Before going any further, I want to make one point up front. Most Bible
translators today are Calvinists, and if you think that doctrinal positions do not affect how translators translate certain passages, you are
being a little naive. Translators themselves admit that their doctrines
do affect their translations. I am far from being a Greek scholar, but even with my limited first year Greek, which has now grown rusty, I can clearly see pro-Calvinist biases at times in certain passages.
Does God create people for the purpose of torturing them? John Calvin thought so, and he deemed it good to aid God in the effort. He wasn’t alone in that belief or work. In John Calvin’s The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin defines predestination as God’s decree for every man. Some are predestined for life, the rest for death. In other words, some are born for heaven, and the rest are born for hell. Man has no say where he will end up; it is by God’s decree alone. Calvin pointed to Jacob and Esau as proof that God loves some and hates others.[1]
Yet, Jesus said in John 3:16 that God so loved the world that He gave us His Son. Esau was rejected as the heir of promise because he placed more value on a bowl of soup than he did his birthright. Rejection is the “hatred” Esau experienced. God blessed and prospered Esau in many ways, but it was Esau himself who despised his birthright and forfeited the honor of being a distant father to the promised Messiah. Esau could have been listed in the genealogy of the Son of God Himself, but Esau gave up that distinction for a bowl of soup. Jacob was willing to lie, steal, and forfeit everything for that position.
Even though Calvin believed man has no choice, Calvin taught that man is still responsible for the choices he has no control over. God’s supreme righteousness makes what He wills supremely righteous, even when he condemns men and women to eternal conscious torment in hell without ever giving them the opportunity to escape it.[2] Sadly, Calvin’s office sent many of them to that supposed fate prematurely by burning, beheading, and torturing them. How is that different from ISIS or other terrorist groups that burn, behead, or torture “infidels” (aka heretics)?
Those who defend Calvin contend that he never killed anyone; yet, Calvin was the magistrate in Geneva, and he takes credit for the deaths. Calvin’s job was not the executioner, but Calvin’s work ended at the executioner’s door. If you are a Calvinist, and there are many, I suppose it will be difficult for you to read any further because anger might disable you, but I hope you will “hear” me out.
The below is
Calvin’s Geneva. He is the man many esteem as one of the Christian greats:
“One of the two men,
Comparet, who had been arrested, was condemned on 27 June to have his head cut
off, his body quartered, and the sections exposed in different places according
to custom. His head with one quarter of his body was fastened to the gibbet
referred to. When the executioner was at his gruesome task of nailing them in
their places, Perrin’s wife advanced to the boundary line and screamed out to
him, ‘You are a lot of scoundrels, thieves, brigands, and murderers. Fine
evangelists! You hold the devil’s gospel. You have sold the city to the French.
You ride on horseback, but if it had not been for my husband you would be
walking on foot. You will rot in the hospital.’ Similar scenes occurred in the
other places where the sections of the body were gibbeted, and to avoid their
repetition, the younger Comparet was simply beheaded. The executioner did his
work so clumsily that he added needless pangs to the victim’s agony, and the
Council punished him by dismissing him from his office for a year and a day.
Calvin, on the other hand, wrote to Farel on 24 July, ‘I am persuaded that it
is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the
judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the
executioner.’”[3]
He reached that conclusion based on his belief that God decrees everything that happens. According to Calvin, even something as cruel as prolonged torture and injustice is decreed by God. Yet we know from God’s Word that we are commanded to be kind and just. Zechariah 8:16, “These are the things you shall do: Speak each man the truth to his neighbor; Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice, and peace.” Ephesians 4:32, “And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”
Excerpt from a letter to Calvin’s compatriot and fellow reformer, Pastor William Farel:
“Servetus has just sent me, together with his letters, a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word, for should he come, if my authority is of an avail I will not suffer him to get out alive.”[4]
Calvin condoned the protracted torture and death of his theological and political enemies, thought it was the will of God, and took pride in such sadistic fruit. Perhaps one of Calvin’s best known Reformation opponents was Michael Servetus. Defenders of Calvin point out that Calvin pleaded with Servetus both before and during his arrest to recant. However, even though Servetus had once been his friend, Calvin had him arrested in Geneva, an arrest that condemned Servetus to the death he most feared—being burned at the stake.
There is much to accuse Calvin of. The death of Michael Servetus, an influential and fellow reformer, is certainly among them. In John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work, a source favorable to Calvin, we read:
“In accordance with the laws of Geneva it was necessary that when an accusation was made against anyone the complainer should constitute himself a prisoner alongside the accused. Calvin’s secretary, a French refugee named Nicolas de la Fontaine, acted as was required. Calvin made no secret of his responsibility for his secretary’s action. In his “Refutation” he says: ‘I cheerfully confess that, inasmuch as the laws of the city forbade a legal proceeding to be started otherwise, I provided the accuser.’”[5]
I would like to add a note here. Calvin wasn’t willing to back up his convictions by submitting himself to jail, which seems dishonorable to me. The excuse is made for him that he was unwell, yet he was the prosecutor and was frequently at the prison, along with the Council, to interrogate Servetus. Calvin was forty-four at the time and lived another eleven years. He wasn’t on his deathbed. I think the episode also shares similarities with the tactics used by the Sanhedrin when they fished for witnesses against Jesus at his illegal trial. It does not appear that de la Fontaine would have brought the charges unless prompted by Calvin. Calvin is the one who produced the long list of accusations, and he is the one who was in a position of power. He was unwilling to be a prisoner himself and sent a subordinate to do his dirty work.
“Calvin then put into his secretary’s hand a list of thirty-nine articles detailing the charges to be made against Servetus. They may be reduced to three, 1. Servetus attacked the doctrine of the Trinity. (Note: Servetus compared his understanding of the Trinity to the Greco/Roman myth of Cerberus.) 2. He attacked the doctrine of baptism, saying that infant baptism was an invention of the devil. (Note: Servetus believed children were without sin and did not require baptism until they reached an age where they could be held accountable.) 3. He attacked the doctrine of the Church of Geneva by attacking the person and teaching of Calvin (Art. 39).”[6]
In other words, Servetus hurt Calvin’s pride, and pride is a trait that scripture condemns over and over. In addition to that, Calvin was arrogant enough to believe that an attack on him was an attack on the church. Did he think he was synonymous with Christ? It is a serious question. I am not being facetious.
Calvin served as the prosecutor in the case, and Servetus defended himself against each accusation. There were numerous interrogations and cross examinations between Servetus, Calvin, and the Council during the imprisonment of Servetus; and, although the author is a defender of Calvin, even he admits:
“Calvin does not appear well in this. His own words are convincing proof of a coldness and hardness of nature which, in the sad circumstances, makes him peculiarly unlovable.”[7]
I personally think the same can be said of some Calvinists today. They sometimes remind me of the Pharisees of Jesus’s day. Although I find much of their doctrine to be sound, they come across as cold, arrogant, judgmental, and unloving all too often. Yet, 1 Peter 3:15 says, “Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect.” And Galatians 5:22–23 says, “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” It was lacking in Calvin, and it is lacking in some of his followers to this day. They seem to enjoy attacking, finding fault, and tearing down other Christians.
No one would ever be able to accuse Jesus of a “coldness and a hardness of nature” that made him “peculiarly unlovable,” and Calvin was supposed to be a follower of Jesus. Jesus never asked anyone to take His place as John Calvin did.
In the end, Servetus was condemned, which could not have happened without Calvin providing an accuser and a substitute prisoner for himself. Calvin alone was responsible for that. Many honorable people live by the motto that you should never ask anyone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself, and they are respected for it. Calvin certainly did not live by that motto, and it is one more reason why I reject him.
The final moments of Servetus:
“At a spot in the centre of this vast amphitheatre a stake had been driven into the ground, and a great pile of oak leaves and oak branches heaped round it. When he came within sight of it, Servetus cried: “O God, preserve my soul. O Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have pity on me.” Then he threw himself on his knees and prayed, while Farel addressed the bystanders in these terms: “You see what great force Satan employs when he gets possession of anyone. This man is very learned, and perhaps he thought he was doing right. But he is in the power of the devil, and anyone of you may be the same.
“The executioner then took Servetus, fastened him to the stake with a strong rope round his throat, and a chain around his waist, and placed on his head a garland of leaves, covered with sulphur, intended to cut short his agony by suffocation. The torch was applied, a cry for mercy burst from the doomed man’s lips, then a prayer: ‘Jesus, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me.’ In half an hour all was over, and as the clock of St. Peter’s was striking twelve, the spectators of the horrid tragedy turned home in silence.
“Who was responsible for it? The responsibility must be divided. Calvin was responsible for the arrest of Servetus, for the pitiless prosecution of the trial, and for the sentence of death with which the trial closed. But behind Calvin was the Council, a secular tribunal composed of laymen, some of them Calvin’s bitter enemies, and the Council was responsible for the cruelty of sentencing Servetus to death by fire.”[8]
Defenders of Calvin point out that Calvin wanted Servetus to be beheaded, which Servetus had less fear of, and that Servetus somehow deserved his punishment because he was accused of almost every heresy condemned in Geneva, and heresy was punishable by death. But none of it would have happened if Calvin had not enlisted de la Fontaine to be the accuser and submit himself to the jailer. I think the argument can be made that Nicolas de la Fontaine was an accuser as a result of duress. As Calvin’s secretary, and a refugee under threat from the Catholic Church, de la Fontaine was in the position of a vulnerable dependent at the mercy of a brutal superior. Calvin held the power of life and death over him. If Calvin had betrayed Servetus to the Catholic Church, what would have prevented him from betraying de la Fontaine?
I doubt de la Fontaine had any choice in the matter. If he had refused, I am certain Calvin would have punished him for refusing. Calvin may have believed the ends justified the means, but his means were dishonorable. It is possible his plot even made de la Fontaine a false witness. If true, that is a serious violation of God’s commands, Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20. Exodus 23:1 says, “You shall not spread a false report. Do not join the wicked by being a malicious witness.” We are commanded not to sin, John 5:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:34. The Apostle Paul was willing to give up meat if it would keep a weaker brother from sinning, 1 Corinthians 8:12–13. Yet, Calvin gladly dragged his secretary into his scheme, a scheme that ended in a man’s death. Calvin “cheerfully” boasted about it. It gave him joy.
Before Christ, I somewhat understand the brutality of cultures and their reasons for meeting brutality with brutality, but not after Christ, and certainly not by professing Christians. I don’t see how a Christian can justify torture even if the culture approves it. Our culture approves abortion, and when I was in my twenties, long before I had been born again, I approved it too. That does not make it OK, and my former stance is to my shame. Now, as a born again Christian, I know it is my duty to oppose it—not stand alongside my culture in promoting it. If any act, or law, defies the teachings of Christ, we are to obey God and not man, Acts 5:29.
I am not writing this just to condemn John Calvin. I am writing this because I disagree with the core of his teaching. I also believe the fruit of his office testifies against him. I especially take issue with his teaching that God creates people for the purpose of torturing them and has determined to save only a few, condemns the rest to destruction before birth, and is glorified in doing so.
In the New Testament, Jesus said others would know we are His disciples by our love for each other, John 13:35. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, Matthew 5:44. Jesus lived up to His own teaching by praying for those who nailed Him to the cross, Luke 23:34. John Calvin condoned the murder and torture of his enemies. I cannot reconcile that with New Testament teaching, but the basis for Calvin’s theology does not appear to have been derived from the New Testament. Calvin dealt with the New Testament in the same way that he dealt with the Latin Classics. Calvin held to Mosaic laws, yet we know from Hebrews 8:13 that the “new covenant…has made the first one obsolete.” As Jeremiah 31:31 prophesied it would.
He published commentaries on the books of Moses[9] and seemed to consider the New Testament covenant of grace as somehow secondary to the Abrahamic covenant. He justified his actions by pointing to passages in Leviticus, such as Leviticus 24.[10] Yet Jesus brought a New Covenant that called us to “love our enemies.” We are commanded under the New Covenant not to quarrel but to “be gentle to all…patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,” 2 Timothy 2:24–25.
The enemies of Calvin were not treated in such a manner. Instead they were killed by fire, beheading, and torture. Even their corpses were abused. Jesus said we would know a tree by its fruit, Matthew 7:16–17. The fruit of Calvin’s teaching was death, and it was void of pity; yet Christ came to give us life and give it to us more abundantly, John 10:10. There was a shortage of kindness, patience, gentleness and Life in Calvin’s jurisdiction.
Mixed in with these problems, Calvin was obsessed with Augustine at the expense of the New Testament. Even though Augustine is called the second or third founder of Christianity, and his Confessions and City of God are highly influential, Augustine and Neo-Platonic philosophy are not the authorities in a Christian’s life; Christ and the teachings of the apostles are. I am not an expert on Calvin, but I know enough to reject him and his teachings—even though his contributions to the education system were greatly needed.
I see many other problems with what I know of John Calvin. His actions, the destructive fruit of his life, his lack of love and mercy, lead me to believe that he was not even a true follower of Christ—no matter how many things he got right. Though I agree with some of his teachings, I do not consider him my brother. If the foundation is bad, the structure is not sound. The Reformation was desperately needed, and I am grateful for it, but the Reformers got a lot of things wrong. In many ways, their actions were no different from the Catholics they condemned.
Some Calvinists will no doubt equate my rejection of Calvin with a rejection of Christ Himself and a heresy deserving of hell. Yet, Jesus embodies Forgiveness, Hope, Life, and Love. For many trapped in the Geneva of Calvin’s day, Calvin embodied condemnation, fear, death and hate.
The worst part for me is that these tortures and injustices were carried out in the name of Christ! In the name of Christ! That is blasphemous! And the Catholics and Reformers were both guilty of it.
Like it or not, and despite Calvin’s teaching, we do see man’s free will in scripture.
There are many passages in the Bible that emphasize our responsibility, choice, and free will. In Joshua 24:15, we read, “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” We see a call to make a conscious choice about who we will serve, and that underscores personal responsibility.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore, choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying His voice and holding fast to Him, for He is your life and length of days.” Here, Moses presented a choice with clear consequences, but life and blessing come only from choosing obedience to God.
In the wisdom of Proverbs 16:9 we are instructed, “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.” While God is sovereign over outcomes, this verse assumes our ability to makes our own plans and choose our own decisions.
And, of course, there is Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” This heartbreaking lament by Jesus tells us they had the free will to choose differently.
We see this refusal in John 5:40, “Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” Jesus directly addresses the refusal of some to accept Him, and that reinforces the idea of a personal choice.
John 7:17, “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” This passage implies a personal decision to align one’s will with God’s.
Revelation 22:17, “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” Here we read that the invitation to come and take the water of life freely is a universal offer requiring a willing response.
Many verses highlight this tension between sovereignty and responsibility.
The beloved John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” The words, “Whoever believes,” shows that it is an open invitation to all, but it depends upon the response of belief.
Romans 10:9-10, 13, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” ... “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Again, we see an open call to salvation, and it requires personal confession and belief.
In 2 Peter 3:9 we read, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” God’s desire for repentance and life for all suggests that it is our responsibility to respond.
The Bible repeatedly emphasizes human responsibility to choose God, repent, and believe. Passages like Joshua 24:15 and Deuteronomy 30:19 directly call for decisions, while others, like Matthew 23:37, express God’s desire for our willing cooperation, and that underscores our accountability to God. Yet, we know God is sovereign. We see it in places like Romans 9 or Ephesians 1, and I think Molinism reconciles the two.
Today, there is a vigorous wrestling match between Calvinism and modern Arminianism, between predestination, or God’s sovereignty, and choice, but it might be a pointless match. There are problems with both. I believe these problems are best addressed by Molinism. Two well-known proponents of Molinism are Alvin Plantinga and Dr. William Lane Craig.
Although I disagree with some of Dr. Craig’s teaching, such as his views on the book of Genesis, Dr. Craig has written quite a bit about the subject of Molinism, and he has also released several videos on the topic. Some of them do a good job simplifying the complex subject of Molinism. He says in one of his videos:
“It was through Jacob Arminius that Molinism entered into Protestant theology.” (Note: The doctrine originated with the Jesuit priest, Luis de Molina in the sixteenth century.) “I think Arminius was really a Protestant Molinist. Modern day Arminianism tends to be different from Molinism. Modern day Arminianism affirms that we have free will, and that the way that God knows the future is by looking ahead into the future and seeing what will happen, and knowing then what will happen, He decrees that it will happen. Well this is an extremely weak doctrine of fore-ordination and predestination, because it’s a fifth wheel. If God knows that it will happen, there’s no point in decreeing that it will happen. It does nothing.
“Molinism is rather different. It says that prior to God’s decree to create a particular world, He knew all the different orders of things that it would be feasible for Him to create given human freedom, and then He chooses one of these orders knowing exactly how the creatures would freely react if they were in those circumstances. And so He decrees” (which I think boils down to “predestines”) “that those people should exist, and that they should be in those circumstances, and thus He knows exactly what they will do.
“In this case you see that God’s decree of a world is logically prior to his knowledge of what will happen. His knowledge of what will happen is based upon His middle knowledge of what creatures would freely do in any circumstances, and His knowledge of His own divine decree.”
In Dr. Craig’s explanation, predestination and free will, (both of which are taught in scripture), are reconciled. I think a reasonable objection to this argument is that God inhabits eternity. If God inhabits eternity, He must already know. Right? No, Dr Craig is right that this is prior to God’s knowledge of what will happen. It is prior to the creation of our universe—which means it is prior to the existence of all matter, space, information, and TIME that exists in our universe. It is not until God chooses which order of things to create, that its components even come into existence or become potential.
There is a “time” when God is choosing which order of things to create. (That is when his middle knowledge comes into play.) If none of those things have come into existence yet, then that is prior to that reality; and, yes, it is prior to God’s knowledge of what will happen because He has not yet determined which order of things to create. Nothing has come into existence yet at that point, including time and information. Eternity is not lots of time. It is outside of time. But, because of God’s middle knowledge, He knows in advance what will happen if He creates that particular reality—or if He chooses to create one from a multitude of others.
Looking over all of the possibilities He could choose from, God, in essence decrees, “OK, that’s the universe I’m going to create, and those are the people who will live in it.” At that point, God does know everything that will happen because He has chosen it. He has predestined it. Yet free will is unaffected because He has seen in advance how creatures will freely react in any given situation that He has sovereignly decreed. Even if someone changes their minds one hundred times and then finally acts, God already knew how they would eventually act because He knew the end from the beginning, Isaiah 46:10. You don’t have one hundred clones running around who made one hundred different decisions, as some mistakenly believe. Because God is good, He must have chosen the universe that would yield the greatest good and produce the least evil when human free will is taken into consideration.
A simple way to think of Molinism would be a father who has several children and sets a curfew for them. He knows his children so well that he knows which ones will choose to disobey the curfew, and he knows which ones will abide by it. Even though he knows some of his children will stay out past the curfew, he still determines to set a curfew for the safety of all of his children. As he foreknew, half of his children disobey the curfew and half obey it.
The father knew in advance how each child would react in the given situation. Foreseeing the end from the beginning, he moves forward with his plan and determines to set a curfew and lays out the rewards and punishments for keeping it or violating it. His children will choose to either obey their father or disobey him. The father will not make his children do anything, but he knows in advance which of his children will obey his curfew; and he knows in advance which ones will not. And the children know the consequences in advance. Each child will either be rewarded or punished, and the rewards and punishments will be based on what the father predetermined.
In the West, we hate contradictions and choose whichever side we prefer. We throw out the other side by default. That makes the issue a battle between God’s sovereignty, predestination, and human free will. However, all are taught in scripture, and I believe Molinism reconciles the apparent contradictions.
God is outside time and space. He is either dimensionless or multi-dimensional. In the dimensions we occupy, contradictions seem impossible to reconcile. We don’t know if the same can be said of eternity where God dwells. In a dimensionless or multi-dimensional reality, it may actually be possible for contradictory propositions to be true at the same time. Just because the Law of Non-Contradiction is true in our four-dimensional reality does not mean it is true in a reality with no or multiple dimensions. I think we see evidence of that theory after the resurrection.
In John 20:19 we read that the disciples were hiding in a locked room. While they sat there talking, Jesus suddenly appeared before them. Jesus was not in the room and then He was. He knew what they had been discussing in all of the post resurrection appearances, so we know that He was there when He was not there. He was there all along. He was in the room, just like they were, and he was not in the room at the same time—violating the Law of Non-Contradiction to a large degree. I believe that is explained by multiple dimensions. We do not occupy the dimensions that Jesus travels in at present, but He occupies ours at all times. As God said, I will never leave you nor forsake you. Matthew 28:20 says He is with us always—even to the end of the age.
We know these impossibilities are possible because the Bible teaches both. Because the Bible teaches that God is sovereign and yet man has choice, both must somehow be true. The Bible has shown itself trustworthy when it comes to fulfilled prophecy, history, archaeology, science, and so much more. So, I think it is trustworthy here as well. We have free will, but we are also predestined because God is sovereign. Molinism reconciles both.
God can see every possible outcome of every possible choice for every human being who has ever lived and whoever will live. God fine-tuned an entire universe, to an astonishing degree, to support human life. Why should His orchestration of mankind and history be any less astonishing and finely tuned? He can allow billions of choices, those “slippery ball bearings” on which the future turns, and still maintain His sovereignty over all things, declaring the end from the beginning.
God is more powerful than many will give Him credit for, certainly more than Calvinists give Him credit for. They believe giving humans a choice limits God. I think it is impossible to limit God. So, yes, I fully accept that predestination and choice—God’s sovereignty and man’s free will—are both true. We have two seemingly contradictory propositions, and they are both true at the same time, and even in the same way, because the ultimate source of the Bible is outside the dimensions we are familiar with. Because of prophecy, we see that the ultimate source of the Bible is outside of time. The Bible tells us the end from the beginning. It could only do that if its true source were outside of time and outside of our physical dimension.
Before I discuss these things, I personally think we have an example of the blending of God’s sovereignty and man’s choice in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32. In the parable, a father has two sons. The youngest son asks his father for his inheritance, and his father grants his son’s request. However, the son lives foolishly and loses everything. In his desperation, the lost son is reduced to tending pigs, but even the pigs eat better than he does. He decides to return home and ask his father to receive him as a servant for he knows his father’s servants are well cared for. Before he has even arrived, his father sees him coming. The father runs to his son and embraces him and brings him home to celebrate. The son never could have come home if the father had not drawn him into the house, but it was the son who made the decision to go home.
We know what God reveals about Himself and that is all. Isaiah tells us God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. What we see as a contradiction may be two sides of the same coin or two dissimilar halves that fit together perfectly to make a whole—as in the prodigal son and the father.
We look at passages that reveal God’s Sovereignty, then we look at passages that describe our ability to choose, and most Western minds see a contradiction that must be solved. Only one can be accepted, and the other must be thrown out by default. Perhaps instead of trying to solve the matter, or choosing which one we personally prefer, we are just called to believe what God has revealed.
Both are true, even though they look contradictory. I contend they no longer appear contradictory if you are familiar with Molinism and God’s middle knowledge. (For more detail on Molinism, I recommend this footnoted website.[11])
Scripture makes it clear that God knew all along who would believe. He “pre-knew” us, Ephesians 1:3–5, Revelation 13:8, 1 Peter 1:19–21.
However, God also reveals in His Word that He has given us choice, as we saw in Joshua 24:15, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” Deuteronomy 30:19 says, “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.” In Proverbs 1:29 we read, “For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD.”
Calvinists deny free will and think that human choice is impossible. According to Calvinism, we have no choice. I think the most obvious evidence against that is the condition of the world. If we did not have free will, the world would be free of all sin and suffering. Everything in the world was perfect when God first created it. It is only because God gave us the gift of free will and choice that evil is even possible. Genesis 2:17, “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
The Bible teaches that God is sovereign and man has choice. I don’t think we have to choose between the two. Maybe one of the choices set before us is to simply believe what God has revealed, even if it seems contradictory to our Western way of thinking. We also see this in the revelation that the “Lord our God is one;” Deuteronomy 6:4; yet the Lord our God is also revealed to be triune, Isaiah 48:16, John 1:1.
Closely related to the subjects of free will, sovereignty, and predestination, is the doctrine of election.
Charles C. Ryrie, in his book, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, covered some of the different explanations of election, including the “Corporate Election” view held by Karl Barth. Barth taught that “election is primarily election of Christ, then the election of the community, and finally the election of individuals. Barth was accused of universalism because he believed unbelievers were also elect but didn’t know it yet. However, Ryrie points out that there is an evangelical form of the theory as well that does not border on universalism. This form “views election as the choosing of the group, the church, in Christ, but not of the individuals until after they become members of the group by faith...We cannot speak of the individual being elected before the foundation of the world but only of the church being so elected in Christ, Ephesians 1:4. When an individual believes in Christ, he is placed in that elect group, and then he can be said to be elect.”[12] In this view, God chose the church before the foundation of the world and not individuals.
Is there a precedent in the Old Testament that supports this view?
In the Old Testament, the elect refers to the Jewish people as a whole, as a corporate body. However, within that body, there are specific people chosen—Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. Then there are groups within the whole that are chosen—Levi and the priesthood, Judah and the kingly line. So I do see a precedent.
In the New Testament, the church is born. It is also elect. How does this work? Is it explained by the precedent in the Old Testament? I think so. In the New Testament, we see that those who were not God’s people have now become God’s people, as prophesied in Hosea 2:23 and backed up by Romans 9:25-26 and 1 Peter 2:10. Gentiles have now been added to the elect as a corporate group. Gentiles, who were not elect before, have now become elect. There are also groups within the larger group. There is the one new man, Jew and Gentiles together, and within this new group, there are individuals elected for specific functions, such as Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles; Peter and James as the apostles to the Jewish people. Luke, most likely a Gentile, is chosen as Paul’s biographer and a significant historian who writes a detailed gospel. In this model, we see larger groups that are elect—Jew and Gentile—and we see smaller and smaller groups that are placed into the broader category of the elect—down to the individual.
Is election a plan that is similar to a blueprint or the outline of a grand-scale story written by God? Is it like a play with billions of characters, each having our turn to “trod the boards” in the ongoing drama? But there are “acts” in the drama, and then there are events that occur in those “acts,” and there are individuals who appear in those acts—some with large roles, some with small roles: but all of us are known before even one of us is called to the stage. But whether we have large or small roles, all of us are of importance and of significance to God. Think of the fact that the hairs of our head are numbered, Luke 12:7. Not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God being aware of it, Matthew 10:29, much less us. And remember 1 Corinthians 1:26-28, “For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.”
However, returning to the issue of free will, I personally believe the answer to the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate is solved by Molinism, and perhaps by living in a multi-dimensional or dimensionless reality. I believe God’s “drawing,” or predestination of individuals, and the reality of man’s freedom to choose or reject God, are demonstrated in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. But for those who still don’t see it, or who still reject Molinism or struggle with any of these doctrines, here are some other things to consider.
In John 6:44, Jesus said that no one comes unto Him unless the Father draws him. This is one of the principal texts Calvinists use to reach their theological conclusions. However, in John 12:32, Jesus revealed that God accomplishes this drawing through the cross. Jesus said in John 12:32 that if He is lifted up, He will draw all mankind unto Himself in that sacrificial act. The same Greek verb translated as “draw”, (helkō), is used in both passages.
Calvinists teach that God only determines some—not all—to be saved. Yet salvation is available to all mankind because of Jesus’s death on the cross. Jesus said He would draw all mankind to Himself once He was lifted up. Is John 12:32 the “drawing” that John 6:44 pointed to? In the verse, Jesus clearly says He would draw all mankind to Himself through the cross and not just some. And a few verses earlier, in John 6:40, choice is implied. It says, “For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” It is the Father’s will. However, it is also the case that we must look. We must believe. Both the Father’s choice and man’s choice are taught in this passage. Predestination and free will are both true—as taught in scripture and explained by Molinism.
Jesus said
His death on the cross would draw all mankind to Him, and Revelation 13:8
reveals that the crucifixion, and thereby the “drawing” of all mankind to
Christ, was God’s will and plan from before the creation of the world. It is
God who planned salvation for fallen humanity—both Jew and Gentile at their
appointed times—from the beginning—and it is God who actively draws all people
through the sacrifice of His Son’s atoning death on the cross. Without that,
without God’s drawing by way of the cross, no one can be saved.
We read in 1
Timothy 4:9–10, “This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance. To
this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God,
who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” Although
Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, Scripture reveals that the desired
salvation, though available to all, is only realized by those who believe.
We see this concept that salvation is for all in Romans 5:18. “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.” In Jeremiah 29:13, God said when we seek Him with our whole heart, we will find Him. We have to seek Him. We have to desire Him with our whole heart. Calvinists deny this by pointing to verses like John 6:37. Jesus said that everyone the Father gives Him will come to Him, and He will not turn them away. Their point is that only those the Father gives for salvation can be saved. The only way we have any hope of being saved or given to Jesus by the Father is through the cross, and the “drawing” of the cross is available to all. Not just some. And the cross existed even before the creation of the world, Revelation 13:8.
Once again, I come back to Molinism. God chose which order of things He would create, and by His middle knowledge, he knew how individuals would freely react in any given situation. He then decreed that order. At that point, both predestination and free will were realized.
However, it is still possible that John 6:37 referred to the original disciples of Jesus on earth. In context, Jesus was speaking to those people who were present and saw Him. Not everyone there that day was chosen to be a disciple—most of them just wanted to be fed. The ones who were chosen came, and Jesus did not turn any of them away.
So there is another argument to be made; which is that John 6:37 referred to those who came to Jesus during His lifetime, and reveals that He chose those the Father had preordained for Him. Otherwise, this verse contradicts numerous verses, such as John 3:16, and leaves us trying to work through a puzzling contradiction. It is my contention that both are true, and both are true at the same time and in the same way.
The Bible clearly teaches both.
We either accept that, or we are forced to come to grips with God not choosing our most precious unsaved loved ones. That is not an easy task and tortures most human hearts and minds as unjust or unfair. A frequent Calvinistic response to such a reaction is “get over it” and “God doesn’t have to be fair”. And, yes, those are actual quotes.
Since fairness and justice are synonymous, then, yes, God does have to be fair because one of His attributes is justice.
Debate rages on. Sadly, Calvinist online frequently resort to vitriolic ad hominem. We are stupid, don’t know God like they do, and we are going to hell. I find their angry attacks odd since they believe non-Calvinists have no choice in the matter. God determined our state. Not us. You would think they would pity us instead of condemning us, but most Calvinists I encounter tend to be rather judgmental and strike me as almost heartless. We deserve whatever we get from God. They want us to go to hell.
They are indeed followers of John Calvin.
They also have much in common with the Pharisees of Jesus’s day.
But I do sometimes wonder if John 6:37 even applies beyond Jesus’s day. I also question if Romans 9 was speaking mainly of Old Testament covenants and elections—which led to the Messiah—as well as the disciples, apostles, and early followers of that prophesied Messiah. All of scripture led to that moment, and there were people chosen to bring it about, both for good and for ill. Jesus chose Judas, knowing Judas would betray Him for thirty pieces of silver. But Judas also chose to betray Jesus.
The choices God made were specific, and yet we still see people involved in those choices. How does God’s choosing and man’s choice work together apart from Molinism?
In Matthew 22:14 we read that “many are called but few are chosen.” We see from later events that the “many” referred to the Gentiles. Many would be called when the gospel went out to the Gentiles, but only the Jewish people had been chosen. They were chosen by God to reveal salvation to the world, and they were chosen by God to be the people group that would give birth to the Messiah. The gospel is preached all over the world, and many are invited, but few choose to accept it and enter in at that narrow gate.
We can also see this partially illustrated by the events on the Mount of Transfiguration, Matthew 17:1–13. Many disciples had been called by Jesus, and they were genuine followers and saved. They chose to follow Jesus and stay with Him when others left. However, only three were chosen to ascend the mountain with Jesus and witness His transfiguration. Many were called but few were chosen.
We are past the cross now and the canon is closed. As we read scripture, we realize that even the disciples had to come to Jesus through the cross in the end. There is no other name and no other way we can be saved, Acts 4:12. When we come to Jesus by way of the cross, which the Father ordained as the method for drawing all people, He certainly does not turn anyone away. The cross was God’s doing, and it was to make salvation available to all. Not just a select few. But, like the Prodigal Son, we have to make that journey home, and the Father has to draw us in.
John 3:16 tells us that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” It does not say God only loved some. It says He loved the whole world. It does not say God only offers Life to a few; it says whosoever believes will have Life. The “whosoever” also implies choice. Tragically, not all people will choose to accept it, but I contend God makes it available to all without caprice or prejudice, and it is available to all by choice: Including our most precious unsaved loved ones. They are loved by God as well, no matter what John Calvin thought.
We also see choice in Matthew 23:37 when Jesus said, “How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!” They were unwilling. Not God. It is the same with John 5:39–40. “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” We read in 2 Peter 3:9 that God does not desire that any should perish. However, we know that many perish. Luke 9:23 says, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” These verses imply we have a say in the matter, and there are actions and commitments we must make. Yet, Calvinism teaches that God only chooses to save some and does desire that the rest should perish.
Calvinism teaches that God’s righteous decree chooses to condemn the majority of mankind. The condemned have no choice in their rejection of God, according to Calvinists, yet they are still accountable for the choice God forced upon them. God determines their choice for them, all of their choices actually, and then, according to all the modern Calvinists I’ve studied, He condemns them to an unspeakable and eternal torture for choices that He alone controlled. Then Calvinists completely lose me when they say that God is righteous, just, and loving in doing so!
Let the logic of that play out in a father and son relationship in this world. A rich and powerful father decides to withhold an education from his son. He forbids his young son to study. He forbids him to learn reading, math, science, and music. Then he punishes his son for not knowing how to read, perform math, advance science, and play a concerto. Yet everyone who works for the father would have you believe the father is just, loving, and glorified by continually punishing his son for stupidity.
Such a father would be a sick and twisted tyrant, and those who defend him would be guilty of enabling injustice! Yet that is the brush Calvinists paint God with. They get angry when non-Calvinist point out such things and continue to defend God’s right to withhold choice from man, while still maintaining that man is accountable for his choices. I think such a teaching is insane! That is also my opinion of John Calvin. He was an insane psychopath!
In one Calvinist’s book, which I threw away, I remember being struck by the way one Calvinist boasted about how he knew God and others didn’t. He prided himself on that. I was surprised he didn’t break his arm patting himself on the back. It not only struck me as arrogant, but it made me wonder who he was to determine what kind of relationship someone else has with God. Experience has shown me that he was not the only Calvinist to believe others don’t know God or understand His word like they do. Does that strike anyone else as arrogant?
After those insults, they condemn us for rejecting God, belittle us for not understanding God or knowing Him like they do—while all along teaching that we had no choice in the matter to begin with. Why be angry with us and hold us in contempt if we are simply behaving as God has directed us to? I had no free will in writing this book, or any of my books, according to Calvinism, so why should these writings upset any Calvinist who stumbles across them? Why should someone be burned at the stake for carrying out God’s will like Michael Servetus was?
My goal in writing this is to make disciples for Jesus—not disciples for John Calvin. My prayer when I study scripture is to be led by the Holy Spirit—not the teaching of a man who was intimately involved in the burning, beheading, and torture of men, women, and children—a man that I do not even consider a genuine follower of Christ to begin with. I don’t care that he got many things right. I care that he was involved in torture and had gallons of blood on his hands. I think those things outweigh all the things he got right.
When I first became a Christian, I watched several episodes of Word Pictures. I was drawn to their teaching because it was different from everything I watched on so-called “Christian” television. The only full-time “Christian” station I had was TBN, and I was appalled by the obvious charlatans, heresies, and money preaching that I saw there. There were a handful of good teachers, but that was all. That drought of sound doctrine sent me to Cross TV’s Word Pictures because they came across as sane, rational, and genuine; however, the majority of their teaching centered on Calvinism and eternal conscious torment in hell.
As time went on, I realized there was little love in their teaching and occasional evidence of arrogance. Jesus clearly condemned those attitudes in the Pharisees, and 1 Corinthians 13 teaches that we are nothing without love. In one episode, they showed a young girl in a coffin. She didn’t even appear to be out of her teens yet. Then they showed her coffin being engulfed by flames and descending into an eternal torment at greater and greater speed, all while she was screaming and beating against the coffin to escape the flames and narrow prison walls. They made it clear that, even though she had not even spent twenty years in this world, she deserved eternal conscious torment in hell for a life she had no control over. Are you kidding me?
If you have an emotional reaction to that, apart from confessing and repenting through self-preservation, then you are an emotional reactionary incapable of rational thought. I definitely had an emotional reaction. I was so horrified and angry that I almost denounced God and my rediscovered Christian faith on the spot. I wanted nothing to do with that God and still don’t. It had much to do with why I wrote my book Gehenna Revisited.[13]
However, the writing of the book—which teaches that the preponderance of scripture supports the annihilation of those who knowingly reject Christ—also stems back to an early childhood experience. I was raised in a nominal Christian home, and as a young teenager, I was an avid student of the Bible. I prayed for hours on end, read the New Testament probably a hundred times, never missed church, joined choir, went to every Protestant Bible study in town, and signed up for a free Bible study correspondence school. I loved Jesus. I loved His word. I don’t think I had ever been baptized by the Holy Spirit though. I certainly had no discernment.
I remember sitting on the stairs of my childhood home as a thirteen-year-old girl, in tears, because I was terrified by the belief that all of the people I loved were going to hell. I saw no real evidence of a love for God in those who surrounded me. We went to church on Sunday and learned about following God, but throughout the rest of the week, there was no evidence that anyone was actually following Him. Around sixteen, I began to consider the stories of the Bible to be fairytales and lost my faith completely by my third year in college. I strayed into Mormonism for a time but eventually realized it was a cult. After that, I hated the Bible and everyone who truly believed it. That hatred eventually led me into the occult and the darkest days of my life.
Thoughts of hell have periodically plagued me throughout my life, and when I was radically born again in 1999, I began pleading with God to show me if that doctrine was true or not. I had to know if all the ones I’d loved and lost were being tortured eternally or not.
At times, it was difficult to rest or think of anything else. I don’t know how anyone can sleep who honestly believes their mother, father, children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, best friends, neighbors, and billions of complete strangers are shrieking in agony and engulfed in eternal flames while they go on merrily with their lives. If they truly believe in eternal conscious torment in hell, I don’t know why they would ever have children—knowing that the odds are that they might be bringing a child into the world that God will predestine to spend an eternity in torment in the flames of hell.
I don’t know how anyone can love and worship a God who determines such a destiny for anyone, especially their own child. Yet prominent Calvinists don’t seem to have a problem with that and consider those who do to be emotionally and spiritually immature. I think they are colder than the fish in the Antarctica that have antifreeze for blood. They make Pharisees look progressive. I despise Calvinism. I think it’s sick.
I knew if the Bible actually taught eternal conscience torment in hell, I would have to accept it. I would not have to accept that God, but I would have to accept the truth of the teaching and struggle to live with it and submit to it at the end of my life.
John 6 is not the only place Calvinists derive their theology from. Calvinists also place heavy emphasis on the word “elect.” However, a thorough study of scripture shows that almost all instances of “elect” speak of the Jewish people, which I covered earlier in this chapter. The Jewish people were chosen early on, elected by God, to be a kingdom of priests and prophets; to be the recipients and transmitters of God’s Word; to be the line God’s Son would be born through; to be the first who would hear the Good News of salvation, the first to know and believe God’s Son, and the first to follow Him and proclaim His message. Later, God would also elect the church and join us to the Jewish elect.
In the New Testament, we see that the Jewish apostles were chosen by God for that honor. They were chosen, elected, to be the first believers. They were chosen, elected, to live with God in the flesh and reveal His gospel to the world. It was a specific location and a specific time. Not everyone could be born at that time or live in that location. Choices had to be made, and they were made by God for good reason. It is easy to understand how some were chosen and predestined for their roles in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and others were not.
So, unlike Calvinists, I do believe we have free will. I don’t believe God would have given us choices and told us to choose if we had no freedom to do so. God’s Word tells us to choose whom we will serve. Our choices are real choices, even when predestination operates. God knows our choices even before we do. As Molinism covers so well, but many people still reject Molinism. I just want you to think seriously about these things and study the Bible for yourselves—as I stress repeatedly in my writing.
I don’t claim to be infallible, and I don’t claim to perfectly understand everything in scripture without error. Only God is infallible, so please read your Bible and pray for guidance and wisdom. In God’s Word, we learn that He is sovereign. Yet, He gives us genuine choice. Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord, Joshua 24:15.
God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. There is much about Him we will never understand in this world. That goes for everyone. Even those who always have an answer for every question and seem to believe they could never be wrong.
I think one stark example of God’s sovereignty and man’s choice is clearly seen in King Saul. King Saul was ordered by God to kill all of the Amalekites. Later, Haman seeks the annihilation of the Jewish people during the time of Esther—and Haman and the Agagites are believed to be descendants of the Amalekites. If the Jewish people had been annihilated during Esther’s day, God’s plan for the Jewish people, and the birth of Jesus through the Jewish people, never would have happened. There would have been no salvation for mankind, and God would have been made a liar. Saul failed to stop the threat, so God chose Esther to stop it.
Saul could have been forced to obey God, but he wasn’t. It was God’s will that the Amalekite threat be stopped, but Saul did not carry it out; that shows that King Saul had choice. He chose to defy God, and the results of his disobedience threatened the salvation of humanity. If God compels us to behave a certain way, that would have been the time to compel. If God compels us to behave a certain way, Saul would have carried out such a high-stakes command, but Saul did not, and that demonstrates his ability to choose.
Even when faced with such momentous consequences, Saul still had the choice to obey God or to not obey God. It was God’s will that the Amalekite threat be stopped. It was Saul’s choice to disobey God, and he did. But God’s will was still accomplished. The Jewish people were not annihilated by a descendant of the Amalekites. Genocide did not occur—and that was God’s will. Saul’s choice to disobey God did not stop God’s will. God simply raised up Esther. And, today, the Amalekites no longer exist as a distinct people group.
As I have written before, understanding how God’s supreme sovereignty, predestination, and human free will all work together in the same reality is boggling for the human mind. God’s sovereignty and His decision to give us choice seem contradictory to many. Luis de Molina, the sixteenth century Jesuit priest from Spain who first proposed Molinism, theorized that simultaneous concurrence explained how God could be the cause of everything in the universe yet still allow free will. Molina theorized that God concurs with secondary causes to produce an effect. In this case, the secondary cause would be you and me. God allows us our free will through the vehicle of concurrence. He chooses to give us choice yet His sovereignty is not diminished.
Much about God is mysterious and unfathomable to the human mind, which is to be expected if you and I are honest about it. I may never be able to adequately explain these things. Calvinists aren’t able to adequately explain them to me either—not unless they choose to focus on some scriptures while simultaneously ignoring others; which, as I have also written before, I won’t allow them to do without a vigorous challenge.
Much about God seems contradictory from a human perspective, and the Bible is full of challenges. One thing we can be certain of is that God’s Word is trustworthy, as attested to by prophecy, and He is infinitely good and faithful, as attested to by His Son. In the end, I think we just need to accept what the Bible teaches. God is sovereign and man has choice.
We might not be able to understand how both can be true, but God understands, and as I’ve written, He is outside the limits of our dimensions. The contradictions may only exist in our own minds and in our own dimensions. God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts, Isaiah 55:8. God chooses. God predestines. Yet individuals still have choice. It may be that if we do not accept both, as the Bible teaches, we will end up in a dangerous heresy. As I believe Calvin did.
We see God choosing certain groups and individuals for specific tasks throughout scripture, and there is nothing unfair or unjust about it. He chose Abraham to be the father of nations. He chose Isaac and Jacob to be the sons of promise. He chose Moses to lead his people out of bondage. He chose Esther to save her people from annihilation. He chose the prophets to deliver His message to Israel. He chose the disciples to be His followers and to deliver His gospel to the whole world. He chose Paul to write the majority of New Testament books. He chose Judas. He chose Pilate. He chose Herod. Some were chosen for the good they would do. Some He chose—knowing what evil they would do—but choosing to turn that evil into good. Just as He did with Pharaoh, and just as He did for Joseph when he was sold by his brothers into Egyptian bondage.
Pharaoh hardened his heart, and God hardened it even further. At Jesus’s trial, the Jewish leaders, and many in the crowd, hardened their hearts against Jesus. They conspired to have Him crucified. The book of Romans shows that, afterward, God hardened their hearts as well—or allowed them to remain hardened. But there was a purpose. It was so salvation could come to the Gentiles. I believe that is what we see at work in Romans 9–11.
Naturally, the Jewish audience was offended to hear that their hearts were hardened so that salvation could come to the Gentiles. So, in this passage, Paul pointed them to the Exodus and the hardening of Pharaoh to develop a precedent based upon scripture. However, this hardening is only for a time. Romans 9–11 makes it clear that God has not finished with the Jewish people. They are still His chosen people. All Israel will yet be saved.
These are difficult passages, but I do think these things are to be understood in this light.
The Canon is closed now, and the Kingdom of God has come in the person of Jesus, and by extension, His followers. This move of God, from then until now, has been miraculous in every way. The offer of salvation continues to our day, and it is not only for a chosen few. Salvation is for whosoever will believe.
[1] Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.6.
[2] Calvin, Institutes, 3.23.2.
[3] John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work by Reyburn, Hugh Young, Publisher, London: Hodder and Stoughton p. 202-203, n216. Available at Internet archive.org.
[4] Bainton, Roland H. Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus (1511-1553). P. 144-145. Available at Internet Archive.
[5] John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work by Reyburn, Hugh Young, 1914. Hodder and Stoughton. p 166-187. Available at archive.org.
[6] John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work by Reyburn, Hugh Young, 1914. Hodder and Stoughton. p 166-187. Available at archive.org.
[7] John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work by Reyburn, Hugh Young, 1914. Hodder and Stoughton. p 166-187. Available at archive.org.
[8] John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work by Reyburn, Hugh Young, 1914. Hodder and Stoughton. p 166-187. Available at archive.org.
[9] https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01/calcom01.i.html
[10] https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/leviticus-24.html
[11] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-mma-mere-molinism-argument/
[12] Charles C. Ryrie. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999), page 358-359.
[13] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00XPVBKQ4
