Calvinist Comments: Hiding "God Causes" Under Other Phrases
I can't remember which Soteriology 101 post these comments are from, but read this exchange between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. (I added my own notes in between.) Note how convoluted the Calvinist view is, how he tries to cover up Calvinism's view of "God preplanned and causes and controls everything" with various words and layers, such as "God understands ... gives freedom ... permitted ... helps ... enables, etc."
But underneath it all (underneath every Calvinist attempt to sound like they believe in free-will, in our ability to make choices) is "God preplanned everything and causes exactly what He preplanned, causing man to do what he does, and no one can choose to do anything differently" - a very essential, fundamental Calvinist belief that they disguise with all sorts of "free-will" words and phrases.
First, a non-Calvinist (anti-Calvinist), BR.D. made this comment:
‘For example – where Calvin’s god DECREES Adam disobey – it LOGICALLY follows Adam is not permitted to obey… Therefore it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT Adam to obey.”
The dogmatic Calvinist, Rhutchin, replies with this:
The better word here is “enabled” not “permitted.” When God gives Satan freedom to enter the garden, He understands all that could follow – Eve eating the fruit, offering the fruit to Adam, and Adam eating the fruit – and God then enacts His earlier decision/decree that these events are to happen. Adam is permitted to refuse to eat the fruit but Adam will not refuse to eat the fruit and cannot refuse without God’s help which God earlier decreed not to provide. Adam could not overcome his desires without God’s help.
To TS00's "Thus Adam could not really resist God's decree unless God enabled him to," Rhutchin replies "Just like you cannot resist God’s decrees unless God enables you."
[Heather's note: So ... we could resist what God decreed if He causes us to resist His decrees!?! Just think about this for a moment, about what it says about our God, His character, and about the purpose/effectiveness of Him decreeing anything to begin with. It's insane and self-defeating - to decree something and then to decree that people refuse to follow His decree. What good was His decree in the first place then, if He's just going to cause us to resist it!?!
But do you know what the brilliant Calvinist answer to that is? "So that we would sin. God makes decrees and causes us to break His decrees because He wanted us to sin so that He could demonstrate His wrath and justice by punishing us, because He gets glory for punishing people and putting people in hell. If no one sinned then God wouldn't have a chance to fully show off His attributes - His justice and wrath. And so He needed sinners in order to have people to punish so that He could show off His full 'God-ness.'"
I'm not kidding here!!! This is what they teach (when you dig past all the layers they wrap around it to disguise it and when you understand what their theology really does to God's character), that apparently God couldn't be fully God or be fully glorified if He didn't have sinners to punish. So He made sure to cause people to be sinners so that He could fully display all of His attributes, namely His justice and wrath. (Also, they say that God wanted to display His justice and wrath against sinners so that He could show the elect how loved they are and how gracious He is to them to save them and predestine them for heaven, compared to the non-elect who are sent to hell. Apparently the elect wouldn't be able to grasp how "gracious" God was to them if they didn't see God condemning people to hell.)
Oh, what a conundrum! And what damage this does to God's character and trustworthiness and love and justness! What damage this does to the Gospel and to Jesus' sacrificial death and to people's hope and faith!
And ... I just have to ask ... if God needed sinners in order to be fully God, to be fully glorified by putting people in hell, then just how lacking was He before He made man, before sinners came along? So God's glory, His full "God-ness," is dependent on us, on our sins? Interesting! Calvinists would deny that they believe this, but this is what their theology does to God and His truth when you examine it closely.
Can you see how Calvinism actually does harm to God's character, while acting like it upholds and honors God's character! It's sick!]
To TS00's “Why would God declare a decree, then enable it to be resisted?”, Rhutchin replies "God enabling you to do X would be part of His decree. God decrees that Satan enter the garden and tempt Eve. Had God also decreed to give Eve wisdom to say 'No,' she would have said 'No'. Because Eve said 'Yes' and ate the fruit we have evidence of God’s decree not to give Eve wisdom to say 'No.' God’s decrees become known to us as time passes and we observe the events that occur."
[Heather's note: Look at the twisted, round-about reasoning he goes through just to not have to say "God caused Eve to sin." If you read Calvinist writing, you'll see this a lot. Instead of saying what they don't want to admit outright, they will present the flip-side in a round-about way. Instead of "God caused Eve to sin," it'll be something like "Eve could have refused to sin if God gave her the ability to refuse to sin. But since she didn't refuse to sin, it means God decreed to not give her the ability to refuse to sin. Eve chose to sin because she wanted to sin because God decreed to not give her the wisdom to say 'No' to Satan. Etc."
Seriously, Calvinists, just come out and say what you really mean to say: "God caused Eve to sin." Is it that hard!?! No, it's not! But you know you can't say this because it's accusing God of causing sin, which Calvinism clearly does yet tries so hard to hide!
And so Calvinists use many words and a lot of round-about, convoluted "reasoning" to hide what they really believe, which ends up making them sound so lofty and intelligent and spiritually-superior in the process, as if they can understand such "difficult" teachings that the rest of us simpletons can't grasp.
Incidentally, I think this is why Calvinism appeals to brainy, academic, "theologically-superior" types of people - because Calvinism is a massive, complex, mysterious, puzzling web of convoluted, contradictory ideas that they enjoy trying to sort out. My theory is that they are enamored with their own "brilliance," and it makes them feel highly intelligent to "solve" the puzzle of Calvinism. (To think they solved it!)
You see, a straight-forward, plain reading of Scripture is "too easy." And anyone can understand it, even small children. And that doesn't appeal to the brainy types who want to feel intellectually-superior and prove how smart they are. They need it to be a difficult puzzle that only the smartest can solve if they're going to be one of the "smartest" who solves the puzzle. And so Calvinism complicates the Scriptures by adding all sorts of hidden layers and double-meanings to verses, by changing the definitions of words, by taking other verses out of context, by cherry-picking parts of other verses that support their theology, and by repeatedly meshing two contradictory ideas into one horrible, impossible, mutant-idea. And all of this creates a huge puzzle which makes them feel so smart to have "solved." This is also why we in the congregation simply put our trust in those people - because they are brainy, academic, and "theologically-superior." They understand the deep mysteries of Calvinism that we simple, common-folk simply can't understand. And so instead of questioning them and researching for ourselves when what they say contradicts the plain, easily-understood message of Scripture, we just trust them. Because anyone that intelligent and well-read and who uses that many words and Bible verses and who sounds that confident must be right! Right!?!
However, I think Calvinism is hard to grasp for a reason. Because we are not supposed to grasp it! Because it's nonsense! (Once again ... Gee, Heather, tell me how you really feel!)]
To TS00's “sounds like only a little dose of freedom will rescue us from this insanity,” Rhutchin replies "Only God has true libertarian free will – this because God has infinite understanding of His creation and is omnipotent so he can do anything He wants. People cannot have LFW because they have limited understanding of the impacts of their decisions and make decisions for reasons that seem best to them but reflect their limited understanding – those reasons determine their decisions."
[Heather's note: Huh!?! This is simply more of "Man makes the decisions that come with the natures/desires that God gives him," which is still "God controls all we do and causes us to sin."
And one example of Calvinism's "bad reasoning" is this: "God can do anything He wants." This is true. God can do anything He wants. But Calvinists take this to an extreme and say, "Since God can do anything He wants, it means that He always does everything He wants, which means that everything that happens is because God wanted it and caused it to happen." And they base their theology and understanding of the Bible on this bad reasoning.
However, biblically, we can see example after example of God working differently. Yes, He can do what He wants, but biblically He doesn't always do what He wants. He has chosen to allow man to make decisions and to affect how and when His plans are carried out.
Just because God can ... doesn't mean God does. And if you get this wrong, your whole understanding of God, His character, and His Word will be wrong. We need to base our theology on the Bible, as it is written, on how God Himself has chosen to act, instead of basing the Bible (as Calvinism does) on our own ideas of how God has to be and has to act in order to be the kind of God we think He is and should be.
Another bad bit of reasoning in Rhutchin's comment: "People cannot have LFW (free-will, making their own choices) because they have limited understanding of the impacts of their decisions."
Just where is the biblical evidence to back up the idea that if you don't understand the impact of your decisions then it must mean you can't really make decisions? This doesn't even make sense from a worldly perspective, let alone a biblical one. People make decisions all the time without truly understanding how their decisions will impact the future. In fact, none of us can ever really know how our decisions will impact everything. But this limited understanding does not in any way negate our ability/right to make decisions. It's nonsense!]
And Br.d. adds:
But underneath it all (underneath every Calvinist attempt to sound like they believe in free-will, in our ability to make choices) is "God preplanned everything and causes exactly what He preplanned, causing man to do what he does, and no one can choose to do anything differently" - a very essential, fundamental Calvinist belief that they disguise with all sorts of "free-will" words and phrases.
First, a non-Calvinist (anti-Calvinist), BR.D. made this comment:
‘For example – where Calvin’s god DECREES Adam disobey – it LOGICALLY follows Adam is not permitted to obey… Therefore it follows Calvin’s god does NOT PERMIT Adam to obey.”
The dogmatic Calvinist, Rhutchin, replies with this:
The better word here is “enabled” not “permitted.” When God gives Satan freedom to enter the garden, He understands all that could follow – Eve eating the fruit, offering the fruit to Adam, and Adam eating the fruit – and God then enacts His earlier decision/decree that these events are to happen. Adam is permitted to refuse to eat the fruit but Adam will not refuse to eat the fruit and cannot refuse without God’s help which God earlier decreed not to provide. Adam could not overcome his desires without God’s help.
[My - Heather's - note: Do you hear that? "Adam could refuse the fruit, but he won't refuse the fruit because he can't refuse the fruit because God predetermined to not help him refuse the fruit. But ... he could refuse the fruit."
SAY WHAT!?! So God 'permits' him to refuse the fruit while at the same time predetermining that Adam would not refuse the fruit!?!
Does that make sense to anyone but Calvinists?
Also notice the very Calvinist idea that Adam (that mankind in general) HAS TO obey his sinful desires if Calvi-god doesn't help him overcome them, that we HAVE TO obey the sinful desires that come with the sin-nature Calvi-god gave us if Calvi-god doesn't help us overcome them, which would be by replacing our sin-nature with a regenerated one. However, Calvi-god will ONLY give the regenerated-nature to the elect, those predestined for heaven. Therefore, the non-elect (those predestined for hell) will NEVER be able to overcome their sinful desires because Calvi-god won't help them do it. He won't change their natures. So they are destined to sin and destined to go to hell, through no choice of their own, because Calvi-god won't help them overcome the sinful desires that come with the sin-nature he gave them.
And so I ask ... WHO exactly determines whether we sin or not? Whether we reject God or not?
Calvi-god gives us the sin-nature. Calvi-god determined that the sin-nature comes ONLY with the desire to sin and NEVER with the desire to do right. Calvi-god determined that we HAVE TO obey the desires of the nature he gave us. Calvi-god predetermined whom he will help in overcoming the sinful desires and whom he won't, whose nature he will change and whose he won't. And if he won't help you, you have no choice but to keep your sin-nature and to only desire/choose to sin all the time and to reject him. And yet he will punish you for it.
And yet most Calvinists will still adamantly claim that we are truly responsible for our sinful "choices," while teaching the exact opposite.
Hogwash! Nonsense and hogwash!
Rhutchin (as most Calvinists do) is trying to pain a picture of mankind being responsible for his choices, even though Calvi-god predestined/causes/controls everything that happens. He makes it sound like Adam could have made a different choice (Adam was "permitted to refuse to eat the fruit"), while at the same time saying the exact opposite, that Adam could not have made a different choice ("Adam will not and cannot refuse to eat the fruit because God decreed that he wouldn't refuse the fruit," paraphrased). Calvinists try hard to incorporate "free-will" and "man's responsibility" into a very non-free-will, God-controls-everything-we-do theology. And they work so hard at doing this because they have to cover up the fact that their theology makes God responsible for evil and for our sins and for our unbelief and for punishing us for the things HE supposedly causes. And so they have to find any convoluted way they can think of to incorporate "man is responsible for his choices" into a theology that actually teaches that God is responsible for our choices. It's insanity! Irrational, illogical, schizophrenic, contradictory nonsense! (Gee, Heather, tell me how you really feel!)]
SAY WHAT!?! So God 'permits' him to refuse the fruit while at the same time predetermining that Adam would not refuse the fruit!?!
Does that make sense to anyone but Calvinists?
Also notice the very Calvinist idea that Adam (that mankind in general) HAS TO obey his sinful desires if Calvi-god doesn't help him overcome them, that we HAVE TO obey the sinful desires that come with the sin-nature Calvi-god gave us if Calvi-god doesn't help us overcome them, which would be by replacing our sin-nature with a regenerated one. However, Calvi-god will ONLY give the regenerated-nature to the elect, those predestined for heaven. Therefore, the non-elect (those predestined for hell) will NEVER be able to overcome their sinful desires because Calvi-god won't help them do it. He won't change their natures. So they are destined to sin and destined to go to hell, through no choice of their own, because Calvi-god won't help them overcome the sinful desires that come with the sin-nature he gave them.
And so I ask ... WHO exactly determines whether we sin or not? Whether we reject God or not?
Calvi-god gives us the sin-nature. Calvi-god determined that the sin-nature comes ONLY with the desire to sin and NEVER with the desire to do right. Calvi-god determined that we HAVE TO obey the desires of the nature he gave us. Calvi-god predetermined whom he will help in overcoming the sinful desires and whom he won't, whose nature he will change and whose he won't. And if he won't help you, you have no choice but to keep your sin-nature and to only desire/choose to sin all the time and to reject him. And yet he will punish you for it.
And yet most Calvinists will still adamantly claim that we are truly responsible for our sinful "choices," while teaching the exact opposite.
Hogwash! Nonsense and hogwash!
Rhutchin (as most Calvinists do) is trying to pain a picture of mankind being responsible for his choices, even though Calvi-god predestined/causes/controls everything that happens. He makes it sound like Adam could have made a different choice (Adam was "permitted to refuse to eat the fruit"), while at the same time saying the exact opposite, that Adam could not have made a different choice ("Adam will not and cannot refuse to eat the fruit because God decreed that he wouldn't refuse the fruit," paraphrased). Calvinists try hard to incorporate "free-will" and "man's responsibility" into a very non-free-will, God-controls-everything-we-do theology. And they work so hard at doing this because they have to cover up the fact that their theology makes God responsible for evil and for our sins and for our unbelief and for punishing us for the things HE supposedly causes. And so they have to find any convoluted way they can think of to incorporate "man is responsible for his choices" into a theology that actually teaches that God is responsible for our choices. It's insanity! Irrational, illogical, schizophrenic, contradictory nonsense! (Gee, Heather, tell me how you really feel!)]
TS00, an anti-Calvinist who is much like me, replies to Rhutchin (edited a tiny bit for clarity):
Talk about convoluted nonsense...
God "understands" what He formerly decreed (duh!) then enacts this decree. Adam supposedly is "permitted" to resist God’s decree but "not really, because he cannot," unless God provides help to enable Adam to resist His decree, which God "decreed to not provide." (God decrees to not enable people to resist his decrees?) Thus Adam could not really resist God’s decree unless God enabled him to, which would make His making of decrees useless and pretty darn silly. Why would God declare a decree, then enable it to be resisted? Ah, sounds like only a little dose of freedom will rescue us from this insanity.
Talk about convoluted nonsense...
God "understands" what He formerly decreed (duh!) then enacts this decree. Adam supposedly is "permitted" to resist God’s decree but "not really, because he cannot," unless God provides help to enable Adam to resist His decree, which God "decreed to not provide." (God decrees to not enable people to resist his decrees?) Thus Adam could not really resist God’s decree unless God enabled him to, which would make His making of decrees useless and pretty darn silly. Why would God declare a decree, then enable it to be resisted? Ah, sounds like only a little dose of freedom will rescue us from this insanity.
Rhutchin replies to TS00:
In reference to TS00's “Talk about convoluted nonsense. God understands what he formerly decreed (duh) then enacts this decree,” Rhutchin replies, "Under Calvinism, God’s understanding precedes His decrees and is the basis for the counsel of His will."
[Heather's note: So God "understands" what He's going to predestine, then He enacts decrees to cause the predestined thing to happen? And this is what He bases the "counsel of His will" on? You know what I hear in all this: "God causes ... God causes ... God causes ... but I don't want to say that 'God causes' and so I will use all sorts of other words to confuse you so that you don't think I'm teaching what I really am, which is that God causes us to do everything we do, even sin and rebel against Him."]
In reference to TS00's “Talk about convoluted nonsense. God understands what he formerly decreed (duh) then enacts this decree,” Rhutchin replies, "Under Calvinism, God’s understanding precedes His decrees and is the basis for the counsel of His will."
[Heather's note: So God "understands" what He's going to predestine, then He enacts decrees to cause the predestined thing to happen? And this is what He bases the "counsel of His will" on? You know what I hear in all this: "God causes ... God causes ... God causes ... but I don't want to say that 'God causes' and so I will use all sorts of other words to confuse you so that you don't think I'm teaching what I really am, which is that God causes us to do everything we do, even sin and rebel against Him."]
To TS00's "Thus Adam could not really resist God's decree unless God enabled him to," Rhutchin replies "Just like you cannot resist God’s decrees unless God enables you."
[Heather's note: So ... we could resist what God decreed if He causes us to resist His decrees!?! Just think about this for a moment, about what it says about our God, His character, and about the purpose/effectiveness of Him decreeing anything to begin with. It's insane and self-defeating - to decree something and then to decree that people refuse to follow His decree. What good was His decree in the first place then, if He's just going to cause us to resist it!?!
But do you know what the brilliant Calvinist answer to that is? "So that we would sin. God makes decrees and causes us to break His decrees because He wanted us to sin so that He could demonstrate His wrath and justice by punishing us, because He gets glory for punishing people and putting people in hell. If no one sinned then God wouldn't have a chance to fully show off His attributes - His justice and wrath. And so He needed sinners in order to have people to punish so that He could show off His full 'God-ness.'"
I'm not kidding here!!! This is what they teach (when you dig past all the layers they wrap around it to disguise it and when you understand what their theology really does to God's character), that apparently God couldn't be fully God or be fully glorified if He didn't have sinners to punish. So He made sure to cause people to be sinners so that He could fully display all of His attributes, namely His justice and wrath. (Also, they say that God wanted to display His justice and wrath against sinners so that He could show the elect how loved they are and how gracious He is to them to save them and predestine them for heaven, compared to the non-elect who are sent to hell. Apparently the elect wouldn't be able to grasp how "gracious" God was to them if they didn't see God condemning people to hell.)
Oh, what a conundrum! And what damage this does to God's character and trustworthiness and love and justness! What damage this does to the Gospel and to Jesus' sacrificial death and to people's hope and faith!
And ... I just have to ask ... if God needed sinners in order to be fully God, to be fully glorified by putting people in hell, then just how lacking was He before He made man, before sinners came along? So God's glory, His full "God-ness," is dependent on us, on our sins? Interesting! Calvinists would deny that they believe this, but this is what their theology does to God and His truth when you examine it closely.
Can you see how Calvinism actually does harm to God's character, while acting like it upholds and honors God's character! It's sick!]
To TS00's “Why would God declare a decree, then enable it to be resisted?”, Rhutchin replies "God enabling you to do X would be part of His decree. God decrees that Satan enter the garden and tempt Eve. Had God also decreed to give Eve wisdom to say 'No,' she would have said 'No'. Because Eve said 'Yes' and ate the fruit we have evidence of God’s decree not to give Eve wisdom to say 'No.' God’s decrees become known to us as time passes and we observe the events that occur."
[Heather's note: Look at the twisted, round-about reasoning he goes through just to not have to say "God caused Eve to sin." If you read Calvinist writing, you'll see this a lot. Instead of saying what they don't want to admit outright, they will present the flip-side in a round-about way. Instead of "God caused Eve to sin," it'll be something like "Eve could have refused to sin if God gave her the ability to refuse to sin. But since she didn't refuse to sin, it means God decreed to not give her the ability to refuse to sin. Eve chose to sin because she wanted to sin because God decreed to not give her the wisdom to say 'No' to Satan. Etc."
Seriously, Calvinists, just come out and say what you really mean to say: "God caused Eve to sin." Is it that hard!?! No, it's not! But you know you can't say this because it's accusing God of causing sin, which Calvinism clearly does yet tries so hard to hide!
And so Calvinists use many words and a lot of round-about, convoluted "reasoning" to hide what they really believe, which ends up making them sound so lofty and intelligent and spiritually-superior in the process, as if they can understand such "difficult" teachings that the rest of us simpletons can't grasp.
Incidentally, I think this is why Calvinism appeals to brainy, academic, "theologically-superior" types of people - because Calvinism is a massive, complex, mysterious, puzzling web of convoluted, contradictory ideas that they enjoy trying to sort out. My theory is that they are enamored with their own "brilliance," and it makes them feel highly intelligent to "solve" the puzzle of Calvinism. (To think they solved it!)
You see, a straight-forward, plain reading of Scripture is "too easy." And anyone can understand it, even small children. And that doesn't appeal to the brainy types who want to feel intellectually-superior and prove how smart they are. They need it to be a difficult puzzle that only the smartest can solve if they're going to be one of the "smartest" who solves the puzzle. And so Calvinism complicates the Scriptures by adding all sorts of hidden layers and double-meanings to verses, by changing the definitions of words, by taking other verses out of context, by cherry-picking parts of other verses that support their theology, and by repeatedly meshing two contradictory ideas into one horrible, impossible, mutant-idea. And all of this creates a huge puzzle which makes them feel so smart to have "solved." This is also why we in the congregation simply put our trust in those people - because they are brainy, academic, and "theologically-superior." They understand the deep mysteries of Calvinism that we simple, common-folk simply can't understand. And so instead of questioning them and researching for ourselves when what they say contradicts the plain, easily-understood message of Scripture, we just trust them. Because anyone that intelligent and well-read and who uses that many words and Bible verses and who sounds that confident must be right! Right!?!
However, I think Calvinism is hard to grasp for a reason. Because we are not supposed to grasp it! Because it's nonsense! (Once again ... Gee, Heather, tell me how you really feel!)]
To TS00's “sounds like only a little dose of freedom will rescue us from this insanity,” Rhutchin replies "Only God has true libertarian free will – this because God has infinite understanding of His creation and is omnipotent so he can do anything He wants. People cannot have LFW because they have limited understanding of the impacts of their decisions and make decisions for reasons that seem best to them but reflect their limited understanding – those reasons determine their decisions."
[Heather's note: Huh!?! This is simply more of "Man makes the decisions that come with the natures/desires that God gives him," which is still "God controls all we do and causes us to sin."
And one example of Calvinism's "bad reasoning" is this: "God can do anything He wants." This is true. God can do anything He wants. But Calvinists take this to an extreme and say, "Since God can do anything He wants, it means that He always does everything He wants, which means that everything that happens is because God wanted it and caused it to happen." And they base their theology and understanding of the Bible on this bad reasoning.
However, biblically, we can see example after example of God working differently. Yes, He can do what He wants, but biblically He doesn't always do what He wants. He has chosen to allow man to make decisions and to affect how and when His plans are carried out.
Just because God can ... doesn't mean God does. And if you get this wrong, your whole understanding of God, His character, and His Word will be wrong. We need to base our theology on the Bible, as it is written, on how God Himself has chosen to act, instead of basing the Bible (as Calvinism does) on our own ideas of how God has to be and has to act in order to be the kind of God we think He is and should be.
Another bad bit of reasoning in Rhutchin's comment: "People cannot have LFW (free-will, making their own choices) because they have limited understanding of the impacts of their decisions."
Just where is the biblical evidence to back up the idea that if you don't understand the impact of your decisions then it must mean you can't really make decisions? This doesn't even make sense from a worldly perspective, let alone a biblical one. People make decisions all the time without truly understanding how their decisions will impact the future. In fact, none of us can ever really know how our decisions will impact everything. But this limited understanding does not in any way negate our ability/right to make decisions. It's nonsense!]
BR.D. replies to Rhutchin:
Rhutchin said "Just like you cannot resist God’s decrees unless God enables you."
Thank you, Rhutchin, for a marvelous example of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK. :-]
Rhutchin said "Just like you cannot resist God’s decrees unless God enables you."
Thank you, Rhutchin, for a marvelous example of Calvinist DOUBLE-THINK. :-]
TS00 adds:
What a hoot, eh? God enabling someone to resist what he has
decreed. Just try to picture that.
God: ‘I decreed that you marry at the age of 17 and have 14
children.’
Woman: ‘But I never married or had any children at all!’
God: ‘That’s because I enabled you to resist my decree.’
Woman: ‘But I never married or had any children at all!’
God: ‘That’s because I enabled you to resist my decree.’
What, pray tell, kind of decree is that? Nonsense. It’s all just
word jugglery to this sort of Calvinist.
And Br.d. adds:
Absolutely!
Its just the Calvinist’s way of hedging in order to have it both ways.
Its just the Calvinist’s way of hedging in order to have it both ways.
They make big claims about embracing Theological Determinism –
sovereignty (the Calvinist version of 'sovereignty" which is "God preplans, causes, and controls everything that happens, even sin") – the DECREES etc – but they really NEED IN-determinism (where God doesn't control everything that happens, but gives man the right to make choices) to make
their system palatable. They constantly work to have the very things they
reject.
Speaking out of both sides of the mouth is the typical way of
going about that, isn’t it?
[Heather's note: Calvinists are experts at sounding like they are saying one thing - "Yes, we make the choices we want to make" - while actually believing and teaching the exact opposite - "God predestined the choices we would make, and He gave us the nature that contains the desires to make the choices He predestined us to make. But because we 'desired' to choose what we did, according to the desires our nature forces us to have, we can say we 'wanted' to make the choices we did, even though we couldn't choose anything differently because we can't change the nature/desires God gave us."
Can you see how deceptive a Calvinist's "we make the choices we want to make" is? How they twist and torture the idea of "want" so that they can fit predestination and Calvinism and "God controls us" into free-will, to make it sound like we get the punishments we deserve because if we sin it's because we "wanted" to sin, even though all we could do was sin because Calvi-god caused us to only "want" to sin. How deceptive!
When a theology has to go through such great lengths to disguise what they really believe, it should be a huge indication that something is terribly wrong! That God isn't behind such a theology, because God doesn't play these kinds of deceptive words games and mind tricks.
But we know who does! Because we can see his tactics at work in the Garden of Eden when he talked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit by using word tricks and mind games. We can see his work in the desert when he tried to tempt Jesus to sin by twisting Scripture, using God's Word against God! In my assessment, Satan's fingerprints are all over Calvinism, a theology full of word tricks, mind games, twisted Scripture, and using God's Word against God!]
But we know who does! Because we can see his tactics at work in the Garden of Eden when he talked Adam and Eve into eating the fruit by using word tricks and mind games. We can see his work in the desert when he tried to tempt Jesus to sin by twisting Scripture, using God's Word against God! In my assessment, Satan's fingerprints are all over Calvinism, a theology full of word tricks, mind games, twisted Scripture, and using God's Word against God!]
