Romans 9’s Potter Refers to Jeremiah 18

July 6, 22

See also my massive list of posts collected at Musings on Calvinism.

Anthony Rogers on Genesis 4:1 – “I have gotten a man, YHWH”

September 8, 22

Interesting observation by Anthony Rogers.

Gen 3:16 is usually rendered ‘your desire shall be for your husband and he will rule over you’ but the Hebrew is literally ‘your man’, and he feels the context is Gen 3:15 which is about the future Messiah – hence v16 should be interpreted as ‘although you will have painful childbirth, it will bring forth your man (the one who will crush the serpent’s head) whom you desire and will rule over you’.

This therefore explains why Gen 4:1 has Eve say literally, “I have gotten a man, YHWH” – she thought Gen 3:15-16 were fulfilled immediately.

From 2:31:18 or so:

I also know of two Targums related to this, I probably learned of these from Anthony Rogers too awhiles back:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha – Genesis 3:15, Targum of Pseudo Jonathan (Section III), 150s-250s BC

And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. – Genesis 4:1, Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan (Section III), 150s-250s BC

The above are mentioned in my old video on the subject:


September 2, 22

God unconditionally Reprobates most people for His own glory and pleasure? Even the seemingly Elect might actually just have Evanescent Grace? His black is our white, who are we to try and comprehend what counts as ‘good’ to an Omnipotent Fiend (CS Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p33)? God is more interested in self-glorification than agape as per James White tweeting back about God getting close to us at Christmas? Praise and glorify God even as He tortures and then damns you because, well, He’s God and whoareyouoman?

Looks like the Broflovskis might be accidental Calvinists!


September 2, 22

Question: I can see the reasoning that conspiracists use to say “Jesus was never considered divine until the Romans manipulated/coopted the Christian movement and made Jesus into God”.

But what rationale do they give for adding the Holy Spirit in to make a Trinity? It doesn’t seem necessary and if it was back-edited into the New Testament, not nearly as much effort seems to have been made to prooftext for the Holy Spirit’s divinity.

Feels like a major weakness and oversight of the conspiracy theory to me.


September 2, 22

So Dr Heiser has said that his own view leans towards Revelation 9 being about demons = spirits of the dead Nephilim being released from hell.

My own view leaned towards the locusts depicting combat helicopters, but now I think it’s drones. Rotors like hair, noise like galloping horses, shining metal breastplates, stinging like scorpions, coming out from the abyss (deep sea in Hebrew thought) and led by an angel whose name means Destroyer (the class of seafaring vessel usually used for weird weapons like this). The US Navy even names their system Project LOCUST:

But what if, to use a favourite Dr Heiser turn of the phrase: “So is it demons, or is it drones? …And the answer is, yes.”

Demons are disembodied spirits, they look for hosts to inhabit. Historically the hosts have always been humans or animals (e.g the herd of pigs at Gerasene).

But what if human techonology progresses to the point where computer hardware and/or software is advanced enough to replicate how a brain functions? Would a demon then be able to possess such a machine well enough to control the mechanical body? Mind-machine interface is already in the works, not just far-future science fiction.

So maybe Revelation 9 really is about a horde of evil spirits, but they’re possessins a swarm of advanced drones. Who needs AI or a remote human operator? That would also explain how UFOs can make sudden turns or acceleration that would kill any organic pilots with the G-forces.

(And no, I’m not proposing anything original. The Necrons in Warhammer 40k are basically the undead, but with their souls inhabiting robot bodies instead of organic corpses.)

See also First Quarter 2011: Signs of the End Times Checklist


September 2, 22

Just some stray thoughts related to concepts in Molinism.

What if unbelievers challenge God at the final judgment, “God, you did not give me sufficient reason to believe / God, you did not order my DNA and life events in such a way that I would believe”…

And then God temporarily grants them Middle Knowledge of themselves and all their infinite possible existences, proving to them that no matter what He did or how He made them, they would still have rejected Him? Like some sort of definitive proof of their own self-caused Transworld Damnation.

Thereby proving God to be faultless in condemning them. Aaaaand maybe they still would freely reject God and lock the doors of hell from the inside, as CS Lewis/Eastern Orthodox put it.

Oil Palm is the Great Preventer – Not the Driver – of Deforestation

August 1, 22

An old essay I submitted for a competition, with lots of tongue-in-cheek in the tone of Ezra Levant and Ann Coulter (but also, FACTS).


July 7, 22

God has always been infinite and perfect in His aesity. This includes aspects such as glory, love and fellowship – as the eternal Trinity, God always already had these things maximally!

Neither can the infinite be reduced by creatures refusing to give God His due – as CS Lewis put it, the sun doesn’t shine less bright just because a madman denies its light.

So what can be gained by creating us? I postulate it’s a QUALITATIVE matter. God created free creatures with agency in order yo enjoy something that by definition He could not have without doing that – namely, the glory and and love and fellowship of beings who are NOT GOD.

We cannot add or take away quantitatively to God’s glory… but we can give Him a qualitatively different glory.


July 5, 22

Just a sudden idea as I was reflecting on the story of Job.

Ha Shatan in the Old Testament might be a title and not a proper name – it means The Accuser. But by the time of the New Testament, it is the proper name of the Devil, the old serpent who tempted Adam & Eve in the Garden.

I’m wondering if perhaps anyone could take up the post of Accuser if they were qualified, like a spiritual version of courtroom lawyerfare. In the incident of the census of Israel, clues even seem to point to YHWH Himself playing the role.

But in the New Testament, the devil is the accuser (Rev 12:10). Perhaps he did have such a formal role, but abused it by unfairly prosecuting humans – especially followers of Jesus who are imputed the righteousness of Christ.

Or perhaps all accusing belongs ultimately to YHWH alone who can delegate the task – David sang of sinning against Him alone in the case of Bathsheba, and Jesus forgave sins as only God alone has the right to. The devil usurped this role, just one of many ways he wants to be like and replace The Most High – so he was given Satan as a pseudonym.


July 4, 22

A simplified summary of Molinism’s premises are:

1) God has Middle Knowledge
2) Humans have Libertarian Free Will

We probably all know that Determinists would deny Premise 2.

However, does it seem surprising that Calvinists deny Premise 1 as well? Shouldn’t all Christians affirm the maximal view of God’s omniscience? Even some variants of Open Theism affirm that God knows all that is logically possible to know, it’s just that the future is not logically possible to know.
Since Calvinism affirms God’s perfect future knowledge (in the form of Free Knowledge) – even if it is through God’s determining the actions of every creature, “Foreordination first THEN foreknowledge” – then Middle Knowledge would still be the highest level of future knowledge. Perhaps it’s just a kneejerk reaction against a ‘competing systematic’ proposed by a ‘Roman Catholic counter-Reformation Jesuit’?

“Without middle knowledge, God would find himself, so to speak, with knowledge of the future but without any logical prior planning of the future”. – William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene/USA: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1983), p.134

However, I think I’ve realized that a denial of Premise 2 might actually lead to a denial of Premise 1 by default.

If creatures have no LFW, then God has no Middle Knowledge and in fact, no true future knowledge of any sort. This is because everything is 100% directly, causally determined by God – the only free decisions ever made are God’s own. Everything is either God’s direct causation or else a domino effect from God’s decisions and actions – there is no variance possible as there are no free agents, only fixed laws of physics causing a totally predictable (for God’s omni-intelligence) domino effect.

God of course knows what He will decide and do – a fact that atheist Dan Barker uses to fallaciously argue that God does not have free will, see … Also related to Tyler Vela’s proposition that God’s perfect nature results in God not having LFW, see his ‘Argument Against Libertarian Freedom From God’s Impeccability’ or other examples at

Hence this is not a true form of future knowledge, any more than myself knowing that I would pick coffee over tea in the morning is a form of future knowledge. Any down-the-line domino results are also not unpredictable, as God with omni-intelligence would know the exact parameters, calculations – and hence the end results.

And God of course cannot be double-minded! He knows exactly what He wants and would choose. There’s only one choice God would make, and hence only one ‘possible world’ that God would even consider.

Hence, if God has Middle Knowledge but there are literally NO hypotheticals, counterfactuals or possibilities that God could even consider – only the one actual decision that God would ever make. Middle Knowledge collapses into one lane, de facto Free Knowledge. The ‘WOULD’ of Middle Knowledge is completely subsumed by the ‘WILL’ of Free Knowledge. If Middle Knowledge is likened to a tree sprouting infinite branches and sub-branches and twigs, subsuming it into Free Knowledge is more like a straight pole. Or instead of a Choose Your Own Adventure book (like how The Babylon Bee put it), it’s a linear novel (similar to what Chris Date likes to analogize).

“Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.” – Peter Van Inwagen, An Essay on Free Will (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), p.3

%d bloggers like this: