Exposing Calvinism: The Last Soteriology 101 Comments, Part Two
I wasn’t planning on adding these, but I recently wrote some comments in reply to some Calvinists on the Soteriology 101 post “Calvinism and the problem of damnation and hell.” I won’t really explain them or add more notes, maybe just a few, but I’ll just post them as is. There are a lot of comments from other non-Calvinists and Calvinists in between these, but I am only really focusing on these. There will be a lot of comments here, from various different strings, because I am trying to get it all in one place since I will not be adding more to this blog after this year. So I have to throw it all in now. (I’ve made minor corrections for better clarity and grammar.)
This follows other comments (and there are lots of other comments in-between), but I’ll just start it here:
Spurcalleth (Calvinist) says, in between comments
made by others (his histrionic, overly-dramatic performance both cracks me up
and ticks me off, impresses me and makes me roll my eyes):
Interesting that John Calvin appeals to Romans 9:18 [“Therefore,
God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to
harden.”] for his position [that it was God's Will to predestine the non-elect to hell because it pleased Him], while you [non-Calvinists] appeal to some
fictitious situation that you dreamt up. Really shows the difference in approach
beautifully…
It seems that the non-Calvinist position here is to just
avoid talking about Romans 9:18 as much as humanly possible instead of actually
engaging with what the verse says. I’d
rather be a Calvinist that can deal with all of Scripture than a non-Calvinist that
has to ignore parts of Scripture in order to have a good night’s sleep…
[After various responses from non-Calvinists:] What I notice is
that you still haven’t given me any other interpretation of Romans 9:18. If there is one interpretation of Romans 9:18
(the one Calvin gave) and one absolute avoidance of interpreting Romans 9:18 on
the other hand, what am I supposed to do? Just ignore Romans 9:18 like you do? I’m sorry, I won’t do that. So please give me an alternative
interpretation of Romans 9:18 or shut your mouth. I don’t need sanctimonious insults from
non-Calvinists. Nobody does. What everybody needs is the best, clearest
understanding of Scripture so we can know what it was that God said to us, not
doctrinal battles centered in insulting the other guy…
Okay, so you just refuse to talk about Scripture. Well then, I have no reason to believe that you have my well-being in mind. I can just assume that since you don’t want me to know what God said, the logical conclusion is that you hate me. Why else would you not follow the example of the apostles who, wherever they came, expounded the Scriptures in the synagogues (i.e., among Jews who in most cases hated the Messiah)? It must be that you think I am not only worthy of hell, but that you will do everything in your power to make sure that that is where I end up. Well then, I guess I don’t need to talk to you anymore. I’ll continue being a Calvinist, and you can continue to hate Calvinists. Have a good life.
My reply (after
responses from other non-Calvinists, look them up to see them):
Good answers, Br.d, and Chapmaned…. And here are a few things to consider about Romans 9:18 (not that it will change a Calvinist’s mind):
In the concordance (original Greek, with Vine’s Expository Dictionary), the word “hardens” is a retributive hardening (punishment) for people who have continually resisted God’s lovingkindness and patience. They brought the hardening on themselves for resisting God. God did not randomly choose to harden them. [Added Note: This is similar to what happened with Pharoah, when he hardened his own heart – which God knew he would do - for the first several Egyptian plagues, and THEN God hardened his heart, solidifying his decision, giving Pharoah what he wanted, permanently. Nowhere does it say that God predestined or caused Pharoah to want to or choose to resist Him, just that after so many chances, God made Pharoah’s self-chosen resistance permanent. God can do this and still be just, righteous, trustworthy. But if God first caused Pharaoh to want/choose to resist Him and then He punished him for what He made him do, God wouldn’t be just, righteous or trustworthy anymore.]
Also, Chapmaned pointed out the “fitted for destruction” verse (Romans 9:22). In the concordance (with Vine’s), “fitted” has to do with the people’s destiny being tied to their character. They fitted themselves for destruction by how they chose to be. It’s not that God formed them to be that way.
And as Chapmaned pointed out, the chapter (Romans 9) is about Israel. It’s about the fact that God does not have to save Jews just because they are part of Israel (they don’t earn salvation just because they follow the law or have a certain bloodline, God can still punish them even though they are His “chosen” race) and that God has the right (in His mercy) to open the door of salvation up to the Gentiles even though they are not part of Israel. That’s what Romans 9 is all about. The Jews were jealous that God would extend salvation to the Gentiles too. They thought they were special – that they deserved to be saved, never condemned – because of their genealogy and because they followed the Law, unlike the Gentiles. But because Israel rejected Jesus, they brought condemnation and a partial-hardening on themselves, and God extended the offer of salvation to the Gentiles, allowing them to be grafted spiritually into the “chosen” race, Israel, if they believe in Jesus.
Understanding it this way, properly, in context, keeps God’s character and the rest of the Bible intact, whereas the Calvinist way destroys God’s character, His Word, the Gospel, Jesus’s sacrifice, and most people’s chance for salvation.
Also, spurcalleth, just because Calvin refers to a verse – just because anyone refers to a verse – doesn’t mean they understand it correctly or are godly. Satan knows how to quote Scripture too, while subtly twisting it. There are many false teachers, many cult leaders who use the Bible wrong. Be a Berean! Don’t just take what someone else says as truth just because they quote a verse. Research it to see if they are using it properly.
Roland
(Calvinist) replies to Spurcalleth:
You’re definitely right, Spurcalleth, about the non-calvinist approach, it is a dream… Non-calvinists have to “dream” or “imagine” situations in order to argue against the Calvinist position. As Calvinists, we cite and reason from Scripture unlike non-calvinists who reason to Scripture and impress their rationalism onto Scripture. It is the reason why I embraced Calvinism after I realized that all non-calvinists have a few things in common. First, they begin with non-biblical presuppositions. [My note: Let me guess ... such as our "presuppositions" that “For God so loved the world” means God loved the world, all people ... that “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” means Jesus took away the sins of the world, all people ... that “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” means that we have to believe in Him to have eternal life, and “whoever” can, anyone can ... that “I am not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” means that God doesn’t want anyone to perish but wants all to repent, to be saved, and so He wouldn’t cause people to perish or prevent anyone from repenting ... that “Seek me and live” means God expects us to seek Him to live spiritually, which means it’s possible to seek Him ... that “Choose whom you will serve” means that we choose whom we will serve ... that “the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” means that God’s saving grace has appeared to all men, that salvation is available to all men? Yeah, I can see how that’s really “beginning with non-biblical presuppositions”!] Second, they reason from an anthropomorphic foundation. Third, and there’s probably more, they place reason over revelation. According to non-calvinists, if an argument doesn’t make sense or conform to the laws of logic, then it is not biblical.
My reply to Roland:
So, Roland, you chose to embrace Calvinism after coming to certain realizations, huh? So much for God’s (Calvi-god’s) sovereign control, huh, when your own logical reasoning made you become a Calvinist. [And yet I seem to remember someone saying in another post that they don’t use human logic when evaluating biblical truth, meaning that you won’t give any weight to the logical arguments of non-Calvinists against Calvinism. So I guess it’s okay for you to use human logic to get into Calvinism, just not to get out of it, huh? And for the record, non-Calvinists reject Calvinism not because it doesn’t conform to the laws of logic but because when we look logically at what Calvinism teaches compared to what Scripture clearly says and at God’s revealed character, we can see that Calvinism contradicts Scripture and destroys God’s character. And that’s why we call Calvinism unbiblical.]
Roland responds to
me:
Heather says: “And yet I seem to remember someone saying in another post that
they don’t use human logic when evaluating biblical truth, meaning that you
won’t give any weight to the logical arguments of non-Calvinists against
Calvinism.”
Roland says: I have never written that I “won’t give any weight to the logical arguments of non-Calvinists against Calvinism.” I did in the past. I used to believe that God gave us libertarian freewill not on the basis of Scripture, as there is no Scripture making such a proposition, but on the basis that God would be unfair or unjust if humans do not have libertarian freewill. [My Note: See? Calvinists know that Calvinism makes God unfair and unjust. But they embrace Calvinism anyway and then simply change the definition of fairness and justice (or just sweep these concepts under the rug), claiming things like “A sovereign God can do whatever He wants, even ‘ordaining’ sin. He gets to decide what’s justice and what’s not, even if it looks like injustice to us. And we don’t have to understand it; we just have to accept it, because ‘Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” See this post - Exposing Calvinism: Causing Evil Isn't Sin for God - for more on that.] I know you know the arguments and I used to believe them. I will agree with a person who makes the argument that if humans do not freely choose to love God, how can that be love? I would even agree with the human example that if a husband and wife love each other, which they should, then each must have made a libertarian free decision to love each other. If they did not, then it is not love. If either were “forced” into the marriage, then it is not love. I would have fully agreed with this example and I would have reasoned from this example upward and applied it towards the example of God and Christians. However, I later rejected such examples on the basis that Scripture nowhere presents the relationship between God and His people in this manner. Yes, I know, Ephesians 5 speaks about Christ and His Church being Christ’s bride. But reasoning from human analogies to God is not biblical. There are many problems with humans analogies because they disregard, sometimes, human nature and they don’t take into account God’s nature. There’s a lot more to this but for time’s sake on this point I’ll stop here.
Heather: “So I guess it’s okay for you to use human logic to get into Calvinism, just not to get out of it, huh?”
Roland: I don’t believe I used human logic to get into Calvinism. I was convinced of Calvinism through reading Scripture that supports Calvinism. I believe Calvinism is a biblically valid position to hold.
Heather: “And for the record, non-Calvinists reject Calvinism not because it doesn’t conform to the laws of logic but because when we look logically at what Calvinism teaches compared to what Scripture clearly says and at God’s revealed character, we can see that Calvinism contradicts Scripture and destroys God’s character. And that’s why we call Calvinism unbiblical.”
Roland: No, for the other record, there are many on here that only appeal to syllogisms, logical concepts, and logical fallacies when arguing against Calvinism. Someone even wrote that there is no point in citing Bible verses for Calvinists because we do not listen (something along those lines). You wrote “because when we look LOGICALLY at what Calvinism teaches…” I would rather look at all viewpoints SCRIPTURALLY and not logically. I agree with you: “what Scripture clearly says.” What does Ephesians 1:4 say? That God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world! The doctrine of election is clearly taught in Scripture. [My note: First off, it’s not a “doctrine” of election. Calvinists have made it a “doctrine.” But, secondly, yes, election is taught in the Bible. Just not the Calvinist definition of election (predestination). Biblically, election is simply about God choosing believers for service, for a role, certain responsibilities, certain benefits. Anyone can believe, and once you do, you are “elected” for service to God. It’s that God chooses all believers for certain responsibilities, not that He chooses certain sinners to be believers.] It is the non-calvinists that are required, due to their non-biblical presuppositions, to twist Scripture and give it a meaning to conform to their presuppositions. I believe Calvinism is more clearly seen in Scripture than all non-calvinistic interpretations such as provisionism, arminianism, and molinism. Thanks for reading and I appreciate your cordial comments and response, Heather.
My reply:
Roland says: “I would rather look at all viewpoints SCRIPTURALLY …”
Heather: That’s what “…compared to what Scripture clearly says and at God’s revealed character…” means.
And then you add “… and not logically.”
Heather: Well, I would rather look at all views Scripturally AND logically. Because there are many who use Scripture but twist it. And so logic (our God-given ability to think and reason and examine things, etc.) is needed to see if it represents Scripture accurately. I do agree with you that human analogies can have problems and cannot be used to decide what’s biblical or not. But they can be used to help explain what’s biblical, to make it more understandable. (I don’t speak for all non-Calvinists, and I am sure that you are right that there are those who misuse analogies and logic, using it as the basis for their beliefs. On both sides, Calvinist and non-Calvinist.)
I however disagree that the Bible doesn’t show God relating to free-will people. I think believing God gave people free-will is the only proper, commonsense way to understand things like God calling people to believe in Him, saying that He wants all to be saved and no one to perish, that He loves all and that Jesus died for all, that He holds out His hands to those who reject Him, that He didn’t command the people to sacrifice their children to Baal, that the king of Israel set free a man that God determined should die, that Jesus wanted to gather Israel to Him but they were not willing, that the people stopped up their ears and hardened their hearts and would not listen to God, that “woe to the obstinate children who carry out plans that are not Mine,” that the people made the hearts of the righteous sad when God Himself did not make them sad, that there will be rewards for obedience and penalties for disobedience, etc.
Free-will (the God-given right to make decisions about whether we obey God or not, believe in Jesus or not) is the only way to understand those verses in a plain, no-hidden-meaning, no-contradiction way and to still keep God’s revealed character intact. The other way, Calvinism’s way, makes God unjust, untrustworthy, unloving to most, ungracious to most, the cause of sin, glorified by evil, etc., and it involves reading into Scripture things that aren’t there, taking verses out of context, breaking many biblical concepts up into “two different kinds, one for the elect and one for the non-elect,” stretching things past what Scripture reveals, adding multiple layers that aren’t there and that contradict the plain understanding of Scripture, etc..
Personally, I think most Calvinists are more concerned with defending Calvinism and prominent Calvinist leaders than they are with understanding what Scripture really teaches. I think they secretly like being part of an elite, specially-chosen group and having “special knowledge” of God’s “hidden meanings” that the average person doesn’t get. And it’s hard to give that up, to realize you’re just like everyone else, that anyone, even a child, can understand the gospel, that anyone can be saved.
And you caught me on the “cordial” thing. I wasn’t being very cordial to you, was I? Sorry about that. My irritation with spurcalleth’s attitude came out in my response to you. My apologies. Blessings to you.
[Note: For the record, I like Roland, for some reason. There's something earnest and respectful about him. Even if we disagree. He generally tries to keep it about the issues and not about attacking/insulting people personally. And I respect that. And I will admit, he puts up a good fight.]
Chapmaned (non-Calvinist) replies to Roland’s reference to Ephesians 1:4:
Roland, Why do you put a punctuation mark at the end of the word “world” in Ephesians 1:4?
My point, if one was to put a punctuation mark there, then the next sentence makes no sense.
Take it out, and then the sentence makes sense, and you will not have the same conclusion as you do with it.
That conclusion, to me, explains that the words after the word “world ” is what God chose FOR “US”. NOT that we were chosen.
That punctuation mark makes all the difference in the world, pun intended, to the interpretation of the sentence.
My reply about this verse:
Chapmaned says: “That conclusion, to me, explains that the words after the word “world ” is what God chose FOR “US”. NOT that we were chosen.”
Well said! Calvinists don’t finish the sentence. Instead, they stop with “He chose us,” making it sound like Calvinist predestination/election. But it’s not that certain people were “chosen” to be saved, but that those who are “in Him” (and anyone can be “in Him”) are chosen to be holy and blameless in His sight.
[My note: Ephesians 1:4, full verse: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” It’s not that God pre-decided to choose certain people to be believers, but that He pre-decided that believers – anyone who joins the “in Him” group – will be seen as holy and blameless in His sight. And furthermore, Calvinists are wrong to interpret verse 5 as “Calvinist predestination” too: “In love, he predestined us to be adopted as sons through Christ Jesus …”. I understand that it really can sound Calvinist, that we were chosen to be believers, until you read Romans 8:23, which explains what this adoption is: “… we ourselves, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” “Adopted as sons” can’t mean “becoming a believer” because they are already believers but are eagerly awaiting their adoption. It hasn’t happened yet. “Adopted as sons” is God's promise to redeem our bodies, as clearly said in Romans 8:23, which is when we fully receive all the benefits of being His child. Believers are predestined to have their bodies redeemed when Jesus returns. And this is confirmed in Ephesians 1:13-14: “… having believed, you marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”]
And how do we come to be “in Him”?
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,” (Ephesians 1:13).
Notice that they were not “in Him” until they believed. And they did not get the Holy Spirit until they believed. But in Calvinism, all the elect are chosen before time began, and they get the Holy Spirit before they believe, in order to cause them to believe. So which one is right? The Bible or Calvinism?
Anyone who becomes “in Him” (and anyone can), as a result of believing in Jesus, will be seen as holy and blameless in God’s sight (and they will have their bodies redeemed someday) because they accepted Jesus’s sacrifice on their behalf, wiping away their sins in God’s eyes.
God bless!
Pastor Loz (non-Calvinist) adds:
Roland wrote: “I agree with you: “what Scripture clearly says.” What does Ephesians 1:4? That God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world! The doctrine of election is clearly taught in Scripture. It is the non-calvinists that are required, due to their non-biblical presuppositions, to twist Scripture and give it a meaning to conform to their presuppositions.”
Yes, the doctrine of election is clearly taught in Scripture, including the verse above, just not the calvinist version of election. Please note the two words in that verse calvinists always like to ignore: IN HIM. When were you in Christ, and how were you in Christ? Paul himself said that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before Paul. He explains that we are in Christ by faith – in other words, at the point when we believe, and not before. None of us existed to be in Christ before the foundation of the world. God’s choice was made at that point [to redeem anyone who will believe in Jesus]. Christ was the original elect One, and we step into that corporate category when we believe.
Shock horror, a non-calvinist interprets Scripture, and does so differently than you! Do you even acknowledge that there are alternative possible interpretations of Scripture than those propagated by your favorite philosophical theorists?
------------------
Switching topics now, Roland explains how he became a Calvinist:
I was saved in a non-calvinist church. I did not begin to study Calvinism until I was a Christian at least 5- years. I read bible verses in Scripture that seemed to me from just reading my Bible without any commentary from anybody, that taught Calvinism even though I had never heard of Calvinism. Texts such as Romans 8, 9-11, John 6, Ephesians 1, Acts 4:27-8. When I asked my non-Calvinist pastors what a text such as John 6:44 meant, they would say something like, “well, God wants everyone to be saved so Jesus really doesn’t mean that no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him.” Or I clearly remember one of my pastor explaining Romans 8:29 to me as God looking down the tunnel of time, knowing who would believe in Jesus, and then predestining them to be believers. I believed what pastors said about the verses, but once I came across men such as R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur, not knowing they were Calvinists, I heard them saying that Jesus is saying exactly what He means to say and that, no, God did not look down the tunnel of time to see our decisions. He foreknew people, and predestined people.
At first, I rejected that form of thinking because I thought, “if God only chooses some people to salvation, then that is not fair,” but as I read more and more Calvinistic authors [My note: This is just asking for Calvinists to brainwash you into Calvinism.], I became convinced that Calvinism offers a biblical understanding of salvation and God. I can sympathize with a Christian or a non-christian who rejects Calvinism. I can understand why Calvinism is rejected. I just can’t come to personally reject what Calvinism believes about divine revelation and teaches about God and salvation.
My reply to Roland:
Roland, I agree that there are some verses that sound Calvinist, until I studied them much deeper, viewed them in context, and crossed-referenced them with other Scriptures. Since all of these have been looked at in various places on this blog, I’ll just briefly say:
Romans 9 is about Israel and Gentiles as groups, about God choosing to punish Israel for their resistance to Jesus and to extend salvation to the Gentiles. It’s not about individual salvation.
In John 6, I agree that no one can come to God unless God draws Him, I just don’t see where it says God only draws a few, certain, pre-selected people or that “draws” means “causes to believe.” John also says (12:32) that Jesus will draw all men to Himself. God works in all men’s hearts to try to lead them to Christ, to let people know He’s real and that they need Him, which is why there is no excuse for not believing (Romans 1:19-20). But He leaves the decision of how we will respond up to us, which is why Jesus could call to people, like the Jews, and yet they could resist Him, being unwilling to come to Him. If I mailed 100 invitations to a party, those who came could say they were drawn/invited. And they couldn’t have come unless I drew/invited them. But it doesn’t mean they were the only ones invited or that they were forced to come [that’s Calvinists reading into the verse something that isn’t there]. If we come to Jesus, it’s because He drew us (because He draws all), but if we don’t come, it’s because we rejected His drawing (because God gave us the right to choose).
In Ephesians 1, whoever chooses to believe in Jesus will be “in Him” (we join the “in Him” group after we believe, Eph. 1:13), and God has predestined that everyone who is in Him will be seen as holy and blameless in His sight. The destiny of the “in Him” group has been predestined, not who ends up in that group. It’s like the destiny of a plane being predetermined, but not who gets on the plane. That’s up to us.
About Acts 4:27-28, just because God preplanned that Jesus would die and how Jesus would die doesn’t mean He had to preplan/force the people to do it or that they had no choice to do anything differently. I believe God, in His foreknowledge, knew what those people at that time would be like and what they would choose to do when put in that circumstance, and so He knew He could work it into His plans. God didn’t cause the people to be wicked to get His plans done (which is what Calvinism would say, and it’s an attack on God’s character), but He knew what they were like and what they would choose, and He incorporated it (their self-chosen wickedness/sins) into His plans. [He let them be the wicked people they wanted to be and chose to be, and He worked it into His plans. This is how God can use evil without being responsible for it or the cause of it. Whereas, in Calvinism, God always preplans, “ordains,” orchestrates, controls all evil - every sinful, evil thing we think and do. But then Calvinists say that He’s not responsible for it, we are. As if that makes sense! They convince themselves that they’re not saying God is the cause of evil when they really are!]
And about “foreknew/foreknow,” I once read a Calvinist who said that he decided that whenever he saw that God “foreknew” people, he would just read it as God “forechose” them. That’s very sketchy to me, to just decide for himself that a word means something else so that it better fits his theology.
While I can see how these verses could seem Calvinist at first or when read a certain way, I think there’s a different, better, more accurate understanding of them (the non-Calvinist way) which is Scriptural, keeps the rest of the Bible intact, and doesn’t damage God’s character the way Calvinism does.
God bless. And enjoy your week!
-------------------
In a different string of comments:
Sinner Saved (Calvinist) said:
No, I mourn my sins continually, because my Lord bore them in His body. This [non-Calvinist Soteriology 101] group has some bizarre fetish and fascination with what if’s. I’d rather deal with what is. “Your sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” Hebrews 10:17
Why are you guys so mind-numbingly obsessed with unlearned questions and endless pontification? I use fowl language about this group’s dynamic because it’s so loaded to the hilt with man’s wisdom that it’s utter foolishness.
My reply:
Sinner Saved: “I mourn my sins continually…”
Even your sin of excessive pride? And serious question: If Calvi-god ordained, preplanned, causes your sins for his glory and pleasure, why do you mourn them?
And what’s your point about quoting Hebrews 10:17: “Your sins and iniquities I will remember no more”? If God remembers your sins no more, then why do you? Are you somehow better than God that you remember your sins (and constantly feel shame for them) when He doesn’t remember them? Does it give you brownie points or something for continuing to lash yourself for your sins, which Calvi-god apparently causes and delights in?
And you say: “Why are you guys so mind-numbingly obsessed with unlearned questions and endless pontification? I use fowl language about this group’s dynamic because it’s so loaded to the hilt with man’s wisdom that it’s utter foolishness.”
Why are you so mind-numbingly obsessed with staying here and engaging with our unlearned questions and endless pontification? Haven’t you ever read Proverbs 26:4: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself”? Or how about the quotes: “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference” (Mark Twain) and “Arguing with a fool proves there are two” (Doris M. Smith)?
(And you don’t choose to use the language you do because of our foolishness, but because Calvi-god ordained it and causes it for his pleasure and glory. You can’t help that you talk like a chicken or turkey, all that gobble-gobbledygook.)
And so I repeat something I asked earlier, “Since you are clearly the most humble, specially-gifted, specially-chosen, favored-by-God person here, I suggest you leave and don’t risk contaminating yourself with the likes of us. After all, what does your amazing light have to do with our hopeless darkness?”
Spurcalleth (Calvinist) defends Sinner Saved:
I think you went a bit too hard at Sinner Saved there and forgot that you also have a Bible. You said “If God remembers your sins no more, then why do you? Are you somehow better than God that you remember your sins (and constantly feel shame for them) when He doesn’t remember them?”
Aren’t you also commanded by Scripture to repent for your sins? If so, why do you remember them when God says that He remembers them no more? Something is wrong with your reasoning here.
My reply:
Spurcalleth: “… Aren’t you also commanded by Scripture to repent for your sins? If so, why do you remember them when God says that He remembers them no more? Something is wrong with your reasoning here.”
I was waiting for one of the Calvinists to bring this up. In my comment, I am in no way talking about me and my theology. I am calling out Sinner for the contradictions in his.
You see, in my view of Scripture, when we sin, it isn’t what God wanted us to do. God gave us a real choice between obedience and disobedience, and we sin when we choose to disobey. And since we chose what God didn’t want us to do, breaking His commands that He expects to be obeyed, we can and should feel convicted about it and repent. Because it isn’t what He wanted and because it dishonors Him. (And FYI, repenting is not the same thing as Sinner’s overly-dramatic, self-lashing, “mourning my sins continually,” which really just sounds like pride in disguise.)
But in Calvinism, God ordains (for His pleasure and glory and plans) EVERYTHING that Sinner does, even his sins. And in Calvinism, “ordains” really just means “preplans, controls, causes,” though Calvinists will deny it (but it is the inevitable conclusion of their theological beliefs, despite their denials).
So Calvi-god, from the beginning, preplanned Sinner’s sins, and then he works everything out just like he planned, causing Sinner to sin just like he ordained. Sinner could not have chosen any differently. Those sins are what Calvi-god REALLY wanted him to do, in contradiction to what Calvi-god commanded. (Calvinists say that God decrees that we break His decrees. Ridiculous nonsense.) And Calvi-god wanted/caused those sins for his glory and pleasure and plans. And so when Sinner says something like “I mourn my sins continually,” he is saying that he mourns that he did something that Calvi-god preplanned/caused for his glory and pleasure and plans.
So what does he mourn really? That he disobeyed Calvi-god? (Nope. Because he is really just obeying Calvi-god’s “hidden” decree that Sinner disobeys Calvi-god’s revealed decrees. Sin, in Calvinism, isn’t really disobeying God; it’s just obeying God’s deeper, secret, contradictory decree.) That he chose to do what Calvi-god didn’t want him to do? (Nope. Because Sinner couldn’t help it. He had no real choice and couldn’t do anything differently. It was Calvi-god’s decree, what he really wanted to happen. And so he made it happen.) Or maybe he mourns that he brought shame to Calvi-god or dishonored him? (Impossible. Because, remember, those sins were preplanned/caused by Calvi-god precisely for his glory and pleasure.)
So what is there to mourn, when Calvi-god causes it all to work out just like he wanted for his glory and pleasure? I guess, in Calvinism, it’s simply that Calvi-god commanded Sinner to not sin but then caused Sinner to sin and then caused him to continually mourn his sin. for whatever crazy, pointless value it might add to the great cosmic play that we all are just puppets in (if Calvinism is true).
Let me ask this: How do you, as a Calvinist, define sin? How do you define evil?
Because if you define it as having anything to do with choosing to do what God doesn’t want, or choosing to not do what God does want, or bringing Him dishonor or disappointing Him, etc., then you are contradicting Calvinism or trying to hold two contradictory, irreconcilable ideas at the same time. And since it can’t be reconciled, Calvinists have to resort to “cover it all up” phrases like “Who are you, O man, to question God? He is sovereign and can do whatever He wants. We don’t have to understand it or like it, we just have to accept it and live with the tension.” (A small child was beaten to death, deliberately, by her parents on our block. And at one of the candlelight vigils for this child, I overheard a woman next to me telling two men about how God is the Potter and we are the clay and so God can do whatever He wants with us for His glory. THIS is where Calvinism leads. I wanted to throw up.) Calvinism uses cult-like manipulation to deflect from their contradictions, to stop people from examining Calvinism too closely, to shame them into silence and into falling in line. I’ve seen it firsthand in our church.
But in Calvinism, there is no real difference between good and evil, between obedience (not sinning) and disobedience (sinning) because whatever happens is exactly what Calvi-god wanted and preplanned and caused for his own glory and pleasure. And if there’s no real difference between the two (and even if there was, it wouldn’t matter because we have no choice about it anyway), then there really is no such thing as the dichotomy of “good and evil,” “sinning or not sinning.” It’s all the same shade of gray.
I suggest, Spurcalleth, that you stop trying to defend Sinner Saved and start examining your theology a lot closer, carrying it out to its inevitable ends and reading Scripture in context after taking the Calvinist glasses off, to figure out what Calvinism REALLY teaches and the damage it does to God’s character and Word. Or if you prefer, let Calvinists continue to brainwash you with their manipulative tactics and phrases. If Calvinism is true, it really doesn’t matter which one you do anyway, does it? Because Calvi-god preplanned and causes both your embrace of Calvinism and my refusal of it for his glory and pleasure. Neither of us can help it, and both of us bring him just as much glory. (But since I believe we have real choice, I can challenge you to rethink your beliefs and theology. But you can’t challenge me without contradicting your Calvinist beliefs that everything we do is “ordained” by God, that we have no real choice/ability to change anything, and that everything is God-glorifying, which would include my rejection of Calvinism and my efforts to battle it.) God bless!
Spurcalleth replies:
You beautifully answered precisely zero of what I asked. What I asked is, since “He will remember your sins no more” is in your Bible too, how do you make sense of that and of the fact that you remember it? Fight against Sinner Saved as much as you like, it won’t make my question disappear. I’m not fighting for Sinner Saved or against Sinner Saved, I’m asking you a question.
My reply:
Spurcalleth: “What I asked is, since “He will remember your sins no more” is in your Bible too, how do you make sense of that and of the fact that you remember it?”
What’s your point about this question? Sounds to me like you are using it to deflect from the contradiction I pointed out between Sinner Saved’s comment that he mourns continually for his sins and yet that his sins aren’t even remembered by God (he’s the one who brought these two up, side-by-side, not me), and from my question about “Why would a Calvinist mourn for their sins if Calvi-god preplanned and caused them for his glory?” Sinner was making a special point of bragging about mourning “continually” for his sins (that God supposedly preplanned and caused), and I was wondering why and wondering how a Calvinist could do that and be consistent with their theology.
The emphasis in my question wasn’t merely on the ability to remember our sins, but it was on Sinner making a show of continually mourning for them, in spite of the fact that Calvi-god preplanned/caused all his sins for his glory, that Sinner had no ability to do anything otherwise (according to Calvinism), and that immediately after bragging about how mournful he is, he says that God doesn’t even remember our sins. Sinner is the one who made a strange pairing, not me. Sinner is the one whose “mourning” contradicts his theology, not mine.
And so your question is a deflection from the real issue, a pointless bunny trail. And of course, you just want to be able to say “See! You are in the same boat as Sinner if you remember your sins too. So there’s no real difference here between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.” We here at Sot 101 have seen this many times before with other Calvinists who are eager to go “We’re both saying the same thing, we’re both in the same boat,” when we’re not. And I have often seen how Calvinists, if they can’t tackle the real issues, go for the low-hanging fruit in the hopes of scoring a tiny, pointless win which doesn’t even begin to touch the real issues.
But once again, I’m going to ask a question I did earlier because it’s quite key to this issue: How do Calvinists define sin and evil? If our sin is really what God wanted us to do, if it’s His “hidden decree” that we have to obey, if He causes it for His glory just as much as He causes obedience for His glory, then what really is the difference between sin and “not sin,” between good and evil, between obedience and disobedience? And why, if both are equally predestined by God and equally glorifying to Him, should one be mourned over the other? And what’s the point of a Calvinist bragging about mourning for his sins if God caused him to sin, caused him to mourn for his sin, and caused him to brag about mourning for his sin? It’s all just pointless silliness.
And so maybe, to make my focus and point more clear, it would have been better if I said it like this: “And what’s your point about quoting Hebrews 10:17: “Your sins and iniquities I will remember no more”? If God remembers your sins no more, then why are you bragging about mourning them continually? Does it give you brownie points or make you feel better/holier or something for continuing to lash yourself for your sins, which Calvi-god preplanned, caused, and delights in, and which you had no control over?“
-------------------
In a different string of comments:
Sinner saved, after other comments, says:
What’s most horrifying is that you don’t care about your eternal souls. Just debates…
My reply:
Serious, fundamental question: How can the non-elect (according to Calvinism) care about their souls when Calvi-god doesn’t care about their souls, when he ordained them to hell for his pleasure and glory? Seriously, how?
I think what’s horrifying is that Calvinists constantly contradict/deny/downplay their own Calvinism, while at the same time thinking they are so enlightened for believing what they claim to believe.
Spurcalleth adds:
Do you claim to be a Christian? Then the expectation is that you would care for your soul, if we were to take your words at face value. The same holds for everyone here. Sinner Saved is just pointing out that the expectation does not line up with what he finds here.
My reply:
Spurcalleth: “Sinner Saved is just pointing out that the expectation does not line up with what he finds here.”
That doesn’t answer my question, especially since Sinner Saved thinks our god is Satan, which means, to him, that we are non-elect: “How can the non-elect (according to Calvinism) care about their souls when Calvi-god doesn’t care about their souls, when he ordained them to hell for his pleasure and glory?”
I am asking him (or her) to clear up the contradiction between him acting like we have any control/influence over our destinies (or even our thoughts/feelings) when Calvinism believes we don’t. His question of “Don’t we care about our souls” is, in Calvinism, meaningless, fruitless, and pointless … as are his efforts here to debate and change our minds, if everything’s been predestined already.
---------------------
In a different string of comments:
Roland (Calvinist) says: “I reject LFW.” [Libertarian Free Will: the idea that God gave mankind the right to make free-will decisions, that God doesn’t control the decisions we make but that He gave us the ability to make up our minds for ourselves, to choose between various options.]
My reply: Did you decide/choose to reject it?
Brdmod (non-Calvinist) says: Bulls-Eye Heather!!!!! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry – every time a Calvinist shoots himself in the foot while claiming to reject the existence of the very thing he AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMES exists for himself! ;-D
Roland replies: Of course I did. I made a conscious decision to examine the claims of LFW with Scripture. I came to a conclusion that LFW did not align with the teaching of Scripture, and I rejected it…. I chose to do so and not in a libertarian freewill sense of freedom. But in an understanding that is in agreement with Scripture that teaches us our freedom is influenced by our circumstances, our natures, our desires, our inclinations, our fears, God’s intervention in our lives, etc. Human will is not absolutely free or free from any influence.
[My note: What he/Calvinists means is that he “chose” to reject LFW but that God caused him to choose to reject LFW (that God causes us to choose everything we do) by putting irresistible pressure on him through circumstances and the desires God gave him (desires he had to obey). He didn’t really choose for himself from among real options (but they will try to make it sound like this is what they are saying); he was forced to choose this. He could not not choose it. Rejecting LFW was the only option available to him because it was predestined by God, and so God made it happen. And yet Calvinists will, in all sincerity, say that having only one option available to you and being forced to choose that option is a real "choice." They do not see the contradiction in this.
FYI: It is a false accusation – a strawman argument – when a Calvinist accuses non-Calvinists of believing that people are totally free to do anything they want or that there are no influences upon us. Non-Calvinists would agree that the human-will is not totally “absolutely free,” such as we are not free to work our way to heaven on our own, or to skip the judgment seat, or to escape the consequences of our choices, or to go outside the boundaries God set up, etc. And we know that there are influences that play into our decisions and that God can use circumstances to put us in a position to make a choice (yet He knows what we will choose).
But – and here’s the difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists - we do not think this means our actions/decisions are predestined, caused, controlled by God or that we could not have made a different decision. If we sin, it’s not because it was predestined/caused by God. We didn’t have to sin. We could have chosen not to sin. God might have put us in a situation that caused us to make our choice, to carry out the sin that He knew was in our hearts (to expose it), but He did not make us sin or need us to sin. It was not inevitable. God can work either our obedience or our disobedience into His plans. We choose; He works either one into His plans.]
---------------------
In a different string of comments:
Pastor Loz (non-Calvinist) asks Roland:
Roland, here is a two-part linked question for you:
1. Did God unchangeably ordain for you to commit the last sin you committed?
2. Could you have chosen not to commit that sin?
Roland (Calvinist) answers:
1. Yes, in one sense God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed. My answer would need some qualifications as to why I answered yes. [My note: So in Calvinism, God commands that you disobey His commands. And yet Calvinists cannot see the contradiction here and the damage it does to God’s commands, God’s Word.]
2. No. As a Calvinist I would reject the idea that God’s will, determinations, ordinations, etc. can be nullified by man in any way. [My note: Get ready, because later he says we can resist God's Will.]
Do what you will with what I answered above. I can provide Biblical examples of how God can ordain sin but not be the cause or origin of sin … [My note: No. All the examples Calvinists provide are about God using people’s self-chosen sins, working our choices into His plans, not about God “preplanning, causing, controlling sin and not giving man a chance to do anything differently,” which is what “ordaining” is in Calvinism.]
Brdmod (non-Calvinist) replies:
Roland: “1. Yes, in one sense God did ordain that I would commit the last sin I committed.”
br.d: The definition of CONTRADICTION is when something is said to be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time and in the same SENSE. All the Calvinist has to do – to hide a CONTRADICTION – is to manufacture a SENSE in which it is both cases. Since you know the SENSE in which it is FALSE – why can’t you summarize it? Perhaps if you do – it will be all too obvious – the SENSE in which it is FALSE for you is nothing more than a FAÇADE.
Somewhere along the line, Pastor Loz says:
So you [Roland] could have chosen NOT to commit to sin the last sin God unchangeably ordained for you to commit?
Roland replies: No, I could NOT have chosen to [not] commit sin that God had ordained. [My note: He's trying to say that he had to sin if God ordained it, that he could not have not sinned.] Who can resist God’s will? If God willed for me to commit the sins that I have committed, can I resist God’s will?
Why did God raise pharaoh up according to Paul in Romans 9? To save pharaoh? No, but to use pharaoh as an instrument to display God’s power! [My note: But nowhere does the Bible say God caused Pharaoh to do what he did, just that God used him. Because God knew what Pharaoh would choose when put in certain situations.] You sound like you are saying that pharaoh could have resisted God’s eternal purpose, resisted God’s will, resisted God’s action when He hardened pharaoh's heart [My note: God only hardened his heart after Pharaoh repeatedly choose to harden his own heart. And if Pharaoh chose to obey, God would have known he was going to obey and would have worked his obedience into His plans or just used a different person. Calvinism actually limits God’s abilities, acting as if God needed Pharaoh to sin or else He couldn’t make things work out. Calvinism’s god can’t handle any other factors than what he preplanned and causes. But the God of the Bible can allow many free-will choices, even ones He doesn’t want, and still make His overall plans/purposes work out.], and God would have had to say, “oops, pharaoh is resisting my will. I must turn to plan B.”
I am the clay, God is the potter, and who am I to talk back to God. [My note: This is the Calvinist answer for every unanswerable question, every tight spot, and every contradiction in their theology. It’s not a real answer but an attempt to shut you up, to shame you into agreeing with them. Challenge them long enough about their theology, and you’ll eventually hear this.] I am nobody to talk back to God and I cannot resist His will. Maybe you can, I don’t know? …
Pastor Loz replies somwhere: If as you say, you could NOT have chosen not to commit the last sin that God unchangeably ordained for you to commit, then:
1. Stop pretending you have any measure of free will at all, and that your choices are simply subject to “influences”, when in fact they are completely and unavoidably predetermined and you ARE a robot / sock puppet / computer running a program.
2. God lied to you when He said that He would not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. Thus you cannot believe anything God has said to you with confidence.
3. God actually preferred you to commit all the sins you have committed and will ever commit, than for you to resist temptation and walk in purity.
4. Every warning against sin God has given you is absolutely meaningless.
If you deny any of 1-4 then all you are doing is providing further proof of your inconsistency.
-----------------
In a different string of comments:
Roland (Calvinist) replies: Do people resist God’s will? Yes. Is it God’s will that we not commit adultery? Yes, it is God’s will, but we commit adultery. I do believe humans resist God’s will.
[My note: Notice that just a little bit earlier he said "
My reply:
Roland: “I do believe humans resist God’s will.”
All that Calvinists mean when they say this is that God wills that we resist His will, that He decrees that we resist His decrees. It’s Alice-in-Wonderland-type nonsense where He commands something but causes us to do the opposite. Disobeying Him on one level is obeying Him on another. And all this really does is turn God into a liar for saying that He doesn’t want us to do something when His hidden decree is that we do it anyway. How can we trust that God means any command He gives us then, if He might secretly desire that we disobey? And if both the obedience and disobedience are equally “ordained” by God and equally glorifying to Him, why bother caring which one we choose, as if it could make a difference anyway?
And my reply to his earlier comment:
Roland: “No, I could NOT have chosen to [not] commit sin that God had ordained. Who can resist God’s will?”
Heather: So … and I hate to be graphic here, but it drives my point home [Trigger warning for people with trauma in their past, so please don’t read more if you don’t want to] …
Let’s say that next week, you – Roland – see a little girl that catches your fancy. And you follow her as she’s walking home and snatch her off the street and take her back behind a shed and do all sorts of vile things to her, and then you leave her for dead in a heap on the side of the road. Are you seriously going to stand before God and man and claim that those sins were unavoidable? That you just had to do them, that you had no choice to not do them? If your god “ordained” [in the Calvinist sense] your past sins, then he “ordained” your future ones too. So let’s not just excuse your past sins but ones you will commit in the future too. And so if a little girl catches your fancy … or a married woman or another man or a pile of drugs or whatever … why should you try to resist temptation? Why not do whatever you feel like, because whatever happens is clearly “His will,” right? If all your sins are “ordained” (i.e. preplanned, caused by God), how do you know which temptation to resist and which to give in to? And why should you feel guilty about any sin you commit then?
It’s easy to talk about sin in a vague sense, but let’s get real about it. Do you agree with the weasely-Calvinist James White that God “ordains” [in the Calvinist sense, which includes preplanning and causing] child rape? That God has to be the cause of it so that it has purpose, so that it’s not just a meaningless evil? Would you agree with weasel-White that it’s so much better to have meaningful child rape caused by God than to have “meaningless” rape that God simply allowed because He lets men make real choices, even bad ones? You’d rather have that kind of God, that kind of world? (No wonder Calvinism creates atheists!)
How would you comfort those who have been violated by someone? “Oh, don’t worry. Take comfort in knowing that God caused it for His glory, for a purpose.” That’s how my Calvinist pastor said it to the congregation in a sermon: “God ordained all the tragedies that happened in your life, even childhood abuse, for His glory and for your good and because He knew what needed to happen to keep you humble.” I wanted to leap from my seat and punch him in the throat, as ordained by Calvi-god of course. I still get angry about it, and yet I was never abused. But my heart broke for those who were and who had to listen to that satanic garbage which completely destroyed God’s character and probably many people’s faith.
I think a big problem with Calvinists is that they are so busy trying to uphold God’s sovereignty (their unbiblical version of it) that they fail to really see people anymore (and fail to see truth). This is how they can casually say something like “Oh, I don’t think about those people predestined to hell. I just think about how gracious God is to save anyone at all.”
And now multiple the above example by billions – billions of people all doing whatever sins they want because they can’t help it, because Calvi-god “ordained” it. And that’s a god you think is worthy of praise and glory and devotion? A god who causes sins he commands us not to do, for his glory, but who punishes us for the sins he makes us do? I really don’t think you’ve thought about what you are claiming as much as you should.
Also, Calvinists misunderstand what “God’s will” means. Calvinists use it to say that God preplanned something and that it has to happen, that He causes it to happen. But I’ve looked into the word “will” in various verses that talk about God’s will for His people, and it’s about His “preferred will.” It’s about what He wants to have happen, His preferences about what we should do. And if He wants us to do His “preferred will,” it means things can happen that He doesn’t prefer. Because He allows us to choose to either do His Will or not. To obey Him or disobey Him. His will is not about a preplanned thing that He makes happen. It’s about what He prefers us to do.
When Calvinists have wrong definitions of the most basic, foundational, biblical things – such as sovereignty, faith, election, “God’s will,” “ordains,” etc. – and when they insist on clinging to those wrong definitions in the face of the monumental damage it does to God’s character, Word, and truth, then I really don’t think there’s any hope for them.
Roland replies: [After switching from my example of child-rape to the story of the Flood and Noah’s Ark...]
Does God bring calamity? Yes He does. Do I enjoy or like the fact that God brings calamity? No I don’t. This is the unpalatable part of Scripture and God that non-calvinists don’t like. As a Reformed Christian I embrace these truths by faith. I don’t understand, I believe it.
[My note: He’s using the Flood as representative of all evils, all sins. Since God caused the Flood for a reason, He must also cause all sins for a reason. Basically, he’s saying that he, in faith, embraces the fact that Calvinism’s god causes all terrible things, which would include the child-rape I talked about. He doesn’t enjoy this fact. He doesn’t understand this fact. But he embraces it nonetheless, in faith. That’s sick! No, it's worse than that - for Calvinism to believe that God preplans/causes all sins and evils for His glory is demonic!]
My reply:
Roland, I do agree that God brings calamity and judgment. I do not agree that God “ordains” people’s sins and that they had no chance to choose otherwise and that He punishes them for what He caused them to do. It’s one thing to cause calamity; it’s another to cause sin. [God causing a calamity is nowhere near the same as God causing someone to do what He commanded them not to do (and then punishing them for it). Do not let Calvinists sway you with their conflation of calamity and sin. Do not let them convince you that these things are in the same ballpark.] Noah was a “preacher of righteousness.” I believe he preached to try to change people’s hearts. But they chose to be wicked. And so in the end, God allowed them to face the consequences of their choice – after decades of warnings. This is far different from Calvinism which would say that God caused them to be wicked, gave them no ability to choose to repent, and then punished them for being wicked. Far different!
---------------------
In a different string of comments:
Roland (Calvinist) replies to another comment with this:
So when Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, that God will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie, is that your God as well? “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” God sends them a strong delusion, so that they believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned. God sends a delusion for a purpose to be accomplished and it will be accomplished. Is this God’s little sick game of sending delusions?
My reply:
I thought I’d throw my understanding of this out there. Take it or leave it as you will. The way I see it is that this End Times verse is about God forcing people to make their final decision. He doesn’t force them to choose what they do, but He does force them to decide – to choose between believing the Bible’s truth or the lie. Maybe it’s making them choose between “Is the anti-Christ the savior or is Jesus?" or “Did aliens take believers out of the earth or did the rapture?” Whatever it is, God is giving those who reject Him the chance to confirm their decision (or change their minds) before judgment falls. But He does not make them believe what they do. He’s simply giving them the options and forcing those who reject Him to answer the question “Is that your final answer?”
Roland replies:
Heather, thanks for the reply.
Heather: "The way I see it is that this End Times verse is about God forcing people to make their final decision. He doesn’t force them to choose what they do, but He does force them to decide – to choose between believing the Bible’s truth or the lie."
Roland: I don’t see any idea or concept of force in the text. How can God force people to make their final decision? He forces them to decide but not to choose? I would appreciate some clarification as this sounds confusing to me. I agree with you it is an end times text.
Heather: "Whatever it is, God is giving those who reject Him the chance to confirm their decision (or change their minds) before judgment falls. But He does not make them believe what they do."
Roland: I don’t get any sense from the text that God is giving those who reject Him the chance to confirm their decision. It seems more likely that God in SENDING a strong delusion is securing or completing those who reject Him in judgment. When the text is read plainly God is making sure that those who reject Him will believe the lie and be condemned. It is a judicial punishment on those who did not love the truth so that they might be saved.
My point in citing this verse is: Non-Calvinists on this site will argue that God wants all men to be saved, He gives grace to enable all men, etc. Calvinists reject this idea of God’s desire, will, or wish that all men would be saved. I reject it. So, I offered this verse to show two things.
First, there is at least one group of persons whom God does not want to be saved nor does He appear to make an effort for them to be saved. He secures their judgment and condemnation by sending a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie.
Second, if God wants all men to be saved, then why does God SEND them a strong delusion? Just from reading the text it sounds as if God is not giving this group of people any opportunity to be saved but is doing quite the opposite. He sends a strong delusion to those who already reject the truth and will not be saved.
Third, according to many non-calvinists on this website, God has given men LIBERTARIAN freewill so that they can believe or make a genuine choice to believe? Yet here in this text it doesn’t appear that libertarian freewill has any relevance to God sending the strong delusion so that they would believe the lie.
If men are free, if they have libertarian freewill, can they resist the strong delusion sent by God and not believe the lie?
If God wants all men to be saved, then why doesn’t God continue to send preachers of the Gospel to this group of people but instead sends them a strong delusion so that they believe the lie?
If God is so loving that He loves each and every individual human, then why does He send a strong delusion so that they believe the lie? Is it a loving act to send a strong delusion so that a person believes a lie?
If someone was to send you a strong delusion so that you believe some lie, do you consider that a loving act? Do you consider that love?...
This text shows that God is in control of all events, even the restraining of the antichrist. Even the revealing of the lawless one is under God’s control. Nothing in this passage is outside of the scope of God’s power. God is even in control of the rebellion. There are many issues with text and the belief that God wants all men to be saved. I believe this text disproves the concept of universal salvation and universal opportunity for all to believe and be saved. Thanks for reading.
Pastor Loz (non-Calvinist) replies:
Roland, As usual, you conveniently side-stepped the points I made about this verse, “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie”
1. The strong delusion is sent upon these people because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. It was not some arbitrary Calvinistic style cosmic lottery. It was judicial. God enabled them to believe this truth – John 1:9, John 5:40, John 6:44, John 12:32, John 20:32, Romans 1 - and they REFUSED to believe. Not that they were UNABLE to believe. They REFUSED. A choice. An act of the will. They could have chosen to love the truth, and they chose not to.
2. If Calvinism was be true, then loving the truth would not save these people, because the truth would be that they have been eternally selected for hell, and there is no atonement, no Savior, no salvation for them.
My reply:
Roland: “My point in citing this verse is: Non-Calvinists on this site will argue that God wants all men to be saved, He gives grace to enable all men, etc. Calvinists reject this idea of God’s desire, will, or wish that all men would be saved. I reject it.”
Heather: 2 Peter 3:9: God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
Ezekiel 18:32: “For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!”
Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
Acts 17:27: “For God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him …”
1 Timothy 2:3-5: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…”
If Calvinists won’t take verses like these at face value, if they insist on hidden meanings, then there is no reasoning with them.
Roland: “So, I offered this verse to show two things. First, there is at least one group of persons whom God does not want to be saved nor does He appear to make an effort for them to be saved. He secures their judgment and condemnation by sending a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie. Second, if God wants all men to be saved, then why does God SEND them a strong delusion? Just from reading the text it sounds as if God is not giving this group of people any opportunity to be saved but is doing quite the opposite. He sends a strong delusion to those who already reject the truth and will not be saved….”
Heather: Where does it say that God never gave them a chance to be saved in the first place? That He caused them, from the beginning, to reject the truth and delight in wickedness? Why would He need to give them a lie to believe if they were already totally depraved reprobates who were predestined to hell?
It seems to me that Calvinists read into the text the idea that God never EVER gave them a chance, that He first predestined them to reject Him and then caused them to reject Him and then gave them a lie to believe (and caused them to believe it) because they rejected Him just like He predestined/caused. But I don’t see this in the text or in the Bible overall. I see that because they willingly chose to reject the truth first (which means they could have believed it), God eventually gives them the opportunity to confirm their decision, bringing punishment on themselves. (And I don’t mean the Calvinism version of “willingly chose” – where God causes people to desire to choose what He predestined them to choose, and they couldn’t do anything different.) But they were not predestined to reject the truth. They chose that themselves. And eventually, He gives them what they want permanently … and the consequences that go with it.
Roland: “If men are free, if they have libertarian freewill, can they resist the strong delusion sent by God and not believe the lie?”
Heather: What I believe is going on in this verse is the hardening of people’s hearts, the solidifying of their decision. “Hardening,” according to the concordance, is about God handing people over to their self-chosen resistance to Him, after they’ve rejected His patient lovingkindness too many times. So they had the chance to believe, to turn to God and accept the truth and repent of their wickedness, up to a point – the point of no return when God makes their decision permanent. And so yes, you might be right that the people in this verse, at this point, might not be able to change their minds. But my point is that at least up until that point, they did. God did not force them to reject the truth or to delight in wickedness. They could have repented, up to this point. But in Calvinism, they never had a chance. In Calvinism, God predestined them to reject Him and then He punishes them for rejecting Him. There never was a point in time when they could believe the truth or repent.
Roland: “Is it a loving act to send a strong delusion so that a person believes a lie?”
Heather: It was loving for God to send Jesus to die for them, to offer salvation to them, and to give them chance after chance to repent before deciding to harden them, to give them what they wanted permanently.
Roland: “How can God be good and just and still send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie? The answer is that God righteously sends delusion because it is a beginning part of his just judgment…. God causes these people to be deluded because they refused to love the truth and so be saved and because they have not believe the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Heather: I agree that it’s part of His righteous judgment. The problem with Calvinism though is that God first predestined them to reject Him, then caused them to reject Him, then caused them to believe a lie as punishment for rejecting Him. How is that a just, righteous punishment?
Roland: “This text shows that God is in control of all events, even the restraining of the antichrist. Even the revealing of the lawless one is under God’s control. Nothing in this passage is outside of the scope of God’s power. God is even in control of the rebellion.”
Heather: I agree that God is in control. But not in the Calvinist sense. In Calvinism, “in control” means preplanning, actively controlling, causing everything that happens, even sin and evil, and that people have no real choice, no real influence over anything they think, decide, or do. Whereas I believe God sometimes causes things (but never sin or evil) but many others time He just allows things (like our choices, sins and evil), but that He is in control over it all by knowing how to work it all together for good and to accomplish His overarching goals.
And I agree that “universal salvation” is not biblical, but I believe the “universal opportunity for all to believe and be saved” is.
[Note: Calvinists falsely accuse non-Calvinists of believing in universal salvation, that all people will be saved. Non-Calvinists do not believe all people will be saved but that salvation is offered to all people. But many will reject this offer. But since Calvinists think that we cannot choose between rejecting salvation and accepting salvation and that all those who Jesus died for (the elect only) WILL believe (that if Jesus offers someone salvation - and He only offers it to the elect - they HAVE TO believe), they misinterpret our "salvation is offered to all people" as "all people will believe and be saved," accusing us of believing in "universal salvation." This is an unfair, incorrect accusation, stemming from their own unbiblical views of salvation.]
---------------------
And finally, in a different string of comments:
Roland (Calvinist) says: “Calvinism does not make God out to be a liar.”
My reply:
Do you agree with Calvinists that Jesus really only died for the elect? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“He is the atoning sacrifice for all sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
“And he died for all …” (2 Corinthians 5:15)
“… [Jesus] suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!’” (John 1:29)
Do you agree with Calvinists that God is glorified by people being in hell and that there are people who cannot respond to God’s grace, people whom God does not allow to repent? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“… [God is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32)
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…” (1 Timothy 2:3-5)
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” (Titus 2:11)
Do you agree with Calvinists that God fore-ordains everything that happens, including all sins and evil, and that nothing can happen that God didn’t ordain/ decree/ preplan/ cause, that everything that happens is because God preplanned it and is controlling it? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” (Hosea 8:4, God’s words)
“They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal – something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” (Jeremiah 19:5, God’s words)
“Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord, “to those who carry out plans that are not mine…” (Isaiah 30:1)
“He said to the king, ‘This is what the Lord says: ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die.”” (1 Kings 20:42)
Do you agree with Calvinists that it’s impossible for man to seek God, that they have to be brought to life by the Holy Spirit first before they can seek? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart…” (Jeremiah 29:13)
“For God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him …” (Acts 17:27)
“Seek the Lord while he may be found …” (Isaiah 55:6)
“Seek me and live …” (Amos 5:4)
Do you agree with Calvinists that we cannot choose for ourselves whom we will serve? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve …” (Joshua 24:15)
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20. If God made it impossible for someone to believe in Him, they would have a pretty good excuse, wouldn’t they?)
Do you agree with Calvinists that “believing is a work that we cannot do, that God has to do for us”? If so, how does that NOT make a liar out of God when the Bible says:
“Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'” (John 6:28-29)
To say that Calvinism does not make God into a liar means that someone either doesn’t really understand what Calvinism teaches or doesn’t really understand what the Bible teaches. It is only by twisting the plain meaning of Scripture, by adding “yes … but” to verses like these, that a Calvinist can say Calvinism is biblical.
And NOW it’s the end of comments from Soteriology 101, especially since I won’t be adding any more posts anyway after this year (unless there are really special ones I feel I need to add).
