Does God Determine Sin?
by
Monty L. Collier
Whenever we discuss God’s absolute predestination of all things, the following question is often raised: Did God determine sin?
The Bible answers this question very clearly.
Let’s begin with the worst sin ever created, then, let’s move on to the rest.
If you have read your Bible, you know the worst sin ever committed was determined by God. The murder of Jesus, which is simultaneously the vicarious sacrifice for God's elect, was determined by God almighty!
"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
(Acts 4:27-28)
If the worst sin was determined by God, then what of all other sins?—were they also determined by God?
The Bible says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
No evil deed is done without God's absolute predestination! Consider the following rhetorical question from Scripture:
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
(Lamentations 3:38)
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"
(Amos 3:6)
Job knew that God determined both good and evil deeds:
"What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
(Job 2:10)
Consider false prophets; they are not merely deceived by chance, but rather: God causes them to believe lies!
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
(Ezekiel 14:9)
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
(1 Kings 22:23)
In short, God determines all the events of history, both good and bad, and if you don't like it, too bad. The Bible says:
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"
(Romans 9:19-21)
So, let us remember, when we say the God of the Bible is sovereign, we are claiming the God of the Bible determines all things. From the smallest and seemingly unimportant events to the greatest events in history, God determines them all. Old School Primitive Baptist Gilbert Beebe correctly stated:
“By the term sovereign, as it applies to God, we are not to understand an arbitrary or tyrannical being, but quite the reverse; an all-wise disposer of all events, an independent, self-existent, and omniscient God; one who holds the eternal destiny of his creatures in his own almighty grasp, working all things after the counsel of his own will, even as he has ordained all things for his own glory; and being independent of and superior to all beings in heaven or on earth, has an incontestable right to do his pleasure in heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; having a right to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor; to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will to harden; to reveal his gospel unto “babes and sucklings,” and to hide the same from the “wise and prudent,” to love Jacob and to hate Esau, to save his people with an everlasting salvation, and to turn the wicked into hell, with all the nations that forget God.”
(Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Volume 1, pages 13-14)
Consider how God is independent of and superior to all beings. Sinful man may dream of being independent of God, but God alone is self-existent and independent. While commenting on Psalm 50:9-13, John Calvin stops to discuss Isaiah 66:1-2. These two verses from Isaiah read: “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made” (Isaiah 66:1-2). Calvin comments:
“In these words God asserts his absolute independence; for while the world had a beginning, he himself was from eternity. From this it follows, that as he subsisted when there was nothing without him which could contribute to his fullness, he must have in himself a glorious all-sufficiency.”
(Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume V, page 269)
Hence, it is impossible for man to ever be independent from God. Man would cease to exist, if he could become free from God. The Bible says:
“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.”
(Acts 17:28)
Obviously, all of this implies that God has free-will, while man does not. The comprehensive teaching of the Bible is clear: at no point has man’s will ever been free from God’s determination. Martin Luther correctly wrote the following:
“For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself, there can be no “Free-will”—in man, in angel, or in any creature!
“Hence: if we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing—as “Free-will!””
(The Bondage of the Will, Section 167, page 241 [Henry Cole Translation])
But does not God’s absolute predestination of all things imply that men are not responsible for their thoughts and deeds?
No, for the Bible teaches there are two primary things which make men responsible before God:
1) God's sovereign ability to call men to give a response for their thoughts and deeds (see Romans 9:19-21)
2) Man's knowledge of God's moral law, which makes him / her responsible (see Luke 12:47: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.")
Finally, even our conversational English has been determined to reflect basic Calvinism, for parents tell their children: "You’re going to be punished, for you KNEW not to do that." No parent says: "Now, Johnny, you have free-will, and you will be punished for using your arbitrary-power-of-contrary-choice incorrectly"--LOL!
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Christ death for the elect alone and of their assurance
God does not love all sinners, nor did Jesus Christ die for all sinners.
by
Monty L. Collier
God loves some of the sinful humans in this world, but He does not love all of them. God loves some sinners, but He hates the rest. The Bible says: "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" Romans 9:13. Those persons loved by God are chosen in Christ to be saved. They are God's elect and He will save them all. Nothing in this universe can prevent God's love from saving us. The Bible says:
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord"
Romans 8:35-39
God's love is an omnipotent love that cannot fail to save His elect. Election is based on God's love, while reprobation is based upon God's hate. God is not merciful to reprobates. God does not desire to save reprobates. Jesus Christ did not die for any of the reprobates. All reprobates are left in in their sins and justly condemned to eternal damnation by God's Law. Election and reprobation are not based upon anything in men or done by men. Election and reprobation are based on God's sovereign judgment alone. The Bible says: "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" Romans 9:11-13.
Election and reprobation took place in eternity, before the creation of the universe. In eternity, God the Father chose God the Son to be the federal head of the elect. The elect were predestined in Christ to be saved, while God chose not to be merciful to the rest of mankind. God did not choose the elect from a fallen mass of people. The Bible says: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" Romans 9:21. God's decrees to elect and reprobate logically precede the decrees to create man and have Adam fall, plunging the human race into sin.
God loves the elect and Jesus Christ died for their sins alone, saving them. Jesus Christ did not die for the reprobates. The redemption of Christ is limited to the elect alone. Jesus does not pray for all men, does not intercede for all men, for Jesus is the Savior of His people, which are the elect alone. Jesus says: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" John 17:9.
When men wrongly claim that God desires the salvation of every sinful human and that Jesus died for every sinner, they will appeal to a variety of verses for support. However, context and logic easily defeat these arguments for what is called "universal salvation." So, for example, in an attempt to refute Particular Redemption, a Roman Catholic may appeal to 1 Timothy 2:3-6, which reads: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Let's consider this passage. If God will have all men to be saved, that is, every fallen human, then all of them will be saved. Not a single one of them will be condemned, for God is omnipotent and accomplishes all of His desires. The Bible says: "But he is one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth" Job 23:13. However, it is clear that many will not be saved, but condemned (Matthew 7:21-23). Since there are no contradictions in Scripture, for God is logical, not insane, it therefore follows that God does not desire the salvation of all sinners. So, when 1 Timothy 2:4 speaks of "all men," then it is speaking of all elect persons. It is not speaking of reprobates. Likewise, when 1 Timothy 2:6 speaks of Christ giving himself a ransom for all, it is speaking of all of the elect. If Christ died for the reprobates and their sins, paying their ransom, freeing them from the demands of the Law, satisfying the Law for them, then none of them would be condemned. It would be unjust for God to condemn them for sins Christ has already expiated. But God is just, and the reprobates are condemned justly for their sins. It therefore follows that Christ did not die for their sins.
Let's now talk about you. How can you know if Christ died for your sins? That's easy, for the Bible says that all of those who believe the Gospel were elected unto salvation. The Bible says: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" Acts 13:48.
Do you believe the Gospel?
Do you believe Christ died for your sins? If you do, then you are one of the elect, whom God loves, whom Christ died for. If you are afraid of going to hell, if you desire to be saved by Jesus Christ alone, then know you are justified before God. No reprobate desires to be saved by Jesus Christ alone. Reprobates trust in themselves, not in Christ alone. The one who believes the Gospel responds as Peter did:
"Then said Jesus unto the twelve, will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God" John 6:68-69.
Amen.
by
Monty L. Collier
God loves some of the sinful humans in this world, but He does not love all of them. God loves some sinners, but He hates the rest. The Bible says: "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" Romans 9:13. Those persons loved by God are chosen in Christ to be saved. They are God's elect and He will save them all. Nothing in this universe can prevent God's love from saving us. The Bible says:
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord"
Romans 8:35-39
God's love is an omnipotent love that cannot fail to save His elect. Election is based on God's love, while reprobation is based upon God's hate. God is not merciful to reprobates. God does not desire to save reprobates. Jesus Christ did not die for any of the reprobates. All reprobates are left in in their sins and justly condemned to eternal damnation by God's Law. Election and reprobation are not based upon anything in men or done by men. Election and reprobation are based on God's sovereign judgment alone. The Bible says: "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" Romans 9:11-13.
Election and reprobation took place in eternity, before the creation of the universe. In eternity, God the Father chose God the Son to be the federal head of the elect. The elect were predestined in Christ to be saved, while God chose not to be merciful to the rest of mankind. God did not choose the elect from a fallen mass of people. The Bible says: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" Romans 9:21. God's decrees to elect and reprobate logically precede the decrees to create man and have Adam fall, plunging the human race into sin.
God loves the elect and Jesus Christ died for their sins alone, saving them. Jesus Christ did not die for the reprobates. The redemption of Christ is limited to the elect alone. Jesus does not pray for all men, does not intercede for all men, for Jesus is the Savior of His people, which are the elect alone. Jesus says: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" John 17:9.
When men wrongly claim that God desires the salvation of every sinful human and that Jesus died for every sinner, they will appeal to a variety of verses for support. However, context and logic easily defeat these arguments for what is called "universal salvation." So, for example, in an attempt to refute Particular Redemption, a Roman Catholic may appeal to 1 Timothy 2:3-6, which reads: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
Let's consider this passage. If God will have all men to be saved, that is, every fallen human, then all of them will be saved. Not a single one of them will be condemned, for God is omnipotent and accomplishes all of His desires. The Bible says: "But he is one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth" Job 23:13. However, it is clear that many will not be saved, but condemned (Matthew 7:21-23). Since there are no contradictions in Scripture, for God is logical, not insane, it therefore follows that God does not desire the salvation of all sinners. So, when 1 Timothy 2:4 speaks of "all men," then it is speaking of all elect persons. It is not speaking of reprobates. Likewise, when 1 Timothy 2:6 speaks of Christ giving himself a ransom for all, it is speaking of all of the elect. If Christ died for the reprobates and their sins, paying their ransom, freeing them from the demands of the Law, satisfying the Law for them, then none of them would be condemned. It would be unjust for God to condemn them for sins Christ has already expiated. But God is just, and the reprobates are condemned justly for their sins. It therefore follows that Christ did not die for their sins.
Let's now talk about you. How can you know if Christ died for your sins? That's easy, for the Bible says that all of those who believe the Gospel were elected unto salvation. The Bible says: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" Acts 13:48.
Do you believe the Gospel?
Do you believe Christ died for your sins? If you do, then you are one of the elect, whom God loves, whom Christ died for. If you are afraid of going to hell, if you desire to be saved by Jesus Christ alone, then know you are justified before God. No reprobate desires to be saved by Jesus Christ alone. Reprobates trust in themselves, not in Christ alone. The one who believes the Gospel responds as Peter did:
"Then said Jesus unto the twelve, will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God" John 6:68-69.
Amen.
Free Will the doctrines of demons as taught by Aliester Crowley and Van Til
Aleister Crowley and Cornelius Van Til:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
by
Monty L. Collier
Satanism, and I do mean the religion of Satan, teaches that the will of man is independent from God. Satanism teaches that man has free-will. Satanism teaches that man should do whatever he wants, rather than what the Bible alone says. The inescapable implication of this teaching of Satanism is man himself is God.
Satanism teaches that man should not believe in God, but rather, man should believe in himself. This evil is sometimes called humanism. The person who does not believe in God, but trusts in himself, is echoing Protagoras’ ancient maxim: man is the measure of all things. This satanic notion is the ideological father of the many different forms of pragmatism, which all sing the praises of phenomenological relativism.
A more recent rendering of Protagoras’ ancient maxim can be found in the teachings of Satanist Aleister Crowley, who taught the following: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Crowley’s maxim permeates Hollywood and the music industry like a bad rash. The messages of Hollywood movies and popular music are anything but Biblical, and each year these evil messages grow incrementally worse. Not surprisingly, T-shirts depicting popular rappers and actors can be found advertising the satanic slogan “Do what thou wilt.”
Not only does Satan control the media, but Satan also controls most of the so-called Christian organizations, too. For example, satanic teachings have been part of the curriculum at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia for decades. Enter the teachings of Cornelius Van Til. The teachings of Van Til dominate Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but they also influence quite a few other Presbyterian denominations. Although slightly disguised, Cornelius Van Til also taught Alister Crowley’s Satanic doctrine (Do what thou wilt) in a series of published statements. Check out the following quotes from Van Til:
“Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.”
(The Defense of the Faith, page 44)
Of course, the Bible never says all human knowledge is paradoxical, nor does any Reformed confession, but heretics disregard such things. In another work, Van Til denied there was any difference between an actual contradiction and an apparent contradiction (paradox). Van Til writes:
“Shall we then follow Karl Barth in saying that contradictions in Scripture do not matter in the least because what the gospel is really all about takes place in a real ‘above’ ordinary history? Or shall we with Gordon Clark say that the ‘contradiction’ that we think we ‘see’ is no real contradiction at all? We cannot follow any of these ways.”
(Toward a Reformed Apologetics, page 4)
In yet another work, Van Til explains why his followers do not and should not attempt to reconcile any paradoxes they might find in the Bible. He writes:
“It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the Christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they refuse to make any attempt at “stating clearly” any Christian doctrine, or the relation of any one Christian doctrine to any other Christian doctrine. They will not attempt to “solve” the “paradoxes” Involved in the relationship of the self-contained God to his dependent creatures.”
(An Introduction to Systematic Theology, chapter 13, page 172)
For Van Til, the Bible is filled with irreconcilable paradoxes, and so he thinks none of his followers should even bother to teach clearly. Van Til’s satanic teaching (the Bible is full of contradictions) is ferociously opposed by Martin Luther. Consider what Luther wrote:
“Nevertheless, it is impossible for Scripture to contradict itself except at the hands of senseless and stubborn hypocrites.”
(Luther’s Works, Volume 26, page 295)
John Calvin was Luther’s greatest student. Calvin completely rejected the heresy of Van Tilianism. Calvin constantly labored to show the logical consistency of Scripture, by publishing entire harmonies of Scripture. Unlike Van Til, Calvin believed that Christians should make every effort to teach clearly. When it came to paradox, which Roman Catholics have always passionately embraced, John Calvin stated:
“I abhor paradox.”
(John Calvin: Tracts & Letters, Volume 3, page 149)
Even so, few people today read Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is one reason men like Van Til can infiltrate Presbyterian seminaries and dispense their poison so easily. The Bible says:
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Jude, verse 4)
Once a person comes to believe Van Til’s teaching (all human knowledge is hopelessly self-contradicting), then it doesn’t matter what one believes or does—for, according to Van Til, there is no truth—THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE! So, when it is all said and done, Van Til’s response to Francis Schaeffer’s profound question “How should we then live?” is: Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the Law! Cornelius Van Til was teaching Satanism.
I thank God for His Word, which completely contradicts the satanic teachings of men like Van Til and Crowely. Although these Satanists did not believe in truth or knowledge, the Holy Scripture states:
“The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed”
(1 Samuel 2:3)
“He (God) that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?”
(Psalms 94:10, emphasis mine)
“His (God’s) truth endureth to all generations”
(Psalms 100:5, emphasis mine)
Satanic principles, whether from Aleister Crowley or Cornelius Van Til, assert a disregard, not only for Holy Scripture in particular, but for all people in general. These hellish teachings breed psychopaths, who operate on the old Jesuit maxim: the end justifies the means. Of course, none of this is coincidental, and this is why Satanism leads directly to Roman Catholicism.
To conclude, when we Calvinists say the pope is Antichrist, we are testifying that the Roman Catholic Church is Satan’s church.
Let us never forget:
The Bible alone is the Word of God!
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
by
Monty L. Collier
Satanism, and I do mean the religion of Satan, teaches that the will of man is independent from God. Satanism teaches that man has free-will. Satanism teaches that man should do whatever he wants, rather than what the Bible alone says. The inescapable implication of this teaching of Satanism is man himself is God.
Satanism teaches that man should not believe in God, but rather, man should believe in himself. This evil is sometimes called humanism. The person who does not believe in God, but trusts in himself, is echoing Protagoras’ ancient maxim: man is the measure of all things. This satanic notion is the ideological father of the many different forms of pragmatism, which all sing the praises of phenomenological relativism.
A more recent rendering of Protagoras’ ancient maxim can be found in the teachings of Satanist Aleister Crowley, who taught the following: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Crowley’s maxim permeates Hollywood and the music industry like a bad rash. The messages of Hollywood movies and popular music are anything but Biblical, and each year these evil messages grow incrementally worse. Not surprisingly, T-shirts depicting popular rappers and actors can be found advertising the satanic slogan “Do what thou wilt.”
Not only does Satan control the media, but Satan also controls most of the so-called Christian organizations, too. For example, satanic teachings have been part of the curriculum at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia for decades. Enter the teachings of Cornelius Van Til. The teachings of Van Til dominate Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but they also influence quite a few other Presbyterian denominations. Although slightly disguised, Cornelius Van Til also taught Alister Crowley’s Satanic doctrine (Do what thou wilt) in a series of published statements. Check out the following quotes from Van Til:
“Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradiction in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.”
(The Defense of the Faith, page 44)
Of course, the Bible never says all human knowledge is paradoxical, nor does any Reformed confession, but heretics disregard such things. In another work, Van Til denied there was any difference between an actual contradiction and an apparent contradiction (paradox). Van Til writes:
“Shall we then follow Karl Barth in saying that contradictions in Scripture do not matter in the least because what the gospel is really all about takes place in a real ‘above’ ordinary history? Or shall we with Gordon Clark say that the ‘contradiction’ that we think we ‘see’ is no real contradiction at all? We cannot follow any of these ways.”
(Toward a Reformed Apologetics, page 4)
In yet another work, Van Til explains why his followers do not and should not attempt to reconcile any paradoxes they might find in the Bible. He writes:
“It is precisely because they are concerned to defend the Christian doctrine of revelation as basic to all intelligible human predication that they refuse to make any attempt at “stating clearly” any Christian doctrine, or the relation of any one Christian doctrine to any other Christian doctrine. They will not attempt to “solve” the “paradoxes” Involved in the relationship of the self-contained God to his dependent creatures.”
(An Introduction to Systematic Theology, chapter 13, page 172)
For Van Til, the Bible is filled with irreconcilable paradoxes, and so he thinks none of his followers should even bother to teach clearly. Van Til’s satanic teaching (the Bible is full of contradictions) is ferociously opposed by Martin Luther. Consider what Luther wrote:
“Nevertheless, it is impossible for Scripture to contradict itself except at the hands of senseless and stubborn hypocrites.”
(Luther’s Works, Volume 26, page 295)
John Calvin was Luther’s greatest student. Calvin completely rejected the heresy of Van Tilianism. Calvin constantly labored to show the logical consistency of Scripture, by publishing entire harmonies of Scripture. Unlike Van Til, Calvin believed that Christians should make every effort to teach clearly. When it came to paradox, which Roman Catholics have always passionately embraced, John Calvin stated:
“I abhor paradox.”
(John Calvin: Tracts & Letters, Volume 3, page 149)
Even so, few people today read Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is one reason men like Van Til can infiltrate Presbyterian seminaries and dispense their poison so easily. The Bible says:
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Jude, verse 4)
Once a person comes to believe Van Til’s teaching (all human knowledge is hopelessly self-contradicting), then it doesn’t matter what one believes or does—for, according to Van Til, there is no truth—THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE! So, when it is all said and done, Van Til’s response to Francis Schaeffer’s profound question “How should we then live?” is: Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the Law! Cornelius Van Til was teaching Satanism.
I thank God for His Word, which completely contradicts the satanic teachings of men like Van Til and Crowely. Although these Satanists did not believe in truth or knowledge, the Holy Scripture states:
“The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed”
(1 Samuel 2:3)
“He (God) that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?”
(Psalms 94:10, emphasis mine)
“His (God’s) truth endureth to all generations”
(Psalms 100:5, emphasis mine)
Satanic principles, whether from Aleister Crowley or Cornelius Van Til, assert a disregard, not only for Holy Scripture in particular, but for all people in general. These hellish teachings breed psychopaths, who operate on the old Jesuit maxim: the end justifies the means. Of course, none of this is coincidental, and this is why Satanism leads directly to Roman Catholicism.
To conclude, when we Calvinists say the pope is Antichrist, we are testifying that the Roman Catholic Church is Satan’s church.
Let us never forget:
The Bible alone is the Word of God!
The PRC teaches a conditional gospel
This small essay is by Red Beetle (Monty Collier) taken from the Red Beetle group page with permission.
A Letter from David J. Devilsma (PRC)
Greetings, my name is David J. Devilsma. I have been a pastor and seminary professor for decades in the Papist Romish Churches (PRC for short), which are headquartered here in Michigan. Since I am a pastor and seminary professor, you can trust me.
Now that I have dazzled you with my titles and years of service, let me piously come to the point of this letter. It has come to my humble attention that there are individuals scattered across the globe who profess faith in the gospel, but who are not members of any institutional church that teaches our dogma. Some of these professing individuals have no institutional church at all in their area. This individualism must be crushed.
These individuals who trust in Christ alone for their salvation are not Christians, for they are not members of any institutional church. These men who rely merely upon the righteousness of Christ (rather than their own good works) are not just before God, for there is no salvation outside the institutional church. Lay people and commoners need to understand this: there is no salvation outside the institutional church. Trust me: I teach seminary.
Before one can even have a chance of being justified before God, one must do the following works: join an institutional church like those found in the PRC, obey the church's elders, support the church with your money, and never leave or get excommunicated. Oh, and if you do not live near one of our churches, you will need to leave and move to Michigan--you don't want to miss heaven due to being stuck outside of Michigan!
Once our reverend, holy priests, um, I mean "elders," accept you into our church, you can cease trusting in Christ alone and put your trust in your very own church membership! Hey, you can trust me: I'm a pastor.
Some complain about moving away, but wait: if you have the money, we would be delighted to come to your nation and minister to you. Of course, if you don't have the money, or, heaven forbid, if the money runs out, you will have to find your own way to Michigan (if you are one of the elect, you will get to Michigan and join one of our congregations). Now, we are not saying that your salvation depends upon you having money, were just saying you're going to hell if you don't have enough money to get here. If you're confused, don't worry, I teach seminary: these things are mysterious!
Oh, some of you may be thinking that the Bible alone is effectual and sufficient for salvation...well, it's not! Look, I have been a pastor for years, and I can tell you that no one has ever been saved by merely reading the Bible. One can only be saved by sitting under the preaching of an officially ordained PRC minister. This is because the Bible only becomes the Word of God when our priests pick it up and tell you what it means. The Bible is nothing without our ministers! So, if you want to witness one of our ministers transform the Bible into God's Word so you might have a chance to be saved, you better move here and join one of our churches.
A few critics, probably lay people, have claimed the Bible has many instances of people being converted, while not having membership in any institutional church--and while not being under the preaching of any officially ordained elder. Some have pointed to places in the Bible where people are converted by merely reading Scripture, or hearing it read by one who was not an officially ordained elder. Some have even pointed to Martin Luther's conversion and how Luther was converted merely by reading the Bible alone in a tower by himself. "Luther was not converted by the preaching of any officially ordained man," say some. Disturbing as these claims are to us at the PRC, time forbids us from dealing with such remarks. Like all, we are puzzled. Trust me, these things are mysterious!
Oh, and finally, a word to those critics who point out all the dogmatic identities between the Roman Catholic Church and the PRC when it comes to how men are justified before God. Look, just because the Roman Catholic Church and we at the PRC both teach that the gospel demands our obedience, which implies our good works are necessary for our salvation, thus mixing Law and Gospel, while proclaiming justification by faith and works; and just because we both teach that there is no salvation outside the institutional church--or that the Bible alone is ineffectual to save apart from the Church's official preaching/interpretation of it--none of this indicates that we at the PRC hold to a Roman Catholic view of the gospel. After all, you can trust me: I'm a pastor and seminary teacher.
A Letter from David J. Devilsma (PRC)
Greetings, my name is David J. Devilsma. I have been a pastor and seminary professor for decades in the Papist Romish Churches (PRC for short), which are headquartered here in Michigan. Since I am a pastor and seminary professor, you can trust me.
Now that I have dazzled you with my titles and years of service, let me piously come to the point of this letter. It has come to my humble attention that there are individuals scattered across the globe who profess faith in the gospel, but who are not members of any institutional church that teaches our dogma. Some of these professing individuals have no institutional church at all in their area. This individualism must be crushed.
These individuals who trust in Christ alone for their salvation are not Christians, for they are not members of any institutional church. These men who rely merely upon the righteousness of Christ (rather than their own good works) are not just before God, for there is no salvation outside the institutional church. Lay people and commoners need to understand this: there is no salvation outside the institutional church. Trust me: I teach seminary.
Before one can even have a chance of being justified before God, one must do the following works: join an institutional church like those found in the PRC, obey the church's elders, support the church with your money, and never leave or get excommunicated. Oh, and if you do not live near one of our churches, you will need to leave and move to Michigan--you don't want to miss heaven due to being stuck outside of Michigan!
Once our reverend, holy priests, um, I mean "elders," accept you into our church, you can cease trusting in Christ alone and put your trust in your very own church membership! Hey, you can trust me: I'm a pastor.
Some complain about moving away, but wait: if you have the money, we would be delighted to come to your nation and minister to you. Of course, if you don't have the money, or, heaven forbid, if the money runs out, you will have to find your own way to Michigan (if you are one of the elect, you will get to Michigan and join one of our congregations). Now, we are not saying that your salvation depends upon you having money, were just saying you're going to hell if you don't have enough money to get here. If you're confused, don't worry, I teach seminary: these things are mysterious!
Oh, some of you may be thinking that the Bible alone is effectual and sufficient for salvation...well, it's not! Look, I have been a pastor for years, and I can tell you that no one has ever been saved by merely reading the Bible. One can only be saved by sitting under the preaching of an officially ordained PRC minister. This is because the Bible only becomes the Word of God when our priests pick it up and tell you what it means. The Bible is nothing without our ministers! So, if you want to witness one of our ministers transform the Bible into God's Word so you might have a chance to be saved, you better move here and join one of our churches.
A few critics, probably lay people, have claimed the Bible has many instances of people being converted, while not having membership in any institutional church--and while not being under the preaching of any officially ordained elder. Some have pointed to places in the Bible where people are converted by merely reading Scripture, or hearing it read by one who was not an officially ordained elder. Some have even pointed to Martin Luther's conversion and how Luther was converted merely by reading the Bible alone in a tower by himself. "Luther was not converted by the preaching of any officially ordained man," say some. Disturbing as these claims are to us at the PRC, time forbids us from dealing with such remarks. Like all, we are puzzled. Trust me, these things are mysterious!
Oh, and finally, a word to those critics who point out all the dogmatic identities between the Roman Catholic Church and the PRC when it comes to how men are justified before God. Look, just because the Roman Catholic Church and we at the PRC both teach that the gospel demands our obedience, which implies our good works are necessary for our salvation, thus mixing Law and Gospel, while proclaiming justification by faith and works; and just because we both teach that there is no salvation outside the institutional church--or that the Bible alone is ineffectual to save apart from the Church's official preaching/interpretation of it--none of this indicates that we at the PRC hold to a Roman Catholic view of the gospel. After all, you can trust me: I'm a pastor and seminary teacher.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
God who not only knows all that will happen but also causes it to happen by his will
In order not to quote too much of Clark in one little segment, not that it would be bad to quote him fully, I will give a synopsis of what he wrote in the last chapter of Religion, Reason and Revelation - subtitled God and Evil on Pg. 160.
On this page Clark speaks of Omniscience and presents a case of an observer from far off watching two cars about to collide. As far as the observer knows and sees these cars will in fact collide. However, his knowledge of such things does not actually cause the accident. From this view the Arminian-Romanist attempts to explain that God knows the future without causing it to happen.
Clark responds,
In other words God's knowledge of the event from eternity past makes it certain that the event will in fact occur. This is a deathblow to the Arminian and also to the Molinist who want to assert that God does not know for certain whether something would in fact take place. God's knowledge is certain because God's knowledge is perfect.
Clark, continues,
Sorry I don't want to quote too much of Clark. If one is interested in Clark's argument I would suggest that you go and buy the book preferably at the Trinity Foundation. But, Clark's argument thus far has been to show the irrationalism of those who say that God simply knows what will happen without actually causing it to happen. If God was like the observer he certainly could not know what would happen and if God was not the one causing all things to happen then someone else is and hence God could not know exactly what would happen. But, this is exactly what many Calvinist revert back to in their arguments about God's relation to evil.
Clark, says,
Many Calvinist say the very same things that Augustine says with regards to God's relation to evil. R.C. Sproul for instance also speaks to Reprobation being a negative decree and not a positive one. The point that Augustine says is that God merely removes his grace from the situation. In which case the question is properly asked, 'why?' If God was concerned for the greater good then why in fact does evil exist? Could God not have created a world in which there was no evil? This is where the supposedly Christian philosopher tries to respond to the question of God and evil. This is where I will say as a Christian and as Calvinist that God wanted evil to occur and he does so for His own purpose. Yes evil glorifies God. God is equally ultimate what happens in this world.
John Calvin says,
On this page Clark speaks of Omniscience and presents a case of an observer from far off watching two cars about to collide. As far as the observer knows and sees these cars will in fact collide. However, his knowledge of such things does not actually cause the accident. From this view the Arminian-Romanist attempts to explain that God knows the future without causing it to happen.
Clark responds,
The similarity, however, is deceptive on several points. A human observer cannot really know that collision will occur. Though it is unlikely, it is possible for both cars to have blowouts before reaching the intersection and swerve apart. It is also possible that the observer has misjudged the speeds, in which case one car could slow down and the other accelerate, so that they would not collide. The human observer, therefore, does not have infallible foreknowledge.
No such mistakes can be assumed for God. The human observer may make a probable guess that the accident will occur, and this guess does not make the accident unavoidable; but if God knows, there is no possibility of avoiding the accident. A hundred years before the drivers were born, there was no possibility of avoiding the accident. There was no possibility that either one of them could have chosen to stay home that day, to have driven a different route, to have driven a different time, to have driven a different speed. They could not have chosen otherwise than as they did. This means either that they had no free will or that God did not know. [Pg. 160]
In other words God's knowledge of the event from eternity past makes it certain that the event will in fact occur. This is a deathblow to the Arminian and also to the Molinist who want to assert that God does not know for certain whether something would in fact take place. God's knowledge is certain because God's knowledge is perfect.
Clark, continues,
Suppose it be granted, just for the moment, that divine foreknowledge, like human guesses, does not cause the foreknown event. Even so, if there is foreknowledge, in contrast with fallible guesses, free will is impossible. If man has free will, and things can be different, God cannot be omniscient. Some Arminians have admitted this and have denied omniscience, but this puts them obviously at odds with Biblical Christianity. There is also another difficulty. If the Arminian or Romanist wishes to retain divine omniscience and at the same time assert that foreknowledge has no causal efficacy, he is put to it to explain how the collision was made certain a hundred years, an eternity, before the drivers were born. If God did not arrange the universe this way, who did?
If God did not arrange it this way, then there must be an independent factor in the universe. And if there is such, one consequence and perhaps two follows. First, the doctrine of creation must be abandoned. . . . Then, second, if the universe is not God's creation, his knowledge of it - past and future - cannot depend on what he intends to do, but on his observation of how it works. . . . And, finally, on this view God's knowledge would be empirical, rather than an integral part of his essence, and that he would be a dependent knower. [Pg. 160 - 161]
Sorry I don't want to quote too much of Clark. If one is interested in Clark's argument I would suggest that you go and buy the book preferably at the Trinity Foundation. But, Clark's argument thus far has been to show the irrationalism of those who say that God simply knows what will happen without actually causing it to happen. If God was like the observer he certainly could not know what would happen and if God was not the one causing all things to happen then someone else is and hence God could not know exactly what would happen. But, this is exactly what many Calvinist revert back to in their arguments about God's relation to evil.
Clark, says,
Plato in his Republic attempted to account for evil by the assumption that God is not the cause of everything, but only of a few things - few because our evils far outnumber our goods. In the Timaeus he was not quite so pessimistic, but he still held that there is an eternal and chaotic Space which the Demiurge cannot entirely control. To the end, therefore, it must be said, Plato retained an unreconciled dualism.
Aristotle, because his philosophy is so completely irreligious, is somewhat an exception in antiquity. He conceived God in such a way that his relation to evil, or to the moral endeavors of men, hardly mattered. The Unmoved Mover is in a sense the cause of all motion, but instead of being an active cause, he causes motion by being the object of the world's desire. He exercises no voluntary control over history. Though he is constantly thinking, he does not seem to think about the world, or, at most, he knows only a part of the past and nothing whatever of the future.
Naturally, the great Christian philosopher Augustine grappled with the difficulty. Under Neoplatonic influence he taught that all existing things are good; evil, therefore, does not exist - it is metaphysically unreal. Being non-existent, it can have no cause, and God therefore is not the cause of evil. When a man sins, it is a case of his choosing a lowest good instead of a higher good. This choice too has no efficient cause, although Augustine assigns to it a deficient cause. In this way God was supposed to be absolved. Augustine, admittedly, was a great Christian and a great philosopher. Later in the chapter more will be said about him. But here he was at his worst. Deficient causes, if there are such things, do not explain why a good God does not abolish sin and guarantee that men always choose the highest good. [Pg. 145]
Many Calvinist say the very same things that Augustine says with regards to God's relation to evil. R.C. Sproul for instance also speaks to Reprobation being a negative decree and not a positive one. The point that Augustine says is that God merely removes his grace from the situation. In which case the question is properly asked, 'why?' If God was concerned for the greater good then why in fact does evil exist? Could God not have created a world in which there was no evil? This is where the supposedly Christian philosopher tries to respond to the question of God and evil. This is where I will say as a Christian and as Calvinist that God wanted evil to occur and he does so for His own purpose. Yes evil glorifies God. God is equally ultimate what happens in this world.
John Calvin says,
Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, having entered a wood in the company of honest men, imprudently wanders from his companions and, pursuing a wrong course, falls into the hands of robbers, and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. For it is said, not that he has foreseen to what limits the life of every man would extend, but that he 'hath appointed bounds which he cannot pass.' Yet, as far as our minds are capable of comprehending, all these circumstances appear fortuitous. What opinion shall a Christian form on this case? He will consider all the circumstances of such a death as in their nature fortuitous, yet he will not doubt that the providence of God presided, and directed fortune to that end. Institutes. I. XVI. IX.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Those who say emotions should be added give emotions the controlling position
"The quotations the complainants offer in their protest to prove their contention are very unconvincing. In fact, they frankly admit
And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31
From the viewpoint of abstract psychology, it is perfectly true that Reformed theologians have not been in complete agreement as to the number and names of the faculties of the human soul. In speaking specifically of the faculties of the human soul, Calvin mentions by name only the intellect and will (Institutes, Bk. I, Chap. XV, Sect. 6). Augustine refers to the perception, understanding, and will [The Text of a Complaint, 8].
And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31
There are two faculties in the soul according to Calvin and Clark
"The second main point of the Complaint against Dr. Clark concerns, in the words of the complainants, 'his view of the relation of the faculty of knowledge, the intellectual faculty, to other faculties of the soul.' I have re-read the material the complainants offer on this point, and also its refutation in The Answer. I think that the points of difference between Dr. Clark and his accusers may, in the main, be summarized as follows:
1. The complainants hold to the trichotomous diviation or distinction of the human soul into its faculties, and apply this also to God. In the human soul they distinguish between intellect, emotion, and will. Dr. Clark prefers the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, refuses to speak of emotion as a separate faculty, and considers the emotions as aspects of the intellect and will. And he, too, applies this distinction to God. . . .
The Answer makes plain that Dr. Clark does not dney the reality of emotions in God, but gives them a different connotation from that of the complainants, and assigns to them a position different from that which the latter assign to them, in relation to God's intellect and will. The complainants make of the emotions in God a separate faculty, next to, and on a level with intellect and will. Dr. Clark gives them a subordinate position, and explains them as aspects or functions of God's intellect and will. From The Answer we quote:
Dr. Clark never made any 'forthright denial of anything that might be called emotion in God.' Love or wrath 'might be called an emotion.' Dr. Clark did not deny love and wrath to God. He holds that while some people might call God's love and wrath emotions, it is better to classify them as volitions. In this Dr. Clark is in accord with a large section of theology and of literary usage [27].
It would seem, then, that the chief point of difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark may be stated thus, that the former hold to the trichotomous, the latter to the dichotomous, distinction as applied to human and 'divine psychology.' (I must not be held responsible for the latter term.)" -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controvery, Pg. 24 - 26
John Calvin in his Institutes also says that man has two faculties consisting of intellect and will. There might be some out there who may want to discredit what I teach and say along with what Dr. Clark also taught and said in his writings. So I will quote Calvin himself.
"We are constrained to depart a little from the mode of instruction, because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following division - that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good; to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the appetitive intellect." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XV. VII.
1. The complainants hold to the trichotomous diviation or distinction of the human soul into its faculties, and apply this also to God. In the human soul they distinguish between intellect, emotion, and will. Dr. Clark prefers the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, refuses to speak of emotion as a separate faculty, and considers the emotions as aspects of the intellect and will. And he, too, applies this distinction to God. . . .
The Answer makes plain that Dr. Clark does not dney the reality of emotions in God, but gives them a different connotation from that of the complainants, and assigns to them a position different from that which the latter assign to them, in relation to God's intellect and will. The complainants make of the emotions in God a separate faculty, next to, and on a level with intellect and will. Dr. Clark gives them a subordinate position, and explains them as aspects or functions of God's intellect and will. From The Answer we quote:
Dr. Clark never made any 'forthright denial of anything that might be called emotion in God.' Love or wrath 'might be called an emotion.' Dr. Clark did not deny love and wrath to God. He holds that while some people might call God's love and wrath emotions, it is better to classify them as volitions. In this Dr. Clark is in accord with a large section of theology and of literary usage [27].
It would seem, then, that the chief point of difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark may be stated thus, that the former hold to the trichotomous, the latter to the dichotomous, distinction as applied to human and 'divine psychology.' (I must not be held responsible for the latter term.)" -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controvery, Pg. 24 - 26
John Calvin in his Institutes also says that man has two faculties consisting of intellect and will. There might be some out there who may want to discredit what I teach and say along with what Dr. Clark also taught and said in his writings. So I will quote Calvin himself.
"We are constrained to depart a little from the mode of instruction, because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following division - that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good; to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the appetitive intellect." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XV. VII.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)