A Conversation with a Reprobate

The following is satire.

The Warden: “Prisoner #489739525, I have developed a Wanting Serum which makes you want freedom and no longer desire to be a criminal”

A Prisoner: “What?”

Warden: “I just want you to know that, if you want, I can give you this Serum and you will want to be free”

Prisoner: “But I don’t want it”

Warden: “I know, that’s because I haven’t given you the Serum yet”

Prisoner: “I thought you said that if I wanted it, you would give it to me. Isn’t that what you said?”

Warden: “Yes”

Prisoner: “But then you said I will want the Serum if you give to me?”

Warden: “Yes”

Prisoner: “Well then give it to me and I will want it”

Warden: “No”

Prisoner: “Why not?”

Warden: “Because you don’t want it”

Prisoner: “Why are you telling me this?”

Warden: “I want you to see what you don’t have so maybe you would want it and then I would give it to you”

Prisoner: “But I have never known any differently. I was born to be a criminal, taught by my father, this is what I’ve always wanted. How can I want any differently?”

Warden: “You cannot. Not without the Serum”

Prisoner: “OK, so I can’t ask for the Serum because I don’t want it”

Warden: “That’s true”

Prisoner: “But let’s say you slipped some of the Serum into my food, would I then want the Serum?”

Warden: “Yes”

Prisoner: “So then, why don’t you do that?”

Warden: “Because you don’t want me to”

Prisoner: “But I CANNOT want you to”

Warden: “That’s true”

Prisoner: “So then give me the sermon so I will want you to”

Warden: “No”

Prisoner: “Why not?”

Warden: “Because having many Prisoners like you justifies my job and huge salary”

Prisoner: “So you’re telling me that you have this Serum that will make every Prisoner not want to be a criminal anymore and the reason you do not give it to every Prisoner is so you can make money?”

Warden: “Yup”

Prisoner: “You do realize that makes you selfish, right?”

Warden: “Maybe, but I’m the Warden. I can be selfish. I can do with you Prisoners as I please”

Prisoner: “If you say so. I still don’t understand why you’re telling me about this Serum I cannot want”

Warden: “OK, I’ll be honest. I just think it’s kinda funny. Like dangling a lollipop in front of a child and then watching them cry when you yank it away”

Prisoner: “But, I don’t want the lollipop”

Warden: “I know! That’s what makes it even funnier! I have what you really need but you can’t want it unless I give it to you and I won’t give it to you unless you want it! Don’t you see how hilarious that is?!”

Prisoner: “It sounds cruel to me”

Warden: “Oh, what you know about cruelty?”

Prisoner: “Ummm, I’m a criminal. Cruelty is kinda my thing”

Warden: “Fair point. Same time next week?”

Prisoner: “I’m not going anywhere”

Warden: “Don’t I know it”

John 3:31-36, “ 31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony. 33 Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. 34 For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. 35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

121 thoughts on “A Conversation with a Reprobate

  1. I also like the Calvinist version of the good shepherd

    I saved the one totally depraved sheep – and cast the other 99 into eternal torment in a lake of fire – because the 99 were totally depraved. :-]

  2. Love this: Warden: “Because having many Prisoners like you justifies my job and huge salary”

    And this:
    Warden: “OK, I’ll be honest. I just think it’s kinda funny. Like dangling a lollipop in front of a child and then watching them cry when you yank it away”
    Prisoner: “But, I don’t want the lollipop”
    Warden: “I know! That’s what makes it even funnier! I have what you really need but you can’t want it unless I give it to you and I won’t give it to you unless you want it! Don’t you see how hilarious that is?!”

    Totally made me giggle! Thank you.

  3. The Calvinist would affirm what Job said in his despair, “God laughs and mocks innocent people who are killed when struck by disaster.”

    Calvi-God is not my god.

  4. Ok this actually made me laugh out loud and it shows how silly calvinism is!!! Calvinist would make even the thief on the cross who mocked Jesus a farce/sham, because his life would all be nothing more than a play being acted out, because he was created to be a reprobate Nah doesn’t line up with the character of God thankfully!!! the thief was actually a living breathing human being who had a response to make especially when the other prisoner was intellectually honest in who he was a wretch!!! I guess the other guys pride clouded his choice not God determining it by a special program that gives a semblance of a choice yet all the while really just pretending… you really have to smuggle in, hide behind, redefine etc. to not see this would tarnish a Holy God, so I don’t want to sign up for that…. thanks for the laugh and keep up the good work!!

  5. Erik writes, ‘The following is satire.
    The Warden: “Prisoner #489739525, I have developed a Wanting Serum which makes you want freedom and no longer desire to be a criminal””

    This would be truer if it read, “Prisoner #489739525, I have developed a Wanting Serum that will remove your evil heart, and then remove your blindness and deafness, thereby enabling you to discover true freedom and no longer desire to be a criminal”

    Two thinks are still true:

    1. “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

    2. if [this serum] is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the [serum] should shine on them.

    1. Hutch, yes, Calvinism is language control. You agree that my satire accurately depicts the Compatibilist position but just think I should have used different words. Thank you.

      1. 100% Bulls-Eye Eric!!

        Calvinism is totally reliant upon subtle SEMANTICS in order to retain credibility

        Dr. Jerry Walls sums it up:
        -quote
        “If Calvinists did not resort to these types of misleading rhetoric, Calvinism would lose credibility in two years”.

      2. Eric writes, ‘You agree that my satire accurately depicts the Compatibilist position…”

        Actually, I never got past the first few lines. If a person gets it wrong at the beginning, why read further. Why did you find it necessary to use the term, “wanting serum,” when you could have just used “faith”? It seemed to me that your purpose was to mischaracterize the issues.

    2. rhutchin
      This would be truer if it read,

      “Prisoner #489739525, I have developed a Wanting Serum that will remove your evil heart, and then remove your blindness and deafness, thereby enabling you to discover true freedom and no longer desire to be a criminal”

      br.d
      Never expect a Calvinist to tell the WHOLE truth

      In Calvinism this would be:
      I have developed a serum that will remove the evil heart I predestined you to have.
      And remove blindness and deafness I predestined you to have

      And BTW – you are NOT PERMITTED to be/do otherwise than what I infallibly decree – one way or the other
      And BTW – I DESIGN the vast majority of my creatures specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for my good pleasure.

      So whatever the state of your nature is at any instant in time – is my handy work!

      Welcome to Hotel CALVIN-FORNIA
      You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave :-]

      1. Br.d great post and this was a great and entertaining comment;

        Welcome to Hotel CALVIN-FORNIA
        You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave :-]

        I don’t see calvinism as a self sacrificial picture of God’s love for His creation, but I do see that kind of love in thre cross & His Amazing infinite knowledge that can offer creation a true freedom to choose yet be in control I can’t explain the trinity but I believe it… calvinist think they have the inside scoop on His knowledge which is just a delusion, because it’s determinism at the core and God is WAY bigger than that!!!

      2. Wonderful post Reggie!
        I heartily agree!!
        Calvinists here constantly try to obfuscate CAUSAL Determinism behind a mask of divine knowledge/understanding.
        The language is designed to INFER knowledge/understanding as a PASSIVE role in evil.

        Calvinist Paul Helm’s tells the truth:
        -quote
        God knows all that shall come to pass because he decrees all that shall come to pass.
        His foreknowledge is simply his knowledge of what he has decreed.
        (Divine Foreknowledge – Four Views pg 12)

      3. Reggie writes, “…calvinist think they have the inside scoop on His knowledge which is just a delusion, because it’s determinism at the core …”

        When you figure out how to give a sovereign God infinite understanding resulting in perfect knowledge of the future and avoid the “determinism” label, let people know.

      4. rhutchin
        When you figure out how to give a sovereign God infinite understanding….etc

        br.d
        This one reminds me of that old joke

        It is written – god made man in his image
        And John Calvin decided to return the favor! :-]

      5. Agreed Br.d the joke makes sense & just because a calvinist says it….. doesn’t mean it is what their (theory) which BTW is: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Example
        “Darwin’s theory of evolution” and yet this study of soteriology is false but their’s of determinism is right hmm nope still not buying what their selling it sadly leads to a puppet existence & Jesus is REAL and His life death and resurrection actually changed everything not superficially, but authentically!!! Thanks for your knowledge of this topic and all the quotes 🙂 calvinism will never have the last word all of God’s Word will!!!
        Matthew 24:35 NASB — “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

      6. Excellent comment Br.d,

        I have to say, ‘If it wasn’t all so frighteningly true, I would be able to see the funny side of this’. Not even Hitler is a patch on this Calvi-god of theirs. Maybe if people were given a glimpse of the body-count – in that lake of fire – they would understand the kind of PRISON this Calvi-god has in mind for most of humanity. But the scriptures are more than enough to warn men about these so called ministers of righteousness.

        2 Cor. 11:13-15:- “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”

        Unfortunately there are still a lot of deaf ears to these warnings – especially in Calvin’s camp.

      7. Very insightful Aidan!
        The word “transforming” in that verse is μετασχηματιζόμενοι – which means “masquerade” or “disguise”

        When we scrutinize Calvinist statements – what we eventually recognize is that “masquerade” and “disguise” are prevalent characteristics.

        The foundational core of Calvinist doctrine is “decretal” theology – (i.e. CAUSAL Determinism)

        However, that is the very aspect of Calvinist doctrine which the Calvinist himself finds the most distasteful.
        So he develops a library of ingenuous language tricks – designed to “masquerade” it as something he can live with.

        There but the grace of god go I!

      8. Br.d,
        “When we scrutinize Calvinist statements – what we eventually recognize is that “masquerade” and “disguise” are prevalent characteristics.”

        Not surprising when you consider who the father is!

      9. br.d writes, “And BTW – I DESIGN the vast majority of my creatures specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for my good pleasure.”

        That is the takeaway from Romans 9, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed….What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,…’

      10. br.d
        And BTW – I DESIGN the vast majority of my creatures specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for my good pleasure.”

        rhutchin
        That is the takeaway from Romans 9,

        br.d
        And the scripture says – the deity you worship – you become like unto.

        What a blessing for the Calvinist! :-]

      11. My understanding of “Romans 9, ‘For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham…’ is that God is promising that Gentiles will be given the offer of salvation too and that they can be grafted in as “children,” whereas the Jews are being warned that they are not guaranteed salvation just because they are Jews. It’s about the fact that your bloodline doesn’t guarantee your salvation or damnation, but that where you put your faith does. It has nothing to do with God specifically designing some people for hell.

        And Calvinists use “… the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction …” to “prove” that God prepared certain people specifically for destruction.

        Strong’s Concordance with Vine’s Expository Dictionary says that “prepared for destruction” (actually “fitted for destruction”) indicates a “close relationship between character and destiny… where the middle voice (of “fitted”) signifies that those referred to FITTED THEMSELVES for destruction, as illustrated by the case of Pharaoh, who self-hardened his own heart.”

        I’m just saying. There’s always a different way to read the Scriptures than what Calvinists tell you. And the more I have looked up the words of “Calvinist” verses in the concordance, the less Calvinist those passages become. And the more consistent the Scriptures and God’s character becomes. It all makes sense … once you throw out the Calvinism!

      12. Heather writes:
        “There’s always a different way to read the Scriptures than what Calvinists tell you. And the more I have looked up the words of “Calvinist” verses in the concordance, the less Calvinist those passages become. And the more consistent the Scriptures and God’s character becomes. It all makes sense … once you throw out the Calvinism!”

        Very true. Were it not so, all of Protestantism would be Calvinist. Instead, the vast majority of christians since the Reformation saw that the Calvinist reading of scripture was perverse, blasphemous and not at all the most clear or consistent meaning possible. Despite the huge underground surge to Calvinize christianity, many today are newly arriving at these same realizations. Many thanks to Dr. Flowers for being a brave messenger, helping so many to discover that they do not have to embrace much hated doctrines that paint the picture of a monstrous and untrustworthy god.

      13. Hi Heather,

        F.F. Bruce – considered one of the top 10 Bible Scholars of the 20th Century writes this about it:
        -quote

        While Paul will allow no questioning of God’s right to do what He will with His own, he lets his emphasis fall, not on God’s wrath towards the reprobate, but rather the postponement of His wrath against men who have long since become ripe for destruction. As has been pointed out earlier (2:4), the mercy and forbearance of God are intended to afford men time for repentance; But if, instead, they harden their hearts yet more, as Pharaoh did after repeated respites, they are simply storing up an increasing weight of retribution for themselves against the day of requital.
        (FF Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p 190)

        And N.T. Wright says this concerning the Apostle Paul and Romans 9
        -quote
        This was never an abstract ‘doctrine of predestination’, attempting to plumb the mysteries of why some people (in general, without reference to Israel) hear and believe the gospel and others do not. Paul never encourages speculation of that sort.”

        There was a time when people grew up holding as unquestionable truth – that the sun rotates around the earth.
        Some of those people were Catholic Holy Fathers of the church – the only ones allowed to interpret scripture.

        Their minds held it to be unquestionable that the sun rotates around the earth
        Thus the mind interprets scripture so as to affirm what it believes is unquestionable truth.

        The consequence was that when Copernicus discovered the earth rotates around the sun- he dared not publish his findings for fear of being put to death for teaching heresy.

        So today if you teach a Calvinist to embrace certain concepts as unquestionable truth
        His mind will follow the same exact process – it will SUPERIMPOSE those concepts INTO scripture
        And his mind will not be able to read it any other way.

      14. heather writes, “My understanding of “Romans 9,…It’s about the fact that your bloodline doesn’t guarantee your salvation or damnation, but that where you put your faith does. It has nothing to do with God specifically designing some people for hell.”

        In Romans 9, the issue is the “children of promise” to explain why all people and not all Jews are saved. Faith comes into play in Romans 10

        Then, “Vine’s Expository Dictionary says…”the middle voice (of “fitted”) signifies that those referred to FITTED THEMSELVES for destruction, as illustrated by the case of Pharaoh, who self-hardened his own heart.”.

        This is then contrasted in the next verse with “that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory…” People fit themselves for destruction as all have sinned, but ti is God who has prepared vessels of mercy for glory. You respond, ” There’s always a different way to read the Scriptures than what Calvinists tell you,” yet you purposely (it seems) ignore the full context in this instance.

        So, granting that v22 has the middle voice, how do you understand v23? Paul makes a statement that runs from v22-v24. What do you see Paul saying with this statement. You might use FF Bruce’s explanation presented by br.d but you would still have to get Bruce’s explanation of v23 that br.d (conveniently?) failed to provide.

      15. Rhutchin says “When you figure out how to give a sovereign God infinite understanding resulting in perfect knowledge of the future and avoid the “determinism” label, let people know.”

        Well, when you figure out what sovereign really means – how God has chosen to demonstrate His sovereignty, as seen clearly all throughout the Bible – instead of simply defining “sovereignty” for yourself and then telling God how He HAS TO act and be in order to fit your view of “sovereign,” let people know.

        Calvinism is built on their own incorrect definitions of things, which go against Scriptures clear teachings of them. But instead of altering their views to fit Scripture, they alter Scripture to fit their views. And then they talk about how “super intelligent” they are to understand these “deep mysteries” that they first created.

      16. A great point – and one which Dr. Flowers notes – and provides the contrast

        Piper
        “How does a sovereign god exercise his love”

        Dr. Flowers
        “How does a loving god exercise his sovereignty”

      17. Piper
        “How does a sovereign god exercise his love”
        Dr. Flowers
        “How does a loving god exercise his sovereignty”

        Neither question negates the other. Both need to be answered by any Theology.

        In Calvinism, a sovereign God exercise his love to save His elect. A loving God exercise his sovereignty by sending Christ to die for sin. The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God.

      18. Piper
        “How does a sovereign god exercise his love”
        Dr. Flowers
        “How does a loving god exercise his sovereignty”

        rhutchin
        Neither question negates the other. Both need to be answered by any Theology.

        br.d
        DUH! negating one another is just another red-herring
        Everyone here already knows the difference is in the emphasis.
        And no one is going to be fooled by the typical DOUBLE-SPEAK – used to obfuscate.

      19. rh writes:
        “In Calvinism, a sovereign God exercise his love to save His elect. A loving God exercise his sovereignty by sending Christ to die for sin. The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God.”

        That is blatantly false under Calvinism. The non-elect can choose no such thing, because God neither chose them, sent his Son to die for them or granted them the desire and necessary faith to come to Christ. There is absolutely no way, shape or form you, representing Calvinism, can honestly make such a statement. It is a blatant, delibrately deceptive misrepresentation of Calvinism, to make it appear both biblical and desirable. Neither of which are true when it is presented honestly.

      20. TS00 writes, “That is blatantly false under Calvinism. The non-elect can choose no such thing, because God neither chose them, sent his Son to die for them or granted them the desire and necessary faith to come to Christ.”

        At least, we agree on the need for faith to come to Christ. Absent God giving a person faith, a person cannot be saved.

        Then, ‘There is absolutely no way, shape or form you, representing Calvinism, can honestly make such a statement.”

        I am pretty sure that Calvin said the same thing – that anyone, including the non-elect, would be acceptable to God if they believed even though God knows that they will not do so..

      21. heather writes, “Well, when you figure out what sovereign really means…”

        Let’s use your definition of sovereignty. Tell us what it is and we can move on from there.

      22. Rhutchin accuses me: “yet you purposely (it seems) ignore the full context in this instance.”

        Really!?! Do I “purposely” ignore it? For my purpose or Calvi-god’s purpose? Because I thought Calvi-god pre-ordained me (caused me) to ignore it, that I have NO CHOICE but to ignore it, for his glory. So a Calvinist should say “Yet you, having no choice in the matter and no ability to do otherwise, ignore the full context because Calvi-god ordained it for his purposes and glory.”

        Yet you, Rhutchin, give credit to ME for deciding to “purposely” ignore it, all on my own. Thank you! (But what would your Calvi-god say about giving me the credit and glory for what HE caused for HIS credit and glory? Tsk-tsk-tsk. And you can’t fall back on the “it seems” thing because we all know that’s included to soften firm accusations into softer suggestions, so that you don’t get in trouble with the moderators, not to clarify your theology or to protect Calvi-god’s glory.)

      23. I think you are seeing what I’ve historically called the “Dancing boxer” routine :-]

        Dancing around in end-less circles – which go nowhere – except into more never-ending circles.
        Making stuff up – insults – with an endless supply of ad-hoc inventions.

        Poor Brian – bless his kind and patient heart!
        Endured it for a while – until it became obvious – it was all just a game.

      24. Heather writes, “Rhutchin accuses me: “yet you purposely (it seems) ignore the full context in this instance.”
        Really!?! Do I “purposely” ignore it?”

        So, why not address v23 in your comments? Are you ignoring it? Maybe, you don’t know what to do with it in the context of v22. You seem to waste a lot of time not addressing the Scripture.

      25. BR.D.: “Piper: How does a sovereign god exercise his love … Dr. Flowers: How does a loving god exercise his sovereignty”

        I hadn’t seen this contrast before but – WOW – does the way it’s worded change the picture of God and the Gospel entirely! What a difference it makes depending on which one you build your theology around! Thank you for this! It’s very telling about how a Calvinist gets their theology so wrong.

      26. Yes exactly!
        And that’s why John Calvin creating a god out of John Calvin’s own image – makes so much sense.

      27. Rhutchin says: “The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God.”

        Now let’s see what Calvinism really teaches with all the missing words put back in:
        “The non-elect can choose to come to Christ … but only if Calvi-god changes their sin-nature to a regenerated one … and then they will be eagerly accepted by Calvi-god. But since Calvi-god didn’t elect them for heaven (the very definition of “non-elect”) then they cannot ever choose to come to Christ on their own. But if he did, then they could. But he didn’t, so they can’t. But if …”

      28. Wonderful example!

        If it weren’t for DOUBLE-SPEAK – would Calvinists speak at all? :-]

      29. br.d writes, ‘If it weren’t for DOUBLE-SPEAK – would Calvinists speak at all?”

        How is the Calvinist position that a sinner must be both regenerated and be given faith in order to coem to Christ an example of “DOUBLE-SPEAK”? What is unclear about the Calvinist position?

      30. br.d
        If it weren’t for DOUBLE-SPEAK – would Calvinists speak at all?

        rhutchin
        The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God.

        How is the Calvinist position that a sinner must be both regenerated and be given faith in order to coem to Christ an example of “DOUBLE-SPEAK”? What is unclear about the Calvinist position?

        br.d
        How is it not DOUBLE-SPEAK to say someone *CAN* do something which Calvin’s god decrees they infallibly *CANNOT* do?

        But I already know – this simply follows John Calvin’s DOUBLE-THINK
        Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (in this case a human impulse) is determined in any part.

        That’s why its called CALVIN-FORNIA
        You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave! :-]

      31. br.d writes, “How is it not DOUBLE-SPEAK to say someone *CAN* do something which Calvin’s god decrees they infallibly *CANNOT* do?”

        So, it was double-speak for God to demand that Israel keep the law even when He knew they could not do so. It is double-speak for God to tell believers, “Be holy because I am holy,” FOH points out many Scriptures exhorting sinners to turn from their sin and submit to God but we know that no one can do this without faith. Your conclusion seems to be that the Scriptures are full of double-speak. Yet the Scriptures do not misrepresent the truth. A believer is to be holy. Israel was to keep the law perfect;y. Sinners must repent. If a person competes in sports, he must do so by the rules and if he cannot meet the standards imposed by those rules, he cannot compete – that is not double=speak as their is no deception.

      32. br.d
        How is it not DOUBLE-SPEAK to say someone *CAN* do something which Calvin’s god decrees they infallibly *CANNOT* do?”

        rhutchin
        So, it was double-speak for God to demand that Israel keep the law even when He knew they could not do so

        br.d
        It is DOUBLE-SPEAK for a god to demand humans to do what he supernaturally WILL NEVER PERMIT them to do.

        So its easy to see what’s happening here
        The DOUBLE-THINK Calvinist superimposes his DOUBLE-THINK theology onto the narrative of scripture.

        rhutchin
        . It is double-speak for God to tell believers, “Be holy because I am holy,”

        br.d
        See answer above

        rhuthcin
        FOH points out many Scriptures exhorting sinners to turn from their sin and submit to God but we know that no one can do this without faith.

        br.d
        see answer above

        rhutchin
        Your conclusion seems to be that the Scriptures are full of double-speak.

        br.d
        Your fallacy here as normal – is to conveniently IGNORE the fact that Calvinism is an INTERPRETATION of scripture.
        So you superimpose what Calvinism does to scripture onto others – and no one is surprised. :-]

        rhutchin
        Yet the Scriptures do not misrepresent the truth.

        br.d
        See previous answer

        rhutchin
        A believer is to be holy. Israel was to keep the law perfect;y.

        br.d
        It is a Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK expectation that FALLIBLE creatures are expected to be INFALLIBLE.

        rhutchin
        If a person competes in sports, he must do so by the rules and if he cannot meet the standards imposed by those rules, he cannot compete – that is not double=speak as their is no deception.

        br.d
        See previous answer

      33. Hey rhutchin – why not go about your office *AS-IF* you don’t exist in any part?

        I’m sure Calvinists can easily find verses – and claim that as a “Scriptural Theology”! :-]

      34. br.d writes, “It is DOUBLE-SPEAK for a god to demand humans to do what he supernaturally WILL NEVER PERMIT them to do.”

        Consequently, you are saying that the Scriptures contain double=speak when God demands that Israel keep the law even when He knew they could not do so without faith.

      35. br.d
        It is DOUBLE-SPEAK for a god to demand humans to do what he supernaturally WILL NEVER PERMIT them to do.”

        rhutchin
        Consequently, you are saying that the Scriptures contain double=speak when God demands that Israel keep the law even when He knew they could not do so without faith.

        br,d
        Consequently Calvinists create their own god after their own DOUBLE-THINK image.

        A god who demands events come to pass – which he WILL NEVER PERMIT come to pass

        Calvinists have crafted themselves such a nice little DOUBLE-THINK god! :-]

      36. Once again, a failty comparison. No man keeps the law, even with faith. That is the whole point of atonement, redemption, etc. Just grasping at straws.

      37. TS00 writes, ‘No man keeps the law, even with faith.”

        No one keeps the law, or parts thereof, without faith (except for show, of course).

      38. What rhutchin completely ignores is that not only did God present the Law as a demonstration of what was ‘right’, knowing that fleshly men would always succumb to their fear of death and sin, but he provided forgiveness via the ceremonial cleansing system. When God demanded that men be holy, he offered them atonement, so that they could be cleansed from all unholiness.

        Were the Old Testament God Calvinistic, he would have given the Law, secretly enabled a few to keep it, and destroyed all of the rest without offering them any forgiveness or assistance.

        Whenever God commands a righteousness that man cannot perform, he provides the assistance and grace that weak, fleshly creatures need. That is the difference between the True God of scripture and the ugly, false, Calvinistic caricature.

      39. TS00
        Whenever God commands a righteousness that man cannot perform, he provides the assistance and grace that weak, fleshly creatures need. That is the difference between the True God of scripture and the ugly, false, Calvinistic caricature.

        br.d
        Well said TS00!

        When one synchronizes Stoic, Gnostic, NeoPlatonist, and Catholic doctrines together – what kind of THEOS will emerge?

      40. Always, always, God’s commands are intended to inform us of how much we need him. And never is this need met with a ‘Na, na, na, na, na, you can’t have me’. Instead, we are urged to come to God, trustingly, no games played:

        “Ho, every one who thirsts,
        come to the waters;
        and he who has no money,
        come, buy and eat!
        Come, buy wine and milk
        without money and without price . . .
        Seek the Lord while he may be found,
        call upon him while he is near;
        let the wicked forsake his way,
        and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
        let him return to the Lord, that he may have mercy on him,
        and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”

      41. And note v.7 which you quoted. We learn that man’s will is the determining factor upon whom- God will choose to show mercy!

        “Let the wicked forsake his way,
        And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
        Let him return to the LORD,
        And He will have mercy on him;
        And to our God,
        For He will abundantly pardon.”

      42. Aidan writes, ‘“Let the wicked forsake his way,
        And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
        Let him return to the LORD,
        And He will have mercy on him;
        And to our God,
        For He will abundantly pardon.”

        In the book of Acts, this was added, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

        It is in Christ that wicked forsake his way.

      43. Aidan writes, ‘“Let the wicked forsake his way,
        And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
        Let him return to the LORD,
        And He will have mercy on him;
        And to our God,
        For He will abundantly pardon.”

        RH,
        “It is in Christ that wicked forsake his way.”

        Aidan,
        Read that verse again and answer this, ‘to whom did God show mercy here in Old Testament times’? And, how did the wicked forsake his way back then?

      44. Rh writes,
        Aidan asks, “And, how did the wicked forsake his way back then?”

        “He didn’t. Not without God’s help/”

        Aidan,
        Agreed! Namely, by allowing man’s free will to be the ultimate determining factor in how he responds to the truth. Man’s will is the gift, not faith. For the world, God’s longsuffering is the gift that is giving us time to come to our senses and repent. God’s word has gone forth – man’s will is the determining factor upon whom- God will choose to show mercy!

        Isaiah 55:7;
        “Let the wicked forsake his way,
        And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
        Let him return to the LORD,
        And He will have mercy on him;
        And to our God,
        For He will abundantly pardon.”

        Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. You know where to find these passages.

        Faith in God is a choice of men, and not a special gift from God (Rom. 1:18-32). For we must always remember folks – that there is no respect of persons with God (Acts 10:35; Rom. 2:11).

      45. heather writes, “Now let’s see what Calvinism really teaches with all the missing words put back in:
        “The non-elect can choose to come to Christ … but only if Calvi-god changes their sin-nature to a regenerated one …”

        Regenerate plus give the sinner faith. Is it your position that a sinner can choose to come to Christ without either being regenerated or having faith (granting that the Calvinist says that both are required)?

        How are you doing with an explanation of Romans 9:22-24? Perhaps others could help you out on that.

  6. Much as they may not like it, Calvinists cannot deny that this pretty much sums up their theory of how God deals with sinners. The only difference is that, while playing the same games as Calvi-god, the warden did not himself determine that the criminal must be an inescapable criminal from the outset. In other words, the warden is not as cruel as Calvi-god.

    1. TS00 writes, “Calvinists cannot deny that this pretty much sums up their theory of how God deals with sinners.”

      Not everyone goes to heaven.

      1. Rhutchin” “Not everyone goes to heaven.”

        Right. But everyone has the chance, the offer, to go to heaven. At least according to the Bible, but not according to Calvinism.

      2. Precisely. Here Rhutchin sneakily presents the false dichotomy that if one rejects Calvinism one must embrace Universalism, which he loves to assert. It is, however, entirely specious. The vast majority of christians throughout the ages have affirmed that all men have been offered grace, but that many reject the offer. That is the genuine, scriptural alternative to Calvinism, and to Universalism, both of which demand a God-controlled determination. If I were to grant a deterministic God, I would believe in one who chooses all rather than one who deliberately, unilaterally creates many without even hope of redemption, as per the dirty secret of Calvinism.

      3. TS00 writes, “Rhutchin sneakily presents the false dichotomy that if one rejects Calvinism one must embrace Universalism,”

        Not the context. You said, “Calvinists cannot deny that this pretty much sums up their theory of how God deals with sinners.” God deals with sinners by saving some and not others. Even the non-Calvinist recognizes that soem sinners are saved and some not. If you reject Calvinism, you do not reject the idea that some are saved and some not – you do not need to embrace Universalism.

      4. rh writes:
        “God deals with sinners by saving some and not others.”

        False, false false. God deals with sinners by offering them all mercy. It is up to the sinner how he responds to that mercy, that grace, that undeserved and unearned forgiveness that is made freely available to all men, with no hidden, secret clauses and hindrances designed to hide Calvi-god’s sneaky, ugly, partial treatment and cruel, mocking destruction of helpless creatures.

      5. TS00 writes, “It is up to the sinner how he responds to that mercy, that grace,…”

        Yet, without faith, the sinner rejects God’s mercy and grace and only with faith does a sinner accept God’s mercy and grace. You seem to understand the necessity for faith in salvation and then turn around and seemingly ignore the necessity for faith.

      6. Now that’s where they get into their word tricks!

        Wouldn’t you like to see the face of a Calvinist whose boss withheld his paycheck – while claiming to “genuinely” offer it. :-]

      7. heather writes, “Right. But everyone has the chance, the offer, to go to heaven. At least according to the Bible, but not according to Calvinism.”

        Is that chance valid with or without the Holy Spirit and faith? Calvinism says that the offer of salvation is only valid with the help of the Holy Spirit and faith (otherwise, the preaching of the gospel is common grace and nothing more).

      8. A “valid” offer for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure

        Who wouldn’t want that! :-]

      9. br.d writes, “A “valid” offer for what is not offered ”

        The proclamation of the gospel to all people is a valid offer even though God knows that no one can make a positive response without also being given faith. In the same way, God gave Israel the law as the valid means to obtain righteousness even though God knew that none could obey the law perfectly. I guess the validity of an offer depends on your definition of “valid.”

      10. rhutchin
        The proclamation of the gospel to all people is a valid offer even though God knows that no one can make a positive

        br.d
        To say Calvin’s god “offers” [X] to someone he DOES NOT PERMIT have [X] – would be seen by the average *ETHICAL* Christian as a distorted use of the term “offer”.

        A father who claims to “offer” his child agape love – which that father was never ever going to PERMIT that child to have – would be seen as a sadistic father.

        However for those whom Calvin’s god DESIGNS specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – eternal torment in a lake of fire is in fact what he has to OFFER. And common vernacular would understand that “offer” as “valid”. :-]

      11. br.d writes, “To say Calvin’s god “offers” [X] to someone he DOES NOT PERMIT have [X] – would be seen by the average *ETHICAL* Christian as a distorted use of the term “offer”.”

        That’s the conclusion of your humanist philosophy and not a Scriptural theology.

      12. If you wait until someone is dead to offer them money, and they, surprisingly enough, don’t respond, would you walk away saying, ” well it was a valid offer which they just wouldn’t accept?” What Br.d has said is just common sense logic. Its just plain simple truth!

        Matthew 22: 1-14;
        And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, “and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. “Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ “But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. “And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. “But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. ‘Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ “So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. “So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

        Notice, both good and evil were able to respond and come. And the man was cast out of the wedding feast, was because he failed to clothe himself properly. I’m sure you can see the implication in both of these statements.

      13. Aidan writes, “If you wait until someone is dead to offer them money, and they, surprisingly enough, don’t respond, would you walk away saying, ” well it was a valid offer which they just wouldn’t accept?””

        That is what God did with Israel in giving them the law and promising blessing and curses.

        Then, “both good and evil were able to respond and come. ”

        Only the person with faith can respond and come.

      14. Rh writes:
        “Only the person with faith can respond and come.”

        Responding and coming demonstrate faith. But it is mere abiblical assertion that faith is an object that can be passed out like candy. Almost no one but a Calvinist would misinterpret the word thusly.

        Faith, or the lack thereof, is always an individual choice in response to a truth claim. The natural reading of scripture is to define faith just as one would in other usage.

      15. I don’t need a GNOSTIC SPARK – in order to have enough faith to believe the chair I’m sitting in will not collapse.

        And I didn’t need a GNOSTIC SPARK to have enough faith to believe in the Agape Love of Jesus Christ.

        Perhaps Calvinists are cognitively impaired – and need a GNOSTIC SPARK for every neurological impulse! :-]

      16. br/d writes, “And I didn’t need a GNOSTIC SPARK to have enough faith to believe in the Agape Love of Jesus Christ.”

        As Jesus said, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”

        So, not a gnostic spark but a spark from God. As Paul said, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”

      17. Well the GNOSTIC’S and the Calvinists have their SPARK

        But I wasn’t brought in through a GNOSTIC Gospel.
        So all it took for me was the Agape Love of Jesus manifesting itself to the heart.

      18. Br.d writes, “But I wasn’t brought in through a GNOSTIC Gospel.
        So all it took for me was the Agape Love of Jesus manifesting itself to the heart.”

        Amen!! & may we never lose our confidence in the truth of that!!! He is recognizably good🌻

      19. br,d writes, “So all it took for me was the Agape Love of Jesus manifesting itself to the heart.”

        LOL!!! br.d sees the tip of the iceberg and is ignorant of all that God, directly and through the Holy Spirit, was doing to make that possible.

      20. br,d
        Well the GNOSTIC’S and the Calvinists have their SPARK

        But I wasn’t brought in through a GNOSTIC Gospel.
        So all it took for me was the Agape Love of Jesus manifesting itself to the heart.”

        rhutchin
        LOL!!! br.d sees the tip of the iceberg and is ignorant of all that God, directly and through the Holy Spirit, was doing to make that possible.

        br.d
        On the “ignorance” business – that is simply more “Reverse Attribution” – no one surprised about that! :-]

        The rest of it is simply GNOSTIC/Calvinist imaginations.

        But the SOT101 reader should also look for the element of MORAL DUALISM both systems share.
        Where “Good” and “Evil” are Co-equal, Co-necessary, and Co-Complimentary.

        Augustine was a very busy man! :-]

      21. br.d writes, “On the “ignorance” business – that is simply more “Reverse Attribution” – no one surprised about that! ”

        You are the one who said, “So all it took for me was the Agape Love of Jesus manifesting itself to the heart.” Even a casual reading of Scripture reveals that God did much more than that.

      22. br.d
        On the “ignorance” business – that is simply more “Reverse Attribution” – no one surprised about that!

        rhutchin
        You are the one who said, “So all it took for me was the Agape Love of Jesus manifesting itself to the heart.” Even a casual reading of Scripture reveals that God did much more than that.

        br.d
        FALLACY of Reductio ad Absurdum
        Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable statement into an absurd one, by taking that statement to the extremes.

        No one need assert Calvinists are RATIONAL thinkers! :-]

      23. T writes, “Faith, or the lack thereof, is always an individual choice in response to a truth claim. ”

        As Jesus said, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” The truth claim heard and learned from God creates the assurance and conviction (faith) by which a person responds to the gospel in submitting to Christ. As Paul said, “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”

      24. Aidan writes, “If you wait until someone is dead to offer them money, and they, surprisingly enough, don’t respond, would you walk away saying, ” well it was a valid offer which they just wouldn’t accept?””

        RH writes, “That is what God did with Israel in giving them the law and promising blessing and curses.”

        Not true!

        Aidan, “both good and evil were able to respond and come. ”

        RH, “Only the person with faith can respond and come.”

        In Jewish history anyone could choose to believe, or choose not to believe – it was totally up to them to put their trust in God, or not.

      25. They say an example of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over – expecting a different outcome.

        Makes you wonder whats behind the Calvinist mind – as he repeats a small list of talking-points over and over like a broken record.

        I wonder if that would be called: Self-reinforced insanity? :-]

      26. Br.d,
        “Makes you wonder whats behind the Calvinist mind – as he repeats a small list of talking-points over and over like a broken record.”

        Aidan,
        Yeah, there are a few thoughts I have on that. First of all, you realise you are dealing with someone who doesn’t want to listen. At least most of us will come away from a debate with some thoughts of, ‘perhaps I need to take another look at that’. But on the other hand, there are many who won’t do this. It reminds me of dealing with the JWs – they just come to you with their mantra based on a set of passages from which they won’t stray. Maybe one of the reasons they keep repeating their list is, that they think they have these gotcha, gotcha moments? Not realising that they are ignoring either the thought of a chapter, or a whole book, not to mention the wider context of scripture.

        Funny thought:
        They remind me of the little dog barking at the window, thinking that he is chasing the post man away. So too, you have the Calvinist barking from his window, ‘gotcha, ‘gotcha, ‘gotcha, thinking he has won the day. And just like the little dog – that routine plays itself out, day in and day out. What’s sad, is that I think you might have more of a chance of reasoning with the dog than with the other fella!

        It’s kind of insane alright!

      27. br.d
        To say Calvin’s god “offers” [X] to someone he DOES NOT PERMIT have [X] – would be seen by the average *ETHICAL* Christian as a distorted use of the term “offer”.”

        rhutchin
        That’s the conclusion of your humanist philosophy and not a Scriptural theology.

        br.d
        GENETIC FALLACY:
        Fallacious thinking which occurs when a LOGICAL argument is rejected based on the source of the argument – due to one’s inability to get around the RATIONALITY of the argument

        In this case – taking a commonly held term – and shifting its meaning into the *UNETHICAL* is claimed to be a sign of a “scriptural” theology :-]

        Its no wonder that Christians find Calvinists UNETHICAL.

      28. It is the claim that such monstrous beliefs are taught in scripture that creates atheists. Note how Calvinism demands that one hold one’s nose and imbibe the most ugly, cruel, unthinkable doings of the god they believe rules the world. “Hey,” they shrug, “it’s ‘scriptural’.”

        I would encourage all to understand that Jesus is the ultimate Word of God, and if any man-delivered, man-translated and man-interpreted words contradict the loving, sacrificial, merciful heart Jesus showed, spew it out.

        We do not worship a book of words, but a living God, who did not leave his love and promise to be deciphered from mere ‘words’ but came to earth in flesh so that we might see the unmistakable beauty and grace of love incarnate. Just as the original Law was accompanied by miracles and the tangible voice of God, so that none need doubt with whom they were dealing, the gospel is accompanied by and distilled in the life and acts of the Son of God.

        Don’t settle for the doctrines of men, cobbled together and so long debated, which are often foul and unworthy of the true, Holy God. Look to the One who gave all that we might know and believe in his goodness and love.

        This God is not playing games with humankind, pretending to offer grace where none genuinely exists. He does not dangle redemption in front of helpless slaves only to mockingly pointing to the unfortunate chains that hold them tight – chains he himself forged, applied and could easily remove.

        Everyone claims to have a ‘scriptural’ theology, but Satan has been twisting and abusing God’s ‘words’ from the very start. I would recommend a ‘Jesusical’ belief system – one which represents the love, self-sacrifice and mercy of the Lamb of God.

      29. Rhutchin quotes Aidan (“If you wait until someone is dead to offer them money, and they, surprisingly enough, don’t respond, would you walk away saying, ” well it was a valid offer which they just wouldn’t accept?””) To which Rhutchin replies, “That is what God did with Israel in giving them the law and promising blessing and curses.”

        God gave Israel the law knowing they would not choose to keep it. And there were real blessings and curses that were tied to their choice.

        But He did not give them the law and then PREVENT them from keeping it just so that He could dish out curses He “preordained” for them, as Calvinist theology would assert. Big difference!

        And so for Rhutchin to keep using “God gave the law to Israel knowing they wouldn’t keep it” when Calvinism really means “God gave the law to Israel and then prevented them from keeping it” is misleading. And it doesn’t support his arguments.

      30. Heather
        And so for Rhutchin to keep using “God gave the law to Israel knowing they wouldn’t keep it” when Calvinism really means “God gave the law to Israel and then prevented them from keeping it” is misleading. And it doesn’t support his arguments.

        br.d
        RIGHT!
        Everything that comes to pass in Calvinism is by specific immutable design.

        Calvin’s god designed the gift of the law to Israel as a gift of damnation

        As John Piper puts it: Calvin’s god designed evil to glorify himself.

        In Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism – Good and Evil are “Co-Equal”, “Co-Complimentary”, and “Co-Necessary”

      31. heather writes, “God gave Israel the law knowing they would not choose to keep it. And there were real blessings and curses that were tied to their choice.”

        God gave the Jews the law and indirectly gave the law to the surrounding gentile nations. As we read the OT, we see that the gentile nations had nothing to do with the Jewish law and with a few exceptions, the gentile nations were cursed and their people condemned to hell.

        In Israel’s case, God gave them the law knowing that most people would reject that law as God knew they would and in Romans 9, we discover that this was God’s plan all the time. Paul explains, “it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Paul then explains what “the promise” was all about and ends saying, “As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” God loved Jacob making him a child of promise and hated Esau rejecting him as a child of promise.

        Was salvation offered to the gentile nations? Only indirectly, but God understood that few would take that law seriously and be saved. Was salvation offered to those Jews who were not children of promise. Yes, but here too, God understood that few would take that law seriously and be saved. Salvation was only truly offered to the children of promise and this because God knew that He would draw them to Christ through that law.

      32. rhutchin
        God gave the Jews the law and indirectly gave the law to the surrounding gentile nations….etc

        br,d
        In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the law comes under the rubric of the ENUNCIATED/PRESCRIPTIVE word or will – which in Calvinism is NON-CAUSAL in nature.

        This is to be distinguished from the SECRET will which is always the divine CAUSAL will.

        When the ENUNCIATED will is in direct opposition to the SECRET will – the ENUNCIATED will functions as a FALSE REPRESENTATION of the SECRET will.

        It thus follows, the ENUNCIATION of the law given to those NOT PERMITTED to keep it – represents a form of divine deception.

        Calvin’s god performs a bait and switch tactic – on a number of things – not just the law.

        For example, Calvin’s god divinely deceives many Calvinists with a FALSE gift of faith/election/salvation.
        And for these Calvinists, all of the promises of divine benevolence to the believer within scripture, follow this bait and switch model.

  7. This is absolutely brilliant – takes some thinking to wrap your mind around it… it illustrates absurdity with absurdity… well done!

  8. Hey I’m wanting to ask this question to people who post on here often, that is what is some their views on the doctrine of creation?

    1. Hi Shawn and welcome

      I personally may not be one to respond – but there my be others here who would be happy to.

      But can you be more specific with your question?

      Some people debate for example about whether or not the days of creation are literal days.
      Is that what you are asking about?

  9. Yes and I was not specific enough,basically creationist fall into two categories young earth or older earth and that is my question, someone might could even expand further on other views on this.

    1. Well – I’ve heard of the “young earth creationist” movement – but its not something I know much about.

      There is an article at Reasonable Faith that might be of interest to you:
      https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-4/

      And Ravi Zacharias’ ministry might have something on it:
      https://www.rzim.org/page/faq-earth-age-and-genesis

      Lets see if anyone else here is up on that topic!

    2. Shawn, I’ll tell you what I think (using part of a post I am currently writing) but I don’t have time right now to go into it all the hows and whys (and I may or may not be back here soon to see any replies you leave, so I won’t be ignoring your replies, I’m just busy and can’t visit here often).

      But in a nutshell, I believe the earth is on the younger side (thousands of years old, not millions or billions) and that it was created in 7 days as God said in Genesis (not using evolution over millions of years). I think there is a lot of geological evidence to back this up, but that scientists generally start with a “there is no God” mindset, which then causes them to have to consider other explanations. In fact, just recently there was an article out about how scientists think the earth used to be a water-world, with no continents. And there was an article about evidence of ancient water on Mars. To me, this just confirms the biblical account of creation:

      “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.… And God said ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse ‘sky.’… And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry ground ‘land,’ and the gathered waters he called ‘seas.’” (Genesis 1:1-10)

      Without even realizing it, scientists support the biblical account of creation (minus the “billions of years ago” part). About how there was water all throughout, before the “sky” was created, which could definitely account for evidence of ancient water on Mars or other planets. About how the earth was just water in the beginning, before God created the land. And yet instead of just accepting the biblical account of creation (because of their preconceived “God doesn’t exist so we need another explanation” mindset), they come up with all sort of fanciful, confusing, implausible (unprovable) explanations. All so they don’t have to say “God did it!” Because if they admit there is a God, then they know they will be accountable to Him. A reason that keeps many, many people from admitting that God is real. (And here’s a scary thought for most people: If the Bible’s right about the beginning, it’s right about the end too!)

      Just a bit about what I think. For what it’s worth. 🙂

      1. Thanks for your reply Heather and lots of good stuff with it, anyone else on how they view Genesis 1?

      2. Hi Shawn I’d say same as Heather for me, and there is evidence to support this if one is willing to research. Here is a great resource for studying;
        Home | The Institute for Creation Research
        https://www.icr.org/homepage/

        Enjoy reading there is much there if your interested 🙂

  10. IS THERE SUCH A THING AS DIVINE INTERVENTION IN CALVINISM:

    Let us say an autonomous vehicle (self-driving automobile) is winding its way through a pre-determined route. It comes to a stop at a red light and prepares to turn left. But then in accordance to its program flow – it switches and turns right.

    Now according to common vernacular, that process is not technically be called an “intervention” because the car simply followed its predefined program. Yes, it is true – it switched from taking a left-turn to taking a right-turn. But that switch was built into the program. And we all know, a program does not “intervene” in itself.

    An autonomous vehicle is computer controlled. And a computer exists within a 100% determined world. It cannot do otherwise than what is determined by its program. And it cannot be otherwise then what is determined by its program.

    Now when you scrutinize the nature of Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) long enough, you eventually find the same exact world. Just like the computer, every creature within Calvinism exists and functions within a 100% predetermined world. Everything that comes to pass with every creature, is 100% determined by a divine program, established at the foundation of the world, before creatures are created.

    And since whatsoever comes to pass, is established by an infallible immutable (i.e. unchangeable) program – then everything that Calvin’s god makes come to pass is 100% fixed and comes to pass by a predetermined program that cannot be changed.

    Now according our common vernacular – to “intervene” logically entails a change in course. And a change in course is a logical impossibility where that course is established as infallibly unchangeable.

    So in Calvinism (just as it is in a computerized world) there is really no such thing as “divine intervention” as humans commonly understand it, because it is a logical impossibility for Calvin’s god to change something he created to be infallibly unchangeable.

    Now this poses a real problem for the Calvinist who sees descriptions of divine intervention within scripture. The Calvinist then, has a significant need to somehow build divine intervention into a theology, which unfortunately for the Calvinist, has a 100% predetermed flow in its course of events.

    CONCLUSION:
    The closest the Calvinist can come to having divine intervention in a 100% determined world – is to have a computer SIMULATION of it.
    Switching from a left-turn to a right-turn must be built into the program.

Leave a Reply to Eric Kemp Cancel reply