"Saint" PJ's Deceptions and Manipulations

I've written about this pastor - PJ - before.  First, I will repost what I wrote in previous posts ... and then I will add the new stuff.

What I previously wrote:

      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.  

      [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 post here will refer to things found in one or the other of his posts.]  

      He admits in his article that 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 of hyper-Calvinist things that 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 in the article.  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 in his article.  Shameful!  (Interestingly, if you look up his YouTube channel, he calls himself "Saint PJ."  I'm not sure what to make of that.  I've heard Christians refer to Christians in general as "saints" before, but I've never heard someone give themselves that title before.  FYI: If it doesn't say "Saint" when you look it up, it would be because he altered it after I pointed it out.)

      [NOTE: What a lie it 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 in to 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 does it really line up with scripture, which is pretty straight-forward and easy to understand?  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.

New Stuff For This Post:

I am going to share some thoughts about his article, some of the problems and manipulations I found in it, like I did for John MacArthur in the post "MacArthur's Manipulations."  Here's how I think PJ tries to manipulate people into Calvinism and into thinking that his theology is right, to squash disagreement, and to shame those who question or doubt him.  I'm just going to list them roughly in the order I find them in the article.  

1.  First off, as I said above, it really bothers me that even though he is a self-professed 7-point Calvinist, he "didn't know how to answer" the question of "Are you a Calvinist?"  That right there ought to be alarming, showing you that something is wrong, that he is looking for a way to not answer the question honestly.  And that ought to make us ask "Why?"  

And even worse is that he feels it's okay to lie about being a Calvinist because they only brought up two of the more extreme aspects of Calvinism that he doesn't hold to.  And based on that, he feels justified in answering the question "Are you a Calvinist?" with "No, I am not a Calvinist."  And this guy is a pastor.  A 7-point Calvinist!  He excuses his lying, flaunts his lying, and pretty much encourages others to be deceptive about their Calvinism too.  Something is seriously wrong and disturbing about this.  

He says that he refuses to use the label "Calvinist" because of the definitions others might have of it.  That is a pathetic excuse for lying.  Let's say that someone asked us "Are you a Christian?."  Would it be okay to answer "No, I am not," simply because we don't know how they define the word "Christian"?  Of course not.  All he had to do was say "I don't agree with the two points you raised, but I am a 7-point Calvinist, and this is what I believe..."  But no, he uses the fact that people might not understand Calvinism properly to deny that he's a Calvinist (and to make himself appear wise for doing so).   [And I'm sure what he really means is that he refuses to use the label 'Calvinist' because others might know too much about it and be turned off by it.]

Is this the kind of man you want leading your church and molding the spiritual lives of those in your church?

[He also says that he got hired by that church by claiming that he agrees with their statement of faith.  However, be warned that Calvinists will agree with biblical Christian truths on the surface, but they add a deeper, secret layer of "truth" underneath which contradicts the biblical truths they agreed with.  Such as, they'll agree that "God calls all people to repent," but the deeper, secret layer they add is "But only the elect can and will repent."  They'll agree that "Jesus died for all people," but the deeper, secret layer they add is "But He meant all kinds of people, from all different nationalities, not all individual people."  They'll agree that "whosoever believes will be saved," but the deeper, secret layer they add is "But it doesn't mean anyone can believe, just that those who are predestined to be saved (the elect) will believe."  It's sick and so deceptive.  Calvinists are like pathological liars but don't realize it.  See these posts I wrote about Calvinist Twists and Calvinist Contradictions and about how their Bad Logic traps Good Christians.]  

Calvinism is built on twisted scripture and double-speak, and there is always a deeper, contradictory, unbiblical layer that they try to hide.  And this is very telling and should be very alarming!  With Calvinists, you have to ask precisely the right questions - because if you don't, it gives them an excuse to not be forthcoming in their answers, to hide whatever they can hide.  

2.  He claims that pastors have to choose whether to push their Calvinism hard or to hold back.  

Seriously!?!  "Choice"?  It's silly and self-defeating for a Calvinist to say this, acting like we can really make choices while denying that we really make choices.  [Actually, fyi, they will say that we "make choices," but they mean that we make only the choices God predestined for us, the ones He causes us to want to make according to the built-in desires of the the nature He gave us.  And they talk as if these are real choices, as if we could have chosen something different.  But, according to Calvinism, we can't change our desires.  We can't change our nature.  We are slaves to whatever our God-determined nature tells us to want to do.  And so we will "choose" what God causes us to "choose," and we can't choose anything else.  And they call this "making choices," as if we really decide anything!]

And if a Calvinist pastor "holds back" his Calvinism, it doesn't mean that he won't teach it or push it.  It just means that he will hide it, disguise it, and subtly weave it into his sermons in ways that won't alert people to his Calvinism (which is the path he chose, as he goes on to show in the rest of the article).  

But the question for pastors isn't "Hard hard should we push Calvinism?"

The real question is "Is Calvinism even biblical?"

3.  He says that [Calvinist] men want to be pastors so that they can teach "sound doctrine."  He says they teach "the truth."  This is an obvious, self-affirming claim that his doctrine (Calvinism) is "sound doctrine, the truth," that it's accurate and biblical.  Therefore, those who don't agree with him are denying "sound doctrine/the truth."  

It should be very concerning when anyone turns the gospel into an "-ism," when they substitute an "-ism" for the Bible.  To Calvinists, the gospel isn't the gospel; Calvinism is the gospel.  He even says in the article that if you preach the Bible, you will be preaching Calvinism.  This makes a mockery of and contradicts his humble-sounding title "Preach the Bible, Not Calvinism."  To him, preaching the Bible is preaching Calvinism.  And so, therefore, it's impossible to separate the two.  So he really just means that pastors should hide their Calvinism, to skillfully use the Bible to subtly lead people into Calvinism instead of being upfront about it (as he demonstrates later).  

Also, later on in the article, PJ expresses concern that people in the congregation might be swept away by "false doctrine."  Obviously, this means that anyone who disagrees with him believes in "false doctrine" because, as he's already made it clear, he is teaching "sound doctrine."

And he questions whether the people in the congregation will "correctly" connect the theological dots, obviously meaning that his teachings are correct and that you need him to tell you how connect the dots if you want to do it correctly.

[PJ outright lied about being a Calvinist and encourages pastors to hide their Calvinism by not using Calvinist words.  John Piper also encourages pastors to hide their Calvinism by not using words like "Calvinism" or "doctrines of grace," making it sound like it's the wise thing to do because those words might confuse people, but I'm sure it's just so that they don't scare people off by revealing too much too soon (see this post of mine for more on that: "A 'Parody' of John Piper's 'How to Teach and Preach Calvinism.'"  And Piper advises it again in this post: "Saying what you believe is clearer than saying 'Calvinist'".)  My ex-pastor never identified himself as a Calvinist either, or called his theology "Calvinism," even though he is a strong Calvinist.  (Why?  Because if we don't know their theology's name then we can't easily research it for ourselves.)  John MacArthur, as I wrote about in "MacArthur's Manipulations," repeatedly advised Calvinists to hide the truth of what they believe, to sugar-coat it so that it sounds better than it is.  Calvinist Pastor JD Greear, in the article "Don't be a fundamentalist (Calvinist or otherwise), ironically criticizes the idea of Calvinist pastors identifying themselves as a "Calvinists," supposedly because it's divisive and could look like they elevate their particular brand of theology over the Bible (and they do!), but really it's just an excuse to hide their Calvinism.  This post - "How Calvinism can cleverly creep into your church unnoticed" - shares the story of a Calvinist Sunday School teacher who admits that he "cleverly" avoided using Calvinist words but that he led the kids into Calvinism by using carefully selected Bible passages (with Calvinism, Bible verses are almost always twisted or taken out of context).  Here's an article - "Is there a Calvinist agenda to reform traditional SBC churches?" - about Calvinist pastors stealthily taking over SBC churches.  Here's a great, insightful article about how a church gets infected with Calvinism, and he also tells about how one Calvinist organization published a two-year plan to help Calvinist pastors stealthily convert their non-Calvinist church to Calvinism.  (And this article here might be that detailed plan.  Note that under the label of "clarity," they too recommend not using Calvinist words, supposedly because it's "distracting.")  Here's another one from a different Calvinist group on how to reform a church.  And here's one person's testimony of how Calvinism took over their church.  (I have to wonder: If Calvinists are really just about "preaching the Bible," then why do they need a plan to reform the church, to do a makeover of various aspects of the church?  Isn't that going quite a bit beyond "preaching the Bible"?)  This "Covert Calvinists" article points out how when Calvinist pastors are seeking a position at a church, they tend to operate on a "no ask, no tell" basis, that if the church doesn't ask precisely the right questions then the Calvinist pastor won't reveal their Calvinism.  And the author of this article documents how Calvinist Tim Keller deliberately downplays his true Calvinist beliefs.  How many more Calvinist pastors have to show/admit that they are deceptive about their Calvinism before we realize that there's something seriously wrong with it?  Do you think that any theology that's built on deception is truly biblical?  Who is the father of lies and deception?  Because it's sure not God!]

4.  He says that pastors are burdened by "biblical and theological illiteracy," clearly meaning our biblical and theological illiteracy, the dim-witted, common, ignorant sheeple in the congregation who might not see things his way.  His message, over all, is that we common-folk can't understand the Bible without the help of (Calvinist) pastors.  But don't worry, because ....

Look!  It's a bird!  It's a plane!  It's Saint PJ here to save us from our biblical illiteracy and to help us discover biblical "truths" that are too hard for us mere simpletons to find without his help!  (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.  And no, I'm not sorry.)

[If you click on the link he provides about biblical illiteracy, it takes you to a Calvinist research page which basically calls you biblically illiterate if you don't believe that God predestined who would go to heaven or that the Holy Spirit makes you born again before you have faith in Jesus.  (Think about that really: Born again/saved before you have faith in Jesus!?!)  According to Calvinists, if you don't agree with these two purely-Calvinist beliefs then you are theologically and biblically illiterate.  Well ... sign me up for that then!  I'd rather Calvinists think I'm "illiterate" than in agreement with them.  As Henry James said it best: "I don't want everyone to like me; I should think less of myself if some people did."]  

But it's not that we can't understand the Bible without their help (God's doesn't need Calvinist theologians to "clarify" what He meant to say); it's just that we won't understand it the Calvinist way.  For Calvinism to spread, Calvinist theologians have to put Calvinist glasses on other people to help them "find" Calvinism in the Bible.  Because when the Bible is read on its own, it's just not there, not to the degree that Calvinist pastors say it is (and there is far more against it than for it).  I mean, think about it ... If Calvinism is true, then God's Word couldn't be truly understood for the 1500+ years after it was written, not until Augustine and John Calvin came along to clarify what God really "meant to say" (which contradicts what He actually said).

Does God mean what He says and say what He means?  

Or does He say one thing in the Bible which sounds straightforward (such as "seek Me" and "whoever believes shall not perish" and "God wants all men to be saved") but then reveal secret layers of meaning to Calvinists which contradict or confuse what He said (such as "Seek Me, but you actually have no ability to seek Me unless and until I cause you to seek Me, and I will only cause the elect to seek Me" and "whoever believes shall not perish, but this isn't a call to all people to believe because only the elect can and will believe in Me" and "I want all men to be saved, but I don't mean all individual people; I just mean all types of men, from all different nationalities.")?

Which God do you believe in?  The one Whose word you can trust because He spoke clearly, saying what He means and meaning what He says?  Or the one who has secret layers of meaning for all he says (which contradicts what he says in the Bible), which he's revealed only to Calvinists?  

In particular, Saint PJ says that there are two errors we might believe in:

"Free-will apart from God's sovereignty" - which almost sounds like he is supporting a certain level of free-will, but which really just means that you are wrong if you think you make choices that God doesn't predestined/cause/control.

And "An overbearing exercise of God's Will that obliterates human responsibility" - which almost sounds like he is supporting the idea of free-will (human responsibility), but which really just means that you are wrong if you think God won't hold you responsible for what He predestined/causes you to do.  

(As much as possible, Calvinists try to sound like they affirm free-will but they don't.  They sprinkle in free-will terminology as much as they can, while believing that we can only "freely choose to do" the one thing that God predestined us to do.  But that's neither "freely" nor "choosing," regardless of their deceptive use of those words.  Don't fall for their carefully-constructed, cleverly-cloaked wording.)

These two ideas above are about God predestining, controlling, causing everything that happens, even our sins and unbelief, but then holding us accountable for it.  And if we don't agree with him then we are "biblically and theologically illiterate."  

But who's going to stand up against him when he's convinced the congregation that those who disagree with him are "biblically and theologically illiterate," that they oppose "sound doctrine"?  This is classic Calvinist manipulation: insult/shame/discredit those who oppose you and praise those who agree with you, making those who agree feel intelligent and godly and humble for agreeing with you.  (And a Calvinist pastor often starts doing this before he even starts revealing his Calvinism, manipulating people to want to side with him and making those who are going to disagree with him look so bad that they will be afraid to speak up.)  

(Hmm?  I wonder?  Who were the most blinded, hardened people in the New Testament?  The ones whom Jesus had the most trouble with and the harshest words against?  That's right ... those who thought they were the super-educated, spiritually-superior, theological-giants of the faith!  And yet they couldn't recognize the Truth when He was standing right in front of them.  They were blinded by their own education and "brilliance.")

PJ also says that too many people in the congregation know nothing of how man's will is compatible with God's unchanging decrees [His predestined plans].  This also sounds like he is affirming a level of human free-will ... but he is not.  Because in Calvinism, the non-elect are only "free" to choose sin (only able to "want" to sin), as God predestined them to.  God supposedly gives them the "sin nature," which contains only sinful desires, which means they can only "want" to sin, which means they can only "choose" to sin.  He prevents them from having any other desires/options.  But because they "wanted" to sin (even though that's the only desire Calvi-god gave them), Calvinists make it sound like the non-elect followed their sinful desires and chose the sin they "wanted," and so they "deserve" whatever punishment they get.  As if they were free to choose to do something else when they are not!  This is not any degree of free-will, even though Calvinists try to make it sound like it is, like it's "free-will" that's compatible with God's sovereignty.  But nope!  All they mean is that God has predestined everything you will do and then He gives you the desire to do it (and only that desire, giving you no ability to choose anything else) and so you "choose" to do it because you "desired" to do it.  That's how Calvinists think "free-will" (which isn't free-will at all) interacts with God's sovereignty.

5.  He expresses concern that people understand God's "wisdom, power, and goodness" enough so that they can stand firm in terrible times.  This makes it sound like Calvinism benefits us in mental and emotional ways, that it's a comfort in hard times.  And who wouldn't want that?  It sounds like a salesman's tactic, trying to convince you that you want Calvinism because it's good for you, that it will bring you comfort.  

But is this - Calvinism's god - the kind of god that brings comfort: a god who created most people so that he could hate them and predestined them to hell, who causes us to commit sins he commands us not to commit because it brings him glory, who tricks all people into thinking that salvation is available to them when it's not available to most people, who makes us think we have a choice about Jesus (or anything) when we don't, who causes our sins but punishes us for them, who has secret layers of meaning for all that he says which contradict what he plainly said in the Bible, who tricks some people into thinking they are saved when they aren't just so he can punish them more strongly in hell (look under the heading "evanescent grace" in this post), who makes you wait till the end of your life to know for sure if you are really one of the elect or not, etc.?

How is that "comforting"?  How is that a god you can trust?  How is the Calvinist god any different from Satan?

6.  In the paragraph starting with "Personally, I've felt the pull ...", it sounds like humility when he confesses that he wants to forcefully push his views on people but that he refrains.  But this is false humility.  Because he is simply saying (when you read between the lines) that instead of pushing his Calvinism forcefully, honestly, and forthrightly, he is holding back so that he can gently, skillfully, subtly guide people into Calvinism.  (If a theology is so biblical and God-glorifying, why should it have to be covered-up or understated?  If it has to be covered-up or understated to get people to accept it, shouldn't that be an indication that something is wrong with it?)

7.  When he says to "preach the Bible, not Calvinism" and to avoid Calvinist terminology, he isn't saying to preach God's Word as it is instead of Calvinism.  He is basically saying (without saying it) to use the Bible's words to preach Calvinism (so that it sounds biblical) instead of using Calvinist words/ideas, to reel people in slowly and subtly by skillfully using the Bible's words/verses to push your Calvinist views.  

And he demonstrates this when he says that he gave a sermon on Exodus where he made sure to read every verse about God's ultimacy in hardening Pharaoh's heart.  And then he asks a leading question: "Who's ultimately responsible in Pharaoh's heart being hardened: God or Pharaoh?"  And then he's delighted that the congregation yells out "God," showing that they learned to see things his way.

Please note that this is exactly how Calvinist pastors work: They have an agenda about what they want you to believe the Bible says, and they highlight the verses (taken out of context) that they think "support" it, and then they ask you leading questions, letting you "discover" the Calvinism they told you that you'd find.  (My ex-church does this kind of thing in the sermon-based, small-group questions the church publishes. The questions assume Calvinism is true and asks leading questions that force you into Calvinism and don't let you disagree with it, such as "Given that the Bible clearly teaches that God ordains all things, even sin, what does this mean for our lives?" and "People have a hard time accepting the truth of predestination, but how is this idea proven in the Bible?")  

Calvinists also present you with false dichotomies that are carefully worded to force you to pick the Calvinist option, as if those are the only two options available and so you have to pick the Calvinist one, such as "Who's ultimately responsible for hardening hearts: God or people?  Who is sovereign over all: you or God?  Who controls everything: you or God?  Does God control everything or does God control nothing?  Did God save you or did you save yourself?", etc.  They overly-simplify the options (leaving out the true answer), making sure the Calvinist one sounds like the right one, so that you have no choice but to pick the Calvinist one.   

PJ even says that the Bible's words are sufficient to lead people to Calvinist thinking.  But what he obviously means, as demonstrated by his skillful use of select verses from Exodus, is that "the Bible's words - when carefully chosen, emphasized, and crafted to fit Calvinism - will lead people to Calvinist thinking."

[I've gone over this in other posts, but let's look again at what the Bible really says about God hardening Pharaoh's heart.  In the Exodus story, we see that God tells Moses that He will harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 7:3), meaning that He didn't do it yet (before the plagues started) but that He will do it later (after Pharaoh repeatedly hardens his own heart first).  And in the first several plagues, Pharaoh chooses to harden his own heart, to resist God.  But then eventually God hardens his heart, just like He said He would do, but only after Pharaoh chose it first.  God permanently gave Pharaoh what he wanted and chose: a hard heart.  (Yet, in spite of the fact that God said He will - eventually - harden Pharaoh's heart, my ex-pastor basically said "Well, God hardened it first, from the beginning."  But that's not what the Bible says.  It's what Calvinists need it to say.)  And as I've pointed out before, "hardens," in the concordance, is a retributive hardening.  It's punishment for first hardening your own heart and for resisting God for so long.  It's not about God choosing to harden random people's hearts so that they can't believe in Him; it's about God punishing those who stubbornly resist Him by making their self-chosen hardness permanent.  Big difference!]

8.  He tries to come up with some biblical-sounding, humble-sounding reasons for hiding his Calvinism, which he labels as the "content, function, and goal" of preaching.

"Content" - He instructs Calvinist pastors to preach the Bible instead of Calvinism because the Bible is God's words and not a Calvinist's own theological formulations.  But this is deceptive nonsense because he's already said that the Bible and Calvinism are one and the same.  And so, once again, this simply means to hide the obvious Calvinist ideas/words and to instead use the Bible's words to preach Calvinism.

"Function" - In this section, he says that sermons are a time for pastors to model how to mediate on scripture, by asking questions about the passages they preach on and explaining the phrases.  But what I believe PJ really means here is that Calvinist pastors can skillfully use their preaching to lead their congregation into Calvinism (controlling how the people think about scripture) by emphasizing the passages that supposedly support Calvinism, by giving the people Calvinist explanations of the passages, and by asking leading questions to box them into the Calvinist interpretation of these passages.  He says that it's through preaching that the pastor disciples his hearers to submit to and meditate on scripture (read: "It's through our preaching that we can shape people's thinking, training them to meditate on scripture the way we want them to, the Calvinist way").  Using preaching to train people to meditate on scripture would be a great thing ... if they weren't teaching lies.  

"Goal" - He comments that since God resists those who puff themselves up but gives grace to the humble, [Calvinist] pastors should pour themselves out to help their people grow in the experience of God's grace [the Calvinist "doctrines of grace," which means God gives saving grace to the elect only].  Of course, there are very humble pastors out there, and being a pastor is a very self-sacrificial job, but why the need to emphasize their humility in doing so and the fact that God gives grace to them for their humility?  (Doesn't pointing out your own humility negate your humility?)  This sounds to me like he is trying to stress the idea that Calvinist pastors are simply doing their job out of humility and that God blesses them for it.  And so ... if God is supposedly for it, then how can we stand up against them?  Sounds a little like "God is on my side, so you can't oppose me."  Anyway, he then says that "God forbid" that pastors have any theological pride that might spread to the people, causing God to resist them.  First off, how can a Calvinist - who believes that God causes all things, even sin (which would include spiritual pride), for His glory - say "God forbid" anything?  If (Calvinism's) God wants to cause spiritual pride in Calvinists for His glory, isn't that His right?  Does PJ know better than God about what should happen for His glory?  Saying "God forbid" as a Calvinist is like saying "God forbid what God might have predestined."  It doesn't make sense.  And how can a Calvinist pastor think he has a choice about this, about whether he is prideful or not, when his god controls everything he thinks and does?  So warning pastors against being prideful over their theology is pointless, an attempt to sound humble and to make it sound like he's saying that they have control over themselves even though he believes we have no control over anything.

9.  When Calvinists refer to "theological tension" what they really mean is "a Calvinist idea that can't mesh cleanly with Scripture because it contradicts what the Bible says."  But instead of calling it a contradiction, they call it "tension" or "mystery" or "dilemma" (making it sound less unbiblical than it is), and they try to convince you to accept it, to live with the tension, mystery, or dilemma instead of trying to resolve it.  They will even make you feel ashamed if you try to resolve it or research it deeper, as if you are offending God.

10.  In his attempt to encourage Calvinist pastors to "teach the Bible, not Calvinism," he asks Calvinist preachers if they trust God's choice of words over their own "clever" and "necessary" theologizing about God's sovereignty.  

So Calvinist theologizing is "clever" and "necessary," huh!?!  Could he toot his own horn any louder (while trying to appear humble)?  And this is really just an attempt to manipulate people into putting their faith in the Calvinists pastor's theological views.  

And saying that Calvinist pastors should trust God's choice of words over their own is really just a way to use the Bible as an excuse for hiding their Calvinism.  And once again, the Calvinist god controls their thoughts, and so, therefore, they have no control over whether they trust in God's Word or in their own theologizing anyway.  A challenge like this is meaningless for a Calvinist pastor because it's all predestined and controlled by Calvi-god anyway.

He says that if you're a Calvinist ("because it's biblical," he adds, constantly stressing how supposedly right and biblical his theology is) you should "exult in and humble yourself before the Bible."  Once again, do they have control over whether they do that or not?  Is the Calvinist god not "sovereign" over the Calvinist's life?  Calvinism is a self-contradictory theology.

He does ask a very wise question though, about whether Calvinist pastors came to Calvinism by reading Calvinist systematic theology or through the Word of God.  Yet he is making the subtle suggestion that they need to claim that they came to Calvinism simply by reading God's Word ... when, in reality, Calvinists almost always (it seems to me) come to Calvinism only after other Calvinists lead them to Calvinism through months of studying Calvinist books in Calvinist classes.  (Did God intend for His Word to be that difficult to understand?)  

11.  He calls his theology "big God theology," obviously meaning that any other theology minimizes God.  And no good Christian is going to want to minimize God, will they?

12.  He warns pastors that if they preach Calvinism, they may cause people to be impressed with their "theological precision" to the pastor's glory (that's bragging while trying to look like he's not bragging) or they may increase theological tribalism or they will increase people's suspicion of their theology and close them off to Calvinism.  He warns against this even though this is exactly what happens when Calvinism infiltrates a church: the elevation of the pastor, tribalism, and turning some people off to Calvinism (those who are aware of how different Calvinism is from the Bible).

He says that if you "preach the Bible" (he means "cloak Calvinism in biblical language") then the people will learn "God's Word" over time (meaning "Calvinism").  Once again, he's subtly associating "Calvinism" with God's Word, as if they are the same thing.

13.  He cautions Calvinist preachers to not trust in their own "theological acumen," which means "the ability to make good judgments and quick decisions, typically in a particular domain."  Another way to elevate his theology and his theological "intelligence"!

"Theological acumen ... sound doctrine ... theological precision ... big God theology ... correctly connect the dots ... sturdy rock ... [Calvinist pastors] teach the truth ... it's biblical ... if you preach the Bible, you will be preaching Calvinism ... clever and necessary theologizing ... God's Word will be honored, etc."

How many more ways can a Calvinist elevate themselves and their theology in one article, while also subtly suggesting that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong ("swept away by false doctrine ... biblically and theologically illiterate")?

PJ's article ... oops, excuse me, I meant "Saint" PJ's article ... is little more than an article about how right Calvinists are, how people need to agree with them if they want to be right too, how those in the congregation can't figure out truth without the Calvinist pastor's help, and how the Calvinist pastor needs to hide their Calvinism as much as possible (strategically, subtly, and patiently using the Bible's words and verses to push Calvinism) so that they don't scare people off or alert them to the fact that the pastor is pushing Calvinism.  And if the Calvinist pastors follow these tips, then they too can weasel their way into a non-Calvinist church and convert the sheeple to Calvinism over time.

If it could work in this church that absolutely did not want a Calvinist pastor then it can work in any church.  As you can see, even though this church didn't want a Calvinist pastor, they got one.  And they let him subtly and slyly lead them deeper into Calvinism: "many have been moved, without even knowing it, to a sound sense, conviction, and commitment regarding God's sovereign freedom [meaning Calvinism]."  This is a veiled brag that he hid his Calvinism well enough that he was able to convert them to Calvinism without them even realizing it.  (Do you still think Calvinist pastors don't have a hidden agenda to convert you to Calvinism?)

"Saint" PJ will be accountable to God for spreading his ungodly theology, but the people will be accountable for letting him, for not researching for themselves what he says and what the Bible says well enough to see the difference, for letting him convince them to ignore the red flags that pop up.

Be a Berean!  Research what others tell you the Bible says to see if it's what the Bible really says.  And if they don't match, then get out of that church and find one that teaches the Bible correctly, as it is.  God meant what He said and said what He meant, and He doesn't need Calvinist theologians to "correct" Him.