Etikettarkiv | contradiction

Did God move King David to make a census, or did Satan? Sin or no sin?

censusIn 2 Sam. 24 it says that God moved David to make a census of Israel’s military power, but in 1 Chron. 21 it says that Satan moved him to do so. Can these two statements be combined, or are they mutually exclusive?

One solution is that it concerns two different kinds of censuses, and another solution is that David did not perform a census the way God had described a proper census as per Ex. 30. A third option is the one described below.

Israel was already under God’s judgment to begin with, so there were no innocent men involved in this particular story. God is angry with Israel and punishes them by allowing Satan to ”unleash” David’s illegitimate pride to create a rift between them.

2 Sam. 24:1 And again the ANGER of the Lord was kindled AGAINST ISRAEL, and he moved David AGAINST THEM to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.2 For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.3 And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?

1 Chron. 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.3 And Joab answered, The Lord make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

God sometimes bestows evil consequences (physical evil, or calamity) upon man’s evil actions (you reap what you sow). He also chooses what kind of evil to bestow, and if he would like to take the chance to bestow evil by means of other people (or Satan) who are already set on doing harm. Satan is often accusing both Israel and believers for various things, and he seeks to get God to punish his people. In 2 Samuel, it says that God was angry with Israel (due to the recent revolt under Sheba in I Chron. 20 and other acts by Amnon and Absalom), and this would be a good reason for God to allow Satan to do what he always wants to do – cause harm!

Here are a couple of examples of when it’s possible to suggest that God and/or Satan perform the evil:

In I Kings 22 (and. 2 Chronicles 18) which you can read about in this article, God decides to kill the evil king Ahab, and asks the heavenly hosts as to how to entice Ahab to enter into a battle in which he will die. A spirit volunteers to be a ”lying spirit” in the mouth of Ahab’s false prophets, and God accepts the offer and allows him to do it. Nevertheless, God is not guilty of lying (there is no darkness in God), but merely gives Ahab what he deserves (Jer 24.7).

In I Sam 16, after repeated failures to submit to God’s leadership, Saul is rejected as king. He remains on the throne and continues his non-committed lifestyle and reign – even indulging in sorcery and seances. God punishes him by sending an ”unclean spirit” to trouble him.

The motivation to cause calamity is a bit different in the book of Job, but God allows Satan to attack Job and he later confronts Satan with Job’s failure to sin even though we can read ”you incited me against him to ruin him”. In other words, Satan was the ”ruiner” but God was also a ”ruiner” – so sometimes it’s actually not a big difference to suggest that ”God moved a person to do this and that” or ”Satan moved a person to do this and that”. The idea of God acting through agents -for reasons of judgment, of mercy, of testing, etc – occurs a few times in scripture, but nowhere does it say that God acts in this way ALL THE TIME. When it comes to Joseph and his brothers, there were evil human intentions (Joseph’s brothers sinning by selling their brother), with God’s overarching purpose for good.

1 Sam might be understood in this way:

  • God is angry with Israel’s sin (and David’s handling of the royal family issues).
  • Satan sees his opportunity, accuses them of wrongdoing, and wins approval to inflict David’s and Israel’s wrongdoing back on themselves.
  • God, knowing that the punishment is well deserved, that the example of correction/contrition on David’s part will be recorded in Scripture forever as an example, and that He will be gracious ‘ahead of schedule’ and reveal the site of his temple/crucifixion, agrees to turn David and Israel over to him, for this specific punishment (cf. I Cor 5.5).
  • Satan, with this permission from God, moves David to begin the Census.

Moreover, there was no order from God to David to NOT count the men, and the taking of a census was allowed in the law

Ex. 30:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord.14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the Lord.15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.

Had the numbering been done correctly (with the census tax for atonement), then undoubtedly no plague would have been sent, and the people would have benefited from the atonement. The fact that Joab knew that David was doing this out of pride (and even to bolster his military ranks, 1 Chron 27.2,4) instead of out of some religious sentiment, gives an indication of that the religious guidelines were not going to be followed. Joab specifically knew that what he was ordered to do was wrong (1 Chron 21.3), so the issue might not have been the census itself but that it was done without regard to the religious dimension and proper process. The observation made in 1 Chron 27.23-24 about God’s promise to make Israel numerous, could be taken as a reference to the population-reducing judgment of God. Punishing people by giving them over to their own will (see the case with Pharoah and the statements in Romans 1) can sometimes be seen in scripure, but it is never done without plenty of prior opportunity to change and to open up to goodness and truth.

In 2 Sam 24.16 we can read: ”When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity…”. God’s justice is always angry at sin, and his love is always grieved over the misery that sin causes.

You can read more in this article from christianthinktank.

Annonser

Westminster Confession of Faith 1647, and related contradictions

calvinism 5Westminster Confession of Faith from the year 1647 – which many calvinists adhere to

Claiming that ”God authors everything but not sin” simply doesn’t make it so – not even if you use fancy words in a document and spread it around throughout a large christian community – because it doesn’t make the obvious contradiction go away. Neither would it make sense to say ”I believe in the trinity but I don’t believe that Jesus is God, and not the holy Spirit either for that matter”, or ”God predestines every thought and every step of the entire humanity, but we are still responsible for our actions”. It’s one or the other, and you can’t have the cookie and eat it too. If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass and if nothing happens against his will, then this by necessity must include sin! It doesn’t help to blame ”second causes” because if you push another person who hits another, then you’re still the cause for the whole chain of actions.

If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then this must include also second causes, and if it’s impossible to act against God’s will, then also sin must be according to God’s will. If God is the one who decides who to save based on nothing that we believe or do, and who to give the ability to seek him, believe, repent and obey, then the only outcome is that he didn’t want the rest (the non-elect) to seek him, believe, repent or obey. Many calvinists admit that they believe that God is the author of sin and that he delights in people who sin (since he predestined them to be wicked sinners), but other calvinists protest and argue against their own doctrines. My view is of course that it’s better to avoid adding calvinism into the Bible in the first place, because that will result in 1) no Bible contradictions, 2) no unanswered questions, puzzles or unsolved mysteries, 3) we suddenly understand why Jesus Christ had to die on the cross – because something went WRONG and didn’t go as God planned, and 4) God and Satan can be totally separated (instead of working as a team) leaving God as a righteous and holy God who has no darkness within him and who doesn’t tempt anyone or delights in anyone’s sin.

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ORDAIN WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF)

Long texts with lots of fluff and fancy words might help the author to hide obvious contradictions for the readers, but if we remove the fluff and make the statement shorter and only keep the necessary outline, the contradictions will be more obvious. It’s of course easier to detect the contradiction if we only stick with the main idea with the statement, which is “God ordains whatever events come to pass, but not in such a way so that God ordains the sinful events that come to pass”.

”The [Calvinist] doctrine is, that God decreed, from eternity, whatsoever comes to pass in time — and that according to his own good pleasure — every particular thing, event, and act. I must insist, according to this [Calvinist doctrine], that he decreed the sin of every sinful man — nay, each particular sin of each particular man, and all the sins of all men, long before the human race was created.”

Hence, the Westminster Confession contains a palpable contradiction namely, that God did cause all things, sin included, yet in such a way that He did not cause sin.” Randolph Foster – Objections to Calvinism 

To reconcile the obvious, the Calvinist simply waves his hand and says God is not the author of sin. Double talk.

The following section is from Daniel Gracely

This sentence is a contradiction because it involves two ideas in which each idea makes it impossible for the other idea to be true. Yet under the Westminster Confessions these two opposing propositions form a ’system’ (or synthesis) that is nevertheless held to be true. Let me give another example of a contradiction to make this clearer. Suppose I packed nothing but one apple and one orange for lunch. I might make the following statement:

”Today I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick, yet not in such a way so that the orange was eaten last, which would have made me sick.”

Me: I feel sick.

You: Apparently you got sick by eating the orange first. Whydidn’t you eat the apple first?

Me: did eat the apple first. Don’t you remember what I said? I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick.”

You: Then why are you sick?

Me: I believe I told you why. I said I didn’t eat the orange last, which is why I feel sick.

YouI’m a little confused—which fruit did you eat first?

MeI’ll repeat myself entirely: “Today I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick, yet not in such a way so that the orange was eaten last, which would have made me sick.”

YouBut you’re sick—is that right?

MeNot at all. I said a bit earlier that “I ate the apple before I ate the orange so I wouldn’t get sick.”

As long as I respond with this ”logic” you cannot come to any conclusions about what I said. You cannot know whether I am sick or well, which fruit I ate first, or even if I ate at all. You cannot know what events happened because I affirmed everything, and yet denied everything. Consequently, all the statements you heard are inconclusive. In effect, I used language to say nothing. You could not even determine properly if I was actually describing myself in the above events, since nothing was being said about ‘me.’ I created this confusion by upholding two ideas that were in contradiction to each other, but which I claimed were simultaneously true.

God’s Eternal Decree – to save some and to damn some – despite that both categories are obedient to God calvinism 8

iii. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. 

John 1:12  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name

vi. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

vii. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. 

Eze 33:11  Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

1Ti 2:3-4  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  

viii. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

Deu 29:29  ”The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Calvinist want you to believe that God has revealed the mysteries to them and no one else, and this could be a good ground for boasting.

Being required to fill in an internet application in a way that the system prevents

åäöI experienced something the other day which reminded me of Calvinism . My daughter and I had to fill in an application on British Airways‘ website for her trip to the USA, and it was very important to fill in her name EXACTLY as written in her passport. I already knew the importance of this from before, and a few months ago I read in our local paper about a man who neglected to write an ”H” in his application which should have been there in his last name. He solved the matter by officially changing his name, which he luckily had time to do before his departure to the US…!

The only problem for us when we filled in our application was that the system prevented us from using any other letters than the ones between a-z – and that wasn’t the first time we’ve run into that internet problem. Our name is BJÖRK, and ö is a completely different letter than o, and neither are the letters å and ä forms of a. So should we LIE as we usually do when we fill in such applications and write BJORK, or should we use BJOERK (which resembles the pronunciation of ö better) and which is commonly done when it comes to airlines tickets and elsewhere? If that man with the lacking H got in trouble, maybe we will get in trouble for adding an extra E which shouldn’t be there? We weren’t quite sure how to fill in that important document, but we knew that it was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT and a REQUIREMENT that both the first and the last names were written EXACTLY as written in the passport, or else she might not be able to enter the country.

We tried with an O and hoped for the best, and we also had to lie in the same way when we filled in our little city (which has an Ä in it), and to top it off I had to lie a final time when I paid the 14 dollars that we owed and which had to be made by a credit card where my unfortunate last name appears once again. I chose O instead of Ö there too, right under the information that the name must be typed in EXACTLY as it appears on the credit card (which is Björk with an Ö). So once again the system asked me to do something that the same system prevented me from doing.

(Our most common lie when it comes to such applications happens when we must fill in a zip code, which we don’t have. We could try with our own address digits but that almost never works, but typing ”00000” or similar works at times.)

Anyway, this reminded me of Calvinism, because according to this doctrine God actually commands us to do something that he has prevented us from doing. We are told to REPENT, which we can’t unless he enables us and predestines us to do so, and apparently he has not enabled everyone to repent since most people will (according to the Bible) end up in hell for not having repented or believed in God.

Acts. 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth ALL MEN EVERY WHERE to repent

There are also many other things we are told to do which we can’t – for instance stop sinning – and that is something God has prevented most people from doing (if Calvinism is right). Nevertheless, he will still punish them for not repenting and for their sins which he caused them to commit. Only the elect will be able to seek God and repent, and the non-elect are prevented from doing this. By God.

Interesting calvinistic contradictions and paradoxes

CALVINISM and its contradictions and paradoxes

If you engage yourself in discussions with calvinists you must be prepared for that they will contradict themselves and express themselves with lots of ”theological fog” and paradoxes. It’s like they believe many fancy words will cover up for their contradictory claims and poor doctrines, and there are sadly listeners out there who are not able to look through their smoke screens but instead swallow what they have to say. But there is no way that they can ever solve the many problems that are hidden in the TULIP, and they are not able to clear the name of their God who they make to be the author of sin – which is the only logical conclusion of their doctrines. Here they might protest and tell you they do NOT make God the author of sin! But don’t they believe that nothing happens against the will of God? Don’t they believe that man must act according to whatever nature he was created with? Don’t they believe man certainly cannot be totally depraved against God’s will? They must respond in the affirmative to all those questions in order to be consistent with their own doctrines, and that means their God IS the author of sin after all. They believe God predestines man to sin, at the same time as man is responsible for his own sins and for some reason should have acted otherwise – despite that he was forced by God to act the way he did. The same man will also be punished and sent to hell – for committing the sin that God caused him to do. (With other words – people who do the will of God will be sent to hell for doing the will of God). Anyway, below is a list of some contradictions that I stole from my friend William Hughes. I saved the best ones to make the list shorter 🙂

Reformed contradiction #3

From an email on facebook I received:

Calvinist: ”any time you say Calvinism is not true I will rebuke you extremely severely in the name of Jesus Christ! Calvinism is the gospel, you heretic! I read your stupid post even though you are not on my friends list.”

Me: ”I am unable to believe in Calvinism because God has decided I don’t believe it. Why are you getting mad at me? I cannot help it.”

Calvinist: ”you are blinded by the devil. Do not blame God for your inability to believe the gospel.”

Me: ”Are the unelect ‘unable’ to believe the truth?”

Calvinist: ”No one is able to believe the truth unless God opens their eyes…”

Blaming me for not believing in Calvinism is like blaming a mentally handicapped person for not thinking.

Reformed contradiction #4

Tony Miano is witnessing to someone on video. During the conversation a Christian named Marco walked up to Tony and said he was being too hard and needed to teach more on God’s love. Tony then berated him and said, “So if me in my flesh can push people away from God then you believe in a weak God.” Tony then accused this Christian of “blaspheming God” because “Marcos, you think the gospel needs our help…You don’t believe the gospel is sufficient, Marco.”

Later in the video Tony explained the “correct” gospel to Marco by witnessing to Marco!

Why is Tony showing Marco the “correct” way when he just finshed telling Marco “you think the gospel needs our help?”

Apparently Tony’s god is “weak” too since he needs Tony to correct Marco.

Reformed Contradiction #5

Tony Miano is preaching to a crowd and tells them to repent and believe. A few minutes later Tony says ”God is a God of love and if He CAUSES you to be born again, THEN you can repent and THEN you can believe.”

I thought he told the crowd ”they” must repent and believe and now he is saying GOD MUST DO IT…very confusing to unbelievers….and everyone else.

Reformed contradiction #6

”God is sovereign in all things. If you don’t believe God gave you the faith to believe you are going against Gods sovereignty!”

But if I can go against Gods sovereignty than God isn’t sovereign in all things.

Reformed contradiction #7

”God does not predestine people for heaven and hell. He simply passes over those people not saving them”

”Don’t Calvinists believe God hated Esau before he did anything good or bad?”

”Yes.”

Sounds like God predestines people for heaven or hell.

Calvinist contradiction #8

”God isn’t obligated to respond to a person’s faith. God is completely sovereign and isn’t controlled by what people do.”

”Does God get angry at a sinners sin?”

”Yes.”

Then I guess God is controlled by what men do.

Calvinist contradiction #9

I decided to take a systematic theology class at my old church which was taught by a 5 point Calvinist named — this time in my life I believed what Calvinists told me, that Calvinism is not an essential issue. In the very first class we listened to a sermon on God’s sovereignty and in that sermon the speaker said If I didn’t believe in God’s sovereignty (as he was defining it by Calvinism) I’m an idolater.

But I thought Calvinism is not an essential issue?—, who is leading the class told me Calvinism is not an essential issue, then why is he showing the class a sermon that says the opposite?Answer: Because he really believes Calvinism is essential.

Calvinist contradiction #10

”Calvinism is not an essential issue. The essentials are the Trinity, the deity of Christ, Christ’s physical resurrection, salvation by grace through faith.”

Later in the conversation…”If you believe people can respond to the gospel using their free will you are a heretic.”

Calvinist contradiction #11

”Unbelievers are blinded by total depravity, they are unable to believe.”

Then why did God blind some of the Jews from believing if they are already blinded?

Calvinist contradiction #12

”Christ saved His own at the cross.”

But wouldn’t that mean when you were born you were saved?

Calvinist contradiction #13

”What do you think God does with mentally handicapped people who might be unable to believe in Christ?”

Calvinist: ”God is merciful and would choose them for salvation”

”What do you think God does with other people who are unable to believe in Christ because they are totally depraved?”

Calvinist: ”God sends them to hell.”

Calvinist contradiction #14

”The word ‘chosen’ means chosen for salvation”

”You mean like this?”

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Calvinist contradiction #15

Calvinist: ”The bible says to rightly divide the word of truth so any contradictions should be studied until they are no longer contradictions.”

”What about the contradiction between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility?”

Calvinist: ”Thats ok if we don’t understand that…that’s a mystery.”

Why are contradictions in other ministries exposed by Calvinists but not the ones in their own doctrine which are accepted as ”mysteries?”

Calvinist contradiction #16

Calvinist: ”Do not add or take away from God’s Word.”

”The bible says Christ died for the world, for whosoever, for any, for all of mankind.”

Calvinist: ”No it doesn’t! ‘World’ doesn’t mean all and ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all.’

Calvinist contradiction #17

Calvinist: ”God showed me the truth of Calvinism through the bible.”

”What did God show you?”

Calvinist: ”If you read <insert reformed teachers name here> book that sums up my beliefs.”

Are you sure you got this new doctrine from God?

Calvinist contradiction #20

Calvinist: ”People go to hell because they reject the gospel.”

”I thought you said the unsaved were people whom Christ never died for?”

Calvinist: ”Yes thats true.”

”So the unsaved are going to hell for rejecting a salvation that isn’t mean’t for them? Isn’t that like saying I’ll get mad at you for not coming to my party when I never invited you and don’t want you at my party?”

Calvinist contradiction #21

Calvinist preaching to a crowd: ”God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. God wants all to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

Wait, you don’t believe that, you believe God is not willing that the elect should perish and God only wants some people to come to a knowledge of the truth, so why are you lying to the crowd?

Calvinist contradiction #22

”If a body builder grabbed your arm, put a gun in your hand, and forced you to shoot someone are you responsible for it?”

Calvinist: ”No, because the body builder forced me to do it.”

”Was Judas forced by God to betray Christ?”

Calvinist: ”Yes.”

”Then how is Judas responsible for betraying Christ if God forced him to do it?”Answer: God didn’t force Judas to betray Christ.

Calvinist contradiction #23

Calvinist: ”While witnessing I would never tell a sinner God loves them because I wouldn’t want to give them a false hope.”

”What happens when the sinner is concerned about going to hell?”

Calvinist: ”I would share with them the good news that Christ died for their sins on the cross.”

”Why would Christ die for their sins?”

Calvinist: ”Because…um…He…loves them.”

Calvinist contradiction #24

Calvinist: ”In John 17:9 Christ prays only for believers in the Gospel of John which proves He doesn’t love unbelievers.”

”Have you ever prayed for your children?”

Calvinist: ”Yes.”

”Does this imply you love them and no one else in the world?”

Calvinist: <Silence>”Christ prayed ‘Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.’ Sounds like Christ is praying for unbelievers.”

Calvinist contradiction #25

Calvinist 1: ”I believe <insert doctrine here>”

Later that day talking to another Calvinist…

Calvinist 2: ”Your misrepresenting Calvinism! We don’t believe <insert doctrine from Calvinist 1 here>.”

Calvinist contradiction #26

Calvinist: ”I like Calvinism because I don’t have to worry about whether I spoke incorrectly to a sinner while witnessing. God does it all.”

”Is there a wrong way and a right way to preaching the gospel?”

Calvinist: ”Oh yes! The gospel must be presented accurately.”

Then I guess you better be careful how you speak.

Calvinist contradiction #27

Calvinist: ”<insert false teacher here> is teaching <insert false doctrine here>!”

”You sound concerned. Can someone predestined for heaven go to hell?”

Calvinist: ”No.”

”Can someone predestined for hell go to heaven?”

Calvinist: ”No.””Then why are you concerned?”Calvinist: ”Because God uses the gospel to save people and false teachers are preventing that.”False teachers are more sovereign than God

Calvinist contradiction #28

Calvinist: ”Sinners cannot respond to the gospel without the Spirit in them (1 Corinthians 2:14).”

”The Apostle Paul believed without the Spirit in Him until days later.”

Calvinist contradiction #30

Calvinist: ”The bible says unbelievers cannot do anything good. Romans 8:7 says unbelievers cannot obey God’s law.”

”Does the bible say the conscience is God’s law written on the hearts of everyone?”

Calvinist: ”Yes.”

”When you were an unbeliever did you ever obey your conscience, even once?”

Calvinist: ”um…well…yes.”

Apparently Romans 8:7 is not teaching unbelievers are not able to do ”anything good”.

Calvinist contradiction #31

Calvinist: ”Calvinists are the most humble of Christians since we believe God does everything and we can do nothing.”

”You sound proud of your humility.”

Calvinist contradiction #34

Calvinist: ”Jesus said anyone who does the will of the Father goes to heaven. The unelect do not do God’s will.”

”Did God predestine the unelect for damnation?”

Calvinist: ”Yes.”

”Then they are doing God’s will.”

Calvinist contradiction #38

”Take a classroom of say 20 people and put earplugs in their ears. Now give them some instructions. Then take their earplugs out. Will they obey your instructions?”

Calvinist: ”No, they couldn’t hear me.”

”Are you angry at them for disobeying your instructions??”

Calvinist: ”Why would I be angry, they can’t hear me! It wouldn’t be right for me to get angry.”

”Then why is God angry with sinners in the same condition?”

Calvinist: ”Because the bible says so!”

”You might want to reinterpret the verses you hold to, your ideas don’t make sense and you are confusing people about who God is and what He wants.”

Here is another good analogy by William

Lets say I have a time travel DVR and I record a football game before it happens. I can fast forward the game, play it slow motion, reverse it, fly around the stadium in 3D (that would be cool!). No matter how many times I do this the outcome is the same.  Now lets say that you can also see yourself in this video and the choices you make that affect others. You can see how your actions affect others. Are the players using their free will in response to you? Yes. Are events in the game predetermined? Yes, because you know the outcome. Events are both predetermined (because God knows how humans will use their freedom to respond to Him) and freely chosen. What about Judas?

1) God knows all things.
2) Whatever God foreknows must come to pass (i.e., is determined). If it did not come to pass, then God would have been wrong in what He foreknew. But an all-knowing [omniscient] God cannot be wrong in what He knows.)
3) God knew Judas would betray Christ.
4) Therefore, it HAD TO COME TO PASS (i.e, was determined) that Judas would betray Christ.
5) These events are predetermined and freely chosen at the same time.

Shipwreck example Acts 27

Paul assured his fellow travelers in advance that ”not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed” (v 22). Yet a few verses later he warned them, ”Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved” (v. 31). Both are true. God knew in advance and had revealed to Paul that none would drown (v.23), But He also knew it would be through their free choice to stay on the ship that this would be accomplished.

A question that calvinists cannot answer – because it’s a paradox

CHALLENGE to CALVINISTS to please explain the contradiction of Westminster Confession of Faith 3.1:

A Calvinist writes:  ”[God] does not actively work unbelief into the non-elect. All are already under sin. God is not responsible for the sin of Adam, or the fall of mankind. God is not the author of evil. ”

Q. Who then *is* the author of evil? Who did work unbelief into the heart of men? If all men are under sin, what was God doing when it happened – did it occur behind his back / outside his sovereign causality? Calvin wrote: (quote): 

“..the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything…” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect.

 “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realise that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66)

“…the devil and all the ungodly are reined in by God, so that they cannot conceive, plan or carry out any crime, unless God allows it, indeed commands it. They are not only in bondage to him, but are forced to serve him. It is the Lord’s prerogative to enable the enemy’s rage and to control it at will, and it is in his power to decide how far and how long it may last, so that wicked men cannot break free and do exactly what they want….” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch.17, Sect. 10)

= And again. WCF3.1 says God ordains EVERYTHING that happens.

Q. How then, having asserted this position, can Calvinism claim God is not authoring these things – THAT’S WHAT AUTHORING MEANS – (to conceive a plot, and via third parties cause a narrative to come into being, and then to publish it via secondary agents, for the world to experience it’s reality.) i.e. by the normal definition of the words, Authoring IS ordaining / decreeing / causing / predetermining, by creative design.

I really hope you guys can take this challenge on – because it lies at the heart of Calvinism’s claims of sovereignty. These are not complex questions, and are based on what Calvinism clearly states. I’m not pulling a clever trick on you here, but asking how you reconcile this contradiction: To quote Calvin again:

”First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169)

“Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some….” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169)

Too right it seems paradoxical!….. It IS. Again. My questions have not been answered -I’ve received lots of references to God being ”passive” while people go do things that God is not *actively* in control of, whilst simultaneously claiming God is in control of everything.

PROBLEM 1.) If God stands back and lets a man do something that God himself has not actively caused to be, then you are opening up space *outside his sovereign will* by claiming he stands by and lets things happen he did not cause.

PROBLEM 2.) Calvinists seem to also be claiming God IS in fact in TOTAL control of every atom in this universe etc. Thus you cannot claim God is in total control and at the same time shelve the effective causailty onto someone else… This question is normally responded to by Calvinists by stating ”you do not understand Calvinism – go back and relearn”. I am – I have – I am taking you at your word and asking questions about it – please dont refer to charts or other material – I need to know how you square this circle personally. Or do you switch your mind off and accept mutually exclusive opposites as compatible truth… ie ‘A = NotA’

Sovereignty = total control / causality (predestination = ordination).
Soveriengty = active causality to salvation
Sovereignty does not = active causality to sin
Sovereignty does not = total control / causality

(Thanks to Stephen Thomas. Also read his long list of verses which show that TULIP is incorrect here)