Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe

Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

Calvinists, in requiring that their God be the only sovereign will in the universe, have created a massive problem that will not go away, and at best can only be dealt with by huge cover-ups (lies) and verbal gymnastics (re-wording the Bible or false interpretations). For, if the calvinist God is the only sovereign will in the universe, then no other may oppose his will, ever. No other will can exist unless it is permitted by his sovereign will.

And for those calvinists reading this (and some do, I know), if you don’t agree, then demonstrate clearly (sola scriptura, of course) without going around in circles – all those brave enough to answer so far have clearly gone around in circles, just not brave enough to get straight to the point! List clearly the offending item and why it is not acceptable (remember – sola scriptura). Of course, if you have no way of refuting my statements, then you have my permission to hold your tongues; silence (that great “weapon” of calvinist heresy) is always taken as evidence of an inability to refute! So far, no-one has effectively refuted anything I’ve said (and I’ve been saying a lot of it online for almost 3 years now).

Calvin says “it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (Institutes Bk 3, Ch. 23 , Section 6)
Calvin also teaches that all things are decreed by God, even criminal acts. “Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye of God, but had been fixed by his decree.” (Institutes Bk 1, Ch. 16, Section 9)

That is, the calvinist God foreordained all things before creation; he wrote the complete script before the play began! The only problem here (and it is a massive problem indeed) is that no free will of man can be permitted unless it is completely subject to the calvinist God’s sovereign will at all times. No-one may ever do anything that the calvinist God hasn’t already foreordained as part of his sovereign will. This includes sin, for if man cannot oppose God’s sovereign will at any time, then he must sin whenever the calvinist God has decreed that he should do so. Sin must be committed according to the calvinist God’s will at all times.

But, sin is described as rebellion against God. MacArthur describes sin as wilful rebellion against God. “It is not only defiling; it is rebellion.  It establishes not only a defilement, and a filth, and a pollution, and a corruption, but it establishes a life of rebellion.  It is, by its own nature, as Leviticus 26:27 says, “Walking contrary to God.”  It is just walking in constant opposition, in constant rebellion.  A sinner tramples on God’s law, tramples on God’s character, willfully crosses God’s will, affronts God, spites God, mocks God.  And the Hebrew word for “sin,” one of the Hebrew words, pasha, signifies rebellion.  Is it, at its core, rebellion.  That’s what it was for Lucifer.  That’s what it was for Eve.  That’s what it was for Adam.  That’s what it is for all of us.  Perhaps a good definition, Jeremiah 44:17, “But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth.”  That’s it.  God, we will do exactly what we want to do.  ……  So, sin is defiling, and sin is open, incessant rebellion.” (90-233 What is Sin? Jan 30, 2000)

Clearly MacArthur sees sin as an act of the free will of man, yet unless that man also has the free will to deny sin, then there is literally no free will at all. Free will requires a choice, in this case between rebellion against God, and obedience to God. MacArthur teaches that sinful man may choose his own poison, but may never have the right to choose to not sin. “But within the framework of our sinfulness we could pick our poison. When you talk about free will, we’re talking about the freedom that the sinner has to choose his iniquity. That’s what his freedom is, that’s the sum and substance of his freedom. The one thing he’s not free to do is to choose salvation, or to choose righteousness, or to choose holiness, or to choose God, or to choose Christ unaided and on his own.” (from “Answering the key questions about the doctrine of election” GTY 106)
And yet, if the calvinist God’s will is that which determines all events in the universe, then even the choice of poison (sin) must be fully controlled by his sovereign (and only) will. Free will never exists when it is totally controlled by another will!

How can sin be such rebellion against God and still not be seen as another will in opposition to God’s will. For, if sin is rebellion against God, then there are only two logical options here: either (a) the sin is wilfully opposed to God’s will [that is, the person has chosen, through his freedom of will, to oppose God’s will], or (b) God has decreed by his sovereign will that the person should sin [that is, the person has been given no freedom of will to oppose God’s will]. The first option (a) requires that man has an individual free will of his own in order to oppose sovereign God. The second option (b) excuses man from any culpability for committing the sin, but instead places all responsibility for that sin upon the sovereign will of the calvinist God who decreed it. Thus the calvinist God, in denying any freedom of will to oppose his will, is actually wilfully sinning against himself.

You can’t have it both ways. Either man has a free will to wilfully sin against God, or else God is dictating to man that he must sin against God without any free will to resist. The key to it all is free will, and it is why calvinism, in refusing the free will of mankind, has created a massive headache for all calvinists. Many, of course, will deny that man has no free will at all, claiming that man can make choices in his life. However, they always put in a codicil that in all spiritual matters, such as salvation, there is still no free will to make any choice at all, crying “There is no free will unto salvation”. (Note MacArthur’s illogical statement that man can choose his own poison, but is unable to choose to not take poison in the first place!)

There are, of course, many calvinists who actually state the truth without trying to do any cover-ups. Their words are unpalatable, even to many calvinists, yet at least they are not telling the lies that other calvinists tell. The truth is that the calvinist God decrees sin, yet punishes those who commit the sin, even though they had no say in the matter. The calvinist God who blames others for his decisions is both unjust and unrighteous.

From Sproul we read (in “Almighty over All”, P 53-54) that “I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that He created sin. … God desired for man to fall into sin.” But, please explain, calvinists, how one may create sin without actually sinning?

From MacArthur we read (in “The Vanishing Conscience & Hard to Believe”, P 113) that “Ultimately, we must concede that sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it – or, in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it.” So, according to MacArthur, God decreed sin which he (MacArthur) has defined as defiling and incessant rebellion against God. So, please explain how holy God may create that which “establishes not only a defilement, and a filth, and a pollution, and a corruption, but it establishes a life of rebellion.” That is, MacArthur teaches that the calvinist God has decreed defilement, filth, pollution, corruption and rebellion, yet still claims to be holy! Such teachings would be blasphemy indeed if applied to the God of the Bible; however, MacArthur is defining a God who is not the God of the Bible.

Edwin H Palmer, a calvinist writer, says (in “The Five Points of Calvinism”, P 25) that “It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin.
(Palmer was educated at Westminster Theological Seminary and the Free University of Amsterdam, and was even an instructor in systematic theology at Westminster 1960-64. This clearly defines his calvinist standpoint.)
Then the calvinist God must love sin since he has foreordained so much of it. How can the Bible say that Christ knew no sin, yet the calvinist God knew so much about sin that he foreordained it.
2 Corinthians 5:21For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Boettner says (in “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”, P 169 & P 172) that “The Reformers recognized the fact that sin, both in its entrance into the world and in all its subsequent appearances, was involved in the divine plan; that the explanation of its existence, so far as any explanation could be given, was to be found in the fact that sin was completely under the control of God; and that it would be overruled for a higher manifestation of His glory.
So sin is that which makes the calvinist God look good?
And since the plan of redemption is thus traced back into eternity, the plan to permit man to fall into the sin from which he was thus to be redeemed must also extend back into eternity; otherwise there would have been no occasion for redemption.
And it was necessary for Adam to be made to sin to prevent the calvinist God from creating an unnecessary plan of redemption? What? Is the calvinist God unable to know what’s going to happen in the future? According the Boettner God cannot foretell the future unless he has foreordained it. “Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined.” (Ibid P 30)

Vincent Cheung says (in “The Author of Sin”, P 4) that “Those who oppose me stupidly chant, “But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin.” However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a decent explanation as to what is wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective.  The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin.
Of course, this is abundantly true if this particular God is actually satan.

Cheung also says on P 10 of that same book that “We are not using the word “create” in the same sense as God’s original creation out of nothing, but we are referring to God’s control over things that he has already created. Although God must actively cause evil thoughts and inclinations in the creature, and then he must actively cause the corresponding evil actions, he does not create new material or substance when he does this, since he is controlling what he has already created.
It is true that a person sins according to his evil nature, but as Luther writes, it is God who “creates” this evil nature in each newly conceived person after the pattern of fallen Adam, whose fall God also caused. And then, God must actively cause this evil nature to function and the person to act according to it.
Cheung’s God is an unrighteous sadist, because he actively creates man’s evil nature, yet punishes him for sinning according to his created nature.

Further to this, Cheung says (in “The Problem of Evil, God’s Sovereignty”) that “God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power. Since we have shown that no creature can make completely independent decisions, evil could never have started without God’s active decree, and it cannot continue for one moment longer apart from God’s will. God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory” (
Please explain, calvinists, how God can decree evil for his glory? Evil world leaders and dictators may make evil decisions for their glorious benefit, but they serve satan, don’t they?

A W Pink says (in “The Sovereignty of God”, & also “The Wisdom of Arthur W Pink Vol 1”, P 445) that “Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed.
The calvinist God willed that man rebel against him? That man be disobedient? Yet the Bible says that if we love God, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15If ye love me, keep my commandments.) So does this mean that it is the calvinist God’s will that we do not love him?

Piper says (in “Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?” and quoting from Jonathan Edwards) “Why Does God Ordain that there Be Evil? It is evident from what has been said that it is not because he delights in evil as evil. Rather he “wills that evil come to pass . . . that good may come of it. ….. Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.” That is, God has ordained sin (evil) in order that He may produce good! And, without sin, God’s glory would be lacking (imperfect!). In fact, God’s glory could scarcely shine forth at all without sin! Does that mean that I have to sin in order to give God greater glory? Am I committing sin by not sinning?

Piper also says “Everything that exists—including evil—is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly.” (as quoted in August 29, 2007)
So sin is glory? Vainglory? (See Galatians 5:26)

Piper also has co-edited a book (Suffering and the Sovereignty of God) which says (on P 42) that “(God) actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory. …. This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child.
Any God who brings about such evil causing Hitler and his sadistic crew of Nazis to commit the atrocities of the 2nd World War is himself sadistic! This is a sick belief system indeed!

Calvin says (in “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God”) that “The will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. ……
First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil. …… But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it. ……. For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things. …… But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils. ….. Many go astray in not holding that God wills what men by sinning do. …… Must we then impute the guilt of sin to God, or invent a double will for Him so that He falls out with Himself? I have shown that He wills the same as the criminal and the wicked, but in a different way.” That is, Calvin’s reasoning leads him to discover that God must be the author of all evils, yet when God wills the criminal to sin, God is not guilty of the sin; rather, the criminal is guilty of the sin he committed by the will of God. The calvinist God is either unwilling or unable to take responsibility for his own actions.

Calvin also says “But when they call to mind that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters, but are even forced to do him service(Institutes Bk 1, Ch.17, Section 11)
Please explain, calvinists, how the devil can only do that which is God’s will for him to do!

Charles Hodge (in Systematic Theology Part 1 (Theology Proper) Ch.9 “The Decrees of God”) says “The Bible especially declares that the free acts of men are decreed beforehand. ….. The Scriptures teach that sinful acts, as well as such as are holy, are foreordained. ….. It is therefore beyond all doubt the doctrine of the Bible that sin is foreordained.
This is truly systematic satanic theology. Satan must love all these false calvinist teachings. Let’s put the record straight! It was satan, not the God of the Bible, who tempted Adam and Eve to sin!

Edwin Lutzer says (in “The Doctrines that Divide” P 220-221) that “Satan, regardless of how evil his actions, always serves the purposes of God. God frequently uses the devil to serve his higher ends. …. (the devil) always stands in opposition to God even when he does what God ordains.” Lutzer says (Ibid P 210) of God and evil that “Nonetheless, his (God’s) permission (for evil to occur) necessarily means that he (God) bore ultimate responsibility for it (evil). After all, he could have chosen ‘not to permit’ it.
So satan opposes God yet always according to God’s will? God ordains that the devil commit sin?

Yet another calvinist explanation says that God by permitting sin has effectively predestined it. “If God knows that Adam will sin—or that you and I will sin—and could keep it from happening, but does not, and God’s knowledge is infallible, then it is just as certain as if he had predestined it. In fact, it is the same as being predestined.” (
That’s a big leap in poor logic indeed! Permitting sin is the same as predestining it? Giving permission for an action is the same as ordering that action to be carried out?

And then, from the Gospel Coalition (a new calvinist “club”) we get the following:
If God’s primary purpose in creation and redemption is the display of his glory, what does that tell us about why he allowed the fall? Both logically and chronologically, the fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.
But was redemption really necessary for God to be glorified? Couldn’t an unfallen creation glorify God as much as a restored creation?
….. The basic idea is this: While the fall was a great evil, it made it possible for God to bring about even greater goods in its wake: the God-glorifying goods of the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and all the salvific blessings that flow from them.
One might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal, that’s true. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven, where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence.
A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.

In other words, the sin of Adam (and consequently the rest of mankind) was necessary for the calvinist God to exhibit his full glory. Without sin, the calvinist God is lacking in glory!! The problem for the calvinists is that in making their god’s will unique in the universe, they have to make him the reason for sin. Effectively the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe. Otherwise there would have to be another will in the universe that could wilfully oppose him. To the calvinists man is still a sinner, but he can never sin wilfully unless he has some measure of freewill. Without free will, he can only sin according to God’s decree or will.
Therefore, to allow man as the wilful author of sin would have to allow man the free will to do so. Therefore, the calvinist god logically has to be the only wilful sinner in the universe.

And, did you notice the lack of scriptural support for their claims? They claim sola scriptura, yet use everything else but the Bible!

If you wish to read further, please try the following links.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply