Exposing Calvinism: I love my grandchild, but God might not
Want to see where Calvinism leads?
I recently found this old post, "The Total Depravity of Certain Calvinists", about a Calvinist soon-to-be-grandfather who made some wretched claims about his unborn grandchild. He claimed that he loved the unborn child but realizes that God might not, that God might have predestined that child to be an unbeliever ... or even a murderer.
Calvinists don't realize how blasphemous they are. They have been brainwashed to think that they are being so humble and God-honoring to accept the idea that God can cause (not just allow but cause) any horrible, evil, unjust thing He wants .... and that it's okay .... because "God is sovereign, and so He can do whatever He wants. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?"
It's sick!
(And quite honestly, isn't saying that he loves his grandchild but God might not kinda like saying that he is more loving than God, that he treats people better than God does, because he can love people that God can't/doesn't?)
This grandfather ("wcoftheology") also showed up in the comment section of that post. Notice these two manipulative Calvinist comments of his which are simply other versions of "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?", the classic line Calvinists use to manipulate people into Calvinism and to shame people who question their contradictions and oppose their theology:
"God can do what He chooses to do with His creation."
[My note: This is true; God can do what He wants. But it's very important to learn what kind of a God He really is, according to Scripture, to see what He does do and what He doesn't do, regardless of what He can do. (Any one of us can attack someone else. It is a physical possibility. But is it what most of us do? Just because we can doesn't mean we do.)
A God who truly loves all people, who is glorified by our obedience and love for Him, and who truly wants all people to be saved (just like He said in the Word) will treat His creation very differently than a Calvinist god who cares only about his glory and who will sacrifice his creation to get more glory for himself, who is glorified by causing sin and evil, and who doesn't really want all people to be saved even though he said he did in the Bible (making him untrustworthy).
The first God (the God of the Bible) is the kind of God who loves His creation so much that He would sacrifice Himself for people, making a way for all people to be saved, even though He knows most will reject Him. But the second god (Calvinism's god) sacrifices people for himself, causes sin/evil/unbelief, and predestines people to hell because he doesn't really care about us but only about himself.
It doesn't matter what God can do; it matters what He does do. And our view of this rests on our understanding of who God is. Calvinists believe in the second god, the Calvinist god, who uses people to get more glory for himself and who is glorified by sin and evil as much as by good. And therefore, they say that he can do anything he wants with his creation if it brings him "more glory," even causing people to sin, to abuse others, to be murderers, to reject him so that they go to hell, etc. Because "it's all for God's glory," they say. "So it's okay. Even if we can't understand it and don't like it."
But no! That is not the God of the Bible - a God who can do whatever He wants with us but who is so full of love and justice and mercy and grace and trustworthiness that there are certain things He won't do, even if He could.
The God of the Bible doesn't cause sin or evil or unbelief (He can work our sins into His plans but He doesn't cause us to sin). He doesn't create most people so that He can hate them and damn them to hell, for His "glory and pleasure." He loves all people, died for all people, and made a way for all people to be saved. But He wants us to choose to love Him back, to choose Him as our God. He wants to spend eternity with people who want to be with Him, not who are forced to. (Where is the glory or pleasure in forcing someone to love you!?!) And so He gave us the option of choosing Him or rejecting Him. (And He will let us face the consequences of our choice.)
The God of the Bible - unlike Calvi-god - would not predestine people for hell or to be murderers. Calvi-god would, but the God of the Bible would not. The God of the Bible died on the cross for us all so that we could all have the chance to go to heaven. The God of the Bible is overflowing with love, compassion, and grace for all people, even for those who will choose to reject Him. The God of the Bible can be trusted when He says He wants all people to be saved, that He wants no one to perish, that Jesus died for all sins of all people.
How tragic that this grandfather didn't choose the God of the Bible, but instead chose to worship Calvinism's god: a god who does predestine people for hell, who causes people to be abusers and liars and murderers, who created most people so that he could hate them and punish them for what he made them do, who lies when he says he wants all people to be saved and that he loves the world and that Jesus died for all men ... and who sometimes tricks people into thinking they are saved when they really aren't, giving them a fake "evanescent grace" which makes them think they have saving faith when they really don't, which is why Calvinists can't really know for sure if they are truly elect or not till the end of their lives, if they "persevered" in the faith all the way to the end.
What a surprise it might be for this grandfather to one day realize that he wasn't really one of the elect, that his god just made him think he was so that he could punish him more strongly in hell. (See the section on "evanescent grace" in this post: "Can you lose your salvation?")
I am sorry for that grandchild and for what he/she will learn about God from this "totally depraved" grandfather.
Also see "Is God Only Concerned About His Glory and Being Famous?"]
This not-so-grandfather also says that "God is not ashamed of Himself so why should I be."
[My note: He means that if Calvinism's god is not bothered by predestining people to hell then he is not going to be bothered by it either - a terrible excuse for ignoring the damnation of most people, of those who had no choice about it because Calvi-god created them that way, causing them to sin and to reject him. Whatever helps you sleep at night, wcoftheology!]
Another Calvinist (billions4x) commented on that post, and here are some gems from that comment (I think the author of this blog, Holly, wrote a great post and does a great job handling the comments. And FYI, this is the only post I read from her so far, so I don't know her full stance on various other theological issues, but I did find some things unrelated to Calvinism that I question or don't necessarily agree with. None of us ever really agrees with everything someone else believes. So always be discerning for yourselves.):
1. "What’s your problem with what the Calvinist said about the baby, other than being terribly insensitive? He or she was only referring to Romans 9:22-24 ..."
[My note: Here's another Calvinist who is basically saying that people should have no problem accepting that God creates people just so He can damn them to hell. This is where Calvinism leads! To a cold heart that has no compassion for people, that can't see anything wrong with God creating people for hell ... because "God can do whatever He wants, and who are we to question it? If God's okay with predestining people to hell and causing sin then we should be okay with it too" (my paraphrase of Calvinist theology, at the end of it all).
I guess when you're one of the "elect," it's easy to believe that everyone else is just getting what they "deserve." After all, it's them, not you, who were predestined to hell for decisions they had no control over.
And yet, in the Bible, notice the compassion that Jesus had on people, the love He had for them, the desire to save them, even those who reject Him. Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” A very different God than the cold-hearted, hateful Calvi-god!
And this Calvinist commenter tries using Romans 9:22-24 to "prove" that God prepares some people for destruction (predestines them to hell). But what this Calvinist doesn't know is that this word "prepares" is actually "fitted" - and in Strong's concordance (with Vine's Expository Dictionary) it says that it's about people fitting themselves for destruction by their character (by the kind of people they chose to be). It's not about God creating them for destruction; it's about people fitting themselves into the kind of people who will be destroyed. Very different! The first one (Calvinism) makes God responsible for our sin and unbelief, but the second one makes us responsible for our choices (which fits perfectly with the rest of the Bible and with God's just, righteous, trustworthy character).]
2. "Holly, you sound like a theological and biblical novice with your criticism of Calvinism. You don’t know your Bible, at least the parts that clearly teach God’s sovereignty in salvation (e.g., Rom. 9) For you, all you seem to have ever heard was one side of the argument, so when confronted with the other side (an argument, by the way, that has been going on for centuries and will only ultimately be resolved in heaven) you have this knee-jerk reaction… almost wanting to call Calvinists heretics! I know some who do call us just that, but they are usually in the heretical Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian camps."
Also in this comment, billions4x shames Holly for nearly calling Calvinists "heretics," but then billions4x says that Calvinists are sometimes called heretics by "heretical Pelagian[s] and Semi-Pelagian[s]." After criticizing Holly for nearly crying "heretic," billions4x throws the heretic label back at her, trying to stick the "Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian" label on her to discredit her and her views. Calvinists love to call people who disagree with them "Pelagians" or "Semi-Pelagians," even those who are not. (If someone calls someone else a "Pelagian," you can just about bet they're a Calvinist.) If they label you a Pelagian, then they don't have to take your objections to Calvinism seriously.
(They also accuse non-Calvinists of denying God's foreknowledge and sovereignty and omniscience - which we are not doing at all - because we don't define it the same way they do, which, to them, always comes back to "God preplans, causes, controls all that happens, even sin and evil." We non-Calvinists don't think that God preplans, causes, controls all that happens, even sin and evil, just that He foreknows all that will happen and can work it all - even our self-chosen sins - into His plans. Calvi-god is a tiny, stupid god who can't handle anything but the things he himself preplans and causes, but the God of the Bible is a big, wise God who can handle everything, even the things He didn't want, plan, or cause, our sins and decisions, working it all into His ultimate plans.)
And if billions4x really understood Romans 9 in context, he/she would see that it's not about the salvation of individuals at all (about God predestining people to heaven or hell, which is how all Calvinists read it). It's about the nation of Israel, about God choosing Jacob's line, instead of Esau's, to bring Jesus into the world. It's about God's right to give big roles to some and small roles to others. And it's about God's right to punish His chosen people for their rebellion (they don't get a pass just because they are of Israel) and to adopt others into Israel who are not Jewish, to offer salvation to the Gentiles too. This is what Romans 9 is about, not about God picking who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. It is absolutely non-Scriptural and totally out of context to make it about the process of salvation for individual people.
(And for the record, according to the concordance, "hardens" in Romans 9:18 is a retributive hardening of the heart. It's a punishment from God for those who have resisted Him and His lovingkindness for so long that He hands them over to the hardness they chose. In punishment for their continued rebellion against Him and resistance to Him, He gives them what they want permanently: their self-chosen hardness of heart. It's not about God arbitrarily choosing to harden the hearts of non-elect people so that they can't believe. What a despicable twisting of Scripture!)]
3. "So what’s your problem with God choosing some and not others? In reality, NONE should be chosen. That’s why '…it is by grace…' that we are saved. We all deserve hell. Now, if God wants to demonstrate his mercy, grace, love and patience on some, that’s His prerogative, is it not? After all, He’s God, the Righteous Judge, and He has satisfied His justice (which we who are saved were lacking) by spilling the precious blood of the Lamb. Those who are 'passed over' by God will not receive anything they do not already deserve, right? It’s just that the vessels of mercy will receive what they don’t deserve because the Son received what we deserved in our place."
[My note: This is a Calvinist trap: "Well, no one deserves to go to heaven, right? We all deserve hell, right? So why is it wrong for God to spare a few people but to let other people pay the deserved penalty for their sins? No one deserves heaven, so God doesn't owe heaven to anyone. So it's not wrong for Him to let people go to hell."
Just because no one deserves to go to heaven doesn't mean that God predestines most people for hell. This is the Calvinist way of making it sound like it's justice for God to "let" most people go to hell, to 'pass over' most people, choosing only a few people to save ... because, after all, "all people deserve hell."
Yet what they ignore is the fact that Calvi-god doesn't just "let" them go to hell, paying the penalty they "deserve" for their sins. Calvi-god actually created them to be unbelievers, caused them to reject him and to sin, and then he punishes them for what HE made them do, what they had no choice about. And Calvinists think this is how a just God would act! Sick and twisted! And what an attack on God's character!
The Calvinist "death row" illustration is along the same lines, and it doesn't work either. My pastor used this one once, saying that God's grace and His love for the elect is something like this (paraphrased):
"Imagine there's 100 people on death row, and God walks into the room and graciously chooses to free 10 of them. Was God unfair to spare only a few of them and not the rest, when everyone on death row deserved death? God didn't have to save any of them, but He chose to save some of them because of His amazing love and grace. Without God choosing to save some of them, none of them would have lived, because they all deserved death."
Sounds kinda convincing, right?
But the thing is ... in Calvinism, God didn't just walk in and graciously free some of those on death row, those who were guilty of a horrible crime. He first preplanned and caused them to do the horrible crime that put them on death row in the first place. He made them unable to resist doing the crime, gave them no choice about it, because He predestined it. And what's more, God created those He wasn't going to save specifically so that He could punish them with death. And then after preplanning their crime and causing them to commit it, God then punishes them for it.
And we're supposed to believe this is "gracious" and "loving"!?! "Merciful" and "justice"!?! That it's how God really is? That it coincides with His good, loving, trustworthy, righteous nature?
Bullcrap!
And I'll say it again ... Bullcrap!
(If "bullcrap" offends you more than Calvinism, then something is wrong! Either that, or you're a Calvinist!)]
4. "... you won’t win any arguments with Calvinists."
[My note: Why can't we win arguments with Calvinists? Click here to see why. It's kinda like how we can't "win" against pathological liars who twist/hide things to suit their views, who change up the meanings of words when it's convenient, and who refuse to operate by logic.]
5. "Yes, God is loving and merciful toward all for sending His Son into the world, but Jn. 3:16 says nothing about His Son dying for the world, does it?"
[My note: I guess if Calvinists disconnect "for God so loved the world" from "that He gave His one and only Son"... and if they ignore all the verses that talk about Jesus dying for all sins of all men... and if they forget what God said about wanting all men to be saved and wanting no one to perish... then, sure, it might not say that Jesus died for the world, I guess.]
6. "It just says that 'whosoever believes will not perish.' But how can they believe unless God gives them the gift of faith? How can they repent unless God grants them repentance? How can a person dead in their sins do anything unless God does something first. Dead means dead!"
[My note: Calvinists assume faith and repentance have to be given to them by God because "dead people can't do anything at all, not even want God or think about God or seek God or choose God." But "dead" doesn't mean brain-dead or physically dead, just spiritually dead, separated from God by our sins. But God gave us brains to use, and He puts enough of Himself in nature and in our hearts that we can see He's real and want to know Him more. Calvinists start from their own wrong presuppositions and then base their beliefs and the Word on those. For more on this, see these posts: "... You're like a dead body" and "Is faith a gift God gives (forces on) us?" and "According to the concordance, it's NOT predestination" (point #9 covers "whosoever believes") and "The Holy Spirit and 'Dead People'".]
7. "To be honest, I know some Calvinists who seem more concerned about correcting non-Calvinists than preaching the gospel to the lost! I honestly think some are so concerned about non-essential doctrines or essential doctrines of secondary importance that they become disobedient to the Church’s primary mission of preaching the gospel to the whole world. They justify their disobedience while leaning on God’s sovereignty, not realizing that they will have blood on their hands for not warning the vessels of wrath of the eternal consequences of their sin. Sad!"
[My note: First off, this is all just nonsense. How can the elect "have blood on their hands for not warning the vessels of wrath [the non-elect] of the eternal consequences of their sin"? What does that even mean, in Calvinism? Are the non-elect not predestined to hell? Can the elect somehow change the destiny of the non-elect by preaching the gospel to them? Why would the elect be held accountable for not warning the non-elect of the eternity that God (Calvinism's god) predestined for them? Isn't the blood of the non-elect on God's hands, in Calvinism? And what does it matter anyway if the elect do "have blood on their hands"? The elect are forgiven of all sin and won't bear any eternal consequences for not warning the non-elect anyway. So the elect have nothing to worry about. And if the elect don't warn the non-elect, then wasn't that also predestined and caused by God? If the destiny of the non-elect is predestined and can't be changed, then what good is warning them about it? If they are destined to hell, wouldn't it be better to simply let them enjoy this life then, the only "good life" they'll ever have? Why distress them before their inevitable trip to hell? That's just mean.
This is all just to make it sound like this Calvinist really cares about warning the non-elect, like it really matters. But remember that this is the same Calvinist who said "What’s your problem with what the Calvinist said about the baby, other than being terribly insensitive?" And "So what’s your problem with God choosing some and not others?"
He shows no concern about Calvi-god predestining a baby to hell and choosing only some people to save but not the rest (and he makes a case for why we shouldn't be concerned about it) ... and yet he wants us to believe that he really cares about the souls of non-elected people!?! Yeah, right!
Calvinists are like "God is sovereign and preplans/controls everything ... but if we don't do our job to evangelize then His sovereign plan won't happen." How "sovereign" is Calvi-god now, if what the Calvinist does or doesn't do affects his plan?
And, if I may point out, Calvi-god has two Wills: what he commands and what he causes to happen (often in opposition to his spoken command). So he commands us to evangelize (his spoken Will) but if we don't evangelize then it's because his unspoken Will was that we didn't evangelize, that we disobeyed his spoken command. And so to disobey his spoken command is really to obey his unspoken command. And so nothing can really be called "disobedience" then, now can it? Disobedience to his spoken command is simply obedience to his unspoken command that we break his spoken command.
So in Calvinism, "obedience vs. disobedience" is meaningless. As is "evangelize vs. don't evangelize" and "justice vs. injustice" and "good vs. evil" and "pray vs. don't pray" and "seek vs. don't seek" and "believe vs. don't believe," etc. It's all been preplanned and caused by Calvi-god for his glory and pleasure, and there's nothing we can do to change what will happen. So it makes no difference which we choose (as if we have any control over it anyway, in Calvinism).
See these posts for more on all this: "Calvinists, Altar Calls, and Evangelism" and "How do you answer such Calvinist nonsense?" and "Is 'Accept Jesus in Your Heart' Unbiblical and Dangerous?"]
