"15 Guidelines for Proper Calvinist Biblical Interpretation"
Steve Sabin (non-Calvinist) wrote this in the comment section of the Soteriology 101 post, Calvinism and Pastoral Care (I made minor changes for clarity, and I added my notes in gray):
“15 Guidelines for Proper Calvinist Biblical Interpretation”
I wish these were written entirely tongue-in-cheek, but they are not. Only in a few instances are they augmented sarcastically. They are essentially distilled from observing the Calvinists that comment here, who undoubtedly acquired those skills through careful mentoring by still others.
1. Begin with appeals to God’s sovereignty and omniscience, carefully and meticulously defined according to Calvinist presuppositions. It is vital to obtain agreement on these definitions [for Calvinists to get other Christians to think they are defining words the same way], allowing you (the Calvinist) to use words like “we” later on – signifying mutual agreement which will eventually lead other Christians to inescapable (Calvinist) conclusions that will derive from these definitions.
[Simply put: Calvinists have secret definitions for terms (wrong definitions, but they think they’re right) but they don’t want you to know it. They want you to think they define the words the same as you, making you think you’re both saying the same thing, that you're on the same team. This will get you on the hook, making you feel little reason to doubt them (Why would you doubt someone who's on the same page as you?), and then they can easily reel you into Calvinism through some skillful questions, before you even realize what’s happening.
Such as … the Calvinist definition of “sovereign” is that God has to actively preplan, cause, control everything, even sin and evil and our thoughts/decisions, or else He isn’t God. And they hook you by getting you to agree with them that “God is sovereign” (but you’re unaware of their hidden, wrong definition). And then they reel you into Calvinism bit by bit, by challenging you and by shaming your belief in free-will by saying things like “Well, if God is sovereign then He can do whatever He wants, right? Even deciding who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. Is He in control or are you in control? Do you think you’re above God, that you’re sovereign over Him? Are you saying there are things outside of His control? Either He controls everything or He controls nothing. If there’s anything He doesn’t control then He’s not an all-powerful, sovereign God, is He? Are you gonna take credit for your salvation, as if you’re powerful enough to save yourself? Who are you, O man, to talk back to Him? Etc.”
You get sucked into this, all because you agreed with them that God is sovereign without knowing their hidden definition. Their follow-up questions are all based on their Calvinist definitions, and they are meant to suck you into Calvinism.
The problem is that if you don’t know their Calvinist definitions or even that they have different definitions from you, then you don’t realize that you should be skeptical of their reasoning, their questions, their presuppositions, and where they are trying to lead you. You won’t know how to debate them - or that you should be debating them - because you think you’re both on the same page (which is exactly what they want you to think), and so you’ll think that their questions are “on track” and make sense – when, in reality, Calvinists are starting with flawed, unbiblical definitions from the start.
(Yes, God is sovereign and all-powerful, but "sovereign" isn't about how He uses His power or about actively controlling everything. It's about being in a position of supreme power and control, but He gets to decide how He wants to use His power and how He wants to control things. And He has chosen, as seen all throughout the Bible, to work in two ways: either by causing things, but never sin or evil or the things He commands us not to do because that would make Him unjust and untrustworthy ... or by just allowing things, knowing what we will choose to do and how to work it into His plans. He has chosen to voluntarily limit His use of power, to give people the right to make real choices that have real consequences. And in His sovereignty and wisdom, He knows how to work it all for good. This is how He has chosen to exercise His sovereignty. Calvinists should be very afraid of telling God how God has to be/act in order to be God!)
If you start from the wrong Square One, then every step you take after that is wrong. If you let a Calvinist define the terms – if you agree with them without questioning their definitions – then you’re already lost, unknowingly and unwittingly on your way to becoming a Calvinist just like them. (And the pats on the back they give you for being “so smart” for grasping their theology and for being “so humble” to accept such “difficult teachings” will further ensnare you, making you feel like part of the elite, “upper level” of Christians. And that’s going to be very hard to give up, to the point that you won’t want to notice the “red flags” that pop up in your mind or the ways the Bible contradicts what they’re teaching you. The more you study Calvinism, the more cult-like it gets.)]
2. Careful adherence to #1 will allow the appropriate definition of meticulous, molecular-level, “whatsoever comes to pass” determinism to be established. This is likewise crucial. Saying that God merely “allows” or “permits” things to happen is strictly excluded under the “doctrines of grace,” but you are free to ignore such requirements if it will allow softer language to be used (so that you can trick other Christians into thinking you believe in free-will), until such time as the special classes (Calvinist indoctrination classes, using books such as Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology) can be taught for the willing participant that wants full-strength coffee. This coffee has been known to kill subjects that are not suitably prepared, just as a marathon requires extensive preparation and training to avoid cardiac arrest or other medical incident.
[Calvinists have to reel in other Christians bit by bit so that they don’t scare them off, even if it means using terms that sound “free-will.” In fact, they use as many “free-will” terms as possible to cover for their belief that there is no free-will, that God actively preplans, controls, causes all things, even sin, so that other Christians don’t realize what they really believe until it’s too late to get out. Such as, they say that God "foreknew" we would sin and that He chose to "let" us sin, deciding to "not stop us" from doing the sin we "want" to do - when what they really mean is that God preplanned our sin, that He orchestrates/causes/controls our sin, that He predetermined the sinful desires we would have so that we would commit the sins He predestined for us, and that He chose not to stop what He predetermined would happen. Very different!]
3. Remember always that TULIP has been established as unassailable doctrine, distilled into five petals, tested and refined over the last 450 years. It is not necessary to revisit any of the petals because they have been established irrefutably. Any passage that appears to contradict the “doctrines of grace” only “appears” to be contradictory. Taken in its proper context, it will always be perfectly consistent with the “doctrines of grace.”
[Calvinists believe their TULIP is the gospel. In fact, some Calvinists will boldly say "Calvinism IS the gospel." Umm ... no ... the gospel is the gospel! In Calvinism, the gospel is always filtered through TULIP, and any verse that contradicts TULIP is disregarded, twisted, or considered to only “appear” to contradict it. And about any unexplainable contradiction in their theology, they simply say, “Well, God’s understanding is higher than ours. We don’t have to understand it, we just have to accept it. Who are we to think we can – or should – figure out God fully? Who are we to question Him?” (If your theology makes God the cause of the sin He tells us not to do, then you'd better understand it! Because you will have to answer for it and for spreading it to others.)
The thing is, each point of TULIP supports/is built on the other points, so that it all holds together tightly ... but it's all built on unbiblical ideas from the very beginning. It started from the wrong Square One. So no matter how much each point supports the others, no matter how self-cohesive is it, it's all wrong because it's built on the wrong foundation, on unbiblical presuppositions. But because each TULIP petal flows into and affirms the next, if you let them convince you to buy into one of their TULIP petals, then you're hooked, on your way to becoming a Calvinist.
FYI: They usually get you through their first point: Total depravity. We all agree that humanity is fallen and is separated from God, that we need a Savior to save us, but Calvinists don't just mean this. Their "total depravity" is really "total inability." They mean we are so depraved that we are completely unable to think about God, want God, seek God, or choose God unless God causes us to. And He will only cause the elect to do these things; everyone else is predestined for hell. This is very different than the idea that humanity is depraved, which we would all agree on. But it's how they hook you - because what Christian is going to dare say we are not depraved? And so when you agree with them that we are depraved, they skillfully lead you to their Calvinist conclusions, all because you didn't know their hidden definition of "depraved" (just like what they did with "sovereign").]
4. Acts is a descriptive book – not prescriptive. Deflect most anything offered from Acts as merely describing what occurred – not prescribing future practices. However, Peter’s sermons are perfectly fine as examples of what all salvation messages must consist of: wrath and coming judgement.
5. All epistles were written to believers. Therefore, the ultimate antecedent (to the church at ___________________, to the saints at ____________________, to the believers at ___________________) should be universally applied whenever the words “we” or “us” are encountered. This will allow concepts like “love,” “mercy,” “faith,” and the like discussed in said epistles to be restricted to believers. [Basically, even if the verse is talking only about Jesus’s disciples or Jews or particular Christians of that day, Calvinist apply it to all believers of all time. This allows them to apply verses like the ones about God “choosing” who would be Jesus’s disciples to their idea that God also “chooses” who will become believers in Jesus, the “elect.”]
The reader may also, at his option (and this is strongly encouraged) substitute “the Elect” anytime “we” “us” “saints” “believers” and similar terms are encountered. This will allow an additional set of inferences to be forced on the text that might not be otherwise available. However, when any admonitions regarding apostacy or falling away are encountered – or which appear to contradict any of the “doctrines of grace” – you are free to immediately pivot and appeal that the audience is no longer strictly “the Elect” but is rather the hearers of the epistle, which reflects a mix of elect and non-elect. Such statements could not have been directed to the elect for obvious reasons. Thus, rest assured that the epistles were directed to the elect until such time as this becomes inconvenient or illogical. The audience can then seamlessly switch to a mix of elect and non-elect, with the understanding that it is targeting the non-elect.
[When it’s convenient and fits their theology, they will twist any verse they want to be about the “elect.” But if it would contradict their theology, they change it to “Well, that part is addressed to all the people the author was writing to, believers and non-believers. And so that part refers only to the non-believers, the non-elect.” Such as Romans 11:32: “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” In Calvinism, the first “all” means “everybody,” but the second “all” means “only the elect,” because in Calvinism only the elect get God’s mercy.]
6. Words like “whosoever” “all” “any” “world” “the whole world” and the like must be properly exegeted (when it won’t conflict with Calvinism) to explain that they mean “only the elect”. Refer to the “L” in TULIP for emotional support as required. This is extremely important lest the novice become trapped or confused. It also allows the difficulties inherent in the gospels to be circumvented with relative ease.
[When Calvinists read "for God so loved the world," they see "for God so loved all the elect" because - duh! - God only really loves the elect (in Calvinism). So, surely, "the world" just means "the elect." When they read "whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life," they see "the elect" because - duh! - only the elect can/will believe in Him and be saved. They always put on their Calvinist glasses before reading the Bible. They let TULIP, their Calvinist theology, determine how they understand Scripture, instead of letting Scripture determine their theological views. They change or twist Scripture, when needed, until it fits with Calvinism, as much as it can, no matter how many twists they need to make, because "Calvinism is the gospel." And TULIP trumps all!]
7. Parables are not intended to teach doctrine. They are neither literal nor can the secondary and tertiary implications be used to establish meaning, application, and truth. However, when it is convenient and in the occasional instance that a parable aligns nicely with TULIP it may be employed extensively and with all of its nuances and implications – such as the parable of the lost sheep.
8. Because love in the New Testament is mostly spoken of in the epistles as being among the brethren, it is entirely proper and scholarly to restrict this love to only the Elect.
[Calvinist reasoning goes like this: If, in a particular verse, God says He loves those who love/obey Him, it means God only loves those who love/obey Him (the elect, in Calvinism) and, therefore, that He must hate everyone else, in spite of the verses that say God loves the world and wants all to be saved. If a verse says Jesus laid down His life for His sheep, it means only for His sheep, not for anyone else, in spite of the verses that say that Jesus died for all sins of all people. Therefore, using Calvinist reasoning, if I told you that I bought apples when I went to the store, then it must mean that I bought only apples and nothing else. If I told you that I love chocolate ice cream, then it must mean I love only chocolate ice cream and that I hate vanilla, chocolate chip, pistachio, strawberry, rocky road, etc. (Actually, I kinda do hate rocky road, but you know what I mean.)]
9. Remain in the immediate context of the verse for understanding until such time as it does not say what you need it to say. At that time, you are free to appeal elsewhere, even if the epistle you are referring to had not yet been written and available to enlighten the first century reader. (Basically, keep verses in context as long as it supports Calvinism. But when it doesn’t then throw in another verse that does, to distract from the part of the first verse that doesn’t. Continue doing this – sampling from the Scriptures you want like a buffet, distracting from the parts you don’t want - until you make it say what you want. A little bait-and-switch always works!)
10. Spend as much time in the New Testament as possible. The parallels and symbolism in the Old Testament are inexact and should be treated primarily like parables (see #7).
11. Whenever broader appeals to the love of God for all men are made by the non-Calvinist, demonstrate that this conflicts with sovereignty and emphasize the importance of sovereignty as carefully laid out in #1. Emphasize that God’s declarations of love are not universal and are mostly directed to Israel in the Old Testament and the Elect in the New Testament. Occasional contradictions can be explained through appeals to Ecclesiastes, sunshine, rain, eating, drinking, merriment, and the satisfaction of a good day’s work. In short, the pleasures of life extended to all people.
[Because a Calvinist knows that God loves “the world” and since they don’t want people thinking it means that God wants the non-elect to be saved or that He sent Jesus to die for them, Calvinists will either say that "the world" means "all the elect" (or "the cosmos," as my Calvi-pastor taught) ... or they will split God’s love into two different types to make it fit with Calvinism. (They have multiple ways of changing what the Bible teaches. That way, if one doesn't trick you, another will.) God loves the elect with a “save your soul” kind of love, but He loves the non-elect with a “gives you food and sunshine while you're on earth (before sending you to hell forever for the sins He made you commit)” kind of love. (If that's love, I'd hate to see hate!)
They also do this with God’s offer of salvation (His call to people): The elect get a call to salvation that they are predestined to accept, but the non-elect get a call they cannot respond to, that they are predestined to reject. And they split Jesus's sacrifice into two effects, saying that His death was sufficient for all but only efficient for some, meaning that His death was enough to cover all sin but that only those people God elected - those He predestined for heaven - will get the saving-effect of His blood; the non-elect are unable to accept Jesus's blood as a sacrifice for their sins. (How is this "sufficient," if the non-elect can't access the sacrificial blood of Jesus? "Sufficient" for what!?! It would be like me saying that the money in my bank account is sufficient enough for you to buy a car, but I refuse to give you access to my money and so you can't buy a car. So what if it's "sufficient" if you can't access it, if it's unavailable to you! It's meaningless! Can Calvinists even hear themselves!?! Fyi: Biblically, Jesus's death is sufficient for all, but the big difference from Calvinism is that it's available for all. Anyone can acquire the saving-effect of His blood if they willingly choose Him as Lord and Savior.) They also say God has two (contradictory) Wills: His revealed Will is that He wants all people to be saved, but His secret Will is that He really wants most people in hell, for His pleasure and glory. (So man is not supposed to be double-minded, according to James 1:8, but it's okay if Calvi-god is!?!)
If you have to split everything into “two different types of …”, when there is no Bible support for it, then you are WRONG!]
12. Emphasize the ways in which a highly restrictive sense of “free will” is compatible with Calvinism and determinism (such as saying that “You’re free to make the choices God determined you would make” and “You’re free to make decisions according to your desires,” without revealing that Calvi-god predestined your desires and that you can only make the decision that your predestined desire told you to make); de-emphasize (or do not mention at all) the ways in which it is incompatible. (Don’t talk about how only being able to choose from one option, how being created to want to choose only that option, and how having no chance or ability to choose anything else other than what God predetermined/forced you to isn’t really free-will at all!) Emphasize the Calvinist reading of Romans 9. De-emphasize passages such as Jer 18 and Ezk 18. The New Testament is the reliable and preferred method of discovering Old Testament meanings.
13. As a prerequisite for giving a fully transparent and comprehensive answer (to someone who’s asking you about your theology), along with all of its implications, the person asking must formulate the question perfectly. Do not volunteer anything other than what is asked. Do not tell outright lies but cleverly conceal the answers in ways that will be readily apparent code to fellow Calvinists – but unobservable to outsiders. For example, if asked whether anyone can be saved, respond with “all who believe in Christ are saved.” (Or respond with “anyone who wants to can be saved,” knowing that what you really mean, underneath it, is “but only the elect can/will want to be saved; the non-elect can never want to be saved.” Or respond with “we freely make the choices we desire to make,” while hiding what you really mean, that God gives us our natures which come with built-in desires that we have to obey and can’t change. Therefore, unregenerated people (the non-elect) will only have sinful desires, which means they can only want to sin/reject God, which means they are only “free” to choose to sin/reject God. But regenerated people (the elect) will desire to be saved, and so they – and only they – are "free" to choose God. We are "free" to choose what our God-given, predetermined desires tell us to choose, and nothing else.] For bonus points, cite one or more of the Five Solas. The word “grace” should be employed frequently, as it has special meaning for the Calvinist allowing the uninitiated to sense nothing unusual in the response while providing a virtual “wink and nod” to fellow Calvinists.
[Calvinists love to call their theology "the doctrines of grace." They go on and on, rapturously, about how abundant and amazing and generous God's grace is. And this all sounds great ... until you realize that what they really mean is "grace is only for the elect, for just a few people out of the whole world, and everyone else was created for damnation, to be hated by God and sent to hell, for His pleasure and His glory." If that's abundant grace, I'd hate to see what a stingy, ungracious God would be like!
For a Calvinist who’s a pro at playing word games and hiding information, see this post [I removed the link, see FYI below] about a pastoral candidate who outright lied - by omission and deflection - when he was asked directly if he is a Calvinist and told he wouldn't be hired if he was. Even though he is a strong 7-point Calvinist, he skillfully played word-games with their definition of Calvinist ... and ended up getting hired. (He says he's a 7-point Calvinist, and yet he "wasn't sure how to answer" them when they asked if he was a Calvinist. And so he asks them to define "Calvinism." And since they only pointed out a couple things that supposedly don't fit for him, he claims that he's not a Calvinist then, by that definition. Even though he identifies himself as a 7-point Calvinist. That's deception - deliberate deception - if ever there was.) He ought to be ashamed of himself, knowing they didn't want a Calvinist pastor but weaseling his way into the pulpit by lying. And he knew he was doing it. And then he brags about it. Shameful! (Interestingly, if you look up his YouTube channel, he calls himself "Saint PJ." I'm not sure what to make of that.)
[FYI, added Oct 2021, I very recently tried to click on this link to read his article again, and instead of being able to see the article, I got a red X and a warning that my connection isn't private and that hackers might be trying to steal my information. Suspicious! This is why I saved a copy of it and wrote thoroughly about what he said, because I expected something like this to happen. In case you want to try to find it, it's at gospelize.me and the article is called "Are you a Calvinist? If you are this interview process is dead right here," written by PJ Tibayan. I did find it in another place though: "Preach the Bible, Not Calvinism". And there is a different version of it on his website: "Are you a Calvinist? If you are this interview process is dead right here.". I may be wrong, but I believe that he has altered posts after I linked to them, which may be why there are two different versions. Maybe there were two versions to begin with, I don't know, but it sure seems to me like they got altered after I linked to them. My comments here will refer to things found in one or the other of his posts. And see this post for my review of his article.]
And what a lie it also is to say that MacArthur is not a Calvinist, when he's a Calvinist of the highest order! And it's not "fighting over terms/words" to figure out if someone is a Calvinist. It's finding out their foundational theological views, which is totally appropriate to do, especially if they are going to be leading your church. I have noticed that it's usually Calvinists who condemn others for "fighting about words," who warn those who disagree or who question them to not be divisive, to put aside "petty differences," to "be unified, like God calls us to be." Of course they are going to do this - they want to take over the church but can't do it if people oppose them, expose them, or leave. Yes, God wants the church to be unified, but not around a false doctrine that destroys God's character, flips the gospel upside down, minimizes Jesus's sacrificial death, and that blocks most people from heaven.
FYI: If you ask a pastor if he’s a Calvinist and he replies with a question, such as “Well, you believe in grace, don’t you?” or “You believe God is sovereign, right?” or “How do you define Calvinism?” (or if he says "I'm not a hyper-Calvinist" or "I'm not a Calvinist; I'm reformed" or "I just believe what the Bible says but I wouldn't call it Calvinism because I don't go by any -ism" or "I prefer to call it 'the doctrines of grace,'" or any other such nonsense to deceive you), then you can safely assume he's definitely a Calvinist - a strong, educated, dogmatic Calvinist who knows not to forthrightly admit it because it will scare you off before he's had a chance to hook you. (Calvinists do not blame their bad theology for scaring people off; they blame us for misunderstanding Calvinism or for being too unhumble to accept it. This is why they feel they have to draw us in slowly, skillfully, with deceptive word-games ... because we might be scared off because of our own pride or ignorant stupidity - not because we understand perfectly well what their theology really teaches and know that it's wrong, that it contradicts the Bible and turns God into a monster).
If someone has to use deception, cover-up, and word-games to slowly reel people into their theology - if they have to be careful of revealing too much too soon so that they don't scare people off - then how great can their theology really be? And besides, what are Calvinists really afraid of? That they might scare off one of the elect? That they might scare away someone who was "predestined" to become a believer and a Calvinist? How "predestined" can things be if Calvinists have to be so careful about not scaring people off? How sovereign is their Calvi-god if his plans can be thwarted by how a Calvinist presents their theological views to people? Calvinists actually belie their own theology by thinking they have to be so careful and skillful in how they present it to others, as if how they present it really has an affect on what has been predestined.
(Just for fun, if you want to see just how unCalvinistic a Calvinist pastor can be, try this: When he asks you to tithe or serve at church or pray about an issue or sign up for a mission trip or whatever, just say, "Well, if God predestined it, then it will happen. And if it doesn't happen then it's because God didn't want it to happen, for His glory and pleasure." And see what happens.)]
14. Diminish the ways in which Jesus Christ exemplified the heart of God the Father for all men. Instead, remind yourself frequently that God loves the Elect differently, and thus Christ is primarily showing the Father’s love for the Elect.
15. 1 Corinthians 13 was written to the church at Corinth. The love described therein can be properly thought of as the love God has for the Elect. But because we do not know who is Elect and who is Non-Elect, it is appropriate that we show this love to everyone – primarily for the benefit of the Elect who is not yet saved. God, however, is not held to the same standard because He is “sovereign” and omniscient in the carefully described manner outlined in #1 above.
To further clarify #15, God’s omniscience allows Him to know who the Non-Elect are. Unlike us, He can safely treat them with a different, more contemptuous love – approaching barely-concealed hate or even outright hate. To love them in the same way as the Elect would be wasteful and serve no purpose – they’re bound for the Lake of Fire anyway. The same principle is employed with grace and faith, and is thus entirely consistent with how God may apply His love. If we were omniscient, 1 Cor 13 could come right out and plainly say “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love for the Elect…
However, for the reasons noted above, only God can demonstrate different kinds of love for people (because only He is omniscient enough to know who’s elect and who’s not). But we must behave “as if”* all are Elect in our demonstrations of love.
* This, incidentally, will not be the only time that “as if” behavior will be required. See also “raising of children” at any Calvinist website and frequent admonitions to “raise them as if they are Elect” along with frequent encouragement that the children of the Elect are often themselves Elect – because Election is not meritorious or outcomes based on anything we can do (like raise children in the fear of the Lord) but the Elect have special favor as people of covenant and God frequently clusters them in families for reasons we can observe but not understand.
