A Calvinist pastor has problems with Christians who research Calvinism
Since I already had this stored in my "drafts" folder, why not post it? Here's one last post on Calvinism ...
FYI, I don't do these kinds of reviews to trash the authors of those articles (and I'm not saying anything against their personalities or where their hearts are or anything like that; I've known some good, humble, loving, gentle Calvinists), but I do this to educate you on the word tricks, mind games, and manipulative tactics Calvinists employ (knowingly or unknowingly) to draw/trap you into Calvinism and on the ways they portray/view those who disagree with them. I want you to learn to spot what's going on for yourselves, to understand what they're really saying underneath the words they use.
But I wish I didn't have to do it. It doesn't make me feel good to write against other people of the faith. I am so sick and disheartened by the fighting going on between everyone: Democrats vs. Republicans, Liberals vs. Conservatives, Vaxxers vs. Anti-Vaxxers, Leaders vs. The People, Country vs. Country, etc. It's heartbreaking. And I wish we could all just put our differences aside and get along. I wish we could all spread some cheer and hope and joy to those around us. I don't like adding fuel to the fire (okay, fine, maybe I do sometimes), spreading negativity, being "divisive" or confrontational. I want to be someone who spreads joy and positivity, because we need it so badly in our world right now.
I've asked myself before if I could just shut up about it all. Could I just "live and let live," ignoring the bad parts of Calvinism while focusing only on the good, in the name of peaceful unity? I've wanted to just drop it, especially seeing that opposing it led to the loss of our church and church friends. We were not kicked out of our church, but we voluntarily left when we realized there was no hope, that they were only growing more and more Calvinistic under the new pastor, despite telling the elders about our concerns. Such a shame. Such good people. Such good friends we had to give up.
And so I've wondered from time to time if we did the right thing, opposing Calvinism like we do, if it's worth the sacrifice. Should we have just quietly tolerated it, as "good, compliant, non-divisive" Christians "should"?
But then I think about the lost, the hurting people who need to know that God loves them and that they matter to Him. I think about the unsaved who are headed to hell and need Jesus and eternal life. I think about the broken hearts that need healing, the hopeless people who need hope. I think about Jesus on the cross - battered, bleeding, and bruised, dying to pay for the salvation of all men, because of His love for us all.
And then I think about Calvinism's fundamental stance (despite their deceptive wording to make it sound better than it is) that God's grace, mercy, forgiveness, love, and healing isn't for everyone, that Jesus only died for a few prechosen people, that most sinners are hopelessly lost forever, destined to hell and an eternity of misery by Calvi-god's plan and orchestration and for his glory.
... I think about my Calvinist pastor telling us that God doesn't love everybody, that if babies die then they die as unrepentant sinners, that your childhood abuse was "ordained" by God for His glory, for your good, and to keep you humble.
... I think of Calvinist James White saying that child rape is caused by God because if God didn't cause it then it would be meaningless and purposeless.
... I think of the Calvinist grandfather who proudly proclaimed that he loves his unborn grandchild but knows that God might not, that God may have created it for damnation ... or even to be a murderer. [Calvinists take a certain pride in feeling that they are so "humble" enough as to accept the most extreme, most distasteful aspects of Calvi-god's "sovereignty," even if it means accepting that he causes child abuse, child rape, and murder, and that he predestines people to hell, causing them to sin and reject him but then punishing them for sinning and for rejecting him. They think they are honoring God to believe this garbage, to submit to this kind of extreme (unbiblical) "sovereignty." But can't you see how disgusting this is? How damaging to God's character and holiness this is? Can't you see how satanically brilliant it is to convince good Christians that it's most humble and most God-glorifying to believe that God causes abuse, rape, and murder, and that He should be honored for it and trusted in spite of it? Satanically brilliant!]
... I think of Calvinist Vincent Cheung who says that babies and mentally-handicapped people who cannot call on Jesus are non-elect and going to hell, by God's sovereign choice.
... I think about my Calvinist pastor's adult son teaching that God predestined people to sin, to go to hell, so that He could show off His justice by punishing sinners, and then He could get praised for it, more glory. [Never mind the fact that punishing people for something He made them do, that they had no choice about or control over, could never ever be considered true "justice". Or the fact that God Himself told us how He demonstrates His justice, and it isn't by predestining people to hell, but by sending Jesus to the cross in our place: “God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it [sent Jesus to the cross for our sins] to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26, emphasis added)]
... I think about the Calvinists who minimize God's love for people in order to elevate His love for Himself, such as the ones I just read about who said that Jesus wasn't really thinking about His love for us when He died on the cross but that He was thinking about Himself, His own glory. (Why then does the Bible repeatedly tie God's love to Jesus's sacrificial death? John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ..." Romans 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Ephesians 2:4-5: "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ ...")
... I think about Calvinists spreading the idea that most people just weren't "chosen," weren't loved by God enough to be saved, that He gets glory for damning them to hell, and there's nothing they can do about it.
I think about how Calvinism destroys the most important, precious message we Christians have to share: the gospel, that God loves you and wants you to be saved, that Jesus died for you and you can believe in Him and have eternal life. That you are not hopeless. You are not beyond the reach of God's grace and love and forgiveness. You matter to Him, and He wants you in heaven with Him. All of you!
And then I get angry. And heartbroken. And I know I cannot quietly sit by and allow a destructive theology like that to take hold in the Church without at least trying to fight back against it. If we get the gospel wrong, then it doesn't matter what little parts we get right. And Calvinism gets the gospel wrong. There's no way I can quietly tolerate or politely compromise with a theology that destroys the gospel and God's character and God's Word and Jesus's sacrifice and people's hope the way that Calvinism does, a theology that slams the door of heaven in most people's faces and turns God into the cause of sin and unbelief.
I just can't. I can't sit quietly by, allowing this bad theology to stealthily spread with no pushback. "Being quiet" and "politely tolerating it" is how it's spread as badly and quickly as it already has. They count on our fear of being divisive to keep us quiet, to prevent us from sounding the alarm. But people's eternities are at stake! God's truth and character and Jesus's sacrifice are at stake!
And that's why the sacrifice is worth it!
And so here we go, one last article I'll examine. Let's just jump right in, shall we?
Here's an interesting article from a Calvinist pastor - "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches: Candidating, Pastoring, and Moving On" by David Schrock - about the problems he has with anti-Calvinists at the church he pastored. These are my thoughts and opinions as I read through the article. (You can read the article for yourself by clicking on the link above, but I included enough of his words so you can see what I am referring to.)
1. Notice that pastor Schrock says "I don't typically identify myself as a Calvinist." I've seen this before. A lot. And I interpret this as he won't usually reveal he's a Calvinist when he interviews for pastoral positions. I commented on this before in the post "'Saint' PJ's Deceptions and Manipulations," about how Calvinists are known to and sometimes encouraged to hide their Calvinism. My own church was taken over by a very strong Calvinist who was very careful to never overtly reveal himself as such for years. That should be a huge red flag to us. If Calvinism is so biblical and so God-glorifying, why the need to hide it? And if everything is so predestined, what are Calvinist pastors afraid of anyway: that if they reveal their Calvinism, it might scare off the non-elect who could never be saved anyway or that it might push away the elect who are predestined to be saved?
2. He says that the church he was interviewing at had previously fired and then re-hired a Calvinist pastor. And he thought this meant that the church had "seen the error of their ways." Obviously, anyone who disagrees with Calvinism is "in error."
In an effort to take over and reform a church, Calvinists will often start out by saying that Calvinism is a secondary issue, that it's okay if we have differing views on this but that God wants us to be united and so we should all just put the disagreements about Calvinism behind us and be joined together in peaceful unity.
Do not believe this. It is crystal clear that Calvinists believe that Calvinism is the gospel and that disagreeing with Calvinism is theological "error." And what good pastor is gonna tolerate theological errors in their church? Do not buy into their "Calvinism is a secondary issue that shouldn't divide us" ploy. It is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate and shame non-Calvinists into quietly falling into line, to keep them from vocally disagreeing with Calvinism, buying the Calvinists time to entrench the church in Calvinism, skillfully and stealthily, one twisted out-of-context verse at a time.
3. He says that he's writing this article to Calvinist pastors to help them know how to handle it if the church that hires them doesn't "celebrate the doctrines of grace."
Makes Calvinism sound good, doesn't it? "Celebrate" the doctrines of "grace"? And so if you disagree with Calvinism then you obviously don't celebrate God's grace. You're an ungrateful, God-dishonoring Christian.
Remember though that, in Calvinism, real grace (saving grace) is only for the elect. Everyone else's "grace" is merely Calvi-god providing them with basic necessities like food, rain, sunshine, etc., before sending them to hell for being the unbelievers he created them to be.
And that's worth "celebrating"!?! That Calvi-god decided he would only save a few people while creating everyone else to go to hell for his glory!?! That he created those people to reject him, never giving them a real chance to be saved because Calvi-Jesus never died for their sins anyway, but then he punishes them for their "choice" to reject him (as if that's true justice)!?!
That's sick!
But that's the "doctrines of grace" for you!
[High Calvinist John MacArthur's website "Grace to You" would more accurately be called "Grace to Few".]
4. He also identifies his theology as "gospel-centered, missions-minded".
Calvinists love to identify their theology as "gospel-centered," claiming that they have a "high view of Scripture," and other lofty, rosy, high-minded things like that. It sets us up to want to accept it from the very beginning because, of course, we all want a "gospel-centered high view of Scripture."
They try to convince you that Calvinism is the gospel (even if they say - I believe in false humility - that Calvinism is not the gospel, as pastor Schrock does in this article), that what they are teaching is "right from Scripture" ... and so, trusting them, you let your guard down and swallow what they spoon-feed you, ignoring any red flags that come up. Because, after all, they are "only teaching Scripture," right!?! They said it, so it must be true.
(My pastor would say "We always need to go right to Scripture to see what it says," and then he'd read Scripture but he'd add a Calvinist spin or reframe the verse Calvinistically. But since we all heard "go right to Scripture," we trusted that what he was teaching was scriptural. And the thing is: Calvinists really think Calvinism is scripturally accurate, which is why they can be so convincing.)
And if any red flags do come up, we think that it must just be us, that we aren't really understanding things correctly but that in time we will, if we just keep listening to them. Because, obviously, they are the educated ones, and we aren't. They know the Greek words for things, and we don't. They have been to seminary (Calvinist classes), and we haven't. They read all the theology books (by Calvinist theologians), and we haven't.
And so they couldn't be wrong, could they? It must be us and our inability to comprehend the great, lofty, deeper theological ideas they are trying to teach us.
Keep in mind that the Pharisees and teachers of the Law back in Jesus's day were highly educated too. Highly educated ... but highly wrong!
In fact, sometimes the highly educated are more likely to be wrong because, despite their academic pursuits, they are actually "unteachable," blinded by their own "brilliant" intellect, their own lofty views and unique understanding of things. They can't see the forest for the trees. They ignore the plain, obvious, easily-understood teachings of Scripture because they want to view themselves as on a higher level than the common person, convinced that they know the deeper, hidden, mysterious teachings that the common person can't understand, and so the common person must go to them to learn the "truth."
Why do you think Jesus said that to enter the kingdom of heaven we must become like little children?
[My Calvinist pastor shamelessly spun that verse to say that Jesus meant that we must accept what the Calvinist pastors tell us about predestination and God's "sovereignty" in the same way that children trust adults and accept what adults tell them, that since kids have no problem accepting the idea of Calvinist predestination when adults teach them about it, we shouldn't either.
Yeah, well, kids also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus because some trusted adult told them they're real. How far should we take this "be like little children" thing? How many ways can we misapply this?]
And keep in mind exactly what Calvinism's view of the gospel is, underneath the deceptive covers: Jesus died only for the elect, and God will cause only the elect to believe in Jesus. But God will cause everyone else to reject Him because He predestined them to hell, He will punish them for the sins and unbelief He preplanned and caused, and there's nothing they can do about it. That's the Calvinist gospel: a big, cosmic, salvation lottery where only a few lucky ones will be chosen. And you can't know for sure if you are really one of the chosen ones until you die. So good luck! May the force be with you!
And when it comes to their "mission-mindedness," remember that Calvinism is not about telling everyone that God loves them, that Jesus died for them, that they can believe and be saved. It's only about reaching the elect. Calvinist missions and evangelism is really just about helping the elect realize they are elect (but they "preach" to everyone because, as they say, they don't know who in the audience is elect and who isn't).
Calvinism is not about helping lost people get saved, but it's about helping those who were never really lost to realize that they are saved. It's not about helping all hurting people find God's love, forgiveness, healing, and salvation, but only about helping the lucky, prechosen few find it. Because Calvi-god's love, forgiveness, healing, and salvation was never meant for anyone but the elect. Calvinism is not about saving sinners who are on their way to hell, but merely about helping those already predestined to heaven to realize that they are predestined to heaven.
What a sad, lacking, deformed half-gospel that Calvinism spreads!
It makes me want to cry.
[Also see my post "Calvinists, Altar Calls, and Evangelism."]
5. He says about his "gospel-centered, missions-minded" ministry: "This meshed well with the SBC’s 2008 agreement to disagree on the finer points of Calvinism, while majoring on the gospel and the need to reach the lost."
This is misleading because the problem is not the "finer points" of Calvinism; it's the Calvinism itself. To make it sound like we only disagree on the finer, minor points of Calvinism is deceptive. Calvinism is not a secondary issue where it's really possible to accept parts of it but ignore others. It is a whole-gospel issue, one that completely affects/changes our view of Scripture, salvation, sin, God's character, Jesus's death, grace, etc. The "finer points" of Calvinism are not where the problem lies. It's in the whole of Calvinism itself and what it does to God and His truth!
And it's misleading because remember that, in Calvinism, the gospel is only for certain preselected people. And Calvinism is not about reaching "the lost," but only about reaching the saved.
6. He goes on to say "If you find yourself in a situation where the tide has turned against Calvinism, then you’re in a much different place than if you’re in a church where the doctrines of grace are relatively unknown."
What he's basically saying here is that a Calvinist pastor has a better chance in a church that isn't aware of Calvinism. And he's right. You see, Calvinists rely on staying hidden as long as possible, so that they can subtly and slowly drip their Calvinism into the church before anyone realizes it. The old "frog in the pot" trick. (We watched it happen firsthand, over several years.)
But if someone knows what their theology is, they might research it for themselves or question it. They might know what the Calvinist pastor is really saying, underneath the sugar-coating. And they might blow his cover.
And so the Calvinist pastor needs as much "church ignorance" as possible to buy as much time as possible to manipulate people into Calvinism without their awareness, to slowly put Calvinist glasses on people so that they "see" Calvinism in the Bible, before they realize what he's doing/teaching. That's why they don't identify themselves as Calvinists or their theology as Calvinism unless they have to or are caught.
Our strongly-Calvinist new pastor NEVER, in several years, used the words Calvinism or Calvinist or reformed or anything that would identify his specific theology. It was always just "I am just preaching right from the Bible." That's why it took so long for my husband and I to see what was really going on: it took time to recognize his manipulative tactics and to "hear" his subtle twists on Scripture, to look up his use of Scripture and to see how wrong he was, to figure out what he really did believe, to find his views online and learn that it's called Calvinism, and then to research Calvinism deeply, comparing it all against the Bible to see just how wrong it is.
But if he had, even once, said that he was a Calvinist or that he believed in Calvinism, we could have saved ourselves a lot of time by going right to researching Calvinism directly.
But that's exactly what they don't want you to do!
And so Calvinist pastors want to find churches where the "doctrines of grace are relatively unknown," because those churches are easy pickings. Clean slates. Unaware. Ignorant and trusting. And the pastors won't have the pushback there that they would have in a church where people know about Calvinism.
7. He goes on to blame the rise of anti-Calvinists on three things: the internet, external leaders, and weak relationships. Notice that "Calvinism is bad theology" is not a possible reason for why we are anti-Calvinists.
If we disagree with Calvinism, Calvinist preachers will make it seem like the problem lies with us, not with their theological views. It's never their theological views; it's always something else. Such as it's our pride ... or we're having an emotional reaction to things we don't like hearing ... or we have trouble accepting God's "sovereign control," etc. (According to my Calvinist pastor, Americans are prideful and independent, and so we have a harder time "accepting God's sovereignty" as easily as people in other countries do. Um, a question: If we are prideful and independent and can't accept Calvi-god's "sovereignty," wouldn't that be because Calvi-god predestined/caused us to be that way? So what do you expect us to do about it!?!)
It's manipulation! That's what it is!
But it's not that we have a problem with Calvinism because our feelings or pride or independence get in the way; it's because it's bad, bad theology that contradicts the Bible, damages God's character, and destroys the gospel!
My Calvinist pastor gave us three choices for how we can respond to his Calvinist views of predestination: We can get angry about it, we can ignore it, or we can accept it. That's it. Disagreeing with Calvinism because we don't think it's biblical was not an option! (Can you see why we had to leave?)
Manipulation! Cult-like, brainwashing, shaming-you-into-agreeing manipulation!
8. Saying that "weak relationships" leads to anti-Calvinism is essentially saying that if Calvinists just had stronger friendships with people in their church, it would prevent us from turning against Calvinism.
As he says later: "anti-Calvinists exist mainly because of the loss of relationships between Calvinists and non-Calvinists ... [being too busy with other things] made my relationships too weak to sustain the weight of this theological divide. While many friendships were strong before the onslaught of internet-fed accusations, they simply couldn’t withstand the pressure when arguments came... Calvinist pastors in non-Calvinist churches, therefore, must foster relationships so that the church is not ripped apart by doctrinal disagreements. They must teach that personal relationships are more valuable and worthwhile than virtual relationships."
Apparently, he thinks we anti-Calvinists would never have become anti-Calvinists if we just had more Calvinist friends or stronger relationships with Calvinists. (You see! The problem is always with some other factor, never with their Calvinist views.)
And he's probably right, in one respect. Being in a Calvinist church with Calvinist friends all around you makes it much easier and more convenient for you to ignore the red flags that come up about Calvinism - because you don't want to offend/lose your friends, your reputation, your role in church, your Christian social circle. Trust me, I know. The peer pressure and fear of standing out or making waves might keep you in line.
And you'll have more voices around you telling you that "Calvinism is true," more people willing to lead you through Calvinist indoctrination books, and so you'll be much more likely to be swayed to agree with it. That's one reason my husband and I felt so strongly that we needed to voice our opposition to it - because no one else in our church was. But there might be others out there who were also questioning what they were hearing but who felt all alone, wondering if they were a bad, unhumble, prideful Christian (as the pastor - from the very beginning, before revealing his Calvinism - painted those who would disagree with him), and they needed to know that someone else disagreed too, that they weren't alone, that they were right to have doubts and concerns.
It's not easy to be one of the only ones to take a stand against something that everyone around you believes ... to risk looking like an "unhumble, prideful Christian who dishonors God by rejecting the gospel and His sovereignty" (as Calvinists will see you)... to have to give up your church family of 20 years and then to find out that no one really cared that you left. It's not easy.
And that's how and why Calvinism spreads like it does. Stronger relationships with Calvinists means more peer pressure and more to lose, which means more people will ignore the red flags and keep quiet.
But to blame "weak relationships" for anti-Calvinism downplays the major fundamental differences in the theological views between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists - as if the doctrinal disagreements are so minor that merely having strong friendships would make it all better.
Now, I'm not saying he's wrong about "Google searches led to skewed sources that unfavorably misrepresented the other side" - because, yes, that kind of thing does happen all the time online, which is why we need to be discerning. But to blame the internet for the problems we have with Calvinism ("internet-fed accusations") is like saying that we anti-Calvinists are letting random online opinions brainwash us, that we can't discern truth for ourselves or correctly evaluate what we are hearing, that we are letting online "fools" rile us up, without good, real reasons.
It's insulting and demeaning of our ability to understand the gospel and what Calvinism really teaches and how it twists the gospel and how it destroys God's character, and of our ability/courage to take a stand for truth in the face of lies and opposition. Apparently, we anti-Calvinists are just a bunch of brainless, naive nitwits who trust anything we read on the internet and do not understand Scripture enough to discern truth - and if we just had stronger friendships with Calvinists, we'd have no problems with Calvinism.
So let's just turn off our computers, trust our Calvinist pastors, and all put our arms around each other and sing Kumbaya ... and everything will be alright.
(Yes, I do love me some good sarcasm.)
9. "Therefore, any counsel I might give here depends on what kind of non-Calvinist you find leading (or influencing) your church. This difference is about far more than doctrine; it’s about tone, temperament, and a willingness to unify over other shared doctrines like Scripture, salvation, and service."
He really does not understand the severity of the problem. Our issue IS about doctrine, about what they are teaching about the Bible. And it should be about doctrine. And the major theological differences between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists cannot be solved by just having better tones, temperaments, and unification over shared doctrines.
I, for one, cannot unify with Calvinists over "Scripture" when they have such a twisted view of Scripture that it severely damages God's truth and character. I cannot unify with Calvinists over "salvation" when they do not even believe that Jesus died for all people or that all people can be saved, when they believe that most people are hopelessly lost and on their way to hell, by God's plan and for God's glory, and there's nothing they can do about it. I cannot unify with Calvinists over "service" if that service involves spreading Calvinism.
Some things are worth dividing over. And if the truth of the gospel, Jesus's sacrifice, salvation, eternal life, and God's character isn't worth dividing over, then nothing is!
10. Pastor Schrock praises the old days when pastors could preach (their view of Scripture) without technology making it so easy for people to do their own research.
"I’ve found that virtual voices and social media sources have an exaggerated and typically deleterious impact on the members of our churches.... Never before have people trusted themselves or strangers more than with the advent of the internet."
"In general, pastors need to appreciate the way our heroes of old preached, prayed, loved, and stayed in congregations that were not impacted by the information age. By faithful exposition of the Scriptures, they led their people into a greater understanding of biblical truth without the intrusion of internet hotheads. Today, however, circumstances have changed, and the internet may force Calvinist pastors in non-Calvinist churches to give an account for their doctrine."
"Just as our nation in the Internet Age has experienced increased political separation and hostility, so have Calvinists and Non-Calvinists in the local church... Of course, the information age only increases this challenge."
While there is definitely some truth in the fact that the internet can lead us astray and be full of bad information, he's basically saying that it's bad for church members to research theology online for ourselves (as if we aren't smart enough to recognize/discern biblical truth for ourselves) and that we should just let the local Calvinist pastor tell us what to think since he is the keeper of biblical truth. To question/research the Calvinist pastor's views by looking things up for ourselves online is to "trust in ourselves or in strangers," which would obviously make us either prideful or foolish. (I wonder what he would have said about the Bereans who researched what the apostle Paul taught?)
Do you hear the manipulation here? He's shaming people for being careful and critical about the theology that's being taught to them, for going to sources outside the local Calvinist pastor. This is essentially "Don't question Calvinist pastors because we are right and everyone else is wrong."
But does the Bible support what he's saying? What does the Bible say about our responsibility to learn/examine truth, to compare what we hear against Scripture so that we can discern between truth and lies, between biblically-accurate teachers and false teachers?
Matthew 7:15: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
2 Cor. 11:13-15: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
2 Peter 2:1-3: "... there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies ... Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up."
Galatians 1:6-8: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"
Hebrews 5:14: "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."
I didn't think so.
“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)
Interestingly, notice how he said "Today, however, circumstances have changed, and the internet may force Calvinist pastors in non-Calvinist churches to give an account for their doctrine."
This sentence is so strange to me. He seems to be lamenting the fact that Calvinist pastors now have to give an account for their doctrinal views.
And why is that a bad thing!?! Why shouldn't they have to give an account for their doctrinal views (especially since God holds teachers doubly accountable)!?!
1 John 4:1: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
And yet, Pastor Schrock is basically teaching the opposite, making it sound like examining what we are being taught and questioning your pastor is a bad thing, as if good Christians simply trust what the (Calvinist) pastor tells them.
Strange. Prideful. Manipulative. Power-hungry.
11. Note this revealing part: "This doesn’t mean the internet has ruined the “subversive” operations of Calvinist pastors sneaking into non-Calvinist churches. It does mean that Calvinist and non-Calvinist Christians alike will have a far more difficult time sitting under the Word of God together when both sides appeal to the nuclear arsenal of the World Wide Web."
It sounds to me like he's admitting that Calvinist pastors operate subversively, stealthily, sneaking into churches and trying to convert them to Calvinism without their awareness. (Oh how many times I've heard of this happening!) He's saying that access to the internet hasn't necessarily ruined that, thank Calvi-god! But that it does make it harder for Calvinists and non-Calvinists (who are in the know) to be in the same church (obviously because the non-Calvinists are using the internet to figure out what's wrong with Calvinism, making it impossible for them to sit under Calvinist preaching anymore).
12. He criticizes church members for going to outside sources for help against Calvinism instead of going to the Calvinist pastor himself. He says "When members begin to question the fidelity of their pastor’s teaching, they rarely (regrettably) go to their pastor. This is true in general, but perhaps more so when it comes to Calvinism. Often, concerned members will seek out former pastors or outside help, which may or may not help at all!"
Do you know why we go to outside sources about Calvinism instead of to Calvinist pastors? Because outsiders will help us understand what's wrong with Calvinism, but the Calvinist pastor will try to use shame, manipulation, deception, and Calvinist indoctrination resources to try to brainwash us into Calvinism. We know better than to walk into a trap.
"When outside consultants and denominational workers feed fears instead of understanding, the opportunity for Christians to grow in biblical truth and love for others who don’t share their theological convictions is lost. Outside sources could help the situation if they pointed concerned members back to their pastor. In my own situation, however, these outside “experts” often fed the false narrative of Calvinist pastors and their hidden agendas."
Notice that getting information from someone other than your Calvinist pastor is not really "getting information," seeking wise advice, learning, growing, or anything like that. It's "feeding fears and false narratives" and apparently it ruins your chance to "grow in biblical truth."
Clearly, the only way for us to stay level-headed, to have an accurate view of Calvinist pastors, and to get "biblical truth" is to go to our local Calvinist pastor and accept whatever he tells us.
(Do you know how cults operate? Cutting people off from those outside the cult? Making them distrust anyone outside the cult? I'm just sayin'.)
13. On the plus side, he said: "That said, if you’re a pastoral candidate, trust God for his placement and don’t hide your doctrinal convictions. If the church doesn’t have the theological acumen to ask you about it, bring it up with gentleness and patience. Show them how you will teach these doctrines and how important they are to you... Far better to “disqualify” yourself in the candidating process than to receive a call to a place where theological debate will follow immediately."
