Various Random Comments From Calvinists and Anti-Calvinists

These are taken from various comments in the comment sections of posts at Soteriology 101, but I can't remember which ones.  I may have covered these already in other posts of mine, but I can't remember that either.  So I am putting them all here so that I can get them out of my "draft" folder.:

#1:  A dogmatic Calvinist called Rhutchin says this:  “... They must follow the Scriptures and it is the Scriptures that tell us God is sovereign, that His understanding is infinite, and His power omnipotent.  God created the universe and all that is in it and He is sovereign over His creation down to the smallest component.”

Now here it is again with my comments (to show what Calvinists REALLY mean) added in light blue and in brackets:

“... They must follow the Scriptures and it is the Scriptures that tell us God is sovereign [and it is Calvinists who tell God how He HAS TO exercise His sovereignty – by controlling/causing EVERYTHING, even sin and unbelief – or else He can’t be God], that His understanding is infinite [and by “understanding,” Calvinism essentially means “ordains” as seen in Rhutchin’s own words: “God first understands everything that men can do; God then ordains what men will do” – which means Calvi-god preplanned, controls, and causes everything, even sin and unbelief], and His power omnipotent [and Calvinists have decided that for God to be truly omnipotent, He has to always be using His power all the time to control everything, or else He doesn’t fit their idea of a sovereign God].  God created the universe and all that is in it [and therefore, according to Calvinism, He must control everything in the universe, even sin and unbelief, or else He’s not God] and He is sovereign over His creation down to the smallest component [and once again, Calvinism’s “sovereign” means “preplanning/controlling all things all the time, or else He’s not God,” which is contrary to how God Himself shows us He has chosen to exercise His sovereignty, as seen in numerous biblical examples.].”

They say one thing but mean another!

#2:  Rhutchin also says: “God is trustworthy because God is true and can be trusted and His word is true and can be trusted.”

And here is my reply to that comment (bits and pieces taken from various comments of mine):

Calvi-god is known to deceive people, to say one thing but mean another, to cause people to do the opposite of what he commands them to do, to cause sin but punish people for it, to pretend to love all and to offer salvation to all but then to create most people for hell for his sick sense of justice against sin and for his love/grace for the “elect,” etc. 

For one example of Calvi-god’s deceptiveness, see John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 2, Section 11:

“… yet experience shows that the REPROBATE ARE SOMETIMES AFFECTED IN A WAY SO SIMILAR TO THE ELECT, THAT EVEN IN THEIR OWN JUDGMENT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.  Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and BY CHRIST HIMSELF A TEMPORARY FAITH, IS ASCRIBED TO THEM.  Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, THE BETTER TO CONVICT THEM, and leave them without excuse, INSTILLS IN THEIR MINDS SUCH A SENSE OF HIS GOODNESS as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption.”

In this example, according to Calvin himself, Calvi-god himself deceives people into thinking they are elected when they are not, in order to have more reason to damn them to hell.  How then can any Calvinist be assured of their election and salvation, if Calvi-god likes to trick people into thinking they are elected when they are not?

A god who deceives cannot be trusted at any time, in any way.

Another example:  If Calvi-god wrote the Bible (HE DIDN’T!), plainly saying that he loves all people and that Jesus died for all men and that he wants no one to perish, yet he really meant that he truly loved ONLY the elect and that Jesus ONLY died for the elect and that he really does want people in hell for his glory, then he deceives us all throughout the Bible.

Calvi-god’s hidden double-meanings for words and verses contradict what the Bible clearly and simply says.  And if this isn’t deception then nothing is!

If Calvinists want to call that “trustworthy” and if they want to trust a “god” like that, then that’s their choice.

I, however, would find no comfort or assurance in being “saved” by a lying, deceptive, contradictory, unloving, unjust, untrustworthy “god” like that.

Calvinists should not be commended for their fierce devotion to a god like that.  They should be pitied!

(And if that’s what Calvinists consider “trustworthy,” then the people around them had better beware of the ways the Calvinist seeks to emulate their “god,” of how the Calvinist tries to be “trustworthy” and “loving” and “gracious” like their Calvi-god.)

#3:  I had made this comment on a post:  “Calvinism destroys God’s trustworthiness, among other things.  And if we can’t trust that He says what He means and means what He says, then we may as well throw the Bible out, along with our faith!”

And a dogmatic Calvinist, JTLEOSALA, replied with this (he is foreign, so excuse the rough grammar):  

"Here’s my counter argument:  No, it is those people who argues that God loves the entire humanity, yet the rest are thrown to hell.  These people wants to claim their own desires not God’s desires which no one can tamper even if they will continue rumble and protest.  These are the people who destroys God’s trustworthiness presenting God as a weak God who needs to beg for people to agree with Him and yet does not get what God wants for Himself in the end.  The ultimate decision rests on man not God’s."

And here is my reply to his comment about "These people wants to claim their own desires not God’s desires which no one can tamper even if they will continue rumble and protest.  These are the people who destroys God’s trustworthiness presenting God as a weak God ...”:

Wow … brilliant way of making lies sound good and God-glorifying!  Such is how Satan operates and such is Calvinism.

Reminds me of the brilliant ways that the world turns sexual immorality (affairs, sex before marriage, immoral relationships, etc.) into “good and godly” by claiming things like “Well, God is love, and He is all about the love.  All He wants us to do is love each other.  The greatest commandment is to love one another!  So He doesn’t care about who we love or how we love, just so long as we love each other.  Besides, it’s those who judge who are really in the wrong, because God says not to judge others.  Jesus never judged; He just loved others and accepted them as they are.  He loved sinners and hated the proud religious people because they judged people.”  (And FYI, they claim the greatest commandment is to love one another, but it’s not.  It’s love God first, then love others.  And if they get this wrong from the very beginning, then it will all be wrong!)

See how easy it is to use the Bible and God’s character to make lies sound like truth!

And that’s what you are doing here.  Using God’s character against Him.  Using Scripture against Truth.

(Well said, Br.d., about the double-mindedness of the Calvinist.  They have to be double-minded in order to make their theology fit with Scripture and to be “content” with it.  Because any rational, logic person would be – should be – horrified by Calvinism and what it does to God’s truth and character.)

It’s classic Calvinism: Shame those who disagree with Calvinism by accusing them of being unhumble and of fighting God.

You are making it sound like we disagree with Calvinism because we don’t want it to be true, because we want to make God into the kind of God we want Him to be instead of accepting Him as you say He is.  It’s trying to shed doubt on our motives so that you can tear down our message.

But we who disagree with Calvinism are not contradicting the Bible or God as He is.  We are fighting against the major distortions Calvinism makes of the Bible and God.  We are fighting FOR truth, not against it!

2 Corinthians 11:12-15: “And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.  For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.  Their end will be what their actions deserve.”

And on a different note, in reference to a comment by someone else: When Calvinists quote “God works all things according to the counsel of his will …”, they mean “God causes all things according to his will.”  They change Scripture from “working all things together” to “causing all things that happen.”  Another subtle, brilliant way to make their flawed theology sound more valid.

And well said, TS00:  “The astounding thing, one which Calvinism is unwilling to consider, is that God is unafraid to be challenged, resisted and rejected.  He does not need to impose his will upon resistless victims in order to have a people who love him and desire to live in proper relationship with him.  I pity and fear those who value a ‘strong’ God who always gets what he wants by force and tyranny.”

#4:  The Calvinist, JTLEOSALA, made this comment to GraceAdict who had said that God loves all people:

"If you assert God loves all humanity, then why did God never give any second chance for the following:

1. The residents of Canaan has been annihilated by Joshua’s army by the command of God, except Rahab.

2. The false prophets in the OT.  Did Christ offered his life for them?  The OT command is to kill them with stones.

3. The cults whose firm position and adherence is to denounce and reject Jesus Christ

4. God loves Jacob but hated Esau.

5. Jesus Christ even deny those who claims to be His in Matthew 7:21-23

6. Did God loved Judas Iscariot?  Did Christ offered His life to Judas Iscariot?  If so… then why did he perish?

So…. What Can I say…

a. If your claim is true, then why there are a lot of people who are thrown and shall be thrown to hell?  You will say,.. because they refuse Christ’s offer.  But how can they received the offer it it was not legitimately offered to them?  The reprobates go to hell because they have not been picked by God since before the foundation of the world.

b. If God choose a people for Himself then nobody can question that decision and it cannot be made by anyone to charge this as a distortion God’s moral character.

My reply to him:

Jtleosala, You’ve got a few fundamental flaws in your argument here, some assumptions you start with that ruin it all from the beginning:

1. You assume that God’s love necessarily means He HAS TO give multiple chances to people, such as cult members and idol-worshipping groups.  I’m not saying He doesn’t do this, but … are you above God?  Are you the one who gets to tell Him how He has to demonstrate His love?

2. You assume that He only gave the people you listed ONE chance, that He never ever gave them a “second chance.”  Question: How do you define “second chances”?  How long does God have to dangle His “second chances” out there for people before He is allowed to act against them?  Which people and what kind of choices deserve “second chances” and which don’t?  How many “second chances” is God required to give us?  Apparently, you must know the answers to these questions because you are judging God for His actions and His responses to mankind.

3. You assume that God didn’t love Judas, that Jesus’s death didn’t pay for Judas’s sins, that Judas never had the chance for salvation.

4. You assume that if God really did love Judas and if Jesus’s death paid for Judas’s sin, then Judas could not have perished.  This is based on the Calvinist assumption that God’s love and Jesus’s atoning sacrifice necessarily and always end in the person being saved.  And so therefore, if someone is not saved then it MUST MEAN that God didn’t love them and that Jesus didn’t die for them, right?  All of these are dangerous, misleading assumptions.  (Do you know what happens when we assume things?)

5. Likewise, you assume that no one who God loves will perish.  Therefore, if someone perishes then it must be because God didn’t love them, right?  Therefore, according to Calvinism, God only loves the elect because only the elect are saved.

6. You assume that since those who perish didn’t accept the offer of salvation then the offer of salvation must not have been legitimately offered to them.  This is based on the assumption that the offer of salvation is irresistible.  That those who are offered it will definitely accept it, therefore those who don't have it were never offered it.

7. And I agree that IF God decided to choose a people for Himself then none of us could question Him.  But you assume that there is no “if” about it.  But while God could choose people for heaven or hell if He wanted, that’s not what happened in Scripture.  Yet Calvinists have decided for themselves that God elects people for salvation, and then they shame everyone who disagrees with this by accusing us of distorting Scripture and God’s character.  Yet they fail to see how accusing God of being the cause of all sin while punishing us for it distorts God’s character.  They fail to see how limiting God’s love and Jesus’s sacrifice to a tiny, lucky few people distorts God’s character.  They fail to see how Calvi-god is a dishonest god, not saying what he means, saying what he doesn’t mean, deliberately misleading people, etc.

Calvinism is, in my opinion, a brilliant satanic distortion of God!  And Calvinism’s fundamental, flawed assumptions will be its undoing.

#5:  A comment from another anti-Calvinist like myself, from the post 5 Reasons Why I Stayed Out Of Calvinism:

TS00 replied to a comment of mine:

Heather, it breaks my heart.  Jesus did not come to show mankind how powerful or ‘glorious’ God was – all of creation testifies to that!  It was this dread of a powerful, tyrannical, controlling deity that led to the many pagan religions.  Religions that might demand one sacrifice your firstborn to appease an angry god.  So what did God do?  He willingly offered up his only Son, for the sake of undeserving, rebellious sinners.

Jesus came to not only declare but to demonstrate in his own actions the love, mercy and grace of the true God.  He came teaching men to call him ‘Father’, to view him as one to be loved and trusted, rather than the typical view of the deities as tyrannical, unpredictable, angry forces which threatened one’s very existence.

Calvinism is a throwback to the false religions which attributed many false things about God, making him a fearsome, powerful tyrant.  It is a denial of God’s genuine character, and his revelation, through Jesus, that he is a good, loving, merciful father who desires only the good of all men.

My response to TS00:

So true, TS00. All of what you said.

The ironic thing is that while Jesus came to represent a different god than the gods of false religions who require things like child sacrifice, Calvi-god takes us right back to a god who requires and engages in child sacrifice.  If He is the cause of all things, as Calvinism says.

There’s abortion and violence against children, for starters.  According to Calvinism, God Himself would have to be the cause of these things.  Or else there’s something He’s not controlling, which would mean to them that He isn’t God.  And according to Calvin, God only kills the unelected babies.  So God Himself is the cause of these abortions and of child slaughter, of babies that He "predestined" to hell.

See his Harmony of the Law, Volume 2, Deuteronomy 13, paragraph 15:

15  “Thou shalt surely smite. … If any should object that the little children at least were innocent, I reply that, since all are condemned by the judgment of God from the least to the greatest, we contend against Him in vain, even though He should destroy the very infants as yet in their mothers’ womb.  When Sodom and the neighboring cities were swallowed up, we doubt not but that in the mighty multitude many infants and pregnant women also perished; and whilst our reason struggles against this, it is better rather to look up reverently to the Divine tribunal, than to subject it to our own laws.  The same may be said of the destruction of Babylon; for when the Prophet exclaims: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” he assuredly eulogizes the just vengeance of God. (Psalm 137:9.)  So also in this passage, if it does not appear to us agreeable to reason that the whole race of evil-doers should be exterminated, let us understand that God is defrauded of His rights, whensoever we measure His infinite greatness, which the angels themselves admiringly adore, by our own feelings.  Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.  But if we admit God’s right to deprive of the hope of salvation whomsoever He sees fit, why should the temporal punishment, which is much lighter, be found fault with? …”

And again in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7: “I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God?”

From what I can tell, this “seemed meet to God” seems to mean (according to others who quoted this passage) that it pleased God to have Adam’s sin lead to the eternal destruction of most people, with no chance of being saved, including their “infant children.”  Calvin is attributing the destruction of infants in hell to God.

And may I point out something else Calvin believes?  That if a mother can’t provide enough milk for her baby, it’s because God was pleased to make it so.  So it’s for God’s pleasure that babies basically starve to death!?!  Well, only the unelected babies, of course.  See his Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 3: “David exclaims (Ps. 8:3), that infants hanging at their mothers breasts are eloquent enough to celebrate the glory of God, because, from the very moment of their births they find an aliment prepared for them by heavenly care. Indeed, if we do not shut our eyes and senses to the fact, we must see that some mothers have full provision for their infants, and others almost none, according as it is the pleasure of God to nourish one child more liberally, and another more sparingly.”

Anyone else want to throw up!?!

And then, of course, if God is the cause of all things, then He would have to be the cause of the actual child sacrifice in Ezekiel 16:20-21: “And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to idols…. You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols.”  

And in Jeremiah 19:4-5: “For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods … and have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.  They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as an offering to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”

Calvinists say God has ordained and planned everything we do – so it would have to include this child sacrifice.  Yet God Himself says He never thought of child sacrifice being done!  (And that those children are "innocent," not reprobates predestined for hell.)  How do Calvinists reason that one out?  (Calvinists trade in what God clearly said in the Bible for their own "mysterious" philosophical ramblings.)

Anyway, I am so glad that Calvi-god is not the God of the Bible!  You are right that Jesus came to show us a different kind of God than the false gods – one who is full of love, mercy, grace.  Compassion, truth, justice.  A Father who can be trusted and who is easy to love, once you grasp how much He loves us and how much He’s done for us!  What a shame that Calvinism is spreading such a damaging view of God, declaring most people to be “unsaveable” … when, in reality, God sent Jesus to be the Savior of the WORLD.