Dr. Theodore Zachariades – Determinism – Take Two

4 thoughts on “Dr. Theodore Zachariades – Determinism – Take Two”

1. It is entirely understandable why the debate involving Sonny Hernandez, Theodore Zachariades, and Leighton Flowers would lead to a crisis of faith, particularly when the logic presented suggests that God is the primary cause of sin yet holds the human agent fully responsible. To maintain this level of certainty, many high-Calvinists are forced to compartmentalize the more horrific elements of their belief system by utilizing three specific intellectual maneuvers. First, they often redefine the very nature of goodness and justice to align with a strict Divine Command Theory. In this view, “good” does not have an intrinsic meaning that we can recognize; instead, whatever God decrees is labeled good by definition, even if it contradicts our fundamental moral intuitions. This allows the believer to bypass the horror of “forced sin” by simply declaring that God’s standard for Himself is beyond human moral categories, effectively moving the goalposts so that the system is never at fault.

   ​Building on this, the system becomes immune to external criticism by grounding logic and reason within a very narrow, circular definition of God’s sovereignty. By claiming that any critique from “human logic” is merely the product of a fallen and rebellious mind, they create a closed-loop system where only their interpretation is allowed to validate itself. This makes the theology a fortress; if you point out a contradiction—such as God blaming someone for an act he compelled them to do—the contradiction is dismissed as a “divine mystery” or a “limit of human reason.” This effectively shuts down honest inquiry and replaces it with a requirement for total submission to the system’s internal logic, regardless of how much it violates the conscience.

   ​The system further survives by redefining concepts like grace and fate until they are unrecognizable from their common meanings. Grace is no longer a genuine offer of love, but an irresistible force applied to a chosen few, while the reality of fate is rebranded as “providence” to make it more palatable. For the “true believer,” this redefinition allows them to swipe aside the genuine tragedy of those who are passed over, viewing it as a necessary part of a grander design rather than a moral catastrophe. By compartmentalizing these elements, they can maintain a sense of intellectual certainty while ignoring the fact that their version of “grace” is indistinguishable from a cosmic lottery.

   ​Finally, it is worth noting the real-world consequences of this rigid mindset. Sonny Hernandez himself has faced significant professional scrutiny and nearly lost his position as an Air Force chaplain due to his extremist stance that anyone who does not adhere to his narrow, “certain” view of God is an enemy of God. This includes his public statements that service members who support the constitutional right to religious liberty are “serving Satan.” When a theological system requires you to view anyone outside your specific camp as a spiritual enemy, it ceases to be a pursuit of truth and becomes a mechanism for exclusion. Recognizing these maneuvers is often the first step in realizing that the problem isn’t necessarily with God, but with a specific, rigid system of logic that has been built around Him.

   Reply

   1. I very much appreciate your depth of insight and understanding of Calvinism. I had not heretofore thought that the tenants of Calvinism and the subsequent (and necessary) alteration of definitions, such as ‘good’, is in direct contradiction to what you aptly call ‘our fundamental moral intuitions’. Any discussion or arguments I may have presented always seemed to fall short when the response was something to the effect of, “We’re not God, he is sovereign and in control, we are limited in our understanding, etc.” I would often provide an extreme alternative to hopefully make a point that the logic of their system ultimately fails. For instance, it was easy to ask if they are personally opposed to abortion. The answer is invariably, ‘yes’. To which, if God has determined that there should be some 50M abortions in this country since Roe vs Wade in 1973, how can you be opposed to that which God has sovereignly ordained? Of course, discussions would typically end there (or so has been my experience. Yet I can’t help but think that any honest Calvinist would admit to themselves that there is an obvious dilemma if not an apparent contradiction from one’s own sense of morality to that of God’s. And, as you also noted, a typical response is to fall back to ‘mystery’ in which the conversation is terminated.

      I also appreciate your thought that, “Grace is no longer a genuine offer of love, but an irresistible force applied to a chosen few, while the reality of fate is rebranded as “providence” to make it more palatable.” What a horrible thought for one to think that God’s glory is made manifest through the punishment of the sins which God ordained would come about in the actions of the reprobate. To argue that God is not pernicious or partial in the application of his love and grace within the confines of Calvinism is folly. I once did a mental calculation in a discussion with a Calvinist wherein dividing the number of the ‘elect’ (basically Evangelical Baptists) by the world’s population equated to somewhere around 4%. Of course, my argument foundered when the response was, “So, God elects whom he elects.” I still find the perceived low number of elect persons throughout the world interesting – and coupled with the overwhelming majority of elect people (in my opinion) to be within the west an example of God being partial.

      I was unaware of Sonny Hernandez nearly losing his position as a USAF chaplain. I can’t help wonder if Mr. Hernandez modified is ‘rigid’ stance in order to keep a regular paycheck coming?

      Again, thank you for your kind and insightful comments. They are much appreciated.

      Reply