The Anti-Calvinist Rant

Here another comment I made on Soteriology 101's most recent blog post,  (Re)Thinking Through Romans 9 .    This one is in reply to someone who said that he just found a new church that he's enjoying, but he's starting to pick up on little tastes of Calvinism in it.  But he's not sure.  And he's wondering what we think and if we recommend that non-Calvinists stay in Calvinist churches (to be bearers of the truth there). Here is my reply: Hello Micah, Nice to hear from you.  Thanks for commenting. When you said “Some of the things the pastor says feel very Calvinistic but some feel directly in contradiction with Calvinism…”, it made me wonder if he accepts Calvinism in his head but struggles with it in his heart.  It seems a lot of people think they have to accept Calvinism but then they don’t talk like Calvinists because they aren’t comfortable with it and know how bad it sounds.  I’d ask him directly where he stands on the 5 points of Calvinism.   (But many Calvini

#86 in  "The Calvinist ESV"  series, from the long post  "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)" : #86:  I recently asked a Calvinist if he thought the first “all men” in  Romans 5:18  was “every individual,” but if the second “all men” was “the elect only.”  And how could he change the definition of “all” mid-verse?  Because I think that when the Bible says Jesus’s death bought eternal life/justification for all men, it means ALL MEN (all people), and that we choose to accept or reject it. He quoted the ESV,  Romans 5:17-18 :  “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” And then he tried to tell me, basically, that ver

Here are some more comments I made  (lightly edited for clarity)  on Soteriology 101's most recent blog post,  (Re)Thinking Through Romans 9 , about assurance of salvation, leaving the faith, and the damage Calvinism can do to faith.     Comment #1, in reply to someone named Bob: Hello Bob, You pointed out that in Calvinism, “you can’t even know you are saved.”  This is one of the things that’s most upsetting about Calvinism.  Not only does it slam the door of heaven on most people (non-elect), but it necessarily contains the fundamental belief that the so-called elect cannot even know for sure they are saved.  This is a natural end result of Calvinists believing that we cannot choose to put our faith in Jesus, that God causes the elect to believe. The Bible tells us what we need to do to be saved: believe (a choice we have to make).  But Calvinists say we can’t believe.  And so now they have no basis for their assurance of salvation – because they don’t think we can do the ONE THI

#83-85 in  "The Calvinist ESV"  series, from the long post  "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)" : #83-85   I’ve looked before at how the ESV changes the verb “believe” to the noun “believers” and how it changes “them that do not believe (refusing to be persuaded)” to the noun “unbelievers,” making it less about what you choose and more about who you are (who you are  born to be , in Calvinism). Well, I’ve found similar changes where the  adjective “unbelieving”  (describing those who  refuse to believe  the gospel – “them that believe not,” in the KJV) is changed to the noun “unbelievers.”    (There are more I am not listing, including a couple where even the KJV words it as “unbelievers”.) I know this doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it allows Calvinists to say that you are what you are because God made you that way (an unbeliever) instead of it being that we have control/choice over what we believe or don’t belie