closed to her, unless you and she choose so.

"But Peace!" I can hear you saying, "There's that whole 'too fond of being grownup' phrase!" Why yes, yes there is, how clever of you to notice. The whole point of the latter portion of Susan's arc is that she chose that- lipstick and nylons and "being grownup"- over Narnia. She grew and she chose to forget Narnia.

After all, what sort of modern teenage girl (in England, during WW2) would be so interested in medieval times and what they probably explained to their friends to be a good old game of pretend? No, no, she can't remember Narnia right now - she's going to the cinema with a few girl friends, she's going to a party, she's focusing on everything but there and inevitably, after pushing it away for so long, Narnia let her be.

You see, C. S. Lewis was a very Arminian (and yes, I spelled it correctly) Christian theologian. And while I'm sure most of you here on this hellsite would like to ignore that, it is relevant to how Lewis wrote his fiction. After all, it's at the core of his basic beliefs, despite his being a staunch atheist in college and into his adulthood, and despite what you may like to think, it crept into his writing even when he did not intend it. For example, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is called an allegory for the story of the Resurrection, despite Lewis' arguments to the contrary. He insisted that it be seen as what it is, very heavy symbolism. Very heavily used Christian symbolism, that is all over the Chronicles whether you like it or not.

Let me explain why this is relevant to Susan, what Arminianism even is, and how that term applies here. Susan is, so to speak, a symbol of an atheist left behind, after all of the Christians she called family died. In a situation where you regard Christianity as true, she is left on Earth while they have gone on to heaven. And this doesn't mean that the gates of heaven are closed to her, quite to the contrary! They would be closed on the day she died insisting that Jesus Christ was not Lord, plain and simple. She has a choice to make, so long as she is alive.

Now, to Calvinist theologians and Christians, Susan never had a choice. Either Aslan, the God symbol here, chose to bring her in, or he didn't. Calvinists believe in a thing called predestination, the concept that every believer that would ever be brought to heaven is chosen specifically by God. Arminianism declares the opposite. It's a whole thing in Christian theological circles, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. In any case, the core of Arminianism is that you and I have a choice in whether or not we believe in God, and in whether or not we go to heaven.

To an Arminian theologian, God, or Aslan in this symbolic case, can influence our choice, Susan's choice, up to a point. Once we reach that point, once Susan forgets, God, or Aslan, steps back. He accepts our choice, allows Susan to forget. It's up to us, up to Susan after that.

Lewis was an Arminian theologian. He made the point, repeatedly, in his theological works, about people having a choice.

He repeats that point with Susan.

One last thing, before you go. You see, there was another letter about Susan, after The Last Battle was released. He'd been asked if he ever intended to finish Susan's story.

This was his answer.

“I could not write that story myself. Not that I have no hope of Susan’s ever getting to Aslan’s country; but because I have a feeling that the story of her journey would be longer and more like a grown-up novel than I wanted to write. But I may be mistaken. Why not try it yourself?”

Well, my people? Now that you've heard what I had to say (and say through quite the essay, my apologies), why not? Go, do what you do and tell her story for yourself. The author has encouraged fanfiction, so go on! And don't worry about Christianity and symbolism too much. It may help you understand how and why Lewis wrote what he did, but unless you're determined to have your tale in his style and overlapping seamlessly with canon, it's unnecessary. Unless you choose to make it a part of your life, you don't have to be concerned about it.

Feel free to ask questions, and I'll answer to the best of my ability, with Google by my side!

Also, I nearly forgot. There are absolutely other problems with Susan being the last of her family, left alone in the aftermath of WW2. This is not the place to talk about those, however, merely to help you understand why she "is no longer a friend of Narnia" and to remind you that there's always hope.

Oh, and besides that, don't forget that I'm talking about the books and not the movies thank you very much, while The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was absolutely perfect to canon the other two were not and I'm not going to consider them in this post. I do appreciate them, but when dealing with book canon they're both nos.

I’m imagining a statement or something that deals with the Arminianism/Calvinism struggle over free will and whether that’s possible with the Christian God, THEN connect that to the Web. Perhaps a Calvinist preacher/web avatar manipulating people through the concept of predestination, using the fear of “not being chosen by God” and being helpless in your salvation? Or maybe an Arminianist (not a word i know) theologian so wrapped up with the concept of free will and the terror of not being able to choose anything in your life, that he loses it? Just some ideas :]