Jump to content





- - - - -

The Dark Side of Calvinism by George Bryson - A review

By APsit190, in Theology, Doctrine 20 September 2013 · 5,391 views

Theology Calvinism
Before I begin this review, I need to make some disclaimers in order that one knows where I stand and what I am both theologically and as a Christian. I guess this shows what my biases are and are not.

Firstly, before e-Sword, I didn't really know what my theological bents were. I am Pentecostal, but whether I was Calvinist, Arminianist, or whatever, I really didn't know. In fact, although I've heard about Calvin and Calvinism, I was pretty much naive about it, and didn't really know much about it. However, since e-Sword, well, to be honest, I just couldn't escape Calvinism at all, and having seen some of the stuff that was against it, wondered what all the ho-ha was all about. But one thing I did deduce from it is that I found out that I'm most definitely not a Calvinist. In fact, I also found out that I'm not an Arminianist, or tend to be theologically bent toward any direction at all with the exception of being Pentecostal. With that all said, I am a "fundamentalist" and orthodox (despite some may say Pentecostalism is heterodoxy :D) in my theology. Orthodox Pentecostal could be seen as an oxymoron, but from my side of the fence I think both really go hand in hand.

Secondly, this review is not an attack Calvinism. In this review my intention is to give an objective appraisal of this book, and what my thoughts are regarding what Bryson had written. How this will be achieved is by stating my reasons clearly in areas where I either agree or disagree with Bryson.

Thirdly, Your comments are welcome whether you disagree or agree with this review. I would like to know as to why you disagree and what you disagree with, and just as equally I would like to know why you agree, and what you agree with. In a sense, my objective is that this review can lead to a proper discussion in where we can learn from each other irrespective of which side of the camp one is on. Well, here's hoping anyway.

The Review.

In his book, The Dark Side of Calvinism - The Calvinist Caste System, I have no doubt that George Bryson has researched this topic really well. From having read it, it clearly shows me that he has really done his homework. I disagree with those who claim his book is an attack on Calvinism, and I agree with the reviewer, Sid Salcido, in his assertion that,

... I found out that Bryson has written a very informative and fair book on the issue ...


Moreover, I also agree with Salcido when he said,

Bryson states early on "Everyone seriously considering a theological move in the direction of Reformed Theology deserves to know about Calvinism's dark side before they make a commitment to Calvinism" (p. 22).

because if one is to be objective in this matter, then one needs to know the full story instead of having a half of the story. In other words, one needs to get the story from both sides of the camp rather than just forming a belief based on one side of the camp. Remember the Bereans (cf. Acts 11:17)? I think this is the kind of attitude we need to develop in order to find out if these things are so, and I tend to believe that this is the kind of objective that Bryson has set in his book.

Bryson leaves the reader with no doubt that there are real problems with Calvin's theological system, and I believe that he has done an excellent job in showing what these problems are. Its when examining these problems I find that Bryson evokes one's thinking to make a determination in regards to what one is to believe, or rather to ask the question, "What am I suppose to believe?" As I read kept reading this book, several questions came to my mind, of which some were:
  • Is Calvinism heresy?
  • Is Calvinism loaded with errors?
  • If this is false teaching, then what is true?
  • If this is true, then what guarantees do we have in order to know if whether or not we are really saved?
  • If this is true, then how can anyone know if whether or not one is of God's elect ?
  • How on earth would even a Calvinist know if whether or not he/she is of God's elect?
And so the problems kept on mounting up, and one is left in a state of confusion rather than having complete certainty of assurance of whether or not one is born again and saved.

Irrespective of what anyone's thoughts are about Bryson and this book, and irrespective of whether one is a Calvinist or not, the one thing I know this, Scripture never leaves doubt and confusion in one's mind; that Scripture gives clear and precise understanding of where one stands with God, and gives clear and precise understanding of assurance of one's salvation. One will unequivocally know if one is saved or not.

Perhaps the biggest issue I came across when reading Bryson's book, was the doctrine of Predestination. Now, just to be clear, at first I only had a very scant knowledge of this teaching, and just basically knew that its in the Bible. As to what it actually meant, and stuff that went into it, well there I was extremely nescient. That said, for sometime I just had a gut feeling that
  • It had a lot more to do with than just salvation, in that it had more to do with the purposes of God that went beyond Salvation. My studies in Ephesians seems to show that
  • It had really nothing to do with either God predistinating some to be saved and other to go down the gurgler. In fact, from what I have seen that is not what predestination is about all.
And when I read Bryson's book, it was comforting to know that my gut feeling was pretty much on the mark. I don't recommend one goes on his/her gut feelings, but actually to search the Scriptures, and to get confirmation on his/her gut feelings in order to see if this is so. Become a Berean. Moreover, as I read Bryson's book on this subject, I to decided to read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion on Predestination, and found it to be quite convoluted and confusing. But what got me the most was Calvin's lack of understanding of the divine plans and purposes of God in relation to Predestination, for us as a church, and perhaps, in just about right across the board of Evangelical Orthodox theology, this point of the plans and purposes of God for us as a church in relation to predestination, is entirely missed despite this is what Scripture actually shows and teaches, including us Pentecostals. So its not just the Calvinists that are guilty over this.

Bryson made the point that Calvinism's take on Predestination as a doctrine of Fatalism. Although Calvinists deny this, yet when reading what leading Calvinists, such as Sproul, Piper and etc., say, leaves the reader with little doubt that is what it basically amounts to. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to come to this kind of conclusion. And so, when looking at these, and all the other issues discussed in this book really leaves the reader as to wondering what Calvinism is really all about, and leaves the reader asking a lot of questions, and perhaps the biggest question that one is left asking, "If this is true, then how can anyone know if whether or not one is of God's elect?" And if one is honest, including the Calvinist, no one can be certain.

Blessings,
Autograph.png




Good review Stephen.

 

I am not sure if Bryson covered it, but it is interesting that Calvinism seems to be totally absent from the ante-nicene fathers.  I spent a lot of time searching through the church fathers for it.  If this theology was essential to the true gospel, don't you think it would have been passed down from the apostles to their disciples as an emphasis?

 

It seems to have its origin in Greek philosophy.

Frank Viola and George Barna

Pagan Christianity

Tyndale: 2008



Frank Viola and George Barna

Pagan Christianity

Tyndale: 2008

 

Could you enlarge on this please as to what you are referring to. I want a solid dialog in order to understand your thinking and believing. References like this is not helpful.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png


Good review Stephen.

 

I am not sure if Bryson covered it, but it is interesting that Calvinism seems to be totally absent from the ante-nicene fathers.  I spent a lot of time searching through the church fathers for it.  If this theology was essential to the true gospel, don't you think it would have been passed down from the apostles to their disciples as an emphasis?

 

It seems to have its origin in Greek philosophy.

 

Hi Pete,

Calvinism is solely based on Augustinianism. Bryson, in Chapter 1, Is Calvinism Gospel, said,


Although the five points of Calvinism are most closely associated with the sixteenth century Protestant Reformer John Calvin (and for good reason), they did not originate with him. Calvinists would, first and foremost, contend that the five points faithfully represent the teaching of the New Testament in general, and of the apostle Paul in particular. Obviously, I do not agree with this contention. I do, however, agree with Calvinists when they point out that Calvin was not the first notable figure in church history to champion the views that led to what is today the Calvinist or Reformed system of theology. Just as the Synod of Dort, which first formally presented these points as the five points of Calvinism, was a Calvinist synod, so John Calvin was an Augustinian.

 

I hope this is helpful to you.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png
Hi Stephen (Hi Peter),

You guys probably figured I'd get in on this one... I've been trying not to - honest!

Let me remind everyone at the outset that I'm not a Calvinist and my purpose here is not to defend Calvinism or the TULIP. As I've stated several times before: I don't agree with Calvin-ism as a whole; and I think the TULIP acronym is quite unfortunate. I happen to believe wholeheartedly in the Reformed doctrine of Election/Justification and in the sovereignty of God - but because they're in the Bible - not because of a guy named John Calvin.

My purpose for responding is to address the assertion that the Early Church Fathers prior to Augustine did not teach the same doctrines Augustine taught. Peter has raised this claim before in other posts. Now, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that claim just didn't sit well with me. It seems clear to me that the Apostle Paul does in fact teach, in many places throughout his epistles, a balanced view of God's Sovereignty, Divine Election and man's responsibility. Other NT writer's do as well: John, Luke, Peter and the author of Hebrews, for example. (Not gonna rehash the argument for or against here - I have a point to make) So... IF those doctrines were in fact taught by the Apostles, then they ought to appear in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I think we would all agree to this "IF/then" proposition.

Again, not the sharpest tool in the shed... (I heard that! Stop snickering Peter!) I did a basic google search yesterday (Saturday) afternoon and found a lot of similar assertions. Many of them go back hundreds of years to the Reformation itself - started by the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church (seein' as how they had a dog in that fight). So, I began to wonder if maybe it was true...

Then I happened across a message board discussing this very issue where one of the participants posted a link, without any comment, to a site with a list called "Gill's Archive." Gill being John Gill, the commentator and writer from the 1700's who was Spurgeon's predecessor, so to speak. Several of his modules are available on this site, making him familiar to many of us here. Turns out that John Gill has thoroughly treated this issue some 250 years ago.

He wrote a book entitled "The Cause of God and Truth." The book has four sections - the fourth being that which covers this issue at length - 260 pages to be exact (plus a 22 page "Vindication" in response to his critics response). Here's an online link to this work: http://pbministries....lls_archive.htm You'll find Part 4 near the bottom of the page.

Part 4 has 6 chapters, which breakdown as follows: Chapter 1: Predestination; Chapter 2: Redemption; Chapter 3: Original Sin; Chapter 4: Efficacious Grace; Chapter 5: Perseverance; and Chapter 6 deals with the moral actions of the "Heathens".

The correlation to the TULIP acronym, though out of order, should be obvious. Each chapter is further broken down into anywhere from 19 to 33 sections - each section addressing a separate Ante-Nicene Church Father. In each section he lists and interacts with several quotes from that particular Church Father in alignment with the Augustinian/Calvinistic perspective. Below, I'm going to list some of the quotes from the chapters on Predestination and Original Sin only, as they seem more relevant to this discussion.

Again, I am NOT a Calvinist - primarily because I don't accept the idea of Limited Atonement (On a technicality. I get the argument against Universalism, but I still believe His death is sufficient for all, though not efficacious for all, double jeopardy notwithstanding.) I'm raising this issue simply because the assertion that none of the Church Fathers taught "Augustinian" doctrines is patently false - as will be demonstrated.

Gill opens section four with this: "Since those doctrines which are commonly called, Calvinistical are charged with novelty, and are represented as running directly contrary to the whole stream of antiquity, and the sentiments of the ancient fathers, and as entirely unknown to the Christian church before the time of Austin; when, on the other hand, the doctrines of the universal scheme are said to be confirmed by the concurrent suffrage of all antiquity, and the express and frequent declarations of the ancient fathers; it is necessary that this affair should be inquired into and examined, whether it is matter of fact or no. And this will be the subject of this Fourth Part."

Before diving in he makes several points that will also be helpful here. First, the writings of the Early Church Fathers are not authoritative. We all agree Scripture is our only Authority. Second, the Curch Fathers were not free from mistakes. The 10 volume Ante Nicene Fathers contains also the writings of heretics. Third, the Fathers spent more time writing "against heresies" than for Christianity, so it's more difficult to affirm what they positively professed. It's in this regard that Church Historian Justo Gonzalez says the Church was built on the backs of the heretics. Gill makes several other points in the introduction, including the fact that Pelagius was the first "heretic" to raise the issues addressed by Augustine; which illustrates the point that Christian Doctrine has developed progressively based on the pressing issues of the day.

I will now list several quotes from Volume I of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. These quotes are but a few of the hundreds that Gill offers. That said, I didn't feel that all of the quotes he used would be convincing to someone who ardently disagrees, but they do still work for the task at hand.

On the matter of Election/Predestination I submit the following quotations from Clement of Rome - the earliest of the Early Church Fathers - followed by others:

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:

"Day and night ye were anxious for the whole brotherhood, that the number of God’s elect might be saved with mercy and a good conscience." Chapter 2.

"Let us then draw near to Him with holiness of spirit, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him, loving our gracious and merciful Father, who has made us partakers in the blessings of His elect. For thus it is written, 'When the Most High divided the nations, when He scattered the sons of Adam, He fixed the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance.'" Chapter 29.

"Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were made, - who and what manner of beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulcher, and from utter darkness. He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared His bountiful gifts for us before we were born, introduced us into His world." Chapter 38.

"Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God." Chapter 49.

"All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. ... This blessedness cometh upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Chapter 50.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:

"As long, then, as He held and preserved His own wise counsel in concealment, He appeared to neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active [in His service]. Who of us would ever have expected these things? He was aware, then, of all things in His own mind, along with His Son, according to the relation subsisting between them." Chapter 8.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians:

"I am deeply grieved, therefore, brethren, for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom may the Lord grant true repentance!" Chapter 11 (Exclamation point is in the original)

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace." Intro.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho:

"But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation." Chapter 32.

"But in addition to these, I wish, sirs,” said I, “to add some other passages from the very words of Moses, from which you may understand that God has from of old dispersed all men according to their kindreds and tongues; and out of all kindreds has taken to Himself your kindred, a useless, disobedient, and faithless generation; and has shown that those who were selected out of every nation have obeyed His will through Christ," Chapter 130.

"And you yourselves, if you will confess the truth, must acknowledge that we, who have been called by God through the despised and shameful mystery of the cross (for the confession of which, and obedience to which, and for our piety, punishments even to death have been inflicted on us by demons, and by the host of the devil, through the aid ministered to them by you), and endure all torments rather than deny Christ even by word, through whom we are called to the salvation prepared beforehand by the Father, are more faithful to God than you, who were redeemed from Egypt..." Chapter 131.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Irenaeus Against Heresies:

Book II: "But if any one should ask us whether every number of all the things which have been made, and which are made, is known to God, and whether every one of these [numbers] has, according to His providence, received that special amount which it contains; and on our agreeing that such is the case, and acknowledging that not one of the things which have been, or are, or shall be made, escapes the knowledge of God, but that through His providence every one of them has obtained its nature, and rank, and number, and special quantity, and that nothing whatever either has been or is produced in vain or accidentally, but with exceeding suitability [to the purpose intended], and in the exercise of transcendent knowledge, and that it was an admirable and truly divine intellect which could both distinguish and bring forth the proper causes of such a system:" Chapter 26.3

Book II: "But, as each one of us receives his body through the skillful working of God, so does he also possess his soul. For God is not so poor or destitute in resources, that He cannot confer its own proper soul on each individual body, even as He gives it also its special character. And therefore, when the number [fixed upon] is completed, [that number] which He had predetermined in His own counsel, all those who have been enrolled for life [eternal] shall rise again, having their own bodies, and having also their own souls, and their own spirits, in which they had pleased God. Those, on the other hand, who are worthy of punishment, shall go away into it, they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood apart from the grace of God. Both classes shall then cease from any longer begetting and being begotten, from marrying and being given in marriage; so that the number of mankind, corresponding to the fore-ordination of God, being completed, may fully realize the scheme formed by the Father." Chapter 33.5

Book III: "Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul “the figure of Him that was to come,” because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain." Chapter 22.3. This passage also hints at the Calvinist idea of the "Order of Decrees"

Book IV: "God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God." Chapter 37.7.

Book V: "We - who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation - have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity." Chapter 1.1.

*These are only a few of the quotes contained in Chapter 1 of Gill's book. There are more quotes from these 6, as well as quotes from 13 other Church Fathers (for a total of 19) before the time of Augustine. As you can see, there was a progression of thought through what I have listed - and these are only from Volume I.


Regarding Original Sin/Depravity I submit the following:

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians:

"They that are carnal cannot do those things which are spiritual, nor they that are spiritual the things which are carnal; even as faith cannot do the works of unbelief, nor unbelief the works of faith." Chapter 8.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Justin's Horatory Address to the Greeks:

"For neither by nature nor by human conception is it possible for men to know things so great and divine, but by the gift which then descended from above upon the holy men, who had no need of rhetorical art, nor of uttering anything in a contentious or quarrelsome manner, but to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that the divine plectrum itself, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as an instrument like a harp or lyre, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine and heavenly." Chapter 8.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho:

"But pray that, above all things, the gates of light may be opened to you; for these things cannot be perceived or understood by all, but only by the man to whom God and His Christ have imparted wisdom." Chapter 7.

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV:

"For neither in an ambiguous, nor arrogant, nor boastful manner, does He say these things; but since it was impossible, without God, to come to a knowledge of God, He teaches men, through His Word, to know God." Chapter 5.1.

*These are only a few of the citations from Gill's Chapter 3 on Original Sin. I've included quotes from only 3 of the 28 sections in this chapter - which means he quotes from 28 different Church Fathers from before Augustine on the issue of depravity. And, remember, I've only included some quotes from 2 of the 5 chapters related to the doctrines of Calvinism. Gill cites hundreds of other quotations!

Given the above arguments and the Ante-Nicene citations, those who assert that no such doctrines were taught prior to Augustine must cease and desist in this line of reasoning immediately, and then read Gill's entire treatise on the matter. That's an order! I'm not saying anyone has to agree with his (or my) position, but if you still disagree - it must be on other grounds. This is officially a dead horse (on this site anyway). ;^)

Blessings,
Bill

Hi Bill,

Regarding John Gill, he too is a Calvinist. Actually I should say "was," considering he been dead for a few hundred years. I think it might be a tad difficult for him to be anything at all at the moment.

 

That said, I don't know if you read Bryson's book. If you hadn't, I recommend that you do as he (Bryson, that is) quotes Gill quite a few times, and refutes things that he said.

 

Yesterday (I had an interesting discussion with my Pastor regarding Calvinism is general, and he thinks that its sort of, kind of gone off the rails. Anyway, bro, you certainly posted some very thought provoking thoughts to think about. So, good job on that.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png

Just a bit of news... for the last three days I was up at Auckland, NZ, which is in the Nth Island, for the Elim Conference, This as really great, and seen God do some really incredible stuff. It was my first conference I've been to.

 

Had a couple of great speakers there, and one notable one was Dr David Ireland from Christ Church church in New Jersey, USA.

 

Yep, its true, we do let Americans over here to share the word of God. Not many of them, as we just don't want too many of them around. LOL.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png

Hi Stephen,

 

Glad you enjoyed your conference!  I might actually enjoy reading that book, and I would probably agree with much of what Bryson says, but I really don't advocate for or against Calvinism, because John Calvin is not the issue.  What the Bible says is what matters.  I don't take 100% of any "ism."  Most "isms" make presuppositions early-on that have a ripple effect on later conclusions.  I believe that to be the case with Calvinism and the TULIP; but that has nothing to do with whether or not sovereignty and election are truly biblical.  Any doctrine can be taken too far in one direction or the other.  I believe there's a balanced view that isn't passive on God's foreknowledge but also isn't deterministic either.

 

I think the Calvinism/Arminianism thing is a false dichotomy - you don't have to be one or the other.  You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe in sovereignty and election; but they ARE taught in the Bible and any interpretation that explains them away by elevating man's part over God's is just plainly mistaken.  If God and I were to get into an arm-wrestling match, I have no doubt who would win.  Man's "free-will" cannot frustrate the purposes of God.  If He is not sovereign over all, then He is not sovereign at all - and THAT is a much scarier proposition than fate.  But God's sovereignty does not equal fate or puppetry - this is a straw man argument from people who misunderstand God and His sovereignty.  I'm debating whether or not I should write a blog on what the Bible says about God's sovereignty over sin - you'd be surprised by the massive volume of information on the topic.

 

As for Gill - I was aware that he "was" a Calvinist, but that really has nothing to do with the issue he addressed.  His book illustrates that the Early Church Fathers did, in fact, teach the same doctrines Augustine taught.  The closer you get to Augustine the more similar the quotes become, which shows the progression of thought that occurred precisely because they were dealing with issues as they arose.  By the same token, the fact that Bryson refutes some Calvinistic thing Gill has said also has nothing to do with what the Early Church Fathers taught.

 

Beyond Calvinism, Gill is excellent on matters regarding original languages.  He was fluent in biblical Greek and Hebrew and well acquainted with Rabbinic literature.  I'm a big fan of his work.  He's a bit wordy at times, but if you dig, you'll uncover huge nuggets of biblical insight.

 

Blessings,

Bill


You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe in sovereignty and election

Hi Bill,

You are dead right, you don't have to be a Calvinist to believe these things. However, the way you and I believe these doctrines and the way a Calvinist believes them are very, very much different. As different as chalk is from cheese. You see, the way Calvinists understand Predestination and God's sovereignty is also very different from the way we understand them. And when you said,


But God's sovereignty does not equal fate or puppetry ...

is how Calvinism makes it, fatalism, and or puppetry.

 

With regards to "Free Will" as such per se, I actually don't believe in it. My reasons on this are vastly different from that of Calvinism. Where Calvinism goes into error over this, is that they place Free Will as Ability to Choose, as where I see Free Will as totally separate from the Ability to Choose. The reason why I don't believe we have a "free will" is because of the Consequence factor. If one had an actual free will, then one would be a total free agent where there would be no consequence on the to the choices and decisions one makes. Moreover, because one isn't a "free agent" and has dependencies on others and systems, and God, consequences then are inevitable to the choices and decisions one makes irrespective of the type of consequences.

 

Yeah, I know, I just gotta be crazy to believe like that. However that is the way I believe, and that's me all over. Wooo, Glory to God.

 

With that, Bill, I'll sign off now, and hope to see some more of your thoughts.

 

Blessings,

Autograph.png

My Picture

September 2020

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27 282930   

About Apsit 190's Theological Rants

Theological Rants are mostly about stuff in the Bible I believe. Its also a blog for sharing my thoughts that the Bible talks about, and how I think they can be applied to our lives.

Using the word, "Rants," is not to undermine anything the Bible says, nor is there to undermine or disparage what anyone else believes. That said, it is my soapbox, and with that to express the passion of my heart for my love of the Word of God.

What you can expect to see in this blog are thoughtful studies in the Scriptures and articles that I find interesting. So, with that, I trust you will enjoy my Theological Rants, and rant and rave with it in your comments.

Recent Comments

Search My Blog

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users