"Non-Calvinism is DISGUSTING and IMMORAL"
I’m really, really not planning on starting up this blog again, but I just can’t help myself. I want to repost some more comments from Soteriology 101, mostly mine. These are really, truly the last of the Sot 101 comments I will repost (we'll see). These are from a post called “The Reformed have a conflation problem.” (I made minor edits for clarity.):
My comment to some things Roland (Calvinist) said: [To read Roland's original comment, click on the link above and scroll down the comments till you see his comment with the opening sentence of "Br.d. Now ask yourself this question: How does Calvin's god decree evil without FIRST CONCEIVING the evil he is going to decree?"]
I’m gonna jump in here and reply to some things Roland says (and you know I like you, Roland).
(This is gonna be long …)
Roland said: “I would guess you are making the argument that God, either by His decree or permission or will, etc., does not bring any evil at all into creation…. God’s revelation is clear, God brings about evil in at least some ways. He wills, He wounds, He creates darkness, He creates calamity, etc.”
My reply: I think what we need to do here first is define evil. The thing is, those verses you quoted about God causing darkness, wounds, calamity, disaster, etc., are far different than the Calvinist idea that God preplans/causes humans to sin. But Calvinists have lumped moral sin/evil in with disasters, calamities, illness, etc. And then they claim that since God says He causes things like disasters, illness, etc., it must also mean He causes people to sin. But causing disasters, illness, etc. is nowhere near the same thing as God causing people to commit sins He told them not to commit. God can cause disasters/illness without being guilty of sin, but He cannot preplan/force/cause people to sin without Him being responsible for it.
And God can allow people to choose to be wicked/sinful and can work their sinful choices into His plans and still not be responsible for their sins – because He let them make their own choices first and then just incorporated their choices into His plans. And there is nothing wrong with Him making the most of their bad choices. But He cannot preplan/cause/control them to be wicked and to sin, giving them no choice to do anything differently, and yet not be responsible for it.
God does not preplan/cause/force someone to be sinful or to sin, but He can and does put us in situations that might force us to make our decision, to expose what’s already in our hearts, and He can and does work our self-chosen sins/wickedness into His plans.
Examples: God allowed Assyria to be the wicked people they wanted to be and He worked their wickedness into His plans to discipline Israel, but nowhere does it say that God caused them to be wicked. God allowed Pharoah to harden his heart (notice that for the first several plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and then God made Pharaoh’s choice permanent) and then God worked Pharaoh’s choice (God already knew what he would choose) into His plans to free the people in a dramatic way, but nowhere does it say that God preplanned/caused/forced Pharaoh to choose to resist Him. (God did harden Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh made his decision, solidifying Pharaoh’s decision, but Pharaoh chose first.) God knew the Jews would reject Jesus and so He planned a way to incorporate their wicked choices into His plans for the crucifixion, but the Bible does not say that God forced/caused them to be wicked or to reject Jesus.
Roland said: “I would agree with Calvin, evil events cannot happen without God’s decree…. It is not Calvinism you are arguing against, it is Scripture.”
This is confusing/misleading because of the Calvinist definitions of “evil” and “decree.” Once again, Calvinists lump moral evils/sins in with calamities, disasters, illness, etc., and then say that since God causes disasters and illness, it must mean He causes sin too (and that if we disagree then we are questioning God’s sovereignty and denying Scripture). But disasters and illness and calamities and moral sins and moral evil, etc. do not all belong under the same one heading of “evil,” especially when it comes to causation.
And Calvinists use the word “decrees” (which could sound to some people like “God knew it would happen and allowed it to happen anyway”) when what Calvinists really mean is that God preplanned, controlled, caused, forced it to happen and that nothing different could have happened (but they will deny that they mean “caused/forced”, even though there is no way around it in Calvinism). And so, no, it is not Scripture we are arguing against, but the Calvinist misinterpretation and/or twisting of Scripture, such as when they lump sin in with illness and call it all “evil,” saying God causes it all.
Roland said: “God gave pharaoh a command through Moses that God made sure pharaoh would not be ABLE to obey! According to the non-calvinists understanding of this text, God would not have done such a thing. He would not have MADE sure that pharaoh would disobey Him. He would have only FOUND out that pharaoh disobeyed Him.”
Where in the Bible does it say that Pharaoh was unable, at first, to obey the command? God only hardened Pharaoh’s heart after Pharaoh hardened his own heart the first several plagues, making Pharaoh’s choice permanent. Calvinists have decided, though, that since God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in the later plagues, it must mean Pharaoh never had the ability to obey or to decide otherwise in the earlier plagues. [Added note: For a look at the KJV misinterpretation of Exodus 7:13, click here and read #88.]
Also, it’s not quite fair (a strawman argument) to claim that non-Calvinists believe God just “found out” Pharaoh disobeyed Him, as if we must think God didn’t know what would happen or was taken by surprise and then had to scramble to figure out what to do about it. (This is like the Calvinist tactic of presenting an absurd option alongside a Calvinist option - e.g.: "Either God controls everything or God controls nothing?" - as if those are the only two options there are, thereby forcing people to accept the Calvinist option.) God knew what Pharaoh would choose all along (which is why He knew that He would eventually harden Pharaoh’s heart) and so He already had a plan for how He would work Pharaoh’s choice into His plans.
Roland said: “And pharaoh is held accountable for his disobedience when he refused to let God’s people go. But God MADE sure that pharaoh would not let His people go.”
Yes, AFTER Pharaoh made his own decision to resist God! God did not force/cause Pharaoh to resist Him, He just made Pharaoh’s self-chosen resistance permanent at some point. And because it was self-chosen by Pharaoh, God could justly hold Pharaoh accountable for it.
Roland said: “I’m so happy to be a Calvinist as we would rather adhere to God’s revelation than some man made logical and philosophical suppositions regarding God’s character and will. I’m much rather agree with what Scripture CLEARLY reveals about God’s actions in Scripture than to subject God’s actions to men’s standards.”
Calvinists do not adhere to the clear teaching of Scripture, but they start with their own definitions of things like “sovereign” and “election” and “predestination,” etc., and then they have to add “yes, but” to Scripture to make it fit their views:
“Yes, the Bible says God loves the world … but He meant all kinds of people, not all individual people. And He has two different kinds of love, a save-your-soul one for the elect and a give-you-food-and-sunshine one for the non-elect.”
“Yes, the Bible says God calls to all people … but He has two different kinds of calls, one for the elect that they have to respond to and one for the non-elect that they can never respond to.”
“Yes, God tells us to seek Him, to repent … but He didn’t mean we can seek Him or repent. He has to make the elect seek Him and repent, but the non-elect can never seek Him nor repent.”
“Yes, the Bible says God wants all men to be saved, that He wants no one to perish … but God has two different wills, you see: a revealed one where He says He wants everyone to be saved and no one to perish, and a secret one which contradicts His revealed one where He really does want most people to go to hell. God can want one thing while causing the opposite, for His glory and mysterious plans.”
“Yes, the Bible says Jesus died for all sins and all people … but it means the sins of all kinds of people, from all races. Because Jesus wouldn’t die for those who are predestined to reject Him. That would be a waste of His blood and make His death ineffectual.”
Did God really intend “Yes … but” to be added to and to contradict/complicate/confuse everything He clearly, plainly said? Is He a God who doesn’t mean what He says or say what He means? (If He is a God who says one thing but means another, how can you ever trust Him then about anything?)
If you have to add “Yes … but …” to everything God says then you can be sure that your theology is WRONG!
The gospel is clear, easily-understood, makes sense, and is for all people. God doesn’t hide His Truth under layers of contradictions and double word-meanings and word games. When read plainly and simply, the Bible clearly says that Jesus died for all, that we are all sinners, that salvation is available to all, that we can believe in Him, and that we are responsible for whether we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior or not.
But it’s the Calvinists who do all sorts of Scripture-twisting, smoke-and-mirrors, double-layering, song-and-dances, running-in-theological-circles in order to make the Bible fit their theology, to make it say the exact opposite of what the Bible clearly says.
Calvinists cannot find verses that clearly say what they believe, such as “God does not love all sinners equally” … “Jesus died only for the elect” … “God has two Wills that contradict each other, one that wants all to be saved and one that predestines most people for hell” … “God has two different kinds of love for people, one that saves some people and one that just gives food and sunshine to the rest” … “God has two different kinds of calls He gives people, one that is irresistible and one that is resistible” … “God causes people to sin but punishes them for it,” etc.
They can’t find verses that clearly teach their theology. (Try and look for them.) And this is why they have to take verses out of context, apply multiple layers to verses, mash other verses together, change the meanings of words, shame and manipulate people into not questioning them, and make up truths based on what a verse doesn’t say (such as if a verse says Jesus died for His sheep, they say it must mean that He didn’t die for anyone else but His sheep, just like if I said I liked chocolate ice cream, they would interpret it to mean that I must not like any other flavor because all I mentioned specifically was chocolate), etc.
Calvinism does not take Scripture at face value. And this should be evident in the fact that it takes months of study with Calvinist pastors and Calvinist indoctrination books to figure out what God supposedly meant to say underneath what He actually said. And even then, Calvinists have to resort to things like “who are you to question God?” and “We can’t understand it, so we just have to accept it” to try to explain away the contradictions they cannot resolve.
I like you Roland. But you are trapped. Ask God to soften your heart to His truth, to remove the blinders, to protect you from demonic interference, and to help you see clearly. This is a huge spiritual battle, and it will not be easy. If we’re ensnared by demonic deception, they won’t let us go easily. I’ll say a prayer for you.
Another comment I made:
I wonder, when Calvinists talk about evil and sin, how do they define it without contradicting Calvinism?
If they say “Sin is doing what God doesn’t want,” it contradicts their belief that God predestines whatever He wants to have happen.
If they say “Sin is doing what doesn’t please God,” it contradicts their belief that God causes everything that happens for His pleasure, even sin.
If they say “Sin is doing something that’s unglorifying to God”, it contradicts their belief that God causes everything that happens for His glory, good and evil alike.
If they say “Sin is going against what God commands,” it contradicts their belief that God has a spoken command (what He SAYS He wants us to do) and an unspoken “command” (what we HAVE TO obey because He causes us to, in violation of what He SAID we need to do). And so disobedience is really just obedience on a different level. [For example: God's spoken command to Adam and Eve was to not eat the fruit, but they ate the fruit because, in Calvinism, it's what God preplanned and caused them to do, His unspoken command. And so disobeying God's spoken command is really just obeying His unspoken command, in Calvinism.]
How can a Calvinist define evil/sin without contradicting Calvinism or making a mockery of God and Scripture?
A non-Calvinist, Atheist2Apologist, said:
Not directly related to this post in response but:
Here is another problem I have with Calvinism, especially election.
Imagine a couple. They are both fertile and both decide to have children. They want to have 4. They do all they can to get pregnant. Then the first baby is conceived. They decide, before this baby is ever even born, that they won’t love it in the same way as their next child. Not because of anything they did, they just decide that. Because it will bring them glory. They wouldn’t die for this child, but they will for the next one.
If you take this analogy and say it to ANYONE who has any sort of moral compass, they would say this is disgusting and immoral, and that these are terrible parents. It is morally repulsive. Yet, the Calvinist believes this exactly about God.
The non-Calvinist does not have this problem because they believe God loves all of mankind, died for all, wants all to repent and none to perish (like the Bible clearly says). God’s greatest act of love is available as a free gift to all who will receive it.
This, among many other reasons, is why I find Calvinism absolutely repulsive. It paints a very dark and immoral picture of God and diminishes His love to give greater importance to His “sovereignty” (as the Calvinist defines sovereignty).
The non-Calvinist believes God’s love and sovereignty are not mutually exclusive, that He is completely love and completely sovereign (based on the actual definition of the word sovereign)!
Yet Calvinist will claim they have a higher view of God. Yet again, more baffling “logic” from the Calvinists.
Roland (Calvinist) replied with:
A2A said: “The non-Calvinist does not have this problem because they believe God loves all of mankind, died for all, wants all to repent and none to perish (like the Bible clearly says). God’s greatest act of love is available as a free gift to all who will receive it.”
Imagine you're a parent watching your children play on a driveway. You're are sitting in the garage with the garage door open. Your children are playing in the driveway. They all begin to run towards the street. You begin to shout out to them. “Turn around! There is danger in the street. If you run into the street, you will be struck by a car and killed!”
As the parent, you have the power to stop them. But you don’t because you believe that if you save them, their love for you is not genuine. Their turning back from the danger must be done freely, without coercion. Yet you are shouting, “I love you. Turn back from the danger.” You know that if they run into the street your children will be struck by a car and killed. You have the power to stop them. You have the knowledge that they will be struck by a car and killed. Yet your only actions are pleading, begging, and shouting to them to turn back. And when they don’t, when you fail to take action to stop them, they perish.
This is why I find non-calvinism DISGUSTING and IMMORAL. At least in Calvinism God does take action and save His elect. In non-calvinism, God does not take action. He saves none. He CAN only wait for His “free creatures” to make a “freewill” decision to turn to Him and live. Which none of His “free creatures” do unless God intervenes.
The Calvinist does not have this problem. The PASSIVE and OBSERVANT God [my note: he's saying this is the non-Calvinist God] does nothing but invite. The God of the Bible [my note: he's saying this is the Calvinist god] does much more than invite. He actually saves. In non-calvinism, God does not save but only offers to save. In Calvinism, God SAVES! In non-calvinism, God watches sinners die, knows they’re going to die, has the power to save them from eternal punishment yet does nothing but invite or offer to save.
Cap locks for emphasis, not yelling.
My reply to Roland:
Roland said: “Imagine you're a parent watching your children play on a driveway…. They all begin to run towards the street… You know that if they run into the street your children will be struck by a car and killed. You have the power to stop them. You have the knowledge that they will be struck by a car and killed. Yet your only actions are pleading, begging, and shouting to them to turn back. And when they don’t, when you fail to take action to stop them, they perish. This is why I find non-calvinism DISGUSTING and IMMORAL. At least in Calvinism God does take action and save His elect.”
So you’d rather have a God who caused most of his children to irresistibly desire to run into traffic and be killed, giving them no ability/chance to do otherwise … a God who created them specifically for that end because He takes pleasure in it and is glorified by it and because it shows the “elect” ones how much more loved they are by comparison … a God who only pretends to care about the non-elect children, who “warns” them about the dangers of running into traffic and commands them to not run into traffic but who ultimately programmed them to run into traffic, and then He blames them for not listening to His warnings, punishing them for it eternally, even though they couldn’t choose anything else?
But hey, never mind about the damned ones. At least a few of us were chosen to be saved. A few of us were given by Calvi-god the ability/desire to obey him when he said to not run into traffic. Isn’t Calvi-god good, gracious, loving, and just! (Just don’t think about those predestined to hell!) Who are we to understand him anyway or to talk back to him?
(The sarcasm is to emphasize my disgust with Calvinism, not to be hard on you, Roland.)
Roland said: “In non-calvinism, God does not take action. He saves none. He CAN only wait for His “free creatures” to make a “freewill” decision to turn to Him and live…. In non-calvinism, God does not save but only offers to save.”
Actually, in non-calvinism, God did indeed take action and do something to save people, something much more than just begging and pleading: He died on the cross in our place to save us all from hell. And then He spent years getting the gospel written down to spread the message of salvation. And He put evidence of Himself in nature and in our hearts to call us all to Him. He reaches out to all people to tell them that He loves them and that they can be saved. He did everything, except make our decision for us.
To go back to your illustration, Roland (and remember all illustrations fall short at some point): Biblically, God doesn’t just sit and watch His kids run into the street, merely pleading that they stop. No! He has consistently and repeatedly told us all about the dangers of running into the road (through prophets and Scripture), commands us to not run into the road, has made a way to safety and shown us the way to safety, has put up warning signs and roadblocks, etc. And then even when we keep running to the road, by our own choice, He tries to pull us back over and over again. (But He has given us the right to make the decision to listen to Him or not.) And on top of all that, God also threw Himself in front of the cars to get hit Himself, to take the “punishment” so that no one else had to get hit (eternally). No one has to run into the road and get killed. And yet in spite of all that, many of us choose to ignore Him and His warnings, to reject His sacrifice, and we willingly plunge headlong into traffic ourselves. Because we don’t want God telling us what to do.
And yet you, Roland, would blame God for that, for us not listening, accusing Him of not doing enough to save us?
Roland said: “In Calvinism, God SAVES!.”
Yes, a few people. While destroying so many more.
Roland said: “In non-calvinism, God watches sinners die, knows they’re going to die, has the power to save them from eternal punishment yet does nothing but invite or offer to save.”
And yet you have no problem with the fact that, in Calvinism, God doesn’t just watch sinners die but He causes/creates most sinners to die, predestining them to hell – even though He has the power to predestine no one to hell – giving them no chance/ability to be saved because Calvi-Jesus never died for them anyway.
At least the non-Calvinist Jesus died to make salvation available to all and the non-Calvinist God truly offers real salvation to all. (And like I said, the non-Calvinist God does much more than just invite or offer.)
Roland, try thinking a little less about how “good” the Calvinist god is to save just a few people, and think a little more about how wretched he is to create most people to burn for eternity in hell (when he has the ability to predestine no one to hell), how disgusting it is that he is glorified by that and ultimately takes pleasure in it, how wrong he is to tell people to repent and believe while preventing them from repenting and believing, how unjust he is to command people to not sin but then he causes them to sin and punishes them for it, etc.
If you are this backwards/warped/deluded in your ideas of what the non-Calvinist God is like and what the Calvinist God is like then I’m worried for you, Roland. I really am. I suggest that you pray and ask God to take off any blinders Satan may have put on you. Tell God you want to know the truth, even if it means realizing/admitting you were wrong all along. (Are you willing to do this? If not – if you’re so worried about finding out you might be wrong that you can’t pray this – then that is telling.)
(In a different comment on the same thing…) Roland said: “This is why I find non-calvinism DISGUSTING and IMMORAL.”
Roland, is it not the least bit weird to you that Calvi-god “ordained” you to find non-Calvinism disgusting and immoral, for his glory ... but that he also “ordained” us to find Calvinism disgusting and immoral, for his glory? That he gets as much glory from both? Is that not strange and meaningless?
And how about the fact that Calvi-god gets as much glory and pleasure from predestining a few people to heaven as he does from predestining many more to hell? That he gets as much glory and pleasure from ordaining child rape as he does from ordaining that people fight against child rape? That he commands belief and repentance but then predestined/causes the non-elect to NOT do those things, and then punishes them for it? That he commands that we don’t sin but then he causes sin? (How can you trust that a god like that is good and righteous and just and holy and loving and faithful? What are your definitions of those things? What is the definition of sin/evil/disobedience, especially if sin and evil and disobedience is Calvi-god’s Will and plan and ultimately caused by him for his glory and pleasure?)
Does it not bother you that our souls are basically interchangeable to him, that he randomly picks a few people to save while damning the rest, before we ever even took our first breath or made any decisions? That he could have easily chosen just one person to punish in hell (if, as Calvinists say, he needed sinners so that he could show off his justice/wrath by punishing sin, in order to exercise his full attributes and be fully glorified – as if he was somehow lacking in glory or God-ness before sinners came along) but that instead he chose to predestine multitudes upon multitudes to hell? (So punishing Jesus on the cross wasn’t enough? He needed to punish millions, billions of people too? Jesus’s death was not enough?)
How God-honoring is a Calvinist really, when the wicked bring Calvi-god as much glory as the Calvinist does? How meaningful are your life, choices, thoughts, prayers, spiritual disciplines, etc. anyway, when it’s all planned/caused by Calvi-god? How special and loved can a Calvinist feel when you were chosen basically by lottery, random chance, but he could have just as easily swapped you out for another person? Is Calvinism comforting to you, when you really think about it? Or is it only comforting if you ignore the unpleasant, unavoidable, undeniable conclusions of Calvinism?
Think about it. REALLY think about it. God’s name and character and the gospel and people’s souls and the condition of your eternity are at stake here.
[There's lots more good comments there, if you want to click on the link and read them.]
Update: Here are some more comments, on a different note:
Roland (Calvinist), who previously challenged me on how I use "Calvi-god" when talking about God as Calvinists view Him, said:
The reason I don’t use names such as ‘armi-god’ or ‘freewill-god’ or ‘moli-god’ or ‘open theist-god’ is because I believe that people who believe in God as Arminians, libertarian freewill proponents, Molinists, open theist believe their perspective of God is the God of the Bible. I disagree with them but by saying they don’t believe in the God of the Bible means they are worshipping an idol. Unitarians, modalists, and others such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are worshipping idols because their differences as to who God is, are greatly different than historical and creedal Christianity.
My reply:
I appreciate that you are being kind and tolerant here, as you usually are. But I’m gonna be a little rascal here (as I usually am) and play devil’s advocate, throwing something out there for consideration:
Mormons and JWs also believe their perspective of God is the God of the Bible. Should we base whether someone worships a false god or the real God (whether they have a false gospel or the real gospel) on if they themselves think their views accurately reflect the Bible?
I mean, we all believe our perspective of God accurately reflects the God of the Bible, so how do we determine who’s right and who’s wrong? When are the differences in beliefs significant enough to require that we label one a false gospel? Which differences can we let slide (compromise with) and which should we boldly come against (not compromise against)?
And most relevant for this post: Are the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists small enough that the two can compromise/mesh with each other? Or are they significant enough that we should both call out the other side as unbiblical/a false gospel?
[Personally, I think “idol-worship” is when people know they are worshipping a being who is not God from the Bible. Hindu gods. Greek/Roman gods. Sun-worship. Etc. But many false religions/cults do worship “God” and believe in Jesus and uphold the Bible, but they have very different interpretations of it all. So instead of saying they worship idols, I would simply say they have an incorrect, unbiblical, different view of God and the gospel.]
I’m not being sarcastic here, but just presenting some real questions to think about, from one Christian to another, especially since the Bible warns us against compromising the gospel and God’s truth.
I’m asking because I’ve had to wrestle with this, with if I really should be calling Calvinism a false gospel with a different (version of) God. It seems harsh, especially when most of those people are good Christians who’ve just been trapped into Calvinism and are just doing their best to live rightly and to honor God, as they’ve been taught.
But then I re-examine some of the differences between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, differences on some of the most important things in the Bible: God’s character, Jesus’s death, how we get saved, etc.
Calvinism: God chooses if we get saved; the Holy Spirit regenerates before belief; only the elect can believe; God really loves only the elect; His saving grace is only for the elect; He wants most people in hell for His pleasure and glory; He “ordains” sin for His glory; He actively controls everything even sin and evil; He sent Jesus to die for only the elect; He punishes people for doing the things He predestined them to do (injustice), etc..
Non-Calvinism: We choose if we will believe in Jesus or not; regeneration is after belief; anyone can believe; God truly loves all people; His saving grace is available to all people; He wants all people to be saved and wants no one to go the hell; He is not glorified by sin; He allows a certain amount of creaturely freedom within boundaries; He sent Jesus to die for all sins of all people; He punishes people for doing what they chose to do (justice), etc.:
Sure, we both use the Bible and biblical concepts and we both have the most basic part of “faith in Jesus saves us” in common (but Mormons and JWs would say this too), but when we add in all the differences in our beliefs (especially about who Jesus died for, how we believe in Him, what faith is and how we get it, and who can believe in Him), we end up with two different messages, two different gospels, two different versions of God. [Not to mention that the Calvinist gospel is only for the elect, but the non-Calvinist gospel is for everyone.]
How much difference can there be between two views of God/the gospel before we call one out as false? Do you think Calvinism and non-Calvinism are similar enough that they can compromise with each other, that there would be little harm in melding the two? (If you did, I doubt you’d be here at Sot 101 arguing for Calvinism.) When and where do we draw the line between truth and falsehood? How much falsehood should we overlook in the name of unity?
I’m asking this because … maybe Calvinists who believe that Calvinism IS the gospel and non-Calvinists who believe it’s NOT the gospel should not be compromising with each other or trying to meld together in peaceful unity. Of course, we can have polite, lively conversations and respectful debates, but maybe we should both be bold enough to call out the other side as “unbiblical” or “heresy” (in the commonly understood way it’s used), especially if we want to protect the integrity of (our version of) the gospel.
Of course, I’m not saying that Calvinists are right, and I don’t want to encourage more hostility and division. But I take it seriously that God entrusted Christians with the gospel and that we are to protect it from error. And so I would expect any Christian to draw hard lines between (what we think is) truth and (what we think is) lies. And this includes drawing hard lines (respectfully, but firmly) between Calvinism and non-Calvinism.
In fact, I think we’d have a lot less confusion between the two if Calvinists drew a stronger line between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, if Calvinist pastors stopped saying that Calvinism is just a secondary issue and that our different beliefs shouldn’t cause division (which, I think, is an attempt to shame non-Calvinists into keeping quiet and staying under their Calvinist leadership). Maybe there should be a stronger, clearer division between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, especially if we are all seeking to do our best to not compromise (our version of) the gospel.
Anyway, I’m just throwing this out there to give people things to think about. Mainly, when are the differences great enough that we should call something “unbiblical,” a false gospel? And if we should call something unbiblical but we don’t, are we compromising the truth and the gospel?
(And it would not bother me at all if you called the non-Calvinist God “free-will God” or “non-calvi-God” or something like that. I would simply think you are trying to be clear that you are talking about the non-Calvinist view of God and not your own. And I think it would help everyone to better see the differences in how Calvinists and non-Calvinists view God.)
[Side note: Calvinism has a luxury that non-Calvinism doesn’t have, which allows them to be more “compromising” with non-Calvinists than non-Calvinists can be with Calvinists, which is that non-Calvinist beliefs fit into Calvinism on one level, the surfacey level. Almost anything we say is incorporated into Calvinism’s “two different types of …”
Non-Calvinists say “God loves all people.” Calvinists say “Of course He loves all people. It’s just that He’s got two different types of love, one for the elect and one for the non-elect.”
Non-Calvinists say “God calls all people.” Calvinists say “Yes, He does. But He gives two different calls: an irresistible one for the elect that they must heed and a resistible one for the non-elect that they can’t heed.”
Non-Calvinists say “Jesus died for all people.” Calvinists say “Of course He did. But His death was sufficient for all but only efficient for the elect.”
Non-Calvinists say “It’s God’s will that all people are saved and that no one perishes.” Calvinists say “Yes, true. But He has two wills, a spoken one (wants all people saved) and a hidden one (wants to punish sinners in hell to show His justice).”
Calvinism “agrees” with non-Calvinism on the surface, making it seem like they can be more tolerant of us, like they can mesh well with us.
{This is why they say "We believe everything you do. We are on the same page, saying the same things." And this sucks you in - because you don't realize there's a deeper level they hide which changes/contradicts the surface level. Another example: Non-Calvinists say "Anyone who wants to can come to Jesus." And Calvinists say "We believe that too! We say the same thing." But what they hide is this: "But God predetermines who 'wants' to come to Jesus. He gives the elect, and only the elect, the 'desire' to come to Jesus. And so the non-elect never come to Jesus because they never 'wanted' to, and they could never want to." This is much different than the plain, easily-understood, non-deceptive, non-Calvinist version of "Anyone who wants to can come to Jesus," meaning that everyone and anyone can want to come to Jesus, that we all have the ability and opportunity to believe in Him. You see, in Calvinism, our desire for God, our faith, is something God plants in us (well, in the elect only). But in non-Calvinism, desire and faith are up to us. God gave each of us the right and responsibility to make our own decision about if we want to believe in Him or not. This is a fundamental difference between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, and it shows that we are most definitely not saying the same thing.}
But non-Calvinism doesn’t have that luxury because we don’t have that “deeper/hidden” level of beliefs that Calvinism has. We don’t have the “two different types of …”, which is why we say "No! We are not saying the same things!"
And we know that, in Calvinism, the surfacey things they say are just a cover-up for their deeper beliefs which change/alter/contradict the surface level they claim to believe. (And we know they will hide the deeper things for as long as possible, that they hook and reel people in with the surfacey things we can all agree on before revealing the “hard truths.”)
And so we are forced to draw stronger lines of division between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, to clearly call out Calvinism as unbiblical and to point out that they worship a different version of God than the one clearly, plainly revealed in Scripture. And so we look more intolerant, more harsh.
But we know that if we don’t push back, that if we compromise even a little bit, Calvinism (which we believe is a corruption of the gospel and God’s character) will sneak in under cover and spread unnoticed. And so if we non-Calvinists take it seriously that we need to protect the gospel and the truth of Scripture, how can we not call it out as unbiblical?
And on the other side, if Calvinists think Calvinism IS the gospel and we say it’s not, how can you not call us out as unbiblical, especially when we contradict your version of the gospel and God’s character and are trying to dismantle Calvinism and stop its spread?]
Just some things to think about. From one Christian to another. I mean, I’m all for Christians living in harmony with other Christians in spite of differences in our beliefs. But when are beliefs too different to do this? Blessings to you, Roland! Enjoy your week/weekend.
And I don’t actually expect any replies. I’m just throwing these questions out for each of us to examine in our own hearts, between us and God. Of course, anyone can reply if they want to, but no one has to.
Blessings. 
And branching off in a different direction (yes, I do like to hear myself talk, thankyouverymuch), I commented:
I was just thinking of something today after reading (not on Sot 101) about so many hurting people out there, those struggling with anxiety, depression, hopelessness, suicidal thoughts, etc.
And I have a question for Calvinists: What would you say to these people? Would you be able to look in the eyes of any and every hopeless, hurting person who wants to give up, and say to them “You matter. Hang in there. There’s hope out there for you, and you can find healing”?
Or can you only really shrug your shoulders (on the inside) because you’re not sure who’s elect and who’s not? Who has hope and who doesn’t? Who can find healing and who can’t? Who matters and who doesn’t?
And if you would tell them “You matter,” on what basis do they (the non-elect) matter? Because their eternal damnation brings Calvi-god more glory?
I doubt these questions will hit hardened Calvinists in the heart, but it does hit me in the heart. My heart hurts for hurting people, and it hurts even more for what Calvinism does to hurting people. (But I don’t expect Calvinists to understand.)
Roland replied:
Heather said: "I was just thinking of something today after reading (not on Sot 101) about so many hurting people out there, those struggling with anxiety, depression, hopelessness, suicidal thoughts, etc. And I have a question for Calvinists: What would you say to these people? Would you be able to look in the eyes of any and every hopeless, hurting person who wants to give up, and say to them “You matter. Hang in there. There’s hope out there for you, and you can find healing”"
There is hope for people that are hurting. Jesus Christ. That’s what I would say to someone who is hurting. Jesus Christ is the hope of all nations.
Heather said: "Or can you only really shrug your shoulders (on the inside) because you’re not sure who’s elect and who’s not? Who has hope and who doesn’t? Who can find healing and who can’t? Who matters and who doesn’t?"
Never shrug my shoulders at an opportunity to share and offer Christ in whom they can find healing. I know there are hyper-Calvinists who do the shoulder shrugging. I don’t know them personally but I’ve heard stories. I believe they’re out there.
One thing my church, our elders, and all the Calvinists I know is never ever consider as to whether the person in front of me is elect. We don’t know who the elect are, therefore we do not operate as if we do know who they are. However, we know that God has His elect, He will draw them to Him, they will come, and they will never be cast out!
Honest question for you: Do you ever shrug someone off because you think they will never believe?
I replied:
Roland said: “That’s what I would say to someone who is hurting. Jesus Christ is the hope of all nations.”
All nations, in Calvinism, but not all people. So like Kurt points out, it would be a lie in Calvinism to encourage all people with the fact that they can have hope in Jesus.
I don’t doubt that you’ve got a heart for lost, hurting people, but I don’t think Calvinism’s gospel is for the lost. It’s for the elect only, for those already saved from before time began. It doesn’t “save” anyone from hell; it just helps those who are already going to heaven to realize they are already going to heaven. Where is the hope in there for any lost, hurting person who’s not chosen? If there is no hope for them, how can you pretend there is?
(Personally, I think hyper-Calvinists are the most honest Calvinists, the ones who actually see the inevitable conclusions of their theology, embrace it, and live it out.)
Roland said: “However, we know that God has His elect, He will draw them to Him, they will come, and they will never be cast out!”
Will your efforts to evangelize change the outcome in any way? Will any non-elect person get saved or any elect person fail to get saved based on whether or not you evangelize?
Roland said: “Honest question for you: Do you ever shrug someone off because you think they will never believe?”
I don’t shrug off anyone, but I do respect people’s right to not want to hear the gospel or about Jesus. Most of my and my husband’s families are resistant to the gospel and want nothing to do with Jesus. But I will always make at least one attempt to point the way to Jesus, and I try to live out my faith in front of them so they can see it and know where to come for answers, and I try to let them know that I am always willing to talk about it. But if they don’t want to hear it, I don’t push it, but I do keep praying for them and watching for an opportunity, if ever they do want to hear about it. I respect their right to make their own decision. I wouldn’t call this shrugging them off, but more like respecting their right to decide and letting them have their way, while always being ready to share the truth with them if they ever want it.
Roland replied (to me, it's telling that he addressed nothing else yet in my comment other than this):
Heather said: "All those hurting people with no hope, destined to hurt forever! All those broken, hurting people who don’t really matter, other than for the glory their damnation brings Calvi-god and for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too. Breaks my heart!"
“…for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.” I can take hard truths. But this is a SLANDEROUS STATEMENT. To impute an attitude or belief that Calvinists do not express, should never express, is SLANDEROUS. To impute to Calvinists that “…FOR THE JOY IT GIVES THE ELECT IN KNOWING…”
If you really believe that Calvinists have joy over knowing that they’ve been elected and are not one of the non-elect, then I can say that history speaks directly against such a slanderous statement as Calvinists have been some of the most ardent and zealous evangelists in church history. My church in association with other like minded churches has 30 plus missionaries throughout the world. We have two medical teams that operate in two different third world countries providing free medical care and sharing the Gospel. We have several missionaries in closed countries that are immersed in the local cultures and languages, sharing the Gospel.
And people on this site wonder why Calvinists are always saying you don’t understand Calvinism.
I replied [Before I share my reply, I just want to say that I think Roland has earned the right to challenge me on things and argue with me, to call me out if he thinks I'm being unfair. He is almost always thoughtful and respectful in his comments, addressing the issue and not taking things too personally or making personal attacks (even when he's treated unfairly by non-Calvinists), though he might get a little feisty at times. But feisty is okay with me. In my opinion, he's the kind of Christian I'd want to debate with, because he debates fairly and respectfully, even if we disagree and even if I think he can't see Calvinism's contradictions and deceptive wording. And so I don't take what he said as a personal attack but as a legitimate argument and challenge. And I try to answer him as such, even though I come down really hard on Calvinism.):
Roland said: ““…for the joy it gives the elect in knowing that at least Calvi-god didn’t make them one of the non-elect too.” I can take hard truths. But this is a SLANDEROUS STATEMENT.”
FYI, I wasn’t referring to you personally in this statement but to Calvinists in general. And I am sorry if this offended you. (But who “ordained” that slanderous statement? If God ordained it for His glory, why should Calvinists be upset about it?) But I am glad that you and your church have a real heart for people.
And for the record, I have heard/read basically this exact statement from other Calvinists – that one of the reasons why God has non-elect people is to show the elect how loved they are, by comparison, so that they can appreciate more their “chosen” state. And so maybe it doesn’t apply to you, but you cannot speak for all Calvinists.
And I am glad that you can take the hard truths.
So then, what you do think of the James White-type Calvinists who say that God “ordains” child rape for His glory because if He didn’t ordain it than the rape would be meaningless? Is it better to have “meaningful child rape that God caused” or “meaningless rape that man chose to do, against what God wanted”?
What do you think of the Calvinist grandfather who is okay that God may have predestined his grandchild to be a murderer, and who praises God for it?
What do you think of my Calvinist pastor who said that child abuse (something God commanded against) is ordained by God for His glory, for our good, and to keep us humble? Does it matter if the child is elect or non-elect, meaning does God still ordain the abuse for the “good” of the non-elect and to keep the non-elect humble? Or is this only in the cases of the elect? Because, let’s face it, not every abused child grows up to be “elect”.
How about the hard truth that there is no hope in Jesus for the non-elect? You say you’re okay with the hard truths but then you soften this one to make it sound like you’re saying that there’s hope for all people in Jesus, when you know that hope is only for the elect.
(I’m not trying to be hard on you, Roland. I’m really not. I’m trying to encourage you to get off the fence, to either really commit to Calvinism if that’s what you believe or to start questioning Calvinism, to start reading the Bible without Calvinist glasses on, and to begin tossing out the parts of Calvinism that don’t fit what the Bible clearly, plainly says, the parts that hurt the gospel and God’s character and Jesus’s sacrifice and people’s eternities.)
Roland said: “…Calvinists have been some of the most ardent and zealous evangelists in church history… We have several missionaries in closed countries that are immersed in the local cultures and languages, sharing the Gospel.”
This sounds great (other than the fact that I think Calvinism is a corruption of the true gospel, spreading a twisted version of God). But can I ask, who is the gospel for in Calvinism? For everyone? For all the lost people who are headed to hell and need to be rescued? Or is it really just for the elect who don’t yet realize they are elect?
I mean really, Roland, think about it.
(Once again, I am not trying to be hard on you. But I will be very hard on Calvinism. And so if you align yourself with Calvinism, you’ll be standing in the line of fire. Not to mention that you voluntarily came to an anti-Calvinist website to defend Calvinism. And so you can and should expect that to happen. But while I do hate Calvinism, I do like you, and I do think you are handling all of this with a lot of graciousness and maturity.)
Roland said: “If you really believe that Calvinists have joy over knowing that they’ve been elected and are not one of the non-elect…”
So then … you DON’T have joy in the fact that you’ve been elected instead of being “passed over” like the non-elect? If not joy, then what does being elected make you feel? And what do you feel for the non-elect?
[FYI, and not part of my comment: I'm going to go out a limb here and guess that Roland interpreted my comment wrong, that he read it as if I was saying that Calvinists have joy in knowing that the non-elect will perish. That's not what I was saying at all. However, as non-Calvinist commenter Fromoverhere brilliantly points out: “Roland was offended when he thought you to have said he takes joy in their fate. All the more [reason] why we find it astonishing that they think that GOD takes pleasure in the eternal demise of the non-elect. Ironically, Roland was offended thinking that you accused him of the very thing that Calvinism says God does!!!!”]
Thanks for reading, Roland, and for taking the time to address things I say. But I hope you realize that I am not expecting you to answer anything I ask. I am asking these to get you to think, between you and God, and to get you to examine Calvinism more closely. I have hope for you, Roland, precisely because you are a deep thinker and have a good heart.
[And for some minor trivia, “libelous” is about written/published defamation, “slanderous” is usually about spoken defamation. 😉]
And then I added ...
And, Roland, when I said “I am not expecting you to answer anything I ask”, I realize that I should have said “You probably shouldn’t answer anything I ask.” Because sometimes the best thing we can do is to sit in silence before God with our thoughts and views, to wrestle with them before Him and run it all past Him, to linger at His feet, in His Word, giving Him permission to correct any wrong views we have while we listen for the Holy Spirit who reveals truth to us.
But we miss all of that sometimes when we rush to formulate our arguments and defend our views (and we’re all guilty of this sometimes, at least I am), when we are more concerned with organizing our ideas into something powerful than we are with letting God correct our ideas if we are wrong (which would require that we be quiet and still before Him, run our views past Him and through His Word, wait for Him to answer us, and then listen for and heed/follow the still, small voice of the Spirit, being willing to admit we might be wrong and to accept whatever God reveals to us).
I think we can all lose sight of this in the “heat of the battle,” when we’re more concerned with winning an argument or proving our point than with examining ourselves and letting God search our hearts.
And so I would suggest that you don’t answer me on these, but that you just sit with it all for awhile before God and see what He tells you.
And with that, I’m going to bow out for awhile too, so that I don’t goad you on in formulating more arguments and defending Calvinism more, thereby entrenching yourself deeper and deeper into Calvinism. I myself just need to spend some time being quiet before God. This world is wearing me down, and I need to just rest in Him for awhile and let Him refresh my soul.
God bless, Roland. Keep being the deep thinker and questioner that you are. I think you’ll eventually get there.
God bless.
[Note: I've been praying for Roland on my morning walks. If you don't mind, maybe you could say a prayer for him too. Thank you.]
