Author: Papa Giorgio

A Couple of Anarchists Talk Jesus and Theology and Fail

Published by Papa Giorgio

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…

…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?

Her message is lost in the fray of confusion.

The Illusive “Hyper Calvinist”

Published by Papa Giorgio

GROK CONVERSATION

Okay Grok, can you dumb down and explain the two article without taking into account our previous conversation:

CONVO ONE

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.

A clip from the video at the top:

CONVO TWO

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.”

Phil Johnson notes his definition of a hyper-Calvinist, whom he says, “all five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either…

  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner OR
  3. 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
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace” OR
  5. 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.

Voter Fraud – Guess Who?

Published by Papa Giorgio

I UPDATED ONE VIDEO BELOW – WATCH HERE

Democrats are still shocked by mail-in voter fraud. Several military mail-in ballots were found discarded in Pennsylvania.

Democrats!

A PARTIAL 2021 UPDATE…. Voter Fraud Never Happens! (Except in These 10,000 Cases)

Massive 78% Of Mail-In Ballots Proved Fraudulent, Judge Orders Election Do-Over. (NATIONAL PULSE)

“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).

(THE RIDGEWOOD BLOG)

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….

(THE BLAZE)

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……

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

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…..

(DREW BURQUIST)

A 2020 UPDATE to 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 Democratic candidates 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….

Here are a couple UPDATES from our 2018 election: Florida Democrats Under Investigation For Election Fraud: ‘Plenty Of Documentation’

FLORIDA 2018

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]…

(BREITBART)

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, POWERLINE notes 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)

HAT-TIP TWITCHY

TEXAS 2018

Here is another unrepentant fraudster:

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 Party for 2016 elections for 13 people who had made no such requests. She is also accused of providing forged signatures for three people on applications.

(STAR-TELEGRAM, see also., FRONT-PAGE MAGAZINE)

UNIVERSITY 2018

GATEWAY PUNDIT notes,

  • 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?

The MACIVER INSTITUTE has more:

…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.…

(DAILY CALLER)

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:

Recent Stories:

(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….

BOOM!

(See PART II)

More from HOTAIR about the above:

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:

Via NEWSBUSTERS:

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.)virginia-democrat

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….

(read it all)

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.

Mug Shot via The Daily Mail

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.

Read more at The Blaze …

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’s link there is a nice list of voter fraud stories to make the point well — that Democratic ground work IS fraudulent.

The man was wearing a “Citizens for a Better Arizona” T-shirt which is a left-leaning group. The Blaze reported:

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.”

(Via GATEWAY PUNDIT)

(Updated) See more at Libertarian Republican: Discovery of NC voter fraud could mean that over 1 million people “dual voted” against Romney in 2012

This first story comes our way via Libertarian Republican, posted today (1-14-2014), and is entitled: “Vote fraud in south Texas community — All the guilty parties are… wait for it… here it comes… DEMOCRATS!” And you will see — after this recent story, most voter fraud is committed by Democrats.

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 Democrats have 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 Democrats have 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 Democrat Commissioner and his Campaign Manager arrested for Absentee Ballot Voter Fraud. Daytona Beach City Commissioner Democrat Derrick 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)

If Voter I.D. Is Racist… Then Obama Supports Racism Abroad

Published by Papa Giorgio

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.

(WHITE HOUSE)

Bill Clinton doing exactly what he decried Obama doing to his wife… using the race card:

A great article by Jerome Hudson at Human Events entitled, “Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him“:

….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.

…(read more)…

Via the Daily Caller:nelson-mandela-voter-id-getty

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.

South Africa, however, requires an ID to vote.

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.”

Alex Sorin DEBOONK’s Total Depravity (TULIP, Part One)

Published by Papa Giorgio

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

A-n-G Read the WSJ Article: “The Real Epstein ‘Ring’”

Published by Papa Giorgio

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 ECONOMIC TIMES has a video showing the similar conclusions, but since they are an anti-Trump org…. they loved showing the debunked picture of Trump with blocked out faces of girls to “engender the opposite” when people watch their video.

Here is the full article unlocked:

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.

Sovereignty of God

Published by Papa Giorgio

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,

CPHT 1, Sovereignty of God (PDF)

Sovereignty of God

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

《《 《《  FOOTNOTES  》》》》

5. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. VII, Doctrinal Summarization, (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 273-274.

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.

13. The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, II, A, (accessed 6/6/11).

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.

John Piper and Other Calvinists Mischaracterize Free Will

Published by Papa Giorgio

(A video that Warren McGrew made was mentioned in this video, I will embed that as well.)

Why did John Piper become a Calvinist?
Dr. Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes back Warren McGrew, the Idol Killer, to discuss a presentation by John Piper who is recounting his conversion into Calvinism

Responding to Calvinists on Total Depravity

A few months back, ‪@chrisharris9710‬ took to his YouTube channel to refute the claims Idol Killer made in our series refuting Original Sin and Total Depravity – specifically episode 2 & the Undercutting Defeater. In the process, Pastor Harris bravely took on the leading voices in Reformed Theology today and heroically swept aside the historical Reformed articulations of Total Depravity across various Confessions. Though, one has to wonder what his fellow Calvinists will think of his claims that entail John MacArthur of ‪@gracetoyou‬ Steven Lawson of ‪@ligonier‬ and others don’t rightly understand Calvinism.

Deism Defined, Are Miracles Impossible?

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Updated links in the pictures, posted here Aug of 2010)

From a Debate on Deism (originally posted October 2007 — imported from RPT-Blogspot). This debate had to have taken place in early 2000’s. But, as it defines and argues a position often misunderstood, it makes it to PG’s Best. Enjoy:

Ahhh, Countess, what an honor it is that we meet again. Your name evokes wild pictures of moonlit nights from the pages of the Scarlet Pimpernel. I will indulge a further response from you, as your last post seemed contradictory. My question was simple, it was:

  • Are miracles – from the deist standpoint – possible?

You [Countess] responded in kind that:

“No, miracles would, logically, not be possible. In a straight-line explanation, God created the universe, and the laws of the universe are the boundaries of the possible. In theory, God could, as the creator of the universe, violate those laws; however, there is no evidence that he has ever done this.”

I need to clarify; I didn’t ask “if miracles were actual” (i.e., miracles have actually occurred). I simply asked if they are possible. Let me give some more ways of looking at it, since you brought up the fact of actuality, then I will return to your statement that I chose to display above.

  • The denial that miracles are possible, and the denial that they are actual;
  • The belief that miracles are possible, but the denial that they are actual;
  • Agnosticism about whether miracles are possible, but the denial that they are actual;
  • The belief that miracles are possible, but agnosticism about whether they are actual;
  • Agnosticism about whether miracles are possible, and agnosticism about whether they are actual.

I believe – reading your opening statement above – that you would fall under category B. I say this because you even admitted that God could, theoretically, “violate” these laws. This seems an anathema to deists, who view these laws of nature as not descriptive, but prescriptive. Let me quote C. S. Lewis on this matter for the sake of clarity in defining what these laws of nature do, and don’t do:

But if God comes to work miracles, He comes “like a thief in the night.” Miracle is, from the point of view of the scientist, a form of doctoring, tampering, (if you like) cheating. It introduces a new factor into the situation, namely supernatural force, which the scientist had not reckoned on. He calculates what will happen, or what must have happened on a past occasion, in the belief that the situation, at that point of space and time, is or was A. but if supernatural force has been added, then the situation really is or was AB. And no one knows better than the scientist that AB cannot yield the same result as A. The necessary truth of the laws, far from making it impossible that miracles should occur, makes it certain that if the Supernatural is operating they must occur. For if the natural situation by itself, and the natural situation plus something else, yielded only the same result, it would be then that we should be faced with a lawless and unsystematic universe. The better you know that two and two make four, the better you know that two and three don’t.

(C.S. Lewis, Miracles, pp. 92-93)

This is what I have come across in deism, is a belief that if God would “violate” (I am highlighting that word for a reason) His laws of nature that He set up, we would live in a “lawless and unsystematic universe” (to quote Lewis). However, let us continue with his remarks:

This perhaps helps to make a little clearer what the laws of Nature really are. We are in the habit of talking as if they caused events to happen; but they have never caused any event at all. The laws of motion do not set billiard balls moving: they analyze the motion after something else (say, a man with a cue, or a lurch of the liner, or, perhaps, supernatural power) has provided it. They produce no events: they state the pattern to which every event – if only it can be induced to happen – must conform, just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform – if only you can get hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe – the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums. For every law, in the last resort, says “if you have A, then you will get B.” But first catch you’re a: the laws won’t do it for you.

It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn’t. If I knock out my pipe I alter the position of a great many atoms: in the long run, and to an infinitesimal degree, of all the atoms there are. Nature digests or assimilates this event with perfect ease and harmonizes it in a twinkling with all other events. It is more bit of raw material for the laws to apply to, and they apply. I have simply thrown one event into the general cataract of events and it finds itself at home there and conforms to all events. If God annihilates or creates of deflects a unit of matter He has created a new situation at that point. Immediately all Nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it. It finds itself conforming to all the laws. If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break [violate] any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all normal laws, and nine months later a child is born…. Miraculous wine will intoxicate…. The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law’s provisio, “If A, then B”: it says, “But this time instead of A, A2,” and Nature, speaking through all her laws, replies, “Then B2” and naturalizes the immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess.

A miracle is emphatically not an event without cause or without results. Its cause is the activity of God: its result follows according to Natural law. In a forward direction (i.e., during the time which follows its occurrence) it is interlocked with all Nature just like any other event. Its peculiarity is that it is not in that way interlocked backwards, interlocked with the previous history of Nature. And this is just what some people find intolerable. The reason they find it intolerable is that they start by taking Nature to be the whole of reality.

(C. S. Lewis was quoted from his book Miracles, chpt. 8, “Miracles and the Laws of Nature”, pp. 94-96)

This is the case with deism. They presuppose that God created “Nature to be the whole of reality.” a miracle doesn’t “violate” any law, simply, that law will predict what should happen once a miracle event happened.

I got a wee bit ahead of myself here, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that a proper understanding of the laws of Nature in no way restrict miracles, and that any further use of violate by me (and you) should encapsulate this definition. And all I was asking at this point was if miracles were possible. As one writer wrote of Deism:

“A being who could [as deists believe] bring the universe into existence from nothing could certainly perform lesser miracles if He chose to do so. A God who created water could part it or make it possible for a person to walk on it. The immediate multiplication of loaves of bread and fish would be no problem to a God who created matter and life in the first place. A virgin birth or even a physical resurrection from the dead would be minor miracles in comparison to the miracle of creating the universe from nothing [as deists believe]. It seems self-defeating to admit a great miracle like creation and then to deny the possibility of lesser miracles.”

(Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler, p. 189.)

I will conclude with a mock conversation from the book Answers for Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Thoughtful Skeptics: Dialogues About Christian Faith and Life. This conclusion is only meant to elucidate in laymen’s terms (laymanize) what C. S. Lewis has already said. Enjoy:

The very next day Dave was at Jim’s door again. Now he was more eager than ever to talk.

  • “You know that book you loaned me last night?” he said. “Well, I could hardly put it down today. It’s tough going, but it’s really interesting. I never knew there was so much historical evidence for the Bible.”
  • “Glad you’re enjoying it,” Jim said. “But last night you wound up by saying you couldn’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection because you think it’s unscientific to believe in miracles, right?”
  • “Right. They’re contrary to the laws of nature.”
  • “So?”
  • “Well, the law of nature can’t be broken.”
  • “And miracles, if they happen [are possible], would break them?”
  • “That’s what I’ve always understood.”
  • “Let me suggest another way to think of the laws of nature, Dave. The laws of nature don’t tell us everything that can possibly happen. They just tell us what can happen naturally – that is, by nature working on its own. They don’t tell us anything at all about what happens if something outside of nature acts on nature.”
  • “But there isn’t anything outside of nature.”
  • “Really? I thought we’d been through that already. You remember – entropy, creation of the universe, God, all that?” (pp. 73-74)

See Countess, you — by default — believe something to be outside the universe, and that this God actually did the greatest miracle of all time… that is, “creating the universe with laws and motion with mankind as its goal.” If that isn’t a miracle, then what is?

Calvinism: God Meticulously Controls Everything | even this post

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. – Westminster Confession, III.I. 
  • Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. – Westminster Confession, V.II. 

  • “So here I see that God’s command is that the sons of Eli ought to listen to and obey their father, yet the will of God was that they would not listen so that He would put them to death.” – Peter Pike
  • “Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God.” – Arthur Pink
  • “The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human beings… If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary.” – John Frame
  • “That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless passages of Scripture.” – John Calvin
  • “But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” – John Calvin

John MacArthur Tells Us There Is No Free Will

God controls first as well as secondary causes… in the determinism that has infected the Christian church. This idea is extra Biblical, brought in by Augustinian gnosis and ramped up by Calvin.

Neoplatonism (ca. AD 250) had invented this crucial theodicy by appealing to the inscrutable secret counsels of God, who is fair by definition, regardless of whatever apparent evils he desires and ordains. Prior Christians had never required this implausible and disingenuous attempt at a defense for their God.

Page 235 of “Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique” (excerpt here)

I asked GROK the following:

Can you dumb this down like we are discussion this over coffee…

  • … how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.

John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, 10:11

Here is GROK’s input:

Alright, let’s grab that coffee and talk this through like normal people—no big theology words unless we have to, and I’ll explain them right away.

So John Calvin (the 1500s guy who shaped a lot of Protestant thinking) is basically saying: “Look, some people try to defend God by saying He doesn’t want evil stuff to happen—He just kinda allows it or ‘permits’ it, like He’s hands-off. But that’s weak sauce, in Calvin’s view. He thinks the Bible shows God is way more involved: God actually wills (decides and makes happen) even the bad things, and in some sense He’s behind them as their ultimate ‘author’ or source.”

He calls the “God just permits it” idea a flimsy excuse (“frivolous refuge”) because Scripture (in his reading) pictures God actively steering everything—including hardening hearts, inclining people’s wills toward evil when they deserve it, and using wicked people to carry out His judgments.

The key bits:

  • God doesn’t just sit back and go “Eh, okay, let that sin happen if you want.” Nope—He actively works in people’s hearts to turn their desires one way or another.
  • For good people/actions: God does this out of mercy (He chooses to make someone want good).
  • For bad people/actions: He does it “according to their merits” (they deserve judgment, so He inclines them toward evil as part of punishing them fairly).
  • Even so, God still judges and punishes them for what they did—He rewards “according to desert” (what they deserve).

In coffee terms: Imagine you’re watching a movie where the director not only lets the villain do villainous things but actually scripts and directs every move the villain makes—down to the thoughts in their head. The villain is still 100% guilty and evil for choosing/doing it, but nothing happened outside the director’s plan. Calvin’s saying God is that ultimate Director over everything, including the evil plot twists. The “He just permitted it” line feels like downplaying how in control the Director really is.

This ties into his bigger idea of predestination: God has already decided from eternity who gets saved (by His mercy) and who doesn’t (left to their deserved fate), and He sovereignly shapes everything—including sins—to bring that about.

A lot of people (then and now) hear this and go “Whoa, that makes God sound like the author of evil!” Calvin would push back hard: No, because the evil comes from the person’s wicked heart and desires (they really want it, they’re not robots forced against their will). God just sovereignly uses and directs it for His purposes, without being tainted by it Himself. But yeah—he’s not shy about saying God is behind it all, not merely watching from the sidelines.

Modern Calvinists sometimes soften this a bit (they talk more about “permission” but insist it’s not “bare” or passive permission—God ordains what He permits). But Calvin himself? In this passage, he’s pretty blunt:

  • the permission idea is foolish if it pretends God isn’t willing and authoring these things in some real sense.

Heavy stuff over coffee, right? Makes you wonder about free will, justice, and how a good God runs a world with so much darkness. What’s your take—does that framing help, or does it still feel off?

In a wonderful article, I excerpt a long clip from the end of it:

  • Chapter 3 – The Calvinist Theological and Soteriological Doctrines

(from GOOD NEWS APOLOGETICS)

…. Predestination refers to what God will surely do for the believer once that choice is made. Believers are predestined to adoption, sanctification, salvation, and eternal life. Unbelievers are predestined to alienation from God, eternal death, and hell. God has not predestined or predetermined the “obedience of faith” for certain unconditionally elected individuals and the “love of darkness,” “rebellion,” “spiritual alienation,” and “eternal death” for all others.  No doubt, the Bible teaches that there are special divine predeterminations regarding God’s plans and purposes for the world, especially concerning salvation history.  God is personal.  Therefore, we would expect God to act personally in his world with creatures made in his image.  These divine predeterminations apply in special ways to certain individuals and groups.  These individuals are divinely appointed to certain tasks, as in the case of Jesus himself, to be the Christ, our Savior.  The nation of Israel was established by God through the revelation of Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (i.e., Israel) and therefore “chosen” by God to fulfill a certain role in salvation history.  Israel is spoken of as God’s “chosen people,” and yet the group was obviously comprised of individuals with free moral agency.  The church also is comprised of individuals designated as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession…” (1 Pet. 2:9) because they believe in God and Christ as the way of salvation.  These believers are referred to in terminology corresponding to the descriptions used of Israel in the Old Testament. The relationship God had with Israel, of which Abraham’s faith is paradigmatic, is now applied to Gentiles who are of the faith of Abraham.  Only now Christ has come, and New Testament believers live on this side of an unfolding salvation history.  Therefore, these New Testament believers – both Jew and Gentile – are now among “the elect” by virtue of being “in Christ” by faith; a faith like that of Abraham, exercised freely upon hearing from God (OT) or the gospel message (NT).  These believers, spoken of in language reminiscent of Israel’s status in the Old Testament, were once “not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (I Pet. 2:10)  Sinners are among “the elect” because they believe in Christ who is the Chosen One, that is, as they “come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious…” (1 Pet. 2:4).

The point is that Scripture testifies to the fact that divine sovereignty cannot mean that God predetermined the minutest details of all human thought and action, along with each person’s eternal destiny, which lands us in an inevitable and nonsensical theistic determinism.  This is not the biblical meaning of “election” or “predestination.”  We know this by virtue of the logical and moral incoherence of the Calvinist interpretations.  An objective, rational, moral assessment of Scripture and human history, from the past to the present, makes evident that theistic determinism is false.  Rather than looking through the lens of theistic determinism, we can see that God’s purposes are realized through his divine actions in relation to submissive and cooperative persons as well as through indifferent or hostile persons.  All that occurs is not decreed to happen as it does by the will of God and therefore caused by God, for this would logically indict God as the author and doer of evil.  Rather, certain actions and events occur by the free decisions of human beings, especially evil doings.  But God is still sovereign.  He can incorporate what he sees fit into his ultimate plans and purposes for the world and mankind by either his direct intervention and spiritual activity and influence, or his final judgment. But the believer has this promise – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Rom. 8:28, NIV). Those who love him are those who put their faith in God and Christ as savior when they heard the call of the message of “good news.”  Those “called according to his purpose” refer to all those who, having heard the “good news” of Jesus Christ, believed it, and have received eternal life. All this was the result of God’s purpose to save mankind in Christ.  It has been God’s purpose to save sinners by sending Christ to die and bring this good news to all from the very beginning (Gen. 3:15).  And this salvation is for everyone. “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Rom. 11:32, NIV)

In addition, God will also bring about a final conquering of all his enemies.  Not all things are good, and God is not responsible for evil acts.  Therefore, God has not ordained “whatsoever comes to pass” as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith.  This is evident in that at Christ’s second coming, he will judge, punish, and rectify evil and injustice.  Again, to believe that God predetermined and is the ultimate cause of the evil he will one day judge and punish would be nonsense.  Furthermore, it impugns the character of God.

The point to note is that divine sovereignty, election, predestination, and foreknowledge do not require theistic determinism.  The scriptures everywhere affirm both God’s sovereignty and substantial, meaningful human freedom and responsibility.  Therefore, God’s sovereignty, biblically defined, cannot be understood as divine determinism but rather should be understood as God’s personal and authoritative involvement in human affairs and his creation.  The scope of divine providence certainly extends to the minutest details regarding his care and concern for his creatures, especially believers.  But divine providence is not divine determinism.  Providence includes God’s ability to intervene in the affairs of this world and on behalf of believers as he wills.  It includes his ability to employ actions that are evil and wrong to serve his purposes (Gen. 50:15-31). This certainly is the biblical testimony regarding divine sovereignty and providence.  If there is “mystery” to be had, it lies here. It does not lie in accepting what we know to be incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of the Bible. That is just to ignore the God-given rules of logic and our moral intuitions in one’s hermeneutic. Hence, biblical sovereignty and providence cannot be defined as the universal divine causal determinism of Calvinism.  Therefore, Calvinism is untenable and a misinterpretation of Scripture. It is to be rejected.

Conclusions

We have seen that the Calvinists’ interpretation of the eternal divine decree and God’s sovereignty amounts to a universal divine causal determinism.  Hopefully, you may have begun to grasp the negative logical and moral implications of this theistic determinism.  In a world that is predetermined by God down to the minutest details, which includes everyone’s thoughts, beliefs, desires, and actions, what happens to human freedom, decision-making, and choices?  What happens to personal moral responsibility, culpability, judgment, and justice?  And what do we do with the fact that everyone’s eternal destiny is already decided unilaterally by God himself and has absolutely nothing to do with you, me, or anyone else?  What do human beings become in a world in which God predetermined every detail? Robots? Puppets? These analogies are appropriate. Furthermore, who is among the elect, and who is among the non-elect, remains unknown to us.  The Calvinist will respond that, regardless of these problematic implications, we need to accept these Calvinist tenets because the Bible teaches them.

But how do we know the Bible teaches them, especially when they do not square with the fact that the Bible overwhelmingly testifies to a contingent reality and human responsibility?  How do we know this is what the Bible teaches when theistic determinism wreaks logical and moral havoc with other things that this same Bible clearly teaches, especially regarding the definition of the gospel as “good news,” the nature of faith, and God’s character as loving and just? Where has the gospel gone? You may also be asking, if God is the sole agent and cause of everything that occurs, doesn’t that make him the source and doer of all evil?  If not, why not? Moreover, if you cannot know that God loves you, desires that you be saved, and has provided for your salvation, how does that influence your relationship to God and the meaning and purpose of life?  These questions are profound and therefore need answers. Calvinists need to answer them. We will deal with them in due course.

Having reviewed the Reformed Calvinist doctrines, we can conclude that Calvinism amounts to a theistic determinism.  That theistic determinism, by virtue of being a determinism, is contrary to Scripture. As such, Calvinism is unbiblical.

How Calvinists Get God’s Sovereignty Wrong
Leighton Flowers | Calvinism | Soteriology 101

Calvinists love to talk about God’s sovereignty, but do they define sovereignty correctly? Calvinists typically choose to define sovereignty as meticulous determinism, i.e. that God controls and/or brings about everything that happens…including all evil. Check out the full video here:    Calvinism is Determinism  

Of course there is a fatal flaw involved in this thinking, one “I” point out here in this post on Al Mohler… however, the flaw, in short, is this:

  • Thus in a world governed by meticulous, divine determinism, beliefs are not the product of examination, analysis, reason and contemplation whereby we search for truth and weigh various options and make informed decisions. Rather they are just the spin-offs of God’s universal, exhaustive, meticulous divine decrees. White would have to concede that a person who believes in meticulous, divine determinism does so for the same reason that another person disbelieves meticulous, divine determinism. It has nothing to do with evaluation, truth and reason—and everything to do with what has been determined for them to believe! — A Theology in Tension (hat-tip to SOTO 101, “Calvinism’s Greatest Fallacy“)

The following is with a Hat-Tip to Brian H.W. — adding to a thought I had:

Religio-Political Talk (RPT), Here’s enough that should get Calvinists to rethink! Unfortunately too many are now too heavily invested in defending it, their pride keeps them from rejecting it.

Those who call themselves “Calvinist” – On which of the following do you DISAGREE with Calvin… and why label yourself after the name of a fallible man? Would Jesus want you to?

  1. Evanescent Grace: God making some reprobates think they are elect to better convict them
  2. Impassibility: God did not grieve in his heart for the lost in Noah’s day
  3. Capital Punishment for heretics: Including those who write against his doctrine of predestination
  4. Born to Burn: Some are damned by God from birth, to be tormented in hell for God’s glory and pleasure.
  5. Scripture’s Description of God can not be known from His perspective: but only as a false one, not as He really is.
  6. Disproving Calvin’s predestination doctrine: according to Calvin is only attempted by those who think they are wiser than the Holy Spirit.

1) “… experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. … a taste of heavenly gifts, … a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.” (Institutes – 3.2.11)

2) “The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him…. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose….” (Comm. Gen 6:6)

3) In his letter to the church in Poitiers, #389 SLW6 – “…papers and books of his Castalion [former reformer in Geneva with Calvin], in which an attempt was made to impugn our doctrine touching predestination, have been condemned with a prohibition to publish them 👉on pain of death👈…. that indeed the least we can expect is that the Seigneurs, to whom have been entrusted the sword and authority, should not permit the faith in which they are instructed to be lightly spoken of in their own city. “

4) “…he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are 👉doomed from the womb👈 to certain death and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (Institutes – 3.23.6) And – “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was 👉his pleasure to doom👈 to destruction.” Calvin, ICR, 3.21.7

5) “…any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is 👉to represent him not as he really is👈, but as we conceive of him.” (Institutes – 1.17.13)

6) “The observation with which I opened this discussion, I now repeat at its close: that no one will ever attempt to disprove the doctrine which I have set forth herein, but he who may imagine himself to be 👉wiser than the Spirit of God👈.” (Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Cole, p. 170, the translation by Reid says – “… no one can disprove…”, p.162)

The Fatal Error of Calvinists | Augustine

Published by Papa Giorgio

AN EXCERPT FROM:

Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique,
by David L. Allen (Editor), Steve W Lemke (Editor),
CHAPTER 6 by Ken Wilson — pages 230-237.

The Fatal Error of Calvinists

A Critique of Augustine’s Reversion to Pagan Concepts

When he redefined Christian terms and concepts, Augustine misrepresented earlier Christian authors. Lewis Ayres politely noted, “Augustine was an attentive reader of his forebears, but one whose interpretations of them were frequently very much his own.”44 As a result, Luther and Calvin mistakenly believed that Augustine was merely teaching what all of the earlier church fathers had taught.45 But in fact, Augustine himself admitted that he had tried but failed to continue in the Christian doctrine of free will of the first four centuries. He consistently utilized the same Christian terms but inserted new meanings into those terms.46 Roger Haight wrote, “Grace for Augustine was delight in the good, a new form of liberty that required an internal modification of the human will. No one [Christian] prior to Augustine had really asserted anything like this need for an inner working of God within human freedom.”47 Augustine redefined free will, utilizing Stoic concepts, deformed original sin with Manichaean dualism, and mutilated faith into a divine gift to match Gnostic and Manichaean unilateral election.48 Augustinian scholar Eugene TeSelle noted:

Augustine always reacted vigorously to the suggestion that he taught what amounted to a doctrine of fate. Now it is undeniable that he did hold to something like what is usually meant by fate. . . . To him fate meant something precise: the doctrine that external occurrences, bodily actions, even thoughts and decisions are determined by the position of the heavenly bodies [C. dua ep Pel., II,6,12] or more broadly, universal material determinism [C. dua ep Pel. II, 6,12; De Civ. Dei. IV.33, V.1,8].49

Augustine said if anyone “calls the will of God or the power of God itself by the name of fate, let him keep his opinion but correct his language” (C. dua ep. Pel.1.2.4). Over a thousand years later, Augustine’s novel and syncretistic reinterpretations of Christian Scripture (TULIP) would be faithfully replicated by Calvin and his followers.

Similarly, modern Calvinists (such as the contributing authors of Whomever He Wills) vehemently defend their theology using Scripture. But they refuse to admit their own interpretations are based on the pagan philosophies and Manichaean religion deeply imbedded into their current syncretistic scriptural interpretations by Augustine.50 God as micromanager of the universe (Stoic sovereignty) stands foremost and paramount: total depravity (Manichaean) follows logically from it (using the same pagan arguments).51 For Calvinists like Andrew Davis, “Romans 9:11–13 is the mortal wound for conditional election.”52 This replicates the “biblical” arguments by Gnostics and Manichaeans for unconditional election (determinism); but all pre-Augustinian Christian writings opposed this pagan doctrine. Thomas Schreiner claimed all Christians will inevitably persevere. This assumes the perfect divine gift of faith unilaterally infused by (the Gnostic/Manichaean) God cannot fail, because ultimate salvation requires perseverance—faith plus works (i.e., not our own but fruit God produces, per Augustine). This includes Schreiner’s appeal to Phil 1:6, repeating Augustine’s tortured interpretation.53 Bruce Ware’s chapter on the compatibility of determinism and freedom could have been argued by a Stoic or Manichaean who was familiar with Scripture. His argument for compatibility was unnecessary in pre-Augustinian Christian theology.54 Likewise, Stephen Wellum repeated Augustine’s appeal to “mystery” that was not required until his Stoic god unilaterally desired, predetermined, and ordained all things, including monstrous evils (such as genocide, rape, torture, and child sacrifice).55 Matthew Barrett’s “The Scriptural Affirmation of Monergism” would have shocked all pre-Augustinian Christians, while making the ancient monergistic Manichaeans proud.56

For Calvinists, the only reasonable theological choice must be Calvinism, since in Arminianism, “God is robbed of his glory at the expense of demanding libertarian freedom.”57 This false disjunction (limited to two poor choices of Calvinism and Arminianism) ignores the centuries of unanimous pre-Augustinian Christian theology on human free will and God’s general sovereignty. Calvinism’s God is puny. Calvinism limits God’s sovereignty.

Calvinists must either ignore these facts or attempt to marginalize them. The vast majority of Christianity—Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and other Christian groups—have been unsuccessful in using these facts to convince Calvinists of their errors. We cannot seem to break through the resilient barrier of indoctrinated self-deception to reach adherents of modern Calvinism. In Calvinism, tradition has triumphed over truth.

Conclusion

Augustine of Hippo subverted Christian theology in AD 412 by incorporating his prior Stoic view of meticulous providence and his prior Manichaean doctrine of Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies (DUPED). All prior Christians had fought against Stoic meticulous providence and Gnostic/Manichaean DUPED. They taught the Christian God is relational and exercises general (not specific) sovereignty for the purpose of allowing human freedom. The Christian God chooses persons for salvation based upon his foreknowledge of their free choices. Augustine reverted to his Manichaean deterministic interpretations of Scripture when attempting to explain infant baptism against the Pelagians. For twenty-five years he had refuted those interpretations as heresy.

After AD 411, Augustine’s final eighteen years of theology was DUPED as the Manicheans had claimed—monergistic, to the glory of Augustine’s new inscrutable sovereign God who creates then damns innocent babies to hell.58 He confessed, “I cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation— because I can’t find one, not because there isn’t one” (Serm.294.7). After 1,600 years, no philosopher or theologian has found a “satisfactory and worthy explanation” to salvage Augustine’s syncretism of pagan ideas into Christianity that damns innocent babies to hell. It will forever remain a “mystery.”

Cicero (ca. 50 BC), one of Augustine’s favorite authors, had argued for the in-compatibility between divine omniscience and human free will. Augustine’s final answer was to claim that divine foreknowledge of the future occurs only through God’s unilateral predetermination and ordaining of every event, both good and evil (Civ.5). By this move he departed from all prior Christian teaching and syncretized a concept common in Stoicism: “God foreordains human wills.”59 The Stoic scholar John Rist concluded that Augustine’s novel Christian determinism produced “a theology which fails to do justice to his own theory of God’s love.”60 In contrast, Jerome succeeded in refuting the Pelagians without adopting the extremes of Augustinianism (Against the Pelagians 3) and retained the traditional Christian beliefs in God’s general sovereignty, grace, and free will.61

Harry Wolfson, historian and philosopher at Harvard University’s Judaic Studies Center, concluded, “Augustine’s doctrine of grace is only a Christianization of the Stoic doctrine of fate.”62 Because of Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to pagan ideas, the exalted justice of the relational Christian God (used to combat pagan philosophies and heresies) was instantly transformed into inscrutable theology—deformed theology. Augustine overtly wrote of God’s predestination of the ones he purposefully created for damnation in eternal torment (“double predestination”; Nat. orig.1.14, Civ.14.26, 15.1; Serm.229S, Serm.260D.1; An.et or.4.16).63 Augustine borrowed his prior Neoplatonic inscrutable mystery as his defense for this horrendous divine injustice (Serm.D.29.10 and Serm.294.7). Neoplatonism (ca. AD 250) had invented this crucial theodicy by appealing to the inscrutable secret counsels of God, who is fair by definition, regardless of whatever apparent evils he desires and ordains. Prior Christians had never required this implausible and disingenuous attempt at a defense for their God.

Modern Calvinists teach Augustine’s theology. Calvinists appeal to the same deterministic interpretations of the same Scripture passages taught by Manichaeans. Calvinism’s historical foundation is dangerously unstable. Its foundation relies on the Manichaean interpretations of Scripture by a single man in the ancient church who rejected three hundred years of unanimous church teaching of free will, a teaching that had refuted Stoic and Gnostic/Manichaean determinism. This man was indoctrinated for decades in extremely deterministic pagan philosophies and heretical Manichaeism. Augustine admitted he changed his theology regarding free will: he abandoned the Christian rule of faith regarding free choice. “In the solution of this question I struggled in behalf of free choice of the will, but the grace of God won out” (Retr.2.1).

But the grace that “won out” was not Christian grace: it was Manichaean grace. According to Augustine (Conf.7.5), he only escaped the philosophical prison of Manichaean DUPED by accepting Christian free choice. This freed him from viewing God as punishing unjustly. But ironically, after finally escaping, Augustine’s later “inscrutable justice” of Christianized pagan DUPED reimprisoned both himself and his followers.

In contrast, the prior nearly unanimous Christian teaching (that God offers his grace to every human equally) persisted throughout the Patristic period into the eighth century with John of Damascus (d. ca. AD 760): “We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. . . . So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on foreknowledge” (Exp. fid.44). Eleonore Stump astutely concluded, “Unless Augustine is willing to accept that God’s giving of grace is responsive to something in human beings, even if that something is not good or worthy of merit, I don’t see how he can be saved from the imputation of theological determinism with all its infelicitous consequences.”64

A willingness to return to the universal Christian theology that God gives grace as a response to human choice would never come for Augustine. The famous rhetorician never looked back in his resolve to win his debate against the Pelagians at all costs. William Frend explained, “Augustine could not concede a single point to his adversaries and this was his undoing.”65 Augustine died eighteen years after reverting to his pagan monergistic determinism, still trusting in his self-crafted syncretistic theology.

As we observed in the introduction, Calvinists address the blatant absence of their theology in the pre-Augustinian centuries in one of two possible ways. The less scholarly Calvinists invent proto-Calvinists among early Christian authors. Scholarly Calvinists claim Augustine was the first theologian since the apostle Paul to interpret Scripture correctly. Benjamin Warfield opined Augustine’s “doctrine was not new” but was lost for four centuries between the time the apostle Paul wrote it and Augustine “ recovered” it for the church (the Calvinist Gap Theory).66 These scholars appear oblivious to the enormous chasm separating Paul from Augustine. This formidable chasm is Augustine’s Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. It separates Paul from Augustine by hundreds of years and thousands of miles. Calvinists attempt to bridge this insurmountable gap by using the “hermeneutical” lens of Augustine’s Manichaeism to reinterpret Pauline (and other) Scriptures within their own paradigm.

Calvinism’s alleged “biblical foundation” rests on Augustine’s deterministic interpretations of Scripture from his decade of Gnostic/Manichaean training (John 6:44–66; 14:6; Rom 9–11; Eph 2:1–3, 8–9; Phil 2:13; etc.). Such a dangerous foundation requires a precarious “faith” in Augustine’s “Sovereign God,” caricatured through syncretism with Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy and the heretical Manichaean religion.67 He baptized his prior pagan philosophies and religion into Christianity, resulting in an unrecognizable doctrinal conglomeration. Calvinism is Augustinianism. Augustinianism is Christian theology scrambled with Gnostic/Manichaean theology and Stoic/Neoplatonic philosophy. As John Rist concluded, Augustinianism is “Ancient [pagan] Thought Baptized.”68

Nevertheless, these serious syncretistic errors did not make Augustine a heretic or a non-Christian. Augustine still embraced the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Modern Calvinists also embrace the major tenets of Christianity regarding Jesus Christ as God in the flesh and Savior from sin. Despite their divergent views (sovereignty, total depravity/inability, and DUPED determinism) imported from Augustine’s paganism, Calvinists remain Christian brothers and sisters worthy of respect, love, and fellowship —contrary to the opinion of one extreme evangelical sect.69 In this anti-Christian period of history, Christians of all persuasions must be unified, despite our internal disagreements.

NOTES

44 Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 86.

45 See Martin Luther, “To George Spalatin—Wittenberg, October 19, 1516,” in Luther’s Works, 48:23 (see chap. 5, n. 13); Luther, “Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 25; Calvin, Institutes, trans. Battles, 1:158–59 (I.xiii.29) (see chap. 4, n. 85); Harry Wolfson, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961), 158– 76, in which he explained the centuries-old traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of free will (despite the sinful inclination) that persisted until the “later Augustine” introduced Stoic ideas into Judeo-Christian theology, and especially Augustine’s misunderstanding of concupiscentia in his Latin translation of Wisdom of Solomon 8:21.

46 This included the terms original sin, grace, predestination, free will, and so forth. “For example, in the early patristic writers we find references to the origin of sin, to a fall, and to the inheritance of sin, but what is meant is often different from the meaning given to those terms in the later classical tradition influenced by Augustine.” Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (New York: Paulist Press, 2002), 53; italics in the original; Ralph Mathiesen, “For Specialists Only: The Reception of Augustine and His Teachings in the Fifth Century Gaul” in Collectanea Augustina: Presbyter Factus Sum, ed. Joseph Lienhard, Earl Muller, and Roland Teske (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 30–31; Rebecca Weaver, s.v. “Predestination,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland, 1998): “The now centuries-old characterization of the human being as capable of free choice and thus accountable at the last judgment had been retained, but the meaning of its elements had been considerably altered”; Peter J. Leithart, “Review of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent” by Elaine Pagels, Westminster Theological Seminary Journal 51, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 186. “Augustine’s concept of free will certainly differs from that of earlier theologians.”

47 Roger Haight, The Experience of Language of Grace (New York: Paulist, 1979), 36.

48 In Stoicism, fate controls every minute occurrence in the universe (Cicero, Div.1, 125–26), and although a person has no possibility of actuating an opportunity, “free will” remains solely by definition (Cicero, Fat.12–15). See Margaret Reesor, “Fate and Possibility in Early Stoic Philosophy,” Phoenix 19, no. 4 (1965): 285–97, esp. 201; Stoics, “took elaborate precautions to protect their system from rigid determinism.” Neoplatonists did the same.

49 TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian, 313; emphasis in the original.

50 Barrett and Nettles, Whomever He Wills (see intro., n. 22).

51 Steven Lawson, “Our Sovereign Savior,” 3–15; and Mark DeVine, “Total Depravity,” 16–36, in Whomever He Wills.

52 Andrew Davis, “Unconditional Election: A Biblical and God-Glorifying Doctrine,” in Whomever He Wills, 51.

53 Thomas Schreiner, “Promises of Preservation and Exhortations to Persevere,” in Whomever He Wills, 188–211, esp. 192. His “biblical” arguments all rest on those pagan assumptions inherited from Augustine. Distinguishing works as necessary fruit for final salvation but not the basis of it mimics Roman Catholicism’s theology. Calvinists merely replace (Faith + Works ➡ Salvation) with (Faith ➡ Works ➡ Salvation). Neither Roman Catholics nor Calvinists believe in faith alone for salvation—both require good works.

54 Bruce Ware, “The Compatibility of Determinism and Human Freedom,” in Whomever He Wills, 212–30. There was no Christian tension between general sovereignty and free will for centuries before Augustine; Fergusson, s.v. “Predestination,” Oxford Companion.

55 Stephen Wellum, “God’s Sovereignty over Evil,” in Barrett and Nettles, Whomever He Wills, 256.

56 Barrett, “Monergism,” 120–87 (see intro., n. 22).

57 Barrett and Nettles, introduction to Whomever He Wills, xxvi.

58 See Augustine, Serm.294.7: “Here too I like to exclaim with Paul, Oh the depths of the riches! (Rom 11:33). Unbaptized infants go to damnation; they are like the apostles’ words, after all: From one to condemnation (Rom 5:16). I cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation . . . [he cited all of Rom 11:33–36].” See The Works of Saint Augustine, III/8, 196n8, with Hill’s comments: “Babies who die unbaptized therefore go to hell. . . . It is precisely this assumption that renders his whole argument weak, and his conclusion highly questionable.”

59 Christopher Kirwan, Augustine, The Arguments of the Philosophers (New York: Routledge, 1989), 98–103.

60 John Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 307.

61 See Vít Hušek, “Human Freedom According to the Earliest Latin Commentaries on Paul’s Letters,” Studia Patristica 44 (2010): 385–90.

62 Harry Wolfson, Religious Philosophy: A Group of Essays (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961), 176. See also Michael Frede and Halszka Osmolska, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2011), especially 153–174, “Chapter Nine—Augustine: A Radically New Notion of a Free Will?”

63 Gerard O’Daly, “Predestination and Freedom in Augustine’s Ethics,” in The Philosophy in Christianity, ed. Godfrey Vesey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 90.

64 Eleonore Stump, “Augustine on Free Will,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 124–147 at 142.

65 William H. C. Frend, “Doctrine of Man in the Early Church: An Historical Approach,” Modern Churchman 45, no. 3 (1955): 227.

66 Warfield, Tertullian and Augustine, 129.

67 Wilson, Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism, 97–103. Translated into Spanish—Fundación del Calvinismo Agustiniano; into German—War Augustin der erste Calvinist?; and into Portuguese —Fundamento do Calvinismo-Agostiniano.

68 See note 60. Rist’s focus was pagan Stoicism.

69 Some Christian groups can press anti-Calvinism too far, so much that they themselves violate the limits of historical orthodoxy. See, e.g., Kenneth Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society: Become a Christian without Faith in Jesus as God and Savior (Montgomery, TX: Regula Fidei Press, 2020). Bob Wilkin and his Grace Evangelical Society teach “assurance is of the essence of saving faith.” Calvinists cannot have assurance of their own eternal security because Calvinists teach perseverance in faith and works until physical death is required for final salvation. Therefore, Calvinists are not Christians. This GES heresy requires absolute assurance in Jesus’s promise of personal eternal security to become a Christian, yet does not require faith in Jesus as God and Savior.