Virginia Democrats are under fire after a violent illegal immigrant with more than 40 arrests allegedly murdered a Fairfax County mother, and then tried to shift blame to Donald Trump and ICE. This breakdown exposes the sanctuary-style policies, judicial warrant deception, ICE detainer fight, and shocking media silence surrounding Stephanie Minter’s death. A devastating look at immigration enforcement, crime, and political accountability in Virginia. (More at TOWNHALL)
…. Emails obtained by FOX DC showed the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) warned Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano’s office about Jalloh on at least three occasions, but no action was taken to remove him from the country.
In an email to Fairfax County Chief Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Jenna Sands, a Fairfax County police major said he wanted to bring Jalloh’s release to her attention because he “is one of the repeat (and violent) offenders” they had previously discussed.
“I wanted to get your background on why he is out so soon and ask if his prior suspended sentence (of I believe 5 years) was pursued by your office? Unfortunately, based on MTV Station’s numerous dealings with him, it is not a question of if, but rather when he will maliciously wound (or worse) again. My role of keeping the public safe, prompts me to follow up on his status,” the major wrote.
In another email discussing a bond alert from August 2025, a FCPD employee told Assistant Police Chief Brooke Wright that Jalloh had more than 100 incidents with FCPD resulting in multiple charges spanning from theft to violent crimes, according to the outlet.
“JALLOH’s offenses began with domestic violence incidents and escalated to assaulting other victims and threats with weapons (knives),” the employee wrote in the email. “He has been involved in multiple stabbing incidents with victims identifying him as the offender in these cases. This year JALLOH has been the offender in a malicious wounding where he stabbed a man in May 2025, in which he received a bond on July 31, 2025 — three weeks later, this incident occurred where he assaulted an older male and stomped his head into the ground.”
The employee added a list of Jalloh’s criminal history to the email, which included:
2023: Possession of a schedule three substance (guilty) — Original charge: possession of a schedule one or two substance
2023: Malicious wounding (nolle prossed)
2023: Malicious wounding (guilty) — Sentenced to seven years, with five years suspended to probation
2023: Stealing property from a person (nolle prossed)
2024: Petit larceny (nolle prossed)
2024: Trespassing (nolle prossed)
2024: Petit larceny (nolle prossed)
2024: Disorderly conduct (nolle prossed)
2024: Malicious wounding (nolle prossed)
2024: Failure to appear in court (dismissed)
2025: Malicious wounding
[….]
The email also said police had a record of 178 incidents, citing Jalloh as a known shoplifter and noting he “is often intoxicated/high and located w/narcotics on his person.”
“DANGER This individual has a long history of stabbing community members and is currently on probation for doing that very thing,” the officer wrote. “He has shown a blatant disregard for human life and is a danger to the community.”
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Fairfax County Police Chief Kevin Davis said his department “respect[s] the criminal justice system and the distinct roles and responsibilities of each entity within it.”
“In previous cases involving this defendant, our officers and detectives conducted thorough investigations, made lawful arrests, and presented evidence for prosecution,” Davis wrote. “The court outcomes are in no way related to any shortcomings associated with the FCPD. This defendant must be held accountable for his actions. We remain committed to our role to ensure that happens.” ….
As a point of order, I wish to note that while Lordship Salvation is called heresy by some (myself included), this does not mean that teaching a false doctrine mean one is unsaved. It just means they are gravely mistaken on said doctrine.
In an excellent start to an article, we see 12 quotes by leading pastors and teachers on the topic:
A. The problem:
On the one hand there are those who insist that salvation is God’s gift and that trust in Christ is the only requirement for salvation. On the other hand, there are respected pastors and theologians who teach that unless an individual submits also to the Lordship of Christ at the moment of salvation, he is not really saved.
B. The positions:
Salvation by grace through faith alone:
Curtis Hutson in his book, Salvation Crystal Clear, has a chapter entitled “Lordship Salvation, A Perversion of the Gospel.” He begins with the following warning: “Lordship salvation is an unscriptural teaching regarding the doctrine of salvation and is confusing to Christians.” Hutson calls Lordship salvation another gospel which contradicts the teaching of salvation by grace through faith” (p. 302).
Charles Ryrie cautions that “To teach that Christ must be Lord of life in order to be Savior is to confuse certain aspects of discipleship and confuses the gospel of the Grace of God with the works of men.” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 178).
Lewis Chafer writes that Lordship salvation is a seemingly pious but subtle error that in addition to believing in Christ “the unsaved must dedicate themselves to the will of God” (Systematic Theology, III, 384).
Zane Hodges clearly distinguishes between salvation and discipleship. Eternal life is free. Discipleship is immeasurably hard. The former is attained by faith alone; the latter by a faith that works (The Hungry Inherit. p. 114, underscore in the original).
Lordship Salvation:
J. I. Packer rejects the idea that all men “have to do is to trust Christ as sin bearer . . . they must also deny themselves and enthrone him as their Lord.” (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, p. 89).
Walter J. Chantry says that salvation without Lordship is impossible: “Practical acknowledgment of Jesus’ Lordship, yielding to His rule by following, is the very fibre of saving faith. It is only those who ‘confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus’ (Romans 10:9) that shall be saved . . . Without obedience, you shall not see life! Unless you bow to Christ’s sceptre, you will not receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice.” (Today’s Gospel Authentic or Synthetic? p. 60, underscore in the original). His words concerning those who preach simple faith in Christ are very strong: “This heretical and soul-destroying practice is the logical conclusion of a system that thinks little of God, preaches no law, calls for no repentance, waters down faith to ‘accepting a gift,’ and never mentions bowing to Christ’s rule or bearing a cross.” (p. 68).
John R. Stott suggests “that it is as unbiblical as it is unrealistic to divorce the Lordship from the Saviorhood of Jesus Christ” (Eternity, Sept. 1959, p. 37).
A. W. Tozer labels the view of salvation by grace alone a notable heresy and a false teaching (I Call It Heresy! p. 9,19).
James Montgomery Boice calls the concept of salvation through faith alone A defective theology. This kind of faith is directed to one who is a false Christ (“The Meaning of Discipleship”, Moody Monthly, Feb. 1986, p. 34, 36).
John MacArthur champions Lordship salvation in his recent book, The Gospel According to Jesus. He attacks dispensationalists in general and Chafer, Hodges, and Ryrie in particular for “wrongly dividing the Word of Truth” (p. 197). “No one can come to Christ on any other term” than full commitment (p. 197). In his book, The Parables of the Kingdom, MacArthur writes that “there is a transaction made to purchase salvation, but it’s not with money or good works. The transaction is this: You give up all you have for all He has” (p. 108). How does one receive salvation? “You give up all that you are and receive all that He is . . . A person becomes saved when he is willing to abandon everything he has to affirm, that Christ is the Lord of his life” (p. 109). Even in our Regular Baptist circles, Lordship salvation has become an issue.
John Baylo equates the saviorhood of Christ with His Lordship. He holds that “saving faith properly understood always involves trusting Christ with one’s life. . . confidence in Christ to both save and manage one’s life . . . superficial faith never saved anyone” (Baptist Bulletin, February, 1987, p. 7).
Being a Christian means following an invitation. Being a disciple means forsaking all. To confuse these two aspects of the Christian life is to confound the grace of God and the works of man, to ignore the difference between salvation and sanctification. The gospel of grace is Scriptural. The Gospel that adds the works of man to salvation is a counterfeit Gospel.
I just wish to note that the same people that talk to me about the “Reformation” [read here: new Calvinists] upholding the SOLAS is full of it. And is why I say TULIP rejects the SOLAS…. all of TULIP.
Lordship Salvation (“perseverance”) inserts a myriad of works related issues into the mix. So much so, J.VERN called it a heresy!
BTW, I became aware of the J. Vern video because of this presentation over at the BIBLE PLACE. However, this presentation by the Bible Place is the one that showed me how people get the kingdom age mixed up. It is longer, s be prepared to settle in:
Another quote to make the point is this one:
It may even be said that Lordship Salvation throws a veil of obscurity over the entire New Testament revelation. In the process, the marvelous truth of justification by faith, apart from works, recedes into shadows not unlike those which darkened the days before the Reformation. What replaces this doctrine is a kind of faith/works synthesis which differs only insignificantly from official Roman Catholic dogma.
Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2014)
Pastor Andy Woods brought up a paper my Dr. Minirth? Here it is for the reader.
From what I hear through the grapevine (I live a stones throw away from Masters College and live in a town where everyone knows or went to at some point [church goers at least] to Grace Community) John MacArthur became frustrated with his congregation early in his career. He went on a sabbatical and got into the writings of the Puritans. This is where he started to align with the 5-points and his Lordship Salvation idea. And he obfuscated the Christians birthright.
And so, Johnny Mac brought that uncertainty of the Puritan’s salvation into his fold. More on the Puritans here:
John Calvin is unabashed in his defense of his views and says, “Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly, and childishly, since there could be no election without this opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children”[1]
As I have maintained, all Calvinists, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, inevitably believe in double predestination, but most shy from the forthrightness of Calvin. They either believe that God actively predestined some to hell, as Calvin does, or He did so by choosing not to offer what surely would have delivered them from hell to heaven, i.e. selective regeneration. Calvin refers to this cold inescapable reality as “his incomprehensible counsel,” i.e. mystery.[2] I find this to be another disquieting reality of Calvinism.
All of the euphemizing in the world will not purge Calvinism of the harsh reality that people are saved because God desired for them to be, and people are in hell for the same reason. This is true even if some Calvinists continue to resist admitting it because according to Calvinism, if God pleased, not only could everyone have been saved, but they would in fact have been saved, which is disquieting reality.
Calvinism asks us to believe that God chose eternal torment for the vast majority of His creation (Matthew 7:13-14). They want us to rejoice in a God who desires and chooses for the vast majority of his creation to go to hell when He could have redeemed them. That is indeed God according to Calvinism, but not the Scripture. Where is the plethora of Scripture where God expresses His desire for the vast majority of His creation to perish in eternal torment, and this with equal clarity and abundance as those Scriptures that declare His indefatigable, sacrificial love and desire that all repent and be saved? I suggest that they do not exist and for good reason.
[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, pages 225-226. [2]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, page 226.
Ezekiel 33:11 ESV
Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
Ezekiel 18:23 ESV
Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?
Ezekiel 18:32 ESV
For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.”
RC SPROUL
What predestination means, in its most elementary form, is that our final destination, heaven or hell, is decided by God not only before we get there, but before we are even born. It teaches that our ultimate destiny is in the hands of God. Another way of saying it is this: From all eternity, before we ever live, God decided to save some members of the human race and to let the rest of the human race perish. God made a choice—he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven and others he chose to pass over, to allow them to follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment in hell.
R.C. Sproul,Chosen By God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 22.
“The nasty problem for the Calvinist [is]… If God can and does choose to insure the salvation of some, why then does he not insure the salvation of all? [35]
[….]
The only answer I can give to this question is that I don’t know. I have no idea why God saves some but not all. I don’t doubt for a moment that God has the power to save all but I know that he does not choose to save all I don’t know why.
One thing I do know. If it pleases God to save some and not all there is nothing wrong with that. God is not under obligation to save anybody If he chooses to save some, that in no way obligates him to save the rest. Again the Bible insists that it is God’s divine prerogative to have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. [37]
R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God: Know God’s Perfect Plan for His Glory and His Children (Wheaton, IL: Tyndal House Publishers, 1986), 35,37.
Sproul’s hyperbole doesn’t save him from who puts the “mother” in hell. To wit:
ERIC HANKINS
Does Romans 9 teach Calvinistic Reprobation? Guest Dr. Eric Hankins
Eric Hankins, PhD joins Dr. Flowers to discuss Dr. Hankins article recently published at the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
There are two places you can read the article being discussed below. One is the PDF extracted piece by Pastor Hankins from the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (spring 2018) volume 15, number 1, HERE. Or the reproduction of it over at Soteriology 101, HERE.
WAYNE GRUDEM
“reprobation,” the decision of God to pass over those who will not be saved, and to punish them for their sins. As will be explained below, election and reprobation are different in several important respects, and it is important to distinguish these so that we do not think wrongly about God or his activity.
The term predestination is also frequently used in this discussion. In this textbook, and in Reformed theology generally, predestination is a broader term and includes the two aspects of election (for believers) and reprobation (for unbelievers). However, the term double predestination is not a helpful term because it gives the impression that both election and reprobation are carried out in the same way by God and have no essential differences between them, which is certainly not true. Therefore, the term double predestination is not generally used by Reformed theologians, though it is sometimes used to refer to Reformed teaching by those who criticize it. The term double predestination will not be used in this book to refer to election and reprobation, since it blurs the distinctions between them and does not give an accurate indication of what is actually being taught. [670]
[….]
When we understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them. This decision of God in eternity past is called reprobation. Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.
In many ways the doctrine of reprobation is the most difficult of all the teachings of Scripture for us to think about and to accept, because it deals with such horrible and eternal consequences for human beings made in the image of God. The love that God gives us for our fellow human beings and the love that he commands us to have toward our neighbor cause us to recoil against this doctrine, and it is right that we feel such dread in contemplating it.
[….]
In spite of the fact that we recoil against this doctrine, we must be careful of our attitude toward God and toward these passages of Scripture. We must never begin to wish that the Bible was written in another way, or that it did not contain these verses.
Moreover, if we are convinced that these verses teach reprobation, then we are obligated both to believe it and accept it as fair and just of God, even though it still causes us to tremble in horror as we think of it. [684-685]
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Leicester LE17GP, Great Britain: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994; and, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 670, 684-685.
LORAINE BOETTNER
REPROBATION
The doctrine of absolute Predestination of course logically holds that some are foreordained to death as truly as others are foreordained to life. The very terms “elect” and “election” imply the terms “non-elect” and “reprobation.” When some are chosen out others are left not chosen. The high privileges and glorious destiny of the former are not shared with the latter. This, too, is of God. We believe that from all eternity God has intended to leave some of Adam’s posterity in their sins, and that the decisive factor in the life of each is to be found only in God’s will. As Mozley has said, the whole race after the fall was “one mass of perdition,” and “it pleased God of His sovereign mercy to rescue some and to leave others where they were; to raise some to glory, giving them such grace as necessarily qualified them for it, and abandon the rest, from whom He withheld such grace, to eternal punishments.”50
The chief difficulty with the doctrine of Election of course arises in regard to the unsaved; and the Scriptures have given us no extended explanation of their state. Since the mission of Jesus in the world was to save the world rather than to judge it, this side of the matter is less dwelt upon.
In all of the Reformed creeds in which the doctrine of Reprobation is dealt with at all it is treated as an essential part of the doctrine of Predestination. The Westminster Confession, after stating the doctrine of election, adds: “The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the inscrutable 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 dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”51
Those who hold the doctrine of Election but deny that of Reprobation can lay but little claim to consistency. To affirm the former while denying the latter makes the decree of predestination an illogical and lop-sided decree. The creed which states the former but denies the latter will resemble a wounded eagle attempting to fly with but one wing. In the interests of a “mild Calvinism” some have been inclined to give up the doctrine of Reprobation, and this term (in itself a very innocent term) has been the entering wedge for harmful attacks upon Calvinism pure and simple. “Mild Calvinism” is synonymous with sickly Calvinism, and sickness, if not cured, is the beginning of the end.
Comments by Calvin, Luther, and Warfield
Calvin did not hesitate to base the reprobation of the lost, as well as the election of the saved, on the eternal purpose of God. We have already quoted him to the effect that “not all men are created with a similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death.” And again he says, “There can be no election without its opposite, reprobation.”52That the latter raises problems which are not easy to solve, he readily admits, but advocates it as the only intelligent and Scriptural explanation of the facts.
Luther also as certainly as Calvin attributes the eternal perdition of the wicked, as well as the eternal salvation of the righteous, to the plan of God. “This mightily offends our rational nature,” he says, “that God should, of His own mere unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them and condemn them; but He gives abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case; namely, that the sole cause why some are saved, and others perish, proceeds from His willing the salvation of the former, and the perdition of the latter, according to that of St. Paul, ‘He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”‘ And again, “It may seem absurd to human wisdom that God should harden, blind, and deliver up some men to a reprobate sense; that He should first deliver them over to evil, and condemn them for that evil; but the believing, spiritual man sees no absurdity at all in this; knowing that God would be never a whit less good, even though He should destroy all men.” He then goes on to say that this must not be understood to mean that God finds men good, wise, obedient, and makes them evil, foolish, and obdurate, but that they are already depraved and fallen and that those who are not regenerated, instead of becoming better under the divine commands and influences, only react to become worse. In reference to Romans IX, X, XI, Luther says that “all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment, whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned.”53
“The Biblical writers,” says Dr. Warfield, “are as far as possible from obscuring the doctrine of election because of any seemingly unpleasant corollaries that flow from it. On the contrary, they expressly draw the corollaries which have often been so designated, and make them a part of their explicit teaching. Their doctrine of election, they are free to tell us, for example, does certainly involve a corresponding doctrine of preterition. The very term adopted in the New Testament to express it—eklegomai, which, as Meyer justly says (Ephesians 1:4), ‘always has, and must of logical necessity have, a reference to others to whom the chosen would, without the ekloga, still belong’—embodies a declaration of the fact that in their election others are passed by and left without the gift of salvation; the whole presentation of the doctrine is such as either to imply or openly to assert, on its very emergence, the removal of the elect by the pure grace of God, not merely from a state of condemnation, but out of the company of the condemned—a company on whom the grace of God has no saving effect, and who are therefore left without hope in their sins; and the positive just reprobation of the impenitent for their sins is repeatedly explicitly taught in sharp contrast with the gratuitous salvation of the elect despite their sins.”54
And again he says: “The difficulty which is felt by some in following the apostle’s argument here (Romans 11 f), we may suspect, has its roots in part in a shrinking from what appears to them an arbitrary assignment of men to diverse destinies without consideration of their desert. Certainly St. Paul as explicitly affirms the sovereignty of reprobation as election,—if these twin ideas are, indeed, separable even in thought; if he represents God as sovereignly loving Jacob, he represents Him equally as sovereignly hating Esau; if he declares that He has mercy on whom He will, He equally declares that He hardens whom He will. Doubtless the difficulty often felt here is, in part, an outgrowth of an insufficient realization of St. Paul’s basal conception of the state of men at large as condemned sinners before an angry God. It is with a world of lost sinners that he represents God as dealing; and out of that world building up a Kingdom of Grace. Were not all men sinners, there might still be an election, as sovereign as now; and there being an election, there would still be as sovereign a rejection; but the rejection would not be a rejection to punishment, to destruction, to eternal death, but to some other destiny consonant to the state in which those passed by should be left. It is not indeed, then, because men are sinners that men are left unelected; election is free, and its obverse of rejection must be equally free; but it is solely because men are sinners that what they are left to is destruction. And it is in this universalism of ruin rather than in a universalism of salvation that St. Paul really roots his theodicy. When all deserve death it is a marvel of pure grace that any receive life; and who shall gainsay the right of Him who shows this miraculous mercy, to have mercy on whom He will, and whom He will to harden?”55
NOTES
The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 297.
Ch. III: Sec. 7
Institutes, Book III, Ch. 23.
In Praefat, and Epist. ad Rom., quoted by Zanchius, Predestination, p. 92.
B.B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, art. Predestination, p. 64.
Biblical Doctrines. p. 54.
Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932), 104-108.
Kenneth Keathley
Worse yet, the hidden/revealed wills approach appears to make God out to be hypocritical, which is a fifth problem. God universally offers a salvation that He has no intention for all to receive. Reformed soteriology teaches that the gospel is offered to all, but efficacious grace is given only to the elect.46The limits of salvation are set by the sovereign and secret choice of God. Numerous times—through the prophets, the Savior, and the apostles—God publicly reveals a desire for Israel’s salvation while secretly seeing to it they will not repent. Calvin, citing Augustine, states that since we do not know who is elect and who is reprobate we should desire the salvation of all.47Shank retorts, “But why? If this be not God’s desire, why should it be Calvin’s? Why does Calvin wish to be more gracious than God?”48
Which brings us to a sixth and fundamental objection to the hidden/revealed wills paradigm: it fails to face the very problems it was intended to address. It avoids the very dilemma decretal theology creates. Peterson, in his defense of the Reformed position on God’s two wills, states, “God does not save all sinners, for ultimately he does not intend to save all of them. The gift of faith is necessary for salvation, yet for reasons beyond our ken, the gift of faith has not been given to all.”49But then he concludes, “While God commands all to repent and takes no delight in the death of the sinner, all are not saved because it is not God’s intention to give his redeeming grace to all.”50I must be candid and confess that to me the last quote makes no sense.
Let us remember that there is no disagreement about human responsibility. Molinists, Calvinists, Arminians, and all other orthodox Christians agree that the lost are lost because of their own sin. But that is not the question at hand. The question is not, “Why are the lost lost?” but “Why aren’t the lost saved?” The nasty, awful, “deep-dark-dirty-little-secret” of Calvinism is that it teaches there is one and only one answer to the second question, and it is that God does not want them saved.51Molinism is sometimes accused of having similar problems,52but Reformed theology has the distinction of making this difficulty the foundational cornerstone for its understanding of salvation.
NOTES
See T. R. Schreiner and B. A. Ware, “Introduction” in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, 12. They affirm that efficacious grace is given only to the elect: “Our understanding of God’s saving grace is very different. We contend that Scripture does not teach that all people receive grace in equal measure, even though such a democratic notion is attractive today. What Scripture teaches is that God’s saving grace is set only upon some, namely, those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and that this grace is necessarily effective in turning them to belief.”
J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster, [1559] 1960), 3.23.14.
R. Shank, Elect in the Son (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989), 166.
R. Peterson and M. Williams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 130.
Ibid.
Both the point and the phrase come from Walls and Dongell, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 186–87. Cf. Daane, The Freedom of God, 184. Both Dort and Westminster warn about preaching decretal theology publicly. Many thoughtful Calvinists concede that the moral and logical problems with the doctrine of reprobation are irresolvable. See P. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 76–77, 99–100; and T. R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in Schreiner and Ware, The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, 381–82.
See J. Walls, “Is Molinism as Bad as Calvinism?” Faith and Philosophy 7 (1990):85–98.
Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and the Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 57-58.
ADAM HARWOOD
A widely—though not universally—accepted view in Protestant theological literature is that God determines all things, including the salvation and reprobation of individuals.3 For example, Millard Erickson begins his chapter on predestination with this statement: “Predestination is God’s choice of persons for eternal life or eternal death.”4 Robert Letham writes, “Predestination refers to God’s ordaining this or that immutably from eternity.” Letham adds, “Election is that aspect of predestination that relates to those whom God ordains to salvation in Christ.”5 Alan Cairns refers to predestination in both wide and narrow senses. In a wide sense, predestination refers to God’s foreordaining of all things; in a narrow sense, it refers to God selecting some individuals for salvation and others for reprobation.6 This widely accepted understanding of predestination and election can be traced to Augustine.
One of Augustine’s final writings was the short work titled A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints.7 The African bishop wrote it in 428 or 429 to warn Prosper and Hilary against Pelagian views.8 Augustine argues that the Lord prepares the will of the elect for faith, and only some people are elected to salvation, which is an act of God’s mercy. Faith is a gift given to only some people, and only some are called by God to be believers. Those elected are called in order to believe. Augustine explains, “He chose them that they might choose Him.”9 Augustine’s views established a grid for understanding predestination and election that has significantly influenced subsequent interpreters. The Calvinist-Arminian tradition adopted his interpretation (though it modified it at certain points), while others (such as the Eastern Orthodox Church) rejected it. Other Christian groups are composed of some who accept his view and others who reject it.10 Though some Christians affirm a version of Augustinian predestination, the view has never gained a consensus in the church.11 [580-581]
[….]
Although Augustinian predestination has influenced many Christian interpreters, Paul is addressing in Romans 9 the temporal rejection and hardening of Israel, not the eternal fate of individuals. 62 The hardening of Israel should be interpreted as God rejecting his people for a period of time to bring in the gentiles rather than God’s precreation choice to condemn certain individuals.63 Reprobation (the view that God decides before creation, whether actively or passively, to condemn certain individuals) was not Paul’s intended meaning in Romans 9 but Augustine’s innovation.64[602-603]
NOTES
3 Election, defined as God’s choice of certain individuals for salvation, is either presupposed or explicitly taught in most of the recent Protestant theological literature. See, e.g., Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine , 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 816–41 ; Katherine Sonderdegger, “Election ,” in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology , ed. John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 105–20 ; Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 309–23 ; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology , 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 841–59 ; John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2013), 163–64 , 206–30 ; Kenneth Keathley, “The Work of God: Salvation ,” in A Theology for the Church , rev. ed., ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2014), 557–70 ; and Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 405–39 . A notable exception is Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 448–60. He summarizes the Calvinist-Arminian position but prefers Pannenberg’s approach of considering God’s plans for the future rather than past decrees. See also James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2:453–54. He wonders whether Augustine and Calvin’s views have “contributed to a hyper-individualization of this doctrine.”
6 Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 335–36: “In the widest sense, predestination ‘is the theological doctrine … that from eternity God has foreordained all things which come to pass’ (Boettner). In this sense it is synonymous with God’s decree. However, it is most frequently used in a narrower sense, ‘as designating only the counsel of God concerning fallen men, including the sovereign election of some and the most righteous reprobation of the rest’ (A. A. Hodge). In this sense, predestination is in two parts, election and reprobation (see Westminster Confession, chap. 3, sec. 3, 7).”
7 Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints.
8 For more on Augustine’s views of grace and predestination, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 1978), 366–69. For Augustine’s shift from prioritizing human free will in salvation to prioritizing God’s sovereign choice in election, see David Roach, “From Free Choice to God’s Choice: Augustine’s Exegesis of Romans 9 ,” Evangelical Quarterly 80.2 (2008): 129–41 ; Eric L. Jenkins, Free to Say No?: Free Will in Augustine’s Evolving Doctrines of Grace and Election (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012) ; and Kenneth M. Wilson, Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will ,” Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018).
9 Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination 10–11, 16, 32, 34 ( NPNF 1 5:515).
10 My own theological tradition is composed of some who affirm Augustinian predestination, others who reject it, and still others who suspend judgment on the matter. See E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner, eds., Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008) , for a collection of essays representing the two major sides of that discussion from within the same convention of churches. The Abstract of Principles (1858) defines election according to Augustinian predestination, but the BFM (2000) is ambiguous. According to Daniel L. Akin, “the nature and basis of election is not defined” in the confession. Akin, “Article V: God’s Purpose of Grace ,” in Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Critical Issues in America’s Largest Protestant Denomination , ed. Douglas K. Blount and Joseph D. Woodell (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 46.
11 Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 182–83 , “However great Augustine may have been, his views of predestination were never fully received and often modified, so those particular views can hardly be regarded as having received the consent necessary for being viewed as ancient ecumenical consensual tradition.”
[….]
62 For commentators who argue that Paul is not addressing the eternal fate of individuals in Rom 9, see N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), 238–39 ; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary , AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 563 ; Brendan Byrne, Romans , Sacra Pagina 6 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996), 299 ; Luke T. Johnson, Reading Romans (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 140 ; Witherington with Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans , 246–59 ; and Brian J. Abasciano’s three volumes in the Library of New Testament Studies: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1–9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (London: T&T Clark, 2005) ; Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (London: T&T Clark, 2011) ; and Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:19–24: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (London: T&T Clark, forthcoming) . For commentators who argue that Paul is addressing unconditional election to salvation in Rom 9, see Schreiner, “Does Romans 9 Teach,” 89–106; Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 460–529; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); and John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
63 The temporary hardening of Israel (Rom 9–11) was for gentile salvation (11:25). See Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 106.
64 See Eric Hankins, “Romans 9 and the Calvinist Doctrine of Reprobation,” JBTM 15.1 (Spring 2018): 62–74.
Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 580-581, 602-603.
For his chapters 23 and 24, you can read them here:
Originally posted February 2013. I almost deleted it, but chose to save it with some updated media.
A Critique of God-Talk in “Anarchast Ep. 55 with Kelly Diamond” I do some of the critique in the video itself. As well as below. When a pastoral minded/professor friend submits his short critique I will post it along with the below on my blog and edit in the link here. Now to some commentary:
The prostitute mentioned in the video that Jesus hung out with changed, Jesus didn’t judge her because in His presence she felt the grace and justice (Law and Gospel) of God and knew she was loved first and repented, changed. Jesus didn’t “hang” with non-repentant people. He spoke often about them (the Pharisees for instance). The thief on the Cross, likewise, repented. Jesus conversed with him, and not the other unrepentent criminal. (CS Lewis says hell is locked from the inside — freedom of choice played out in the macro at Calvary.) Jesus spoke A LOT about hell (or, judgment). He also created the structure and model of discipleship, or, organized religion if you will. Not saying that religion…
The Founders and the documents they created defined “religion” differently than many do today… they meant Christian denominations (see some excerpts of rough drafts of the 1st Amendment as an example).
…is not corruptible, of course it is. That is the Gospel message, man is corrupt (Romans 3:10), but this is also weighed against the Holy Spirit’s continual influence bringing to fruit the prophecy that the powers of hell will not conquer the Church (Matthew 16:18).
However, this is a big leap of logic to say anarchy will assist in this venture of incorruptibility. In the church or in man. If one reads Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions,” it is almost a primer in the Christian view of fallen stature of mankind and economics.
Golden Rule in Islam?
Also note that while Muslims say there is a “golden rule” in Islam, this is not really the case:
And from it I link to this question to a Christian apologist (Ravi Zacharias) at Michigan University by a Muslim student. And Ravi explains how Jesus raised the stakes on the “Golden Rule.”
An example from Eastern Philosophy of the difference of the “golden rule.” In the “wu-wei” principle we find the meaning of this “golden rule” of Taoism, which is essentially to “do nothing,” or, to “cease.” While there is a “Golden Rule” of sorts, one of my professors points out that that the perfect individual in most Eastern philosophies are “placid, self-contented and indifferent toward all people and all things…”
So while having some of the semantics that seem familiar to the Western thinker, the ideal position behind treating someone as you would wish to be treated as has a completely different meaning than Christianity gives it. And what was done in the above video was conflating two wholly separate ideas of the Golden Rule into one Western (Judeo-Christian influenced) meta-narrative. Something many anthropology professors do at our “higher” educational institutions: conflate, then add a meta-narrative — all while bemoaning the West culture while defining all others using it. Self-serving AND self-defeating.
The woman in the video, just after the non-sequitur comparison of the unrepentant homosexual to a crowd booing an idea not well defined — as, somehow a litmus test for heaven/salvation — does admit after her confused soliloquy that she “doesn’t get it.” I agree! She does not “get it.” Not to mention that she makes LARGE sweeping life decisions and conclusions based on a poultry of evidence and understanding, which does not endear me well to anarchy. Something also based on little evidence and understanding.
Now, I asked a friend to comment quickly on the above, this is his addition, and his comments brought to mind a quote from Malcome Muggeridge, which follows his comments.
If there is no transcendent code by which society orders itself, and under which it flourishes, then a non-transcendent code will be chosen which denies that our creational identity is the image of God. This is closely tied to the great question which shaped western history: “how shall evil be restrained?” History is a relentless teacher of its inattentive students–fallen man must be controlled, if not by the Bible, then it will be by the bayonet.
These comments, like I said, brought to mind those of Muggeridge:
“If God is ‘dead,’ somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner.” (One Source)
I will also point out the woman being interviewed in the video, Kelly Diamond, has some very self-refuting beliefs. For instance. In Israel you have a moderately free market, and many Palestinians, Arabs as well as Israelis participate in it as well as being elected to the Knesset. This is information often not included in pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic views.
To be clear, no such diversity of Jews is in any Palestinian or Arab governments in the Middle-East. What we have ACTUALLY seen in areas given to the Palestinians are theocratic terrorist groups come in with a religiously radical socialist form of sharia law guided political models of governing.
Why am I pointing this out? Because on Kelly Diamond’s Facebook you see many anti-Semitic groups supported and comments. [BTW, since this last time visited, she has locked her Facebook, I should have taken snapshots. Bummer.]
Anyhew…
She shows a dire lack of knowledge on what Zionism “IS,” and merely takes the line of thinking these many radical theocrats do.
In episode 55 of Anarchast, these are the bullet points they include:
The logical conclusion of minimal government philosophy is Anarchism
The Free State Project
Statism as a religion
The skewed message of Jesus
The hypocrisy of most Christians
What she does not realize is that our Constitutional form of government (although warped over time with regulation) is closest to freedom. Created mainly by Christians:
“Statism as Religion.” The interviewer, Kelly, and most anarchists believe that more government is antithetical to freedom. So why would she support the most extreme forms of governance? It boggles the mind. And this confusion is rife in the anarchy movement.
Dennis Prager comments on this (right).
In one forum the question is posed, “Anarchy vs. Dictatorship? Which would you prefer IF you had to choose? Why?” Kelly responded, very firmly: “Anarchy!!!!!”
Then why would she support theocratic terrorists who want to implement a dictatorship (more government, less freedom) of sorts?
I will first post a section from pages 30-31, 35 of Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique
Romans 5:12
Augustine found support for inherited guilt in a misinterpretation of the Latin version of Rom 5:12. At the end of the verse, Paul wrote that all die eph hō pantes hemartōn (“because all sinned”). Reading from a Latin text, however, Augustine saw the phrase in quo omnes peccaverunt and wrongly interpreted it to mean “in whom all sinned.” The resulting interpretation was that all humanity dies because all humanity sinned in Adam. The Greek phrase eph hō, however, which corresponds to the Latin in quo, means “because.” As support for this interpretation, we may simply consult major English Bible translations.51Against Augustine’s interpretation, Rom 5:12 states all die because all sin. Though Rom 5:12 provides the primary biblical support for an Augustinian view of original sin, the verse became significant for his view only when he began to debate Pelagians on original sin.52For Pelagius, Adam’s sin brought death into the world, but each person is held responsible for their own sin. Adam’s sin was the first and primary example of sinful behavior, but his descendants are indicted as guilty for the same reason as Adam—because of their own acts of rebellion against God.53The early
church interpreted Romans as well as Adam’s relationship to humanity in similar ways. For Augustine, however, the Adam-Christ parallel represented two processes of being born: sinful people are born naturally by the natural man (Adam), but children of God are born spiritually by grace through Christ.54This Adam-Christ parallel is seen when Augustine paired the verse with 1 Cor 15:22, which he quoted, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”55For Augustine, Adam passed sin to his descendants by procreation, resulting in all people being destined for eternal damnation, including unbaptized infants.56
Though some interpret Rom 5:12 like Augustine, other Christian scholars reject inherited guilt. James D. G. Dunn wrote on Paul’s view of Adam and sin from Rom 5:12–21: “Guilt only enters into the reckoning with the individual’s own transgression. Human beings are not held responsible for the state into which they are born. That is the starting point of their personal responsibility, a starting point for which they are not liable.”57Donald G. Bloesch explained, “The text in Romans to which Augustine often appealed (5:12) does not tell us how Adamic sin is related to general human sin and therefore cannot be used to argue for inherited sin or guilt; it simply informs us that death pervaded the whole human race ‘inasmuch as all have sinned’ (REB).”58Joseph Fitzmyer cautioned readers of Rom 5:12 to distinguish between Paul’s writings and the later teachings of the church. This Catholic scholar explains that the doctrine of original sin (the view that all people inherit both a sinful nature and guilt) is a later teaching of the church rather than the explicit teaching of Paul. The doctrine of original sin was developed from later Augustinian writings and solidified through the Sixteenth Council of Carthage, the Second Council of Orange, and the Tridentine Council.59
[….]
Stanley Grenz (1950–2005) wrote, “Romans 5:12–21, like Ephesians 2:3, does not clearly and unequivocally declare that all persons inherit guilt directly because of Adam’s sin. The biblical case for original guilt is not strong.” Grenz concluded, “Our human nature has been corrupted.”81He described the development of moral responsibility. “Somewhere in childhood we move from a stage in which our actions are not deemed morally accountable to the responsibility of acting as moral agents. In short, we cross a point which some refer to as the ‘age of accountability.’”82
51The CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV render the phrase in question as “because all sinned.” Other translations use different words to communicate the same idea. For example, the KJV used the phrase “for that all have sinned.” Even the NABRE (New American Bible, Revised Edition), the translation used on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, translated the phrase with a variation of “all sinned.”
52Augustine quoted Rom 5:12 only three times before his debates with the Pelagians, and none of those occurrences of the verse concerned the transmission of sin. Beatrice, Transmission of Sin, 102.
53See Pelagius’s views in Pelagius’ Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. Theodore de Bruyn, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 92–93 (5:12); 94 (5:15); 99 (6:19); 104 (7:17).
54 Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants 1.19, in NPNF1, 5:22.
55Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 3.12, in NPNF1, 7:22.
56Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants 1.21, in NPNF1, 5:23: “Such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.”
57James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 97.
58Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 43–44.
59Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 408–9.
[….]
81Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 205.
82Grenz, 209.
This clip is taken from the Naked Bible Podcast. It was part of an answer to a question about abortion and what happens to babies who are aborted.
Dr. Leighton Flowers walks through the doctrine often referred to as “original sin” and looks at where the scripture seems to fly in the face of the concept that mankind is held morally accountable for that which is beyond their control.
Children and Depravity – Two Shorts
(Left video) 5-minutes plus; (Right video) 15-minutes plus
(See more about who introduced such “determinism into the church in a previous post, HERE)
Okay, here’s a super simple, dumbed-down explanation of the two articles from Soteriology101 (written by Leighton Flowers, who strongly disagrees with Calvinism). I’ll explain them like I’m talking to a friend who knows nothing about theology debates.
What the articles are basically about
These two posts are part of a series called “The Hunt for a Hyper-Calvinist.” The author is on a mission to find a real “hyper-Calvinist” — someone who believes in Calvinism (a view that says God controls everything about who gets saved, and humans can’t choose it on their own) but takes it to an extreme level. The author says he’s hunting because Calvinists keep blaming problems in their theology on these mysterious “hyper” people, but he thinks they don’t actually exist.
In plain terms: The author is saying, “Calvinists say ‘That’s not real Calvinism — that’s hyper-Calvinism!’ whenever someone points out weird or tough parts of their beliefs. But where are these hyper people? Show me one!”
Part 1: The Hunt Begins (April 9, 2020)
The author looks at popular Calvinist writers (like Tim Challies and Phil Johnson) who list what “hyper-Calvinism” supposedly means. Things like:
Not telling everyone the gospel is for them.
Saying it’s not everyone’s duty to believe and repent.
Denying that God really loves or offers grace to people who aren’t chosen for salvation.
These writers say hyper-Calvinists go too far and hurt evangelism (spreading the gospel) because they think only the “chosen” ones can believe anyway.
But the author points out: No one calls themselves a hyper-Calvinist. There are no churches, books, or famous people proudly saying “I’m hyper!” When critics name possible examples (like some old theologians or small groups like Primitive Baptists), those people usually say “We’re just being true Calvinists.”
His big takeaway: “Hyper-Calvinism” seems like a made-up boogeyman. Calvinists use the label to push away criticism and avoid talking about the hard logical problems in their own normal beliefs (like: If God already decided everything, why bother preaching to everyone?).
He ends by saying the hunt continues — he’s still looking for a real one.
Part 2: Still Hunting (April 16, 2020)
This one keeps going and looks at another big Calvinist teacher (Michael Horton from Ligonier Ministries).
Horton writes an article defending Calvinism against critics who say it makes God the author (cause) of sin/evil or makes the gospel call fake/insincere.
Horton says: “No, that’s not us — that’s a misunderstanding or maybe those hyper-Calvinists over there.”
But again, he doesn’t name any actual hyper-Calvinists or give examples. He just quotes official Calvinist documents (like the Canons of Dort or Westminster Confession) and says “We already answered this.”
The author calls this out as more dodging:
Calvinists invent fancy word categories (like “outward call” vs. “inward call”) to explain why it’s okay to invite everyone to believe even though only some are chosen to respond.
They say tough questions are just “mysteries” we can’t figure out.
But the author says these are tricks to avoid admitting the logic leads to problems (e.g., if God controls everything, how is the gospel offer genuine? How isn’t God behind evil?).
He points to popular Calvinists like John Piper who say God really does control everything (including bad stuff), which sounds a lot like what critics call “hyper.”
Bottom line from both parts: The author thinks “hyper-Calvinism” is mostly a fake target Calvinists point to so they don’t have to defend the full, consistent version of their own theology. No real hyper-Calvinists show up when you actually look — it’s just a way to say “That’s not us!” without fixing the issues critics raise.
In super short: These articles are the author saying, “Calvinists, stop blaming imaginary extremists. Face the hard questions about your beliefs head-on.” He’s basically trolling the idea that there’s some wild fringe group causing all the problems.
The two articles from Soteriology101.com (a site that critiques Calvinism from a non-Calvinist perspective) are basically one long argument split into two parts. The author is saying that the label “Hyper-Calvinist” is mostly a made-up boogeyman that Calvinists use to dodge real criticisms of their own theology.
Here’s a super simple, dumbed-down breakdown of what each part is saying:
Part 1: “The Hunt for a Hyper-Calvinist – Part 1”
The author claims nobody actually is a “Hyper-Calvinist” in real life — there are no churches, no famous leaders, no confessions of faith, and nobody calls themselves that. It’s like hunting for a unicorn.
Calvinists (people who believe in TULIP — Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints) sometimes get accused of making evangelism (sharing the gospel) pointless. Why bother telling everyone to believe if God already decided who gets saved?
When critics point that out, many Calvinists say, “Oh, that’s not real Calvinism — that’s Hyper-Calvinism!” Then they define Hyper-Calvinism as going “too far” — things like:
Saying God doesn’t really love everyone or offer salvation to everyone.
Refusing to tell non-believers they should repent and believe (because only the “elect” can).
Denying “common grace” (God’s general kindness to all people).
Not bothering to evangelize at all.
The author says: Those extreme ideas are actually just the logical end of regular Calvinism. If God sovereignly decides everything (including who believes), then the “normal” Calvinist position already weakens the reason to plead with everyone to believe. But instead of admitting the doctrine has that problem, Calvinists blame a fictional “hyper” version and say “we’re not like those guys.”
In short: The “hyper-Calvinist” label is a way for Calvinists to avoid dealing with the tough implications of their own beliefs.
Part 2: “The Hunt for a Hyper-Calvinist – Part 2”
This part looks at a specific article by a well-known Calvinist theologian (Michael Horton) that tries to explain the difference between regular Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism.
Horton lists some “bad” ideas (like God being the author of sin, or the gospel offer being fake/insincere to the non-elect) and blames them on Hyper-Calvinists.
The author says: Horton never names any actual Hyper-Calvinists. He just attributes the problematic conclusions to this invisible group, then defends “real” Calvinism with complicated explanations like “mystery,” “compatibilism,” or special categories (e.g., the gospel is “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect”).
The author argues these are just word games and dodges. They don’t really solve the logical problems — they just hide them behind “it’s a mystery” or redefine terms.
Again: The real issue is with Calvinism itself (e.g., if God controls everything meticulously, how is the gospel offer genuine to people He never planned to save?). Instead of facing that head-on, Calvinists keep pointing at an imaginary extreme version.
Overall message of both parts combined: The author is basically saying: “Stop blaming ‘Hyper-Calvinists’ for the weird or hard-to-defend parts of Calvinism. Those aren’t separate people — they’re just what happens when you take Calvinist ideas all the way without adding extra explanations or ‘mysteries’ to soften them. The hunt for a real Hyper-Calvinist is endless because they don’t exist; it’s a distraction from the actual debate.”
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal) OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect
#4 I think is a obfuscation of language. All mankind receives “common grace,” AND, all mankind is offered a real choice of “salvific grace.” These people who see God’s attributes in nature prior to the Cross, or even after the cross but where the Gospel had not reached yet. But TULIP denies the ability of man has any option to respond positively to the evidences of God. In other words, God wholly chooses who will be saved. Others like Piper apply that singularity to all aspects of man’s abilities.
“In the sixty-four-page order, Judge Jeff Weill not only calls for a new election but also finds evidence of fraud and criminal activity, in how absentee ballots were handled, how votes were counted, and the actions by some at the polling place,” local news reports.
The race in question – a Democratic primary – occurred in Ward 1 or Aberdeen, Mississippi for the position of alderman between candidates Robert Devaull and Nicholas Holliday.
The judge’s ruling revealed that sixty-six of eighty-four absentee ballots – nearly 79 percent – cast in the June runoff were fraudulent.
Notary Dallas Jones, responsible for authorizing the fraudulent ballots, testified that she notarized “about 30 something ballots” at one house alone.
The investigation also found that 83 regular ballots were counted without being initialed by election workers.
“The court is of the opinion there is probable cause that several individuals involved in the disturbances during election day at the polling precinct ‘willfully and corruptly violated’ one or more of the above criminal statutes,” court filings state. ……
Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal today announced that Paterson City Councilmen Michael Jackson (D)and Alex Mendez(D) have been indicted by a state grand jury on charges of election fraud and other offenses related to the May 12, 2020 special election in the City of Paterson.
Jackson, 49, who is First Ward councilman, and Mendez, 45, who is Third Ward councilman, were initially charged by complaint summons on June 25, 2020, along with Shelim Khalique, 52, of Wayne, N.J., and Abu Razyen, 23, of Prospect Park, N.J. The original charges filed by complaint against Khalique and Razyen remain pending. All four men are charged with criminal conduct involving mail-in ballots during the election….
[….]
Jackson and Mendez were charged by the state grand jury in separate indictments, Jackson on Feb. 17 and Mendez on Feb. 24. They are charged with the following crimes:
Election Fraud (2nd Degree)
Fraud in Casting Mail-In Vote (3rd Degree)
Unauthorized Possession of Ballots (3rd Degree)
Tampering With Public Records or Information (3rd Degree)
Falsifying or Tampering with Records (4th Degree)
Mendez is also charged with False Registration or Transfer (3rd Degree) and Attempted False Registration or Transfer (3rd Degree).
Justice of the Peace Tomas Ramirez is accused of ballot harvesting at assisted living centers in the 2018 primary election.
A south Texas justice of the peace was arrested along with three other individuals who face 150 charges of voter fraud altogether.
Medina County Justice of the Peace Tomas Ramirez was arrested on Feb. 11 and is charged on one count of organized election fraud, one count of “assisting voter voting ballot by mail,” and 17 counts of unlawful possession of a ballot or ballot envelope, KABB reports.
Leonor Rivas Garza, Eva Ann Martinez and Mary Balderrama were also arrested….
Raquel Rodriguez was arrested in San Antonio, police told KSAT 12.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office announced in a press release that Rodriguez is being charged with “election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail, and unlawfully possessing an official ballot.”
“Many continue to claim that there’s no such thing as election fraud,” Paxton said. “We’ve always known that such a claim is false and misleading, and today we have additional hard evidence. This is a victory for election integrity and a strong signal that anyone who attempts to defraud the people of Texas, deprive them of their vote, or undermine the integrity of elections will be brought to justice.”
Last fall, Project Veritas released video footage that appeared to show Rodriguez convincing an older woman to vote for a Democrat and helping her change her ballot. Rodriguez also appeared to admit on video that candidates were paying her to deliver votes for them……
As the days continue to pass since the 2020 election, there have been numerous stories of election meddling and voter fraud. The most recent story involves a social worker who took it upon herself to submit over 134 ballots for residents who were ineligible to vote in the first place.
The social worker in question is Kelly Reagan Brunner who used to work at the Mexia State supported living facility. According to the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Fraud United received a tip that Brunner might be participating in election fraud. At the facility she worked at, Brunner would attend to the needs of her patients, with majority of them struggling with mental disabilities.
Releasing a statement, Paxton said, “Under Texas law, only a parent, spouse or child who is a qualified voter of the county may act as an agent in registering a person to vote, after being appointed to do so by that person. None of the SSLC patients gave effective consent to be registered, and a number of them have been declared totally mentally incapacitated by a court, thereby making them ineligible to vote in Texas.”
According to the report, over 67 residents were registered to vote and even cast a ballot with the help from the lifelong Democrat Brunner. For her act of election meddling, Brunner can face up to 10 years in prison for her participation if found guilty…..
A 2020 UPDATEto continue the point that most voter fraud comes from the Left. The first story is from THE WASHINGTON TIMES:
A Democratic city clerk in Michigan who had been honored by the state party for her work was charged this week with multiple felonies related to charges of altering absentee ballots.
Sherikia Hawkins was arraigned Monday in Southfield, Michigan, on six counts related to the 2018 election including forging public documents and misconduct in office and was released on $15,000 bond, according to National Review Online.
“The alleged misconduct was discovered after the Oakland County Clerk’s Office noticed that 193 voter files had been changed to reflect that the voters failed to include a valid signature or return date, when all of the implicated voters had in fact included both items. The county clerk’s office later discovered the original voter files in the trash at the election-division office,” National Review wrote…..
This second story comes from GATEWAY PUNDIT, and involves multiple years of fraud on our electoral system:
The Justice Department on Thursday announced charges against a Philadelphia election official for “fraudulently” stuffing ballot boxes to help Democrat candidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections.
Domenick J. DeMuro, 73, of Philadelphia, PA, a former Judge of Elections for the 39th Ward, 36th Division in South Philadelphia, has been charged and has pled guilty to a two-count Information charging (1) conspiracy to deprive Philadelphia voters of their civil rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for specific Democraticcandidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections, and (2) a violation of the Travel Act, which forbids the use of any facility in interstate commerce (here, a cell phone) with the intent to promote certain illegal activity (here, bribery), US Attorney William M. McSwain announced on Thursday.
DeMuro admitted in his guilty plea that he was actually paid by an unnamed political consultant to illegally add votes for certain Democrat candidates….
First, Brenda Snipes, the Democrat elections supervisor of Broward County (put in office by Jeb Bush who now has seen enough evidence of either her incompetence or criminality to say she should be replaced) has been reprimanded by the courts before this most recent spout of “guilty’s” by the courts (NATIONAL REVIEW):
…On Friday, a court in Broward County found that Snipes was guilty of violating both Florida’s public-records laws and the state’s constitution by failing to provide mandatory updates to the public, and it ordered the immediate release of the missing information. As that ruling was coming down, Snipes’s office was laying out more lawsuit bait. According to the Miami Herald, an election worker found bags of “uncounted early ballots” in the Broward County office — ballots whose provenance could not be established. Snipes, meanwhile, was busy mixing together rejected provisional ballots and accepted provisional ballots, processing them all together. She justified her decision to add these provisional ballots to the official tally on the grounds that it would be better to include some illegal votes than to nix the legal ones with which, by her own incompetence, they had been blended.
Such behavior is by no means out of character. This year alone, Snipes has been reprimanded by the courts twice: once, in May, for illegally destroying ballots during the 2016 Democratic primary, in violation of both state and federal law; and again, in August, for illegally opening mail-in ballots in secret. How long, we wonder, does it take to establish a pattern?
[….]
It should be clear by now that Broward County has a systemic problem with its management of elections. (Guess which county was at the heart of the 2000 Florida recount?) 2018 is the 18th year in a row in which its elections commission has been headed up by an arrogant bungler (in the best case), and yet voters in the county keep reelecting those bunglers every two years. On present evidence, if Brenda Snipes is to be removed from her role, it will once again be because the governor cries “Enough.” When Ron DeSantis takes office in January, he should fire Snipes. And when he has done that, he should insist that Broward County take a good, hard look in the mirror, the better to ask how long it wishes to remain a den of blustery incompetence, or worse.
Now to Florida state-wide issues:
Jake Sanders, a Democratic consultant in the Treasure Coast who saw the email, told the USA TODAY NETWORK – Florida that he warned party staffers about the legality of using an altered form, but was ignored. “I warned FDP staff members of the questionable legal status of altering a state form and misleading people their vote would be counted before the court case played out,” Sanders said. “And coordinated campaign leadership told them to keep pushing it that, ‘We are exhausting every possibility.'” (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
Florida Democrats urged voters to submit absentee ballots after Election Day, using an official form that had been altered to make it look like they were doing so within the legal deadline, hoping a judge would later allow the votes.
That attempt to add Democratic votes, which critics say is possible election fraud, was reported Thursday morning by Ana Ceballos of the Naples Daily News, who notes the scheme has already been reported to federal prosecutors.
Ceballos reported:
A day after Florida’s election left top state races too close to call, a Democratic party leader directed staffers and volunteers to share altered election forms with voters to fix signature problems on absentee ballots after the state’s deadline.
The altered forms surfaced in Broward, Santa Rosa, Citrus and Okaloosa counties and were reported to federal prosecutors to review for possible election fraud as Florida counties complete a required recount in three top races.
But an email obtained by the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida shows that Florida Democrats were organizing a broader statewide effort beyond those counties to give voters the altered forms to fix improper absentee ballots after the Nov. 5 deadline. Democratic party leaders provided staffers with copies of a form, known as a “cure affidavit,” that had been modified to include an inaccurate Nov. 8 deadline.
One Palm Beach Democrat said in an interview the idea was to have voters fix and submit as many absentee ballots as possible with the altered forms in hopes of later including them in vote totals if a judge ruled such ballots were allowed.
Election Day was November 6….. [except for Democrats that is]…
USA TODAY notes a widespread issue in Florida where more than a few DEMOCRAT election personnel had to be involved. And they First, Brenda Snipes, the have email proof to boot:
TALLAHASSEE – A Democratic party official in Florida directed aides to share altered election forms with voters in an effort to fix ballot signature problems a day after polls closed in the key swing state, an email obtained by the USA TODAY NETWORK shows.
The email shows a Democratic party leader provided staff with altered copies of a state form that were modified to give the impression that voters had more time to correct signature problems with mailed-in ballots than they actually had under state law.
The altered forms, which turned up in four counties in the state, appear to be an effort to increase the number of Democratic ballots counted in the state’s hotly contested races for governor and Senate, election experts said….
(POWERLINE also notes the issues in the original article above. [Also, POWERLINEnotes a snag from yesterday {11-18-2018} in the Broward County recount]) POLITICO, notes that the Democrats are LAWYERING up because of the above:
…After saying earlier in the week that the state officials were trying “divert attention” away from the Department of State, which is part of Gov. Rick Scott’s administration, the Democrats on Friday took a different approach: They lawyered up.
“Upon receiving notice of the allegations that the form was incorrect, FDP took immediate steps, including hiring an independent investigator to review the issues at hand,” attorney Mark Herron said in a statement provided by a party spokeswoman. “As soon as we know the results of the investigation we will advise you.”
Herron went to CNN to break the news Friday morning, one week after the vote-by-mail “cure affidavits” were sent to U.S. Attorneys Christopher P. Canova of the Northern District of Florida, Maria Chapa Lopez of the Middle District of Florida and Ariana Fajardo Orshan of the Southern District of Florida.
Information related to whose mail ballots were rejected is public information. It’s not uncommon for political parties or outside groups to use that information to reach out to voters who had a mail ballot rejected to encourage them to fix the issues. In most cases, the problem is because a voter did not sign the ballot.
To cure a mail-in ballot, voters needed to submit an affidavit on Nov. 5, the day before Election Day. But the altered version changed the date to Nov. 8, the deadline to cure issues with provisional ballots. It’s unclear if any voters availed themselves of the altered affidavit produced by party operatives.
Under state law governing “fraudulent practices,” it’s a third-degree felony to “knowingly and willfully … make or use any false document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry” connected to the Department of State. While the fraud statute is not contained in the state’s election code, it relates to the 2018 election because the affidavit in question concerned the elections division, which falls under the Department of State.
[….]
Democratic Party Vice Chairman Alan Clendenin, who lost a bitter chairmanship fight to the party’s current chairwoman, Terrie Rizzo, said that top party leaders — including Rizzo and Executive Director Juan Peñalos — were not involved in the decision to alter the documents.
“It was mid-level and it was a bunch of [D e m o c r a t] go-getters and young people who wanted to make a difference and didn’t realize this is a major political party and this is not how you get things done,” Clendenin said in an interview…
(CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE) FLORIDA – […] On Saturday, the volunteers started sorting about 22,000 undervotes and overvotes in the contentious contest for Florida Commissioner of Agriculture. That came to a grinding halt when lawyers found thousands of overlapping ballots which clearly showed a vote in the agriculture race but were fuzzy in the Senate race. (read more)
Members of an organized voter fraud ring have been arrested and indicted on charges they targeted and, in one case stole, the votes of elderly voters on the city’s north side.
Four people were arrested — Leticia Sanchez, Leticia Sanchez Tepichin, Maria Solis and Laura Parra — after being indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud, according to a statement from the Texas Attorney General’s Office.
These people allegedly were paid to target older voters on the north side “in a scheme to generate a large number of mail ballots and then harvest those ballots for specific candidates in 2016,” the statement read.
Leticia Sanchez, 57, of Haltom City, faces 17 counts. She is accused of marking a voter’s ballot without his consent in March 2016, and altering and submitting applications in January and February 2016 to request ballots by mail for the Democratic Partyfor 2016 elections for 13 people who had made no such requests. She is also accused of providing forged signatures for three people on applications.
The University of Wisconsin was caught on camera this week handing out voter ID cards to foreign nationals. This is just one university in the Midwest — What about all of the other liberal indoctrination centers across the US today?
…When the university introduced the cards in 2016, Chancellor Rebecca Blank claimed, “For those non-Wisconsin students who are U.S. citizens but who don’t have a passport, the university will provide a voter ID card that complies with state law.”
However, as MacIver News discovered, the university makes no attempt to confirm students are U.S. citizens before providing them with voter ID cards.
After receiving the letter and ID card, students still need to officially register before they can vote. The university warns students they have to be 18 and a US citizen to vote.
The university’s process follows the letter of the law, but its casualness is cause for concern…
2016 (Older Post)
12 Staffers At Dem-Linked Group Charged With Voter Fraud
Local prosecutors in Marion County, Indiana, charged 12 employees of a Democratic-linked voter recruitment organization of submitting fraudulent voter registration applications prior to the 2016 election.
According to the Associated Press, prosecutors say that 11 temporary canvassers working for the Indiana Voter Registration Project made and sent in an unknown number of fake voter applications. The canvassers’ supervisor, Holiday Burke, was charged as well.
The organization, the AP reported, is managed by Patriot Majority USA a group with strong ties to Democratic Party, including former President Bill Clinton and former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, as well as labor unions.…
Veritas has been the leading investigators into voter fraud for the past five years. Here is a compilation of our investigations and evidence that voter fraud IS real:
(BREITBART)Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss voter fraud concerns in the 2016 election.
“The biggest fear I have right now is that people who aren’t U.S. citizens are going to illegally vote in the election,” said von Spakovsky, who has experience working at the Justice Department on election issues. “We know for a fact, from all kinds of different reports we’ve had and cases, that there are non-citizens registered and voting all over the country.”
“You probably saw, within the last couple of weeks, a report out of Virginia that showed that there were more than a thousand non-citizens in just eight counties. There’s another 125 counties in the state,” he observed. “And Virginia, as you know, has been considered a purple state. Nobody knows which way it would go.”
Marlow agreed, citing current polling data that shows a tightening race in Virginia and many other states, making it quite possible that voter fraud could affect the five or six electoral votes that decide the 2016 race….
Quite a score for Project Veritas. The difficulty in creating an effective sting video, I’d guess, is that the prominence of the target and their willingness to speak candidly to strangers are usually inversely proportional. A minor bureaucrat might be willing to chatter about what he knows of voter fraud, but you know what the spin will be afterward — “he’s a nobody, he knows nothing, he was talking out of his ass to impress someone who seemed interested in his work.” Alan Schulkin’s not a nobody. New York City has only 10 commissioners on the Board of Elections, two from each borough. He’s the Democratic commissioner from Manhattan. He knows what he’s talking about, and he’s confirming every right-wing suspicion about voter fraud. Yes, voters get bused around to vote multiple times (by local pols, he implies); yes, of course it’s irresponsible not to require something as simple as a state-issued ID to vote; yes, even some voters who do have IDs are suspect because the state doesn’t rigorously demand proof of identity when applying for the ID card. The guy goes so far as to admit that Democratic corruption on voting has made him question his party affiliation.
O’Keefe showed impressive restraint in holding the clip as long as he did. He says it was recorded last December; it’s being released now, obviously, for maximum electoral effect. (And I’d guess there’s more to come.)….
“Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud” (U.S. News)
Here is a new story out of the many to add to the dust-bin of the TRULY DEPLORABLE:
The left continues to insist that voter fraud is a myth, specifically that “voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent,” and that “most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless.”
Part of the support system for that insistence comes from the press, where reports of election fraud routinely get ignored or downplayed.
One particularly egregious example of this has to do with Democrat Andrew Spieles in Virginia. A local paper reported on September 15 that Spieles has admitted to turning in voter registrations for 19 dead people in Virginia. As far as I can tell, it took two weeks for anyone in the national press to give the story any attention — and no other national press outlet has.
The original story about fraudulent registrations appeared in James Madison University’s student newspaper, The Breeze, which would not name the person involved “to avoid connecting the accused student with any campus organizations.”
Translation: Spieles, as we’ll see later, is a Young Democrat on campus, and the paper didn’t want to embarrass that group. One doubts that they would have been so accommodating to a conservative or Republican organization.
[….]
The Harrisonburg, Virginia Daily News Record, which is a subscription site, picked up the story and did name Spieles, but not in the small portion of reporter Tony Brown’s dispatch the paper made publicly available online:
Student Admits To Fraud: Voter Applications Filed For Dead People
HARRISONBURG — Authorities say a James Madison University student confessed that he acted on his own for nonpolitical personal reasons when he filed voter registration applications in the names of dead people, not on behalf of the voter registration organization he worked for.
But two sources close to the FBI and Harrisonburg Police Department investigation said Thursday that agents are continuing to carefully examine all applications turned in since February by the HarrisonburgVotes registration-drive organization, “just to be thorough.”
[….]
That was the modus operandi of the old ACORN, which did token work in housing tax assistance as a cover for its primary mission of corrupting the voting system until O’Keefe’s heroic videos in 2009 led to its shutdown. (This author is fully aware that local outfits and operations doing what ACORN once did are still present in many metro areas throughout the country.)
Given that the left is far more interested in compromising the integrity of the voting process to increase “access” than in ensuring that there are adequate controls in the system, any action relating to submitting false voter registrations has to be considered “political” in some sense….
Although I contend earnestly that the bulk (not all, but most) of the voter-fraud is Democratic, so what. If it were a majority Republican the the Democrat should want to join the Republicans in having people present an ID when they receive their ballot. Dennis Prager Makes this point to a caller:
The above below is about Chicagoland’s voting fraud machine.
The Right Planet [now defunct] notes this article having [a then] this most recent update on voter fraud (10-26-2014)… and… can you guess which Party is involved? If you guessed Democratic you guessed right.
Police arrested Connecticut state Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala (D-Bridgeport) Friday on 19 voting fraud charges. The Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release that Ayala allegedly voted in local and state elections in districts where she does not reside.
Ayala also allegedly fabricated evidence to investigators with the state Election Enforcement Commission, providing an inaccurate address to justify her voting in a district where she doesn’t actually live, according to an arrest warrant affidavit.
The voter fraud charges come after the Elections Enforcement Commission referred the case to the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney and recommended criminal charges in 2013.
This is the real reason Democrats fund (with American tax money) voter I.D. in other countries, but not our own. The machine they have built depends on this fraud. At Right Planet’slink there is a nice list of voter fraud stories to make the point well — that Democratic ground work IS fraudulent.
An Arizona county party official said he saw a man stuffing “hundreds” of ballots into the ballot box and later told a local news outlet the entire incident was caught on surveillance video.
“A person wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona T-shirt dropped a large box of hundreds of early ballots on the table and started stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement,” said A.J. LaFaro, chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Party…
…LaFaro said it all happened as he was working with the elections staff during early ballots processing. The team in charge of processing the ballots got “way ahead” so the information systems coordinator convened an extended lunch period from 11:30- 1:00 p.m.
It was between 12:54 and 1:04 that LaFaro said he was seated at one of the cubicles, heard a loud thud and turned around to see the man who he claims was caught on tape stuffing “hundreds” of ballots. LaFaro described the man as a “vulgar, disrespectful, violent thug” with “no respect for our laws.” He said he would have followed the man to his car to get his tag number but “feared for [his] life.”
“America used to be a nation of laws where one person had one vote,” LaFaro said, the Daily Independent reported. ”I’m sad to say not anymore.”
From the NY Times, Jan. 14, “Texas Vote-Buying Case Casts Glare on Tradition of Election Day Goads”:
In this Rio Grande Valley town of trailer parks and weedy lots eight miles from the Mexico border, people call them runners or politiqueras — the campaign workers who use their network of relatives and friends to deliver votes for their candidates. They travel around town with binders stuffed with the names and addresses of registered voters, driving residents to and from the polls and urging those they bump into at the grocery store to support their candidates.
Despite rumors that some politiqueras went over the line in encouraging voters, the tradition continued in Donna and other border towns and cities, and campaigns for nearly every local office or seat have paid politiqueras to turn out the vote in contested races.
After the arrests, politiqueras have become a tricky issue for many of the elected officials in the Rio Grande Valley. Some officials are reluctant to discuss their past involvement with politiqueras, or they say their campaign managers were responsible for hiring them. Other politiqueras have been accused of various forms of voter fraud over the years.
— including acquiring and filling out the mail-in ballots of elderly or disabled voters
— but the arrests were one of the first times that politiqueras were accused of paying cash directly to voters. (Emphasis added.)
Last year, Sonia Leticia Solis, a politiquera in the Rio Grande Valley city of Brownsville, pleaded guilty to voting more than once in a 2012 primary runoff, by obtaining mail-in ballots using forged absentee-voter applications and casting five votes. (Emphasis added.)
Three women working as politiqueras in the 2012 elections in Donna were arrested by F.B.I. agents in December and accused of giving residents cash, drugs, beer and cigarettes in exchange for their votes. Ms. Gonzalez, Ms. Escamilla and the third woman, Diana Castaneda, said the candidates and their campaign managers would give them the cash and instruct them to use it to pay voters in the 2012 primary and general elections, the F.B.I. said in court documents. (Emphasis added.)
The three women worked for several candidates running for seats on the board of the Donna Independent School District, though court documents do not identify any candidates or campaign managers.
Did you catch that? Paying cash for voters in the “2012… general election.” That would be Obama voters, and voters for Democrat congressional candidates.
When it comes to vote fraudsters, “most of them are women” but 100% of them are Democrats
As a silly update in correcting the above graphic, I had GROK play with the cartoon (click to enlarge if you wish):
There is a wonderful book on the subject, “The Dead Always Vote Democrat: But Our Troops Don’t Get to Vote,” worth reading by a military man who experienced voter fraud by not having his vote counted… but dead people’s are counted? Below are some examples of voter fraud and guess who the culprits are?
D E M O C R A T S
Just a few examples from the RNLA — all are Democrats or vote Democrat:
1)LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – A Democratic state legislator from east Arkansas, his father and two campaign workers pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy to commit election fraud after federal prosecutors said the lawmaker’s campaign bribed absentee voters and destroyed ballots in a special election last year.
2)Four more Democrats arrested for Voter Fraud in Indiana. Prosecutors in South Bend, Ind., filed charges Monday against four St. Joseph County Democratic officials and deputies as part of a multiple-felony case involving the alleged forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election, which put then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Indiana ballot.
3)A local Florida station invented an unprecedented way to check for voter fraud: jury excusal forms. NBC2 compiled a list of jury excusals based on not being a citizen of the United States and compared it to a list of registered voters in two counties. They discovered almost 100 illegally registered voters, many of whom had voted multiple times. “I vote every year,” one woman told NBC2, despite the fact that she is not a US citizen. The woman had told the court that she couldn’t serve on a jury because she wasn’t a US citizen, but she doesn’t seem to have a problem voting like one.
4)8 Arrested for Absentee Voter Fraud in Madison County, Florida. I am not sure how I missed this one, but here is one to add to the growing list of individuals arrested for actual voter fraud- meaning they voted more than once in an given election. The NAACP is up in arms over the arrests saying the FBI is some how suppressing minority voters by arresting and charging minorities for actually illegally voting:
Tina Johnson was arrested on 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations.
Johnson Jr. was charged with 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting votes, as well as corruptly influencing voting, and perjury by false written declaration.
Williams was charged with 17 counts of neglect of duty and corrupt practices for allowing the distribution of these absentee ballots.
Shalonda Michaelle Brinson, 36, nine counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote
Judy Ann Crumitie, 51, four counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote
Laverne V. Haynes, 57, two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration
Ora Bell Rivers, 41, seven counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, three counts of perjury by false written declaration
Raven Simona Williams, 20, two counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, two counts of perjury by false written declaration
5) 7 Democrats Arrested in New York for actual Voter Fraud via Absentee Ballots. 4 Plead Guilty while the other 3 opt for a trial. The group forged signatures on applications for absentee ballots and on the ballots themselves in a 2009 primary of the Working Families Party, which was affiliated with now-defunct community group ACORN. Voters whose signatures were forged expressed outrage to Fox. “I feel extremely violated,” said Brian Suozzo. In November 2009, Democratic operative Anthony DeFiglio told New York State police investigators that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.
6)12 Democratshave been Charged in Georgia for Absentee Ballot Voter Fraud. Case in point: November 23, 2011 – 12 people have been charged in Georgia for voter fraud as they used absentee ballots to skew an in election in Georgia. The 12 people charged are ALL with the Democrat Party. The defendants include some workers in the voter registrar’s office and some school board members. They are Angela Bryant, April Proctor, Brenda Monds, Debra Denard, Lula Smart, Kechia Harrison, Robert Denard, Sandra Cody, Elizabeth Thomas, Linda Troutman, Latashia Head, and Nancy Denard.
7)NAACP Executive Sentence to 10 Years in Prison for Voting for Obama 10 Times in 2008. While NAACP President Benjamin Jealous lashed out at new state laws requiring photo ID for voting, an NAACP executive sits in prison, sentenced for carrying out a massive voter fraud scheme. In April 2011, a Tunica County, Miss., jury convicted NAACP official Lessadolla Sowers on 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots. Sowers received a five-year prison term for each of the 10 counts…..
8)4 Wake County, North Carolina Democratshave Admitted to Voting for Obama TWICE Each in 2008. Four Wake County, North Carolina, Democrats have admitted to voter fraud charges, according to local news reports.
9)Daytona Beach City DemocratCommissioner and his Campaign Manager arrested for Absentee Ballot Voter Fraud. Daytona Beach City Commissioner DemocratDerrick Henry and his campaign manager, Genesis Robinson, were arrested Wednesday, charged with committing absentee ballot fraud during Henry’s 2010 re-election campaign, the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said.
10)Consider the case of Lafayette Keaton. Keaton not only voted (Democrat) for a dead person in Oregon, he voted for his dead son. Making Keaton’s fraud easier was Oregon’s vote by mail scheme, which has opened up gaping holes in the integrity of elections. The incident in Oregon just scratches the surface of the problem.
11)Marlborough City Council candidate pleads not guilty in voter fraud case; allegedly submitted absentee voter application for dead man. A former candidate for Marlborough City Council was arraigned today on voter fraud charges for allegedly handing in an absentee ballot application at City Hall for a man who had died earlier in the year, Middlesex County prosecutors said today. Mark Evangelous, 51, 0f Marlborough faces charges of forgery, uttering, and violating absentee voting laws, District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.’s office said.
THE LIST GOES ON, but I am sure if these were Republicans doing this, my answer would be the SAME as the Democratic examples above. WE NEED VOTER I.D. OF SOME SORT (*megaphone* and some sort of *echo* effect to make the point).
It is no secret that members of our military services, veterans, and retired military personnel vote heavily Republican. It is also no secret that the party of choice among prison inmates, convicted felons, and parolees is the Democrat Party. (Birds of a feather…?) As for me, I’ll take our guys and they can have theirs. (AIM)
BONUS AUDIO
Larry Elder was inundated with calls about a story on the Drudge Report about a possible 3-million non-citizen voters voting. Many of whom would have voted for the Democrat in any race, in this case, Hillary. So “the Sage” brought in John Fund, author of “Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk“, to discuss the issue.
Fund brings some knowledge to the matter and notes we really do not know the number, but the few studies done show that it is enough people to make a difference in close state races.
Keep in mind , much of this isn’t nefarious by the persons themselves. The people standing out in front of Wal-Mart or other businesses often get paid per signature. So in one case the person asked three women walking by if they are registered to vote. The woman that could speak English noted that her companions were not citizens and could’t vote.
The person taking signatures said that wasn’t true and explained that the law [falsely] allows them to vote. The woman then filled out forms for her friends.
But again, when voter fraud happens — whether planned or mistaken — almost all of it happens to benefit the Democrats:
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Unleashes 200,000 Felons To Vote (RPT)
John Fund revisits this topic from an earlier interview (YouTube). He and his co-author of the book, “Who’s Counting,” wrote an article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL that prompted another interview on the Dennis Prager Show.
This audio has great info on Al Franken! (Isolated Here)
This was originally posted in November of 2016 (Fixed the media in the post)
The White House put out a Fact Sheet entitled “U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa.” One of the first items highlighted by the White House is a $53 million program in Kenya that helps young people “obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration.” (WEEKLY STANDARD)
Civil society and independent media play a critical role in any vibrant democracy. Across sub-Saharan Africa, the United States supports efforts to ensure civil society organizations and independent media can organize, advocate, and raise awareness with governments and the private sector to improve political processes, transparency, and government performance. Examples include:
In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya’s March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can’s “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.
….Likening Republican policies aimed at preserving voter integrity in states from Florida to California to poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow era proves Democrats are desperate. Obama’s tax-and-spend agenda stinks on ice. So his segregation mudslingers—in this case, Clinton—must rely on shopworn clichés that stir racial animus to fire up his left-wing base.
Are Clinton and Shultz insinuating that minorities, college students and the elderly are all born Democrats, that they are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates? Is this what Democratic elites think of their constituents? Do Democrats believe blacks and Latinos, old people and youngsters, are too stupid to acquire a photo I.D. by next November?
Moreover, decrying all Republicans as racists is a Democrat article of faith. But why dredge up Jim Crow?
In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”
When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:
“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”
How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.
Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.
While a progressive advocacy group has used the death of former South African President Nelson Mandela to advocate against voter ID laws, a picture of Mandela has surfaced that indicates the former president might not have agreed.
Friday, One Wisconsin Now issued a statement calling on Wisconsin Republicans to “honor” Mandela by stopping their “attacks on the right to vote for legal voters in the state of Wisconsin.” Those “attacks” are attempts to implement a voter identification requirement.
Media Trackers, first highlighted the discrepancy Friday, noting that election officials in South Africa require an ID both to register to vote and to vote.
“That constitution allows for and supports a rigorous election integrity process far more stringent than anything GOP lawmakers have proposed in Wisconsin,” Media Trackers notes.
To make matters worse for One Wisconsin, a picture of Mandela from 1998 finds the former political prisoner attending a rally at the start of the African National Congress 1999 election campaign wearing a T-shirt with the instructions: “Get an ID. Register. Vote.”
Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to John MacArthur’s position that Non-Calvinists aid in their salvation by having faith in Christ.
Calvinism is cooked. The top Calvinist apologists consistently blunder online. They don’t even debate Calvinism anymore. When they do, they get pwned by Orthodox Christians like @JayDyer and @PatristicFaith, or by open theists like @IdolKiller.
Since Calvinist apologetics are falling apart online, I figured I’d try to help speed along the process by adding some of my own gasoline to the fire with a series deboonking the TULIP doctrines. Starting with today’s episode on the doctrine of total depravity, we’re going letter-by-letter through TULIP to show why those doctrines can’t withstand even basic scrutiny.
In doing so, my hope is to help bring the truth of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church to all. Glory to God for all things.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction 1:01 Neo-Calvinists have lost it 2:11 They’re running 4:09 Roadmap 4:59 What is TD? 9:59 TD violates the Bible 11:09 Not vipers in diapers 12:50 Bible presupposes synergy 14:43 Incoherent epistemology 16:40 Impossible Christology 18:38 Orthodox anthropology 19:51 Psalm 51:5 21:01 Ephesians 2 21:40 Romans 5:12 23:25 Conclusion
BTW, this is challenging what I assumed as well. Just to be clear. WSJ ARTICLE — ARCHIVED: “The Real Epstein ‘Ring’ — The disgraced financier’s ex-pals enjoyed his parties and vast network,” by Barton Swaim
The Jeffrey Epstein files were supposed to uncover the financier’s sex-trafficking and blackmail operation. They haven’t, for the excellent reason that there was no such operation.
Its nonexistence is, ironically, the main thing to emerge so far from the document dump. In the latest tranche, released late last month, is a memo from FBI investigators declaring that they found no evidence in Epstein’s residences and bank accounts of a trafficking ring or of “sex videos” supposedly used for blackmail. This finding has the force of cogency, contradicting as it does the earlier conspiratorial claims of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel. Justice Department honchos, in other words, wanted to uncover a trafficking ring. Their investigators had to tell them the bad news.
Another revealing document—this one highlighted by the independent journalist Michael Tracey—is an 86-page memo from December 2019 by prosecutors with the Southern District of New York. The memo, intended to marshal evidence against Epstein’s associates, noted that Virginia Giuffre, the accuser primarily responsible for stories of a sex-slave and blackmail ring, was in fact a fabulist and totally unreliable as a courtroom witness.
That Epstein’s crimes were confined to himself and a few enablers, chiefly Ghislaine Maxwell, was intolerable to influencers and politicos determined to attribute all bad things to the dark workings of cabals. Tucker Carlson conjectured that Epstein worked with the Mossad to blackmail its enemies. A coterie of radicals in the House, including Thomas Massie (R., Ky.), Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D., Md.), relentlessly speculate that Epstein serviced the rich and powerful in odious ways. These exhibitionists have yet to receive any criticism from the anti-“misinformation” crowd.
Congress, in an act of cravenness whose consequences will last decades, mandated the release of these documents—and for nakedly political reasons. Democrats were certain President Trump would show up as an Epstein “client,” and Republicans hoped to remind the public of Bill Clinton’s lechery.
Alas for Mr. Trump’s enemies, the latest tranche of documents casts doubt on the idea that he ever cavorted with Epstein and his harem. An FBI document memorializes a 2006 conversation in which Mr. Trump phoned the Palm Beach, Fla., police chief to say he knew about Epstein’s and Ms. Maxwell’s behavior and thought it vile. He was once around Epstein when teenage girls showed up, he recalled to the police chief, and he “got the hell out of there.”
The press purports to think the salient fact here is that Mr. Trump in 2019 claimed he knew nothing about Epstein’s creepy actions. But the salient point is that Mr. Trump in 2006 volunteered his view to the cops that Epstein’s behavior revolted him and is thus unlikely to have participated in it.
Mr. Clinton, though not unscathed by the files, doesn’t seem to have been a “client” whom Epstein could blackmail. He took four overseas trips on Epstein’s jet in 2002 and 2003, each credibly said to be about philanthropic work (the stops were all in Africa—not the Virgin Islands). That’s before Epstein’s 2006 indictment in Palm Beach for soliciting a minor. Among the released files are several undated photos, by appearances from the early 2000s, of Mr. Clinton with Epstein and a variety of celebrities and unidentified women, the latter’s faces redacted.
There was, in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list. Just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers.
Yet there was a ring of sorts—a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure. Revilers of Epstein’s pals draw a fine distinction between those who continued to associate with him after the ’08 conviction and those who didn’t. I’m not convinced that’s all-important.
They all knew—just as everybody in Hollywood knew what Harvey Weinstein was up to, claims of ignorance notwithstanding. Some of Epstein’s former pals, now protesting that their dealings with him were “limited”—word of the year—may have accepted carnal favors, though perhaps not criminal ones. Many only enjoyed the parties, business opportunities and social connections.
For America’s liberal VIPs in media, tech and politics, the moment demands self-reflection. The big-timers humiliated by association with Epstein—like the guys disgraced by MeToo allegations—almost all held conventional liberal opinions and gave lavishly to liberal causes and Democratic candidates. Don’t pretend you haven’t noticed.
Today’s liberals spend a lot of energy discoursing on the American right’s pathologies, often justly. But it ought to bother them that 20 years ago the man they loathe most took a look at Jeffrey Epstein’s conduct and got the hell out of there.
At EXAMINING CALVINISM you can read responses in this post to: James White, R.C. Sproul, Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams,
… Some Calvinists have wrongly concluded that the non-Calvinist seeks to downplay the sovereignty of God and highlight the autonomy of man, when in reality we seek to maintain the right biblical understanding of man’s autonomy so as to better highlight the sovereignty, love and holiness of God.
Does God’s sovereignty terminate at the point of being able to create autonomous beings who seek their own purposes?
Does God’s sovereignty terminate at the point of being able to offer such beings an independent choice He does not determine?
If God must meticulously decree every thought, word and deed ever conceived in order to remain “sovereign,” then that wouldn’t say much for divine sovereignty. In contrast to Calvinism, God exhibits being all-wise, all-knowing and all-powerful when He governs without any strings attached. The contrasting Calvinist conception of divine sovereignty would make God out to be pretty mediocre.
All of scripture supports God’s “sovereignty.” The controversy is over how Calvinists try to redefine sovereignty to mean exhaustive, philosophical determinism, and the way that is accomplished is by citing the biblical word, “predestination.” However, the fact that God predestines some things does not necessarily mean that God predestines everything. Moreover, it is critical to correctly understand the manner in which God predestines things. For instance, God predestined to redeem good from evil, but that doesn’t necessarily mean He caused the evil He redeems.
God is the ultimate cause of everything that exists, meaning that without Him, nothing can come to pass, and this is something that all theists can affirm, so long as one incorporates a truly meaningful definition of divine permission, in which in addition to God’s own determinations, He also permits independent agents who possess autonomy of reason to conduct their own libertarianly free choices. The problem in Calvinism, however, is that divine permission is reduced to a matter of God allowing people to do what He exhaustively and meticulously rendered certain and necessary, thus spoiling the aforementioned definition of permission.
God is in control of all things, though He is not all-controlling. Calvinists, however, believe in a type of divine sovereignty which requires that God exhaustively predetermine everything that ever comes to pass, including every person’s thoughts, intentions and actions, for all eternity, including sinful thoughts, intentions and actions, thus drawing a sharp rebuke from non-Calvinists. This is what Calvinists term “predestination,” though the Bible does not teach predestination in such a way. Moreover, such a notion has historically drawn the criticism of being a form of Christian fatalism. Nonetheless, from the Calvinist perspective, an exhaustive eternal decree is necessary for God to truly be in control and to truly be omnipotent. It should be pointed out, however, that the Bible never talks about any such eternal decree. What Calvinists are referring to is just a systemic, doctrinal perspective, rather than something that is firmly taught in Scripture. A decree is simply something that God declares to be, and so if God declares for mankind to have free-will, which is what non-Calvinists hold to, then that’s what God decreed. For instance, non-Calvinists believe that God has decreed, not which choices that we will make, but rather that we would be free in making them. That’s a doctrinal perspective. So when we make free choices, it is understood that we are not countervailing the will of God, but rather we are acting in accordance with the ability God has granted.
Speaking frankly, Calvinistic determinism would mean that God cannot handle free-will, and it would gut all creation of true life. It would render God as a marionette, pulling the strings of dead things. It would be a worthless and humiliating endeavor for a truly glorious, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-wise God. …
Voddie Baucham on Sovereignty
Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a short snippet from Dr. Voddie Baucham on the sovereignty of God
Ronnie W. Rogers, Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist,
I affirm that God is sovereign over everything without exception; therefore, He is in total control; further, I believe that creating a world where men are given a real choice demonstrates God’s sovereignty rather than undermines it. By real free choice, I mean that by grace, God gave man the ability to believe the gospel or not to believe the gospel; as a result, the ones who believe could have not believed, and the ones who disbelieve could have believed unto salvation. Consequently, man’s consignment to hell is due to being born a sinner, sinning, and rejecting a real offer of the redemptive love and mercy of God, which he could have accepted; therefore he is in hell because he chose to be despite God’s provision and desire for him to be saved (2 Peter 3:9). This position does not in any sense minimize or waste the redemptive work of Christ and the power of the cross, or undermine or thwart the sovereignty of God. The work and power of the sacrifice of Christ was to provide salvation for all and secure it for all who would receive it by faith and by God’s gracious provision. I affirm that God’s sovereignty is not minimized because He sovereignly chose to provide a real choice for everyone to accept or reject the gospel. This includes deliverance from eternal hell, men’s just desert, for anyone and everyone who acts in concert with His grace enablement and follows Christ.
The means of this grace enablement include but are not limited to: Gods’ salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of His power so that all may know He is the Sovereign (Isaiah 45:21-22) and Creator (Romans 1:18-20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about Him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11), working ofthe Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:1-6), enlightening of the Son ( John 1:9), God’s teaching ( John 6:45), God opening hearts (Acts 16:14), and the power of the gospel (Romans 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Romans 3:11). Further, I believe that man, because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, can choose to seek and find God (Jeremiah 29:13; Acts 17:11-12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all men, individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuo, is used in both verses. “About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.”5 Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.
I also affirm that the permissive will of God is a part of His decretive will that permitted sin to enter the world and, for a time, continue.6 Holiness is always God’s standard and therefore sin is never God’s perfect, immediate or ultimate desire for His creation or man, but within His sovereign decretive will, He has purposefully permitted it. He commands man to obey, but permits him the freedom to disobey. The choice to disobey God’s commands results in man suffering the consequences of such choice. Thus, with regard to salvation, God desires that all come to salvation (2 Peter 3:9). Accordingly, He enables man to be able to be saved, and thereby permits man to freely choose to believe the gospel or to reject His grace and love and die in his sins. Without question, God’s permissive will does not preclude Him from ever intervening in the decision-making process of man if His purposes so require; however, neither does it necessitate that it be done in order to maintain sovereignty as long as He sovereignly chose to act in that particular way.
I further affirm that God’s full character and attributes, not just His sovereignty or justice, are to be considered when speaking of Him and His plans. This includes His infinity, justice, mercy, compassion, love, grace and power, which He possesses perfectly and infinitely. God is the sum of perfection. Lewis Sperry Chafer notes concerning this balance, “He is free to dispose of His creation as He will; but His will… is wholly guided by the true and benevolent features of His Person ….The attributes of God form an interwoven and interdependent communion of facts and forces which harmonize in the Person of God. An omission or slighting of any of these, or any disproportionate emphasis upon any one of them cannot but lead to fundamental error of immeasurable magnitude.”7
Moreover, I affirm that all of God’s attributes are more accurately reflected by accepting the truths of Scripture, which declare that salvation is provided and genuinely offered to everyone by God, and everyone can by “grace through faith” receive salvation, rather than by accepting the teaching of Calvinism that God only actually offers salvation to some because only that particular some can actually believe; those are the ones He monergistically causes to believe by changing their nature against their will. Calvinism teaches that regeneration is monergistic—God alone—and man has no part in it. After regeneration there becomes a synergistic relationship between God and man, and man exercises faith because he cannot choose to do otherwise. This is a disquieting reality.
Lastly, while some things about God are indeed a mystery because either they are not fully disclosed by God or understood by man or both (Deuteronomy 29:29), this is quite different than mysteries generated by Calvinism’s overemphasis upon certain attributes or concepts like justice or predestination and defining sovereignty to necessarily preclude real free choice. Actually, the Calvinist’s persistent mention of the sovereignty of God tells us nothing about the biblical loyalty of Calvinism since all believers with any biblical fidelity and understanding of God believe in His sovereignty. Further, disavowal of the Calvinist’s definition of sovereignty is not a denial or undermining of the sovereignty of God, but it is what it is, a denial of Calvinism’s definition.
I disaffirm that salvation is monergistic, which means that God actively causes some to be saved by forced regeneration, and that act of regeneration is contrary to and against their sinful, rebellious nature, will, and choice, and that until regeneration, man is totally passive and becomes active only after regeneration. I disaffirm that there is nothing that can be done prior to regeneration with regard to salvation.8 I disaffirm that man is passive in regeneration.9 I further disaffirm that God selects to regenerate some and thereby either actively or passively chooses to leave some in their lost condition,10 and therefore irresistibly pre-determines some to be forever lost and damned to a place created for Satan (Matthew 25:41).
Calvinism asks us to believe that God chose eternal torment for the vast majority of His creation (Matthew 7: 1 3 —14). They want us to rejoice in a God who desires and chose for the vast majority of his creation to go to hell when He could have redeemed them. That is indeed God according to Calvinism, but not the God Scripture. This is a disquieting reality. Where is the plethora of Scripture where God expresses His desire for the vast majority of His creation to perish in eternal torment and this with equal clarity and abundance as those Scriptures that declare His indefatigable, sacrificial love and desire that all repent and be saved? I suggest that they do not exist and for good reason.
Monergism means that salvation is “[God’s] work alone”11, which is based upon the Calvinistic view that salvation depends upon God’s unconditional election to regenerate some prior to and quite apart from anything, even faith. However, if there is nothing that is a part of salvation and no one can do anything, even by the grace of God, to facilitate faith and thereby salvation, then why did Paul reason from the Scriptures in order to prove that Jesus was the Messiah? (e.g., Acts 17:2-4). Why did he attempt to “persuade men”? (2 Corinthians 5:11). Why did he beg people to be “reconciled to God”? (2 Corinthians 5:20). Why did God reconcile the “world”? (2 Corinthians 5:19). Why was Paul able to reason with the Jews concerning Christ, persuading some while others “would not believe”? (Acts 28:24). Notice it was not that they could not believe, but they would not believe. Why would Paul believe and say, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some”? (1 Corinthians 9:22).
To respond, as Calvinists do, that God has established the means to salvation, and therefore this may be the means of salvation, which in reality according to monergism has no real effect upon conversion, is just simply not what is presented in the Scripture. The picture in Scripture is that these things do have an actual part in salvation. They play a part, as does faith, by the grace and plan of God. To say that Paul was doing and saying this all out of mere obedience, all the while knowing that the people to whom he reasoned and pleaded may be the ones who could not hear or respond any more than a blind person could see you wink, is not the picture that is presented ever so clearly Scripture. Nor is it the implication of most Calvinists’ messages on Paul’s behavior. This is a disquieting reality.
Moreover, according to monergism, if they ever did respond, it would have nothing to do with anything Paul or the respondent had done, which is obviously contrary to Paul’s words (1 Corinthians 10:33; 1 Thessalonians 2:16). Although Calvinists talk, at times, as though what we do matters in a person’s salvation, it is actually absolutely disallowed by their monergistic view of salvation. I do grant that the Calvinist can be disobedient to God’s process, but this disobedience neither hinders nor facilitates salvation—according to monergism.
Man’s passiveness is stated explicitly in The Westminster Confession. “This effectual call [to salvation] is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it.”12 (italics added) I add to this the clarification that he is not only enabled, but according to Calvinism, he is enabled against his will, and not only enabled to believe but made to only be able to believe rather than choose between believing and not believing. I maintain that God indeed has foreknowledge, even of the future, contingent, freewill choices of men and women, which is an indispensible part of His decrees and predestination. That is to say, contrary to Calvinism, He gave free will, paid everything necessary for the salvation of all, sent the call out to receive by faith, provided grace enablements and predestined to salvation those who would receive and respond to His grace.
Further, I disaffirm that the key to God’s sovereignty is causation, as the Calvinists seem to believe. Their definition of sovereignty is actually a product of defining sovereignty, as well as viewing Scriptures relating to sovereignty, through the Calvinist grid. Moreover, I disaffirm that it is possible for a Calvinist to demonstrate how an unfettered decision by God to give man the ability to have a real free choice undermines sovereignty. Finally, I disaffirm the legitimacy of using mystery to serve as a satisfactory alternative to the biblical balance of sovereignty and human responsibility and/or that the response “it is a mystery” is a satisfactory answer to the dilemma caused by the Calvinist teaching of selective regeneration preceding and necessarily resulting in faith. This is a disquieting reality.
Here is the dilemma caused by selective regeneration. If God monergistically selects to regenerate some and not to regenerate others, and all whom He regenerates will necessarily believe, and none whom He does not choose to regenerate can believe, then God is necessarily the one deciding to send the vast majority of sinners to hell. In other words, according to Calvinism’s monergism, everything necessary to save one sinner—God choosing to regenerate prior to faith—is sufficient to save all sinners. The only thing lacking is God choosing to regenerate certain sinners. Therefore, it is an inescapable reality, based on Calvinism, that people are in hell because God sovereignly chose not to regenerate them. God is the sole determiner that certain lost people cannot be saved and therefore must perish in hell. This is a disquieting reality. I maintain that the portrait of God painted by Calvinism is not the picture painted by Scripture.
When I have presented this reality to Calvinists, I am told not to take logic too far—i.e., it is a mystery. Of course they use logic all of the time. While I do agree with the Calvinists’ assertion that God would be just if He sent everyone to hell because everyone is a sinner, and it is grace if He chooses to redeem one; I disagree that this truth in any way answers this dilemma of Calvinism or satisfies the boundless, matchless, and majestic grace, love, and mercy of God presented throughout the Scripture.
It is rather perplexing to see how a Calvinist can sign the Baptist Faith and Message because it says of God, “He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.”13 Since Calvinism teaches that God actively elected to withhold salvation from most of the lost people of the world, it seems fair to ask in what way is that fatherly. In other words, He chose to pass them by, thereby predestining them irrevocably to eternal torment, which action, according to Calvinism, pleased Him. To say they deserve it, or that God is just, misses the point. For the dilemma is not regarding their just due, but rather what kind of father is God, knowing that He could have exercised selective regeneration through irresistible grace and delivered them from such fate. This indisputably transmogrifies the affectionate and endearing word “fatherly” into something that is horrifyingly dreadful.
6. I am using permissive for that which God decreed to command but not compel. Theologians often distinguish this from God’s decretive will with the term perceptive. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. I, Prolegomena, Bibliology, Theology Proper, (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 209.
7. Chafer, Systematic Theology. vol. I, 223. This citation is not intended to indicate Chafer’s endorsement of my overall position, but rather to note the need for balance in handling the attributes of God, which I do not think Calvinists do.
8. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 2004), 192.
9. The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1646, chapter X, sections 1 and 2, found online at The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.
10. Either actively as Hyper-Calvinism and some other Calvinists maintain or passively as other Calvinists maintain.
11. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 192.
12. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter X, Section II.
Interview with Pastor Ronnie Rogers (1hr and 20-minutes)
This first audio is from A.W. Tozer regarding God’s sovereignty. I also include a partial excerpt from his book, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God. Their Meaning in the Christian Life, chapter 22 ~ “The Sovereignty of God” ~ of which the entire chapter is here.
Here is that partial chapter excerpt.
I changed a couple words as can not reads better as cannot:
… While a complete explanation of the origin of sin eludes us, there are a few things we do know. In His sovereign wisdom God has permitted evil to exist in carefully restricted areas of His creation, a kind of fugitive outlaw whose activities are temporary and limited in scope. In doing this God has acted according to His infinite wisdom and goodness. More than that no one knows at present; and more than that no one needs to know. The name of God is sufficient guarantee of the perfection of His works.
Another real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he cannot exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?
The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.
Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, What doest thou? Mans will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.
Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty.
On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port.
Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with mans freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of Gods sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfilment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being.
We know that God will fulfil every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that Gods perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.
Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is omninpotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.
In the meanwhile things are not as smooth as this quick outline might suggest. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. Within the broad field of Gods sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good with evil continues with increasing fury. God will yet have His way in the whirlwind and the storm, but the storm and the whirlwind are here, and as responsible beings we must make our choice in the present moral situation.
Certain things have been decreed by the free determination of God, and one of these is the law of choice and consequences. God has decreed that all who willingly commit themselves to His Son Jesus Christ in the obedience of faith shall receive eternal life and become sons of God. He has also decreed that all who love darkness and continue in rebellion against the high authority of heaven shall remain in a state of spiritual alienation and suffer eternal death at last.
Reducing the whole matter to individual terms, we arrive at some vital and highly personal conclusions. In the moral conflict now raging around us whoever is on Gods side is on the winning side and cannot lose; whoever is on the other side is on the losing side and cannot win. Here there is no chance, no gamble. There is freedom to choose which side we shall be on but no freedom to negotiate the results of the choice once it is made. By the mercy of God we may repent a wrong choice and alter the consequences by making a new and right choice. Beyond that we cannot go.
The whole matter of moral choice centers around Jesus Christ. Christ stated it plainly: He that is not with me is against me, and No man cometh unto the Father, but by me. The gospel message embodies three distinct elements: an announcement, a command, and a call. It announces the good news of redemption accomplished in mercy; it commands all men everywhere to repent and it calls all men to surrender to the terms of grace by believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
We must all choose whether we will obey the gospel or turn away in unbelief and reject its authority. Our choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of God, and from this there is no appeal.
A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
(San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1961), 110-111.
