Exposing Calvinism: The "Non-Elect" Can Come to Christ? Really!?!

Here's another set of comments - taken from the comment section of the Soteriology 101 post "A Conversation with a Reprobate" - showing you (once again) how deceptive Calvinists are with their wording, how they try to get you to think they're saying "anyone can believe and be saved" when they really mean "only the elect can."  I made minor corrections for better clarity (and these are selected comments from the comment section, but not exactly in order like this) and I added my own notes in between.  I am compiling these comments to help educate us about "what Calvinists say/imply" vs. "what Calvinists really mean/believe."  And be aware that the Calvinists I quote in these posts are not exceptions.  They represent the true fundamental beliefs of Calvinists quite accurately, and this is why I quote them.  They are very revealing.  (For more on this, also see "Exposing Calvinism: 'Anyone' Can Believe and Be Saved" and "Exposing Calvinism: 'All People' Doesn't Really Mean 'All People'".):

Rhutchin (Calvinist) made this comment:

"In Calvinism, a sovereign God exercises his love to save His elect.  A loving God exercises his sovereignty by sending Christ to die for sin.  The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God."

TS00 (anti-Calvinist) responds:

"That is blatantly false under Calvinism.  The non-elect can choose no such thing, because God [Calvinism's god] neither chose them, sent his Son to die for them, nor granted them the desire and necessary faith to come to Christ.  There is absolutely no way, shape, or form that you, representing Calvinism, can honestly make such a statement.  It is a blatant, deliberately deceptive misrepresentation of Calvinism, to make it appear both biblical and desirable.  Neither of which are true when it is presented honestly."

[My note: Now watch the way that Rhutchin begins spinning what he said, the round-about way he turns “the non-elect can choose to come to Christ” into his true belief that "only the elect can come to Christ."  And notice that he already verified this, that Calvinism's god intends to save only "his elect."  And so it is inexcusably deceptive for Rhutchin to make it seem like he's saying that everyone - that any sinner, any non-elect person - can be saved, when what he really means is that only the people God elected/causes to come to Christ can be saved.  Calvinists are experts at sounding like they are saying one thing while really saying another.  And so to understand what Calvinists really believe, you have to understand the word-games they play, the deceptive tricks they use to make you think they are saying something they aren’t, and you have to keep asking questions until they reveal more and more of what they really mean.  

Side Note: Rhutchin - and all Calvinists - say that God shows His love by saving the elect.  But what does God say?  In John 3:16, He says He shows His love for the world by sending Jesus to the cross for our sins.  But Calvinists will respond that it doesn't mean "all individual people," but all types of people, the elect from all over the world.  But these verses clearly show that God means all people: 

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) 

"... 'Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!'" (John 1:29).  

"Who gave himself as a ransom for all ..." (1 Timothy 2:6)

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."  [Romans 5:18.  In Calvinism, the first "all men" would mean "all people" (because of Adam's sin, all people are condemned), but the second "all men" would mean "only the elect" (justification and life are only available for the elect).  What a twist, giving the same phrase two different meanings in the same verse to fit their views.  But if "all men" is supposed to mean "only the elect," then it must mean it in the first part too, which would mean that only the elect were condemned by Adam's sin.  Calvinists cannot eat their cake and have it too.  (And, yes, that's how that phrase should go - because anyone can have their cake first and then eat it, but you cannot eat it but still have it.)

However, Calvinists will then ask "Well, if Jesus died for all people then why isn't everyone saved?"  Calvinists wrongly believe that if salvation was offered to someone then they would have to become a believer, and so, therefore, since there are unsaved people then it must mean salvation wasn't offered to them, which must mean there are elect and non-elect people and that God decides which one you are.  

But that's not the way God set things up.  He offers salvation to all - Jesus's death bought life for all - but God offers it as a gift, and He leaves it up to us to accept it or reject it.  Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."  Joshua 24:15: "... choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve..."  

But Calvinists do not and cannot understand the idea - the truth - that God allows people to make their own choice to either accept or reject His gift of salvation.  They think that no one in their right mind would reject heaven if they had a choice, and so therefore they must not have a choice.  They start with their unbiblical ideas of how they think things must be and then they twist the Bible to fit.  

But if the Bible makes sense when it's read in a plain, commonsense way - such as "God so loved the world" means "God loved the world, all people of the world," and "He is the atoning sacrifice ... for the sins of the whole world" means "Jesus paid for all men's sins," and "choose whom you will serve" means "you choose whom you will serve," etc. - then don't go looking for hidden, deeper, contradictory meanings.  That's how religious cults get started!]

Rhutchin replies:

"At least, we agree on the need for faith to come to Christ.  Absent God giving a person faith, a person cannot be saved...

I am pretty sure that Calvin said the same thing - that anyone, including the non-elect, would be acceptable to God if they believed, even though God knows they will not do so."

[My note:  See what I mean?  In Calvinism, the elect - and only the elect - are given the faith to believe (saving faith is a thing injected into them by Calvi-god), and so only the elect can believe.  (Whereas, non-Calvinists would say faith is our response to the gospel, not a thing injected into certain people.)  The non-elect can never believe because God will never give them the faith to believe.  (In Calvinism, faith comes before belief in Jesus.  It leads to belief in Jesus.  And this, though Calvinists won't admit it, is essentially "faith - being saved/born again - without believing in Jesus.")

You see, when a Calvinist says that the non-elect would be accepted by God if they believed, they don't mean that it's a possibility.  It's just hypothetical.  They just mean that if they could believe (which they can't) then they would be accepted (though they won't be and never really could be).

It's like saying, "If we could go back in time, we could stop Hitler."  If we could go back in time (which we can't) then we could stop Hitler (though we won't and never could).  But if we could ...!  

All they mean is "The non-elect could be saved if God wanted them to be saved, to be one of the elect.  But since He doesn't want them to be saved, then they won't/can't be saved.  But if He did..."  Ridiculous and deceptive!

The very definition of "non-elect" includes the Calvinist beliefs that they were never able to be saved because Calvi-Jesus didn't die for them, Calvi-god predestined them to hell, and Calvi-Holy-Spirit won't regenerate them or give them the faith to believe.  And this is why it's a deceptive lie for Calvinists to talk like the non-elect could be saved, making you think they are saying it's possible.  And this is what they want you to think they are saying so that they don't scare you off, to buy them time to subtly, stealthily reel you into Calvinism.  

(If they have to be so stealthy and deceptive about their theology, so careful in their wording to not reveal too much too soon, to make you think they're saying one thing when they really mean another ... doesn't that tell you something is majorly wrong with their theology!  Because that's not how God operates, but how Satan does!)]

My reply to Rhutchin’s comment that “The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God”:

"Now let’s see what Calvinism really teaches with all the missing words put back in:  'The non-elect can choose to come to Christ … but only if Calvi-god changes their sin-nature to a regenerated one … and then they will be eagerly accepted by Calvi-god.  But since Calvi-god didn’t elect them for heaven (the very definition of 'non-elect') then they cannot ever choose to come to Christ on their own.  But if he did, then they could.  But he didn’t, so they can’t.  But if …'"

Br.d. (non-Calvinist) adds: "If it weren't for DOUBLE-SPEAK - would Calvinists speak at all?"

Rhutchin now admits  - after making it sound like anyone can believe in Jesus -  that sinners must be given faith in order to come to Jesus:

"How is the Calvinist position that a sinner must be both regenerated and be given faith in order to come to Christ an example of 'DOUBLE-SPEAK'?  What is unclear about the Calvinist position?"

[My note: What's unclear, Calvinistic double-speak is that he first made it sound like it's possible for the non-elect to come to Christ, but now he says that we can only come if we are first regenerated and given faith (the very definition of "the elect"), which Calvi-god will never do for the non-elect.  It’s tragic that Calvinists can't see - refuse to see - the contradiction in such statements.]

Br.d. rhetorically asks: “How is it not DOUBLE-SPEAK to say someone *CAN* do something which Calvin’s god decrees they infallibly *CANNOT* do?”

Rhutchin rhetorically replies:

So, it was double-speak for God to demand that Israel keep the law even when He knew they could not do so.  It is double-speak for God to tell believers, "Be holy because I am holy."  [My note: No, it would be double-speak for God to command Israel to keep the Law, making them think they had a choice, if He predestined/caused them to break it, giving them no choice over their actions.  It would be double-speak for God to command people to be holy but then cause them to sin.  But these are not cases of double-speak because they are not cases where God causes people to fail to do the things He commands.  These are cases where God tells people His perfect standards, which He know we humans can’t reach (but He does not cause us to fail), showing us that we can never be perfect enough on our own to earn heaven, that we need a Savior who paid for our sins to make salvation possible for us.  Because we could never do it ourselves.  Big difference.  These are not relevant to the double-speak example where Calvinists claim “the non-elect can believe” but they really mean "the non-elect can never believe because God causes them to not believe".]  Fromoverhere (non-Calvinist) points out many Scriptures exhorting sinners to turn from their sin and submit to God, but we know that no one can do this without faith.  [My note: Once again, Calvinists mean “faith is given to the elect first by God, which causes them to turn from their sins,” whereas non-Calvinists believe that we choose whether or not to put our faith in God, to turn from our sins to God, and that anyone can do it because salvation is offered to all, and we all have the ability to believe in God.]  Your conclusion seems to be that the Scriptures are full of double-speak.  Yet the Scriptures do not misrepresent the truth...  [My note:  No!  It’s the Calvinists who do!]

Rhutchin also says: "God deals with sinners by saving some and not others.  Even the non-Calvinist recognizes that some sinners are saved and some not."  [My note: But Calvinists assume that God chooses who gets saved and who doesn't, that He causes us to either believe or to reject Him.  (And that He causes our sins, though they obscure the word "causes" as much as possible.)  And so if a sinner isn't saved, it's because God made them a sinner and predestined them to hell, preventing them from believing.  Whereas a non-Calvinist would say that if a sinner isn't saved, it's because even though they (all men) have the chance, opportunity, and ability to believe in Jesus, to turn from their sins to God, they chose to reject the offer of salvation God gives all people.  God did not choose it for them; they chose it out of their own free-will.  The Calvinist way makes God responsible for people's sins, unbelief, and eternal damnation, which also makes Him a liar for saying that He wants all men to be saved and wants no one to perish and that Jesus died for all men and that we have to choose whom we serve and if we will obey or disobey, etc., which also makes Him untrustworthy, ungracious to most, unloving to most, unjust (punishing people for what He caused, for something we had no control over), unholy for causing sin/evil and being glorified by it, etc.  But the non-Calvinist way affirms that we are responsible for our choices, that God is trustworthy because He means what He says and says what He means (that He really does love all people and want all people to be saved, that Jesus really did die for all sins of all people, that we choose whether we obey or disobey, etc.), that He is just if He punishes us for our sins because it was our choice (He did not predestine/cause us to do it), and that He is holy because He doesn't cause and isn't glorified by sin/evil, etc..]

TS00 responds:

False, false, false.  God deals with sinners by offering them all mercy.  [Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."]  It is up to the sinner how he responds to that mercy, that grace, that undeserved and unearned forgiveness [Joshua 24:15: "... choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve..."] that is made freely available to all men, with no hidden, secret clauses or hinderances designed to hide Calvi-god's sneaky, ugly, partial treatment and his cruel, mocking destruction of helpless creatures."

Rhutchin replies to something I said (“… But everyone has the chance, the offer, to go to heaven.  At least according to the Bible, but not according to Calvinism.”) with:

Is that chance valid with or without the Holy Spirit and faith? Calvinism says that the offer of salvation is only valid with the help of the Holy Spirit and faith (otherwise, the preaching of the gospel is common grace and nothing more).

[My note: He is admitting here that those who are not given the Holy Spirit and faith to believe (the non-elect, those not elected for salvation) did not get a real offer of salvation from God.  Once again, in Calvinism, faith is something God injects into the elect to make them believe.  Whereas non-Calvinists say that faith is our response to gospel truth, that we choose to believe the Gospel, to believe in Jesus in faith.  And notice that Rhutchin calls it "common grace" for Calvi-god to give the gospel to the non-elect, to give an invalid offer of salvation to those people he predestined to hell and whom he causes to reject the "offer" of salvation.  If that's "grace," I'd hate to see what an ungracious God looks like!]

Br.d. points out:

A "valid" offer for what is not offered :-]

A “valid” offer for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for Calvin’s god’s good pleasure.

Who wouldn’t want that! :-]

TS00 adds:

"Common" grace which is not grace.

Rhutchin replies to Br.d.'s comment (“A “valid” offer for what is not offered”) with:

The proclamation of the gospel to all people is a valid offer even though God knows that no one can make a positive response without also being given faith.  In the same way, God gave Israel the law as the valid means to obtain righteousness even though God knew that none could obey the law perfectly.  I guess the validity of an offer depends on your definition of “valid.”

[My note: If the elect can only understand/respond to the gospel after God gives them the Holy Spirit and faith, after they are born again/regenerated, but the non-elect can never respond to the gospel because God won't regenerate them, then what good is the gospel really?  What does it do? Calvinism makes the gospel superfluous, unnecessary, ineffective.  They say it's just God's way of drawing the elect out from the world, which means it only really "saves" the saved.]

Br.d. replies:

To say Calvin’s god “offers” something to someone that he DOES NOT PERMIT them to have would be seen by the average *ETHICAL* Christian as a distorted use of the term “offer”.

A father who claims to “offer” his child agape love – which that father was never ever going to PERMIT that child to have – would be seen as a sadistic father.

However, for those whom Calvin’s god DESIGNS specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – eternal torment in a lake of fire is in fact what he has to OFFER them.  And common vernacular would understand that “offer” as “valid”. :-]

Rhutchin replies (See how Calvinists just can't see what's wrong with their views!):

That’s the conclusion of your humanist philosophy and not a Scriptural theology.

[My note: To prevent you from analyzing their errant, contradictory theology too closely, Calvinists will accuse you of putting your human logic above Scripture.  They expect you to put aside all logical arguments/questions against Calvinism and to simply accept whatever they say as "Scriptural theology."  Can you say "cult"!?!]

Aiden asks:  “If you wait until someone is dead to offer them money, and they, surprisingly enough, don’t respond, would you walk away saying, "Well, it was a valid offer which they just wouldn’t accept?"”

Rhutchin:  That is what God did with Israel in giving them the law and promising blessing and curses.  (Translation: "Yes, I would say it was a 'valid offer' to offer a dead person money!"  This is why it's impossible to reason with Calvinists!  They truly believe and defend that kind of nonsense.  Once again though, these are different situations.  In Calvinism, God "offers" faith to the non-elect but He prevents them from accepting it.  God did not prevent the Israelites from obeying the law.  The law was supposed to illustrate the perfection required to meet God's holy, perfect standards, showing that man could never meet them on his own.  And so that's why God sent Jesus to die for our sins, to meet the standard for us, so that salvation could be offered and available for us all.  That's far different than God "offering" salvation to those whom He predestined/caused to reject it, as happens with the Calvinist non-elect.) ...

Later, Rhutchin says: "Only the person with faith can respond and come." [My note: Once again, this means that the non-elect - those Calvi-god will never give faith to - can never come to God.  It totally contradicts his statement that the "non-elect can choose to come to God."  He's essentially saying "the non-elect can choose to come to God if God makes them elect, which will never happen."  Silly, impossible, and contradictory.  A perfect example of Calvinist double-speak.]

TS00, in response to "Only the person with faith can respond and come":

Responding and coming demonstrate faith.  But it is a mere biblical assertion that faith is an object that can be passed out like candy.  Almost no one but a Calvinist would misinterpret the word thusly.  Faith, or the lack thereof, is always an individual choice in response to a truth claim...."

Later on, TS00 wisely says:

It is the claim that such monstrous beliefs [Calvinism] are taught in scripture that creates atheists.  Note how Calvinism demands that one hold one’s nose and imbibe the most ugly, cruel, unthinkable doings of the god they believe rules the world.  “Hey,” they shrug, “it’s ‘scriptural’.”

I would encourage all to understand that Jesus is the ultimate Word of God, and if any man-delivered, man-translated, and man-interpreted words contradict the loving, sacrificial, merciful heart Jesus showed, then spew it out.

We do not worship a book of words, but a living God who ... came to earth in flesh so that we might see the unmistakable beauty and grace of love incarnate.  Just as the original Law was accompanied by miracles and the tangible voice of God, so that none need doubt with whom they were dealing, the gospel is accompanied by and distilled in the life and acts of the Son of God.

Don’t settle for the doctrines of men, cobbled together and so long debated, which are often foul and unworthy of the true, Holy God.  Look to the One who gave all, that we might know and believe in his goodness and love.

This God is not playing games with humankind, pretending to offer grace where none genuinely exists.  He does not dangle redemption in front of helpless slaves only to mockingly point to the unfortunate chains that hold them tight – chains he himself (according to Calvinism) forged, applied, and could easily remove.

Everyone claims to have a ‘scriptural’ theology, but Satan has been twisting and abusing God’s ‘words’ from the very start.  I would recommend a ‘Jesusical’ belief system – one which represents the love, self-sacrifice, and mercy of the Lamb of God.