My Replies to Someone Defending Calvinism (A Little Bit of Everything)

I’m adding this to get the most use out of some replies I made to a post someone wrote.  Recently, I read where someone says he is not a Calvinist and disagrees with much of it, but then he defends the idea of tolerating it and learning from it, encouraging people to read more Calvinist authors.  I will not link to the actual post (I don’t know if he wants his article called out like this), but I will highlight some of what he said (paraphrased) and give my responses.

Let me start by saying that I appreciate that he is trying to be gentle, loving, and tolerant to those whom he disagrees with.  His heart is in the right place.  And there is definitely some good in that.  But in the name of being gentle, loving, and tolerant, he is encouraging the tolerance/spread of an unbiblical theology.  And that is not right, no matter how “loving” it may seem.  Error needs to be exposed, resisted, corrected, not tolerated or supported or found middle ground with.

He starts his article by saying that he used to be strongly against Calvinism, seeing it as sly, deceptive heresy that leads away from truth.  But then he read books from Calvinist authors, many books and many authors, and now he appreciates it much more, even if he doesn’t fully agree with it.  

[He says he’s not a Calvinist and takes strong stands against some of their views, but then he shares – and appears to support – the Calvinist defense of their views.  It's strange, playing both sides like that.  Plus, he thinks the Calvinist view of predestination is biblically-inaccurate but, he says, it doesn't make Calvinism heresy or a fundamentally dangerous error.  Hmm, so then when is a wrong idea about salvation wrong enough to be considered heresy or dangerous?  Just wondering.] 

The bulk of the article is on what he considers the main objections people have against Calvinism and his defense of Calvinism on those points.  

He thinks our main problems with Calvinism are that it attacks God’s goodness (as in “How can God be truly good if He predestines people to hell?”) ... it leads to sinful lifestyles (meaning that people who believe "once-saved-always-saved” will feel free to sin, since their souls are secure in heaven) ... and it hinders evangelism (as in “Why bother spreading the gospel if it’s all predestined anyway?”).

1.  He defends the idea that Calvinists can believe that a God who holds people accountable for the sins/unbelief that He predestined is still good with the fact that even though they believe in predestination, they still believe God is good.  This is a very circular, flimsy, weak, meaningless defense.  It’s no different from an abused wife answering the question of "How can you still say your husband is a good man if he beats you bloody every day?" with "Well, despite the fact that my husband beats me bloody every day, I still believe he’s a good man.”  It’s not a good defense.  It doesn't really answer anything.  And it simply flies in the face of the facts of the situation, ignoring the obvious problems and underlying contradictions.  

Calvinists do this all the time, acting like they answered the question well without answering the real question at all, such as when they answer the question of "How can you say that God is not the author of sin when you believe that He predestined everything?" with "Well, see, the Westminster Confession says that God ordains everything but is not the author of sin."  They act like it solves the problem, like it answered the question.  But it didn't answer anything.  They just restated the contradiction, acting like it fixed the contradiction.  It's insane.   

Simply saying "We still believe God is good" does not solve the problem of "What kind of a God would predestine many people specifically for hell, for His glory and pleasure, preplanning/causing their sins and unbelief, giving them no chance to be saved because Calvi-Jesus never died for them anyway, but then punish them for the sins and unbelief He caused ... and yet still expect to be called 'good'?"  [It's no wonder many people would rather be atheists!  If this is what they are told God is like.]  

And then he brings up a defense of John Piper’s which is a classic Calvinist tactic to deflect any opposition about this issue (if they can't come up with real answers that make sense and hold up under biblical scrutiny, they resort to things like this): that we humans simply cannot understand God, and so we shouldn't think that we can understand how God can predestine everything, even our sins and unbelief, but then hold us responsible for it ... but “since Scripture teaches it,” then we just have to accept it as truth and praise God for His goodness. 

This is a non-answer to a very serious objection.  It’s kicking the can down the road, basically shaming people into just ignoring the glaring problems/contradictions of Calvinism and the damage it does to God's character and the gospel.  And it’s something Calvinists do all the time with just about any irresolvable conundrum, simply saying things like “Well, who are you to talk back to God anyway?  We can’t understand it and don’t have to understand it, but we just have to accept it because it’s ‘what the Bible says’.  Humble Christians don't question God or fight against His sovereign control!"  (As if we had any choice about it anyway, if God is supposedly controlling everything we do!  As if it can be considered "talking back" to God when God Himself is causing it!  It doesn't make sense!)  

[Actually, if you listen closely, you'll notice that Calvinist preachers are usually careful to say "it's what the Bible teaches" when it comes to their Calvinist views, not "It's what the Bible says."  And they use "teach" because they know they can't use "says" because the Bible doesn't actually say the things they think.  But if they twist enough verses and take them out of context and mash them together and change some definitions of words and preprogram you to read Scripture through their Calvinist lens, then they can make it seem like the Bible "teaches" their ideas (it does not!) even though it doesn't come right out and "say" it.]

[And, FYI, yes, the Bible does teach that God holds us accountable/responsible for our sins and that He is sovereign.  And so this is right.  But what is wrong is the Calvinist definition of sovereignty, which they do not tell you about.  The Bible does NOT say that “sovereignty” means that God predestines everything that happens, that He chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, that He preplans/causes our sins and rejection of Him, that He controls our decisions and actions, etc.  Calvinists get that idea by reading things into Scripture, taking verses out of context, changing the meanings of words, etc.  And when they talk about "man's responsibility," they make it sound like they are saying that we have free-will, that we make our own real choices, but all they mean is that God sovereignly controls our choices but still holds us responsible for them, as if we chose them ourselves.  And so, yes, Scripture teaches God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, but it does not teach Calvinism’s version of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.  And many people get manipulated into Calvinism because they don’t realize there’s a difference.  They get sucked in because they agree with Calvinists that God is sovereign without realizing the Calvinist definition of it (and because Calvinists use our desire to be humble, God-glorifying Christians against us, by making us think that Calvinism is the most humble, God-glorifying theology there is and that we are less humble, less God-glorifying if we see things differently).]

2.  I agree with the article’s author about the absurdity of the idea that “once saved always saved” will lead people to live in sin.  Any Christian who takes the Bible seriously understands the need to deny our sinful impulses, to seek righteousness, and to be obedient to God.  Even Calvinists.  (But it's mind-boggling that Calvinists think that God ultimately preplans/controls/causes everything we do, even our sins, but then they act/talk like we have the ability to decide if we sin or not!)  However, I do not think this is one of the real objections against Calvinism or one of the big problems with Calvinism. 

3.  And while he defends the idea that Calvinism does not kill evangelism by saying that there are Calvinist missionaries, once again I do not think this is one of the big problems with Calvinism.  And it's too much like the "God is still good" thing, as if simply saying that there are Calvinist missionaries solves the problem of "Why should Calvinists evangelize if everything is all planned out already and if God causes everything that happens?"  

[Question: Do you know why Calvinists evangelize?  Really?  

Their usually answer is: Because God told us to.  Because God ordained the means as well as the ends.  As if it's that simple.  But that does not address the incompatibility of Calvinism and evangelism, the ridiculousness of Calvinists believing that evangelism makes a difference but that God has already decided everyone's destiny and causes us to do everything we do (which would include whether or not we obey His command to evangelize).

Now, most of us Christians would say that evangelism is necessary to spread the gospel, to share God's truth with people - that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they can believe in Him and be forgiven and be saved from hell and spend eternity in heaven - so that people can get saved, so that they can change their lives and eternities, right? 

But ... Calvinists believe that God already predestined who would be saved and who wouldn't, and nothing we do can change it.  The elect are saved from the beginning of time, but the non-elect can never be saved.  And so, in Calvinism, evangelism (sharing the gospel) doesn't actually change anyone's destiny or affect anyone's eternity; it's just how God reaches His elected people, how He gets them to repent like He predestined, how He gets those who are already saved to realize that they are already saved (the "ordained means" to get to the "ordained end").

In Calvinism, the gospel/evangelism is not at all about saving the souls of lost people or rescuing those headed to hell.  It's not for the unsaved, the non-elect who can never, by God's design, believe in Jesus.  (This is why Calvinist preachers usually never preach messages about "God loves you and Jesus died for you" to whole crowds, because they don't know who in the crowd is elect and who is not, and so they can't promise everyone in the audience that God loves them and that Jesus died for them - because Calvi-god only really loves the elect and Calvi-Jesus only died for the elect.  And so they preach instead that "God commands everyone to repent," knowing full well that Calvi-god already decided that only the elect can/will repent but that the non-elect can never repent.)  

Evangelism, in Calvinism, is about helping the elect realize that they won the Golden Ticket to heaven in the salvation lottery, without ever having to make their own choice about it, about Jesus.     

Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?  How anti-gospel and anti-biblical?

Also, Calvinists don't believe that loving people and saving souls from hell is a major focus of God's.  They don't believe that God cares about us all that much compared to His love for Himself.  They think His only major focus is Himself, to glorify His name among the nations and get praised for it.  (This is why, they say, He can do anything He wants, even causing murder and child abuse.  Because as long as it's "for His glory," anything goes.  And so "who are we to talk back to Him, to deny His right to get glory however He wants?")  

(I am not saying that God's glory isn't a huge focus of His, but I am saying that Calvinists do great damage to God's heart, goals, gospel, and Jesus's sacrifice when they deny/minimize His love for mankind, His desire to save all men from hell.  And they do great damage to His character, holiness, righteousness, and justice when they use "But it's for His glory" to excuse their idea that He causes sin/evil and predestines people to hell.  See "Is God Only Concerned about His Glory and Being Famous?" and "Calvinism: Abusing God's Sovereignty to Defend Its Heresy" for more like this.)  

Calvinists do not evangelize to tell everyone of God's love for them and Jesus's death for them and that they too can be saved.  No!  They evangelize because God said to, because it's how the prechosen people realize they are saved and that they need to repent, and because God wanted His name made famous among the people to glorify Himself more ... not because He loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved.  What a sad, pale, flimsy, lacking gospel message Calvinists spread in their evangelism, compared to the real thing!  

{Note: Here's another layer of Calvinist deception to be aware of.  They will agree with us that God loves all and wants all to be saved.  But that's just on the surface level.  Underneath that, what they really mean is that God has two different kinds of love - a "save your soul" kind for the elect and a "gives you food and water while you are alive on earth (before you burn in hell for eternity for your unbelief that God caused)" kind for the non-elect.  But they won't tell you this at first because they want you to think they are talking about the same kind of love you are, a saving love for all mankind.  

(Or they will differentiate that God loves mankind and wants to save mankind as a whole, just not all individual people.  Or they say that God only meant "the elect" when He said He loves "the world."  My Calvinist pastor said that "the world" really means "the cosmos."  They've got lots of ways of changing God's love into something it shouldn't be and never was, of changing "all men/the world" into "just the elect".  In fact, even the non-Calvinist author of the article defended the fact that Calvinists believe God meant "the elect" when He said "For God so loved the world" because, as he points out, there are verses where God says He loves the elect, and so Calvinists are just interpreting "God loves the world" in light of those verses, substituting in "the elect" for "the world."  What hogwashy nonsense!  A total error in reasoning on the part of Calvinists!  If I told someone that "I love my family" then tell someone else in a different conversation that "I love people," should "people" be interpreted as "just my family," because I once said I loved my family?  Of course not!  But this is what Calvinists do; it's how they get so much wrong.  If I told a Calvinist I love chocolate ice cream, they would interpret it as I must hate all other flavors then.  If I mentioned that I bought bananas at the store, a Calvinist would think it must mean I bought only bananas at the store and nothing else.  If God said in the Bible that He caused a storm, then Calvinists extend it to "Then it must mean He causes everything that happens, even sin."  It's a total error in Calvinist thinking.  See "When Calvinism's 'Bad Logic' traps Good Christians" for more on this.)   

And Calvinists believe that, sure, God "wants" all people to be saved on one level, but what He really wants - on another, deeper level - is sin/sinners to punish so that He can show off His wrath and justice (because He wouldn't get to show off all of His attributes, like wrath, if there were no sinners to punish) so that He can get glory for it.  And so He made sure there would be sinners to punish by predestining people to hell.  

(So then, aren't they really just saying - when they say God needed sinners to punish to show off all His attributes - that God couldn't be fully God without sin?  That God wasn't fully God until sinners came along?  And that He couldn't be fully glorified unless and until He created sinners to punish in hell?  So His "Godness" and His glory is dependent on us, on our sins?  And yet they accuse us of damaging God's glory because we think He doesn't preplan/control/cause all sin and evil or predestine people to hell!)  

And so, in Calvinism, it still makes God sad that people are in hell, but His desire for glory (His most important goal and focus, in Calvinism) overrides His desire to have all people saved ... and so He created people to go to hell, even if it makes Him sad on one level.  But since it's "for His glory," it's okay.

HOGWASH!

It's freakin' hogwash!

What a sly, subtle, demonic twist on God's Word, character, and Truth!   

(Just thinking out loud here, but ... If God "needed" sinners to punish, through predestination, to display His wrath and justice to get glory for it, don't you think that could have been accomplished by predestining one person to hell?  Why the need to predestine the majority of people to hell, when one would do the job (if Calvinist predestination was true, which it's not)?

It's insane!  And so opposite of what God is really like.  Be careful because Calvinists always have hidden definitions and deeper layers that contradict (change the meaning of) everything they say.  (It's why it's so hard to debate them; they talk on multiple levels, switching as needed without telling you.) They appear to agree with us on one level, but that's just to hook you.  And then when you're hooked, they reel you in slowly over time, through manipulation, shaming tactics, and twisted Scripture.  (Never accept a Calvinist's offer to take you through the Bible using their Calvinist indoctrination studies!  That's just asking to be brainwashed.)}

Phew, that was a long bunny trail!  Moving on ...]

I found the author's reason for why Calvinism actually encourages mission work to be flimsy and contradictory, which is that God’s glory demands that we obey His command to evangelize - because if God predestines, controls, causes everything anyway (He doesn't!), this would include whether or not we obey, and so why would we need to put any thought or effort into evangelizing (or any kind of obedience), as if it was up to us, as if we could change what God predestined?  If it’s predestined, it will happen.  If it’s not, it won’t.  So let's just wait and see what God predestined and causes.  

In Calvinism, our obedience or disobedience is all controlled by God.  It’s all what He planned, causes, ordained, decrees, wants, etc.  And so therefore, if we disobey, it's because it was planned, controlled, caused by God.  It's what He really wanted to have happen.  And so, in Calvinism, disobedience to His revealed decrees is really just obedience to His deeper, hidden decrees.  

I think what he, and many others, get wrong is that they think that denying the need for missionary work is just a “hyper-Calvinism” thing.  And he says that hyper-Calvinism should be avoided.  But what people don’t understand is that there really is no difference in foundational beliefs between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism, just in how they live them out.  Hyper-Calvinists are just Calvinists who don’t disguise the unpleasant parts of their theology, who boldly admit them and live them out to the fullest.  They are the most honest Calvinists who say it like it is and live it like it is, warts and all.

He ends his article by addressing the objection that Calvinism is not found in Scripture, that it’s a man-made system of thought.  Then he defends Calvinism on this point by saying that the Trinity is not clearly spelled-out in any verse of Scripture either, that it has to be found among other verses, in the Bible as a whole.  He rightly cautions that we can’t simply dismiss Calvinism as “man’s words” any more than we can dismiss the Trinity as “man’s words.”  And I agree. 

But that’s not why we dismiss Calvinism and believe it’s wrong.  There’s so much more wrong with it than just “well, the Bible doesn’t use the words ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Calvinism.’”  

[Calvinists would say that we can't reject Calvinism on the grounds that those words are not in the Bible, while also telling us that we have to reject "ask/accept Jesus into your heart" because those words are not in the Bible.  Ironic and hypocritical!  See "Is 'Accept Jesus in Your Heart' Unbiblical and Dangerous?" for more on that.]

While it’s true that the Trinity can be found in the Bible just not in the words “the Trinity,” it is not true that Calvinism is in the Bible.  Calvinism only appears to be there because Calvinists cleverly pick and choose pieces of verses that seem to fit their theology, take them out of context, twist them, throw them all in a big pot, mix in a little redefinition of words, stir it all together, and – abracadabra! – they get Calvinism.  You only see Calvinism in the Bible after you've let them put Calvinist glasses on you, filtering Scripture through the Calvinist system of thought.  

And so this is on a totally different level than the Trinity.  And you can’t use the absence of clear verses on the Trinity to excuse any other man-made system of thought not directly found in the Bible.  That is insanity, opening the door to all kinds of heresy.  Once again, this is a weak defense against a small problem with Calvinism.  

While I admire that this author seeks to have a loving attitude towards those he disagrees with, I think he’s elevated “make others feel good” over God’s truth, "love your neighbor" over love God.  And he has gone mostly for the low-hanging fruit, the minor problems of and objections to Calvinism, not the serious ones.  Victory in a few tiny skirmishes while ignoring the big battles does not mean you won the war.

Anyway, since I like to make the most of the time and effort I put into the long replies I write, I am reposting them here (with minor additions, corrections, or clarifications, as needed).  Just because.

 

Reply 1:

Interesting article.  Thought-provoking.  And I can tell you've got a good heart.

But personally, I think that if something is biblically inaccurate when it comes to salvation and the gospel, then it IS dangerous ... at the most fundamental level, no matter how innocent/accurate it seems on other levels.  Satan specializes in subtlety, in making lies seem so close to the truth that it's hard to discern and more easily leads people astray.

I don't think the big problems with Calvinism are that it hinders missions work or leads to lawlessness.  Those are minor problems or easily overcome compared to the biggies, which (in my estimation) are that it destroys God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, and the gospel.

In Calvinism, God constantly says one thing but means another, such as saying He loves the world when He really means the elect or saying He wants all men to be saved when He really means just the elect or telling us to seek/believe in/obey Him (making it seem like we have a choice) when He alone decides, controls, causes who seeks Him, believes in Him, and obeys Him.  When we cannot take what He says at face value, when He means something different than what He says, it makes Him a deceiver and untrustworthy.

[Example: God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit, but then they ate the fruit.  In Calvinism, God was the preplanner/cause of them eating the fruit.  Therefore, which one was His true Will?  Eat or don't eat.  If it was don't eat, like He commanded, then He causes things to happen that are against His Will.  How is that possible if, in Calvinism, everything that happens is His Will?  And it would mean that He works against Himself and His own commands, making Him a divided God.  But if "eat" was His true Will, then how can He say He doesn't want them to eat, when He really does?  That would make Him a liar and deceiver, commanding things He does not really want.  Either way, He would not be trustworthy.  How could we ever trust any command He gives us then, if His true Will might be opposite of what He says?  (Calvinists try to get out of this conundrum by claiming God has two Wills - a spoken one and a hidden one which contradicts His spoken one - and so, therefore, whatever happens, obedience or disobedience, they are both His "Will."  But don't think about it too much, it's a 'mystery' we can't understand.  Who are you to talk back to God, anyway?  But, seriously, their explanation does not solve the contradiction or fix the damage it does to God's character and Word; it only digs their Calvinist hole deeper!)]

Not to mention that, in Calvinism, God decides/controls who rejects Him, and He "ordains" (but in Calvinism, it's really "preplans/causes") our sins but then punishes us for it.  That would make Him unjust and the cause of evil (in fact, it makes Him the only one who freely wills/causes sin).  

All of this, plus much more, destroys God's good, holy, righteous, loving, just character.

And if the Bible clearly says that Jesus died for all sins and all men, but Calvinism says He didn't, then it destroys Jesus's sacrificial death for all men.  And it destroys the gospel and the offer of salvation that God gives to all men, making it only for a few people, the elect.  Calvinism closes the door of heaven to most people, making them irredeemable, predestined for hell, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Calvinism contradicts what the Bible clearly, plainly says.  It replaces God's revealed truth with its own ideas of what God supposedly meant to say, with its "hidden knowledge" of a secret, deeper level of "truth" - things that God did not clearly say but that they supposedly figured out by piecing together bits of other verses taken out of context, by changing the definition of words, and by breaking biblical concepts up into "two different types of ...", when there is no biblical justification for doing so.

[Such as Calvi-god's two different types of grace/love: a "save your soul" one for the elect and a temporary, non-saving one for the non-elect where He merely kindly takes care of their physical needs while they are on earth before they go to hell for their unbelief, which was predestined by Calvi-god.  Two different types of calls: one for the elect that they must respond to and one for the non-elect that they cannot respond to.  Two different types of Will, such as one where he wills that all men are saved, that no one perishes, but then a contradictory one where he wills that most people perish.  Etc.]

And then Calvinism slyly spreads by making Christians feel like Calvinism is the most humble, God-glorifying theology out there, convincing them that Calvinism understands the "deeper, secret truths" of Scripture and that they are so ultra-humble to accept it all in spite of nonsensical, unresolvable contradictions like "God 'ordains' evil but is not responsible for it" and "God wants all people to be saved but predestines most people to hell" and "God commands all people to repent and believe while preventing most people from doing it" and "God 'ordains' murder, rape, and child abuse for His glory but He's still good," etc.  

It destroys God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, and the gospel while tricking Christians into thinking it's the most intelligent, humble, God-glorifying theology there is.

And so I ask: Who is sly enough to trick people like this?  Who sounds like the author of a theology like that, one full of deceptive word tricks and mind games and confusion?  Who specializes in using God's Word against God, in whispering "Did God really say ...?"

Because it's not the God of the Bible.

Calvinism is little more than a cult, specializing in word tricks to make their theology seem more biblical than it is, hiding the truth about what they really mean as much as possible, and manipulating people into accepting it by making them feel like they are bad Christians who deny God His glory if they don't believe it.  90% of what a Calvinist says might sound good.  But it's that last 10% that's poison, that taints the whole thing, that changes the meaning of the 90% that sounded good.

The gospel is simple, something even a child can understand.  But to understand the gospel according to Calvinism requires months of study with Calvinist theologians teaching you how to read the Bible in a Calvinist way, convincing you of their ideas of what God "really meant to say" underneath what He actually said.  This should be very telling.  And very alarming.

This is just my two cents on this issue.  It's an issue I take very seriously because we recently had to leave our church of almost 20 years (that we raised our kids in) after it was taken over by a dogmatic Calvinist preacher.  I've seen first-hand how Calvinists use manipulation and stealth tactics to take over a church.  And it's happening everywhere with little pushback.  Sad.

 

Reply 2 (in reply to his comments to my first reply):

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I would comment more, but time prohibits that (and you’ll have to excuse my blunt way of speaking, it’s just how I am), so I will only respond with this …

1. In response to the idea that Calvinism gets the fundamental nature of salvation right (“by grace thru faith”), I would ask “Yeah, but, in Calvinism, does everyone have the chance/ability to be saved?  Does everyone get the offer of salvation?”  We all might agree on the process of salvation, but the issue of whether all people have the chance/ability to be saved … or if only a few preselected people do … is so fundamental that it overshadows any agreement on the process.  We might all agree on the process of eating food (put in mouth, chew, swallow), but what does that matter if only a tiny fraction of people are given access to food while the rest are prevented from having any food?

Calvinism is sly in that it makes it sound like it’s teaching that all people are offered salvation and that anyone who wants to can accept it (the “who wants to” part makes all the difference) … but what they mean (when you really study the hidden layers of their theology and when you listen to the few that will actually admit it) is that ONLY THE ELECT can hear/understand/accept the offer of salvation, ONLY THE ELECT can and will want to be saved (when Calvinism’s god regenerates them, and only them, giving them the desire to be saved).  But the non-elect can NEVER understand/respond to the offer of salvation and can never even want to be saved because Calvinism’s god didn’t give them the desire to do so.  And so, to them, the offer is a “fake offer” that they never had the chance to accept.  Calvinists make it sound like they are saying that salvation is offered to all and that anyone can accept it, but it’s not what they really mean.  They mean it’s offered to “all” but that the non-elect cannot accept it, that only the elect are given the desire to be saved and the ability to accept salvation.  Is that not highly deceptive?  How can they call that an “offer” of salvation, if the non-elect are prevented from accepting it?

When Calvinists say we “freely” make our choices, they mean that we “freely” choose to do - because of the desires God gives us - what God predestined us to do.  And so if He gives you the unregenerated nature (the non-elect), it comes ONLY with the desire to sin and reject Him, and so that’s the only thing you can choose to do.  And yet they will call that “freely choosing,” when it’s neither “free” nor “choice”.

2. You comment that I am being “disingenuous, since no Calvinist would say …”  And that right there is why they are so sly.  They don’t come out and say what they really mean.  As much as possible, they hide it under layers of more biblical sounding ideas and verses taken out of context.  (And sadly, I don’t think most garden-variety Calvinists even realize they are doing it; they’ve just been so well-trained in Calvinist pat-answers that they convince themselves that what they are saying is biblical.)

But if all Calvinist leaders/pastors came out and actually said what Calvinism REALLY believes – such as when my Calvinist pastor flat-out said “God does not love everyone” and “God ordains everything in your life, all tragedies …. including childhood abuse …. for His glory, for your good, and because He knew what it would take to keep you humble” or when in response to the question “When a child is raped, is God responsible?  Did He decree that rape?”, Calvinist James White answers “… Yes, because if not then it is meaningless and purposeless…” – if Calvinists came right out and said what Calvinism really believes, then a lot more people would push back and reject it.

(And regarding the Reformed Wiki page you brought up: Of course Calvinists won’t say God contradicts Himself, but it’s what their theology ultimately teaches when all the layers are pulled back.  They just won’t come out and say it.  They, the educated Calvinist leaders who push it on others, are masters at deceptive wording.)

Personally, I do not think most pew-sitting Calvinists really understand what their own theology teaches.  I think they themselves are victims of this stealthy, twisted, cleverly-worded theology, and if they really stopped to think about what Calvinism teaches, they would be horrified.  (Many of our closest friends from our ex-church are Calvinists, some of the nicest people we know. Nice, but wrong.)  It’s the theology itself and the theologians who push it that I have the most problem with.  Not the average Calvinist who doesn’t know better and is being misled by the Calvinist leaders.

3. You said that no Calvinist preaches that God is the author of sin.  You’re right, most don’t.  Instead, they cover up “author” with things like “God predetermines, decrees, ordains sin.”  But it all means the same thing: God preplanned it and ultimately causes it.  Even if they don’t say it, it’s what it is.  Many times, it’s not what Calvinists SAY that’s the big problem.  It’s what they DON’T SAY, what they hide and cover up, that’s the problem.  And it changes the meaning of everything they did say.

4. You said “… is your response to Calvinists really ‘endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'”. I have a heart for the average pew-sitting Calvinist, most of whom I think are just doing their best to try to be humble, God-honoring Christians, as taught them by the Calvinist leaders.  But I cannot and will not seek unity with a theological system that damages God’s character, Jesus’s sacrifice, the gospel, and people’s chance to be saved the way Calvinism does.

You said that “Calvinists agree with the entirety of scripture, but they interpret it differently than you and I do.”  How much wrong interpretation should we put up with in the name of peaceful unity?  Does “peaceful unity” imply “at all costs,” including massively different interpretations of God’s character and who Jesus died for and whether or not all can be saved and who ultimately causes sin, etc.?

I’m asking this seriously, not sarcastically. I have heard many Calvinists use “peaceful unity” to keep people in line, to keep them from pushing back against their theology and voicing concerns.  We need to be Bereans.  To study Scripture for ourselves to see if what we are being taught is accurate.  And if it’s not, then we need to push back and correct it, not tolerate it and let it grow/spread through our silence.  And with this, I will bow out and give you the last word.  Thank you for putting up with me and for your thoughtful, respectful replies.  God bless!

 

Reply 3:

Hi again, I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me, but I did want to comment on one more thing.  You ended the article by encouraging people to learn all they can from Calvinists, especially about God’s sovereignty, and to read some John Piper.

Caution: Calvinists and non-Calvinists define God's sovereignty differently.

Non-Calvinists like myself believe that God's sovereignty means that He gets to decide how and when to use His power and control.  He is over and above all, watches over everything, sometimes actively causes things (but never sin/evil) but other times just allows things (our choices, sins, etc.).  He has decided, in His sovereignty, as demonstrated all throughout the Bible, to let us have the right to make real choices among real options (and to face the consequences of them).  But no matter what, He can work everything together into His plans, even things He didn't want/cause.  But He is never the cause/preplanner of sin or disobedience or evil or rejection of Him.  He may put us in situations that force us to make our choices, but He does not decide our choices for us.

However, in Calvinism, God's sovereignty means that He ultimately preplans/controls/causes everything, that we truly decide nothing (even if it appears that way on one level), and that everything that happens is because He wanted it, willed it, preplanned it, and ultimately caused it (and nothing different could ever have happened), which would include our sins and rejection of Him.  Basically, Calvinism has decided that for God to be a sovereign, all-powerful God, He must always be using His power all the time to control everything ... or else He can't be God.

Telling God how God has to act/be in order to be God is a dangerous thing.

In one (Calvinism), God is the preplanner/causer/controller of all sin and evil and rejection of Him, but then He holds us responsible for the choices He made us make.  (Not to mention that in Calvinism, God created most people specifically to reject Him and go to eternal hell, with no chance to be saved, for His glory and pleasure.  It's not just that He knew they would reject Him and allowed it; it's that He predestined it and caused it and they had no choice about it.)  This is neither righteous nor just.

But in the other (non-Calvinism), God is still sovereign, but He has decided, in His sovereignty, to allow men to make real choices, giving all men the choice/ability to make decisions, to decide to either believe in Him or reject Him, to obey or disobey, to seek Him or not, to sin or not, etc.  But He lets us decide.  This makes us truly responsible for our sins instead of God, which makes the consequences and punishment just.

Be careful about encouraging people to read John Piper.  That's just starting them on the path of being sucked into Calvinism.  (Calvinists use the same words/concepts but have different definitions, such as for sovereignty, elect, grace, choice, predestined, etc.  But they won't reveal that at first.  They let you think that you are using words the same way, that you're on the same page.  And this gets people hooked and makes it easier to sway them with their Calvinist ideas.  And most people won't realize that they have different definitions until it's too late, until they've been sucked fully into Calvinism and have been convinced to see things their way.  Also see "Calvinism 101: 'Free-Will Choice' is not really 'Free-Will' or 'Choice'" and "A Quick Study of Calvinism's Favorite Words.")

I would recommend instead that people read/watch Dr. Tony Evans, Charles Stanley, Andy Woods, Leighton Flowers (Soteriology 101), and Kevin Thompson (Beyond the Fundamentals).

Maybe your "preconception of Calvinists as sly heretics, deceiving God’s people and drawing people away from the truth" was actually God-given insight and red flags.  But you've allowed yourself to be swayed by clever-sounding Calvinists.  I do not doubt most average Calvinists' good hearts and well-meaning intentions.  But no matter how wonderful their personalities are, if they are wrong about God and the gospel and Jesus's sacrifice and how we become saved (in Calvinism, God decides for us and causes the elect to be saved and prevents the non-elect from believing, but in the Bible, Jesus died for all, anyone can be saved, and it's our responsibility to decide), then they need to be called out for these errors and the alarm bells need to be rung, in order to wake people up and help them get on the right path, and this includes our Calvinist friends.

Blessings to you.  And I'll leave you alone now.  Just please think about what I said.  If Calvinism is wrong and you are funneling people to it, encouraging them to dabble in it or tolerate it, you'll be held accountable for it.  God bless.

 

Reply #4, to a commenter who said that he liked my forthrightness and that he wasn’t sure what to do with Calvinism, how much to tolerate it or where it fell on the scale of heresy:

Thank you, ...

When it comes to Calvinism, I never thought much about it or would have developed such a forceful attitude against it if it weren’t for watching a Calvinist pastor take over our non-Calvinist church.

We got to see his manipulative tactics firsthand, such as how he shamed people who would disagree (framing them as prideful, self-righteous Christians who reject God’s sovereignty and try to steal His glory, etc.) and praised those who would agree (framing them as God-glorifying, humble, more intelligent Christians).  And this was even before he began revealing his Calvinist views (which he did very slowly, over time, in between lots of manipulation and verse-twisting).  He set people up to not want to disagree (or at least to not speak out about it) and to look down on anyone else who did disagree.  (Maybe I noticed the manipulation more easily than others because I am a licensed counselor with a Master’s in Counseling Psychology.  See "Predestination Manipulation" and "What's the best way to make people agree with your Calvinist views?" for more on this.)

And we heard firsthand how he misused Bible verses to make them fit his view.  We (my husband and I) wrote them down during every sermon and went home and read them in context for ourselves.  And it was amazing how much his version did not line up with what the verse was saying in context.  Calvinists teach you to read Calvinism into the Bible, while making you feel like it’s been there all along and that you just discovered it with their help.

And yet, no one else seemed to be alarmed.  He carefully, strategically weaved his disguised Calvinism and twisted Scripture into his sermons, with lots of quotes from Calvinist authors, until he had everyone convinced that Calvinism is in the Bible.

And then after doing much more research about it and seeing how much it has spread with very little pushback and how most people are unaware of how it’s spreading (the tricks and tactics they employ), I felt compelled to take a very strong, vocal, active stand against it.

I agree with Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals, that Calvinists will use our politeness against us, taking advantage of our niceness to push their views harder.  And I agree with him that by the time you realize that your pastor is preaching Calvinism, by the time you are concerned enough to research what they’re saying to see if it’s accurate, it’s too late; they’ve already got a strong hold on most of the congregation by then.

And so, with their word games, Scripture twists, redefined words, manipulative tactics, and the strategic, stealthy ways they disguise/spread their theology, I don’t mince words or tiptoe through the T.U.L.I.P.s gently.  Time is of the essence, and Calvinism is spreading much too fast and too strong to be overly gentle about it.

Thank you again for taking the time to reply.  God bless!