Answering a Critic of Calvinism

Because I am a very public advocate for Calvinism (which is a nickname for the historic theology that lays at the heart of the Protestant Reformation), I occasionally hear from critics.  Sometimes, their arguments are logical and well-presented.  Other times, they’re little more than rants.  Usually, they’re somewhere in-between. And I answer most of them — avoiding the really silly or truly angry ones.

The reason I’m sharing this particular exchange is because it includes assumptions and arguments that are typical and that show up in my in-box with increasing frequency.  Some folk simply cannot conceive of God being absolutely sovereign so they attempt to argue against it by insisting that such sovereignty would necessarily make God evil.  And that’s where we’ll jump into the exchange —

The Critic writes:

When the philosophy that drives Calvinism is projected to its logical conclusion, even Satan’s activity is an extension of God’s sovereignty. God sovereignly controls Satan’s every move.


Not only is that the logical conclusion of Calvinism, it’s the logical conclusion of Biblical sovereignty.  The alternative is to have an uncontrolled devil running roughshod over God’s creation.  But, the Bible is full of examples of God limiting and binding Satan.  Consider Job.  Or Satan’s desire to sift Peter, but Christ intervened. Even Legion could not take the herd of swine without Jesus’ consent.

Or, to look at it another way, we know that in the book of Revelation Satan is bound and put into an abyss for 1000 years.  Afterward he is released, vanquished, and placed in the Lake of Fire.  Now, since we know that God has the power to do that, why has He not done it yet?  The only rational answer is: Satan plays a part in God’s economy.  When God is done with him, He will judge him and seclude him eternally.

Remember, God’s way are not our ways.  His thoughts are not our thoughts.  As high as the Heavens are above the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts.  Just because we struggle with the idea of God’s absolute power, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true or that God cannot exercise it.


This makes God the author of everything evil, and the most wicked sinner of all.


The Bible repeatedly declares God’s holiness and righteousness.  So, if Calvinism led to the idea that God was not only the “author of evil,” but the most wicked of sinners, the whole theology would have been abandoned by thoughtful churchmen years and years ago.  The reason Calvinism continues to thrive is that it recognizes God’s sovereignty and His holiness.  Straw man arguments about how that makes God sinful are just banal.

Theologically, God does not have to be evil in order to create evil in His universe.  Just as darkness is the natural state of all unlit matter and energy is necessary to produce light, God can produce evil in His creatures simply by withholding His goodness.  He does not have to be positively evil to do this.  He merely has to withhold Himself and allow the natural darkness to have its way.


Some Calvinists actually admit what I said and seek to defend it from Scripture. If ultimately God sovereignly is in control of everything, and if free will of man, angels, or even Satan, is ultimately under the control of God, then the responsibility for all wickedness and evil must be placed at the feet of God Himself.


There are no Calvinists who “actually admit” that God is “the most wicked sinner of all.”  Please attempt to present our position in a manner consistent with what we ourselves say about it.

Volumes have been written on this topic.  God is the creator, sustainer, and purpose behind all things.  But, that is not tantamount with being the author of evil.  That’s why Satan exists.  Satan is the instrument through which necessary evil occurs in God’s universe.  Think, for instance, of how God used Satan to bring calamity to Job.  God allowed it and limited the extent of it.  But, it was Satan who performed it.

Or, who brought about the fall in the Garden of Eden?  Satan.  But, was that God’s design? Yes.  Christ is the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8) Why have a sacrifice prepared prior to creation unless the Fall is ordained and inevitable?  But, God did not sin in ordaining the lapse.  He used an intermediate cause: Satan.

Everything God does is designed to bring Him the greatest glory.  And that includes His control over the events of human history and celestial eternity.  The responsibility for everything that occurs in God’s universe can rightly be laid at His holy feet.  But, that is not the same as charging Him with evil, which no man can do.

Isa 45:5-7 — “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

If you are going to attempt to limit God’s sovereignty, then what exactly will you use as your plumb line?  How far is God capable of going before He reaches the edge of what men will allow?  What events is God involved in and what events require His absence?  And how will you discern between the two?  Where exactly is the limitation on the One who calls Himself “Almighty”?


Are Satan’s actions of his own free will? If so, then God has obviously limited His own sovereignty regarding Satan’s activities.


Of course not.  The book of Job (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) proves that. Satan was not free to interact with Job, his family, his possessions, his health, or his life without God’s consent and restrictions. The truth of the text is just the opposite of your conjecture. God limited Satan’s will and activity in keeping with His own purposes and design.


God allows Satan free will.


No He doesn’t and you’ll be hard pressed to produce any Biblical evidence that He does.

By the way, if Satan does indeed have a free will, then I think we could make pretty good argument that free will leads to evil.  Then again, that’s precisely what the Bible teaches; the human will is limited by its incapability to be righteous and natural proclivity for sin.


If Satan’s actions are ultimately under the control of God, then Satan is merely God’s puppet, or “dark side.” The God of the Bible does not resemble this kind of god.

I John 1:5 – This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
James 1:17 – Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


I smell straw.  Do you smell straw?  It’s like someone is building straw men …

This is not good argumentation.  You cannot accuse us of holding a position we do not hold and then blame us for holding that position.

Is Satan God’s puppet? I’d say yes.  And when God’s done with him, He will put the devil away permanently.  But, to posit a form of dualism in which God has a dark side and a light side is rank heresy.  So, no respectable Calvinist has ever claimed it — despite your effort to assert it.

The problem is your misunderstanding of God’s character and actions. The problem is not the consistently Biblical theology of the Calvinist.

We agree that God has no dark side. But, the Calvinist sees no discrepancy in allowing the Bible to say what it says.  God is the absolute ruler and authority who empowers everything in His universe, the whole time remaining absolutely holy and just.  Remember, God is not held to a standard higher than Himself.  Whatever He does is right by virtue of the fact that it is a completely holy God doing it.  Whether that boggles our human sensibility is of no consequence.  It’s still how God portrays Himself.


We must keep in mind that Satan’s ultimate ambition is to usurp God’s position, (Isa. 14:13-15, 2Thes. 2:3,4). Satan cannot make himself holy, but he can make God appear to be unholy, closing the gap between man’s perception of God and Satan. Satan simply assumes the dark side of God. Calvinism’s philosophical merging of God and Satan in effect fulfills Satan’s ultimate aspiration.


This is really sad argumentation.  You are ascribing to Calvinists a position that they themselves never advance.  You are attempting to equate Calvinism with a form of Satanic darkness or blindness.  But, since this is a philosophical position you’ve invented and not anything to do with the systematic theology of Calvinism, it does no damage to our position at all.

Anyone can claim that God is on their side and those who oppose their side are under the control of Satan.  The important ingredient in this discussion is whether or not the Bible states what you’re stating.  And, since it doesn’t, I don’t plan to worry over it.


The danger for Christians is that only one baby step separates the Calvinism taught in mainstream Evangelical churches from the logical philosophical conclusion that God is both good and evil. Calvinism leads to the conclusion that God is Satan and Satan is God. In the last days this philosophy will facilitate Christians worshipping the Beast.


God is Satan!  Satan is God!  And my cat is the Antichrist!!!!

A tad hysterical, eh?  Don’t worry.  Calvinism has been around for hundreds of years and has never led to satanic rituals and devil worship.  You’re getting wwaaayyy too wrapped up in your emotionalism.  Painting one of the major theological streams in the history of Christendom with the broad “it’s from the Beast!” brush does nothing to advance your argument.  It just makes you sound like an alarmist.  Perhaps studying and replying to the actual doctrines of Calvinism would serve you better.

And, just for clarity’s sake, no Christians will be “worshipping the Beast.”  Why?  Because God is sovereign.


I am very troubled by the logical implications that the Calvinist philosophy forces Christians to embrace. And I’m also concerned about the image of the Christian “God” presented to the world.


Ummm … if “the Calvinist philosophy” forces Christians to embrace these logical implications, then why is it that no Calvinist I know teaches or believes this?

You’re arguing about a position that does not exist.  Take a step back, take a breath, and try to argue about the things we actually do say … as opposed to your unwarranted conclusions.

I am equally concerned about how the Christian Church presents God to the world.  The world does not need a God who has the power to save but who is hampered by the apparently superior will of His own creatures.  Why would anyone worship such a weak and powerless Deity?  The concept of freewill, and the supposition that God will not or cannot encroach on human freedom, leads to creature worship.  It places human decisions above God’s decrees.  Worse, there is no such God found in the pages of Scripture.  So, if you’re truly concerned about the image of God we’re presenting, take a moment to consider the alternative you’re offering and ask yourself two things: (1) is your conception of God biblical and (2) does it promote worship and admiration for God or does it emphasize the superiority of the creature?


Calvinism, when consistently taken to its logical conclusions, implies all of the following:

1. God’s offers of salvation to “whosoever will” are insincere. God is not completely honest in Scripture.


There is no Greek equivalent for the English term “whosoever.”  Consequently, God never offers salvation to “whosoever will.”  Look it up.  And please make sure to include specific texts that prove your contention that God actually offers salvation universally to anyone who wants it.


2. God offers to save the non-elect IF they will do what is utterly impossible. God taunts the damned.


Again, where do you find God’s universal offer of salvation to “whosoever will”?  If that does not exist (and it doesn’t) then there is no basis for claiming that the Calvinistic position results in God taunting the damned.  Saving faith is utterly impossible among all people.  There is none who does good, there is none who seeks after God (Rom. 3:11).  Therefore, only those whom God graciously enlightens will be drawn to God.  It takes more than merely an offer.  It takes empowerment, enlightenment, and regeneration.

But, since you bring up taunting, what do you make of texts like this? —

Psalm 59:7-8 – “Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.”
Psalm 2:1-5 – “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.  Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”

It turns out that God is perfectly comfortable laughing at His enemies and treating them derisively.


3. God created most people for the purpose of torturing them forever. God is cruel and sadistic.


So, you’re saying that God will eventually save absolutely everyone?  That’s the only way around what you’ve charged here.  Because, whether God elects people on the basis of His own free choice or whether He saves them on the basis of their own faith, either way God ends up making people for the purpose of judging and condemning them.  I mean, if He is truly all-knowing, then He realizes who is going to reject Him.  Yet, He makes them anyway.

The Arminian has no advantage over the Calvinist on this point.  Your God is every bit as “cruel and sadistic” as the God of the Calvinist.

But, the question is not whether God lives up to human notions of cruelty.  The question is whether or not God describes Himself as absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men.  And, since the Bible is emphatic on that point, our human estimation of His relative cruelty is of no consequence.  Hell is a pretty cruel concept, humanly speaking, but it’s still a reality.


4. God CAN save all, and DESIRES to save all, but chooses to damn many for no apparent reason. God is insane.


Anyone whom God judges is fairly and rightly judged.  He does not condemn people “for no apparent reason.”  They are sinners and they have rebelled against the righteousness of an eternally holy God.  Their judgment is just.

Agreed, God can save as many as He is pleased to save.  But, there is no verse in the Bible that says He desires to save everyone.  Sure, people misread and misunderstand texts like 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4 (as I assume you have), but straightforward exegesis demonstrates that those texts are perfectly in league with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty that permeates Scripture.  Please allow me to offer you two videos that I think will be helpful:

If you truly want to know what God’s will is concerning the salvation of people, Jesus stated it quite plainly – “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:39)

Far from desiring the salvation of all, God’s will, according to Jesus, is that all that the Father gave the Son will be saved and none will be lost.  That’s not universalism or whosoever will-ism.  It’s sovereign election.

And please restrain yourself from verbal histrionics such as “God is insane.”  If you truly believe that Calvinism leads to such conclusions, then we are genuinely heretics of the lowest order and you should not even be engaging in this discussion with me.  Try to keep a civil tone.


5. God controls Satan’s every move, and every wicked act of the most vile sinner. God is the source of all evil.


This appears to be the heart of the matter for you.  You cannot seem to disassociate God’s sovereignty from the conclusion that it makes Him evil. But, God can control every action of every creature while remaining sinless, holy, and separate from the evil He deigned for His creation.  The reason I know that is because it’s what the Bible actually teaches.  God is undeniably good and holy.  And He is equally Lord over the armies of the Heaven and the inhabitants of the earth.


The bottom line is that Calvinism, when carried to its logical conclusions, implies that God is a lying, taunting, sadistic, insane, wicked, tyrant who demands our worship!


No.  What you’ve presented is a series of misguided statements and straw men, accompanied by sub-biblical notions of God’s soteriological intentions. You’ve drawn the very conclusions you intended to draw when you began constructing your argument.  This is not logic, it is simply a foregone conclusion.  And rather than deal with the actual teaching of Calvinists, you simply throw around epithets and emotional language as if that undermines the whole system of Calvinistic theology.  But, in order to do any real damage to anyone else’s argument you must deal with the actual content of their own presentation, which you have failed utterly to do.


But, what kind of God are Calvinists presenting to the rest of mankind?


The Biblical one.


I strongly believe that Atheism thrives largely because of the Reformed – Calvinist model.


No, atheism thrives because people are wicked and depraved.  They hate God in their hearts and, as Jesus said, they hate Christ without a cause.

Oh, and that’s exactly what Calvinism states: Men are wicked, depraved God-haters.

But once again you’ve taken the easy route.  I could also say that atheism is a direct result of man’s libertarian freedom to reject the God who loved them and desperately wanted to save them.  But, the great, eternal God is powerless against the superior will of the almighty atheists.  If only men had not been raised to believe in their own free will, atheism would never have gotten such a foothold.

See how vacuous that argument is?  Is cuts both ways, but proves nothing.


Calvinism’s portrayal of God is one of the major reasons that many thinking people reject God.  They are rejecting the Calvinist’s God.


And I’m certain you can back this claim up with solid research, right?  You have long lists of confessing atheists who say that it was Calvinism that did them in, right?  I mean, it wasn’t Catholicism or science that convinced them.  It wasn’t Darwinism or TBN-style fundamentalists they’re rejecting.  It was their deep study of Reformed theology that produced their atheism, right?  And it wasn’t their sin or their natural hatred of God.  It wasn’t the fact that the natural man is at enmity with God (Romans 8:6-8) or that people by their flesh cannot subject themselves to Him.  That has nothing to do it with it, right?  No, it can’t be the depravity of evil, sinful men.  It’s the theology of Calvinism — that same theology that led the greatest revivals and missionary campaigns in history, that lays at the heart of American civil liberties, that produced outpourings of Christian piety and devotion to the Bible — that’s what produced the atheists.

Yeh, that makes sense.  No, really ….


While I do not agree with all of Dave Hunts’ points in his book, “What Love is This?”, I think his title is far too tame!


Trust me, I knew that you were stumping for Hunt’s book very early on.  He likes to argue from emotion rather than facts, too.


The real mistake of Calvinists is elevating God’s sovereignty at the expense of His holiness. They have failed to see that sovereignty does NOT demand God’s micromanaging all His creatures. That God has the power to control everything is without question. But, His purpose in creation would not be realized if He did so. Free will and allowing natural consequences to follow human choices is a major component of what God is accomplishing with His creation.


Since you have yet to demonstrate any actual grasp of Calvinistic thought or doctrine, I doubt that you are able to lay your finger on “the real mistake of Calvinists.”  It is Calvinstic theology that advances God’s holiness as His primary attribute against the Arminian who insists (as Hunt does) that God is primarily love.  There is not a whit of Calvistic doctrine that elevates God’s sovereignty over His holiness.  In fact, His sovereignty is sustained by His holiness.

Please do not pretend to define what we believe when you cannot represent us fairly or even-handedly.  Do not pretend to tell us where we’ve failed when you have reduced our entire body of divinity to name-calling.  And if you insist on limiting God’s sovereignty — so that He is not “micromanaging” His creation — then you must be prepared to explain biblically where the perimeters are.  Where does His control start and stop.  In what circumstances is He active and in what circumstances is He passive?  Be exact.  Be specific.  Or, be quiet.

Since you’ve expressed knowledge of God’s purpose in creation, please explain that purpose, with adequate chapter and verse, and explain how it precludes absolute sovereignty.  Or, be quiet.

And show us one verse that plainly states what you contend concerning free will and natural consequence being a “major component of what God is accomplishing with His creation.”  I’d love to see it.  And please, make sure the Bible passage includes the phrase “free will” and “natural consequences.” Or, be quiet.

Finally, since you have demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge concerning Calvinism overall, I would suggest refraining from any further discussions of this type until you have spent some serious time in study.  Here’s why:

I don’t know anything about heart surgery.  But, I know enough to know that I don’t know anything about heart surgery.  So, if I were to confront a heart surgeon and start offering my opinions and criticisms, he would instantly recognize that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  I’d come across as little more than a verbose fool.

No Calvinist will ever be affected by your current line of argumentation.  Most won’t take the time I’ve taken to reply. They will recognize instantly that they are dealing with someone who is ill-informed and relying on emotion rather than intelligent, educated information. You’re not doing yourself, or the cause of Christ, any favors when you attack our position ignorantly.

I hope that your future interactions with the Christian community will be more productive.

In Him,

Jim Mc.


This critique of Calvinism was originally published online.  It was sent to me via email with a request that I respond to it.  You can see the original article here:  

11 thoughts on “Answering a Critic of Calvinism

  1. Shauna

    Excellent response. This critic appears to have been reading or listening to those who do not even understand Calvinism ( a la Dave Hunt). You already know that I endured this kind of ‘critic’ from the pulpit in a previous church and it was so very sad to see a man preach this kind of nonsense from there to a whole room of unsuspecting people. Even in follow up discussions the Pastor would not refute anything said by any of ‘us Calvinists’ from the bible, but rather kept to straw man arguments of just the above kind and ended with basically a “I just know what you believe is wrong even if I cannot prove it from God’s Word”. God’s Word should be our only standard!

  2. Ronnie Eriksson

    Thank you pastor McClarty for sharing this with us, it’s very useful indeed.

    God bless you and yours in Christ Jesus

  3. Lae

    Thanks for sharing this Jim. I’m just going to direct people who oppose my position and have the same questions that’s in this article to this link……Great reply to the critic and keep teaching, We’re listening.

    God bless, see you again in the next conference in Dallas, Tx.

  4. Glenda Smith

    I do not agree that God WILLED the Fall but God foreknew the Fall and all other things. Sometimes a fireman sets fire in order to another more dangerous and destructive fire out and this is WHY God does what He does…He KNOWS what it takes to accomplish His ULTIMATE Will for man, to bring him back to relationship with Himself. Also, to accomplish what He did concerning His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. All things work together for good to those who love the Lord…Therefore, whatever God allows it is ALWAYS to accomplish good.

  5. Melanie Sarino

    Pastor Jim,

    I am thankful that God gave you so much patience! I went halfway down this page before giving up reading in exasperation. I wish people would carefully and thoughtfully read the Bible before picking strange “straw man” fights with Calvinists. I don’t know ANY Calvinists who have ever supported any of the strange assertions attributed to them by these critics. Why don’t they study, study, study?????

  6. David Emme

    Need to read through all these answers-thank you for providing a valuable resource.

    I do have a problem with the soveriegnty of God as I understand it. If I am wrong, please correct me. I do see it as having problems with the Theodicy of God. Please understand-not chucking stones at people. If God ordains sin, the big problem for me is in James one where it speaks of God is not tempted, nor does he tempt any man as temptation comes from within as opposed to coming outside of us.

    I see it this way, God will not tempt you but he will ordain which sin you are going to commit whether it be by action, utterance, thinking, or in writing.

    In short, God does not tempt you with sin, he just ordains sin. I know there is a lot of stuff out there and trying to figure if there is a work by reformers or in the reformation era that I do not own in Logos. Saying that, if the owner of this blog or anyone else has a good resource foor the soveriegnty of God-mainly dealing with sin.

    1. Jim Mc. Post author

      Hello David,

      You wrote, “I see it this way, God will not tempt you but he will ordain which sin you are going to commit whether it be by action, utterance, thinking, or in writing.” I think that’s very close, but God also works through secondary causes. While not being the “author” of sin — not directly tempting anyone, as James says — He does ordain both the means and the outcome. The primary causes He uses is Satan (the tempter) Himself. So, God is sovereignly in control but He is not sinful.

      1. David Emme

        Can you show where secondary causes are taught in the bible?
        Not trying to be difficult.
        In 1996 while attending a Independent Fundamental Baptist Bible College. I worked full time as a guard at an Aerospace plant. Had a co-worker who was a Calvinist challenge me. It started with praying for God to teach you the truth, note every (or as many as you can) passage that both sides appeal to, and then begin to study those passages with your normal complement of bible study tools (my favorite tool was and still is the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Picked this up in 1991 or 1992 at the Camp Kinser PX book store in Okinawa, Japan where I was stationed.)

        The very big caveat was not to read any books for or against Calvinism and Arminianism…or really any system of theology that opposes Calvinism. Same with preaching as many of us were not online yet back then and those would be the two sources.

        Took less than an hour to overturn all my views on salvation…mainly stemming from the ideal of foreknowledge. That being seeing in Romans 3:10-19 and Psalms 14 and 53. I don’t always share this but also Isaiah 53. It really started in Acts 2:23 where Luke put foreknowledge with the the determinate counsel of God. Had to ask, did the Father simply know what would happen to his son based on looking through the corridors of time or does foreknowledge mean something else?

        Did kind of scare me that it happened that quickly and chose to keep studying anyways after a month it became trying to disprove Calvinism.

        One of the things I did promise to God was to not believe a doctrine just because it is part of a theological system but rather plainly taught in the scriptures.

        That is really what brought me back to my question of secondary causes taught in the scriptures.

        See my problem?

        About not finding other doctrines not taught in the scriptures helped me depart from KJV Onlyism and dispensationalism.

        After coming to my views, I did start to read books against Calvinism figuring if I self received myself, than God could use a book, lecture, or sermon to pull me back on the path of “sound doctrine” knowing sometimes these means of discourse will put me on the right path. They never did. As of now, read well over a hundred books against Calvinism. I do count it as something I read even if I did not finish it. Why did I not finish? Sometimes I would get very angry that if the author was in front of me, my reply would start with a throat punch. If those works brought that kind of anger out of me, God is not going to use that to set me straight or pull me out of Calvinism.

        There is a reason why I would react in such a way and that is NOV 19, 2004 was wounded from an IED that cracked my skull and deposit a bit of shrapnel in my brain.

        Now, if you did have a book recommendation whether theology or philosophy that might deal with this…own 30,000 resources in Logos, quite a bit with Kindle and finding downloadable books for free. I also have a physical library but don’t try to buy something I already own digitally. I would say the same thing about sermons and lectures. If you have something that might answer my objections. I have since written last time found a passage but think I wrote too much and would might be seen as an afterthought.

        Thank you and thanks for your patience.
        David Emme

        1. Jim Mc. Post author

          Hello David. Thanks for taking the time to write and for sharing a bit of your story with me. I am always glad to hear from people who are serious about the Bible and the “sound doctrine” it contains.

          As far as secondary causes, I guess it’s important to define our terms so that we don’t muddy the waters. When I use that term, I am speaking of elements of God’s creation that He utilizes to accomplish His supreme will. He is always the first and primary cause of all things. But, in the matter of evil, we need to be careful not to assign evil intention or evil character to God. Rather, God uses Satan in order to accomplish things like the fall of mankind. God remains pure and holy while utilizes demonic activity to bring about His predetermined end. That’s what I’m referring to as “secondary causes.”

          It’s like God putting lying spirits in the mouth of all His prophets in 1Kings 22. He did that by means of approving the plan of a deceiving spirit who offered to convince Ahab to go up to battle and die. Again, it wasn’t God who did the deceptive part, but He did ordain and implement it via a cause separate from Himself.

          I hope that helped a bit. If not, let me know. 🙂

          Grace and peace,

          Jim Mc.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.