What Is Original Sin?

What Is Original Sin?

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive

ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we

confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness. If we say that we have

not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word

is not in us.

——-

Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.

Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the

children, neither shall the children be put to

death for the fathers: every man shall be

put to death for his own sin.

To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the

father, neither shall the father bear the

iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

him.

But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.

——-

The Collective Unconscious

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.

Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.

Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with

himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as

other men are, extortioners, unjust,

adulterers, or even as this publican.

But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:

But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they

defile the man. For out of the heart proceed

evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,

fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies.

That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked: who can know it?

No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):

they that are in the flesh cannot

please God.

As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:

The church is not a museum for pristine

saints, but a hospital ward for broken

sinners.

If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

——-

Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?

Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!

Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.

However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:

Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]

judgment came upon all men to

condemnation; even so by the

righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift

came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many

were made sinners, so by the obedience of

one shall many be made righteous.

In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:

For since by man came death, by man

came also the resurrection of the dead. For

as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

be made alive.

Conclusion

Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.

That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”

What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:

actual sin in the life of man is generally

admitted. This does not mean, however,

that people have always had an equally

profound consciousness of sin. We hear a

great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the

sense of sin.’

Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!

——-

For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in thi

What is Textual Criticism?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Definition of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of textual studies, which comprise various disciplines whose aims are to transcribe, edit, or annotate texts and documents. Textual criticism is a branch of philology (the study of language in oral and written historical sources) and literary criticism, which is interested in the identification of textual variants or different versions of books or manuscripts. Simply put, textual criticism is a method by which scholars try to determine what an original text actually said. Whereas *higher criticism* is concerned with the origins of the original text (e.g. its authorship, date & place of composition), *lower criticism* (i.e. “textual criticism”) seeks to determine the original linguistic-grammatical structure of the text.

The Process of Textual Criticism

In ancient times, prior to the 15th century invention of the printing press, scribes were usually employed to copy documents by hand. During the copying process, however, intentional and unintentional alterations were made, the former sometimes due to political or religious reasons, the latter out of sheer misunderstanding or negligence. Thus, the aim of the textual critic is to understand the historical composition and transmission of a text and its variants. In so doing, the textual critic may be able to produce a so-called “critical edition,” which is a scholarly edition of a corrected text in conjunction with a critical apparatus that records editorial changes, names of manuscripts, and the like.

As already noted, prior to the printing press, literary works were copied by hand and, as expected, copyists produced different variations at certain places in the text. Given that different scribes introduced various errors, the task of textual reconstruction usually requires a selection of readings gathered from multiple sources. Such an edited text is called “eclectic.” In contrast to the multiple-sources approach, however, a number of textual critics will only seek to identify the best extant text with regard to textual reconstruction. When considering various documents (i.e. “witnesses”) of an original text, the linguistic or grammatical differences or variations are called “variants” or “variant readings.” So, through various comparative methods, textual criticism tries to ascertain how the variants were introduced into the text——whether accidentally (via duplication or omission) or intentionally (by way of censorship or harmonization)——as scribes copied from the original autograph and then transmitted these writings across the then-known world.

Guidelines of Textual Criticism

We have hundreds of extant copies of ancient works, thousands as far as the Bible is concerned, but their relationship to the original text is often unclear. Thus, in order to ascertain which readings are faithful (most closely related to the autograph), textual scholars typically debate which sources appear to be derived from the original text. Typically, when there’s no known original manuscript but only several extant copies or versions, certain guidelines/methods of textual criticism are employed in an attempt to *reconstruct* the original text (i.e. the autograph) as faithfully as possible. In order to determine the most accurate readings of a text, scholars have devised certain guidelines (i.e. “canons”) of textual criticism. Without going into great detail, one of the most prominent rules was established by Koine-Greek scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who also produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentaries, Bengel (aka Bengelius) established the rule that “the harder reading is to be preferred.” That’s because the most difficult reading is probably the one that is less tampered with. A number of these guidelines, which were initially designed for Biblical textual criticism, are now applied to all literary texts that have been exposed to errors of textual transmission!

Conclusion

Textual Criticism is important in determining the original words of texts. But it’s especially important in Bible studies with regard to establishing “the word of God” (Hebrews 4:12), that is, the things that God originally said and revealed in holy writ, since it is said therein that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)!

—

Babel and Babylon Refer to the Same Place

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

Definition & Location

Babel is a transliteration of the Hebrew word בָּבֶל (Ba-bel), while Babylon is derived from the Greek Βαβυλῶνος (Babylonos). In the Old Testament, the word “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” in Greek! But besides the linguistic connection, there’s further evidence that both Babel & Babylon are located in the exact same place. For example, Genesis 10.10 & 11.2 locate Babel in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָֽר׃). Astoundingly, Daniel 1.2 tells us that Babylon is also located in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר)! This means that Babel and Babylon are synonymous or interchangeable terms!

The Septuagint & Most English Bibles Translate Babel As Babylon

The Hebrew term “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” (Βαβυλὼν) in the Septuagint (aka LXX; L.C.L. Brenton translation), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Below are the English Bible versions that *also* translate Babel as Babylon:

Gen. 10.10 (LXX, NIV); Gen. 11.9 (CSB,

HCSB, ISV); Ps. 87.4 (LXX & Most Versions);

Ps. 137.1 (LXX & Most Versions); Ps. 137.8

(LXX & Most Versions); Ezek. 12.13 (LXX &

Most Versions); Ezek. 19.9 (LXX & Most

Versions).

Even the JPS Tanakh 1917—-the Jewish Publication Society of America——often translates Babel as Babylon!

In the Greek, Babel is called Βαβυλῶνος, a term that is derived from the word Βαβυλών (Babylon). The Greek New Testament follows the Septuagint translation of rendering Babel as Babylon (see e.g. Mt 1.11-12, 17; cf. 2 Kings 24.8-10 LXX)!

Conclusion

So, if Babel & Babylon are one and the same, and if Babylon the Great——with its high towers & powerful economy——is said to be destroyed in the end-times (Rev. 18), then Babel’s apparent destruction (in Genesis 11) must also be prophetic rather than historical!

—

The Return of Nazism

By Author Eli Kittim

The tactics that modern governments are using against their citizens to coerce and manipulate them are taken from the Nazi playbook. They are using better versions of the same techniques because now they can apply them with greater efficacy and ease via technology!

Nazi Propaganda Welcomed by Big Tech

The Nazis effectively used propaganda to

win the support of millions of Germans in a

democracy and, later in a dictatorship, to

facilitate persecution, war, and ultimately

genocide. The stereotypes and images

found in Nazi propaganda were not new,

but were already familiar to their intended

audience.

(Holocaust Encyclopedia)

Joseph Goebbels was the head of the Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi Party. His modern counterparts are Big Tech & the Mass Media who do not report the fascism that is currently spreading in Australia & elsewhere but rather deceive the masses by deliberately falsifying stories, such as the purported Italian hospital that CBS News pretended was in NYC. At any rate, anyone who objects to their agenda will be duly vilified and punished in a manner according to that depicted in George Orwell’s film 1984.

See the following article in which a former investor compares Facebook to Nazi propaganda: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5071913/Facebook-investor-compares-network-Nazi-propaganda.html

Mail Online

Facebook investor compares network to Nazi propaganda

Speaking in Washington, former Facebook investor Roger McNamee (pictured) warned he believed Facebook had 'absolved itself' from responsibil

Incidentally, why would any Facebook post need to be removed and marked as “False Information” after being supposedly “Checked by Independent Fact-Checkers”? Since the onset of modern science and philosophy, has any theoretical or intellectual position ever been excluded, censored, or removed from the history books simply because it was deemed invalid or classified as “false information”? No. Of course not! In all democratic societies, multiple points of view have always been accepted as parts of any ongoing debate or freedom of expression, which in the US is protected under the 1st amendment (i.e. freedom of speech & freedom of the press). The only times when such freedoms of expression have been stifled, censored, or even outright outlawed were during the reigns of totalitarian regimes, such as the CCP, the USSR, and the NAZI party. Information can certainly be evaluated as true or false, but even if it is deemed false, it is never omitted, censored, or removed on the grounds of possible misinformation or absence of proof. The fact that platforms like Twitter & Facebook are openly removing user-generated content on that basis alone is evidence that they are acting on behalf of a totalitarian regime (a global cabal) that is operating behind the scenes.

Similarities Between the Nazi Human Experimentation and the Current Forced-Vaccine Experimentation

Nazi physicians and their assistants forced

prisoners into participating; they did not

willingly volunteer and no consent was

given for the procedures. Typically, the

experiments were conducted without

anesthesia and resulted in death, trauma,

disfigurement, or permanent disability, and

as such are considered examples of

medical torture. . . . After the war, these

crimes were tried at what became known as

the Doctors' Trial, and revulsion at the

abuses perpetrated led to the development

of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics.

(Wikipedia)

Dr. Josef Mengele (aka the Angel of Death) was the Anthony Fauci of his time who presided over the Auschwitz concentration camp, where he performed deadly genetic-altering experiments on prisoners. As a pioneer on eugenics and “approved genocide,” he was the head of a team of nazi doctors who selected victims to be exterminated in the gas chambers. Today this is Anthony Fauci, the CDC and the WHO, who are in cahoots with Big Pharma & Big Tech. These, together with the UN (United Nations), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the WEF (The World Economic Forum) control governments and nations. They also control the large corporations which are the parent companies of many local news outlets. So, they control the flow of information, the economy, politics, and the culture. Back in the day, these were clandestine operations that were carried out behind the scenes. Now, it’s out in the open. Any state-sponsored science is openly embraced, while all else is relegated to false claims and misinformation.

The Dangers of the COVID-19 Vaccine

I don’t know about you but when credible doctors and scientists (who disagree with the state-sponsored science) are dismissed as cranks by the Big Tech giants, I think it’s time to step back and re-examine what’s going on here. Credible doctors like Peter Andrew McCullough, cardiologist, formerly Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University & professor at Texas A&M University, together with virology expert, Geert Vanden Bossche, PhD, who has previously worked with the B. & M. Gates Foundation and GAVI, and Michael Yeadon, former vice president and chief scientist at drugs giant Pfizer Inc., are all saying that healthy people shouldn’t be coerced into taking “experimental” vaccines. Moreover, Dr Robert Malone, who was chiefly responsible for the creation of the messenger RNA vaccine at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, has said that “the government is not being transparent about the risks” of the covid-19 vaccine. Dr. Malone also said that the public doesn’t have enough information to decide whether to get vaccinated or not. He added that offering incentives for taking vaccines is unethical. These are experts in their fields. To dismiss them as conspiracy theorists is state-sponsored propaganda, or rather Nazi propaganda on steroids. Besides, why the need to force everyone, including pregnant women and children, to get this experimental vaccine and to continue with additional shots in the coming years if people have a 99.9 percent chance of surviving the virus? Why mandate covid passports with long-term vaccination programs——as in Canada’s initiative to vaccinate people in 2022, 2023, and possibly 2024—-if these vaccines never had proper testing or safety protocols? Sounds like we’re the experimental guinea pigs in a forced-participation-nazi-style program regarding covid-19 clinical trials.

FDA Is a Sellout

The fact that US regulators recently gave full approval to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine right after the violent riots & protests around the world——which, by the way, are not being covered by any major media outlet——doesn’t justify their position. It’s a way to defend themselves against the angry mobs. If they’re so caring about people’s health and well-being, why don’t they allow Africa and India to develop their own vaccines? When asked if these countries should develop vaccines Bill Gates gave a resounding “No.” That was to be expected, given that Gates doesn’t want anyone to tamper with his monopoly!

FDA is a sellout: they betrayed their ethical cause to protect lives for personal gain. No reputable scientist would ever approve such an experimental drug with so many adverse side effects and without undergoing rigorous clinical trials, which usually take years. They’ve lost all credibility. Instead of protecting its citizens, the FDA is in bed with the drug companies. This hasty decision to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is a way to manipulate the crowds in the wake of mass worldwide protests. The FDA was obviously bought off. Shame on them! The globalists forced the FDA’s hand to quickly approve the drug so that they can silence the resistance, as if to say, “see? It’s safe.” Nonsense. It’s well known that it is anything but safe. Ask all the doctors. This implies that large sums of money were funneled to Janet Woodcock, the acting commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration, to bribe her into approving the covid-19 drug. It’s really nothing less than “approved genocide.” We are therefore being controlled by a bunch of psychopaths, like Hitler, who don't give a damn about our welfare or our well-being! In fact, they’re deliberately trying to kill us off!

666: The Mark of the Beast

This scenario has already been prophesied in the Book of Revelation, chapter 13 verses 16-17 (KJV), in which a charismatic world leader (the Antichrist) will dominate the world, at the end of days, under a one-world government, and will not allow people to buy or sell, or hold a job, if they don’t have the χάραγμα (mark), which can be translated as a notch, slit, or cut:

he causeth all, both small and great, rich

and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark

in their right hand, … And that no man

might buy or sell, save he that had the

mark.

Conclusion

We need to wake up, unite, and resist. We need to stand up and fight against tyranny, propaganda, and military coercion. Our brothers and sisters are being harassed by armies in Australia & told what to do. The government is prohibiting their right to free speech, making it illegal to protest, enforcing draconian-style mandates, martial law, requiring authorization to leave one’s home, locking them down for the better part of the year, and forcing them to put blood-clotting toxins in their bloodstream. No news agency that I’m aware of is broadcasting this story or the massive protests that are taking place in Melbourne, France, Italy, and around the globe. They don’t want you to know about it because they want your quiet acquiescence to their demands. Yet the CDC admits on its own website the risks, side effects, and potential harm that these *experimental* vaccines pose to humanity: deaths, blood-clots, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, facial swelling & paralysis, myocarditis, severe anaphylaxis, and other medical concerns and complications that have put a halt to some vaccines, and in some cases (as e.g. Denmark/AstraZeneca) banned from use altogether! Why should there be *forced* injections——administering highly toxic materials into our bloodstream——at gun point?

—

Calvin’s Refutations from His Own Published Work: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim

Excerpted from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian religion, Book 3, ch 23.

——-

Calvin’s god Chooses Whatever He Pleases and We Have No Right to Question his Choices

In Institutes, Book 3, ch 23, Calvin says that god chooses whatever he pleases, and we have no right to question his choices. But isn’t that tantamount to saying that “he does as he pleases” as opposed to acting according to the principles of truth and wisdom? Calvin writes:

Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did

so, we must answer, Because he pleased.

But if you proceed farther to ask why he

pleased, you ask for something greater and

more sublime than the will of God, and

nothing such can be found. … This, I say,

will be sufficient to restrain any one who

would reverently contemplate the secret

things of God.

Yet isn’t that precisely what Calvin is doing? Inquiring into the “the secret things of God”? Calvin’s argument can be summarized as follows: men are, by nature, wicked, so if god has predestined some to eternal hellfire, why do they complain? They deserve it. He exclaims:

Accordingly, when we are accosted in such

terms as these, Why did God from the first

predestine some to death, when, as they

were not yet in existence, they could not

have merited sentence of death? let us by

way of reply ask in our turn, What do you

imagine that God owes to man, if he is

pleased to estimate him by his own nature?

As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but

be hateful to God, and that not from

tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice.

But if all whom the Lord predestines to

death are naturally liable to sentence of

death, of what injustice, pray, do they

complain?

He continues his thought that even though god condemned them to hellfire long before they were even born, or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin says:

Should all the sons of Adam come to

dispute and contend with their Creator,

because by his eternal providence they

were before their birth doomed to perpetual

destruction, when God comes to reckon

with them, what will they be able to mutter

against this defense? If all are taken from a

corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are

subject to condemnation. Let them not,

therefore, charge God with injustice, if by

his eternal judgment they are doomed to a

death to which they themselves feel that

whether they will or not they are drawn

spontaneously by their own nature.

But if this decree was foreordained by an absolutely sovereign god even before people were born and prior to having committed any transgressions, why are they held accountable for their sins? It appears to be a contradiction. Curiously enough, John Calvin,

admit[s] that by the will of God all the sons

of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness

in which they are now involved; and this is

just what I said at the first, that we must

always return to the mere pleasure of the

divine will, the cause of which is hidden in

himself.

So he admits that we all sinned “by the will of God” and that god does as he pleases, yet he concludes: who are we to question god’s decisions? But is this a proper explanation of predestination that fully justifies god’s justice, or is it rather an incoherent and unsatisfactory answer? Calvin asserts:

They again object, Were not men

predestinated by the ordination of God to

that corruption which is now held forth as

the cause of condemnation? If so, when

they perish in their corruptions they do

nothing else than suffer punishment for that

calamity, into which, by the predestination

of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his

posterity headlong with him. Is not he,

therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his

creatures? … For what more

seems to be said here than just that the

power of God is such as cannot be

hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he

pleases?

Calvin says “How could he who is the Judge of the world commit any unrighteousness?” But Calvin doesn’t explain how that is so except by way of assumptions, which are based on the idea that god acts as he pleases and does as he wills. But that’s circular reasoning. It’s tantamount to saying that something is true because I assume that it is, without any proof or justification that it is true. It’s a fallacious argument. Calvin argues thusly:

It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek

to subject that which has no bounds to the

little measure of their reason. Paul gives the

name of elect to the angels who maintained

their integrity. If their steadfastness was

owing to the good pleasure of God, the

revolt of the others proves that they were

abandoned. Of this no other cause can be

adduced than reprobation, which is hidden

in the secret counsel of God.

Reprobation, according to Calvin, is based on the notion “that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election.” But if no one deserves the merits of salvation, and if no one obeys the will of god except by god’s grace, then how is god’s election justified? Calvin’s response that it’s justified because god is just is not an explanation: it is a tautological redundancy. Calvin’s reply would be: god decided not to save everybody, and who are we to criticize him? Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate or satisfactory answer.

God’s decision to save some people is called election, and his decision not to save other people is called preterition. According to Calvinism, god chooses to bypass sinners by not granting them belief, which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to creating unbelief (by omission) in them. In other words, god chooses to save some, but not others. And it pleases him to do so.

Is this truly the love of Christ that is freely offered to all? By contrast, according to Scripture, God wishes to save everyone without exception (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). When Matthew 22.14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” it clearly shows that those that are not chosen are still “called.” It doesn’t mean that god did not choose them for salvation. It means they themselves chose to decline the offer of their own accord. How can one logically argue that god wants all people to be saved but only chooses to save some of them? It is a contradiction in terms. And then to attribute this injustice and inequality to what appears to be an “arrogant” god who does as he pleases is dodging the issue.

Biblical Predestination Doesn’t Imply god’s Sovereignty But God’s Foreknowledge

Calvinists employ Ephesians 1.4-5 to prove that god clearly elected to save some (and not to save others) before the foundation of the world. But that is a misinterpretation. The entire Bible rests on God’s foreknowledge, his ability to see into the future: “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46.10; cf. Jn 16.13; Rom. 1.2; Acts 2.22-23; 10.40-41). In other words, God did not choose to save some and not to save others. Rather, through his *foreknowledge* he already knew (or foreknew) who would accept and who would decline his offer. That’s why Rom. 8.29 (BLB) says, “because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” This explanation is consistent with God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, as well as with the justice and righteousness of God! It is reprehensible to suggest that god would choose by himself who would be eternally saved and who would be eternally condemned. That would not be a fair, just, and loving god. However, Calvin rejects prescience on account “that all events take place by his [god’s] sovereign appointment”:

If God merely foresaw human events, and

did not also arrange and dispose of them at

his pleasure, there might be room for

agitating the question, how far his

foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but

since he foresees the things which are to

happen, simply because he has decreed

that they are so to happen, it is vain to

debate about prescience, while it is clear

that all events take place by his sovereign

appointment.

So, Calvin ultimately places all responsibility and accountability on god, who has foreordained all events “by his sovereign appointment.” But if hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if god is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Therefore, according to Calvinism, it would logically follow that god is ultimately responsible for evil, which would implicate himself to be ipso facto evil! There’s no way to extricate god from that logical conclusion.

god Created Evil at his Own Pleasure

In Calvin’s view, god decreed that Adam should sin. In other words, god decrees all sin, which is a sign of his omnipotence and will. How revolting! He writes:

They deny that it is ever said in distinct

terms, God decreed that Adam should

perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who

is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he

pleases, could have made the noblest of his

creatures without any special purpose.

They say that, in accordance with free-will,

he was to be the architect of his own

fortune, that God had decreed nothing but

to treat him according to his desert. If this

frigid fiction is received, where will be the

omnipotence of God, by which, according to

his secret counsel on which every thing

depends, he rules over all?

Invariably, Calvin places the blame indirectly on god. Calvin holds to an uncompromising hard determinism position, without the slightest possibility of free will, by claiming that even god’s foreknowledge is “ordained by his decree”:

it is impossible to deny that God foreknew

what the end of man was to be before he

made him, and foreknew, because he had

so ordained by his decree.

If this isn’t an evil doctrine I don’t know what is. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He writes:

God not only foresaw the fall of the first

man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but

also at his own pleasure arranged it.

Wasn’t Satan the one who supposedly arranged it? Hmm, now I’m not so sure … If god is the author of evil, why would he involve Satan in this script? In fact, Calvin insists that the wicked perish not because of god’s permission but because of his will. He says that “their perdition depends on the predestination of God … The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.” What a dreadful thing to say. It’s as if Calvin was under the inspiration of Satan, teaching “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1 NKJV). Calvin writes:

Here they recur to the distinction between

will and permission, the object being to

prove that the wicked perish only by the

permission, but not by the will of God. But

why do we say that he permits, but just

because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any

probability in the thing itself--viz. that man

brought death upon himself merely by the

permission, and not by the ordination of

God; as if God had not determined what he

wished the condition of the chief of his

creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore,

simply to confess with Augustine that the

will of God is necessity, and that every thing

is necessary which he has willed.

Calvin attempts to show that there’s no contradiction in his statement but, instead of providing logical proof, he once again resorts to circular reasoning, namely, that the accountability rests with an authoritarian god who does as he pleases:

There is nothing inconsistent with this when

we say, that God, according to the good

pleasure of his will, without any regard to

merit, elects those whom he chooses for

sons, while he rejects and reprobates

others.

Instead of admitting that this is his own wicked view of god, which certainly deserves rebuke and criticism, he suggests that this is the way god really is. In other words, he indirectly blames god by way of compliments. By insisting on god’s Sovereignty and omnipotence, he sets god up to take the blame for everything. Yet in his evasive and largely indefensible argument, he ends up justifying the seemingly “capricious” acts of god by saying that god is still just:

Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to

charge God with dispensing justice

unequally, because in this predestination he

does not observe the same course towards

all. … he is free from every accusation; just

as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the

debt to one, and exact it of another.

Conclusion

Just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a philosophical contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism).

The Calvinist god is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. He is neither trustworthy nor does he equally offer unconditional love to all! In fact, this view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

Calvin’s deity is surprisingly similar to the god of the Gnostics, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world! This is the dark side of a pagan god who doesn’t seem to act according to the principles of truth and wisdom but according to personal whims. With this god, you could end up in hell in a heartbeat, through no fault of your own. Therefore, Calvin’s god is more like Satan!

This is certainly NOT the loving, trustworthy, and righteous God of the Bible in whom “There is no evil” whatsoever (Ps 92.15 NLT; Jas. 1.13). Calvin’s god is not “the God of truth” (Isa. 65.16; cf. Jn 17.17), who “never lies” (Tit. 1.1-2), and who is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18). Calvin’s theology does not square well with the NT notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5 NRSV)!

Thus, Calvin’s argument is not only fallacious, unsound, and unbiblical, but also completely disingenuous. For if “life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God,” including the prearrangement of sin “at his own pleasure,” as Calvin asserts, then “to charge God with dispensing justice unequally” is certainly a valid criticism! Calvin harshly accused his critics of promulgating blasphemies, but little did he realize the greater blasphemies and abominations that he himself was uttering! A case in point is that he makes God the author of sin!

——-

The Heresy of the “Grace Road Church” of Korea

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

A Cult Movement

According to Wiki,

The Grace Road Church is a South Korean

quasi-Christian new religious movement

and cult (although its members call it a

Church) founded in 2002.

This so-called “church” is currently based in Fiji. It moved there because its pastor Shin Okjoo predicted a famine in Korea. This is a shrewd and calculating woman who demanded strict obedience as she seized the passports of about 400 followers so that they wouldn’t leave. Many nearby churches have hurled accusations that this is a cult movement.

The church has diversified and raised funds by opening businesses across Fiji that range from the hospitality industry to construction to agriculture. Footage has emerged of physical abuse and violence, including slave labor. In 2019, its leader Shin Okjoo was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail.

The Grace Road Church Claims that the Holy Spirit Is a Woman & that Jesus Is Not God the Son

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). Note that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit don’t use the feminine but rather the masculine, third-person pronoun “he.”

The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the Son of God, such as in Jn 1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1.2 (God’s “Son, … through whom he also created the worlds”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

Hence, the Grace Road Church’s Biblical claims that the Holy Spirit is a woman and that Jesus is not God the Son are completely bogus and misinformed!

—