Exposing What Calvinists Really Mean: Sin Nature, Free-Will, and God's Foreknowledge
[Okay, I've got a little more to add now.]
Here are
some comments from the post Pelagianism: The Boogie Man, at Soteriology 101, showing
the slippery dances Calvinists do to defend/promote their theology, to make it sound better than it is, and to try to make
the Bible fit their theology. And using their own comments, I'm going to expose what they really mean by the things
they say. (I made minor changes for better clarity. And you might also like the post Confronting Calvinism's Deceptive Nonsense.):
(FYI, I changed the color of Rhutchin's comments so that they weren't purple anymore. Purple is the color I use when I quote Scripture, and so it bothered me to also use it for the comments of a Scripture-twisting Calvinist. I gave him pink instead.)
Rhutchin [a strong, dogmatic Calvinist] says:
People are sent to hell (i.e. not able to enter heaven) because they are sinners and demonstrate this by their sin. The gospel provides the means for a sinner to deal with both his nature and his sin. It is the means to escape hell and enter heaven as the sinner is already condemned to hell... The sinner is held responsible for what he is and what he does. He rejects God as that is his natural behavior. The issue is whether he will accept the truth and enter heaven.
[My note: Notice how deceptive Rhutchin’s comments are … because what he fails to mention is that, in Calvinism, people are unrepentant sinners because God predetermined they would be, preventing them from being repentant. "The issue of whether he will accept the truth" has already been predetermined by God, but Rhutchin makes it sound like the sinner has a choice - when he really doesn't (in Calvinism). He makes it sound like the offer of salvation God gives to the non-elect is genuine, as if the sinner could actually respond to it - when it's not and he can't. Because Calvinism's god (Calvi-god) gives this offer knowing full well that he predestined a few people to heaven and most people to hell, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
You see, in Calvinism, God decides which “nature/natural behavior” we get - either the regenerated/repentant kind (given only to the elect) or the unregenerated/unrepentant kind (given to the non-elect). And each nature comes with certain built-in desires that you have to obey because your nature will not contain desires of any other kind (and so if you never desire to do anything else, then, of course, you will never choose to do anything else).
The unregenerated (non-elect) nature contains only the desire to sin and reject God. The regenerated (elect) nature contains the desire to want God, seek God, and obey God. And so unless and until God regenerates your nature (and only if you are one of the elect), you will only and always “want” to sin, which means you can only and always “choose” to sin. Because that’s the only desire your nature contains. And you can never decide for yourself to change your nature or to make any other decision than what your nature (predetermined for you by Calvi-god) tells you to decide. Some choice!
So, sure, Calvi-god might “provide
the means” for a sinner to be saved, but he also prevents the non-elect from being
able to do it because he doesn’t change their natures. He offers salvation to the non-elect but has predetermined
they would never accept the offer because he didn’t choose them for heaven. Some offer!
It would be like me telling someone
who’s standing outside my house in the frozen, snowy, minus-100-degree weather
that if they would just take my key, unlock the front door, and walk in, then they
will be saved. It’s their choice. If they don’t want to freeze to death, all
they have to do is listen to me and accept my offer. But what I don’t tell them is that I
bolted the front door shut, hammered boards all across it, and that the key is buried
50 feet underground in Siberia … and that I sprayed them with a “mind
control” gas that makes them “want” to stay outside, makes them “want” to freeze to death … and so there is no way they can ever get in the door or
that they will ever even want to get in the door. All because I decided from the very beginning
that they must die, for my pleasure and glory. But while they freeze, I say “I don’t want you
to die. I want you to be saved. In fact, I offered you salvation, but you
didn’t accept my offer. I told you how
to live, but you didn’t do it. You wanted to stay outside, and so
you chose to die. It was your choice, according to your desires.”
It’s lunacy!
But that’s what Calvinism is!
Calvinists will say, “Your heart
(or your Will, your nature, your desires, your choices, etc.) determine whether
you go to heaven or hell” (making it sound like free-will) but they deceptively
fail to add the other half of their theology (which makes it clear that
Calvi-god controls our choices): “But God has predetermined what your heart
will desire, and you can only make the choices it tells you to make.” So deceptive!
And so destructive to the true Gospel!]
People are able to
respond to the gospel, and that response is to reject it (because it is
foolishness to them). (Rhutchin again)
[My note:
This Calvinist is clearly admitting that people (the non-elect and those not
yet regenerated by God) are only able to reject the Gospel, not able to
accept it (until and unless God changes your nature). And yet he makes it sound like it’s a choice,
like they got to choose how to "respond" to the Gospel … when the only option
they had was to reject it. Once again,
some choice!]
Wildswanderer
(non-Calvinist) replies to Rhutchin:
Until you explain how "free will" can have any meaning in a predetermined universe, any talk of man’s will is meaningless. Saying men are influenced by sin when God is already completely controlling them, what does that even mean?
Rhutchin replies:
People
whose actions are foreknown by God act with free will where they choose those
actions according to their desires.
[My note: In Calvinism, “God foreknows” is the same as “God decrees, preplans, ordains, causes.” So he’s saying that we have the “free-will” to choose – and to only choose - what God has decreed, preplanned, ordained, and caused us to choose. Doesn't sound very "free," does it? And do you see the all-important “according to their desires” here? It means “your desires, based on the nature God gave you, determines what you will choose, and you can’t choose anything else unless God gives you a different nature/desire.” An unregenerated person can never desire God or desire to obey God because God didn’t give him the nature (the regenerated one) that desires to do those things. So unregenerated people are only “free” to make unregenerated, unrepentant, sinful choices. Some freedom! Do not trust a Calvinist when they agree that we “freely choose what we want to do.” They mean “But our desires are predetermined by God, we have to obey those desires, and we have no ability to want/choose anything else.” A fancy, obscured way of saying, “God has preplanned and controls everything you think and do, even your sins and unbelief, but He will still hold you responsible for it.”]
And "men are influenced by sin when God is already completely controlling them" means
that God controls but does not coerce any person to an action contrary to their
desire.
[My
note: Once again, notice the reference to people’s “desires.” This “according to their desires” thing makes
all the difference. It’s saying
that God doesn’t have to “coerce” someone to sin because they already “desire”
to sin. This is how they make it seem
like man is more responsible for his sin than he really is (in Calvinism). But, of course, the reason they want to sin in
the first place is because Calvi-god predetermined they would want to sin, and
only sin. He gave them a nature that
only wants to sin.
“Their
desires” is the Calvinist way of hiding the fact that their theology essentially
teaches that God is ultimately responsible for all sin and evil and unbelief. They know this is the inevitable conclusion
of Calvinism, which is why they have to try so hard to bury it as deeply as
they can under layers and layers of gobbledygook or more biblical-sounding ideas, trying to put
various degrees of separation between Calvi-god and sin/evil, to reel
unsuspecting Christians into Calvinism and to trick themselves into thinking that their theology is fine and dandy, that it's biblical, and that it doesn't turn God into a monster. They have
many, many ways of doing this (most of their theology is based on these kinds
of word games, double-layers of meaning, redefined words, smoke-and-mirrors, and double-talk), and “according to their desires”
is one of them. It makes it seem like
man is responsible for his choices (because he “desired” to sin), while hiding
the fact that Calvi-god determined the sinful desires he would have, never
giving him a chance to have any other desires.
(If you have to try that hard to twist the Bible to make it fit
your theology, you should know something is wrong!)
It’s
deceptive, manipulative, God-dishonoring hogwash! And this is how they trap people! You have to know their language and their
tricks to see through their lies and deceptions, to understand what they’re really
saying.]
Farther down in the
comment section, Wildswanderer comments:
Predetermined means they only have
one choice, the one God chose for them.
Rhutchin
replies:
Predetermined means that a
person’s strongest desire determines that which he chooses. To say that God also chooses means that God
does not intervene to prevent that choice.
[My
note: “Predetermined, in Calvinism, means that a person’s strongest desire - which
was predetermined by and given to him by Calvi-god - determines that which he
chooses, and he could never choose anything else because Calvi-god didn't give him the desire to choose anything else.” This is what I have been
saying all along. The more you press Calvinists, the more you get to the heart about what they're saying. And – duh! - of course Calvi-god won’t
intervene to prevent the choice that he determined the person would make!]
Wildswanderer replies to Rhutchin:
Dance much? Let me put it this way, if God is predetermining the desire, as the confession states, whose desire is it really? Since Calvinism’s God is the one designing your mind, and he has determined that the non-elect individual’s mind and heart will never accept him, just how ridiculous is it to claim that that person has free will? He can choose only one thing in response to God, and that is to reject him.
Rhutchin
replies:
Wildswanderer asks "if God is predetermining the desire, as the confession states, whose desire is it really?"
That God determines the desire means that He exercises absolute control over the desires of people – it does not mean that God causes those desires.
[My note: Huh!?!
God “exercises absolute control” but doesn’t “cause”!?! That’s nonsense! Double-talking nonsense! Like saying “I totally controlled the color my
house is painted, but I didn’t cause it to be the color it is.” Yeah, sure, makes perfect sense! (Trying to pin Calvinists down - to get them to admit what their theology really teaches - is like trying to wrestle a greased pig. They've got a multitude of ways of wriggling and slipping from your grasp, so that they don't have to come right out and admit that "Yes, in Calvinism, God causes you to sin and to reject Him and to go to hell. You have no free-will. God has preplanned and controls everything. And so nothing really matters anyway because we can't do anything to affect what happens or to change the outcome.")]
Then, "Since God is the one designing your mind, and he has determined that the non-elect individuals mind and heart will never accept him, just how ridiculous is it to claim that that person has free will?"
God designed people in His image. This means, among other things, that people
have the ability to gather information, learn from their environment, think
logically, have wants and desires and choose how to satisfy their wants and
desires. The person, because of Adam’s
sin, is born with a corrupt heart and seeks to satisfy selfishly his wants and
desires. God did not make his heart
corrupt but decreed that the person inherit Adam’s nature as corrupted by his
sin. Thus, a person is born a slave of
sin and therefore not free, but within the confines of that slavery to sin, he
is able to pursue freely his selfish desires.
[My
note: Say what!?! God did not make his heart corrupt ... but He "decreed that the person inherit Adam's nature as corrupted by his sin"? So ... in other words ... God made his heart corrupt. It's as simple as that. (But Calvinists use a lot of words to run you in circles so that you're not sure what they're really saying, and you end up just nodding your head, going "Uh, yeah, okay, I get it, I guess. I mean, you must know what you're talking about because you sound so smart and sure of yourself. I guess I'm just too simple-minded to understand it, so I'll just trust you.") And did you catch the part about a “slave to sin” only being “free” to pursue sin? And the only way out of this slavery, in Calvinism, is for
God to change your heart. And He will
only do that if He chose you to be saved.
Everyone else is doomed to be a slave to sin forever, being “free”
to only choose sin. Some freedom! “Free” to pick only one thing from only one
option available to you. Or as Br.d. (another
non-Calvinist commenter) likes to say, using Henry Ford’s quote about the early
Ford vehicles: “You can have any color … as long as it’s black!”]
Then, "He can choose only one thing in response to God and that is to reject him."
That is because he is hostile to God and desires only to reject God.
[My
note: Because, in Calvinism, God determined he would desire only to reject Him. And Calvinists still call that a “choice.”]
Br.d. (non-Calvinist) replies to Rhutchin:
Rhutchin
says "That God determines the desire means that He exercises absolute control
over the desires of people – it does not mean that God causes those desires."
Calvin’s god first conceives those sinful desires millennia before the person is born and then renders them certain as that person’s unavoidable fate – but he doesn’t “cause” them – yeah right! 😉
Wildswanderer replies to
Rhutchin:
If embracing a direct
contradiction works for you, have at it. If I exercise absolute control over someone’s
desire, then, yes, I choose for them what they can want and what they can’t. Anyone with an iota of common sense can see
that truth, but you have to deny it because of a silly Calvinist contradiction
caused by a mangled reading of scripture.
Rhutchin says "Thus, a person is
born a slave of sin and therefore not free, but within the confines of that
slavery to sin, he is able to pursue freely his selfish desires."
Calvinism’s God: "I created you for
hell, but look on the bright side, you still get cucumbers!"
No thanks. I’ll stick with the loving God of scripture
who really does desire everyone’s salvation.
Further
down, Rhutchin says:
[God] has given people all they need to decide freely to serve Him. Should a person decide freely not to serve God, then God is under no obligation to save that person.
[My note: Sure, Calvi-god has “given people all they need to
decide to freely serve him,” but he knows that only the elect (those he
regenerates) can/will want to serve him.
Only the elect are given the desires to serve him, and therefore only
the elect will “freely” decide to serve him, "according to their desires." But salvation is an empty, false offer for
the non-elect because Calvi-god prevents them from desiring him and from
accepting his offer of salvation. They are
only “free” to choose to reject him. And
yet Rhutchin deceptively words it “should a person decide freely not to serve God”
… as if their fate wasn’t already determined by Calvi-god, as if they freely
made their own choices without outside influence (control) from Calvi-god, and
as if they really had a choice to do anything differently than what Calvi-god
predetermined for them. So deceptive! Giving the illusion that Calvinists believe
in free-will when, in reality, they believe Calvi-god predetermined,
preplanned, and causes everything to happen exactly as it does.]
No person has any complaint against God.
[My note: Well, of
course not! Especially since Calvi-god
controls our thoughts and desires.
Therefore, we don’t really have a complaint against God, because
any complaint we have would be because he caused us to have
it. Therefore, Calvi-god really just has
complaints against himself. So yes, I
agree: “No person has any complaint against God.”]
Wildswanderer replies:
One
of my biggest frustrations with the Calvinist God is his dishonesty. One of the first things I ever heard a Calvinist
say that really disturbed me was that God creates some people solely to damn
them. [My note: My Calvinist pastor said
something similar, that “God loves people, but the Bible is clear that
He doesn’t love everyone and that He doesn’t love everyone equally. In His love, He chose to save some people,
but He chose to predestine the rest to hell.” (paraphrased, but almost an exact
quote)] Being raised Wesleyan,
I knew that was wrong but didn’t really know how to express that at the time. This double-dealing God is like a mobster who
smiles in your face and promises reward, then stabs you in the back. And he acts nothing like Jesus.
Fromoverhere (non-Calvinist) replies to Wildswanderer:
The last part is the key - in what
way does this resemble Jesus? Did they
forget that Christ is on earth as the very image of God? Christ is constantly inviting people (rich
young ruler) ‘follow me’ and they don’t. So if He has really all along designed them
for damnation, what kind of an insincere lie is that ‘invitation’?
Rhutchin
rhetorically asks:
What is the difference between "God
creates some people solely to damn them" and "God creates some people knowing
they will reject Christ"?
[My
note: To a Calvinist, these are the same thing.
It doesn’t make a difference to them if the non-elect were created for
hell or if God simply let them choose to reject Christ and go to hell. They think that since God knew it would all end
up the same, then there is no difference between causing and allowing. But if they word it the second way, it's to avoid
saying it the first way. Because it
sounds “better” that way and obscures what they really mean.
But as I
replied to one Calvinist who asked what the difference is between God causing something
or simply allowing something since it all ends up the same anyway:
“What’s
the difference between a God who allows someone to make their own choice to
rape and kill, and who punishes them for their choice … and a God who causes
someone to rape and kill, with no option to do anything differently, but who
then punishes them for raping and killing?
What’s the difference between a God who genuinely offers salvation to all
people, who lets us make our choice about if we want Him in our lives or not, and
who then allows us to face the consequences of our choice … and a God who predestines
our eternities and choices, who causes unbelievers to be unbelievers, who never
gives unbelievers a chance to seek/find Him or to find salvation, and who then
punishes unbelievers in hell for being the unbelievers He caused them to
be? If you can’t see a difference, what
does that say about your view of God and the Gospel? Either that, or you’re just not thinking
about it carefully enough.”]
Wildswanderer replies:
The
answer is obvious. A sincere offer can’t
be made if God predetermines the outcome. The question doesn’t make sense
unless you are assuming God’s foreknowledge somehow determines a person’s
response. [My note: And that’s exactly what
Calvinists do. They assume that God
foreknowing everything that will happen is the same as Him “ordaining/decreeing”
it, which, in Calvinism, is the same as
preplanning/causing it to happen.
Now consider how that theology fits with these verses: Hosea 8:4,
Isaiah 30:1, Jeremiah 19:5, Acts 14:16, 1 Samuel 23:10-14, 1 Samuel 13:13-14, 1
Kings 20:42. I mean, think about
it. Seriously.] I guess you either get it or you don’t. As has been spelled out numerous times, in
your system, God’s decree is prior to his decision to create. For Arminians, God hates sin; for Calvinists,
God decreed every sin. For Arminians,
God allows people to reject him but desires their salvation; for Calvinists,
God decreed most people to reject him and created them for that purpose. Since you insist God can’t know the future
without decreeing it….
Rhutchin replies:
If God knows the future, then that future has been decreed, and because God is sovereign, He necessarily decrees all things – no one else can, as no one else is sovereign.
[My note: In Calvinism, God doesn't just know what will happen in the future and then "decree" that it will happen, "allowing" it to happen. No! In Calvinism, He first decrees (plans) what will happen in the future ... and then He knows it will happen (because He planned it) ... and then He causes it to happen the way He planned it.
I have no problem with God "decreeing" things if it means that God knew what would happen and chose to allow it to happen. I believe God, in His sovereign control, sometimes allows things to happen and sometimes causes things to happen, but He never causes our sin or unbelief. He gave us the option of sinning or not sinning, and He allows us to sin, if that's our choice. And since He knows the future, He knows what we will choose and how He can work it into His plans. But He doesn't cause us to do the things He commands us not to do or prevent us from doing the things He commands us to do. Because if He did, He would be an unjust, untrustworthy God and the cause of sin and evil, which would make Him no better than Satan.
(If you start with a wrong definition of "sovereign" - that God has to actively preplan/cause/control all that happens, or else He can't be God - then your theology will be wrong from the beginning and you'll end up twisting the Bible to make it fit your wrong views. And before you bring up "But God hardens people's heart in the Bible," let me say that, in the original Greek, this word "hardens" is retribution. It's a punishment for first hardening your own heart and resisting God. Essentially, it's God giving you what you want, permanently: your sin, a life without Him. But make no mistake, you chose it first.)
However, when a Calvinist says "decrees," they mean God wanted it to happen, preplanned it, and actively brings it about, even sin, and nothing different could have happened. Big difference! The thing you have to be careful about with Calvinists is that they use the same words but have very different definitions. That's how they trap people - because we think we're on the same page, that we're talking about the same thing, and we don't realize we're not until it's too late.]
Wildswanderer
replies:
If God is sovereign, then he can
create a future where free choices shape that future. He could, if he wished, start a world where he
did not control any of man’s actions. What
we are actually shown in scripture is a combination of man’s actions and Gods
actions shaping history.
Br.d. responds to Rhutchin’s question of “What is the difference between ‘God creates some people
solely to damn them’ and ‘God creates some people knowing they will reject
Christ’?”:
The difference is the first
statement is clear and not deceptive. But
the second statement is equivocal and misleading and therefore deceptive
because it strategically hides two facts of Calvinism:
1) Obviously “they will reject
Christ” – Calvin’s god allows them no alternative possibility.
2) Obviously he knows he has
fated them to reject Christ – and he knows he does not allow them to DO
OTHERWISE.
The second statement is duplicitous
on both points and that’s why it is dishonest.
Rhutchin
replies:
In other words, we could write
these this way:
1) Obviously “they will reject
Christ” – and Calvin’s god will pass over them.
2) Obviously he knows he has
fated them to reject Christ – he knows he will pass over them.
[My note: “Pass over them” is the Calvinist’s sneaky, deceptive way of hiding
what their theology really teaches – that God created the non-elect specifically
for hell and gave them no chance to be saved.
But “pass over them” makes it sound like it’s not that He created
them for hell but simply that He didn’t choose to rescue them from the
punishment their sins “deserve.” He
“passed over them” instead of rescuing them like He did the elect. It’s a way to make it sound like the
non-elect deserved the punishment they got, that they brought it on themselves,
and God simply allowed it to happen.
When in reality, in Calvinism, God predetermined they would be
unbelieving sinners who are only capable of sinning and rejecting Him. Because He predestined them for hell. For His pleasure and glory. And yet Calvinists try to cover it up,
saying, “We don’t say God predestines people to hell; He just didn’t pick them for
heaven.” Yeah right!]
Br.d. replies:
Thank you rhutchin for further
exemplifying that equivocal/misleading/dishonest double-speak (Calvinism’s
*AS-IF* language).
Obviously Calvin’s god will ‘pass
over them’ – given he fated them to be passed over. – DUH!
Or it can be written using
Calvinism’s *AS-IF* language
1) Calvin’s god “passes over
them” *AS-IF* he didn’t fate them to be passed over.
2) And *AS-IF* he wasn’t the
one who fated them to ‘reject him’.
More great examples of Calvinist double-speak, rhutchin – thanks. 😉
Later on, Br.d. comments: In Calvinism, the ONLY ‘freedom’ given is the freedom to do ONLY what Calvin’s god determines – and NO freedom to DO OTHERWISE. This is the second time you [Rhutchin] lied by omission. It must be getting easier for you.
Rhutchin replies:
God determines that people do exactly that which they want. If a person cannot do otherwise, it is not because God prohibits him doing otherwise but because the person does not want to do otherwise. God, by His omniscience, knows the heart of the person and knows the sin (generally speaking) that they want to commit. God does nothing to prohibit a person pursuing the sin he loves. God does not force the person to do otherwise.
[My note: “That which they want.” There’s that “desire” again. But he conveniently (and deceptively) fails to mention that Calvi-god determines that they get the nature that can only desire sin. So Calvi-god first determines that they only have sinful desires, and then he “lets” them sin (doing nothing to stop them), as if it was really their choice all along.]
In a different string of comments:
Rhutchin comments:
Fromoverhere writes, "Then [Calvinists] say that God has two wills….. the one He tells men not to do and the one He makes them do."
Another example of FOH snoozing in class. God does have two wills. His will is to give people freedom to choose whether they will choose freely to serve Him. It is also God’s will to save some from among those who choose freely not to serve Him. Yet, God does not force, impel, or coerce anyone either to serve Him or to accept His offer of salvation.
[My note: Calvi-god doesn’t have to “force” the elect to serve him or accept the offer of salvation because he gives them (and not the non-elect) the nature which desires to serve him and be saved, which makes them “want” to do it themselves. This is not unlike an ogre in a fairy-tale giving a woman a love potion that makes her “want” to love him. If – under the spell of the potion - she “wants” to marry him, then he doesn’t have to “force” her to do it. But how Calvinists don’t see this as “forcing, impelling, or coercing,” I’ll never know! I guess they’re okay with brain-washed, mind-controlled people who ultimately have no real influence over their choices. And I guess they'd have to be; they're Calvinists.]
To the one (non-elect), He gives His commands and says, “Choose what you will do.” [My note: While causing them to be unable to do it!] To the other (the elect), he removes their spiritual blindness, so they can see an irresistible Christ.... I have given you the benefit of the doubt in saying that you were snoozing and can be clueless, at times, about Calvinist doctrine. I guess I should be saying that you stayed awake and now purposely distort Calvinist doctrine.
[My note: What Calvinists call "distorting, misrepresenting Calvinist doctrine" is what we call "uncovering what their theology really teaches by ripping off the sugar-coating, the deceptive layers they wrap around their heretical Calvinist theology in their efforts to make it sound biblical." They don't like it when we cut past their deceptive, manipulative, round-about, nonsensical disguises and tell it like it really is! They depend on those layers of disguises to believe in and spread their Calvinism.]
Br.d. replies:
The interesting thing is this Calvinist actually believes people can be taken-in by that double-speak. The only freedom Calvin’s god gives people is the freedom to think/say/do what he determines them to think/say/do. He gives them NO freedom to DO OTHERWISE.
Rhutchin replies:
What God has determined is that the wicked be free to think/say/do whatever they want [My note: And remember who controls their wants, their desires!] – God even tells us in the Scriptures what they will think/say/do.
Br.d. replies:
Wonderful! More great examples of Calvinist double-speak. :-]
Everyone at SOT101 already knows – in Calvinism people are ONLY free to think/say/do what Calvin’s god determines them to think/say/do – and he does not allow them to think/say/do OTHERWISE. That Calvin’s god also determines what they *WANT* – is a logical equation an elementary school student can calculate. But the Calvinist tries to present things Calvin’s god determined *AS-IF* he didn’t determine them. This follows the instructions of John Calvin who teaches his disciples that EVERYTHING is determined IN EVERY PART. But the Calvinist is to - quote – ‘go about his office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.’ Another good lesson in Calvinist double-speak. :-]
Fromoverhere adds:
For Calvinists,
God determines everything. Period. Double full stop. Then later they say He only “does not stop”
man from doing what he would naturally do. These comment pages on every topic of this
blog are full of this nonsensical stuff which does not help the discussion at
all. Only the blind determination (no
pun intended!) of a Calvinist who comes to the Bible with presuppositions will
continue to double-down on this and repeatedly say “nothing to see here.” That is why I make no further effort to
respond to that nonsensical position. There
is just nothing further to say.
In
Calvinism, A = A, and not-A = A. Whatever.
I say let
the Bible speak! When God was
imploring/asking men (throughout the Bible) to turn/repent/return/resist He
meant it!!! They could have! Cain could have listened to God speaking
directly to him….
…..If you
do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is
crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.
The
Calvinist preaches, by all of his theology, that this invitation by God (in
Genesis– foundational book!) was insincere and just a mockery to Cain. Why even respond to these Calvinist folks who
quote the Bible with ‘gotchas’ (usually the same 40-50 verses) but ignore so
much of it!
Rhutchin
comments:
Br.d writes, "in Calvinism people are ONLY free to think/say/do what Calvin’s god determines them to think/say/do – and he does not allow them to think/say/do OTHERWISE."
God’s determination is that people
be free to act consistent with their wants and desires. God may restrict what a person is able to
think/say/do, and this is to restrain the sin they would do.
Then Br.d. says, ‘That Calvin’s god
also determines what they *WANT*’
However, God does not cause that which they want.
[My note: The Calvinist Chain of Responsibility (my term, not theirs) goes something like this: God predetermines that the non-elect will go to hell ... He gives the non-elect the unrepentant sin-nature that can never desire salvation ... their sin-nature determines that they have sinful desires (and only sinful desires) ... the sinful desires make them "want" to sin (and only to sin) ... and so they "choose" to sin. And so since God - in their theological construct - is a couple steps removed from people's "wants," this is why a Calvinist can say that God doesn't "cause" them to want what they do. Pathetic!]
This is determined by
their sin nature which God determined should be free to desire sin. [My note: “Free to desire
sin!” Ha ha ha! “Free” to desire to sin … and only to
sin! Some freedom!]
Then Br.d. says, "the Calvinist tries to present things Calvin’s god determined *AS-IF* he didn’t determine them."
Calvinism clearly says that God determines/ordains all things. The distinction is that God can determine all things without directly causing all things.
Then Br.d. says, "But the Calvinist is to -quote- ‘go about his office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part.’’
Bad advice from Calvin. Hopefully, Calvinists don’t follow that advice.
Br.d. replies:
This is a great example of Calvinist double-talk through duplicity. Calvin’s god, millennia before people are born, determines their eternal fate. Not only that, he determines every neurological impulse they *CAN* ever have throughout their lifetime. The Calvinist then wants to say that Calvin’s god gives to those he has already fated for damnation a -quote- “OFFER OF SALVATION.” This is a great example of Calvinism’s *AS-IF* speak…. he gives them an OFFER OF SALVATION *AS-IF* he hadn’t already determined their damnation. Notice also how the Calvinist frames the statement – Calvin’s god *CAN* freely chose to save some while passing over others *AS-IF* there is some possibility he doesn’t do exactly that. And Jesus looked at the lawyer who had tempted him and said: "Which one exemplifies the God of heaven? The one who passed over? Or the Samaritan?"
[My note: Notice all the times the Calvinist Rhutchin (and all Calvinists do this too) tried to say
that God decrees/determines all things, such as sin and evil and unbelief,
without actually “causing” them, such as this comment he made in another post: "Yet, in all that, God does not coerce, compel,
or force either Adam or Eve to eat the fruit. They are able to act in
line with their desires - desires unique to each one and not coerced,
compelled, or forced on them by God." He tries to make it sound like people are
actually really responsible for their choices, that God doesn’t “control” them
or cause them to sin. But here are some other
exact quotes from Rhutchin from various Soteriology 101 posts:
“God does not coerce people to
reject the Gospel; it’s built into their nature.” (Emphasis in
all these quotes added by me.)
"God CONTROLS ALL THINGS because He is sovereign over His creation. God ORIGINIATES ALL THINGS because He created in Genesis 1, God specified and enforced the penalty of Adam's sin, and God then CAUSES each person born to Adam TO HAVE A CORRUPTED HEART and to lack faith [My note: Yet remember earlier when Rhutchin said "God did not make his heart corrupt"!?!] ... NOTHING originates outside of God and NOTHING is outside of God's control."
[My note: I agree that nothing is outside of God's control, but the difference is about whether you think God is "in control of everything" or whether He "controls everything." I believe God is in control of everything, which means He watches over everything, knows everything, decides what to cause and what to simply allow and what to not allow and what the consequence will be and how to work everything into His plans, even the things He allowed us to choose to do that He didn't want. This is how He can be in control over all without actively controlling all. However, a Calvinist believes God must actively plan/cause/control all that happens, even sin, or else He isn't a sovereign, all-powerful God. There is no room in Calvinism for a God who simply allows things to happen. Therefore, God must actively control all sin (in Calvinism) ... or else He isn't the God they think He is. (BINGO! That's the answer right there: He isn't the God they think He is! They are wrong in their view of Him, but can't see it or admit it. And so instead of changing their wrong views, they change the Bible to fit their wrong views.) "In control of everything" or "controlling everything" - small difference in wording but a huge difference in meaning!]
"That which originates
people's thoughts, desires, actions is the sin nature combined with a lack of
faith. That condition WAS DETERMINED BY GOD and enforced when He creates
each person." [My note: They say this kind of stuff while denying that God (in Calvinism) controls our desires and causes us to sin. Do you see what Br.d means by Calvinist double-speak?]
"And God DETERMINES all
outside AND INSIDE factors by creating the system in the first place."
"God MADE PEOPLE IMPERFECT,
and people's imperfection produces false perceptions."
"God ... enforces the decree
that all people are born with a sin nature and without faith."
"God predetermined you to choose that which you desired to choose."
"Had God not decreed it, Satan could not have entered the garden, Eve could not have been tempted to eat the fruit and would not have offered the fruit to Adam, and Adam would not have eaten the fruit. IT ALL BEGINS WITH GOD'S DECREE."
[My note: And in Calvinism, if God decreed it then He orchestrates it, making sure it happens, causing it to happen, even sin and evil. And so everything that has happened, every sin and evil, is because God decreed that it would happen before the world began. He planned it, wanted it, and made it happen. In Calvinism. Whereas I would say that there are many things God doesn't want to have happen (sin and evil), but He allows it to happen because He knew how He could work it into His plans, for eternal good. So it's not - for example - that God made people be wicked so that they would crucify Jesus or that He made Assyria be wicked so that they would attack Israel (as my Calvinist pastor essentially says), but it's that God allowed these people to choose to be the wicked people they wanted to be and, in His foreknowledge of what they would choose, He worked it into His plans. This is how they can still be responsible for their wicked choices, but God can still use it and be "in control" over it. Whereas Calvinism says that God had to essentially cause them to be wicked in order to get them to do the wicked things He preplanned for them to do. And then when they can't explain how, in this scenario, God is supposedly not responsible for our sin but holds us accountable for it (for what He decreed, planned, caused, controlled), they say "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Once again, pathetic!]
"God CANNOT BE PASSIVE IN ANYTHING simply because He is God. There is no difference between actively ordaining and actively permitting."
[My note: Has he ever read Acts 14:16: "In the past, he let all nations go their own way"? How can God "let" nations do their own anything if there isn't a degree of passiveness, of Him sitting back and allowing something to happen? I'm not saying He is completely hands-off - He is always watching over all, deciding what to allow or not, when to intervene, what the consequences are, how to work our choices into His plans, etc. - but I am saying that God Himself has decided to give people freedom to a degree, within boundaries, to not micromanage everything that happens. He has chosen to voluntarily restrain Himself, His ability to control everything. Because He doesn't want robots. He wants people who make real choices.
And fyi, when a Calvinist says "ordains," it essentially means "causes," even if they won't admit it. And so therefore, he (and all Calvinists) believe there's no difference between causing and permitting, that if God "permits/allows" something to happen, such as our sins, it's the same thing as Him causing it to happen. But they hide the "causes" under words like "permits, ordains, decrees, foreknows, etc." Yet here he says that God cannot be passive in anything, which means He must be active in everything, as in actively controlling/causing everything. Time and time again, Rhutchin tries to say that Calvinism doesn't teach that God "causes" our sinful desires, choices, and actions. That God just "lets" us sin. But I wonder how a Calvinist god - who "cannot be passive in anything" - can be passive when it comes to our sin. I wonder how a Calvinist god - who "cannot be passive in anything" - can "let" us do anything, as if he isn't actively controlling/causing it. Houston, we have a problem here!]
"It is God who creates man
with a sin nature that desires nothing of God's plan."
Let's hear that again: "It is God who
creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God's plan."
"The corrupted nature of man dictates neurological impulses and guarantees the certainty of those impulses that God decreed. People's desires come from their sin nature and their lack of faith."
[My note: And who did Rhutchin just admit gives us our sin nature? That's right ... "It is God who creates man with a sin nature that desires nothing of God's plan." So if our sin comes from our sinful desires ... and our sinful desires come from our sin nature ... and our sin nature comes right from God (in Calvinism) ... then ultimately our sins do indeed come from God. Regardless of all the layers they add to try to separate God from causing sin, it all comes back to God (Calvinism's god), the "originator, determiner, and active controller of all things," according to Calvinists. "Oh, but we Calvinists don't say God causes sin." That's right ... you don't say it! You hide it! Your theology undeniably teaches it, but you hide it, refusing to come out and say it. So deceptive! But honestly, with Calvinists, all you have to do is get them to explain their theology more and more, and they’ll end up digging their own hole, uncovering their own contradictions, lies, deceptions, and heresies. Never trust the first thing a Calvinist says. Dig deeper. Make them explain more.]
"More simply, God gives people
a sin nature and withholds faith from them."
[My note: Oh, I get it now!
Calvi-god doesn't really cause us to sin; He just gives us our "sin nature" that
is full of ONLY SINFUL DESIRES, that leads to us ONLY being able to
"choose" sin, and that can NEVER lead to us choosing to do right
unless Calvi-god changes our nature. Yep,
this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than “coercing, compelling, or forcing” people to
sin! Totally gets Calvi-god off the hook
for sin, doesn’t it!?!
Hogwash!]
From the Soteriology 101 post "5 Reasons Why I Stayed Out Of Calvinism":
JTLEOSALA (another dogmatic Calvinist) responds to a quote from TS00 (an anti-Calvinist a lot like me, who said “There is simply no logical explanation for God calling men to do what they cannot but do. It is even more reprehensible to call men to do, nay, command them to do, what they truly cannot do.”) with this reply:
God’s thoughts are higher than man’s. God works in so many ways that we might not fully grasp because we are finite beings and cannot match God’s knowledge.
[My note: Calvinists will try to explain away some of the most horrendous, God-dishonoring aspects of their theology with things like “Oh well, we can’t understand it because God is so far above us. So we just have to accept it. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God anyway? He is the potter and we are the clay. And so doesn’t He have the right to do anything He wants with us?” (Umm … how can we “talk back” to God if God is controlling what we think and say?)
Or as my Calvinist pastor basically said (paraphrased), “How can God be sovereign over everything that happens (meaning “preplan and cause everything that happens”) but still hold us accountable for our sins? I don’t know. But the Bible teaches both these ‘truths’ (he calls them ‘truths’) with no tension, and so I have to humbly accept them both as true, even if I can’t understand it.” (I, however, wanted to jump up and yell, “I get it! I understand it! The problem is that you define sovereignty wrong! That’s why you can’t understand it!”)
Excuse me, but if your theology essentially teaches that God is the ultimate cause of evil (even if you won't come right out and say it), that He prevents people from doing the things He commands us to do (believing in Him, obeying Him, loving Him, seeking Him), that He causes people to do the things He commands us not to do (sin, rebel, disobey), that He says His Will is one thing but He has a secondary “secret Will” that He causes to happen which contradicts what He first told us, that He is glorified by evil and putting people in hell, that He punishes people for being the unbelievers He predestined them to be … then you’d better understand it! You’d better have a rock-solid answer for that kind of Bible-defacing, Gospel-flipping, God-dishonoring garbage! Because “we can’t understand it, so we just have to accept it” doesn’t cut it!]
(JTLEOSALA goes on): My statement that "Most of the time God deals with man in a natural way. Some other times, He may decide to override man’s will, but the final dead-end result, God always get what He wants" is Biblical. Scripture supports this idea that God determines all and God’s allowing for man to use his will to deviate becomes part of His decree and does not hinder His final dead-end decrees. Br.D gets mad at this and charges the Calvinists with ‘double speak’, ‘as-if’, etc., but I tell you all of these charges are nothing to me.
JTLEOSALA
says: "Scripture supports this idea that God determines all and God’s allowing
for man to use his will to deviate becomes part of His decree and does not
hinder His final dead-end decrees. Br.D
gets mad at this and charges the Calvinists with ‘double speak’, ‘as-if’, etc."
It's too funny
that JTL can't see the double-speak in what he just said there! To paraphrase what he said ...
"Scripture supports the idea that God determines all things and that God
also allows man to use his will to deviate from what God determines, but it's
okay because God decreed it and it all ends up the same anyway." The Calvinist basically says, "God
determined that man would deviate from what God determined. God decrees that we disobey His decrees. But we don't use double-speak."
This is a very
clear example of self-defeating, contradictory double-speak. Because if man could deviate from God's
predetermined Plan A, then Plan A was never really predetermined, was it? And if God predetermined that man would deviate
to a Plan B, then it wasn't really a deviation, was it? If God predetermined it all along (as
Calvinists say "God determines all things")? And so there wasn't really a Plan A, was
there? If God decrees that we disobey
His decrees, then what's the thing He really decreed: the first thing He
decreed for us or His decree that we disobey His decree? If our disobedience of His decree IS His
decree then it's not really a decree, is it, or a deviation from his decree
(disobedience)?
According to JTL, God determined Plan A while
at the same time determining man's deviation to Plan B. God plans that A will happen and plans that A
won’t happen. How is this possible? And how is it not nonsensical
double-speak?
It's like saying it was God's predetermined plan that Adam and Eve would not eat the fruit (the thing He commanded them) and that it was God's predetermined plan that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit (what He supposedly "caused" to happen, disobedience to His command, His first predetermined plan). So then what did God really determine then? What was His true Will - the command He gave them or the thing that happened?
Calvinists would have to say that God willed that they didn't eat the fruit but also that they did eat the fruit. That they didn’t sin and that they did. That they obeyed and that they disobeyed. Because if Calvinists say His only Will was that they did eat the fruit, then He lied by telling them He didn't want them to eat the fruit. But if Calvinists say that His only Will was that they don't eat the fruit, then He would have supposedly "caused" something to happen that He didn't Will (and according to Calvinism, everything that happens is God's Will - preplanned, ordained, and orchestrated by God). And so therefore, to maintain their Calvinist theology, the only way out of this conundrum is to say that they were both His Will, that He has a spoken Will (what He commands us) and a secondary "hidden" Will that contradicts His first Will (where He causes us to break His commands). Yet this gets them into an even bigger conundrum because it totally demolishes God's character. Yet how do they try to get out of this one? By saying that it's okay for God to do this because He is "sovereign" and far above our understanding. "We can't understand it, so we just have to accept it. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
So ... Calvi-god tells mankind that his Will is one thing while having another Will that wants them to do the opposite. In Calvinism, they are both His "Will" (one spoken, one hidden). And they totally and irreconcilably contradict each other. And so I have to ask ... How can a god like that ever be trusted? How can a Calvinist ever trust Calvi-god's word, his commands, when he might secretly want them to do (and predetermined that they would do) the opposite of what he said? He tells us not to murder. But apparently, in all murder cases, he wanted it to happen, willed it to happen, decreed it to happen, and caused it happen. He doesn't want married people to have affairs, but if it happened then it must have been His Will, right? His hidden, secondary Will? He doesn't want us to steal or abuse people or worship other gods. Or does he? How can we know, when obedience and disobedience are both his Will? When good and evil are both his Will?
"But," once again, "it's okay because God is sovereign and can do what He
wants. His ways are higher than our
ways. We don't have to understand it; we
just have to accept it. Who are you, O
man, to talk back to God, anyway?"
And I say, "Yeah,
that totally explains it and solves the problem!"
[Note the sarcasm. And of course, I do believe in God’s sovereignty, but not in the way Calvinists redefined it. They essentially believe (but hide) that God has to preplan/cause/control all that happens or else He isn’t a sovereign God, that He must use His power all the time to control everything (even our thoughts, choices, actions, sins) or else He isn’t God. (And this is how they trap people into Calvinism, accusing them of limiting God’s sovereignty, of saying that man is more powerful than God, and of "saving themselves" if they believe in free-will.)
But sovereign simply means that God is the highest power and authority there is, but He gets to decide how to use that power and authority. And the Bible clearly shows that He has chosen to voluntarily limit His use of power and authority to a certain degree, in order to give men real choices, among real options, that have real consequences. But no matter what we choose, He is big enough and wise enough and powerful enough to work it all into His plans.
Calvinism actually limits God, making Him only able to handle what He Himself causes. But the real God of the Bible is so much more complex, powerful, capable, and wiser than Calvinists give Him credit for, because He can handle everything and work it all together into His plans, even the things He didn’t want, didn’t plan, and didn’t cause.]
And finally, a comment from a guy named Jim, from the post "Calvinism: The Greatest God-Sent Delusion Of All Time" from the blog, Discerning the World:
"I’ve always said that Calvinism might be true. But if it is, God is an evil monster for the exact reasons you’ve stated. That’s why I’ve rejected it.
We can use a human
analogy to demonstrate this. A couple
decides to have 10 kids. Before they
start, they also plan to lock them in the house and burn them alive. Except for one. They will save the 4th child born.
They then proceed to tell all their friends and family how merciful and kind they were to save the one child. They also proclaim how much they loved the other 9 children who died. Would the world recognize them as loving, kind, and merciful parents? Or would they face universal condemnation as sick, twisted and evil people worthy of death?
The answer is obvious. Yet
we’re to believe a God who does the same thing is full of kindness and mercy
and love? That god may exist, but it
isn’t the God of the Bible."
Well said, Jim! Well said!
