Exposing Calvinism: The Kind of God Calvinists Love

Picking up where we left off in the last Exposing Calvinism post, in the Soteriology 101 post "Frustrated by the state of the world?", the Calvinist Rhutchin says, "... Jeremiah can be read, 'something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind [to command or mention].'”

I replied: 

I agree.  It never entered God’s mind to command child sacrifice.  But Calvinists would have to say that it never entered His mind to command it, but that He did irresistibly decree it anyway.  That He didn’t command them to sacrifice their children, but He did predestine it and cause it to happen.  And so, Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command.  (So they disobey God’s spoken command in obedience to His hidden decree!  Isn’t that really just a different form of obedience?)  And that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!

Rhutchin (Calvinist) replied:

Heather writes, “But Calvinists would have to say that it never entered His mind to command it, but that He did irresistibly decree it anyway.  That He didn’t command them to sacrifice their children, but He did predestine it and cause it to happen.”

Well, God told Adam not to eat the fruit knowing that Adam would eat the fruit, didn’t He?  God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws knowing that Israel would not keep either the commandments or the laws.

Then Heather says, “Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command.”

Yep.  Jesus said, “No one can come to (believe in) me…”  That is because people are not born with faith.  And without faith, a person will follow his corrupt nature and sin.  God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin because they lacked faith.

Then Heather says, “And that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!”

Yep.  Calvinists are overwhelmed that God would save anyone, much less them.

I replied:

Rhutchin says: “Well, God told Adam not to eat the fruit knowing that Adam would eat the fruit, didn’t He?  God gave Israel the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws knowing that Israel would not keep either the commandments or the laws.”

Yes, but that’s not the honest Calvinist interpretation, now is it?  In Calvinism, God didn’t just “know” they would break His commands; He predestined that they would.  He gave them commands that He preplanned to cause them to break, giving them no choice to do anything otherwise (and then He punishes them for what He made them do).  That’s a big difference.

Then Rhutchin agrees with me that “Calvinists would say that the people can be held accountable for doing something God said not to do even though He predestined/caused them break His command.”  And he adds: “God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin because they lacked faith.”  (Obviously meaning that they lacked the faith that God gave to the elect but withheld from them.)

Thank you for just admitting it outright, not trying to spin it or sugarcoat it.  That’s refreshing!

And then Rhutchin agrees that “that’s the kind of god Calvinists love, honor, worship, and serve!”  He says: “Yep. Calvinists are overwhelmed that God would save anyone, much less them.”

I’m sorry your god is so stingy with his love and grace (that his hate/wrath is so much bigger than his love/grace) that Calvinists have to be shocked that he would save anyone at all.  But if I had a wretched, unjust, untrustworthy god like Calvinism teaches, I’d be shocked too that that kind of god could love anyone.

Rhutchin replied:

Heather writes, “Yes, but that’s not the honest Calvinist interpretation, now is it?  In Calvinism, God didn’t just “know” they would break His commands; He predestined that they would.”

Yes.  God knew Adam would eat the fruit.  God could have decreed a different outcome.  God did not.  How is that different from the non-Calvinist theology?

Then Heather says, "he adds: 'God holds people accountable for their sin even though they could only sin because they lacked faith.'  (Obviously meaning that they lacked the faith that God gave to the elect but withheld from them.)”

It is God who gives faith to people.  So, the elect received faith and the non-elect did not.  So, duh!!!  Let’s see you explain it without sugarcoating it.

Then Heather says, “But if I had a wretched, unjust, untrustworthy god like Calvinism teaches, I’d be shocked too that that kind of god could love anyone.”

So, your God saves everyone – Right?

I replied:

Rhutchin says: “Yes.  God knew Adam would eat the fruit.  God could have decreed a different outcome.  God did not.  How is that different from the non-Calvinist theology?”

As explained time and time again ad infinitum: Non-Calvinists believe that God didn’t preplan/cause it to happen, just that He knew it would happen, allowed it to happen, and worked it into His plans, meaning that Adam truly made his own choice (that he had real options to choose between).  Calvinists would have to say that God preplanned it to happen, caused it to happen, and that Adam was simply making the decision that God predetermined he would make (and that God punished him for the choice God made him make).  I’m sorry you can’t see the difference.

(And despite the fact that Calvinists regularly accuse non-Calvinists of denying God’s foreknowledge because we don’t agree with their definition of foreknowledge, it’s the Calvinists who actually deny God’s foreknowledge.  Because Calvinists believe that foreknowing is essentially “fore-planning and then causing it to happen,” that God only “foreknows” what He Himself preplanned/causes.  Whereas non-Calvinists stick with the real meaning of foreknowing: knowing beforehand.  Not preplanning and causing.  It’s the Calvinists who deny God’s foreknowledge by changing it into something it isn’t.)

Rhutchin says: “It is God who gives faith to people.”

That’s a Calvinist presupposition without real biblical support (except for all the half-verses they twist out of context), and then Calvinists build their theology on it.  So you’ll have to excuse me for not accepting a theology that builds on unbiblical presuppositions.

Rhutchin says: “So, your God saves everyone – Right?”

Ah, back to the false Calvinist dichotomy of “Either God saves everyone or God elects certain people to save.”  If Calvinists are locked into this false dichotomy then it’s no wonder they can only side with “God elects certain people to save.”  (Calvinists have many false dichotomies meant to trap Christians into their theology: “Either God is in control or man is in control”… “Either God controls everything or God controls nothing”… “Either God is sovereign [their definition of sovereign] or He isn’t”… “Either God does all the work of saving us [the elect] or man saves himself” ... "If man had true free-will then all men would choose God, but since all men don't choose God, it means that God chooses who gets saved and who doesn't," etc.  They strategically leave out the biblically correct answer to force people to pick the Calvinist answer.)  

I’m sorry Calvinists can’t grasp the idea that God could make salvation available to all and then allow men to decide whether to accept it or reject it.  I mean, seriously, how hard is that to grasp?

A human example: A man buys 100 candy bars for 100 people in a room, and he puts them on the table and says “Anyone who wants one can come up and take one.”  He’s made it available for all.  He paid the price for all.  But he gives them the option to accept or reject it.

I don’t see why that’s such a difficult concept to grasp.

And in response to other Calvinist comments on this post … It’s funny to me that Calvinists always accuse non-Calvinists of being “man-centered” for saying that God loves all men and made salvation available to all men.  But to me, it sounds like Calvinists are the “man-centered” ones because of their hyper-focus on the “wretched, wicked, totally depraved” condition of man.  This hyper-focus on man’s “totally depraved” condition then causes them to minimize God’s love and grace and mercy, to the point that they have to be surprised that God would love/save anyone at all.  It all comes back to their over-focus on man’s “totally depraved” condition, using that as a starting point to figure out how God acts towards people.

But non-Calvinists focus on God’s character first, as He reveals Himself throughout the Bible: A God who is truly loving, compassionate, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, who is overflowing with love for ALL men, even those who will reject Him, who desires a relationship with everyone and who died for everyone to make salvation available for everyone because He wants everyone in heaven with Him.  But He lets us choose to accept it or reject it.

Non-Calvinists are humbled by, shocked by, how big God’s love is for all of us sinful people.  How gracious He is to humans who don’t deserve it.  How He would sacrifice Himself for us, even though many will reject Him anyway.  That is some amazing love!

Whereas Calvinists are shocked that their god would/could love even ONE person, putting a cap on God’s love/grace because of their hyper-focus on man’s “total depravity.”

Who’s man-centered now?

(You may have the last word, Rhutchin. I’m done.)

[And I have no idea how he responded because I didn't read his response.  I get tired of his nonsense.]