Exposing Calvinism: My Comment about the Order of "Born Again, Hear the Gospel, Have Faith"

Here's another comment I left on the Soteriology 101 post "Frustrated by the state of the world?".  This one was in reply to the Calvinist, Rhutchin (I've already written about these comments of his in another post, about his contradictory views regarding the Calvinist order of which comes first: being born-again or hearing the gospel or having faith?):

I am not replying for Rhutchin’s sake, but for others who might be reading.  And I know this has been covered many times, so I’ll keep it as brief as I can.  (And then Rhutchin can have the last word.)

Calvinists don’t just think that God foreknew who would be saved and who wouldn’t.  

[Added note, not part of my comment: Calvinists regularly accuse non-Calvinists of denying God's foreknowledge because we don't agree that God's foreknowledge of events means that He predestines/causes those events.  But, though they can't see it, it's Calvinists who actually deny God's foreknowledge because, in Calvinism, God doesn't just foreknow what will happen, nor can He simply work what He foreknows into His plans.  In Calvinism, foreknowing is actually fore-planning (planning everything beforehand), and He can only work out His plans if He preplans/controls everything.  But non-Calvinists believe that foreknowing means just that: knowing beforehand.  Not preplanning beforehand and then causing it to happen.  The God of the Bible can foreknow what we will choose to do and work it all into His plans, but Calvi-god has to preplan/cause all that happens ... and so he only really "foreknows" it because he preplanned it and is causing it.  So who is the one really denying the idea of God's foreknowledge?] 

Calvinists believe God predestined who would be saved and who wouldn’t.  In Calvinism, He essentially bestowed salvation on the elect before the beginning of time.  Therefore, their salvation is not the result of their response to the gospel; their belief in the gospel (caused/forced on them by Calvi-god) is the result of their election/salvation.  This flips the Bible on its head.

[And before Rhutchin denies that Calvi-god “causes/forces” faith on the elect, here is a different comment of his from a different post: “The work of the Holy Spirit to give a person a new birth could be likened to giving a person a drug.  In both cases, the person is changed, and the change is irresistibly wrought on the person.  The person has no idea what happened – all he knows is that one minute he hates God and the next minute he doesn’t….  The new birth is accomplished by the Holy Spirit without the knowledge of the person, so it is irresistible.”  In Calvinism, you don’t do anything to become saved. You don’t love God because you chose to or wanted to, or because of the gospel, or out of gratitude for what He did for us or how much He loves us.  It just happens TO you, without your decision or cooperation or even your knowledge.  If that’s not “cause/force” then I don’t know what is!]

And note that Rhutchin says “The preaching of the gospel is the means that God uses to bring His elect to faith in Christ.”  He’s trying to make it sound like he (like Calvinists) believe that faith comes from hearing the gospel, that the gospel leads to faith (which we would agree with).  He constantly quotes the verse that faith comes from hearing the Word of God, as if he really does believe that God's Word leads to faith.  But let’s explore other things he’s said in different comment sections:

“The gospel is the source of faith and that faith then exercises belief in the gospel.  We have no faith without the hearing of the gospel.  The gospel produces faith.  That faith is then fueled by the hearing of the gospel to believe in Christ.”

This is a doozy!  So here he says you can’t have faith without the gospel, that the gospel comes before – and leads to – faith.  But he also says, in the exact same sentences, that faith has to come before – that it leads to – belief in the gospel: “faith then exercises belief in the gospel” and “That faith is then fueled by the hearing of the gospel…” (in order for faith to be fueled by something, it has to be there first). 

And he also says, in a different comment: “In the presence of faith, the preaching of the gospel results in salvation.”  Here again he says that faith has to be there first, in order for the elect to be able to respond to the gospel and be saved.

And in yet another comment: "The immediate cause of a person’s actions is the lack of faith, and this causes people to seek sinful means to fulfill their wants and desires.  God has the ability to change a person, and does so for His elect, and no one can seek God or serve Him without God first changing the person and giving him faith."  (Remember that in Calvinism, those are God-given sinful natures that cause them to have sinful wants and desires!  And they can't do anything about it.)  Calvinists say that we can't even seek God (want Him in our lives) unless and until He gives us faith.  In Calvinism, faith comes before anything else.  Before seeking God, before understanding or responding to the gospel, before believing in Jesus.  And he verifies it in this comment: "The Calvinist says that a person must have faith first in order to 'choose to trust in and believe in Jesus.'"

So let me get this straight: In Calvinism, the gospel is necessary for having faith AND faith is necessary for believing the gospel!?!  Yep, makes perfect sense, Calvinists!  

(This is what it's like trying to talk to Calvinists.  To get a straight answer out of them.  And do you realize then that Calvinists are saying that people have faith - are born again - without believing in Jesus!?!  Because in Calvinism, a "saving faith" has to be given to a person before they believe in Jesus, to make them believe in Jesus.  So being born again, in Calvinism, is not the result of believing in Jesus.  Believing in Jesus is the result of them being born again first.  What an attack on the Gospel!)

Anyway, moving on ... 

Rhutchin also says in a different comment section: “The gospel is the means by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.”

So he says here that the gospel comes before – and leads to – being born again and having faith.  But this is a clear contradiction of what he has said in other comments at Soteriology 101 about how we have to be born again first (be given a "saving faith") before we can hear the gospel and have faith in it: “The new birth makes it possible for a person to hear the gospel” and “Calvinists actually say that faith results from a work performed by God in the heart of the individual (i.e. the new birth or regeneration)…” and "Actually, a person has to be regenerated [born again] in order to hear the word and in hearing the word, he receives faith." and “There is a time and place for those whom God will save to be given a new heart [born again] and then faith to believe in Christ.”

Notice that in those comments being born again comes first, then hearing the gospel, and then having faith.  Whereas earlier he said it’s the gospel first, then born again, then faith: “The gospel is the means by which a person is born again, receives faith, and believes.”

So let me get this straight: In Calvinism, you need to hear the gospel to be born again AND you need to be born again to hear the gospel!?!  Yep, makes perfect sense, Calvinists!

(And yet Calvinists wonder why we don’t don’t trust what they say and hate debating them!  This is why we say that debating a Calvinist is like wrestling a greased pig.  Never trust what a Calvinist says.  They say what’s convenient in one place, but contradict it in another.  Or they say one thing that sounds biblical, but they have so many secret layers and different meanings of words that it completely changes what they first said.)

And now I will let Rhutchin have the last word.

Rhutchin did reply to me, saying that non-Calvinists would also say that it takes faith to believe and that believing leads to faith.  And somewhere else, he made the comment “One major theme (or interpretation of Scripture) in Calvinism is that faith is required for salvation and the only way for a person to get faith is through hearing the word.”  (Looks like he's going with "gospel first, then faith" this time.)  I address both of his points in this comment:

But in Calvinism, that’s not the whole picture (that "faith is required for salvation and the only way for a person to get faith is through hearing the word.").  It’s the part they want you to agree with (the worm on the hook) so that they can find common ground with you so that they can reel you into Calvinism.  (Don’t take the bait, Reggie (someone Rhutchin was trying to convince).  And don’t let Calvinists confuse you into thinking they are saying the same thing we are.  That’s what they want you to think so that you let your guard down.)  In Calvinism, it’s not just “faith comes from hearing the word.”  It’s “faith comes from hearing the word … AND (contradictorily) God has to give you faith first so that you can hear/understand/believe the Word.”

The gospel isn’t really “the only way to get faith” in Calvinism.  If it was, then the gospel alone could do it, for anyone and everyone.  The only way to “get faith” is from Calvi-god.  He has to give you a saving-faith first so that you can hear/understand the gospel so that you can have faith (that he gives you) in response to the gospel.  It’s nonsensical, Alice-in-Wonderland type of circular reasoning (Lewis Carroll would be proud!): You need faith to hear the the gospel but you need to hear the gospel to have faith.  And that faith comes only from Calvi-god, and he will only give it to the elect.  There’s nothing you can do to get it.  Calvi-god has to inject faith in you....

The difference between Calvinism’s idea of faith and my idea of faith (I don’t want to speak for all non-Calvinists, and I am only touching on this briefly, without getting into it too deeply) is that I would say that faith IS the believing, that when we choose to trust in and believe in Jesus, we are putting our faith in Him.  Whereas Calvinists would say that God has to give you the drug called “faith” that causes you to believe in Him.  In Calvinism, faith and believing are two separate things, and you need to be given this thing called “faith” (before you hear the gospel) in order to believe the gospel.

If you let a Calvinist define the terms and hook you with their phrases that are meant to sound like what we say, then you’re on your way to becoming a Calvinist, just like them.  They are always trying to get their foot in the door so that they can slither their whole body in after it.  Always question the terms and phrases they use, and always look for what they are hiding.  It’s not always what they SAY that’s the problem, but it’s what they DON’T SAY, what they hide, that’s ruins it all (and that contradicts what they said in the first place to hook you).