My Review of a Calvinist Review of an Anti-Calvinist Book

I suggest reading this article from Bible.org (a Calvinist website) - "What Theology Is This?  Dave Hunt's Misrepresentation of God and Calvinism" - to see Calvinism in action.  I have not yet read Dave Hunt's book (but I heard some of it), but considering what this article claims that he says ... and knowing how Calvinists disguise what they really believe ... I don't think Dave Hunt is misrepresenting Calvinism.  He is just cutting through all the disguises and deceptions they wrap their terrible theology in, to get to the heart of what Calvinism really teaches underneath all the good-sounding stuff that you'd agree with.

Here are some of the problems I have with this article and some examples of their deceptive nonsense (I've smartened up and saved a copy of this article because I've recently seen that at least two Calvinists altered their articles after I linked to them, and here is one of them that I already looked at: "'Saint' PJ's Deceptions and Manipulations".  And so if anything is different from what I quoted here, it would be because it was changed after I quoted it.):

1.  Notice first the insults that the author of this article (Cole) heaps on those who agree with Hunt's theology (who are against Calvinism).  According to Cole, if you agree with Hunt, you are "unsuspecting and uneducated."  Cole says, "If you rely on the supermarket tabloids as your reliable source of news, you'll probably find Hunt satisfying for your theology.  It will give you the same sort of sensational slander as the tabloids..."  He says that if you want to grow in your knowledge of the living God, then you need to leave the "tabloid theology" (anti-Calvinist theology) on the shelf.  

Poor form!  This alerts me instantly to the emotional and immature attitude that's driving his writing.  If someone has to resort to such juvenile insults (right off the bat) against those who disagree with him, attacking them in such personal ways, it's probably because they don't have any solid, rational, clearly-biblical arguments to defend their theology.

2.  Cole says that he is "righteously" angry about Hunt's book.  He's not just angry; he's "righteously" angry, making it sound like God is also angry about Hunt's book and would agree with Cole and his theology.

3.  Cole says that those who agree with Hunt are "missing out" on the glorious riches of John Calvin, of the life and writings of Calvin and "his heirs in the faith."

Since when are Christians "heirs" of John Calvin!?!  

According to Romans 8:16-17, we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ.  Therefore, calling Christians "heirs of [Calvin]" is blasphemous.

And do you wanna know what kind of a man John Calvin was?  Wanna know how tightly and legalistically he maintained control over his people in Geneva, how forcefully and violently he punished those who opposed him, disagreed with him, or broke his rules (the most well-known being Michael Servetus, an enemy of Calvin's who was killed for his views, for opposing Calvin - burned alive with green wood so that it would burn slower, extending Servetus's torture)?  Click here and here to find out.  Does this sound like a godly man to you?  Would you hire him as the pastor of your church if he was alive today?  Can you really trust the theology of a man like this?

If missing out on Calvinism is missing out on John Calvin's life and wisdom, then thank God for that!

4.  Cole says that Hunt misrepresents/slanders John Calvin and Calvinism ... and that, in the process, Hunt also "grossly misrepresents God Himself."  Manipulation!  Cole is elevating Calvin to God's status and elevating Calvinism to God's Word, and so, therefore, anyone who disagrees with Calvin/Calvinism would also be disagreeing with God Himself (according to Cole, and all Calvinists).  

(So much for "we are just teaching the Bible," as Calvinists like to claim they are!)

But what's really going on here with the accusation of "misrepresenting Calvinism" is that Calvinists don't like it when you cut past all the deceptive layers they cloak their terrible theology in, which is what anti-Calvinists do (expose what Calvinists really believe).  If you expose what they try so hard to hide or disguise, they will accuse you of "misunderstanding" or "misrepresenting" Calvinism.

[You'll also be accused of this if you carry their theological views to their inevitable end results - such as "If God preplans/controls all things and if we can only do what God predestined us to do then it really does mean that God is the ultimate author/cause of sin and that He punishes man for what He Himself causes."  They get upset when you do this, when you use logic and reason to figure out where their theology ends up and the damage it does to God's Word and character.  And so to keep you from doing this, they will try to shame you from using logic and reason, accusing you of elevating human wisdom over God.  They want you to ignore the terrible implications and irreconcilable contradictions of their theology.  And they deceptively relabel "contradictions" as "mysteries/tensions," trying to convince you that you shouldn't try to figure out these "mysteries" and that you're an unhumble, prideful, God-dishonoring Christian if you do try to figure them out.  They try to convince you that you just have to live with these "mysteries/tensions" and accept what they say as truth, even though it doesn't make sense.  How is this any different from the brainwashing that cults do?  And this is exactly what Cole does in this article.]

Calvinists don't like when people look too closely at the contradictions of their theology.  They don't like having the fundamental "truths" of their theology exposed.  They don't want you pulling back the curtain to see what's inside.  They need those biblical-sounding outer layers to be comfortable with their theology, to make it sound more biblical than it is, to try to cover up the contradictions and obvious damage it does to God and His Word.  Without those layers, Calvinism is exposed for what it really is: deceptive, Bible-twisting, illogical nonsense that destroys God's character and contradicts His Word!

And so those who pull back the curtain will be accused of "misunderstanding" or "misrepresenting" Calvinism.  And to Calvinists, that's the same as misrepresenting God Himself.  (And this is one way they trap Christians and shut up any opposition to their theology.  Because what good Christian wants to sound like they are misrepresenting God?)

But I say "Let the people decide!"  Listen to what Calvinists say they believe, listen to what anti-Calvinists tell you Calvinists really mean, read the Bible verses (in context) that Calvinists quote, read the Bible as a whole to see how God operates, think about the inevitable "end results" of Calvinist theology ... and then you decide if it's anti-Calvinists who misrepresent Calvinism or if it's Calvinists who deceptively misrepresent Calvinism (or who don't truly understand their own theology because they never thought deeply enough about it).

(If you're interested, see these posts on "12 Tips on How to Think Critically About Calvinism" and "The Calvinist's Big Ugly 'But'" and "When Calvinism's 'Bad Logic' Traps Good Christians.")

5.  Cole criticizes Hunt for "stubbornly ignoring" the corrections from Calvinists, for ignoring the errors they pointed out to him.  This makes it sound like Hunt deliberately tried to spread lies, and that Cole and his group had all the truth (which is what they believe, of course).

But we who are faithful to God's Word must absolutely refuse the theological "corrections" of those whose theology isn't correct, those who are misrepresenting God, the Bible, and the gospel, lest we too join in their heresy and spread it around!

6.  Cole, a Calvinist pastor, claims that he teaches "what scripture plainly affirms."  This is another manipulative way of saying, "My Calvinist view is God's view!  If you disagree with me, you are disagreeing with God and denying scripture!"

And it's a page right out of John Calvin's book.  Literally.

From Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3: "As I have hirtherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously stated in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ.  If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God... Such petulance, indeed, is not new.  In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine."

Calvin is saying that those who disagree with his views are going against what is "plainly and unambiguously stated in Scripture," that those who disagree with him are ignorant, seeking praise, arrogant, opposing God, petulant, wicked and profane, and viciously attacking doctrinal truth.  [Cole would add "unsuspecting, uneducated, and believers of the sensational slander of supermarket tabloids."]  This is manipulation.  (And today's Calvinists do it all the time too.)  Because who is going to dare to disagree with Calvin when this is how he paints those who disagree with him?  

(Question: If Calvin believes God controls/causes all things, why is he warning people against opposing his views?  They can't help it.  Calvi-god caused them to do it for his glory!  Calvinism is a self-contradicting theology.)

If someone repeatedly insists that their view on a confusing, debatable subject is "God's view" (while also shaming or insulting those who disagree with them) then you should consider that they might be theologically incorrect but that they're trying to manipulate you into agreeing with them.  Or at least into not vocally disagreeing with them.  Don't fall for it!  Go home, take out your Bible, and do your own study to see if what they are teaching is correct!

My Calvinist ex-pastor did this all the time too, constantly claiming that he is only teaching "right from the Bible," while adding his own twists to verses right after saying that or piecing together bits of verses (taken out of context) to make the Bible say what he wanted it to say.  If someone has to constantly tell you that they are "only teaching right from the Bible" or "only teaching what scripture says," then you should probably look more closely at what they say the Bible teaches to see if it's really what the Bible says.

Let me ask this: Why do they have to try so hard to convince you that they are preaching biblical truth?  If what they are teaching clearly lines up with scripture then you should be able to easily see it for yourself.  I mean, think about it in relation to this example: 

Who's the type of person who constantly tells us how "honest" they are and how much we can "trust" them: the person who really is honest and trustworthy ... or the person who has an agenda and wants you to think they are honest and trustworthy so that they can take advantage of you?  A truly honest, trustworthy person doesn't go around talking about how honest and trustworthy they are.  It's the dishonest, self-serving person with an agenda who has to constantly remind you of how "honest" they are and how much you can "trust" them.  The more they have to say it, the less true it probably is.

Likewise, a person who teaches things that are clearly in the Bible (who can point to a verse that clearly and plainly says exactly what they're saying) doesn't have to try so hard to convince you that their view is biblical.  But the person who doesn't have verses which clearly state what he's teaching, who pieces together verses or takes verses out of context to make the Bible say what he wants it to say, and who knows that his views sound contradictory, unclear, and damaging to God and His Word ... well ... this is the person who has to constantly remind you that he's "only preaching right from the Bible," to convince you it's true, to prevent you from digging too deeply or examining it too closely, to get you to turn off your "red flag radar."  The more they have to try to convince you that their view is biblical (if they don't have a verse which states exactly what they're saying, the way they're saying it), the less biblical they probably are.

Can Calvinists find a verse that clearly and plainly says that Jesus didn't die for all people but only for a select few, that salvation is not available to all people?  How about one that says that mankind lost the right to make decisions when Adam and Eve fell?  How about one that says that we can't make up our own minds about anything but that God controls all we think and do?  What about one that says that God only really loves the elect with a saving love, but that He created the non-elect to hate them and to get glory for Himself by putting them in hell?  Is there one that says that "'sovereign' means that God preplans, causes, controls everything, even sin, because if He didn't preplan, cause, control everything, even sin, then He wouldn't be God"?  How about one that says that everything has been predestined and we can't do anything to change it?  That humans are so "totally depraved" that it's impossible to want, seek, or believe in God unless God causes us to do it (and that He will only cause the elect to do it)?  That being spiritually "dead" is the same thing as being physically "dead," that a spiritually dead person can't think about God or make decisions, just like a physically dead person can't think about anything or make decisions?  That God predestined most people to hell for being the unbelievers He created them to be?  That a person is born again before they believe in Jesus, that the Holy Spirit indwells the elect before they have faith, to cause them to believe in Jesus?  That God preplans and causes our sins (not just allows us to sin) and is glorified by sin (not just using sin for His glory or working it into His plans)?

I could go on, but you get the picture.  Calvinist beliefs are not based on what the Bible actually says, but on what they read into the Bible, what they need the Bible to say to fit their Calvinist presuppositions.  This is how they get a verse like "No one seeks God" to mean "It's impossible for anyone to seek God unless God causes you to do it, and He will only cause the elect to do it" (in spite of the many verses where God tells people to seek Him).

And FYI: When it comes to their "doctrines" of predestination and election, many Calvinists are careful to use the words "the Bible teaches/affirms ..." instead of "the Bible says ..."  Because they know the Bible doesn't actually say those things, not clearly or plainly.   But if they piece together enough verses, taken out of context, they think they can make it sound like the Bible "teaches/affirms" those things, even though it doesn't outright say those things.  So if you hear a pastor repeatedly say "the Bible teaches/affirms ...", it might be because they know the Bible doesn't actually say those things.  So go to God's Word for yourself to see what it actually says (and what it doesn't say).

You know what else is very telling?  A non-/anti-Calvinist trusts you to read the Bible for yourself to see what God says and to understand what God means, as far as we can understand it.  But a Calvinist doesn't trust you to study God's Word for yourself.  They tell you that you need them and their Calvinist books and months of their Calvinist classes to know what God really meant to say in His Word, underneath (and in contradiction to) the things He actually said.  This is telling, and it should be alarming!

I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't use outside sources to help us study the Bible (there are great, helpful resources out there that can really enrich our understanding of God's Word, and we should learn what we can from those who came before us), but I am saying that God intended for people to be able to understand the basics of the gospel through His Word alone.

[I mean, it's all there in John 3:16.  And God doesn't need Calvinist theologians to tell us what He supposedly meant to say, to teach us the "secret layers" underneath what He said which confuse/contradict what He actually said - things like "the 'world' doesn't mean 'all individual people' but it really means 'some people from each nation, the elect'" and "'whosoever believes' doesn't mean that anyone can believe, just that the elect will believe and be saved."  Does this Calvinist "secret layer" fit with what the Bible teaches over all, when it's read plainly and in a commonsense way?  

Non-Calvinists view John 3:16 as an invitation to all people to believe in Jesus and be saved.  It's telling us about how people can be saved: by believing in Jesus.  And God's offer of salvation is for "whoever," for anyone and everyone, because Jesus died for "the world."  But Calvinists view John 3:16 not as an offer for all people or instructions about how anyone can be saved, but as a statement of how God loves and saves the elect: "For God so loved pre-chosen people from all nations of the world that he gave his one and only Son, that those who are predestined to believe in him (the elect, whom God causes to believe) will not perish but have eternal life (and no one else can believe or be saved)."  Does this sound like the gospel to you?]

My Calvinist ex-pastor wrote a blog post about how dangerous it is to read the Bible on our own (because of our presuppositions - ironic!), without the help of theologians telling us how to understand it.  And, not surprisingly, he upholds the reformers as great examples of how to study the Bible, saying that if even John Calvin needed the help of other theologians to help him understand the Bible and to formulate his theology then so do we.  And, of course, he encourages the use of Calvinist sources for help - the ESV Study Bible and Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, calling it a "treasure trove" of theological help, biblical literacy, and theological precision.

But do you really think God needs the help of Calvinist theologians to tell people how to understand His Word?  (If so, then how did anyone understand the Bible before John Calvin came along in the 1500's?)

God Himself affirms that the Bible itself is sufficient to help us know the basic gospel message and to be saved: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

Notice that it doesn't say "These - plus the future writings of Calvinist theologians - are written that you may believe ..."

No!  It says "these [the scriptures] are written that you may believe ..."

(Also notice that this verse totally contradicts the Calvinist idea that the elect are born again before they believe, to cause them to believe: "... that by believing you may have life in his name."  We are born again because we believe, as a result of believing.  Not the other way around, as Calvinists say.)  

If anyone tries to convince you that you need their help to understand the gospel because it's so confusing, that you need their help to know what God "meant to say," you should examine what they're saying very closely and compare it to what God actually said in His Word.  Because this is how cults operate.  It's how they brainwash people.

7.  Calvinists will try to shame you into agreeing with them by accusing you of being prideful for believing that you had any choice about salvation, any ability to decide if you want Jesus in your life or not.  (So they don't think you can make a decision about Jesus but they do think you can make a decision about whether you agree with Calvinism or not!?!  Interesting!)

  

Calvinists believe that salvation has to be ALL GOD'S DOING (that He has to pick who gets saved and cause them to believe), or else man would be taking credit for "saving himself."  They believe that if we can accept Jesus in our hearts or call on God (without Him forcing us to call on Him) then we are "working for our salvation" ... and it will lead to us boasting about how we "saved ourselves."  They use your desire to be humble against you, to manipulate you into their theology.  

Cole uses this tactic at the end of the third paragraph, saying that salvation has to be all God's doing (as Calvinists say) so that none of us can boast in our salvation.  The obvious implication being that if you don't agree with him - if you think we can choose Jesus as Lord and Savior without God causing us to - then you are pridefully boasting that you saved yourself, stealing God's glory and credit.  And since no one wants to sound like a prideful, boastful Christian who's stealing God's glory, who's gonna disagree with him?  Manipulation!

  

But since when is thankfully and humbly accepting a free gift that someone offered to us (the salvation that God offers us), knowing that we could never earn it for ourselves, equal to "working for it"?  Does anyone who accepts an expensive gift from someone go around bragging about how they earned it or worked for it?  That's ridiculous!  It's nonsense.  An attempt to manipulate through shaming!  

(See "Is Believing in Jesus Considered 'Working for Salvation'?" and "Is 'Accept Jesus in Your Heart' Unbiblical and Dangerous?")

Calvinists say that "believing" is a "work," and since we can't do any "works" to be saved then we can't believe, and so God has to cause us (the elect only) to believe.  

But do you know what God says?  

That believing is the one work we must do to be saved:

            
"Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?'  Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'"  (John 6:28-29)

If "believing" is a "work," it's because God made it that way.  And it's the only thing He requires us to do to be saved.  

But in Calvinism, you're not saved because you believe; you believe because you were chosen to be saved.  Belief isn't something you do; it's something that happens to you (if you are one of the few people lucky enough to be chosen to be saved).

  

But what does the Bible say?  

That we are saved (born again) because we believe, as a result of believing.  

Romans 10:9-10 (KJV): "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  For with thy heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."  

John 3:16: "... whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life".  

John 1:12: "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

John 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."   

Now compare that to these comments from a random dogmatic Calvinist (see this post for more on this), with some of my notes in gray:

"God has the ability to change a person, and does so for His elect, and no one can seek God or serve Him without God first changing the person and giving him faith.... In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.... The gospel is the source of faith and that faith then exercises belief in the gospel.... The Calvinist says that a person must have faith first in order to 'choose to trust in and believe in Jesus.'.... The work of the Holy Spirit to give a person a new birth could be likened to giving a person a drug.  In both cases, the person is changed, and the change is irresistibly wrought on the person.  The person has no idea what happened – all he knows is that one minute he hates God and the next minute he doesn’t…. The new birth is accomplished by the Holy Spirit without the knowledge of the person, so it is irresistible."

This is Calvinism!  

In Calvinism, you have to be given faith first by God - to be born again, to be given the Holy Spirit first - before you believe the gospel, in order to cause you to believe in Jesus.  This means that the elect are born again/saved/Spirit-filled without believing in Jesus, before belief.  Saved without faith in Jesus?  Saved before ever hearing, understanding, or responding to the gospel?  Does this sound like biblical truth to you?  

In Calvinism, you don’t love/choose God because you wanted to.  In Calvinism, being born again just happens TO you, without your decision or cooperation or even your knowledge.  Being born again and having faith without your knowledge?  Does any of this sound biblical to you!?!  

And this is in direct opposition to the verses above and to Acts 2:38 which says that we get the Holy Spirit as a result of repenting, of turning to Jesus, not the other way around: "... Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."  

How does the Calvinist idea of "the Holy Spirit makes you born again without your knowledge, before you believe in Jesus" fit with the Bible's teachings that you have to believe to be born again?   

And it makes me wonder: If Calvinists teach that we can't do the "work" of "believing" to be saved - but God tells us that it's the one work we must do to be saved - then how can anyone truly be saved the Calvinist way?

Convincing people that they have no ability to do the one thing God told us to do to be saved - to make a decision to believe in Jesus - is satanic!

And convincing people that they are more humble and God-glorifying to believe that they can't believe in Jesus is brilliant.  Satanically-brilliant!

8.  Cole claims that the Bible "plainly affirms" that God chooses whom to save and causes them to believe, and he uses these verses to support him: 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, Galatians 1:15, Ephesians 1:3-12.  But let's look closer at these verses to see what they really say (Always look up the verses Calvinists use to support their theology!):

1 Corinthians 1:26-31: "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called.... But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise ... so that no one may boast before him."  (Read it all for yourself.)  

     Where does this "plainly" say that God pre-chooses which people to save and that He causes them to believe?  Where does it say that being "called" is about being forced to be saved, or that the call is irresistible, that the elect have to believe if God calls them?  (In the concordance, "calling" is not about forcing; it's about being "invited," and invitations can be accepted or rejected.)  Where does it say that God didn't call anyone else, that He only called "the elect," that people can't reject the call?  Where does it say that "choosing the foolish things" means "choosing who gets saved and causing them to believe"?  Where does it say that this passage is about how we get saved?  (And contrary to Calvinism, verse 21 specifies that God "saves those who believe," not that God causes the belief of those He predestined to save, as Calvinists say.  In the Bible, our belief comes first and it leads to being saved, not the other way around as Calvinists say.)    

Galatians 1:15: "But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by grace, was pleased ..."  

     Once again, where does this "plainly" say that God chooses which people to save and that He causes them to believe?  Does this verse say "called me by grace to be saved/to believe"?  No.  But that is what the Calvinist reads into it.  This is not a verse about how people are saved or about Paul being elected for salvation; it's about God calling Paul to be an apostle, chosen to receive special revelation from God and to tell others about it.

     For confirmation: 

     Ephesians 1:1: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God..."

     Romans 1:1: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle..."

     1 Corinthians 1:1: "Paul, called to be an apostle by Christ Jesus by the will of God..."

     1 Timothy 1:1, 2:7: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God ... And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle ..."

     Acts 22:14-15: Ananias tells Saul (Paul) "The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.  You will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard."

     In any of these verses (or in any others) do you see it saying that Paul was chosen to be a believer or predestined for heaven?

     No!  God did not choose Paul to be a believer.  He knew Paul would believe in Him, and He chose/called Paul to fill a special role after he believed, to be an apostle, to see Jesus, to know His Will (to call Gentiles to Himself), and to share what he heard and saw.  Galatians 1:15 is not about Paul being pre-chosen for heaven or forced to believe in Jesus.   

     [And again, where does it say (as Calvinism teaches) that God's call is irresistible, that when God calls someone they have to respond the way He predestined them to, that people can't choose to reject a call?  

     This is another presupposition that the Calvinist reads into verses.  And it's in direct opposition to what God plainly says in His Word: "... I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen.  I called you, but you did not answer" (Jer. 7:13) and "... for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen." (Is. 65:12) and "But since you refuse to listen when I call ..." (Prov. 1:24) and "When I called, they did not listen..." (Zech. 7:13), etc.

     The burden of proof is on the Calvinist to prove that our responses to God's calls are predetermined (controlled by God) and that His calls are irresistible.  If God's calls are irresistible then how can the people in the verses above resist God's calls?  The only way these verses can be true, if Calvinism is true, is for God to cause people to resist His so-called "irresistible calls."  And what a can of worms that would open up!  

     It would mean that His "irresistible calls" are resistible, that He prevents people from doing what He commands, that He really didn't want the people to do what He commanded them to do (which means that He gives commands He doesn't really mean because He really wanted them to disobey His commands.  And so then how can we trust any command He gives?), and that He then punishes them for doing what He caused them to do.

     And this nonsense and the damage/contradictions it creates cannot be explained away by Calvinists with their typical response of "Well, we can't understand it, and so we just have to accept it.  God doesn't explain everything to us, and so we shouldn't try to peer into the mysteries that He reserves for Himself.  Who are you, O man, to talk back to God anyway?"  

     (Question: If God controls all we think, say, and do, then wouldn't He just be "talking back" to Himself then?)]

     Quite simply and plainly, Galatians 1:15 is not a Calvinist "how people are saved" verse, and so it's incorrect and deceptive for Cole to use it as such.      

Ephesians 1:3-12 (This one could seem to be the most Calvinistic, but you have to read closely and carefully to see what it's really saying.  I will only quote the relevant verses):  

     Verse 4 (NIV): “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight …”  

     "In Him" is an important phrase here.  It's not that God chose which sinners would be saved; it's that God chose those who are "in Him" to be "holy and blameless in His sight."  God determined that there would be an "in Him" group, and anyone can join that group by putting their faith in Jesus.  And when they do, they will get the benefits that come with being "in Him" - they will be seen by God as "holy and blameless," because they accepted Jesus's payment for their sins, wiping their slates clean.  When read properly and carefully, this is not a Calvinist verse.  It's not about choosing certain people for salvation.  It's about the destiny of those who choose to believe, who become part of the "in Him" group.  The destiny of those who put their faith in Jesus has been predetermined, not whether or not we become believers.  

     (Silly illustration: God has put two buses before us: the "not in Him" bus which is predestined for hell and the "in Him" bus which is predestined for heaven.  The destinies of each bus have been predetermined, but God lets us decide which bus we get on.  And to be accurate, if we do not choose to get on the "in Him" bus, we automatically end up on the "not in Him" bus.  But God, in His grace, has made it possible for anyone and everyone to be saved, because He loves all people and Jesus died for all sins of all people.  There's a seat for all on the "in Him" bus because Jesus paid the price for all.  But God lets us choose to accept it or reject it.)

     Besides, in the concordance this word "chose" is about "picking out, selecting."  But it doesn’t say what for.  It doesn't inherently mean "for salvation."  And so you have to look at the context of the verse to see what they were "chosen" for (to be seen as "holy and blameless" in God's sight).  

     And the concordance also says that "chose" doesn’t necessarily mean that the “not chosen” ones are rejected.  This “choosing” carries with it the ideas of kindness, favor, love, but not the ideas of salvation or eternal life.  To me, the definition alone shows that this “chose” isn’t about salvation or about God choosing certain people for heaven but rejecting others to hell.  It's about God choosing to give certain benefits and blessings to those who believe.  But anyone can believe. 

     Now let's look at verses 5, 11-12 (KJV):  “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself … In him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”

     Does this say certain sinners are predestined to salvation/eternal life, that God chooses whom to save and causes them to believe?  No.  Contrary to what Calvinists think, "predestined to adoption" isn't about being predestined to be saved/believe.  In fact, the Bible itself tells us what “adoption of children” means (the NIV words it “adoption as sons”) in Romans 8:23 (NIV): “… we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”     

     “Predestined for adoption” is not about certain sinners being predestined for salvation/eternal life.  It’s about the promise that God will redeem the bodies of all believers, that we will reach the “glorification” talked about in Romans 8:30, eventually acquiring the full benefits of being a child of God.

     Even Ephesians 1:13-14 (NIV) confirms this when it says that “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.  Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”

     Notice that those believers were not included in Christ until after they believed.  And after they believed, they were given the Holy Spirit as a promise that they will be redeemed.  This contradicts Calvinism on at least three points:

     First, it confirms that predestination is not about certain sinners being preselected for heaven, but it’s about believers being predestined for redemption.  Second, it contradicts Calvinism’s idea that the elect are “in Christ” (“saved”) from the beginning of time, because scripture shows they were not in Christ until after they believed.  And third, it contradicts Calvinism’s view that the elect have to get the Holy Spirit first, that He causes them to believe in Jesus, because it shows that they didn’t get the Holy Spirit until after they believed, as a result of believing.

     And notice also that the second “predestinated” in Ephesians 1:11 doesn’t say anything about being predestined for salvation/eternal life either.  It says that we who are “in Him” (as a result of choosing to believe in Him) are predestined to be “for the praise of his glory.”  True believers are destined to bring God glory.  This is not about individual people being pre-chosen for salvation, but it’s about the destiny of anyone who chooses to believe in Jesus.  All those who choose to put their faith in Jesus will have their bodies redeemed and will be for God’s glory.  (And/or what's been predestined is the inheritance believers will get.  Either way, it's not about pre-choosing certain sinners to turn them into believers; it's about what happens to anyone once they choose to believe: they are destined to get an inheritance and to bring God glory.)

     If you let a Calvinist convince you that election and predestination are about God choosing who gets saved and causing them to believe, then you WILL become a Calvinist.  But this is not what election and predestination mean, according to the Bible.  Election/choosing is about believers being chosen for service, for a job or particular role or blessing.  And predestination is about the destiny of all true believers - that anyone who puts their faith in Jesus is destined to be glorified in the end, to have their bodies redeemed, to get an inheritance, and to bring God glory.  (And this interpretation keeps God's character and Word intact, as opposed to the Calvinist one which destroys His character and Word.)  These are about what happens once you become a believer, once you get on the "in Him" bus (and anyone can do it), not about how you become a believer or about only specific, pre-chosen people being chosen/forced to believe.   

9.  Cole presents Hunt's views in paragraph 4 as this (I will only address two of them): 

1) God made salvation available to all people and everyone has the ability to believe and it's up to the individual to accept or reject the offer of salvation

2) If people were not able to respond to the gospel of their own free-will then God's offer of salvation would not be genuine, but it would be a mockery.  

And Cole goes on to say that these arguments are in line with "human logic" but not the Bible.  This is manipulation, too, because he obviously means that if you believe these things then you are elevating your own human logic over the Bible.  And who wants to look like they're putting human wisdom over God's Word?

But what Hunt says is true.  The Bible, when read plainly, teaches that Jesus died for all people and made salvation available to all people and that it's up to us to accept or reject God's real offer of salvation.  It makes sense that if God commands us to seek Him and believe in Him then it means we have the ability to seek Him and believe in Him, which means that we have the option of not seeking Him and not believing in Him, which means that we are responsible for what we choose to do (or not do).  Just because this is line with human logic doesn't mean it's not in line with the Bible.  Is God the author of confusion and contradiction?  Or is He a logical and reasonable God who gave us the ability to use reason and logic to examine things?  

[1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not the author of confusion ..."  And so I wonder: If God is not the author of confusion, then how can Calvinism - with all it's confusing contradictions and secret double-layers for verses - be God-inspired?  And if God is not the author of confusion then it means He is the author of logic and reason, which affirms the idea that humans can use logic and reason to examine things - because the ability to use logic and reason is God-given, a reflection of God's character.  This doesn't mean that our own ideas determine what's true, just that we can use our thinking skills to discern if something matches up with the Bible or not.  If we are not supposed to use logic and reason (if we are supposed to let illogical, unreasonable, confusing ideas reign) then we could not test the spirits (1 John 4:1) or guard ourselves against hollow and deceptive philosophies (Colossians 2:8) or judge correctly (John 7:24) or be shrewd as snakes (Matthew 10:16) or be able to test and approve what God's will is (Romans 12:2) or discern what is best (Philippians 1:10) or discern between sound doctrine and myth (2 Timothy 4:3-5), etc.  All of this requires thinking in logical and reasonable ways to determine what's biblical and what's not.  Do not let a Calvinist manipulate you or shame you into shutting off your God-given brain!]

The burden of proof is on the Calvinist to prove that God gives us "fake calls," that He commands us to do things He knows we can't do because He prevents us from being able to do it.  

The thing is, when Calvinists quote verses, there's always a "but ..."  And this is very telling!  

"Yes, God calls all people to believe ... but He has two different kinds of calls: one for the elect that is irresistible and one for the non-elect that they cannot respond to because God prevents them from responding to it."

"Yes, God says He loves all people, but ... He doesn't mean all individual people, just all kinds of people."

"Yes, God says He wants all people to come to Him and wants no one to perish, but ... He has two different 'wants.'  On one hand, He 'wants' all people to be saved, and it makes Him sad to put anyone in hell.  But on the other hand, He wants glory for punishing sin more than He wants to save all people.  And that's why He predestined people to be sinners that He punishes in hell.  To get more glory for Himself."

"Yes, God calls us to seek Him, but ... He didn't mean that you can seek Him.  You can only seek Him if and when He causes you to.  And He will only cause the elect to seek Him.  But since He 'called' the non-elect to seek Him but they didn't listen, He can justly punish them in hell for disobeying Him."  (Even though, in Calvinism, God caused them to disobey Him and then He punishes them for disobeying.  And yet Calvinists think this is okay, that it's true justice!  Insane!)

"Yes, Jesus died for all sins, but ... while His death is sufficient for all people, it's only efficient for the elect."  

     [Which verse teaches this!?!  And do you know what this gibberish means?  

     Imagine that I have a restaurant full of food, enough to feed all the starving people in the country.  But I only allow 20 people into the restaurant to eat, while I block everyone else from coming in, never offering them all that abundant food that I have available.  The food in my restaurant is sufficient for all people - there's more than enough to feed everyone - but it's only efficient for 20 people, because I only allow 20 people to eat that food while preventing everyone else from touching it.  

     When Calvinists say "sufficient for all," they are trying to sound like Calvinism fits with all the verses that say Jesus died for all sins.  But it's deceptive.  Because what does it matter if Jesus's death was enough to cover all sin if God prevented most people from having any access to it, from benefitting from it in any way?  

     In fact, that would just be cruel - more cruel than if Jesus's death was only enough to cover a few people and so all God could save was the few elected people because there was no more sacrifice to go around.  At least then all of Jesus's blood would have been used, as much as it could.  God would have saved as many people as He possibly could.

     It's funny, though, because Calvinists accuse non-Calvinists of wasting Jesus's blood for believing that Jesus died for people who reject Him, but it's the Calvinists who waste Jesus's blood by saying that there's more than enough of it to cover everyone but that God only applies it to a few people while preventing everyone else from having access to it!  What a waste of Jesus's sacrifice!  

     Calvinism is nonsense and hogwash!  And "sufficient vs. efficient" is just a Calvinist attempt to sound like they affirm "Jesus died for all people," when they really don't!]

Calvinist theology is little more than a series of big "buts" - buts that aren't plainly stated in any verse!  

Does this sound to you like they are really adhering to the "plain meaning of scripture"?

10.  Cole says that scripture "directly" states that sinners are unable to respond to spiritual truth (he means "unless God causes them to, and He will only cause the elect to do this"), that it's the "plain teaching" of scripture that humans are unable to seek God after the Fall.  And he uses these verses to support him:

John 6:44,65: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him ... no one can come to me unless the Father enabled him."  

     [Where does this "directly" state that sinners are unable to respond to God?  Unable to seek God?  Calvinists use backwards reasoning on this verse.  They think that if no one can come to Jesus unless God draws them, it necessarily means that if you don't come to God then it's because He didn't draw you (or that you couldn't respond to His drawing).  They are inferring something that isn't in the verse.  

     (Silly examples of what Calvinist "logic" is like: If I said I love my birds, Calvinists would infer that it means I don't love my dog.  If I said I bought chocolate ice cream at the store, Calvinists would infer that I bought only chocolate ice cream and nothing else.  If I said all monkeys are animals, Calvinists would infer that all animals must be monkeys then too.  If a verse says God loves those who obey Him, Calvinists infer that He doesn't love anyone else but those who obey Him.  If a verse says Jesus loves/died for His sheep, Calvinists infer that Jesus doesn't love and didn't die for anyone but His sheep.  If a verse says God caused a storm, Calvinists infer that God causes everything that happens, including sin and evil.  This is how Calvinists read things into verses, by using what it says to infer things it doesn't say.)  

     All these verses say is that no one can come to Jesus unless God draws/enables him.  But this does not imply, as Calvinists assume it does, that God only draws/enables certain people (those who come to Him) but no one else, or that if you are drawn then you have to come, or that if you didn't come to God it's because He never drew you or enabled you (that you were predestined for hell and couldn't do anything about it).  

     This is all based on bad Calvinist "logic" which stems from the Calvinist presuppositions that "draw" means "to cause to be saved," that God only draws those who came to Him, that His calls are irresistible, and that He couldn't have drawn all people but let people choose to resist Him.  None of this is found clearly, plainly, or directly in the Bible, despite Calvinist claims that it is.   

     However, the Bible does clearly state that Jesus "draws all men" to Himself (John 12:32).  All men are drawn - invited by God to believe (Acts 17:30, John 3:16, Romans 10:13, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8), and are given enough evidence of God (by God) in nature (Romans 1:20) and in their hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11, Romans 2:15) to know that He's real so that they might seek Him (Acts 17:27) - but not all men come to Jesus because God has allowed us to decide how we respond to His drawing/calling.  

     If I mailed invitations to all my family members to come to a party at my house but only 20 people showed up, those 20 could say that I invited (drew) them to the party.  But in no way does this mean that no one else but them was invited (drawn) or that I invited the rest but prevented them from being able to accept the invitation or that I forced those 20 to come.  All were invited (drawn), all were allowed to and able to come if they wanted to, but only 20 decided to accept the invitation.

     John 6:44,65 are not verses about people being unable to seek/respond to God unless God makes them do it or about God only causing certain pre-selected people to do it.  They are about the fact that we could only get to God because God made it possible.  He chose to allow us to seek/find Him.  He chose to send Jesus to die for our sins to make salvation available to us.  He chose to make Himself visible in His creation and to put the knowledge of Himself in our hearts to draw us to Him.  He chose to create a desire in our hearts for Him, to convict the world of sin.  And He does this for all people.  Any one of us can see that He's real and believe in Him.  But He allows us to decide - to choose if we will respond to the call He gives all people or if we will ignore/reject Him.  (And He allows us to face the consequences of our choice too.)  

     If anyone comes to God, it's because God drew them.  But God also drew those who didn't come.  They had the chance, the option, the ability to come to Jesus, but they chose to resist the call.  And so it's their fault that they missed out on salvation, not God's.]

Romans 3:10-18: "... There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.  All have turned away, they have all become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one ..."

     [Where does this "directly" state that sinners are unable to respond to spiritual truth?  

     All it says is that no one is righteous, meaning that no one deserves heaven on their own, not that we cannot respond to spiritual truth.  

     All it says is that no one seeks God (not that it's impossible to seek God or respond to spiritual truth), meaning that our human nature, when left to ourselves, is to focus on ourselves instead of to seek God.  This is why God didn't leave us to ourselves.  It's why He revealed Himself to us, in nature and in our hearts and in His Word, so that we would know He's real and seek Him (Acts 17:27).  

     All it says is that wicked men don't do good, meaning that sinners cannot do enough good things to "earn" heaven, not that we are unable to respond to spiritual truth.  

     This is not a passage about being unable to respond to spiritual truth unless God causes us to, about certain people being predestined to heaven, or about it being impossible for us to seek God.  It's about mankind being unable to earn our way to heaven.  It's about the fact that all of us are sinners and so all of us need to be saved.  It's about mankind being unable to find our way to heaven without God having made it possible for us.  And He's made it possible for all people.  He just leaves it up to us to accept or reject it.]  

Romans 8:6-8: "The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.  The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.  Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God."

     [Where does this "directly" state that sinners are unable to respond to spiritual truths unless God causes them to respond to it?  All it says is that if our mind is governed by our flesh then we will be hostile to God and cannot submit to God's law.  But the thing is, it doesn't say how our minds become governed by our flesh.  It doesn't say nor imply that God predestined/caused it, that we had no choice about it, that there's nothing we can do about, or that if our mind is governed by our flesh then we are unable to respond to spiritual truths.  If we have chosen our flesh over God then we will be hostile to Him and disobedient to His laws, living for our flesh.  But this does not imply that we didn't have any say over what governs our minds or that we cannot change our minds.  Calvinists read this into the verse because they need it to say it so that it fits their definition of God's sovereignty and their belief in "total depravity," "irresistible grace," "limited atonement," etc.]

1 Cor. 2:14: "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."  

     [Where does this "directly" state that sinners are "unable to respond" to spiritual truths?  It's not saying man is unable to respond to truth unless God causes him to or that man cannot think about or make a decision about Jesus.  It's saying that those who are not Spirit-filled believers cannot understand godly truths/wisdom.  To the world, Christianity seems backwards because they have different views and values and goals.  But it says nothing about how they got those views, values, and goals.  It doesn't say that God caused them to be that way, or that they couldn't be any other way because God predestined them to be unbelievers, giving them no chance to believe, or that God gives the elect the Holy Spirit to cause them to believe, or that man has no ability to make decisions about spiritual things, or that no one can respond to the gospel unless God causes them to, etc.  This verse says nothing about how one becomes Spirit-filled or not.  It's just about how if you are not filled with the Spirit then you will view things through the world's eyes.  Calvinists read a lot of things into this verse that aren't there!]  

2 Cor. 4:4: "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel ..."  

     [Calvinists use this verse to say that God causes the non-elect to be unbelievers, that He blinds the non-elect so that they can't see the truth.  But this verse actually contradicts Calvinism because it says that Satan (the god of this age) blinds unbelievers to the truth.  If God blinds people so that they go to hell for His glory, why is God giving credit to Satan here?  

     Also, where does this say that it's impossible for man to respond to the gospel?  It doesn't say that you are an unbeliever because you are blinded, but that you are blinded if you are an unbeliever.  It's not about being unable to respond to the gospel, but about the fact that if you choose to reject the gospel, to be an unbeliever, then you are in Satan's grasp and will not see things the way God calls us to.  If you choose Satan over God, then Satan will do all he can to keep you on his side, to keep you from seeing the truth.  

     Also note that 2 Cor. 3:16 tells us that when anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.  In Calvinism, God takes the veil off first, of only the elect, so that they can turn to Him.  But in the Bible, you turn to Him first, and then He takes the veil off.  It hinges on whether or not you turn to Him.  This will determine if you see clearly or stay blinded.]    

Eph. 2:1-3: "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world ... All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts.  Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath."

     [I'm tired of saying this, but where does this "directly" state that sinners are unable to respond to spiritual truths?  All it says is that if we follow the ways of the world, being dead in our sins (and it does not say that God predestined whether we would follow the flesh or not, that we have no control over it), then we will be living for the flesh and deserving of wrath.  It says nothing about how we got to be that way or about being unable to respond to spiritual truth.  

     To make this passage fit Calvinism, Calvinists say that being "dead" in our sins (spiritually dead) is the same thing as being physically dead, which means you can't do anything, not even think about God or want God or seek God or believe in God.  That you just lay there, all dead, like a dead body that can't do anything.  And so if you are that dead then God has to cause you to wake up so that you can hear and respond to spiritual truths.  And in Calvinism, God only wakes up the elect but He leaves everyone else dead, which means they cannot respond to Him.  

     This is not in the verse anywhere!  This is not in any verse!  It comes from the Calvinist misunderstanding of "spiritual death."  To be spiritually dead simply means that we are separated from God because of our sins and that we need to be born again to be saved (by putting our faith in Jesus), that we cannot earn our way to heaven and so we need Jesus's sacrifice to bridge the gap for us.  It does not mean, as Calvinists believe, that we are brain-dead, that we cannot think about anything on our own, including God, or respond to spiritual truths unless God causes us to.

     If "dead" people can't seek God then why does God say "Seek me and live ..." in Amos 5:4.  It's not "I'll bring you to life so that you can seek Me."  It's "Seek me and live ..."  God's telling them that if they want to live (spiritually) then they have to seek Him.  And so since they are not yet "alive" spiritually, it means that they are spiritually dead, which means that God Himself is telling "dead" people to seek Him.  What a contradiction to Calvinism's "dead people can't seek God" nonsense!  God Himself tells "dead people" that they need to seek Him.  God expects dead people to seek Him.  And He can do this because He knows that being spiritually dead is not the same thing as being physically dead.  He knows that our brains still work, and He expects us to use our working brains to seek Him and find Him!

     Calvinists say "dead people can't seek God."

     But God tells dead people to "Seek me and live..."

     So who's right?  Calvinists or God?]

     

Calvinism does not build its theology on scripture; it manipulates scripture to fit its theology.  If a Calvinist says a verse "plainly/directly" teaches X,Y, or Z, look it up for yourself, in context.  Odds are, it doesn't!

[I wish I could write nice, short posts.  But I can't.  But hang in there with me; we're getting closer to the end.]   

11.  In paragraph 5, Cole also accuses Hunt of pulling God down, making Him accessible to fallen humans, and of lifting up proud, sinful men by saying that we can choose God at any time we please.  (This is Calvinist manipulation to make your feel ashamed if you think God gave man the ability to think about, seek, or choose God, without God forcing it to happen.)  

Umm ... isn't "making God accessible to men" exactly what Jesus coming to earth was all about!?!  About God making Himself accessible to humans because He knew we couldn't reach Him on our own!?!  

If God is accessible to humans, it's because God Himself made Himself accessible to humans.  Isn't it God who decided to leave heaven and come to earth, being born in a human body, in a barn, laid in a manger?  Isn't it God who decided to get His hands and feet dirty with the dust of earth, to live alongside sinful, broken people?  Isn't it God who decided to die a disgraceful criminal's death on the cross - which He didn't deserve - so that He could offer forgiveness to us, knowing that we could never earn/deserve it on their own?  Isn't it God who's planned to have human beings living alongside Him in eternity?  

It's God who lowered Himself, out of love, for our sakes.  Because He wanted it to be that way.  Because He loves us and wants a relationship with us, no matter how broken and sinful and lowly we are.  It's God who reached down to us because He knows we can't reach Him!  

But Calvinism destroys that beautiful truth, Jesus's amazing sacrifice.  It shoves God back up into the highest heavens, so far out of reach of us lowly, depraved, despicable human-worms, elevating Him so high that He doesn't resemble the God of the Bible anymore who left heaven to come to earth to touch our lives and save our souls.  

Calvinists want to elevate God in order to honor Him, but when they go outside of what scripture says, above and beyond what God says about Himself, they actually end up dishonoring Him and contradicting His Word.  No matter how good their intentions might have been.  And it ends up ruining people's faith and the relationship God wants to have with us, which is the very reason He left heaven to come to earth.  Calvinism supposedly elevates God's glory, but it does so at the expense of God's character and attributes, His truth, Jesus's sacrifice, the gospel, our faith, and our relationship with Him.

Besides, non-Calvinists didn't make up the idea that we can seek God or choose God.  

God did:

1 Chronicles 22:19: "Now devote your heart and soul to seeking the Lord your God."

Joshua 24:15: "But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve ..."

Psalm 119:30: "But I have chosen the way of truth..."

John 7:17: "If anyone chooses to do God's will ..."

Deuteronomy 4:29: "But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul."

Jeremiah 29:13: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart..."

Acts 17:27: "For God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him ..."

Psalm 14:2: "The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God."

Hebrews 11:6: "... anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Isaiah 55:6: "Seek the Lord while he may be found ..."

Amos 5:4, 14: "Seek me and live ... Seek good, not evil."

Proverbs 8:17: "... those who seek me find me."

The burden of proof is on the Calvinist to prove that when God tells us to seek Him, choose Him, and believe in Him that He doesn't really mean we can do these things unless and until He causes us to.

Which one is more in line with a "plain reading" of scripture: that "seek Me" is a command to seek Him, meaning that He expects us to seek Him and has made it possible for us (for all) to seek Him ... or that "seek Me" means we cannot seek Him until and unless He causes us to and that He will only cause the elect to do this?

12.  Cole criticizes Hunt for saying that God would be unloving and unjust to elect some to salvation (which obviously means the rest to hell).  And Cole defends the idea of God electing some but not others to heaven by stating Exodus 33:19: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."  He says that the verse loses all meaning if God is gracious and compassionate to all people equally.  While I agree with this idea that the verse would be meaningless if God treated everyone the same, I do not agree with the fact that Calvinists apply this verse to salvation, saying that having compassion and being gracious to some people means choosing to save them but not others.  This is not a verse about salvation.  

So what is Exodus 33:19 about then?

Let's see ... Exodus 33:18-19: "Then Moses said, 'Now show me your glory.'  And the Lord said, 'I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence.  I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'"

Do you see anything in here equating God's compassion and mercy (graciousness) with choosing to save the souls of some people but not the rest?

No?  

I didn't think so!  This is not a passage about individual salvation or the process of salvation.  Compassion and mercy, in this passage, have nothing to do with saving some but not others or with Moses's salvation.  It's about God choosing to give an extra-special blessing to Moses by showing Moses more of Himself.  Talk about taking verses out of context to support Calvinist presuppositions!  I'm not even going to comment on this one any further; it's just too pathetic!

13.  Cole accuses Hunt of misrepresenting Calvinism in these ways:

A.  Hunt claims that Calvinism limits God's saving grace to a few people.  And Cole denies this.  My answer: Calvinism does limit it, and it's right there in their very-own beloved TULIP: Limited Atonement (Jesus died only for the elect).  But to defend themselves against being accused of limiting God's saving grace, Calvinists say things like "It's offered to all, but only the elect can accept it" (and yet they call it a "real offer," even though the non-elect have no ability to accept it) or "It's offered to the whole world, but not to all individual people, just to all different races of people throughout the whole world" (and this is apparently what Cole means, since he mentions people from "every tribe" and he quotes the verse about people from all nations being around the throne-room in the end) or "God gives 'saving grace' to all, but there's two different types of saving grace: one for the elect to save their souls eternally, and one for the non-elect which doesn't save their souls but which gives them a temporary, earthly 'salvation' through things like food and sunshine and letting them live for awhile instead of putting them to death right away for their sins."  I kid you not, this is the kind of rambling garbage they convince themselves is true!  Check out my post on John MacArthur to see him spin it in just this way (the "two types of saving grace" thing).  But is any of this truly "saving grace for all," as we would commonly understand "saving," "grace," and "all"?

B.  Hunt claims that Calvinism "puts the blame for sin and the damnation of sinners totally upon God who predestined everything to turn out that way," and that (in Calvinism) "God causes all men to sin."  And Cole denies this, saying that while God is sovereign over all (which, in Calvinism, means that God preplans, causes, controls all things, even sin), He is not the author of sin, that "sinners are responsible for their own damnation."  Do you know how this works in Calvinism?  God causes the non-elect to have the sinner-nature, which contains only sinful desires, which causes the sinner to "want" to sin and to be only able to choose to sin.  But since the person "wanted/chose to" sin (even though that's all they could choose because God created them that way), the sinner is "responsible" for his sins.  That is so insane!  That is not "free-will" or "choice" or "being responsible for your sins," no matter how much Calvinists say it is.  Calvinists think they can just say "God is sovereign over all (preplanning/causing everything, even sin), but He is not the author of sin" and that we will simply go "Oh, okay, I guess.  Because you say so," despite the terrible implications of this and the fact that it doesn't make any sense at all or fit with scripture or God's character.

C. Hunt claims that Calvinists teach that men have no real choice about anything and no real free-will.  And Cole denies this.  (Denying it doesn't make it not true!)  Cole says that Calvinists do believe that men have free-will and make choices, but that "fallen men are ... fast bound in sin and nature's night, unable to choose salvation apart from God's sovereign working in their hearts."  Cole is literally saying that Calvinists believe that fallen men are slaves to their sin nature and can only choose sin and cannot choose God unless God changes their hearts to make them do it.  So if God doesn't change them, all they can choose is sin and unbelief, and nothing else.  (And yet they will be held accountable for it, as if they could have chosen to not sin).  But how in the world is being able to only choose the one option God predestined for you, the one thing you were created to choose, really "choice" or "free-will"?  That is so deceptive.  (The more Calvinists try to explain or defend Calvinism, the worse it gets!)

D.  Okay, this one is just weird (you'll see in a second): Hunt says that it's a perversion of justice for Calvinists to teach that God did not show mercy to all people when all people were equally guilty, that He puts people in hell that He could have saved but didn't save because He doesn't love them.  I'm not sure what Hunt actually said in the book, but Cole is trying to make it sound like non-Calvinists believe that God owes salvation to people and that if God's doesn't save all people then He is unjust for not giving us something we supposedly deserve.  This is a strawman argument.  Cole is accusing non-Calvinists of believing something we don't believe.  We do not believe God owes salvation to anyone and everyone, and so, therefore, He'd be unjust if He didn't save all.  What we believe is that He would be unjust to command all people to believe in Him but then to cause most people to reject Him and then to punish them for what He caused.  Cole tries to defend Calvinism by saying that God is indeed "mighty to save all whom He chooses to save."  This is where it's weird because he's not saying that God is "mighty to save all people" (which he obviously wants you to think he's saying), but he's basically just saying that "God is mighty to save those He's chosen to save, those He's predestined to save, the elect only."  How is this a defense against the accusation that God is unjust to predestine most people to hell?  It's actually just affirming the idea that God predestines most people to hell - because He's only "mighty to save" those whom He pre-chose to save while everyone else is predestined to hell.  (And Cole, like all Calvinists, uses Romans 9 to say that God chooses some people to save and predestines the rest to hell.  But Romans 9 is about God's right to choose Israel as His special people, for a special role.  It's not about individual salvation at all.)  

Cole then goes on to try to differentiate between the love God has for the elect and the (lack of) love God has for the non-elect (according to Calvinists), trying to prove that these two different types of love are why some are saved and some are not.  He tries to make the case that because God treats people differently, it must be because He doesn't love them the same.  But just because God doesn't treat everyone the same doesn't mean that He doesn't love them the same.  Calvinists assume that God only loves those He saves and saves those He loves.  And so, therefore, He doesn't really love those He predestined to hell.  But God Himself tells us that He has a basic love for all people (John 3:16, Romans 5:8), which caused Him to send Jesus to die for all sins of all men so that anyone can believe in Him and be saved.  God's love for all people made it possible for all people to be saved, but we choose whether to accept or reject that offer of salvation.  And God treats those who accept it differently than those who reject it, just as He treats those who obey Him differently than those who disobey Him.  But He doesn't, as Calvinists believe, determine who obeys Him and who doesn't, or who chooses Him and who doesn't.  His love isn't just for those who are saved.  He loves all men and, in His love, He has made salvation available to all men, but He lets us choose.  And then He responds to us according to what we choose.  

14.  Cole tries fiercely to defend John Calvin from the accusations Hunt levels against him.  But I agree with Hunt, from the research I've done.  In a nutshell, Cole says that Hunt discredits/criticizes Calvin in these ways: 

- Hunt says that since Calvin was too young (26 years old) and too new of a convert when he wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion, he couldn't have had a deep, fully-developed understanding of scripture.  Cole tries to counter this by saying that if Calvin was so lacking in his theological understanding, how could he have had such an impact on as many Christian scholars as he's had.  

     [This is a weak defense.  Just because someone sways/affects/impresses a lot of people doesn't mean they are theologically correct.  It could just mean they are telling people what they want to hear or are appealing to people's pride and sinful desires or whatever.  Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light and false prophets can disguise themselves as apostles of Christ, deceiving many (2 Cor. 11:13-15).  Since when is "but look how many people love, respect, follow him" an indication of whether a man is right or wrong, godly or ungodly?  Look how many people followed Hitler.  Besides, if how right and godly we are is proved by how many people like/follow us then Jesus would have been "wrong and ungodly" when He was on earth, for almost everyone rejected or turned away from Him.  Once again, a weak defense.] 

- Hunt asserts that Calvin never shook off his Roman Catholic roots, that he basically idolized Augustine and ended up polluted by Augustine heresies (which is true!).  Cole tries to defend Calvin by saying that Calvin's sole source of truth was the Bible and that Calvin disagreed with Augustine at times so it means he didn't idolize him.  (Disagreeing with a few points Augustine makes - while agreeing with and upholding the vast majority of what he taught - doesn't mean Calvin doesn't idolize him.)  For a little bit about my opinion of Calvin's Institutes, see this post.  

- Hunt asserts that Calvin was an "evil tyrant of Geneva" who violently forced his theology and control on people, who strove to forcibly keep people in line with his theology, who denied people the power of choice (just like Calvinism's god does).  And Hunt claims that this shows that Calvin could not have been led by the Spirit of God.  (True!)  But Cole defends Calvin as a "godly man ... a great man of God ... an astute theologian ... a great model of godliness," saying that all "godly men" will have enemies who pick on their weakness or attempt to smear them.  

     [What!?!  That's Cole's defense against the reports of Calvin's violent treatment of the people of Geneva!?!  Saying that all godly men have enemies!?!  Pathetic and weak!  Besides, ungodly men have enemies too.  So having enemies is no indication of whether or not a person is right and godly.]  

- And Cole defends Calvin by saying that an "evil, cruel tyrant" couldn't have such exalted views of God or such deep insights into the Word of God, like Calvin had.  

     [Has Cole never heard of how Satan knew God's Word well enough to skillfully use it to try to tempt Jesus in the desert or to subtly twist it to tempt Eve?  Has Cole never heard how Satan disguises himself as an angel of light to deceive people?  Cole is putting far too much confidence in a mere man and in the fact that other mere men follow him!  But you look up Calvin for yourself and decide if you think this sounds like a godly man (and make sure to figure out if you are getting your information about Calvin from a Calvinist site, which will be far more forgiving and excusing of what Calvin did than non-Calvinists).  Do not just listen to his words, but look at his life.  The evidence is in the fruit of our lives, how we live out our convictions, not in the words we say.  And looking at how Calvin ruled and treated people ... if that's "godly," I'd hate to see what "ungodly" looks like.  It sounds to me like Cole is more concerned about upholding/defending Calvin and Calvinism than about upholding/defending God and the Bible.]  

15.  I am not going to comment on Cole's criticism of Hunt's use of source material, the quotes he uses from other authors, because I have not read that source material for myself.

16.   The last thing I will comment on is Cole's claim that the real reason for Hunt's attacks on Calvin and Calvinists and for his "blasphemous charges against the God of the Bible" (Cole is aligning Calvinism again with God and the Bible) is because of Hunt's "refusal to submit to clear biblical revelation that does not fit human logic."

What!?!  Think about that a moment.  Seriously.  Cole is admitting that Calvinist beliefs are illogical.  And yet he says that it's "clear biblical revelation."  How could something so illogical be so "clear" and "biblical"?  Does God work in confusion?  Does He obscure He messages so that we can't make sense of them?  Does He say one thing but mean another?  This is simply a way for Calvinists to convince people to stop thinking about the illogical and contradictory things of Calvinism and to simply accept what they say as true, as "what the Bible teaches," even if it doesn't make any sense.

How very manipulative and cult-like!  

It's basically saying "You won't be able to truly understand what we tell you and it will seem like it's contradicting God's Word, but accept it anyway because it's not supposed to make sense."  Oh, how many lies this opens the door to!  

And as Cole demonstrates, the "biblical" answer Calvinists give for any of their illogical or contradictory teachings is "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?", as if that solves all the damage Calvinism does to God and His Word!  Pure manipulation!  (And all Calvinists resort to this in the end, as if it's the answer to shut up all opposition.)  

But in the Bible, "Who are you to talk back to God" (Romans 9:20) is not a verse about accepting whatever anyone tells you about the Bible, without question or discernment.  It's not about defending God's supposed "right" to predestine people to heaven or hell.  

It's about God's right to use people however He wants to (the Bible uses the example of Pharaoh), to work our self-chosen decisions and actions into His plans in whatever way He wants.  Specifically, Romans 9 is about God using Israel the way He wants to in order to accomplish His plans, not about Him causing them to be the way they are.  It's about His right to use their self-chosen sins to accomplish His purposes, His right to punish them for their self-chosen sins even though they are His special people, and His right to extend grace and mercy (Jesus's sacrifice, the option to be saved) to the Gentiles even though they are not part of Israel.  It's not about God predestining who goes to heaven or who goes to hell, but it's about God's right to work His plans out however He wants to, to incorporate our decisions (not control or cause our decisions) into His plans in the way He knows is best.  That's what Romans 9 is about.  

But Calvinists turn it into a chapter about God predestining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, incorrectly defining "having mercy and compassion on people" as "predestining that they will be saved," and "hardening" as "predestining who goes to hell."  And they try to convince us that we should all just accept their interpretation even though it doesn't make sense or fit with the rest of the Bible or with God's character.  Manipulation!  

And sadly, Romans 9 is how they trap many Christians into Calvinism.  

"Well, Calvinist theologians say that God having mercy on someone means He causes them to be saved and that hardening someone means He causes them to be unable to believe in Him, which means that He decides whether we are saved or not.  I don't understand how this fits with God's righteous, just, trustworthy, loving character or with the Bible verses that say Jesus died for all men ... but - look! - it's right there in Romans 9 just like they told us ... and so they must be right.  It doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem to fit the Bible's commonly-understood message and it seems to be talking about Israel, but I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure it all out because it's so complex.  So I will just let these brilliant, Calvinist giants-of-the-faith figure it out for me.  Besides, I don't want to offend God by questioning Him or by trying to figure out the 'mysteries' that He hasn't explained to us.  I want to be a good, humble Christian who doesn't need to know how it all works out but who simply trusts (the Calvinist theologians).  And so I guess I'll just keep quiet, fall in line, and drink the kool-aid." 

If a Calvinist can get you to abandon all reason and logic, and to make you think it's humble and God-glorifying to abandon reason and logic (to let illogical reasoning and contradictions stand) then they can get you to accept anything they push on you, without question or pushback.  (I've seen it happen firsthand.  It's why we had to leave our church home of almost 20 years!)

Do not ignore the brain God gave you, the reasoning skills He gave you.  He expects you to test every message someone else gives you, to be discerning about it, and to reject false doctrine.  It's how we protect the church from error and heresy.  

It's my hope, with these posts of mine, that I can help you to recognize the ways Calvinists manipulate and shame people into Calvinism and the ways they flip the Bible on its head, misuse scripture, and try to explain away any of the problems their theology creates.  And once you begin to see it, you'll notice it all over the place in Calvinist writing!

[If someone did a review of my post, they could call it "My Review of an Anti-Calvinist Review of Calvinist Review of an Anti-Calvinist Book."  That would be funny.]