Why am I so harsh towards Calvinism?
I wanted to add one more post upfront. This should be the last one. (Yeah, right!) But I want to add this because all over my blog you'll see that I am not kind towards Calvinism. I take very strong stands against it, to the point of calling it a false gospel. And occasionally, I've been called out by other Christians, even by non-/anti-Calvinists, for being too harsh.
Why would I be so harsh against other Christians? Why would I call Calvinism (which correctly says we need to "believe in Jesus to be saved") a "false gospel," instead of saying (as one non-Calvinist said) that it's the "true gospel, just deformed"? Why do I take such a strong, ungracious stand against it? Can't we all just get along?
To explain this, here's an exchange of comments recently posted at Soteriology 101 on the post "Calvinism obscures the simple gospel." In the article, the author says that Calvinists claim the gospel is simple and clear, but that Calvinism complicates and obscures it. He says that, of course, anyone can be saved when someone says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," but that Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different views of how that happens. I, however, go further than that and say that Calvinism, in the end, is a completely different gospel. Read the article and the comments on that post, and decide for yourselves. Is it okay to be harsh with Calvinism or not? Is Calvinism a false gospel, or the correct gospel just deformed? (How much deformation does it take before something becomes false?)
But here's where I stand:
First, a comment of mine from awhile ago, and then I'll share the recent exchange of comments [small edits and additions made for clarity]:
Calvinism doesn’t just obscure the simple, clear gospel message, but I think it presents a whole different gospel, obscured just enough so that it APPEARS to be the biblical gospel.
In the Bible, God loves all people. But in Calvinism, He loves just a few but APPEARS to “love” all through the idea of "two different kinds of love."
In the Bible, Jesus died for all, God truly wants all to be saved, and God calls all people to believe in Jesus and offers salvation to all. But in Calvinism, salvation is only for a few preselected people, but it’s made to APPEAR to be for all people, through things like God’s “two wills” and “two calls,” etc.
In the Bible, man has the ability to choose between real options and is therefore truly responsible for his sins. But in Calvinism, man only has the ability to choose the one thing God predestined/causes him to choose and so God is truly responsible for man’s sins, but it’s made to APPEAR like man is responsible and has the ability to choose, through things like “two causes of sin” and “God’s two types of decrees: spoken vs. hidden,” etc.
In the Bible, we are saved through faith, by believing in Jesus, and then we get the Holy Spirit who indwells us and regenerates us. But in Calvinism, the elect are saved by getting the Holy Spirit first who regenerates them and injects “faith” into them and causes them to believe in Jesus. (See *note* below) But it’s made to APPEAR like they are saved through faith, through belief in Jesus, when they are really saved first, BEFORE faith and belief.
Calvinism doesn’t just obscure the gospel but it completely changes it, presenting us with a different God (whose character is very different from the God of the Bible), a different Jesus (whose death accomplished something different than what the Bible says), and a different way to salvation, etc.
*Note*: Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists say that if we have faith in Jesus then we will be saved. But in Calvinism, "faith" is a completely different concept. In Calvinism, faith is something God injects into the elect to make them believe (and withholds from the non-elect so that they cannot believe). But in the Bible, faith is when we choose to put our trust in Jesus, to believe in Him.
In the Bible, we are saved because of our belief/faith - salvation comes after we believe, as a result of us putting our faith in Jesus. But in Calvinism, the elect believe/have faith because - and as a result of the fact that - they were saved first in eternity past. As famous Calvinist Loraine Boettner says in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: "A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved."
But does that sound like what Scripture clearly, plainly, repeatedly says?
"... Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)
"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." (Mark 16:16)
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12)
Does faith/belief come before (and lead to) salvation? Or does salvation come before (and lead to) faith/belief, as Calvinism says? There is a huge difference between Calvinism's idea of faith and the Bible's idea of faith. And Calvinism totally flips the Bible and salvation on its head.
Therefore, while Calvinists might use a sentence like "believe in Jesus and you will be saved", they do not mean the same thing as the Bible. In the Bible, it's an offer to all people to believe in Jesus and be saved (and it's "belief leads to salvation"). But in Calvinism, it's merely a statement of what's been predestined to happen to the elect: they will believe in Jesus and be saved (or more accurately, according to Calvinism, they are saved first and then God will cause them - and only them - to believe).
These cannot be the same gospel. And if they are not the same, if they are opposed to each other, they cannot both be true. One has to be false.
Always remember that, in Calvinism, John 3:16 is not an invitation to believe. It's not instructions on how you - on how anyone - can be saved. It's merely a statement of what God has predestined for the elect, on how He will save them, and only them. If you are not one of the elect, John 3:16 is not for you. But of course, since a Calvinist doesn't know who's elect and who's not, they share John 3:16, the gospel, with everyone, trusting that God will make the elect believe but He will prevent the non-elect from believing because He predestined them to hell for His glory and Jesus never died for them anyway.
Does this sound like the same message we get when we read the Bible, the gospel, in a plain, simple, commonsense way?
Of course not. Calvinists have to be taught by other Calvinists to find Calvinism in the Bible, to read it in a Calvinist way. Why else do you think it takes them months of reading/studying huge Calvinist indoctrination books to understand the Calvinist gospel, whereas the Bible's book of John explains the gospel in one verse?
-----------------------------------------------
Recently, I decided to add the following comment (in reply to the idea that Calvinism is merely a distortion of the gospel, but not a false gospel), which got a couple reactions from other non-Calvinists who seemed to think I was too harsh in my criticisms of Calvinism. That's fine, they can think that. I totally respect those non-Calvinists and think they're very godly and intelligent. But I then wanted to explain myself, to very clearly lay out why I am so harsh against Calvinism, and so I added more comments. Plus, I don't want them to mistake my harshness of Calvinism as being harsh against the people. I have a real heart for all people, even those mislead by and trapped into Calvinism.
My comment:
Personally, and maybe this is just me, but I do say that Calvinism is a false gospel and that it severely damages God’s character, His Word, Jesus’s sacrifice, and people’s ability to be saved.
I believe the Bible says that God truly loves all people, that Jesus died for all sins of all people, that salvation is truly offered to all people, that God is not responsible for evil or sins or unbelief, and that the one “work” we must do to be saved is to believe in Jesus (it is our responsibility, and all people have the option/ability to do it).
But this is the opposite of what Calvinism teaches (underneath all the deceptive layers they use to obscure it), which is that God only really loved the elect enough to save them, that Jesus only died for the elect, that salvation is only truly offered to the elect, that God is the ultimate (and essentially only) cause of sin, evil, and unbelief (but He punishes us for it), and that we cannot believe in Jesus, unless and until God makes us do it.
These are opposing messages, opposing gospels. And so I have to call Calvinism a false gospel. It has a different idea of who God is, how God works, how salvation happens, who Jesus died for, who’s responsible for evil, etc.
If God says we have to believe in Jesus to be saved (that it’s our responsibility and choice), but Calvinism says we cannot believe in Jesus (that it’s not our responsibility or choice), then how can anyone be saved under Calvinism?
Calvinism attacks the very heart of salvation and God’s character, which is an attack on the gospel.
And I think one of the biggest dangers of Calvinism is that it presents itself as the true gospel, as biblical truth. And so if people can tell there’s something wrong with it, they don’t end up just rejecting the Calvinism but they reject the Bible, God, the gospel. Because they think they are one and the same. (This has happened recently to several well-known Christians who left the faith. But if they had known that Calvinism was not biblical truth, maybe they would’ve known enough to reject the Calvinism but keep faith in God.)
It’s because Calvinists are so deceptive - stealthily infiltrating churches and replacing the truth of the Bible and leading many people astray - that I feel it’s all the more critical to take a very firm stance against Calvinism, to call it out for the false gospel it is. [One non-Calvinist commented: "The issue isn’t Calvinism as much as it is the false underlying teaching in it ..." But I think Calvinism IS the false underlying teaching in it. They are one and the same, and cannot be separated from each other, which makes Calvinism itself false.] If we are overly gentle or tolerant or hazy about it, if we try to make it seem like our different versions can coexist just fine, then we’ll just be helping to confuse people, allowing Calvinism to sneak in and do its damage behind the scenes and in the long run.
I agree with Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals who calls Calvinism a cancer that needs to be cut out from the church. We can be and should be nice and kind and tolerant towards the people, but not towards the theology itself. This is just my two cents on it. God bless, everyone.
Brian, a very intelligent non-Calvinist (who made the above comment about "The issue isn't Calvinism ...") replied:
"... imo, [Calvinism] has a deformed view of the true gospel, but still the true gospel.... The bigger problem, imo, is that Calvinism must have God as the author of evil for their idea of reprobation to work. And reprobation is the logical outcome of believing the divine plan was that only some were to benefit from the offer of salvation. The gospel, to them, is not good news for everyone. And they admit it. But they are professing the true gospel, but it is a deformed view of it, like looking at your real self in a warped mirror. So we shouldn’t immediately think Calvinists are all unsaved. They would have to be if they believed in a false gospel, right?"
My reply to Brian's comment:
Brian, I always appreciate your comments and I understand what you’re saying. And I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. For me, it comes down to the difference between Calvinist theology and Calvinism in practice.
I agree that, in practice, they do preach the basic gospel: believe in Jesus to be saved (or more accurately, believe in Jesus and be saved, because in Calvinism belief does not lead to salvation but vice versa). But their theology distorts the gospel and God’s character so much (though they do their best to obscure it) that it changes it into something very different, once you’re in the know. (How much distortion does it take to make it wrong, false?)
Of course, the average person listening who doesn’t understand what Calvinism really teaches underneath what it says it believes won’t notice the distortions and errors, and so they will just hear the basic gospel message. Therefore, many people can be saved even when listening to a Calvinist, because they are unaware of the deeper, unbiblical Calvinist teachings. They hear “believe in Jesus to be saved” and they assume, rightly so, that they can choose to believe in Jesus to be saved.
But I think it’s that they are saved in spite of Calvinism’s true beliefs, not because of them. They are saved because they do not yet realize that Calvinism’s true belief is that we can’t choose to believe in Jesus. Calvinists believe like Calvinists but talk like non-Calvinists.
But if Calvinists were to be fully honest about their theology – if, when sharing the gospel, they were to say something more like “You need to believe in Jesus to be saved but you have no ability to choose to believe, so don’t even try because God makes that decision for us" – then I doubt anyone would choose to believe in Jesus, because they were told they couldn’t.
That’s what I meant by what I said earlier, that we can’t really be saved under Calvinist theology since Calvinism denies our ability to choose to do the one thing God said we need to do to be saved.
But in practice, since many Calvinists don’t present Calvinism’s beliefs honestly (they present the biblical surface layer that we can all agree on), many people can be saved when listening to a Calvinist share the gospel. But this is only because Calvinists hide the bad parts, the parts that contradict the plain teaching of Scripture and that ruin the gospel and God’s character. Also, I would add that I think many Calvinists are saved because they were saved before converting to Calvinism. But once again, saved in spite of Calvinism, not because of it.
To me, even if the surface stuff they say sounds biblical, the dangers of the deeper, hidden parts of Calvinism and the sly ways it twists/distorts Scripture and destroys God’s character and slips into churches is so damaging to biblical truth that it’s worth strongly fighting against. I think the good-sounding surface stuff is just a way to slip the bad stuff in unnoticed.
Thanks for your reply, Brian. I always learn a lot from you. And I’m glad you pointed it out, because I do think there is a difference between Calvinist theology and how it’s lived out/presented. And this difference allows for the possibility for people to be saved when listening to a Calvinist share the simple gospel message. God bless! :)
FYI: I might sum up my reply like this: On the surface layer, Calvinism sounds biblical. But underneath the surface, it’s not. And the deeper unbiblical layer ultimately negates the surface biblical layer. But when hearing only the surface layer, people can be saved.
Fromoverhere, another smart non-Calvinist, added:
"I’m with Brian. I have way too many Christ-honoring Calvinist friends to be as harsh as some of you."
My reply:
Fromoverhere, I agree with you and Brian too, when it comes to Calvinists practicing their theology (i.e. that they believe like Calvinists but talk like non-Calvinists). And my thoughts on this have nothing to do with the personality/hearts of Calvinists, but with the bottom-line of the theology itself. I try to make sure to separate the people from the theology.
Yes, I’m sure there are smug, condescending, nasty Calvinists out there, but most of the Calvinist friends at the church we left are some of the nicest, most compassionate, most wonderful, most God-fearing people we know, true believers who are truly trying to live the most God-glorifying lives possible. (It was hard to leave them.)
But honestly, I think they would be horrified if they finally let themselves really see what the bottom-line of their theology is – such as that God was pleased to create most people to hate, that God is glorified by evil/sin (not just in spite of it, but by it) as much as He is by good, that God causes all evil, sin, unbelief but punishes people for it, etc. If they could really see the damage this does to God’s character and biblical truth and people’s faith, I think they would be horrified and wouldn’t be Calvinist anymore. I think most Calvinists don’t know enough about Calvinism to know they aren’t really Calvinists at all. They allow themselves to camp on the better-sounding, biblical-sounding upper layers of it, so that they don’t have to dig much deeper and uncover the bad stuff. This way, they don’t have to come face-to-face with the truly damaging, erroneous parts of Calvinism and can continue on in a certain level of ignorance. They live in a place of tension, cognitive dissonance, without really realizing it because they don’t allow themselves to peel back the layers and see where their theology inevitably leads.
Dealing with Calvinism is difficult because there’s so many layers to it, so many factors to consider and tease out. And in my opinions on it, I try to separate the people who are trapped in Calvinism from the theology itself (and from those doing the trapping), and I separate the average, ignorant, well-meaning Calvinist from the educated ones who understand/embrace the deeper layers of Calvinism. And within the theology, I try to separate the biblical surface layer from the deeper unbiblical layers. Not to mention that we have to separate what Calvinists SAY from what they really mean (what they hide and how they hide it).
[Such as Brian pointed out: “But Calvinists still do invite each and every person to trust only in Jesus for salvation.” I have no problem with them inviting each and every person to trust in Jesus. I think that’s great and biblical. I don’t have a problem with what they’re saying to the people. What I have a problem with is what they’re not saying, what they’re hiding, with how they present Calvinism and make it seem more biblical than it is. I have a problem with what’s going on within the Calvinist himself. He says that all people need to believe in Jesus, knowing that what he means is that only the elect can believe, that there’s no hope for the non-elect because Jesus never even died for them, that the offer of salvation is a fake one when it comes to the non-elect, that no one can choose to believe in Jesus but that it simply has to happen to them when and if God causes it to. Most people, thankfully, are ignorant of this stuff when hearing a Calvinist share the simple gospel. But the flip-side is that this ignorance is also what allows it to spread.]
There’s a whole lotta facets to consider – multiple angles to evaluate Calvinism on – which makes it easy for people to talk past each other (which I think we might be doing here) because we’re looking at different aspects/layers of it (maybe without even realizing it).
Anyway, I just want you to know that I agree with you and Brian on this – when it comes to the average Calvinist living out their theology (they talk like non-Calvinists, embracing/sharing the biblical layer without truly embracing/sharing the bad deeper layers). And so while I am harsh with the bottom-line of the theology itself (and with the educated, sly leaders who are trapping others into it), I try to be gentle and gracious with the average Calvinist who is just doing their best to honor God by being the good Calvinist they were told to be by the leaders. These people need to be helped out of Calvinism, like helping people escape a cult.
For me, seeing these good, God-fearing people trapped in Calvinism (and seeing how Calvinism spreads by stealth, cult-like tactics and deception) is why I take such a harsh stand against the theology itself. Not against the people, but against the bottom-line of Calvinist theology. I am less afraid of being too hard on Calvinism (the theology) and more afraid of being too soft on it (passively encouraging its spread by making it seem like it might not be such a bad theology after all). We slowly watched our church being taken over by it, and we realize that our soft stance on it (at the time) helped it spread.
For me now, warning people about Calvinism is like standing outside a burning building but seeing people (who don’t know it’s on fire) continue to enter because people on the upper floors are hanging out the windows, talking/tricking them into entering. The more people tricked into entering (and the more sly the tactics used to trick them), the louder I’m gonna yell, in no uncertain terms, about the dangers/errors/deception of it and about how they don’t have to enter. The more Calvinists spread Calvinism by saying “Calvinism is the gospel,” the more clear and firm we need to be that it’s not, that the Bible is the gospel but Calvinism is a corruption of it.
I’m not saying this to anyone here in particular, because I don’t think I need to tell Brian, fromoverhere, or Br.d. anything (you all know more about this stuff than I do – and I appreciate all you say and where your hearts are), but I’m just saying it to explain that I am not against the Calvinist people but I am firmly against the Calvinist theology itself. The damage of Calvinism does not show up right away, but it’s a poison that works slowly, eroding truth and faith over time. And any softness we have towards the theology itself gives it more time and room to grow, sucking more people in and entrenching them deeper. [A cancer's end goal is not to coexist with a body, but to hijack, take over, and destroy.]
Anyway, thanks for all you guys are doing here, and for being who you all are. It’s great to hear everyone’s different perspectives and ideas and angles (and even constructive criticisms). We need all the input we can get from others. Iron sharpens iron. And with this, I’ll be off-line for awhile. But please feel free to have the last word about this. Your opinions, even about if I’m wrong in my view or too harsh, are appreciated and valued and probably even accurate and necessary. God bless! :)
TS00 (an anti-Calvinist who's very much like me) replied to me:
You are on target as usual, Heather. Calvinism uses scare tactics to intimidate and manipulate sincere believers, who genuinely do not want to ‘demand’ that God conform to their personal expectations. Thus, when presented with well-crafted arguments that seem convincing, the confused believer will often just submit to ‘the authority’ of a teacher, pastor or denomination. After all, if these ‘others’ whom they know and/or admire can so readily believe such things, surely they can’t be as bad as they seem.
It is essentially the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ tactic, and it serves to silence many. It is often only the ‘ignorant’ and ‘innocent’, or people who are so used to applying their critical thinking skills that they cannot just check them at the door, who dare to speak out loud what everyone else is thinking privately: ‘The emperor is stark naked!’ or ‘Such a God would be downright Evil!’
My reply to TS00:
Amen! I just wish that most of the people in our church were privately thinking what we were thinking about the Calvinism coming from the pulpit but were just too afraid to say it until someone else spoke up. But no, almost all sided with the pastor. We’ve been out of that church for almost 4 years now, and they’ve only gotten more Calvinist.
It totally baffles me how many good Christians let certain things the pastor said or wrote slip by unnoticed and unfought, things which are so damaging to God’s character, trustworthiness, and truth. Such as (paraphrased, in a nutshell):
“God commands us to spank our kids and that it has to hurt.” (No, He commands that we disciple them, not necessarily spank them.)
“Humble Christians don’t question God’s sovereignty.” (I’m not questioning God’s sovereignty. I’m questioning the pastor's twisted view of God’s sovereignty.)
“If you disagree with me, you disagree with the Bible.” (So, the pastor is the Bible now!?! Infallible? Above error and correction?)
“Before being regenerated, you are all dead people, like a dead body. Can a dead body do anything to help itself? No, it can only lay there all dead. And just like a dead body, you are spiritually dead and can’t do anything either, not want God, seek God, or believe in God, unless and until God causes you to. Dead people can’t do anything.” (But, apparently, we can still sin, reject God, disobey, and rebel. Anything except believe in Him. And since when is spiritual death, which is really about separation from God, the same as being physically dead? Spiritual death does not mean our brains don’t work.)
“I don’t do altar calls because I don’t want people thinking that walking the aisle saves them.” (No, he doesn’t want people thinking they have a choice about Jesus.)
“Election is like having 100 people on death row, and God (in His mercy, grace, and love) steps in to save 10 of them, but (in His justice and wrath against sin) He lets the rest go to their deaths for the crimes they committed, paying the penalty they deserved. Is God unfair to do this? Is He unjust? No! He didn’t have to save anyone because everyone deserved death. But the very fact that He stepped in to save anyone at all, while passing over the rest in His justice, shows how gracious and loving He is.” (Sure, pastor, ignore the fact that, in Calvinism, those 100 men were only on death row in the first place because God predestined that they would commit those crimes and caused them to commit those crimes, giving them no chance/ability to choose otherwise. How is that grace for the elect? How is that justice for the non-elect!?!)
"Why would God create non-elect people predestined to hell? So that He can show off His full attributes and get glory for it. He loves Himself most and cares about His own glory more than He does people, and so He does what's best for His glory. If He didn't love Himself most, He'd be an idolater. And if there was no sin to punish, then He couldn't show off His justice and couldn't get worshipped for it. And so He created people to be sinners so that He could have someone to punish to show off His justice and get praise for it, and He also did it to highlight His love to the elect, to show them how loved they are by comparison." (This is combination of what the pastor and his adult Calvinist son wrote. It totally uses God's attributes against Him and makes an evil thing sound good and godly. And by golly, since it's "for God's glory," then we should just shut up and accept it, right?)
“You only have 3 choices when it comes to the ‘truth’ of predestination: ignore it, get angry about it, or accept it.” (Got it! No disagreement or other views allowed.)
“God does not love everyone, and He does not love everyone equally. He chose to save some but not others.” (Heart-breaking!)
“Depression is a sin.” (No help, no comfort, no compassion, just more shame for broken, hurting people. Being one of those broken, hurting people myself, I get so angry about this kind of flippant, foolish, harmful talk. Shame on him! I’ll side with the broken, hurting people any day before I’ll side with those who condemn them, shame them, and offer them no hope. As Calvinism does to the non-elect.)
“Christians like to think there’s an age of accountability where babies are saved if they die too early, but NO ONE gets a free pass, even babies. Everyone is born a rebellious sinner by nature and by choice, and they need to repent to be saved.” (It was his Mother’s Day sermon. Made me sick, and it was the last straw for me.)
“God ordains child abuse, for His glory, for your good, and to keep you humble.” (How could I not fight back fiercely against a theology like this!?!)
I could go on, but I’m sick enough.
I had so hoped that people would start to hear what we did, that our speaking out or leaving would embolden them to question his theology themselves, to think more critically about it and read the Bible more for themselves, and maybe to speak out and push back. But oh well. We did what we could (which, in hindsight, was not nearly enough), and when we could do no more, we had to jump ship and shake the dust from our feet. It’s sad. But I still have hope. Maybe someday they’ll wake up, too, and also realize the Emperor’s naked.
TS00 adds:
The believer, who already has an established, experienced faith in the Living God can often embrace seriously faulty thinking without threat to his faith. Thanks be to God, as all of us embrace faulty thinking to one degree or another! As you stated, very often the believers who are slowly, subtly indoctrinated with the ‘Doctrines of Grace’, first of all, only hear the ‘words’ of the Calvinist ‘gospel’, which do not reveal the underlying premises.
This is very similar to the way Secret Societies work, with the inductee only being granted greater understanding as they prove themselves able and trustworthy. Thus, some Freemasons go to their grave thinking their ‘society’ was all about serving the community, while those who advanced to the higher degrees learn the ‘hidden secrets’ not revealed to all members, and certainly not to outsiders.
When I finally ‘woke up’ from the trance I had been put under [regarding Calvinism], I would be literally biting my tongue as I heard my pastor saying things that I considered pure blasphemy – while those around me were calmly, smilingly nodding their heads in agreement. They did not know the ‘unspoken’ definitions of the words being used, thus when they heard ‘God so loved the world’ they thought he was teaching that God loves all men. Most never learn any different, until and unless they become sufficiently brainwashed that they can block out the contradictions and cognitive dissonance.
There is often no real threat to such believer's faith, as they still have genuine trust in the Living God, even if they have been (wrongly) convinced to ‘trust’ things that are not true or trustworthy. The greater danger is for those who do not yet know the Living God, who have nothing to ground themselves with, and who either grasp on their own or hear from others the unavoidable ramifications of ‘predestination’ and ‘TULIP’.
Unlike believers, who simply chalk the ‘hard things’ up to ‘mystery’, the non-believer sees the undeniable reality that this God of Calvinism is cruel, deceptive and utterly untrustworthy. No one in their right mind would leave their child with a human who acted as this ‘god’ was claimed to do, deliberately leaving some children, as my pastor eventually taught, to perish in an orphanage fire when He could easily have rescued them all. Perish the thought. Perish the theology.
My reply to TS00 (yes, apparently I do like to hear myself talk):
Very well said, TS00. Good to hear from you again. We have the same kind of passion about this issue and its dangers. I think you’re insightful and right about Calvinism being like a secret society with “the inductee only being granted greater understanding as they prove themselves able and trustworthy.” I’ve read a bunch of Calvinist pastors who advise (train) new pastors to be very careful and selective about what they say and how they say it and to not use “labels like Calvinist.” They say the uneducated congregation won’t understand (I’ve seen them call the congregation “biblically illiterate” for not grasping Calvinism), that it will just unnecessarily confuse and alarm them. But of course, it’s really that they know it will repel people or get pushback. They are trained to hide/obscure their Calvinism. Why? (Are they afraid they might alter God’s predestined plans somehow with what they say or how/when they say it? It’s ironic and contradicts their own theology.)
And sadly, the people don’t realize they are being very slowly, deliberately, strategically manipulated and reeled into Calvinism. This is one reason why I push back so hard against it. Softness and tolerance just won’t cut it, not when a theology is being pushed so stealthily, strategically, deceptively, and forcefully. As Kevin Thompson says, Calvinists will just use our “niceness” against us. (Or some word like that.)
And I totally relate to having the people around me at church nod in agreement to the very things I found so disturbing. It was like they were trying to show “Even if what the pastor is saying sounds terrible, look how humble I am to submit myself to God’s ‘sovereignty’.” It’s like peer pressure to fit in, to show you’re on the pastor’s side (without thinking through to ramifications – the logical ends – of what the pastor is teaching). And everyone on the outside “doesn’t get it” or they are “unhumble Christians who are fighting God’s sovereignty and trying to steal His glory.”
I agree that “They did not know the ‘unspoken’ definitions of the words being used, thus when they heard ‘God so loved the world’ they thought he was teaching that God loves all men.” For me and my husband, we couldn’t even listen to the pastor’s good sermons anymore because we knew what he really meant by the things he said. And it was even more disturbing to know that he was deliberately obscuring what he really meant, only telling half the story, strategically revealing only the biblical part that people could agree with while hiding the deeper unbiblical stuff. The biblical layer (no matter how good and right it sounded) was just a cover for the deeper unbiblical layer and a way to slip past their radar, to entrench himself deeper, reeling people in bit by bit with as little alarm or pushback as possible.
Most of the church we left are great people who are still totally devoted to God. They’ve just allowed a bad theology (which horribly disfigures God and His Word and destroys Jesus’s sacrificial death) to supplant the simple, beautiful, saving truths of the Bible. [Calvinism isn't about spreading the simple gospel; it's about appearing to spread the simple gospel while slowly replacing it with Calvinism's gospel. It's about hijacking churches and converting them to Calvinism, all while appearing to take the Bible at face value. Big, fat lies.]
Like you said, believers in Calvinist churches have been trained to “simply chalk the ‘hard things’ up to ‘mystery’.” And so they allow this theology to flourish, convinced that the pastor must know what he’s talking about because he’s so educated, intelligent, and bold. Plus, he’s been to Israel and knows Greek and Hebrew, right? And so he can’t be wrong. But we lowly people in the congregation are not that educated and so we just have to trust him, even when it doesn’t make sense and it sets off alarm bells. The problem can’t be with his theology; it must be with us!
(I’ve read Calvinist pastors who say this too, that if we have problems with what they’re saying then it’s because we’re prideful or are having an emotional reaction to things we don’t like hearing. They make it seem like WE are the problem, not their theology. So much manipulation going on with getting Calvinism into churches.)
“The non-believer sees the undeniable reality that this God of Calvinism is cruel, deceptive and utterly untrustworthy.” This is why I can’t be less than harsh with this theology. The damage it does to God’s character and His Word – and the effect it has on unbelievers (and on believers who get discouraged with their Calvinist god and who “leave the faith” because of it) – is so disturbing and sad that I cannot be more gentle about it. Too much is on the line. And Calvinism is spreading fast and hard, leaving a trail of damage in its wake. I can be gentle with the people, but not the theology. Not with the overall damage it does to the truth. “Perish the thought. Perish the theology.”
How much Calvinism can we allow/tolerate in our churches if Satan is behind it? (And I’m sure there’s non-Calvinists who think he’s not behind it. But if he’s not, then who is?) If Satan is behind deception, confusion, attacks on God’s character, and subtle (and not so subtle) twists on God’s Word, then how much can we tolerate and let slide, especially if the people are nice, God-fearing people who mean well? I’m asking seriously, not rhetorically, because I’ve had to contemplate this before when we were wondering whether we could continue at our church or not. The people were great, but the Calvinism was growing and getting more out in the open. And what if we found a new church that was Calvinist but didn’t push it as hard? Could we tolerate that? It’s a difficult, personal decision for people, especially now that Calvinism is taking over more churches.
Personally, what matters to me more is not how nice, God-fearing, and well-meaning the people are, but whether or not they preach the Bible correctly. (When I stand before God, I want to know that I supported a church that didn’t spread unbiblical views of Him, His Word, and salvation. Of course, we all have errors in our views to some degree, but when it comes to God’s character, His Word, and salvation, it hits at the very heart of the Bible, the gospel.) There are plenty of nice, God-fearing people who mean well in false religions and cults. And don’t even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons claim that we need faith in Jesus to be saved? Would we say they have a correct gospel just because they say this too?
I think there’s more to having a correct gospel than the mere sentence “believe in Jesus and be saved.” I think it’s the extras – the qualifiers, adjustments, deeper layers underneath that sentence, the foundation it’s built on – that determine whether you have a correct gospel or not. How much error should be allowed before we label something a false gospel? Of course, we wouldn’t label the sentence “believe in Jesus and be saved” a false gospel, but at what point do we label a theology as false if it gets that sentence right but so much else wrong (especially when what they get wrong changes the understanding of “believe in Jesus to be saved”)?
Of course, I’m not saying any non-Calvinist here supports or encourages the spread of Calvinism. Clearly, we are all taking a stand against it. I am simply explaining why I so strongly push back against it, why I am so passionate about it. I think the lies that are underneath the biblical surface of Calvinism far outweigh any good points they make. They might get “believe in Jesus and be saved” right, but they add so many unbiblical qualifiers (they have an unbiblical foundation) that it’s a completely different message than what the Bible says (and a completely different God). And if we don’t clearly and firmly expose them and push back, then their use of “believe in Jesus and be saved” will get them into more and more churches, because the people don’t yet know what’s underneath the top, biblical layer. And they won’t know until it’s too late.
It was good to hear from you, TS00. Thanks for sharing your insights. I always enjoy hearing from you. God bless.
And for the record, to no one in particular, I think it’s good to have people of different temperaments pushing back against Calvinism in different ways, to different degrees. There’s no one right way to do it. We need the gentler types (the Leighton Flowers’s) and the more forceful types (the Kevin Thompson’s). Different styles and temperaments reach different people. But we’re all working toward the same goal. God bless you all.
I'm gonna add these final comments, because they neatly illustrate my point about the damage Calvinism does (about why I speak so strongly against it).
In a much earlier comment, I had said:
We had a baptism service at our church one day, and there were lots of beautiful testimonies, such as one old guy who was so humble and had learned such wonderful godly lessons over the years that it brought tears to my eyes. But then the nephew of our Calvinist pastor got up there and gave his testimony, and he went on and on about how “God chose ME! What an honor that God made ME saved. He chose ME before time began. Blah, blah, blah.” It brought the whole beautiful ceremony to a screeching halt. We could tell just how well-trained in Calvinism that family was.
Totally reminds me of the “Jesus died for ME, ME, ME” video that Br.d. (I believe) linked to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMmNf7PN0bc
It’s brilliant! And listen to how offended he is at the idea that God would have a general love for everyone and that Jesus would die for everyone. It’s like, to Calvinists, God’s love only means something if it’s reserved for a few specific people, including, of course, “ME.”...
And very recently, I added this comment as an addendum to that one:
Just throwing this out there (I might have said it before, can’t remember): I recently read an article that the Calvinist in the “Me Me Me” video (in the link above) – Tyler Vela – just renounced his faith in Christ. I wonder what happened to that wonderful, saving, “specific” love that Calvi-god had for him. He must’ve gotten "evanescent grace" instead. Sad.
Brian replied:
Heather, my view of Tyler V. is that he is a good example of someone who can be very knowledgeable of Scripture and Christian history and theology, but with no firm assurance of Christ living within by the Holy Spirit. There can be a false assurance of self-produced feelings like – “My theology is correct and in agreement with so many smart men who claimed to be Christian that I must be a Christian too”, or “When I knew I needed to escape the terrible life I was living, and was told to follow Jesus to find that escape, I had a special feeling when I was baptized in His name, so I thought I was a Christian for sure.” But Tyler came to believe that God was not working in His life as he thought God should be, and after experiencing a life trauma, he gave up believing that the Christian God exists at all. This made his former doubts now confirmed by experience, in his thinking. Very sad.
I replied:
That is really sad. And I can totally understand the desire to want to wash my hands of faith, of God, when everything falls apart, when God doesn’t do what we think He “should” do. “Shoulds” can be dangerous things. We blame God for failing us when it’s really our expectations of Him and of faith that failed us, because they were out of line to begin with.
After I learned about what my mother did (what she was later arrested for), it was almost the straw that broke the camel’s back. The anxiety and stress and heartbreak was so strong, so overwhelming, that I wanted to give up my faith (and I wouldn’t have minded giving up on living too, if it wasn't for my children). It was like “You’re not coming through for me, God. It would be so much easier and less heartache to not have to rely on You or wait for You, better to rely only on myself.” It was one thing to feel that life and my mother had let me down, but it was another to feel like God was letting me down too. It was almost too much. (It was only by His grace that I made it through those first several months/years. I’m still not over it, but I’m still here and it’s gotten easier, so that’s good.)
I wanted to be done with it all. I wanted to bail on God before He hurt me more. [Of course, God wasn't really hurting me but it felt like, because He didn't seem to be rescuing me from my pain.] Do you know what I mean? It’s like people who sabotage relationships to protect themselves from pain – quit before you get hurt. But all I kept coming back to was “To whom shall I go, Lord? You alone have the words of eternal life.” (One of my favorite lines in the Bible. Along with my favorite prayer “I believe, Lord, but help my unbelief.”) I’ve spent years clinging to faith in spite of my expectations and circumstances falling apart. And I know it’s not easy to do, so my heart goes out to Tyler.
Thankfully, for me, before my severe traumas, I had already learned how much I could trust that God is real and that the Bible is trustworthy in spite of my feelings and doubts – through things like years of research and some very clear answers to prayer and some supernatural experiences (levitating someone through “light as a feather, stiff as a board” – it’s demonic, don’t do it, but I was young and stupid – and a season of clearly demonic harassment like feeling electricity engulf my body when I was waking up and once even fully awake, and feeling an invisible force choking me when waking up, and feeling an invisible presence walking up my bed towards me several times while I was wide awake, etc.).
I’ve had enough experiences with the supernatural world to know for sure that there is a spiritual world out there, that there are angels and demons, that God is real. And if God (and His Word) is truly real, good, and trustworthy, like I believe He is, then I choose to cling to Him in spite of my shattered expectations and broken heart. This world is not all there is, and the best is yet to come. Till then, I cling to Him through the good and the bad. To whom else would I go?
Sorry, I’m rambling, but my heart breaks for hurting, broken people, and it opens up my wounds all over again. If I could spare anyone from the kind of deep pain I’ve been through, I would. I wish no one ever had to feel pain, despair, and hopelessness that deeply. I’m really sorry for Tyler. (There’s tears in my eyes as I write this.)
The sad thing is that Calvinism erodes people’s faith in God as a good, trustworthy, faithful, loving God, and so they don't have that to fall back on when the pain comes. They have been brainwashed into seeing Him as Someone who causes and is glorified by sin and evil as much as by good, Someone who could just as easily damn people to eternal torment as save them, Someone who randomly picks a few to save but prevents the rest from being saved because He created them to hate and to punish (for doing what He ordained/caused) for His glory and pleasure. If that’s the kind of God He really is - one who causes and is glorified by sin and evil - then why in the world would we turn to Him for help and comfort when sins and evils hurt us? Why would we seek refuge in a God like that? No wonder Calvinists bail on God when the painful trials hit, when their expectations are shattered. It’s sad.
I’m sorry for Tyler having to go through those kinds of feelings. That’s a really difficult, heartbreaking struggle. May he eventually realize that it’s not God who let him down, but it’s the Calvinism that did.
[I think all of us, at some time or other, will have some sort of trauma or difficulty that will make us examine our thoughts about God and faith, that will force us to decide between clinging to our doubts or clinging to God. Trauma is a way of challenging us to answer the question Jesus asked the disciples in Matthew 16:15: "Who do you say I am?" Sadly, by the time Calvinists come face to face with these traumas and this question, they've been trained to see God as an unjust, untrustworthy, unloving, two-faced monster who causes all evils and sins for His pleasure and glory and who punishes people for what He causes. They just don't realize this is the way they see Him until the traumas bring it to the surface. And by then, they are hurting too badly and confused too deeply to be able to separate out the Calvinism from the truth. And so they just toss it all out. This is why we must speak out against Calvinism so strongly now, before more people drink the Kool-Aid.]
Thanks for sharing your insight, Brian. God bless.
