Calvinism is madness itself

Calvinists are either mad, stupid or simply absolutely naïve!
(And if you disagree, please properly demonstrate why you consider me to be wrong. I have given reasons; so should you!)

You see, calvinists have to agree with the following two statements:
(a) God is perfect and everything He does is perfect.
(b) All things in this world happen according to God’s sovereign will and ordination alone.

Therefore calvinists must believe that:
(a) All things in this world must be perfect, including sin and evil.
(b) Not one imperfect act may exist in a world where the calvinist God rules.
Otherwise, if they declare sin to be evil in any way, then they must accept that their God is not perfect or that his will is not the only will in the universe.

Calvinist “expert” A W Pink attempted to deflect such accusations by declaring that “though God does not esteem evil to be good, yet He accounts it good that evil should be”. (“The Total Depravity of Man”).
However, Pink failed to address the real problem here: that, according to calvinists, sin must exist by God’s decree alone, and therefore must be good!

MacArthur says that “Ultimately, we must concede that sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it – or, in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it.” (The Vanishing Conscience and Hard to Believe).
Logic demands that MacArthur also believe that if God decreed sin, then it must be perfect.

Calvin wrote: “But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils.” (“Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”)
And if everything that God does is perfect, then all evils must therefore be perfect and therefore good.

In fact, every calvinist is forced to believe that God created all sin to be perfect in a perfect world, or else accept that by God’s will and ordination he created imperfection. Some calvinists try to resolve this dilemma by stating that ultimately sin is a necessary part of God’s perfection and that he cannot exist as sovereign God without sin present.

The calvinist Gospel Coalition says: “it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption. ….. A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.” (“Why did God allow the Fall?”)
So God’s glory could not be fully revealed without sin present?

Piper says: “In God’s ultimate plan, sin has a necessary place.” (“Does sin have a necessary place in God’s plan for the Universe”)
That is, Piper considers that God’s ultimate plan must include sin!)

But then Piper goes even further with a document he has presented on his “desiring God” website: “it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory.
This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child:” (“All the Good That Is Ours in Christ: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us”)
So the calvinist God causes pain, brutality and suffering for his glory? Does the calvinist God totally lack compassion for his creatures?

And then, Piper takes this sin-for-God’s-glory and quotes calvinist Jonathan Edwards whom he declares “to be the greatest religious thinker America has ever produced”.
He quotes this “greatest religious thinker” as saying: “Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. …..
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.” (“Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?”)
What?! Man cannot properly know God without sin present? Man’s knowledge of God is incomplete without sin? And thus man’s happiness may only be fully fulfilled if sin exists? It sounds like calvinists are trying to justify their evil by declaring it to be somehow good!

You would have to be mad, stupid or naïve to believe in such ludicrous doctrine. If God is perfect and all things are done by his will alone, then calvinists have to believe that this world with everything in it is absolutely perfect! Even sin must be considered perfect. For, if sin is imperfect, it therefore defines their God as imperfect, and therefore not God at all. Their God is only as perfect as the world he has created by his will.
So, in order to protect the alleged godhood of their God, they are forced to declare sin to be perfect and good, a necessary requirement for their God’s glory. They can admit to nothing imperfect at all or else admit that wills other than God’s will may exist in opposition to the will of their God.

They are also forced to see sin as a necessary part of their God’s sovereignty. Calvinist “teacher” A W Pink said: “Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits things that fulfill his purpose.” (“The Sovereignty of God”)

Therefore, looking at my statement at the start:

Calvinists have to agree with the following two statements:
(a) God is perfect and everything He does is perfect.
(b) All things in this world happen according to God’s sovereign will and ordination alone.

So calvinists, here’s the challenge. See if you can logically defend both the perfection and sovereignty of your God yet still declare sin to be an imperfection in God’s creation. Please do not declare this to be a mystery hidden in the secret counsels of your God. That is a straight-out cop-out that ignorant people use, and you know it. Don’t hide behind your ignorance. Open your Bible and see for yourself what God says (sola scriptura – the Bible alone). If the Bible doesn’t support your doctrine, then it is heresy. Do you have the integrity to admit the truth? Or will you hide behind your excuses and cop-outs that permit your conscience to feel OK as long as those Bible-believing Christians stop asking difficult questions that calvinism cannot answer sola scriptura?

************************************************************

You might also wish to check out my other recent posts.

Why do calvinists believe lies?
What is it that makes calvinists think they have the truth when the Bible clearly demonstrates that they are actually believing lies? There has to be some big attraction that tempts them to want to believe, because it is certainly not biblical truth that leads to such lies. In fact, the attraction of calvinism appears to based upon a self-worth-building program. All those with low self-esteem should apply.

Calvinist Interpretations
Scenario No.1
A woman has 5 children. She tells them all to eat their food. Only one child eats his food; the other four do not eat their food.
Calvinist interpretation: “The woman makes one child eat his food and makes the other four not eat their food. Because she never intended to feed them all, she only provided food for the one that she made to eat. She didn’t provide any food for the other four because she never intended feeding them in the first place, even though she told them all to eat their food.”
MacArthur says, “God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited.” (The Doctrine of Actual Atonement, Part 1)
Thus the woman never intended to feed them all. She is boss. She could have intended to feed them all. She could have fed them all. She would have if that had been her intention. The feeding is limited.

Calvinist cop-outs
Those of you who oppose calvinism because of its non-biblical teachings may have noticed that the moment you try to use the Bible alone (sola scriptura) to discuss issues with a calvinist, he or she usually tries to avoid open and frank discussion. So I’m proposing some of the more common ways that calvinists use to avoid having to defend their heresies. After all, most calvinists know that they will lose any debate on calvinism using the Bible alone. And fear of losing drives them to avoid resorting to the truth of the Bible alone.

*************************************

Calvinists believe that “bad” is simply “an evil good”, that evil is good and good is evil! Augustine, whose teachings are the basis for Calvin’s teachings, said (in his “Enchiridion”) “that since every being, in so far as it is a being, is good, if we then say that a defective thing is bad, it would seem to mean that we are saying that what is evil is good, that only what is good is ever evil and that there is no evil apart from something good. ….. Now, if a man is something good because he is an entity, what then, is a bad man except an evil good? ….. if there were no good in what is evil, then the evil simply could not be, since it can have no mode in which to exist ….“
Can any calvinist please explain what Augustine is talking about? How is it biblical? Is Augustine rational? This appears to be based on Augustine’s Manichean Gnostic roots where salvation depended upon man obtaining ultimate knowledge, both good and evil. It relates to occult Yin and Yang beliefs which teach that a necessary balance must exist between good and evil. Can any calvinists give any support for Augustine’s irrational thinking here (sola scriptura!)? Doesn’t it simply prove that in a calvinist world, evil has to be seen as good or else evil cannot exist??

************************************

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Calvinist heretics & heresies

Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.