The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult
[For the shortened version of this post, click here. And since this whole post will take you about 3 hours to read, here are links to the individual chapters: #1 deception ... #2 hidden agendas ... #3 multiple layers ... #4 strategic tactics ... #5 isolation/control ... #6 fear/coercion ... #7 mind-control/thought-reform ... #8 gaslighting ... #9 authoritarian narcissists ... conclusion and links]
A Psychology Today article - Understanding Cults: The Basics - shares some characteristics of cults and how they operate (I've condensed some of them here to three main points):
1. No one knowingly, voluntarily joins a cult, but they are "recruited" into it by cult leaders who take advantage of the vulnerabilities of the recruits, using deception and manipulation to suck them in.
2. Cults use isolation, control, fear, coercion, mind-control, and thought-reform to enslave the members to the cult. The members' "inner voices" are suppressed.
3. Cults are authoritarian (disagreeing with or opposing the leader is not allowed), and cult leaders are malignant narcissists.
And I think this kinda fits Calvinism, especially Stealth Calvinism. And so, based on these, I came up with 9 marks that I think identify Calvinism as a cult. Or more accurately, "cult-ish." You decide if you agree or disagree.
But don't take my word about any of this. Who am I? I'm nobody. Don't trust me. Dig into the research and Bible for yourself before forming your conclusions. Be a good Berean!
“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)
[And FYI: I say "cult-ish" instead of "a true cult" to differentiate it from the more dangerous and extreme cults, the kind which turn normal people into slaves of the cult whose only goal in life is to serve and obey the cult leader. Those kinds of cults often control every aspect of the cult members' lives, even to the point of physically removing them from society to live only among other cult members, controlling whom they marry or have relations with, and possibly even brainwashing them into killing themselves.
Calvinism, with its much milder, more-limited form of cult-like mental tactics, does not go to that extreme. And so to call Calvinism a "true cult" might be insulting to those trapped in true cults, minimizing the severity of the dangers they face. (Though I'm sure there are people who've felt the damage Calvinism can do and who would call it a true cult.) So just know that I mean "cult-ish" or "cult-lite" whenever I talk about Calvinism being a cult.]
Important note: Before I get into this, let me say that I am not judging the hearts of Calvinists here or saying that they're not truly saved or that there's nothing good in Calvinism.
Most Calvinists at the church we left are wonderful, humble, God-fearing people who truly love Jesus, other people, and God's Word and who are doing their best to live a God-honoring life. And if I was a gambler - if I knew when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and when to run 😀 - I would bet money that practically every Calvinist I know is a true believer, truly saved.
[Calvinism is more about hijacking those who are already Christians than it is about "saving" non-believers. And in fact, Calvinism does not and cannot "save" any non-believer from hell. It only "saves" those who are supposedly already saved (or if you prefer Joey Tribbiani-style: "supposably already saved"😉). It only saves those who were never at risk of going to hell at any point in time. And those on their way to hell, the non-elect, can never be saved from hell. Calvinism does not rescue any sinner from hell. And I don't think it's really possible for honest Calvinist theology to save anyone anyway. See "Are Calvinists really saved?" for my explanation on this.]
And so I am not judging the hearts, personalities, or intentions of Calvinists. But I am judging/examining the errors and cult-like methods of Calvinism itself (Stealth Calvinism, in particular), how they use manipulation and deception to sucker Christians into Calvinism and to subversively get into non-Calvinist churches (even if they're doing it unintentionally).
Regardless of someone's nice personality and good intentions, if they operate deceptively and cult-like and are full of biblical errors, it needs to be exposed. And I'm sorry that we have to expose it. I'd love to put my arms around everyone and sing Kumbaya around the campfire all day, just spreading the love. And I'm sure most Calvinists are just trying their best to be loving, godly, faithful people. I'm sure their hearts are in the right place.
But their theology is not. Their methods are not.
And that's more important. It has to be more important. And it cannot be overlooked just because they are nice, good, well-intentioned people. We in the Church have an obligation to protect the gospel, even if it means offending those who think they're right but are wrong.
Galatians 1:6-8: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" [Yes, I say Calvinism is a different gospel. Same words and verses, but very different definitions and foundational beliefs. Of course, I don't wish eternal condemnation on anyone, but it is a different gospel.]
2 Timothy 2:15,4:3-5: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth... For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations ..."
So this is not directed at the Calvinist people, per se. My heart goes out to those trapped in this bad theology, those who are just trying their best to live and believe the way they're told to. Eventually, without knowing why, they might find themselves feeling dead inside. Their spirit suffocated. Their faith shriveled-up dry. Distrusting or hating God. And by then, it may be too late. They've been taught all along that "Calvinism is the Gospel," and so in their effort to get away from this faith-killing theology, they might toss out God altogether instead of just tossing out the Calvinism. Because they didn't know there was a difference. (However, I believe a true believer cannot lose their salvation, even if they walk away from God for a time.)
I am not attacking Calvinist people (I'm trying to help them), but I am attacking the Calvinist mindset, tactics, and theology itself (which is the only way to help them).
And of course, both sides, all sides (all religions and all denominations) think they're right, that they have "the truth" and that the others are wrong. And we've all got "biblical support" to back us up. Calvinists are convinced they're right. Arminians are convinced they're right. Non-Arminian-non-Calvinists are convinced they're right. And we're all trying to prove it. And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on (la-de-da-de-de, la-de-da-de-da), as it has for hundreds and hundreds of years.
This is why it's so important to not take anyone else's word for it. Learn the Word well for yourself. Pray for discernment and wisdom. Discuss the differences respectfully with each other. Be teachable. But keep reading and growing in the Word. We're all on a journey of faith, always learning and growing and not reaching completion until the end. So in your relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ, be gentle. Be kind.
And remember that this is all just my opinion, from my own experience and research. (But you don't have to agree.) And I am painting with broad brushstrokes here, but just know that not all Calvinists are like this. There are many honest, up-front ones, just not the deliberately stealthy ones, the ones I'm most concerned about.
(Oh, okay, I know you're feeling like something's missing and it's going to bother you until it's said, so here goes: "And party on, dudes!" There, you can rest easy now.😊)
Okay now, with that out of the way, let's get ready to rumble!
FYI: There are lots of links in here to other posts or resources that explain things more in-depth. (I could provide more, but I'm going to limit it.) But there's a full list of links at the end so that you don't have to stop along the way.
And yes, this is long, very long (it took me about 3 hours to read straight through slowly), with lots of sidenotes, quotes, deeper explanations, and a little repetition. So get a cup of coffee and a brown-bag lunch, 'cuz you're gonna be here awhile. (But really, you should know this about me by now.) But in the coming weeks, I will break this up into smaller posts, publishing each point on its own to make it shorter and easier to read.
1. Using deception to get into a church
Stealth Calvinism gets into our churches in deceptive ways, such as when an elder board hires a known Calvinist pastor but hides it from the congregation or when a Calvinist hides his Calvinism from everyone to get hired at a non-Calvinist church - and then the Calvinist pastor slowly maneuvers the church into Calvinism without our awareness. (See "The Church Infected with Calvinism")
In the interview process at non-Calvinist churches, Calvinists don't reveal their Calvinism if they think the church will be resistant to it. They'll hide or disguise as much of it as they can... unless and until asked exactly the right questions that force them to answer truthfully and fully.
And usually, the "right questions" can only be asked by those in-the-know, those who already know what Calvinism is and the signs to look for and the word-games Calvinists play. It takes knowing about Calvinism to protect yourself against Calvinism.
And sadly, most Christians are not in-the-know. And Calvinists know this. In fact, Stealth Calvinists count on it, hoping to exploit our ignorance and trust to get into the church under our noses.
Dr. Nelson L. Price's post "Covert Calvinists" (with some minor punctuation changes for better clarity) points out that "Many [Calvinists] have worked their way into local churches as covert Calvinists. They seem to operate on a 'no ask, no tell' basis. If representatives of a local church don't know what a Calvinist believes and how to ask questions, subversion often occurs. Once a Calvinist pastor comes into a church, his approach seems to be not to preach it from the pulpit but to mentor (or if you prefer 'disciple') cell groups, until their base is perceived to be strong enough to go public... [And] from among those they indoctrinated, they seek to establish elders in order that they might have a group of power brokers."
It's a simple plan, really: Hide your Calvinism to get into the church and then indoctrinate others into Calvinism slowly, strategically, stealthily, and in small batches, until Calvinism is embraced by most... and then go public with it.
In fact, various Calvinist theologians and organizations even encourage Calvinist pastors to hide that they're Calvinists teaching Calvinism because "labels will just confuse people, the people won't understand, they'll just react emotionally, blah, blah, blah." (So it's our fault they need to be deceptive?)
And there are numerous accounts of this happening in churches, including ours. [For the record, ours was an EFCA church, an Evangelical Free church.* See "Watching Stealth Calvinism in Action" for our story.]
Calvinist John Piper (in his article "Saying what you believe is clearer than saying Calvinist") encourages pastors to drop ("hide" is more accurate) the label "Calvinist": "But that label is not nearly as useful as telling people what you actually believe! So forget the label..."
And he says it again in "How to teach and preach 'Calvinism'": "Avoid theological jargon that is not in the text. The word 'Calvinism' is probably not helpful." So in an article on how to teach Calvinism, he recommends not using the word Calvinism. Interesting. Deceptive.
Calvinist Thomas Schreiner says in this YouTube clip that Calvinists should call themselves "biblical" instead of Calvinist and that he "never uses the term Calvinist from the pulpit," despite the fact that Calvinism is what he preaches. (It's worth noting that he helped work on the ESV study Bible.)
Founder's Ministries, a Calvinist organization, has a "how to reform a church" plan that advises Calvinist pastors to "avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc." (In other words, "avoid terms that identify your theology as Calvinism.")
Here's an article ("4 Reasons Not to be a 'Calvinist'") from a Calvinist pastor who wants to remain anonymous (which is kinda telling in itself) about why Calvinist pastors should not identify themselves as Calvinists. He even goes so far as to claim it's "unhealthy and even unbiblical" to identify yourself as a Calvinist to your church. Included in his reasons for hiding his Calvinism is "There are some who seek to stir up trouble with scare tactics... I have felt the strangest hostility from those who are most vocal about their worries concerning 'Calvinists'" [He's basically saying that since some people reject Calvinism and have warned others against it, you have to hide your Calvinism or else it might cause pushback or set off alarm bells. But, of course, if you don't tell anyone you're a Calvinist - "Shhh, be vewy, vewy quiet. I'm hiding from those wascally non-Calvinists." - then there's no risk of that.] And "Most people don't know what Calvinism actually is... If someone does not know what a label means, then the label itself only obstructs any hope for lucid dialogue." [Really? If someone doesn't know what Calvinism is then you have no choice but to hide it? You couldn't possibly explain what it is or which Calvinist beliefs you hold (thereby creating and adding to the dialogue), could you? No! You must hide it, teaching it in a disguised form, covered in more palatable language and ideas which won't set off alarm bells.]
In a post at SBC Voices ("Why I'm Wary of Calvinists"), the author says, "in my experience Calvinist pastors have minimized their Calvinist beliefs with search committees in order to gain a pulpit... [they] obfuscate, finesse, dart and weave." He also wisely adds: "I would absolutely advise any church to be thorough enough in their search process to determine a prospective pastor’s beliefs on Calvinism. I know that Calvinists generally eschew the term ‘Calvinist’ in favor of other labels and descriptors. Laypeople must be savvy enough to understand the vocabulary." [Can I get an "Amen"!]
Stealth Calvinists know how to hide their true beliefs, to answer on different levels so that they're not "lying" (they're being deceptive but not exactly lying*), to deflect uncomfortable questions, to turn it back on us, to redirect the conversation, to keep us talking in circles, and to masterfully spin their answers to appear to fix their contradictions and make their unbiblical, illogical ideas seem biblical and logical.
Talking with Calvinists, trying to get a grasp on what they really believe, is like trying to wrestle of greased pig. (Have you ever wrestled a greased pig? It's not easy. I mean, I've never done it either, but I imagine it's not easy.)
[*Lying is saying things that aren't true, but deception is using facts and truth to lead people into falsehood. And it's much more subtle than lying. Harder to recognize. Harder to fight. Because with lying, you can simply point to the facts that prove it false. But with deception, you need to closely examine what they're saying, how they're saying it, what their definitions are, what they're not saying (what they're hiding, what they really mean underneath what they say), what their intentions are, where they're trying to lead you, how they twisted truth and facts for their own ends, etc. It's a lot harder to combat deception than outright lies. And it's why deception works so much better than lies.]
Stealth Calvinism has gotten so bad - as noted in a post about church splits from a website called Truth Snitch - that a Southern Baptist Convention committee was "compelled to address a particularly alarming and increasingly common scenario in which a pastoral candidate conceals or obscures his Calvinist doctrinal persuasions when seeking a position at a majority non-Calvinist church."
Here's my favorite example of Stealth Calvinism: "Saint" PJ's deceptions and manipulations." It's about a self-professed 7-point Calvinist who played dumb about the definition of Calvinism when asked if he was a Calvinist and who took advantage of poorly-worded questions to get into a church that outright said it didn't want a Calvinist pastor, tricking them into thinking he wasn't a Calvinist when he definitely was. Shameful! And even worse is that he did it deliberately, is proud of it, and is encouraging others to do it too. Even more shameful!
[It's worth noting that the title of his article - where he celebrates and encourages deceiving a non-Calvinist church into hiring a Calvinist pastor - is called "Preach the Bible, Not Calvinism." So what he's essentially saying is that teaching the Bible means teaching Calvinism and that it requires being deceptive about your Calvinist theology.]
And here's one more major one: Calvinists will try as much as possible - with subtle word games that escape most people - to make it sound like they teach that Jesus's death is for all people. But they never truly mean this. They always mean that Jesus's death was merely for all kinds of people from all over the world, the elect from all nations. Never all individual people.
[And when they do say and mean "Jesus died for all people," they really only mean that Jesus died for the non-elect in theory, but not in any real, practical way that can benefit them. It would be like if I said I gave a starving man food, but I failed to mention that he was already dead or that I first sewed his mouth shut and tied his hands together so that he couldn't actually eat the food. But still... I wouldn't technically be lying when I said "I gave him food," would I? It's all about the details, about what I left out.]
And so when Calvinists talk about the gospel - about its beauty, joy, hope, power, ability to save and bring healing, etc. - remember that, in Calvinism, the gospel is only for the elect. Jesus's death is only for the elect.
As A.W. Pink says in Doctrine of Election: "... it is unmistakably evident that the 'all men' God wills to be saved and for whom Christ died are all men without regard to national distinctions..." And "It is to call the elect that the Scriptures are given, that ministers are sent, that the gospel is preached, and the Holy Spirit is here..."
John MacArthur at the 2010 Shepherd's conference (see in the first video here, from Discerning the World, starting at the 8:20-minute mark, about why Calvinists should evangelize if God elected who would be saved): "... I will not resolve the problem of the lost other than to do what the Scripture tells me to do... and that is that the Bible affirms to me that God loves the world, the specific people in the world, the specific human beings. I don't know who they are. Spurgeon said 'if you'll pull up their shirts and show me an 'E" stamped on their back and I know the elect, then I'll limit my work to them.' But since there is no such stamp, I am committed to obey the command to preach the gospel to every creature... But I don't think it's a good solution to diminish the nature of the atonement and have Jesus dying for everybody.... "
And from the second video: "There are those whom God loves and there are those whom God hates. Obviously!... Hello!" (Robert Morey, a creepy dude!) and "You know that wonderful statement that goes something like this: 'God loves the sinner and hates the sin'?... That's not [what Scripture] teaches, sorry... It does not say here that God's hatred is manifested towards the wicked deed. It says that God's hatred is manifested towards the one who commits the deed... [So] how can anyone be saved? Here's our answer: the cross of Jesus Christ... [Christ] died the death of His people..." (Paul Washer)
"His people" is Calvinist-lingo for "the elect." So Jesus died only for the elect, and God apparently hates everyone else. In Calvinism.
And if that's not clear enough: "As a sin-bearing sacrifice, Jesus died a substitutionary death in the place of God’s elect. On the cross, He propitiated the righteous anger of God toward the elect... Jesus’ death did not merely make all mankind potentially savable. Nor did His death simply achieve a hypothetical benefit that may or may not be accepted. Neither did His death merely make all mankind redeemable. Instead, Jesus actually redeemed a specific people through His death, securing and guaranteeing their salvation. Not a drop of Jesus’ blood was shed in vain. He truly saved all for whom He died... With oneness of purpose, the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world to apply this salvation to those chosen and redeemed." (Steven Lawson, Salvation is of the Lord)
(Anyone else feeling a little sad, heartsick, and disgusted right now?)
Many a church has been "recruited" into Calvinism without its awareness or consent by a Stealth Calvinist pastor who came in through deceptive means, taking advantage of the church's ignorance, naivete, and trust.
A mark of a cult leader.
(See my post about how to tell if a church, pastor, or website is Calvinist.)
[*I think that stealth - and not-so-stealth - Calvinism is taking over EFCA churches all over the place (not to mention the SBC) because the seminaries that train the EFCA pastors are, I believe, being taken over by Calvinists. I went to one of the Christian colleges/grad schools that provides pastors for the EFCA churches, and it is home to one of the top Calvinist theologians. They even gave all the graduates a big Calvinist theology book as a graduation present. At the time, I didn't realize the school was Calvinist. I wasn't looking for it, and it probably wasn't as Calvinist decades ago when I attended, and it would've escaped my notice anyway since I was studying psychology and counseling. But looking at the school now, after the research I've done, I think it's definitely Calvinist. And it's one of the main schools that trains the pastors that get into EFCA churches in that area. And, also for the record, I believe the EFCA itself has been taken over by Calvinism too. But maybe that's just me. Calvinism has become so popular among many Big Names in the Christian world that it's going to take a grassroots' effort from all of us tiny people to fight it, to expose it.]
2. Hidden Agendas
Not only do Stealth Calvinist pastors get into churches using deception, but they come in with the hidden agenda to reform the church, to slowly drag it into Calvinism without the awareness of the people.
A post called "The Church Infected with Calvinism" shares this:
"This third scenario [of how Calvinism infects a church] is all too common. There are websites that instruct Calvinistic preachers who accept calls to non-Calvinistic churches on how to gradually 'acclimate' the church to Calvinism. I saw one website with a two-year, month-by-month plan for the stealth Calvinist to take a non-Calvinistic church into 'Reformed Theology' land. It's almost cult-like and certainly deceptive... While the Calvinistic pastor is crafting pulpit content to fortify his philosophical arguments, he will simultaneously be about the business of looking for and mentoring members of the congregation who are now open to Calvinistic logic. He'll slowly but surely transform as many of these folks as possible into full-blown Calvinists and, when possible, put them in places of church leadership, especially teaching positions... With the leadership of the church and a majority of the congregation now in league with him, the plan of transition is complete. The objectors, who are now in the minority, are powerless to reverse the Calvinistic course." [Yep, we've seen it happen.]
As that said, Calvinists have published plans for how to take over a church, such as the one I mentioned earlier from Founders Ministries ("Walking without Slipping") and this one from 9Marks ("A Roadmap for Church Reform"), both very Calvinist. (And FYI, I'm not picking on 9Marks with the title of my post. I'm picking on 9Marks and all other Calvinist organizations and Stealth Calvinists, too.)
These plans include suggestions like (my paraphrase) "Don't use words that will identify you as a Calvinist. Reform key people in the church first so that they can help reform others. Fill the church with Calvinist literature. Modify the membership list. Change the church's laws. Etc."
As the Founders Ministries' plan says: "Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them."
Stealth Calvinists are most definitely and deliberately pushing Calvinism on the church, but they're hiding that they're doing it because they don't want pushback.
[There's even a section in the Founders Ministries' plan on the "suffering" a Calvinist pastor might face when trying to (stealthily) reform a church. To be fair, I'm sure they truly feel they have the best intentions. And they probably don't see themselves as deceptive. As MacArthur said, it was his spiritual "obligation." And so, in their minds, their tactics are okay, even God-blessed and God-glorifying. And so if they do get caught and if people pushback, they'll just view themselves as "suffering for the Lord, unfairly persecuted for the sake of the gospel" - as if we are the problem, and not their theology. Their hurt feelings are real - so be gentle - but everything gets messed up when bad theology slips into the church.]
And did you notice the name of the Founders Ministries' "book" that the "Walking Without Slipping" plan comes from?
"A Quiet Revolution." Quiet. Under the radar. Under our noses.
For those who still want to give Calvinist pastors the benefit of the doubt, who think they don't really have hidden agendas, here's a very telling, very revealing, sentence from the 9Marks article "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches: Candidating, Pastoring, and Moving On" (an article that criticizes Christians for researching Calvinism on the internet for themselves):
"This doesn’t mean the internet has ruined the 'subversive' operations of Calvinist pastors sneaking into non-Calvinist churches."
Subversive operations? Sneaking into non-Calvinist churches?
[And of course they don't want Christians researching Calvinism on our own - because the more we learn without them looking over our shoulders, the more problems we see with their theology and the more questions and concerns we have, and the more we become pebbles in the Calvinist pastor's shoe. Flies in the ointment. Curd lumps in the cream (🎜that is what we are🎜). So it's no wonder the article encourages Christians who have concerns about Calvinism to seek answers from their local Calvinist pastor, instead of going to outside sources. "Hey snake-oil salesman, does your snake-oil work?" "Hey fox, would you guard our henhouse?" I examine that article more in-depth here: A Calvinist pastor has problems with Christians who research Calvinism.]
9Marks even published an article for pastors about how to subliminally incorporate more of Calvinism's five points into their Sunday services ("The Five Points of Calvinism and Your Church's Sunday Meeting"). It says "it’s vital for those of us who hold to a reformed or 'Calvinistic' doctrine of salvation to consider if our corporate worship reflects our professed soteriology. Have the earth-shattering doctrines of grace sufficiently steeped into our services?" And then it gives suggestions for how to do this, such as keeping the lights on and being careful what songs you sing. It's not that these suggestions are necessarily bad, in and of themselves. It's that they're used strategically, with an agenda, to smother you with and funnel you to the 5 points of TULIP. It just goes to show how thoughtful and careful Calvinists are to weave Calvinism in everywhere, any chance they get, any way they can.
[The one that bothers me most, though, is the "Total Depravity" one: "Human beings are 'inclined to evil, dead in their hearts, and slaves to sin ... neither willing nor able to return to God' (Canons of Dort, III.3; see Ps 51:5, Eph 2:1–3). If we believe this is true, we should declare it in our services. God is glorified when we help believers appreciate the depth of the depravity from which we’ve been rescued." Our Calvinist pastor must have read this because he was quite heavy-handed in constantly hammering home how depraved we humans always are. Yes, we get it, we're terrible! It felt like one depravity-beating after another. (And notice how the author of that article references the Canons of Dort as his primary source for his points, filtering verses through it.)]
This post from Wartburg Watch - "How to figure out if your non-Calvinist or non-Authoritarian church is being taken over" - shares one person's experience of a stealth Calvinist take-over: "A few years ago, I realized that a church I attended was being co opted by the Calvinistas. I knew that the majority of the members were not Calvinists but quickly discovered that the newest elders of the church were and had planned to hire a New Calvinist pastor. At the meet and greet for the new pastor, they asked us to submit, in writing, questions for the soon to be lead pastor. All of the questions were asked except for mine because 'they ran out of time.' My question was simply: Are you a Calvinist?... Sadly, these new elders and some former pastors did not inform the congregation that their theology was about to change. This sort of gamesmanship is despicable for so-called Christians."
[And for a few more stories of Calvinism sneaking into and taking over churches, see Stealth Calvinism in Oklahoma (video) and How the Young, Restless, and Reformed Split My Church (video) and Church Takeover Success Using Strategies from the Calvinista Playbook and Spiritual Abuse in EFCA: Review of Once an Insider by Amanda Farmer.]
John Piper, in his article "TULIP: Introduction," even admits this about a church he pastored: "Up until that point in the life of our church — I had been there for five years — we had not made any issue at all about 'so called' Calvinism. ["So-called"... as if it's not really what it is!] We hadn’t made any issue at all of this controversial thing. I had just tried to be faithful to Biblical texts because I think that’s what wins the confidence of God’s people. They don’t want to hear a system mainly, they want to hear Bible mainly, which is what they ought to mainly hear. I tried to just win their trust to say, 'I’m a Bible man. I’m not a system man, mainly.' But after five years, it seemed like the time was right to talk about those verses."
[And did you notice how he added "mainly" to "I'm not a system man"? He is definitely a system man, all Calvinists are. (What do you think those big "systematic theology" books are for? To lead you systematically from one point of theirs to another so that you reach the conclusions they want you to reach.) But adding "mainly" makes "I'm not a system man" feel less of a lie.
And I have a question: Is Piper really winning anything or anyone if it's all been predestined by God anyway? If the game is rigged and the outcome already decided, is winning really winning? And besides, if Calvinism repelled people, wouldn't that be equally predestined by God, for His glory? So why fight it? And if Calvinism is such godly truth and so God-glorifying, shouldn't they be shouting it from the rooftops? Why hide it? Doesn't make sense. And it contradicts their own views.]
Going back to the other John Piper article in point #1, Piper says, "But that label ["Calvinist"] is not nearly as useful as telling people what you actually believe! So forget the label... If they say, “Are you a Calvinist?” say, “You decide. Here is what I believe...”.
And notice what he writes near the start of article: "We are Christians... In other words, we are Calvinists."
And according to Calvinist A.W. Pink (in his Doctrine of Election): "those who continue to cavil against [Calvinism] [who make petty or unnecessary objections against it] and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians." [Well, then, good thing our objections aren't petty or unnecessary!]
In the Calvinist's eyes, Calvinism is Christianity. Christianity is Calvinism. So they will always be teaching Calvinism and will seriously doubt the salvation of those who don't accept it.
Now here's a Founder's Ministries article by Calvinist Tom Ascol that really irks me - and alarms me. And it should alarm the Church as well. It's called "Dishonest Calvinists (?) and the call for integrity," and it's basically just a defense of Calvinist pastors hiding their Calvinism, and it pushes the blame on us - not the Calvinism - for any disturbance that Calvinism causes in a church. Here are some things from that article [my comments are in italics and brackets]:
"Does anyone else find it troubling to hear what sounds like a growing chorus of criticism directed toward Calvinistic pastors who run into difficulties when trying to shepherd their congregations toward greater spiritual health? [The "difficulty" comes because Calvinists are stealthily and strategically taking over churches, and yet Ascol reframes it as "shepherding their congregations toward greater spiritual health". Now, of course, I don't doubt that's what Calvinists think they're doing... but therein lies the problem!] Mixed in with the criticism is a charge that such men have been dishonest in the way they have gone into their churches because they did not make an issue of Calvinism from the very outset. Perhaps this can be legitimately said for a few, but they would be the exceptions and not the norm. Why, then, all the criticism?"
Farther down the article, Ascol defends Calvinist Al Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, providing pastors to SBC churches) who was accused of "destroying the seminary, wounding the body of Christ and hijacking one of our prized institutions in an attempt to push his Calvinistic agenda". He says that "Al Mohler has no agenda to promote five-point Calvinism. What he obviously is doing, however, is restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity..." [So once again, "pushing Calvinism" is reframed as "restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity." If this is how they see it, do you think they'll see any reason to stop or to be more upfront about their Calvinist agenda to take over churches? *And see below what Mohler himself says about Calvinism.]
Ascol goes on to say that it's not Calvinism that's causing the problem in the church, but it's that the church is full of godless people who resent the Bible's teachings: "... in the great majority of cases that I know about where Calvinistic pastors have encountered turmoil in their efforts to preach and teach God’s Word, it was not because of Calvinism. It was because of biblical Christianity. Calvinism tends to be the tail on which the donkey of controversy is pinned, but the real culprit is the erosion of real biblical Christianity that has occurred over the last generation or more in many of our churches... [And so therefore] if a man tries to introduce a biblical ministry into such a situation does it not stand to reason that there might indeed be some controversy along the way? When the Word of God begins to be taught and followed, those who have no appetite for it–and who have been not only allowed but encouraged to live happily in the church without it–will inevitably feel threatened, deceived and even 'lied to' by the preacher. The reason is not Calvinism, but because of the strong reaction of godlessness to biblical Christianity..." [In their eyes, Calvinism equals biblical Christianity. So, according to them, if we reject Calvinism, we reject biblical Christianity, which means we're godless. Can you see the kind of power this will give them over the church and its members, the accusations they can lobby at anyone who disagrees with them or tries to stop them? And as you'll see under #9 (about "authoritarian narcissists") in this series, Calvinist 9Marks' churches can remove you if you deny "Christian doctrine" - their Calvinist doctrines disguised as "Christian doctrine."]
As Ascol says in another Founder's Ministry article, regarding the recent pushback Calvinist pastors are facing: "Calvinism is being made the whipping boy for many of the serious problems that are coming to light in denominational entities as well as local churches." [See? Calvinism's not the problem. Poor Calvinism is being unfairly persecuted for the sins of others.]
So, there you have it, fellow non-Calvinists! The problem is not that Calvinist preachers are stealthily and strategically taking over our churches with bad theology; it's that we are godless and hate God's Word.
Wow, I had no clue that we godless sheeple are such a cancer in the church, that we're the problem.
Thanks, Ascol, for clearing that up for us.
(Go ahead, try and convince me that this isn't the kind of attitude and tactics that go with authoritarian personalities, the "don't question me, I'm in charge, I have the truth so you all just shut up and listen, and those who disagree with me can leave" types.)
And finally, he goes on to say that pushing Calvinism is really just teaching Christianity, trying to justify why a Calvinist pastor can and should hide their Calvinism (their "theological system"): "Should not that fact, coupled with the wisdom that recognizes that the proper goal of a genuinely Reformed ministry is not to 'Calvinize' a church but to 'Christianize' it more and more, lead a man who candidates for a church to emphasize his commitment to biblical Christianity more than to a theological system? This is not dishonesty. It is wisdom...
I am not at all suggesting that a pastoral candidate refuse to speak plainly with a search committee or church regarding theological commitments. [Umm, yes, you are. We're not stupid.] But the reality is that most churches–including their search committees–are not very equipped to have that kind of conversation. [So, once again, the problem is us, not them. And these Calvinists, with their superior intellect, don't really have a very high view of the rest of us, do they? Of our ability to understand Scripture without their help?] Should the details of Calvinism... be spelled out anyway, even though there is no understanding of the language, categories or constructs? [So notice how he starts with (paraphrased) "I'm not saying don't be upfront about your theological views with search committees," but then he immediately goes into reasons why Calvinists shouldn't be upfront with their Calvinism with search committees. Liar, liar, pants on fire!]
Or would it be wiser to stick with biblical categories, language and constructs? [Translation: "So don't bother to explain what Calvinism is because they won't get it anyway. Just hide it, cloaking it in words and verses from the Bible." Okay, wait, I want to stop right here a moment and point something out: If the vast majority of us Christians, us non-Calvinists, have no understanding of the language and constructs of Calvinism, then isn't the most likely reason because IT'S NOT CLEARLY TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE! In a backhanded way, Ascol is admitting that we don't find Calvinism clearly in the Bible, that we have to be educated into it. That's telling! And alarming!]
When a man does the latter [hides his Calvinism in biblical language] for the purpose of communicating as clearly as he can [yet not clear enough to actually admit he's a Calvinist!] I find it disheartening to hear Southern Baptist leaders criticize him as being dishonest." [He's got a funny view of what's honest and what's dishonest, if you ask me. And apparently, acting with integrity doesn't mean being upfront with your Calvinism; it just means continuing to push Calvinism but cloaked in more acceptable language.]
Clearly, to Calvinists, if we disagree with them, we disagree with God, with the truth, with biblical Christianity. How long do you think non-Calvinists can survive under a Calvinist pastor who thinks like this? And do you really think any good Calvinist pastor would not be all about promoting Calvinism, if this is how they view Calvinism, that it's "biblical Christianity" itself?
[*See what Mohler himself says about Calvinism in the clip from The Wartburg Watch's "Church Takeover Success Using Strategies from the Calvinista Playbook": "If you're a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you're committed to the Gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see Gospel built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism... There just are not options out there [besides Calvinism] and that's something that I think frustrates some people. But when I'm asked about the New Calvinism, I'm gonna say, 'well, just basically where else are they gonna go?'... [pastors] are gonna have to [side with Calvinism] if they're gonna preach and teach the truth."
Clearly, to Mohler, it's Calvinism or nothing. Calvinism is "the truth." And so if we wanna believe the Bible and be committed to the gospel, then we have no choice but to be a Calvinist, according to Mohler.
And some things worth noting about Mohler from a Christianity Today article called "The Reformer":
1. Within "a year or two" of Mohler becoming president, his "intention to steer Southern seminary in a Reformed direction became clear."
2. Non-Calvinists "indicted him as the main carrier of a theology they viewed as an alien spore in SBC life." But by then, it was too late. Calvinism was seeping out all over the place, and so no one could prove that he and his seminary were responsible for its spread.
3. Within three years of his leadership, almost all faculty and administration had turned-over completely. Through his efforts to control the hiring and tenure processes, to force resignations, to offer appealing retirement packages, and to plant students spies in classrooms to report back what everyone was saying, Mohler was eventually able to replace staff with only those who agreed with "his brand of Reformed theology," among other issues. (But some faculty claim that Mohler allows "diversity" because they allow four-point Calvinists to work there too.)
4. Because of his influence, every year there are more and more Calvinists graduating from the seminary and filling pulpits across the country, preaching Mohler's brand of Reformed theology.
5. Mohler says that non-Calvinist conservatives "are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared." Necessary to protect the gospel! And according to the author of the article, Mohler is "elitist... he is certain he has the truth" and so those who disagree with him "simply are not initiated into the systematic splendor of Reformed thought."
Only the most naive people - or deliberately deceptive ones who have a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" agenda (as this Baptist News Global article says, "Mohler's influence also is responsible for mainstreaming another once-fringe organization, Founders Ministries [Ascol!]... a group of Southern Baptists who adhere to... Calvinism.") - would say that a guy who believes like Mohler does, in the authority position he is in, "has no agenda to promote five-point Calvinism". (Oh, wait... my mistake... I forgot that he allows four-point Calvinism too, if he has to. I stand corrected!)
Once again, to a Calvinist, Calvinism is Christianity. Christianity is Calvinism. So they will always be teaching Calvinism. But if they think you'll resist, they'll simply tear off the label so that you can't tell what they're spoon-feeding you.
3. Multiple Layers for Maximum Deception
In Calvinism, there are always layers, at least two: the one they want you to see and the one they don't. What they say and what they mean. What they want you to think they really believe and what they really believe.
If you read Piper's article, you'll notice how somewhat sweet and humble he makes his hard-core Calvinism seem. But do you notice what's missing?
The flipside. The bad parts. The parts that would raise most Christians' red flags. The thing is, he's only sharing one layer of Calvinism, only telling the story from the side of the Calvinist elect and God's relationship to them. But he hides the deeper, darker layer, completely ignoring how God relates to the non-elect.
If Calvinist teachings sound like "good news," it's only because they're telling it from the perspective of "the elect." And only the elect.
But if Piper (and all Calvinists) was fully honest, he'd have to share the alarming parts of Calvinism too, such as "God predetermined to create most people for hell, to hate them before they were ever born, apart from anything they did or any decision they made. Jesus didn't die for them, because God predestined them to eternal damnation for their sins and unbelief (which He ordained and ultimately caused), and there's nothing they can do about it. God ordains, orchestrates, and gets glory for all sins, evil, and unbelief, just as much as He does for all good."
Could you imagine if Calvinists shared Calvinism's views honestly and fully?
But they don't. "For our good." Because we "won't understand."
This is critical, so achtung baby ("Attention/watch out, dear one!"):
Calvinists will agree with every biblical thing we say, but...
they've got big 'buts' (and I cannot lie 😄).
Calvinism has a biblical surface layer we'd all agree with, but then it has a deeper, hidden layer underneath which contradicts, negates, or totally alters the surface layer.
At first, Calvinists will reveal only the biblical surface layer. And it hooks us. It makes us think we're all saying the same thing, all on the same page. And this will make us trust them more, let our guard down, take off our critical-thinking cap, turn down our red-flag radar, and accept what they say. Because we all believe the same things, right?
(And before we know it, we're being slowly drawn into Calvinism's deeper, unbiblical layers without realizing it, through their use of clever-sounding arguments, strategically-worded questions, carefully-chosen-but-misinterpreted verses, etc.)
But if you talk to them long enough, ask more questions, listen deeper, and make them explain themselves more, you'll notice that they have a "yes... but" for all easily-understood Bible verses and concepts.
For example, here's the surface layer they'll tell us at first, making us think they agree with us, that we're all on the same page:
"Yes, the Bible says God loves all people and calls to all people. He tells all people to seek Him, to repent, and to believe in Jesus because He wants all men to be saved and no one to perish. Anyone who wants to can come to Jesus. And we are responsible for our sins/unbelief. We choose to do what we want to do, and so we choose to sin because we want to sin. God does not force anyone to sin or to reject Him."
Taken at face value, it sounds good, doesn't it? Accurate? Biblical?
But the thing is,
But here are their big 'buts' exposed (Yes, I'm having fun with this!):
"Yes, the Bible says God loves all people... But He meant all kinds of people, not all individual people." [Or "... but He has two different kinds of love, a saves-your-soul kind for the elect and a gives-you-food-and-sunshine kind 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 all people to seek Him, to repent, to believe... But He didn't mean that we have the ability to seek Him or repent/believe on our own. He decides who will believe and who won't, and He is the one who causes the elect - and only the elect - to seek Him, repent, and believe. But He makes sure the non-elect can never do these things."
"Yes, the Bible says that God wills that all men are saved, that He wants no one to perish... But God has two different levels of want, two different Wills. He has a revealed Will where He says He wants everyone to be saved and no one to perish, but He has a secret Will that really does want people in hell. God can want one thing but cause the opposite. On one hand, He wants all people to be saved, and so it will still make Him sad that anyone is in hell. But on the other hand, what He wants more is more glory for Himself. He wants the glory He gets for demonstrating His justice by punishing sinners in hell. If there were no sinners to punish, He couldn't demonstrate His justice or get glory for it. And so even if it makes Him sad on one level, He needed sinners to punish to get more glory for Himself."
"Yes, anyone who wants to can come to Jesus... But only the elect can/will want to come to Jesus because God regenerates only their hearts, giving only them the desire to come to Jesus. The non-elect will never want to and never be able to come to Jesus because He doesn't regenerate them."
"Yes, we are responsible for our sins. We choose to do what we want to do, and so we choose to sin because we want to sin. God does not force anyone to sin or to reject Him... But God has predestined everything that happens, even our sins and unbelief, and we can only do what He predestined we'd do. But He does not force us to sin or to reject Him - because He doesn't have to. We make our choices according to our nature, the desires of our nature. So God doesn't have to force us to sin because our nature makes us sin. You see, the unregenerated-sinner nature of the non-elect comes with only the built-in desires to sin and reject God, and so since that's the only thing they can want to do, that's the only thing they can 'choose' to do. They can never desire to seek, believe in, or obey God because those desires aren't in their natures. Those desires are only in the regenerated nature that God gives to the elect. We can only do what the desires of our nature tells us to do. But even though God determined which nature we get and even though He 'ordained' all sins and unbelief, He will still hold people responsible for it. We can't understand it, but we just have to accept it, even if it causes tension."
I think these are some ugly "buts," don't you? And they are very different from the layer they want you to see, aren't they? (And can you see why I say deception is so much more difficult to deal with than outright lies, and why it's so much more effective?)
But that's what Calvinists really believe (or at least convince themselves they believe), underneath the surface layer. (Are any of their "buts" clearly and plainly taught in any verse in the Bible?) But they hide these deeper views as long as possible while they lay the groundwork of slowly molding your perspective to Calvinism, bit by bit, until you're ready to accept the harsher "truths" of Calvinism.
In Piper's article, notice this piece of exceptional deception: "I believe Christ died as a substitute for sinners to provide a bona fide offer of salvation to all people."
Calvinists do not believe that Christ really died for all men's sins, at least not in the same way. But they want you to think they think that, at first. They want you to think they believe that Jesus died for all people and that all people really do have the chance to be saved. And so they use the same words, concepts, and verses, but they have very different (hidden) meanings.
When a Calvinist says that salvation is "offered" to all people, he doesn't mean that all people can accept the offer. In Calvinism, the non-elect have no ability or option to accept the "offer." They are predestined by God to reject the "offer." And yet, Calvinists (and only Calvinists) still call it a "real" offer. But that's as real of an offer as me offering a life-vest to a drowning person while refusing to throw it to them because it was never intended for them.
When a Calvinist says that anyone can be saved, he doesn't mean that all people have the chance, ability, opportunity to be saved. He just means that anyone could be one of the lucky chosen ones, that anyone's name could've been drawn in the salvation lottery. But if yours wasn't, then you're out of luck.
When a Calvinist says that Jesus died for all people, he doesn't actually mean that His death paid for all men's sins and that all men have the ability to accept His sacrifice in their place. But that's what they you to think they mean. But what they really mean is that (on one level) Jesus's death was theoretically enough to cover all men's sins, but (on a different level) it is only applied to the elect. "Sufficient" for all, but "efficient" only for the elect. Calvi-Jesus's blood was valuable enough to cover all, but it is only actually applied to the elect. This would be like me saying that the money in my bank account is sufficient to buy food for one thousand starving-to-death people, but that it's only efficient for ten. I have enough for a thousand, but I only buy food to save ten. Ten prechosen people. And I pre-decided to let everyone else starve to death because it brings me more glory.
Knowing this, would you call Calvinism's view of salvation a "bona fide offer of salvation to all people"? Would anyone but Calvinists call it that? And does it not anger you that they are playing us for the fools with their word-games and hidden layers? Does it not sound cult-like?
Calvinists have a deeper, hidden layer because they think the Bible has a deeper, hidden layer. They don't take Scripture at face-value, but they think there are deeper, obscure "truths" that they figured out, that God revealed to them. And only them.
If they used that "rule," they would believe that John 3:16 means that God loved everyone enough to send Jesus to die for them and that anyone can believe in Him and be saved, that it's our choice - because that's how it's understood when read at face-value, in a commonsense way.
But Calvinists don't take Scripture at face-value, in the plain way it's supposed to be read. And so they don't think that "for God so loved the world" means that God loved all people enough to send Jesus to die for them. They think "the world" means "the elect from all over the world, from all nations." They don't think John 3:16 is what it appears to be: instructions on how anyone can be saved, telling people how they too can be believe in Jesus and find eternal life. They think it's merely a description of how the elect are saved. But it takes a lot of twisting to come to their conclusions, and it certainly doesn't fit with a plain reading of Scripture.
[I can't remember which article I saw it in, but a Calvinist was trying to explain what Calvinists should tell people they need to do to be saved. In Calvinism, God is the one who causes you to believe and have faith, and so honest Calvinists can't tell you to believe and have faith as if it's your choice. So how should Calvinists word it? Now, Calvinists will usually say "repent and believe" because "that's what the Bible tells us to say," even though they believe it's not our choice and that God causes the elect - and only the elect - to do these things. But this Calvinist had a different idea: Tell people their job is just to "show up." Basically, tell them God does it all, and so all they have to do is "show up." All they have to do is wake up one day and realize that God gave them faith and made them believe, just claim it and "show up" as one of the elect. Is this message, this version of the gospel call, anywhere in the New Testament? And can people truly be saved if they never make a willing, conscious decision to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, but instead they simply woke up one day and thought "Oh, I guess I'm saved. God gave me faith."? So deceptive. So destructive.]
Ironically, the name of Piper's article is "Saying what you believe is clearer than saying 'Calvinist'".
But no, it's not clearer at all. Leaving out the bad parts while listing only sugarcoated beliefs that have hidden secondary layers (using lots of Bible verses that appear to back them up) provides them ample opportunity to deceive us and confuse us. And it gives us little opportunity to research it for ourselves because they hid the name of their theology.
Thomas Schreiner, in the YouTube clip we looked at in #1, does something similar. He says that he doesn't use the word "Calvinism" but that he teaches it through things like "We believe in the sovereignty of God. Salvation is of the Lord. Humans are dead in sin and need the grace of God to have new life, etc."
All of these things we'd agree with on a surface level. But Calvinists don't stop at the surface level. They have a deeper, hidden, contradictory level. And so to understand what a Calvinist really means, all their phrases and words need to be clarified, expounded on, defined. (But most of us don't realize we need to do this because we're trusting that they mean what they say and say what they mean.)
In Calvinism, "sovereignty of God" doesn't just mean (as most of us would think) that God is in control or that He is the highest authority there is. In Calvinism, it means that God preplans and controls everything, down to our sins and unbelief.
In Calvinism, "salvation is of the Lord" doesn't just mean (as most of us would think) that salvation was God's idea, that He made it possible and offers it to us free of charge, and that we can't work our way to heaven. In Calvinism, it means that God decides who gets saved and who doesn't, that He causes the elect to believe, and that the non-elect can never believe.
[If you look up the word "salvation/saved" in the concordance, you'll see that in many verses Calvinists use to support their Calvinist view of election and predestination, it doesn't have to do with "eternal, going to heaven, soul salvation" anyway. It often has to do with God saving people from earthly problems like enemies, trials, risky situations, etc. (such as Jonah 2:9's "Salvation is from the Lord"). Or it may have to do with God saving believers from the end-times wrath He will pour out on unrepentant mankind (such as 2 Thess. 2:13: "... God chose you to be saved...", which I think is about the rapture, about believers being saved from the tribulation). See "Why is Calvinism so dangerous? #12 (Predestination, election)". Always research the verses and words they use to support their views. The more you do so, the less you'll believe in Calvinism.]
In Calvinism, "we are dead in sin and need God's grace to have new life" doesn't just mean (as most of us would think) that we are separated from God because of our sins and that we needed Jesus's gracious sacrificial death on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins to make salvation possible for us. In Calvinism, it means that we are so totally "dead" that we can't do anything - not even seek God or believe in Jesus - unless God causes us to. And He will only cause the elect to, but He prevents the non-elect from believing in Him because He predestined them to hell.
The deeper layer of Calvinism is very different from the surface layer, from the one they want you to see until they think you're sufficiently indoctrinated enough to accept the darker, more sinister parts.
[If their deeper layers are so biblical and God-glorifying, why the need to hide them, to sugarcoat them? And if God Himself controls who believes and when, why do Calvinists feel they need to be careful and strategic in revealing their deeper layers? Nothing should be able to scare off the so-called elect from believing (not even revealing terrible, contradictory theological beliefs that make God seem like a monster), and nothing should be able to draw the so-called non-elect into believing (not even sugarcoating your theological views or being strategic in when and how you reveal them).]
The problem for us is that to truly understand what Calvinists really believe, we would need to first realize that they mean something different than what they're saying. And then we'd need to figure out what their definitions are and what they're hiding and where their beliefs lead (carrying them all out to their logical ends to see the damage it does to God and His Word and the contradictions they create). And we'd need to look up each verse they give us in context (and cross-reference them) to compare their interpretations of Scripture to what it really says, plainly and clearly, in commonsense ways. Etc.
And since all of this takes so much time and effort... and since they sound so educated and confident and forceful and "humble"... and since we're unaware of the alarming parts and their hidden layers and their bad definitions... and since they're using the same words we use... and since they called themselves "biblical"... and since we don't want to be divisive troublemakers... we'll probably just nod our heads and say "Sounds good" and go along with it.
But if they had just said "I'm a Calvinist," we could've gone right to many sources that break it all down for us. We could've looked up people who've already been through it all and done all that work before us, who share all the wisdom and information that took years to get. (That's why this blog exists.)
Many Calvinists will do as Piper and Schreiner did - give enough clues of their Calvinism, but not too much. In Stealth Calvinism, there is enough indications of Calvinism that those in-the-know will catch on, but these indications are obscured enough that those not-in-the-know won't.
This is one reason why Calvinism spreads like it does and often goes unnoticed and unopposed.
Pastor Search Committees and Stealth Calvinism
Stealth Calvinism's New Brand: 3 Dot Theology
Calvinist Infiltration Prevention Resolution]
But wait, folks, there's more. We haven't even covered the fun stuff yet.
4. The Fun Stuff (Strategic Tactics)
Besides their hidden "buts" and multiple layers, Calvinists employ a wide range of other tactics to hook, trick, trap, and reel us into Calvinism slowly, covertly. (But they don't do it to just us. They are victims of these tactics too, having allowed themselves to be tricked and trapped by them also.)
The tactics they use (no matter how unintentional they might be) are things such as:
... false dichotomies.
"Either God saves us, or else we save ourselves... Either God controls everything, or else He controls nothing... Either God is in charge, or else we are in charge." It's super-polarized - and badly-polarized - on purpose, to force you to reject the ridiculous option and pick the Calvinist one. See Calvinist Bad Logic #7: False Dichotomies.
... fallacies and bad logic.
"In the Bible, God caused a storm, therefore He causes everything... God used wicked people to crucify Jesus, therefore He caused them to be wicked... The Bible says man doesn't seek God, therefore man cannot seek God... If Jesus died for all people, then all people would have to be saved... Jesus wouldn't die for those who reject Him because that would be a waste of His blood... God says He loved Jacob but hated Esau, so that means He predestined some people to heaven and the rest to hell."
[Yeah, well, if that's how Calvinists define "hate," then I wonder what they would do with Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children - and yes, even his own life - such a person cannot be my disciple."
And not only that, but if Calvinists had read the verse directly before "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated," they would see that it's about God choosing nations for certain jobs/responsibilities, not for salvation: "... 'The older will serve the younger,'" Romans 9:12 (also seen in Genesis 25:23).
This has nothing to do with God predestining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. It's about God choosing certain nations for certain jobs/blessings. The younger son, Jacob - not Esau, the older - was chosen by God to be the bloodline that would bring Jesus into the world.
And who are we to talk back to God, to say that He can't decide which people to give certain jobs/blessings to and which to not? God can choose one brother over the other to be Jesus's bloodline and still be a holy, just, righteous, fair, trustworthy God.
And in fact, He has to choose one over the other because...
See When Calvinism's 'Bad Logic' Traps Good Christians.
... bad analogies.
Such as "being spiritually dead is just like being physically dead" (See "Things My Calvinist Pastor Said #2: You're like a 'dead body'"). Or the "100 people on death row" analogy: "There's 100 people on death row for murder, and God graciously chooses to save 10 of them, but He lets the other 90 go to their punishment. Was He unjust to save some but not others? No. None of them deserves to be saved. They all deserve to be punished. So it's not unjust to rescue some but let others pay the penalty they deserve." This kind of analogy hooks many people. But the glaring flaw is that those people are only on death row in the first place because God "ordained" their crimes. He preplanned/caused them to do what they did, gave them no option or ability to do anything differently, but then He punishes them for it. And then He rescues some, as if it's true grace. That is NOT justice! That is NOT grace! That is NOT "deserving" the punishment! And it does terrible damage to God's character, righteousness, and trustworthiness.
... deflection, arguments with no biblical basis, non-answers they pretend are answers, bait-and-switch, etc.
"Don't think about those predestined to hell. Just thank God that He chose to save anyone at all... Don’t try to resolve Calvinism's contradictions with philosophical questions, just live in the tension... Jesus's death is only a real atonement if it was for specific, prepicked people... For God so love the world, all kinds of people of the world." See MacArthur's Manipulations.
... out-of-context verses or misinterpreted verses, such as Romans 9!
Romans 9 is really not too hard to understand when you read it in context, unless you're trying to squish in Calvinism. (As the saying goes: Calvinism and context cannot co-exist.) But it's definitely not Calvinistic.
Simply put: Romans 9 is about Israel as a nation, about God handing them over to their hard-hearted rejection of Jesus and giving the gospel to the Gentiles instead, because the Jews didn't want it. But then the Jews cried "not fair!" because they thought the Gentiles shouldn't get salvation. They thought the Jews were the "special" ones and should be the only ones to get God's favor and salvation, just because they were Jews. That's what Romans 9 is about. (Go ahead and read it and see if this fits better than Calvinism's "God predestines certain people to save, but He hardens everyone else because He predestined them to hell.") Paul is telling the Jews that God can give the gospel to - the offer of salvation to - whomever He wants to, to whomever is willing to receive it (and the Gentiles were), and that He can take it away from (and punish) anyone who rejects it, even Jews.
This helps explain other verses like John 10:16: "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also." Calvinists say this means that Jesus has preselected whom He will gather to Him. They think when He says that He lays down His life for "the sheep," it means He died only for those He predestined to heaven, "the elect." But He's not talking about "elect" and "non-elect" people here. He's talking about gathering Gentile believers into one family with Jewish believers. Anyone can believe in Him - from the Jews or the Gentiles - and when they do, they will be saved. Through Him, anyone can enter the sheep pen and become one of His sheep: "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." (John 10:9) And everyone who chooses to believe in Him - Jew and Gentile - are gathered together into one family.
But if you let Calvinists convince you that Romans 9 and John 10 are about God pre-choosing individual people for salvation or hardening others for hell, you will be a Calvinist.
If you let them convince you that "faith" is the gift God gives, you will be a Calvinist. [Faith is not the gift. The offer of eternal life is. See "Is faith a gift God gives (forces on) us?"]
If you let them convince you that "predestined" means that God predetermined who will be saved, you will be a Calvinist. [God didn't predestine which sinners will believe and be saved. He predestined what will happen to those who choose to put their faith in Jesus. He predetermined that all believers will grow to be more like Christ, will bring Him glory, will reach glory themselves, and will have their bodies redeemed one day. See "Predestined for salvation? Or for something else?"]
If you let them convince you that "hardens" means that God predestined who goes to hell and that He hardens their hearts against Him without any decision from them, you will be a Calvinist. [But according to the concordance, "hardens" is a retributive hardening, a punishment for first hardening your own heart against God, even after He was patient and long-suffering with you. See "A Quick Study of Calvinism's Favorite Words"]
If you let them convince you that Jesus was talking about choosing whom He would save when He said "You did not choose me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16), you will be a Calvinist. [Jesus was talking about choosing those particular men to be His disciples, to help Him spread the gospel.]
If you let them convince you that having faith is "working for salvation" and that since we cannot work for salvation then we cannot choose to have faith, you will be a Calvinist. [Calvinists say that having faith is just like other kinds of "good deeds" we do to try to work our way to heaven. But God says it's not. God - in comparing Abraham’s belief to men trying to earn righteousness through works - says that "believing" is not like the other kinds of works we do to try to get to heaven: "'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" (Romans 4:3-6). But Calvinists say that "having faith" is "working for salvation" and so we can't do it. But even if it was technically called a "work," God says it's the one work we must do to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus]'" (John 6:28-29). And so I wonder: If Calvinism teaches that we can't do the one thing God said we need to do to be saved, can anyone really be saved the Calvinist way?]
Always doublecheck the words and verses they use, in context.
[Here's a post from someone else examining the way Calvinists misunderstand verses (just because I link to other people doesn't mean I always agree with everything they say): Calvinism's Proof Texts Examined. And from Soteriology 101: Calvinistic Proof Texts for Determinism (video) and "Answering Calvinist Proof Texts" (article).]
... doublespeak, talking out of both sides of their mouths, ridiculously bad comparisons.
In the post "Exposing Calvinism: 'Anyone' can believe and be saved," I quote a Calvinist called Roland (whom I really like and respect because he is so respectful, fair, gentle, and thoughtful in his replies) who said: "I believe it is the biblical teaching that anyone can believe. There is not requirement for belief besides believing. To many non-calvinists this sounds like a contradiction, a paradox, double mindedness, double speak, but to us as Calvinists we believe any [person] can be believe... I would clarify by saying that all people can believe, and I don’t mean that there is an inherent capacity in our nature to believe. I just mean it's open to all people. But only some will believe... Yes, the willingness to believe is only granted to the elect. I know I used to believe it was contradictory and foolish..."
In the post "Exposing Calvinism: The 'Non-Elect' can come to Christ? Really!?!", I quote a Calvinist called Rhutchin who said this: "The non-elect can choose to come to Christ and will be eagerly accepted by God... anyone, including the non-elect, would be acceptable to God if they believed..." But later he says that unless God gives a person faith, they cannot believe: "Absent God giving a person faith, a person cannot be saved."
[If a Calvinist says "the non-elect can believe," all he means is that they could have believed if God decided to make them believe. But since God won't make them believe, then they can never believe. But they could have, if things were different. But since they aren't, then they won't. And round and round we go on a carousel of Wonderland-type nonsense. Curiouser and curiouser! (Click here to see what a conversation with a Calvinist might be like.)]
In this video - Free will is demonic according to Mark Driscoll - Will from The Church Split examines some things Driscoll says in a recent sermon. Will's got lots of good insights (watch it), and I'm gonna share some of my thoughts here too.
Driscoll called free-will a "demonic deception" and says that we've been brainwashed by it. He says we have no free-will, that only God has free-will. And yet he also says that we make choices and that we are responsible for our choices. Doublespeak.
Of course, the key here is to know the Calvinist definitions of "choice" and "responsible." They don't mean we make real choices among real options and so we are truly responsible for our choices because we could've chosen something else, which is how most normal people would understand it (and rightly so). They just mean that we choose to do what God predestined we'd do, that we make choices based on the nature He gave us - a nature which comes with built-in desires we must obey and cannot change. The unregenerated nature has only the desire to sin/reject God, and the regenerated nature has the desire to repent, believe, and obey God. And so since that's what we "desire" to do, then that's what we "choose" to do, and we can choose nothing else. And yet they call this "choice"!
And in Calvinism, "responsible" doesn't mean that we are able to choose how we will respond, that we make our choices among various options that are truly available to us. It just means that God still holds us responsible for choosing to do what He predestined we'd do - because we "wanted" to do it - even if that's all we could want to do according to the desires of the nature He gave us.
That's what Calvinists really mean by "choice" and "responsible." (But I wonder: If God really did determine and control everything, wouldn't that mean we've been brainwashed by God and therefore free-will is a godly deception?)
Driscoll also makes ridiculous comparisons here, such as saying that since we don't have the free-will to change our height or decide the day of our birth, then we don't have the free-will to make decisions. It's too ridiculous to even address. I just can't.
I agree with Driscoll that apart from a miracle, we can't know God. But I say that these are the miracles that make it possible to know God, to be saved: God put evidence of Himself in nature and in our hearts, He had His Word written down for us, He came down in a human body to share truth with us and die in our place, and He calls each person to believe in Him, giving everyone the chance and ability to do it. And if we believe, the Holy Spirit enters our hearts and makes us born-again. Those are the miracles! God invented the whole idea of salvation and made it possible by dying in our place. And all He asks of us is to believe in Him, to accept His gift of eternal life. And anyone who does will be saved. That is the miracle that helps us know God, that saves us. And it's a miracle for all people.
(Also see "Calvinism 101: 'Free-will choice" is not really 'free-will' or 'choice'.)
... verse-bombing, quote-bombing, circular reasoning, talking in circles, etc.
Calvinists will throw a bunch of verses (and Calvinist quotes from famous Calvinists) at you, making it appear like it all confirms their views. Don't fall for it. Look up each verse they use and read them all in context, even looking up words in the concordance and cross-referencing them with other verses. And remember that the Calvinist quotes they use are going to be full of bad logic, biblical errors, unbiblical definitions, and hidden layers. (For example, see "On Spurgeon's 'Calvinism is the gospel'".)
And as we saw above, Calvinists will say things that make you go "Hmm?" In "Derek, the 10-point Calvinist!", I quote Derek - self-proclaimed "10-point Calvinist" (because 5-point Calvinism is so last year!) - who gives this explanation about why Calvinists criticize or condemn things that happen when they believe that God Himself caused those things to happen for His glory: "Simple answer (and this long article could have been concluded with it quickly): Because they believe their rebukes and expressions of concern are also ordained by God and glorifying to Him. They do not separate the two. As Calvinists, they love to glorify God and do what pleases Him."
Calvinists say that God ordains sin for His glory. But when you ask "Then why would God also 'ordain' people to fight against sin?", they'll answer "For His glory." Calvinists say that God makes decrees He wants us to obey. But when you ask "But if God controls us, then why do people disobey His decrees?", they'll say "Well, God decrees that we disobey His decrees. He predestined to alter what He predestined." And Calvinists claim that they love to do what pleases God, but they also say that it pleased God to cause all sins and evil too.
Here's a Founder's Ministries article - "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey" - where one pastor shares his strategy in reforming his church after he became a Calvinist: "We took it slow at first. I avoided the 'C' word, knowing people wouldn’t understand it. We didn’t start with classes on systematic theology (though they would come later) or frontal attacks against the invitation system [altar calls] (though I did remove the manipulative aspects)... I kept the focus on God’s Sovereignty and man’s depravity... along with a focus on a biblical [he means "Calvinist"!] understanding of conversion and the new birth..."
He clearly went into it with a Calvinist mindset, definitions, and agenda. And he took his time to indoctrinate the church slowly by using carefully-chosen concepts and verses, defined Calvinisticly, without ever revealing that he was a Calvinist teaching Calvinism.
As the article "The Subtle Secrets of the Gospel Project" points out: "[The Calvinists at The Gospel Project, which is infiltrating churches all over] are prolific writers who are masters in propagating their doctrine without using recognizable Calvinist terms. Try asking one of these guys if they’re a Calvinist and you will probably get a 15-page essay about God’s sovereignty.... You most certainly will not get a direct answer to your question though and that is because they realize how unpopular it is to answer 'yes.' They’re banking on one thing: Given enough time and enough trust, they can sprinkle in the right amount of Calvinism to infect your brain and make you comfortable with their terms. Then it’s simply a matter of putting all the pieces together in their deranged puzzle... So don’t be surprised when you look around and discover a generation whose faith is built on the TULIP but they got there without ever hearing the label 'Calvinism.' We know what they’re doing. The evidence is undeniable. "
Of course, Calvinists don't see their tactics as manipulative or deceptive. They're convinced that they're humbly fighting for the gospel, for God's truth. (As I said, most Calvinists I know are wonderful people with good hearts.) Their intentions may be good, but their biblical errors are detrimental and their strategically-deceptive methods are cult-like.
And good intentions don't excuse bad methods and theology.
In these many ways above, the people in non-Calvinist churches are being "recruited" into Calvinism, but they don't know it. It's happening right under their noses - the mark of a cult.
[Whatever advice in those "how to reform a church" articles that sounds good would only be good if they were trying to fix a wayward church, to help a wayward church become more biblical - instead of, as they're doing, spreading biblical error in a Christian church. In light of this, any "good advice" is very bad!]
In case you're interested, here is a video series from Beyond the Fundamentals on the errors of 9Marks (I haven't yet watched it myself though):
Part 2d: Biblical Theology - Sovereign God
Cults use isolation, control, fear, coercion, mind-control, and thought-reform to enslave the members to the cult. The members' "inner voices" are suppressed.
5. Information Isolation and Control
Of course, Calvinists don't physically isolate members in a commune or anything like that, as more extreme cults have. But Calvinist pastors do practice various forms of "mental" isolation by controlling the information and resources.
From the very beginning, Calvinist pastors set out to carefully control the information we get, the resources we have access to, the verses we hear, who's in charge, etc.
Verses: Calvinists will ignore verses that contradict or disprove Calvinism, but highly favor those that can be twisted/interpreted to support it.
For example: Calvinist pastors fill their sermons with verses that appear to fit their view that God preplans, causes, controls everything, such as Job 42:2 "... no plan of yours can be thwarted" and Proverbs 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases". [Notice that these verses record Job and Solomon's words about God.]
But they ignore verses that contradict their Calvinist views, such as Jeremiah 19:5 "They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind" and 1 Kings 20:42 "He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.''" [Their response to a verse like this would be the ridiculous - and possibly blasphemous - "God decrees that people break His decrees." (And notice that these verses record God's own words about Himself.)]
Calvinists use a verse like "no one can thwart God's plans" to support their idea that God plans everything that happens and that everything that happens is because God planned it to happen that way. But they are reading that verse through the lens of their unbiblical definition of "sovereignty," that God must preplan, cause, control everything or else He can't be God. And with this definition of sovereignty in place, they make a huge, unbiblical leap from "God makes plans" to "so therefore God plans everything that happens."
But if they would look at verses that show that God planned things that didn't happen or things happened that He didn't plan, they would have to rethink their definition of sovereignty.
Calvinists cherry-pick verses to support their views and ignore verses that contradict them. And to make these cherry-picked verses appear to support Calvinism, they take them out of context, read them through the lens of Calvinism (their unbiblical presuppositions and definitions), or take them to unbiblical extremes (going beyond the plain understanding of Scripture). And then they misapply them, read other Bible verses through them, and convince you that the Bible clearly teaches Calvinism when it doesn't.
So while it might look like they have big lists of verses that back up their theology, it's all smoke and mirrors. If you go one by one through those lists and examine each verse in context and with proper definitions of words and in light of the plain, commonsense understanding of Scripture, you'll believe in Calvinism less and less.
[Calvinists base a lot of their theology on verses like Proverbs 21:1 about God directing the king's heart, turning it into hard-core, literal, bottom-line theology through which to interpret the rest of the Bible.
But if Calvinists are going to take Proverbs as hard-core, literal, bottom-line theology, then they can't pick and choose which Proverbs to do that with. They must do it with all of Proverbs. And this would include "and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony" (Proverbs 23:2) and "Punish [your child] with the rod and save his soul from death" (Proverbs 23:14, which - if Calvinists take Proverbs as literal theological teaching - would have to mean that salvation comes not just through Jesus but also through beating your child with a rod).
But... here's the thing... Proverbs was never meant to be hard-core, literal, bottom-line theology. Proverbs are principles, not promises. Proverbs are bits of good, practical advice from a wise man, not theological, doctrinal truths on which to build your beliefs of God and faith and salvation or through which to interpret the rest of the Bible.
And so if Calvinists do try to convince you that the Proverb about God directing the heart of the king is hard-core, literal, bottom-line theology - if they use it to try to "prove" that God controls the thoughts and actions of all people - then you remind them of those other Proverbs (and more like it).
And point out to them that if they want to take Proverbs 21:1 literally, then God only directs the heart of the king - and no one else - because that's what it literally says.]
[For more on this, see Why is Calvinism so Dangerous? #3 (Free-Will Choices?) and For Alana L (foreknowing vs. predetermining.]
Resources: Calvinist pastors will flood the church library with Calvinist books, weeding out those that don't support Calvinism. They will publish their recommended reading lists, filled with Calvinists. They will give away Calvinist literature and require staff to study it and use it in their groups. They will encourage everyone to use their preferred Bible translations (the Calvinist ESV or a MacArthur study Bible, etc.). They will quote extensively and almost solely from Calvinist authors during sermons. And sometimes, they won't even mention that there are other views out there or that Calvinism has been debated for centuries. because they don't want you to realize that maybe you should be questioning it too.
They present their Calvinist theology as the only "biblical" one, and everything they do and say funnels us to it.
Here's a section from an article by Roger E. Olsen at Patheos about another person's experience with Calvinism taking over their church (sounds similar to our experience): "The church recently called a new pastor... During the search and interview process he did not reveal... that he is a five-point Calvinist. Hardly anyone in the church has been a five-point Calvinist and he knew very well that it would be controversial. After he was called and accepted the call, he began pushing Calvinism in a very heavy-handed way. He gives books by Wayne Grudem and Mark Driscoll to adult teachers to use in preparing their lessons. He unilaterally removed books from the church library he considered unbiblical or unorthodox from a Calvinist perspective... He is preaching and teaching Calvinism as if it were the one and only truly evangelical theology... [Many] Calvinists are sneaking into pastoral positions in [non-Calvinist] churches... By 'sneaking in' I mean they don’t ever mention it even if asked if they have any beliefs that might be a problem for the church. They become pastor and only then, when they feel firmly ensconced, begin to preach and teach Calvinism as the one and only biblical view."
Yep, that's how it goes.
Of course, there's nothing deceptive, nefarious, or particularly cult-like about recommending books we like and theologians we trust. It's what we do when we think something is good and biblical, helping lead others to what we think is "the truth."
But a Calvinist pastor ends up highly skewing everything in the church and in his sermons and in your personal reading towards Calvinism. And if he's a Stealth Calvinist, he does it deliberately but hides that he's doing it. He saturates us and the church in it until it's so ubiquitous that it appears more popular, accurate, and acceptable than it is.
This is how people throughout history subjugated the people they conquered, by immersing the conquered people in the culture, practices, religion, and education of the conquering people.
Saturation leads to slow and subtle subjugation.
[Sidenote: The Calvinist pastor said that wrestling with the deep, difficult "truths" in those big, meaty Calvinist books will "strengthen" our faith.
But I wonder how many people's faith and trust in God will, instead, be destroyed when they start wrestling with Calvinist ideas like these: God predestined people to hell for His glory... He "ordains" all sins, wickedness, and unbelief but punishes us for it... He is glorified by evil (not in spite of it, but by it)... He commands us not to do things He then causes us to do (sin), and He commands us to do things He then prevents us from doing (repenting and believing, for the non-elect), and yet He holds us accountable for it, etc.
Would this stuff strengthen your faith? Your trust in God? Or would it destroy it? Would it blur the line between God and Satan? (See "Satan vs. Calvinism's god")
Do you know why I think Calvinists have to "wrestle" so much with Calvinist teachings?
Because IT'S NOT BIBLICAL!
It's a horrible mess, a total contradiction of God's Word, and it destroys God's character. And people know this deep down - and so they have to wrestle and wrestle in order to silence the doubts, red flags, and disgust, and to force themselves to think that Calvinism fits into Scripture, and to convince themselves that they need to accept it.
They wrestle so much not because they are struggling with deep, difficult spiritual "truths," but because they are fighting the Holy Spirit and the clear teachings of Scripture. And it takes a lot of struggle to do that.
Whereas when you read something like Tony Evans' theology book Theology You Can Count On (read it, it's good!), everything makes sense and fits with the plain, clear teachings of Scripture. And so you don't have to wrestle too hard to accept it or manipulate yourself into believing it. It fits. It makes sense. It's biblical. It's truth.
I also think that - even though most Calvinists truly want to be humble and to honor God - their "wrestling" is often an unconscious virtue-signaling, like a "Look at what a good, intelligent, humble Christian I am to struggle so deeply with these 'deep, difficult spiritual truths' until I accept them, even if I don't like the way it sounds and can't really understand it."
I think it appeals to a sub-conscious level of pride, convincing Calvinists that they reached a higher level of spiritual knowledge than the average Christian and that they were "so humble" to believe in things that sounded so terrible, confusing, and contradictory, things that other "lesser" Christians couldn't believe in.
It's Satan using their desire to be humble to trap them in pride. It's pride in humility's clothing.
If the teachings of Scripture were plain enough, simple enough, and palatable enough that anyone could understand them and accept them, then Calvinists couldn't feel ultra-"humble," ultra-"intelligent," or ultra-"God-honoring." They couldn't feel special. Elite. Calvinism needs the difficult, confusing, distasteful (self-created) "mysteries" to have something profound to wrestle with, to set itself above the rest.
(It's no wonder Jesus warned us not to be like the prideful Pharisees whose lofty education inflated their egos and status so much that it blinded them to the simple truth. It's no wonder Jesus said we need to become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven.)]
Leadership: Not only will a Calvinist pastor control the information and resources to control our thinking, but he will try to control who gets on the elder board. He will seek out and surround himself with "yes men," with fellow Calvinists who will help reform the church, or with those he can educate into Calvinism by taking them through small group studies of something like Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, as our pastor began doing after he was hired.
From the 9Marks "reform a church" plan, under tip #4: "Get some help. You can't do a reform alone... Look for men you'd nominate as elders if you could. They need to be not just big voices, but peacemakers and persuaders..." (added emphasis). This is essentially just "find people who agree with you and who can talk others into Calvinism too."
And tip #3 is similar, essentially just "reform key people first so that they can reform others." In their own words: "get to know the gatekeepers. Every church has pressure points of authority, people who are in key positions of leadership, whether formal or informal...In order to reform a church, then, get to know those people. Spend time with them before you offend them, and find out what they value, how they communicate, and how they can be persuaded. It’s helpful to know which of those people can influence others of them, and where those people are going to be helpful to you at different points in the reform."
Does it not disturb you to see how much thought and effort they put into pushing their agendas through, how they're spending so much time thinking of strategic ways to get people to buy into their particular brand of theology?
Here's something from a different 9Marks article, "Church Reform when you're not (necessarily) the pastor" (from point #5), and it's kinda revealing:
"Church reform does not happen in business meetings. If church reform goes like you want it to, business meetings are just the moment of formalizing a congregational decision that has already been made... All the actual work of reform happened before the meeting—in conversations. That’s how church reform works. You change people’s minds and shape people’s views in private–over coffee, a good book, and a Bible. [To Calvinist leaders, we're not fellow believers as much as we are projects of theirs, minds to be conquered.]... So make it a point to try to meet with as many people as your schedule will allow, and do it regularly. Read through [Calvinist] books with people and talk about them. Mark’s [Mark Dever, big Calvinist!] Nine Marks of a Healthy Church would be a good place to start... You’re also going to have to be strategic in deciding who to try to meet with. Unless you’re in a really small church, you’re just not going to be able to meet with everyone. So try to figure out to some degree who the church’s opinion leaders are, who are the people most likely to spread enthusiasm for reform among other members, and who would really cause a congregational sigh of relief if it turned out that they agreed with the reform. [In the eyes of a Stealth Calvinist, we're either brainwashable sheep or tools to brainwash others.] Then meet with those people, over and over and over. Be a friend to them, care for them, and at the right time, start asking questions and teaching about the nature of a Christian church. In time, you may find that you have more allies in reform than you thought—or, perhaps even better, you may find that you’ve created some..."
And from point #6: "Reforming a church is a long process that requires a whole lot of conversations, a whole lot of persuasion...Once you’ve been recognized as a leader in your church, the next step is to work on discipling other men who could also be recognized as leaders, and who, eventually, could join you in forming a majority of the leadership that wants to press for reform..."
Membership: But Calvinist pastors don't stop there. They will also try to influence prospective new members into Calvinism before they become members (tip #5 from the 9Marks "reform a church" plan):
"Make membership meaningful. This is one of the first things you can do in a reform, and the good thing is that most pastors will be able to do at least part of this without any formal change to a rule... Even if you’re culturally required to keep letting people into membership after they 'walk the aisle' of the church, most pastors will at least be able to make a case that it would be good for him to speak with prospective members before they’re allowed to join. Then, when you meet with them, you can make sure they understand the gospel and are actually Christians."
If you read between the lines here, you'll see that this is basically just "talk prospective members into Calvinism before letting them join." And it's reminiscent of this aspect of a cult leader: "Cult leaders take advantage of the vulnerabilities of the recruits." But in this case, it's "take advantage of the naivete of incoming members." (And how long will it be until they make the Statement of Faith totally Calvinistic and require members to agree to it?)
And notice this part: "Even if you’re culturally required to keep letting people into membership after they 'walk the aisle' of the church..."
Do you realize what this is saying?
It's essentially saying that we who "walked the aisle" - we who went up during an altar call and prayed a "sinner's prayer" and chose to accept Jesus into our hearts as Lord and Savior - are not necessarily saved in the eyes of Calvinists and so, therefore, are not necessarily qualified to become church members.
I mean, can't you hear it? Doesn't it sound like "Take heart, Calvinist pastor, because there's still something you can do even if your church requires you to keep letting those 'aisle walkers' into the church - those people who deceived themselves into thinking they're saved because they 'accepted Jesus into their heart' during an altar call. There's still something you can do to make sure only Calvinists get in: You can meet with them individually to educate them into Calvinism, to make sure they understand the Calvinist gospel and became Calvinist Christians before they become members. And you can do this without the congregation's permission. There! Problem solved."
[For more on this, see "Is 'Accept Jesus in your heart' unbiblical and dangerous?" and "Calvinists, Altar Calls, and Evangelism".]
And I have a question for all the Calvinists who say that it's dangerous to believe in free-will, that it's dangerous to tell people they can "choose to ask Jesus into their hearts" because it might supposedly trick them into thinking they're saved when they're really not. And here's my question:
What difference does it make?
If you think about it, Calvinists shouldn't have any problem with anyone believing in free-will or praying the sinner's prayer or walking the aisle because none of that should affect a person's elect or non-elect status - because, according to Calvinism, God elects us to heaven or hell not based on anything we do or don't do. And surely this would include believing in free-will or thinking we're saved because we walked the aisle and prayed to ask Jesus into our heart.
In Calvinism, if you're elect, you're elect. If you're not, you're not. And it doesn't matter what you think about yourself or about salvation or if you prayed a prayer or not. Whatever will be, will be. So there's really no point in Calvinists attacking the idea of free-will or aisle-walking or the sinner's prayer... unless they want to admit that what we do or don't do does affect our so-called "election."
Calvinism totally shoots itself in the foot here.
Church laws: And then after the Calvinist pastor has saturated the church in Calvinism - surrounding himself with Calvinist elders, filling the church with Calvinist resources, and educating new members into Calvinism - he can then set about to change the church's rules and by-laws (tip #6 from the 9Marks' "reform a church" plan), making Calvinism the official rule of the church.
You know, I really wouldn't have such a problem with Calvinists if they were fully upfront about everything from the beginning. If they were honest about their views/agendas and if people flocked to them anyway because they wanted Calvinism, I would just be like "Well, the people chose it. They knew what they were getting into, and they got what they wanted. So be it."
But it's the stealth take-overs, the deception, the manipulation, the hidden agendas, and strategic tactics that really get me. And to me, it's a massive mark of a cult and a cult leader. And it needs to be exposed and fought. (Is this how God works, with stealthy deception? Or is it a hallmark of Satan?)
The sad part is that many Calvinists themselves don't realize that they've let a Calvinist put Calvinism glasses on them - that a Calvinist took advantage of their desire to be humble, to grow in biblical knowledge, and to honor God - and now they can only read the Bible through Calvinist lenses. They themselves are trapped in it but don't know it. And they won't realize that Calvinism is strangling their faith, destroying their trust in God, and slowly suffocating their spirit... until it's too late.
Calvinism is a very slow and subtle poison, working from the inside out over many years.
It's like what the article 10 things to know about the psychology of cults says: Cult members don't know they're in a cult. And so only those outside the cult can see clearly enough to help. Yet Calvinists (like all cult-ish members) are taught to distrust those outside the cult, to look down on us, to think that we just don't get it or that we're not really Christians or not spiritual enough or not biblically-educated enough or not humble enough.
And so why would they listen to us?
And that brings us to...
6. Fear and Coercion
None of us wants to be an unhumble, divisive, God-dishonoring, glory-stealing Christian, do we? These are fears of any good Christian.
Calvinist pastors know this and use it their advantage (even if it's not totally deliberate).
In that "10 things to know..." article I linked to above, the author points out this mark of a cult: "Cults maintain their power by promoting an 'us vs. them' mentality."
Calvinists will use flattery and shaming (forms of manipulation) to do just this: to create an "us vs. them" dichotomy, to coerce people into Calvinism. They will talk in such a way that makes those who agree with them feel like good Christians and those who disagree feel like bad Christians.
Our Calvinist pastor started with this kind of manipulation right from the beginning, before even revealing his Calvinism. He'd preach sermons that portrayed his theology as the only "right" one, the "biblical, God-centered" one. He'd say things along the lines of "Only unhumble Christians who don't like the idea of God being in control fight against these 'truths'. People in other countries don't have trouble submitting to authority. It's just us prideful, independent Americans who do, because we don't like anyone being in authority over us."
He was preconditioning us from the beginning to side with him, to be afraid of opposing him.
Us vs them. "Us good, humble, God-glorifying Christians" vs "them bad, unhumble, God-fighting Christians."
[As a licensed counselor, it's one of the first things I noticed, the first red flags. And it made me sit up and listen more closely. Because anyone who needed to consistently use that kind of manipulative-shaming was doing it for a reason, trying to break us down to get us to buy what he was selling. See Predestination Manipulation.]
In that "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey" article, the pastor shares what happened after he tried reforming the church, how the church began pushing back. I want you to hear this - to really hear this - to see how Calvinists view those who reject Calvinism. [My comments are in brackets and italics and blue.]
"I couldn’t wait to tell my people because I knew they were going to love [Calvinism] too. Many, however, did not. As I was soon to discover, reshaping a church from its man-centered assumptions to a God-centered Gospel is rarely done without opposition and pain. [Translation: If you disagree with Calvinism, you're putting man over God.]... Things seemed to go well at first. I believed our congregation would see the truth of God’s sovereign grace from Scripture and embrace it with the same joy I had. I think I under-estimated how deep depravity runs within the human heart. [Translation: If you disagree with Calvinism, you're depraved.]... [Paul warns] that 'the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching...[but will] wander off into myths.' Principle among those myths is that of human autonomy. 'They will not endure sound teaching,' he says. They won’t put up with it because it grates against their autonomy and dethrones their sinful pride. [Translation: If you disagree with Calvinism, you're prideful, sinful, and don't want God having authority over you.]... The God-centered Gospel of grace [Calvinism!]...doesn’t leave any room for human pride of accomplishment. [Translation: If you say we choose to believe in Jesus, you're claiming you saved yourself.]"
Keep in mind that this is coming from the pastor. And so you can imagine the kinds of things he'd say during sermons.
Another great example of manipulative-shaming is from A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election) who calls those who disagree with Calvinism "merit-mongers [who] will not allow the supremacy of the divine will." (Ha ha ha, that's so ironic because, in Calvinism, if we don't allow the "supremacy of the divine will," it's because the divine will willed it! That's a self-defeating, divided God.] And he goes on to say that those who oppose Calvinism seek to destroy it by misrepresenting it:
"The doctrine of election is so grand and glorious that to bear any opposition at all it must be perverted. Those who hate it can neither look upon nor speak of it as it really deserves... False inferences are drawn, grotesque parodies exhibited, and unscrupulous tactics are employed to create prejudice. By such devilish efforts do the enemies of God seek to distort and destroy this blessed doctrine... [and] when those who profess to be His friends and followers join in denouncing this truth, it only serves to demonstrate the cunning of that old serpent the devil, who is never more pleased than when he can persuade nominal Christians to do his vile work for him. Then let not the reader be moved by such opposition. The vast majority of these opposers have little or no real understanding of that which they set themselves against. They are largely ignorant of what the Scriptures teach thereon, and are too indolent to make any serious study of the subject. Whatever attention they do pay to it is mostly neutralized by the veil of prejudice which obstructs their vision... They take a one-sided view of this truth: they view it through distorted lenses: they contemplate it from the wrong angle."
Umm, okay, let me see: "merit-mongers... devilish efforts... enemies of God... demonstrates the cunning of that old serpent the devil... nominal Christians... vile work... little or no real understanding... largely ignorant... too indolent... veil of prejudice... one-sided view... distorted lenses... wrong angle." Yeah, I don't think Calvinists like it much when we disagree with them. (And yet how often they claim that Calvinism is a "minor issue" that we "shouldn't divide over." Ha!)
And for some even juicier manipulative-shaming, here's a section from John MacArthur's article God's Absolute Sovereignty (underlining to show what I mean): "No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is absolutely sovereign. Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything. The carnal mind, burning with enmity against God, abhors the biblical teaching that nothing comes to pass except according to His eternal decrees. Most of all, the flesh hates the notion that salvation is entirely God’s work. If God chose who would be saved, and if His choice was settled before the foundation of the world, then believers deserve no credit for their salvation."
(I don't think he's getting his point across strongly enough. Maybe he should stress it a little more.)
Do you think anyone in his church would dare to disagree with him after hearing stuff like this?
[And I'd like to point out this bit of doublespeak and manipulation from him:
"Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything... God is not the author of sin, but He certainly allowed it... God controls all things, right down to choosing who will be saved.... People are responsible for what they do with the gospel—or with whatever light they have, so that punishment is just if they reject the light. And those who reject do so voluntarily... Above all, we must not conclude that God is unjust because He chooses to bestow grace on some but not to everyone. God is never to be measured by what seems fair to human judgment. Are we so foolish as to assume that we who are fallen, sinful creatures have a higher standard of what is right than an unfallen and infinitely, eternally holy God? What kind of pride is that?..."
MacArthur goes from God controls everything... to God just allows sin... to God controls all things, even who gets saved... to people are responsible and voluntarily reject God... to God chooses whom to give saving grace to.
R.C. Sproul (in God's Sovereignty) took a different approach and accused the seminary students in his class who didn't accept the Calvinist definition of God's sovereignty of being "atheists." And he did this in front of everyone. (And it's ironic because when he asks them if anyone is an atheist, he says that no one will shame them if they admit they are. But apparently, there's major shame for being a Christian who doesn't accept the Calvinist definition of "sovereignty"!)
And which side do you think most of those students would join: "us good Christians" or "them bad atheists"? It would take a very strong person indeed to stand up against that kind of shaming from a professor in front of all your peers who are now staring at you and judging what kind of Christian you are.
Sproul ought to be ashamed of himself!
[Sproul also creates a false dichotomy in his "harangue" against the students (his word, not mine) when he says: "Don’t you see that if there is anything that happens in this world outside the foreordination of God, that if there’s no sense in which God is ordaining whatsoever comes to pass..." And the false dichotomy is this: Either God foreordains everything that happens, or else He has no part at all in what comes to pass, no influence over what happens. (And remember that, in Calvinism, "foreordains" doesn't just mean He knew it would happen and allowed it to happen. It means He preplanned and ultimately caused it.)
He also says: "I like to explain it this way: if there is one molecule in the universe running loose, outside of the control of God’s sovereignty, what I like to call 'one maverick molecule,' then the practical implication for us as Christians is that we have no guarantee whatsoever that any future promise God has made to His people will come to pass." This is a total fallacy: "If God doesn't control every molecule, then He has no control over anything and so He cannot keep His promises."
With Calvinism, it's all or nothing. And it leads to a very flat, wooden, 2-dimensional God.
(And Calvinists teach that God is so mysterious that we puny humans can't figure Him out at all - and yet apparently they think they have figured Him out, that they've figured out what He can and cannot do as God. Insane!)]
In the article "Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism", the Calvinist author says that those who strongly oppose Calvinism do so because "they hate the idea that they are not in control... Simply put, they want to think that they are fully in control of their own eternal destiny."
An article from a reformed (Calvinist) seminary - "3 Reasons People Reject Total Depravity" - says that people who reject Calvinism's idea of "total depravity" (which is rejecting Calvinism itself) do so because "It presents a low view of man. Human nature loves to be coddled. Men and women love to be told of their self-worth, self-importance, and innate goodness. Total depravity destroys all that... Total depravity is rejected by man because it presents a low view of man. God is not gushing over us like a high school crush but 'has bent and readied his bow' because 'If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword.'" (Wow!)
Pink (in Doctrine of Man's Total Depravity) says that people often consider the Calvinist doctrine of election "a most unpalatable doctrine." And why don't we like it? Because "the unregenerate love to hear of the greatness, the dignity, the nobility of man. The natural man thinks highly of himself and appreciates only that which is flattering. Nothing pleases him more than to listen to that which extols human nature and lauds the state of mankind.... Nevertheless, the duty of God's servants is to stain the pride of all that man glories in, to strip him of his stolen plumes, to lay him low in the dust before God. However repugnant such teaching is, God's emissary must faithfully discharge his duty..."
And so if we oppose Calvinism, it's because of pride and self-love... but the Calvinist preachers - "God's emissaries" that they are - bravely carry on anyway in the face of such opposition, faithfully declaring the difficult, disgusting "truths" of Calvinism, no matter how bad it sounds. Oh, the poor things! What martyrs for the cause! (And am I to assume, then, that if we oppose Calvinism, Calvinists consider us one of the "unregenerates"?)
And according to his Doctrine of Election: "when the mind perceives what the Scriptures reveal thereon [about the doctrine of election], the heart is loath to receive such an humbling and flesh-withering truth. How earnestly we need to pray for God to subdue our enmity against Him and our prejudice against His truth."
Manipulation! "When we horrible, sinful humans learn about these 'truths,' we rebel against them because we hate God and His Word, and so we diligently need to subdue our prideful, God-hating ways in order to believe this doctrine."
What nonsense! Not to mention that if we rebel, it's because God ordained it, in Calvinism. So how could we do otherwise?
I guess Papa John Calvin taught them well: "As I have hirtherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously stated in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God... Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapter 18, Section 3)
An article from The Gospel Coalition - "What I learned when I preached the doctrine of election" - adds in the idea that the Calvinist idea of predestination/election is a comfort: "The doctrine of election is a great comfort because it lifts the burden of anxiety we bear for salvation and heaps it on God. We resist the God of election in part because we are not convinced He can be trusted to make the right decision."
(It's like watching a train-wreck in slow motion, just keeps getting worse.)
So according to this Calvinist, we reject the idea that God predestined who gets saved and who goes to hell because we can't trust that He'll make the right decision.
But how in the world could a God who predestines people to hell and then commands them to believe and then causes them to reject Him and then punishes them for it... ever be considered trustworthy to begin with!?!
Calvi-god is not a good God, no matter how many times Calvinists say he is. So the problem is not with us not being able to trust God; it's that Calvinism's god is not a trustworthy god. He is not the God of the Bible!
The article goes on to suggest that if we're offended by the "doctrine of election," it's because we're offended by the gospel (not by their bad theology, of course): "If we offend people, then we should be concerned. But if the gospel offends people, we should be comforted. Why? Because the gospel has always offended people. If we preach the doctrine of election with clarity, biblical faithfulness and compassion, we ought to rest in the knowledge that we have honoured God and done the very best by our congregation."
It's tragic they see it that way.
Pink does it too in Doctrine of Election when he says that nothing compares to the ability of Calvinism's doctrine of election to "impart comfort and courage, strength and security... To be assured that I am one of the high favorites of Heaven imparts the confidence that God most certainly will supply my every need and make all things work together for my good." [Yet, considering evanescent grace, how can any Calvinist ever be assured that they're elect?]
Ands later on, he says it's a "superlative honor of being chosen by God... that the great God, the blessed and only potentate, should choose such poor, contemptible, worthless, and vile creatures as we are, passeth knowledge... They are the elect: the ones which God hath chosen, and doth not high worth, honor, excellency, necessarily follow from this?... [We need to] mark the fulness of such high privilege... The blessedness of election appears again in the comparative fewness of the elect. The paucity of men enjoying any privilege magnifies it the more..."
So because God chooses such few people, the elect can feel even more privileged, delighted, special, and honored. (Never mind what happens to the non-elect or the price they paid so that Calvinists could feel so special!)
And remind me again how "humble" Calvinists are, those "high favorites of Heaven... superlatively honored... high worth, excellency, privilege"? Because I'm having a hard time seeing it through all the man-flattery and man-exaltation.
If these are the kinds of things preached by a Calvinist pastor, what effect do you think it will have on us?
Most people will side with him. And those of us that don't will probably keep quiet because we don't want to cause trouble or be seen as one of "them bad Christians." And as a result - because no one is sounding the alarm - Calvinism will look more accepted and more correct than it is, which will further alienate those of us who have concerns, making us feel more afraid to question it, more alone, and more hopeless because there's no one to turn to for help.
And before we know it, we're wondering what's wrong with us: "No one else has a problem with what's being taught, so why do I? Why can't I seem to understand or accept what everyone else does? Why do I see it differently? What's wrong with me? What's wrong with my faith?"
And so on top of being afraid of being an unhumble, divisive, God-dishonoring, glory-stealing Christian (or at least being seen as one), we now fear that there's something wrong with our faith and our ability to understand Scripture.
Even if we've been a Christian for a long time and never had doubts before, we might start to feel the ground crumbling under our faith, the legs being knocked out from under us. (My husband and I felt it. We know.) We'll begin to distrust our discernment, our ability to recognize truth (we'll examine gaslighting later), and we'll wonder how we could've possibly misunderstood everything for so long.
And so we'll either flounder in distress, not knowing whom to turn to anymore and not trusting anyone anymore... or else we'll turn to the Calvinist pastor for help, trusting his discernment and his ability to understand Scripture, letting him coerce us into Calvinism.
But sadly, it gets worse. There are even bigger fears and risks than all that: the fear (and risk) of losing our friends, our reputation, our church.
Standing up against Calvinism in a church that is (or has become) Calvinist takes a lot of guts and has a lot of potential losses. You not only risk looking like a bad Christian, but you also might have to stand against the leadership (one fear), maybe even against your friends (another fear), and you might have to do it alone (even another fear).
And in the end, it might not work. You might end up on one side with everyone else on the other. And this might make you feel like retreating from everything and everyone, maybe even resigning from the church (or the church might force you to).
And so after nearly losing your faith and sanity in the whole process, you might also lose your friends, your reputation, your positions at church, your social circle, and your church home altogether.
These are huge losses, huge risks. And the fear of them is enough to make many people ignore the red flags and convince themselves that everything is okay. It's easier just to fall in line with everyone else.
[But that will only work for so long. Because once you start to have concerns and notice red flags, it'll only get worse until you speak up, no matter how much you try to stuff it down. And the earlier you start speaking up, the better, even if you aren't sure yet what exactly is wrong. Because the longer you keep quiet, the more time there is for the church to get entrenched in Calvinism and the harder it will be to speak up later. We've seen it happen. Learn from our mistakes. Also see "When Calvinism Infiltrates Your Church" and "Why is it so hard for Calvinists to get free from Calvinism?".]
One other point that relates to fear from the "10 things to know about the psychology of cults" article is this: "Cults are attractive because they promote an illusion of comfort."
Calvinists promise us that in Calvinism we'll find ultimate freedom from all our fears. They constantly try to convince us that their view of God's sovereignty (that He preplans, causes, controls everything) will bring us the most comfort in the hard times and that we'll have nothing to worry about anymore. Calvinism is, according to them, a "Big God" theology with a God who fully controls everything - even evil, sin, and wickedness - and so we can rest safely and confidently in His hands.
The Calvinist Gospel Coalition says it this way in the article "Predestination is Biblical, Beautiful, and Practical": "[Predestination] it is a cherished word that describes a beloved doctrine, one that bestows comfort and unshakable confidence that not one maverick molecule, not one rebel subatomic particle exists outside of God’s loving providential control—even in the matter of salvation."
Sure, this may sound good on the surface, until we dig deeper into Calvinism and realize that Calvi-god is also responsible for that evil, that he preplans, causes, controls all the evil he commands us not to do... and then he holds us accountable for it. If Calvinists find comfort in a god like that, then that's their problem. (And it's just a matter of time before it corrodes their faith.)
PHIL: Yeah, you touch on one of my questions there I wanted to ask about evil. Is God equally in control over evil things as He is over everything else?
JOHN: Well of course; He controls everything. He’s in complete control of evil. The devil is God’s devil; he’s totally controlled by God. [Calvinists think that to be "in control," God must "control everything." But it's one thing to say that God is in control over (in authority over) Satan and that Satan can't do anything unless God allows it; but it's a completely different thing to say that God controls Satan. One is biblical, the other is not.]
The world is controlled by God. Every single movement, as R.C. said, of every molecule is controlled by God, and a whole lot of it is evil. But if He didn’t control that, then it wouldn’t do any good to control only the good part because you’d be overwhelmed by the evil. [So if God didn't control all evil then it would overwhelm us!?! How does that make sense? Is God not powerful enough, in the Calvinist's eyes, to hold back evil (evil He doesn't cause), to stand in its way or turn it back on itself or use it for good? This is actually a "tiny God" view: the idea that God has to cause/control all evil, or else evil would be too powerful for Him; that He'd be helpless in the face of evil if He didn't fully control/cause it. To quote the esteemed Mr. Bill S. Preston Esquire: "Bogus! Heinous! Most non-triumphant!"]
PHIL: Right. That’s what I always say to people who are troubled by this idea, is that if you don’t believe God is in control over evil, it’s outside His control, that’s a frightening thought to me. [False dichotomy: "Either God controls all evil, or else it's totally out of His control." And is it a more frightening thought than, say, believing that God causes people to commit sins He commands us not to commit, that He causes abuse and murder and unbelief (but punishes us for it)? It's like my Calvinist pastor's sermon where he said that all our tragedies, including childhood abuse, were ordained by God, for His glory, for our good, and to keep us humble. It's like the Calvinist grandfather who accepts that God might not love his unborn grandchild and might even cause the child to grow up to become a murderer, because "God can do whatever He chooses to do with His creation." It's like Calvinist James White saying that child-rape has to be decreed by God or else it would be a meaningless, purposeless evil (listen here). (So "meaningful" child-rape is so much better, huh!?!) At least if man controls his evil actions, then man is the one against us, the one who can't be trusted. But if God controls all evil actions, then God is the one against us, the one who can't be trusted. Which one's more frightening to you?]
On the other hand, to say He is in control over it, that’s a problem for theologians. [Yes, but only because Calvinists wrongly define "in control" as "preplanning and actively controlling everything, even all sin, evil, and unbelief."]
How do you exonerate God’s righteousness and at the same time say He is in control over evil? [You don't. But Calvinists still try, with lots of word-games, circular reasoning, doubletalk, etc., which only adds to their errors and contradictions. (And remember that they interpret "in control over evil" as "controlling evil," but there's a big difference between the two.) I'm convinced that their theology books are so huge, complicated, and convoluted because they're trying to adequately answer that very question: "How do we say God isn't guilty of sin and evil while, at the same time, saying that He controls all sin and evil?" But they can't do it. They can't adequately answer it. Every answer they give creates a new problem or contradiction that they then have to try to solve, and on and on and on. But if they had just spent some time correcting their unbiblical foundational beliefs and bad definitions, everything would fall into place.]
JOHN: I think God, in putting Himself on display for His own glory, necessarily had to allow for evil, or a whole aspect of His nature would never have been manifest. It would never have been known, and He would never have been praised for it... It’s only when you have sin, it’s only when you have fallen people that God can show His wrath—which is an essential part of His nature for which we give Him glory... [Calvinists believe that God needed sinners to punish in order to show off His justice. But what does the Bible say about how God demonstrates His justice? “God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it [sent Jesus to the cross for our sins] to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26, emphasis added). God doesn't punish sinners to show off His justice; He sent Jesus to the cross to show off His justice. And it's right there in the Bible! If we end up in hell, it's by our choice to reject God's offer of salvation, not because God predestined anyone to go there.)]
So basically, MacArthur is saying that we can take comfort in the idea that God causes/controls all things, even evil, and that evil is essentially good because God is glorified when He exercises His wrath against it (against the evil He preplanned and caused).
But Calvinism can only be comforting to the elect (there is no good news in it for the non-elect), and only as long as they don't think about God being the preplanner, causer, controller of all the sinful evils that we seek His comfort from.
The thing is, we can only be truly comforted by God if He is a fully good and trustworthy God, which Calvi-god is not. How can you call a God who preplans and causes evil "good"? (And then shouldn't people who preplan and cause evil also be considered "good"?) And how can you trust a God who commands us to do things He prevents us from doing and who commands us not to do things He causes us to do? That is the very opposite of trustworthy! And yet Calvinists trick themselves into trusting Calvinism's god, convincing themselves that he's good and worthy of worship in spite of all the evil he causes and deception he speaks.
(And people wonder why I'm so harsh towards Calvinism!)
7. Mind-Control, Thought-Reform
Reforming people's thoughts is absolutely necessary for Stealth Calvinism (or even non-stealth Calvinism) to be effective. Strategic brainwashing. (A lot of how they control/modify our thoughts has already been addressed, so I won't repeat all that. Much.)
Controlling the language: Remember, whoever controls the language also controls the conversation and destination.
Calvinist pastors control the direction of the church by controlling not just the resources and staff, but also controlling the definitions of words, the theological language we speak. And by controlling the words (and verses), they can slowly modify our thinking and our perspectives on God and His Word, causing us to see everything through the lens of Calvinism - until we can't remember how to read the Bible in a clear, plain, commonsense way anymore.
In Chapter 2 (Scaling the Language Barrier) of Walter Martin's book "The Kingdom of the Cults" (The Revised, Updated, and Expanded Anniversary Edition, October 1997), we read this about religious cults (this is my paraphrased summary):
Terminology and definitions matter. When words are allowed to be redefined incorrectly - and those incorrect definitions are allowed to spread to people and throughout generations (because of our apathy or ignorance) - it can become a powerful weapon to enslave the masses. Cult leaders know this and use it to their advantage, hijacking language with their own definitions to slowly, hypnotically lead people in the path they want them to go.
Cultists are experts at taking texts out of their proper context, with no concern for the laws of language, logic, or proper biblical interpretation.
Religious cult leaders use the Bible's terminology and concepts, but in a very different way than how it was originally intended and how it's commonly, historically understood. They use the Bible's terms, but they secretly redefine them to fit their own theological framework.
This is why the cultist will often appear to be - and claim to be - in full agreement with you, because they are using the same words, same concepts, same verses. You just don't realize that they've got very different definitions and interpretations.
At first glance, a cult's redefinitions will appear to be in harmony with the historic teachings of the Christian faith. But this harmony is superficial at best - because it cannot hold up under serious biblical scrutiny when Scripture is read properly and in context and when words are correctly defined.
Cults take advantage of the fact that the average Christian is almost totally unaware of the "subtle art" of redefining terms. And much time is wasted debating about Scripture with cultists - talking in circles - when spending just a few minutes at first defining the terms would have disarmed them of one of their most powerful tools: theological term-switching.
The cultist's redefining and juggling of terms puts the cultist at an advantage because it frustrates the average Christian who can sense that something is wrong and that they're not really saying the same thing but can't quite put his finger on it. And so therefore, not realizing the words games the cultist is playing, he often falls silent for fear of ridicule or of continuing to talk in circles.
Briefly, for examples, here are some of their hidden - and wrong - definitions of some main words we use [correct definitions are in brackets]:
"Sovereign" means God controls/causes everything, even sin and unbelief. [Correct definition: God is the highest authority there is. This means He can decide how to use His authority, even if it means allowing people to have free-will. But Calvinists have decided that He cannot be sovereign if He doesn't preplan, cause, control all things, even sin and unbelief. They decided that He cannot be a sovereign God if He allows people to make their own choices. However, ironically, this means that Calvinists are in authority over God because they have decided what God can and cannot do as God. Who's sovereign now!?!]
"Predestination" means God has preplanned which sinners go to heaven, and He causes all things to work out just as He planned. [Correct definition: God has preplanned what happens to people who become believers, and anyone can believe. And if they do - if they choose to put their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior - God promises (predestines) that they will reach glory in the end, bring Jesus glory, and have their bodies redeemed one day. That's what predestination is! It's not about who believes or how they believe, but about what happens after someone believes. And anyone can.]
"Election" is the same as predestination. [Correct definition: Election is about God choosing people not for salvation but for certain roles, jobs, and responsibilities after they get saved. God doesn't choose who is going to believe, but He does choose that everyone who believes gets the responsibilities and blessings reserved for believers.]
"Faith" is something God injects into the elect to make them believe in Jesus. You have to be given faith by God in order to believe in Jesus. [Correct definition: Faith is our decision to believe in Jesus, to trust Him, take Him at His word, and submit ourselves to Him.]
"Grace" is divided into two kinds. There is "saving grace" for the elect, meaning that God has chosen them to be saved and causes them to be saved. And there is "common grace" for everyone else, for the non-elect, meaning that God gives them food and water and sunshine while they are alive on earth. He gives them breath and keeps them alive until they die and go to their predestined eternal damnation in hell for being the unbelievers He created and caused them to be. [If that's a grace-filled God, I'd hate to see what a grace-less God is like! Correct definition: Grace is when God gives us what we don't deserve. And God gives all of us not only earthly blessings and providence, but He also offers all of us the gift of eternal life. We don't deserve it, but He offers it anyway as a free gift - paid for by Jesus's blood - because He loves us all and wants us with Him in eternity. And anyone can accept this undeserved gift of eternal life.]
"Depravity" and "spiritually dead" means that we are so spiritually wicked and lifeless that we don't have - and cannot have - the desire or ability to seek God, want God, or believe in Jesus unless God causes us to. And He will only cause the elect to do this by bringing their dead hearts to life and injecting them with faith which causes them to want to believe in Him, which causes them to "choose" to believe in Him. And those whom He doesn't regenerate stay depraved and spiritually dead, meaning that they can never have the ability to believe or the chance to be saved. [Correct definition: Mankind is sinful, and our sins separate us from God, and we cannot work our way to heaven. We needed a Savior to make salvation possible for us. "Depravity" and "spiritually dead" are not about us having an inability to believe, but about us having an inability to save ourselves. Our sins separate us from God and so we need Jesus's sacrifice to make salvation possible for us. And it's possible for all because Jesus died for all, God offers salvation to all, and all of us have the ability to believe. It is our choice to believe in Jesus or not, to accept or reject the offer of salvation.]
"Hardens" means God causes the non-elect to refuse to believe in Him because He predestined them for hell. [Real definition: "Hardens" is punishment for first hardening our own hearts against God and His truth, even after God has been patient and long-suffering with us.]
These are some of the main words they get wrong, and it directs their whole theology. Calvinists will keep their definitions of these words hidden as long as possible, hoping that we think they are using them the same way we are so that we don't pushback against them. Then they can slowly lead us deeper and deeper into Calvinism without us even realizing it.
But if you can get even just these few words correct, you are well on your way to defeating Calvinism.
Preconditioning and Strategic Ordering: Besides preconditioning us to feel ashamed if we disagree with them, Calvinist pastors and theologians methodically precondition us to read the Bible in a Calvinist way, without us realizing it, through things like first implanting their Calvinist definitions into our minds (without calling it Calvinism) and then leading us to strategically-chosen verses that appear to support it (when taken out of context or misinterpreted).
(I don't think they all necessarily intend to be deceptive or manipulative or in error, but they truly think this is the truth and the best way to teach it. Their hearts are in the right place, but everything else is not.)
Such as, a Calvinist pastor will often begin by preaching his Calvinist views of predestination and election (but he'll call it the "biblical view"), and then he'll lead us to verses that contain the word "predestined" or "elect" and say, "See! There it is, just like I said, and so you have to believe it, even if you don't like it. Because it's 'biblical truth.'"
He will stealthily, subtly, subliminally implant his Calvinist definitions in our minds, and then he'll help us "discover" Calvinism in the Bible, as if it's really there. ("Oh, wow, how smart you are to see these 'truths'! And how humble you are to accept them!") And we believe him because we never thought to question his definitions. And because it feels good to learn the "deeper truths of Scripture," to join the spiritually-superior level of the great "giants of the faith."
Or maybe he'll begin by preaching Calvinism's "total depravity" - but to trap us, he'll make it seem at first like he's just talking about being sinful. And since we all agree mankind is sinful, we unwittingly agree to his use of "totally depraved," not knowing that he has a different, hidden, Calvinist definition. And then he strategically leads us through carefully-chosen and Calvinisticly-interpreted verses, taking us from "total depravity" to "unconditional election" to "limited atonement, etc., until we've gone all the way through the Calvinist TULIP without ever realizing he's teaching Calvinism.
You see, all the points of TULIP lead into, flow from, and support the other points. And so if he can get us to bite onto the first one (to accept the Calvinist idea of "total depravity"), he can easily lead us into the next one and the next one and the next one. If you agree with one, you have to agree with the next. And the fact that all the points of TULIP support each other so well makes the whole theology seem more solid and biblical than it is.
[But this also means that if you disprove one point, you disprove them all. Because they all need each other to survive. They all rise and fall together. See "Is Calvinism's TULIP biblical?". (And once again, for the record, I agree with Calvinists that true believers cannot lose their salvation, just not for the reason they say.)]
[Personally, I think their whole faulty TULIP is built, primarily, on their wrong definitions of "sovereign" and "dead in sin/total depravity." They started with their wrong views of these and then interpreted Scripture accordingly.
As I said, sovereign really just means that God is the highest authority there is. There is no one above Him that He has to answer to. He gets final say over all. But Calvinists have decided that sovereign must mean that God has to preplan and control everything - every speck of dust, every sin, every person's response to Him - or else He couldn't be God.
But I say that telling God how God has to act in order to be God is a dangerous thing!
(And a God who can be dethroned by one rogue speck of dust is no God at all.)
(Here's a challenge: Try to find a verse in the Bible that defines the word "sovereignty," especially one that defines it as "God preplans, causes, controls everything".)
And in Calvinism, being "dead in sin (total depravity)" doesn't just mean that mankind is separated from God because of sin, but it means that we have no ability to make decisions to seek God or believe in Jesus unless God makes us do it, and He will only make the elect do it (which leads to their wrong definition of predestination).
Being "dead in sin" is biblical, but their views of it are not.
Calvinists use Genesis 6:5 ("The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was evil all the time.") to support their view of total depravity, saying "See! Man's heart is so wicked all the time that he can never want God or seek God unless God makes him do it."
But what's the context of that verse? It's talking about the time right before the Flood. And who filled the earth at that time? The Nephilim, some sort of half-fallen-angel, half-human hybrid. (See Michael Heiser's The Unseen Realm, a documentary about the spiritual powers and how God organized them and allows them to operate, 71-minutes long.) That's why they were so wicked all the time, and that's why God had to flood the earth, to wipe them out.
The "wicked thoughts all the time" verse is about the people of that time. It's not meant to be a commentary on the condition of all men at all times or about how we're "so depraved" that we can't seek God or believe in Jesus without God making us do it. Remember, always read verses in context.
And remember that Calvinism and context cannot coexist. Calvinism is bad theology built on a foundation of unbiblical definitions and assumptions. And when the foundation is wrong, the sum total of it all is wrong.
But once again, to be fair: Calvinists are not being deliberately deceptive here. They themselves are victims of these errors, convincing themselves that their definitions are accurate and that they're correctly interpreting Scripture. And because they believe it so much themselves they can more easily convince us to agree with them, even if we vaguely sense something is wrong.
That's why it takes so much time and effort to talk people into Calvinism, to educate them into it - because we sense something is wrong but can't figure out what. See "Why is Calvinism so dangerous?".)]
Unbelievably, here's a whole sermon series by Rob Jansons on how to preach Calvinism covertly, literally called "Covert Calvinism". And he does exactly what I said - strategically teaching through the whole TULIP without calling it Calvinism, leading people into Calvinism one disguised petal at a time, complete with Calvinist definitions and carefully-chosen verses interpreted Calvinisticly.
And don't just take my word for it. Read the sermons. Or even just the descriptions to the sermons, which includes: "[this is] a prelude sermon to a covert series on Calvinism... This is the 'Total Depravity' sermon without using the stock theological labels. It is the first sermon in the series and it's covert because too many of our [listeners] will shut down their receptors when they hear the words 'Calvinism.'... [This sermon] focuses on God the Father choosing us to be his children. It uses biblical, not theological, language to teach about election."
Basically, the plan is "indoctrinate them with Calvinism without telling them, and then once they're hooked, reveal to them that they are now Calvinists."
This is how Calvinists reform our thoughts under our radar.
An important side-point: This is an excerpt from my post "Calvinism: False Gospel or True (but warped) Gospel?":
I think [contrary to a non-Calvinist who believes that Calvinism is not a false gospel because he thinks Christians couldn't fall for a false gospel] that the Bible does show that the Church, true believers, can and do fall into false gospels.
Paul warns and condemns the church of Galatia about this when he writes: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ." (Gal. 1:6-7)
The "gospel" the Galatians began believing in - after coming to faith in Jesus - was that in order to be saved they needed faith in Jesus PLUS Jewish laws and customs (circumcision, in particular). Clearly this is a different way to salvation (faith plus works), a false way. And yet true believers were falling for it.
As Paul says, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?... Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (Gal. 3:1-3)
They clearly started in the faith believing the true gospel, but then were bewitched - tricked - into the false gospel of "faith plus works."...
True Christians can fall for false gospels later, but it doesn't mean they lost their salvation or were never really saved to begin with. And I think this is the case with many Calvinists.
So what is the gospel, according to Scripture, and why would I say Calvinism is a false gospel?
1 Cor. 15:1-4: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you… that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures…”
The gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, and through His death we are saved. And yes, Calvinists believe this at a most basic (limited) level.
But who is the “our” in “our sins”? What is the fuller picture of the gospel, of Jesus’s death, “according to the Scriptures”:
1 John 2:2: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
John 1:29: “… ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the whole world.”
1 Timothy 2:3-6: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all men …”
1 Timothy 4:10: “… that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men…”
Romans 5:18: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”
Here’s where Calvinism goes off-track and becomes a false gospel. The Bible says that Jesus died for all people so that God could offer salvation to all people because God wants all people saved. But Calvinism says “No! Only the elect.” This doesn’t just warp the gospel; it changes it (the gospel, Jesus’s death) into something it’s not, into a plan of salvation for only a few pre-selected people even though the Bible says no such thing. In fact, it says the opposite. This is not the same kind of “good news.” It is a different kind of “good news,” limited to only a few people, contrary to what the Bible says. And if it’s contrary to something Scripture clearly says, I think that’s enough to make it false.
(Calvinism’s errors are not about things the Bible is unclear on, true mysteries. Calvinism’s errors are about things the Bible clearly says. The Bible clearly says one thing, but Calvinism goes “Nope! It doesn’t mean that.” This makes it not just warped, in my opinion, but false. A direct attack on God’s Truth.)
And not to mention that 1 Cor. 15:2 says, “by this gospel you are saved.” According to this and other verses, belief leads to salvation. Salvation is a result of belief. (And anyone can believe.) But Calvinism reverses it, making belief the result of salvation. In Calvinism, salvation leads to belief (for a few preselected people).
In the Bible, it's “by this gospel you are saved.” But in Calvinism, it's “by election you are saved before the beginning of the world, and then you will believe in the gospel.” So technically, in Calvinism, since salvation happens before belief in the gospel and faith in Jesus, then it technically means that people are saved without the gospel and faith in Jesus. Calvinism is not a gospel of "salvation by faith in Jesus." It's a gospel of "salvation by election before faith in Jesus."
I think this is warped enough to be a different way to salvation. A different gospel. A false gospel.
Either Jesus died for everyone (what the Bible says)... or He didn't (what Calvinism says). Either belief leads to salvation (what the Bible says)... or salvation leads to belief (what Calvinism says).
These cannot be the same gospel, the same salvation, the same way to be saved. They just can't. Can they?
But once again, this doesn’t mean most Calvinists are not saved. I think most Calvinists are Christians who don’t realize they’ve been bewitched into false teachings about Christ’s death, His work on the cross, and how to be saved. And if they did realize that Calvinism is an attack on God’s truth, they wouldn’t have fallen for it. But sadly, they’ve been tricked and educated into thinking it’s just “deeper truths,” when it’s really different “truths.”
[And if Satan truly is the father of lies and deception and half-truths - and if Calvinism really does tell lies and deceptions and half-truths about God, His character, His Word, Jesus's death, the way to salvation, what faith is, etc. - then are we not compromising with Satan and furthering his work if we compromise with Calvinism? Are we not calling his deceptive half-truths "the true gospel" if we call Calvinism "the true gospel... just warped"? How warped does something have to be before it goes from true to false, from the truth of God to the lies of Satan? Isn't reversing "belief leads to salvation" and attacking Jesus's death (limiting what He accomplished, who He died for, who can be saved) warped enough to make Calvinism a false gospel? If not, then what is?]
"It's not that important": Another way Calvinist pastors get us to let our guard down so that they can reform our thinking is to claim that Calvinism is a non-critical, second-level issue that we shouldn't divide over. They'll say that we shouldn't fight about the "finer points" of Calvinism, that we should put it on the back-burner, in the background (and they'll promise to do so), so that we can focus on the "more important" first-level issues.
However, as that "church reform" article from Founders Ministry says it: "The third principle of reforming a local church involves both the demolition of misguided theological notions and the laying of a biblical foundation anchored by the doctrines of grace [Translation: Replace all other theological views with Calvinism.] ... What doctrines are we talking about? The doctrines that are worth dying for are foundational, biblical doctrines, not secondary ones [See! These will never be and can never be "secondary, back-burner" issues for them.] ... We speak first of all of the doctrines of grace [that's code for Calvinism]. Teach your people that they are utterly depraved and dead in their sins without God. Teach them that God chose the elect for salvation from the foundation of time out of his own mercy and desire..."
And notice what it says in the introduction to that plan: "In reality, Calvinism is nothing more than biblical Christianity... These [Calvinist] doctrines are foundational to a God-centered theology. They are the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity."
To Calvinists, Calvinism IS the gospel, the Bible, the sum total of Christianity.
"Saint" PJ also affirms this in his 9Marks article that I linked to earlier: "... preach the Bible, not Calvinism. Of course, if Calvinism is true, then as you preach the Bible you will preach Calvinism."
And a golden calf of Calvinism - Charles Spurgeon - says it in one of his sermons too: "And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism... It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach [Calvinism]."
To Calvinists, Calvinism is nothing short of the gospel. The gospel and Calvinism are the same thing to Calvinists.
So do you really think they would ever or could ever let Calvinism be a secondary, back-burner, not-that-important, shouldn't-cause-division issue? No Calvinist worth his salt would do that.
Make no mistake, they will always be pushing Calvinism because they think it's synonymous with the Bible. But if they think we'll resist it, they'll call it a "secondary issue" and "finer points" and they'll promise to put it in the background, in favor of "more important issues." But no good Calvinist pastor will ever let this truly be a background issue, not when they think it's Christianity itself. And so all they'll really do is go underground with it, undercover, so that they can spread it in more inconspicuous ways.
Indoctrination classes: Calvinist pastors will also try to reform our thinking directly, by taking people through what I call "Calvinist Indoctrination" classes (but they might call it "Bible study" or something like that), often starting with key people, elders, those in leadership, and maybe even (as we looked at earlier) with prospective new members, ensuring their brainwashing before they even get into the church.
For example, the 9Marks' article Build Fences Around Your Flock emphasizes the importance of keeping "the wolves" out of your church, which (reading between the lines) includes those who don't hold to Calvinism. It says "One of the first questions we ask each prospective member is: 'What is the gospel?' We want to make sure every member understands the gospel. If it becomes clear they don't understand it, we immediately pause the interview and move the candidate into a class called 'Christianity Explained.'"
And, lo and behold, the "Christianity Explained" class uses a book by Calvinist Mark Dever - head of 9Marks - to teach the Calvinist version of Christianity and the gospel. This is nothing more than a Calvinist Indoctrination Class that prospective new members who don't see things in a Calvinist way are required to take before being allowed into the church.
And so obviously, if you don't hold to Calvinism, you are a wolf who puts the flock at risk and will not be admitted into membership. As the article says, "our sheep aren't safe if we've allowed false teachers to slip in among them."
[I find it very disturbing that in the 9Marks' articles I read about church discipline and church membership, they seem to believe that they (these Calvinist pastors) have the right to decide who gets into the Church and who doesn't, who gets to be baptized and who doesn't, as if they are the gatekeepers and the judges. But I think they're letting their power go to their heads. And I think they're mistaking local churches (small "c") for the worldwide Church at large (capital "C"), acting like whoever they let into their local Calvinist church is allowed in the Capital "C" Church and whoever they block from their local Calvinist church is not allowed in the Capital "C" Church. It's sad. And I think they'll have a lot of explaining to do for the damage they did to the Church when they stand before the Lord in the end. (Yes, there are definitely some clearly biblical lines that must be drawn and certain beliefs, sins, behaviors that need to be blocked from the Church. But Calvinism is unbiblical, which makes it a terrible "dividing line" to use to determine who's in the Church and who's not. And it makes Calvinist pastors terrible judges of who should be in the Church and who shouldn't.)]
And when a person goes through a Calvinist Indoctrination Class, Calvinist brainwashing is pretty much guaranteed. There's really almost no way someone can escape the Calvinist brainwashing when soaking themselves in big Calvinist theology books which weave such a tight theological web that few can escape it. After being strategically taken through their "systematic theology" classes, you won't be able to see the forest for the trees anymore.
[This is why I wrote a long letter to the pastors at our new (non-Calvinist) church when I heard them using lots of Calvinist quotes during sermons, to alert them to how easily Calvinism reforms our thinking if we're reading Calvinist theology books. See "A Crash Course in Calvinism (A letter for pastors) ... and (Calvinist quotes)."]
Listen to how the pastor in the "Reformed by the Word" article handles it when he began facing opposition to his Calvinist theology:
"By January of 1999, questions began to be raised by some in our congregation. In a deacon’s meeting, one of our deacons asked if I was a 'Calvinist.' When I asked what he meant, he really didn’t know. He just knew it was something bad. So, I asked specifically what I had taught that concerned him. Again, he didn’t know of anything. He’d just heard this word used about me. Clearly there was 'talk' going around. I decided the best way to answer his question would be to lead the deacons through a study."
And guess what? It works. In the end, the church chose to keep him as pastor. But it split the church and up to half the people left. And though he says it was difficult, he goes on to celebrate the fact that the church split, saying that it led to "great freedom" - because "the people who remained [there] wanted to be there. They wanted the truth of the Gospel. They wanted reformation."
And with the opposition gone, they "were able to begin the process, unhindered, of revising our constitution to bring it in line with Scripture [he means "in line with Calvinism"]... The process of basic reformation took another three years, and really it’s still going on. Like shaping your soul, the work of shaping a church takes years of persistence. You can’t do it in a five-year pastorate."
My experience: The Stealth Calvinist pastor who came into our church started with shaming, with reminders of how tiny, depraved, God-hating, and rebellious we are, and with subtle accusations of "you're being prideful and disagreeing with God if you disagree with my views" - manipulating us to side with him before he even revealed his theology, scaring us into not wanting to disagree with him.
And then, when we were broken down in humility and shame and were malleable, he began implanting into our heads his Calvinist definitions of things like sovereignty, predestination, election, depravity, etc., and then he led us to (out-of-context) verses that appeared to support it, essentially going "See, there it is! Just like I told you. Now you have to believe it."
And he always asked "What does the text say? We always have to go back to the text!", making it sound like he was being true to the Word... but then he'd slip in his Calvinist interpretations. And he constantly quoted from Calvinist theologians (in one sermon, he never even used a Bible verse, just lots and lots of Calvinist quotes). And he began flooding the library with Calvinist literature.
Along with this, he was leading small-group studies of Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology with the elders and other key people, ensuring that they all became Calvinists.
And then, since that's not enough, he created "sermon-based" groups for the common people (even though we already had independent Bible study groups). And he continually stressed the importance of everyone joining one. These groups study and discuss not just the Bible itself, but his sermons, the Bible through his teachings. Everyone gets a list of the same questions about things he said in his sermons, and these questions - surprise, surprise - have a built-in Calvinist bias from the beginning, the assumption that Calvinism is true. (And from what I hear, attendance is taken and reported to the church. Unlike how it was for the independent Bible studies before he came along.)
So not only are his sermons full of Calvinism, and the church full of Calvinist literature, and the elders (and other key people) required to take "Calvinist Indoctrination" classes, but now everyone in the congregation is asked to join mid-week groups that focus on his Calvinist sermons. (My husband and I resisted the "sermon-based" groups because we felt there was something wrong with the whole concept, even before we realized the pastor was slyly pushing Calvinism.)
And - I'm sure much to the pastor's delight - it worked. By the time we left the church six years after he got there, it had essentially become a fully-Calvinist church. Even if only the leadership knew it.
(I'm not sure if the average Christian knew they were in a Calvinist church because the pastor never really identified his theology as Calvinism. Those in-the-know, such as the leadership and those who knew what Calvinism was, probably knew it. But the rest of the people probably didn't. They probably just thought they were learning "biblical truths," as the pastor always called it.)
When we were leaving the church, we had a friend (who had various roles there) who had previously believed more in free-will but who had begun taking Systematic Theology classes with the pastor. And we sent this friend an email to warn him that Wayne Grudem was a Calvinist and that the pastor was immersing the church in Calvinism, encouraging him to be cautious, to research it for himself. We reminded him that we didn't leave the church for superficial reasons but because we really believe Calvinism is unbiblical. The strongest warning we could give.
We figured that out of everyone there, the one who already believed more in free-will would be the one most likely to heed our warnings, to recognize the errors of what the pastor was teaching. Maybe he would be someone we could "pass the baton" to. He was kinda our last hope to help the church.
But we knew it was over when he replied with "I was a little apprehensive about entering the Grudem class as I know the text is from a Reformed Calvinism perspective, and my training and understanding has not perfectly aligned with all 5 points of the TULIP. However, truth is truth because God is truth, and we must not fear truth." [I knew right then that he was a goner.]
He went on to quote a few verses about the truth making us free and about not quenching the Spirit and about it being God's Will that we rejoice in all things. And so "If I am moved or changed due to ‘examination’ of a Biblical Systematic Theology whether Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Covenant or other, then praise God. I know that I have room to grow and learn. While I open myself to something uncomfortable, I will rejoice, and pray and be thankful that God has chosen to allow my flawed and finite mind to wrestle with and gain more understanding of His perfect and infinite ways."
I appreciated his trusting, humble heart (but that's how Calvinists get you!), but I felt like it was the pastor's words coming right out of his mouth. And I saw how all those years of laying the groundwork - of stealth Calvinist tactics and manipulation - paid off. Well done, Stealth Calvinist Pastor!
My husband wondered if he should reply with something like "But what if it's not God's truth? What if you're being taught lies?"
I just shook my head and said, "He's gone. There's no point. He won't be able to hear it, not when he thinks he's learning 'truth' and humbly submitting to it."
This is how a Calvinist take-over happens. Slowly. Sermon by sermon. Person by person. Week by week. Month by month. Year by year.
Calvinist pastors gain our trust with things like "I'm a 'Bible man.' I teach right from the Bible. I have a high view of Scripture. I have a 'big-God, God-centered' theology. I went to seminary. I know Greek. I read big, meaty theology books..."
And we fall for it because we fail to question their definitions (we don't even realize we should question their definitions), and we don't read the verses they use in context for ourselves to see what it really says, and we don't recognize the manipulation they use to shame us into agreeing with them.
And before we know it, we're slowly becoming Calvinists too, even if we don't like it, because "it's what the Bible says."
They'll turn the heat up slowly, subtly, unnoticeably, until we're cooking in a pot of Calvinist theology.
We've seen it happen. We watched it happen over years. And sadly, it took us 6 years to truly understand what the pastor's theology is (he wouldn't reveal it as "Calvinism"), to realize how unbiblical and damaging it is, and to start speaking out against it.
And by that time, it was too late.
Learn from our mistakes. Speak up early and often and to as many people as you can, even if it's just to voice vague concerns. (Take a page from their book and go underground if you have to.) If you're feeling it, someone else is too. And so don't let Calvinists make you feel ashamed about your concerns or about speaking up. You have every right - and obligation - to doublecheck the accuracy of what a pastor is teaching. So don't let them shame you into silence.
Which brings us to the next point...
8. Silencing the members' inner voices
Gaslighting: manipulating people into doubting their own sanity, memory, or powers of reasoning.
And "manipulating people into doubting their own power of reasoning" is what Calvinists do (even if they don't mean to). It's one of the reasons it spreads so unopposed, so easily.
In addition to manipulative-shaming, Calvinists have ways of getting us to doubt our abilities to correctly think, judge, and understand things. They make us feel like if we disagree with Calvinism, then there's something wrong with us, not with their theology. This causes us to question our discernment and to possibly ignore any doubts or "red flags" we get. (Or at least to keep quiet about them because we fear others distrusting our discernment too.)
And if we can't trust our own judgment and discernment, guess whose we'll trust?
That's right: theirs. Just like they want.
Weak faith: One way to get us to distrust our judgment (or to make others distrust our judgment) is to accuse us of having weak faith (or they might call it "man-centered faith" or "small-God faith").
From the Calvinist article "Should we talk about Predestination?": "...when you talk and preach about predestination, you must always keep in mind those with whom you are speaking.... Are you talking to a congregation of professing believers? If so, some may be strong in faith and able to plumb the depths and scale the heights of such a doctrine, while others may be weak in faith and the very mention of predestination will cause them doubts and worries."
Apparently, those with "strong faith" can handle learning the difficult (horrible) teachings of predestination, but those with "weak faith" will have problems with it. So it's not the (wrong) Calvinist definition of predestination that's the problem; it's our "weak faith." We're just not spiritually-mature enough to handle the terrible "truths." (This is kinda like saying that people who get upset about famine and murder and child-abuse are wimps, but people who accept it are strong and mature.)
If Calvinists can blame any problem we have with their theology on our "weak faith," they'll never be wrong.
(And yet, "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong," 1 Cor. 1:27.)
Emotional Reactions: Another way to gaslight us is to make us feel like we're just having a bad emotional reaction to what we're hearing, like our feelings or pride are getting in the way of our discernment.
An example of this is from my Exposing Calvinism: Causing evil isn't sin for God post, where I quote a Calvinist who said: "Choices do matter. They've just been predestined by God for us.... But since you don't seem to want to discuss biblical evidence here, then maybe you just dislike Calvinism on an emotional level. I know it's hard to accept emotionally. I understand. And I am willing to talk to you about it more. We do have choices in life; they're just choices that we have not freely willed."
If we say that it's terrible and unbiblical for God to predestine people to hell and to "ordain" sin and unbelief, Calvinists will accuse us of letting our emotions (anger, fear, disgust, etc.) cloud our judgment. This allows them to dismiss our doubts, concerns, and arguments against Calvinism as unreasonable and illegitimate, as if we're just being hysterical or over-reacting or something.
And no, we don't hate Calvinism because "God doesn't automatically save everyone," as if we think God owes salvation to everyone.
We hate Calvinism because it's unbiblical, because it contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture: That God truly loves all people and wants all people to be saved, that Jesus died for all and God offers salvation to all, that anyone can believe and be saved, and that the choice is ours.
We hate it not because it teaches that God doesn't automatically save everyone, but because it slams the door of heaven on most people, declaring most people un-save-able, unloved, and hopelessly damned for eternity.
We hate it because it teaches that although God commands us to repent and believe, He prevents most people from repenting and believing, and then He punishes them for not repenting and believing.
We hate it because it teaches that God first predestined all sin, evil, and unbelief, and then He commands us not to do it, and then He causes us to do it, and then He punishes us for doing it.
We hate it because it does incredible damage to God's character, the gospel, God's Word, and people's faith.
That's why we hate it!
(I wonder how many people owe their atheism to Calvinism.)
The issue for us isn't "How could God save some but not others," but it's "How could Calvinism's god damn most people to hell for being the unbelievers he predestined them to be?"
That's the real issue!
Not our "weak faith" or "emotional reactions."
Calvinists make up fake reasons why we have problems with Calvinism and then accuse us of being unspiritual, immature, prideful, or overly emotional when we push against them.
[Do we have emotional reactions to Calvinism? Yes, of course. But Calvinists think our emotional reactions cause us to reject Calvinism as unbiblical, when it's really the other way around. We believe Calvinism is severely unbiblical, and that's why we have such strong emotional reactions to it.]
"I understand": On the flip-side, a Calvinist might use the "emotional reaction" accusation to build a sense of comradery with us, as the Calvinist above did: "I know it's hard to accept emotionally. I understand. And I am willing to talk to you about it more." (I bet he is!) They want us to feel like they understand the terrible "struggle" we're going through over Calvinism's teachings, like they've been in our shoes.
They'll say things like "I know it's hard to accept these 'truths.' It was hard for me too. I cried over it. When we first hear these things, it's like putting on an itchy sweater. It's uncomfortable. It rubs against us wrong. We want to rip it off. But the longer we wear it, the more comfortable and comforting it gets. I understand. I didn't like it at first either. But you're just having an emotional reaction to things you don't like hearing or don't understand. But if you give it time, you'll come to see the beauty in it, the comfort. Here, let me take you through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology to help you understand it more."
They want us to think that they've already been on the journey we're on, already thought the things we're thinking, struggled with the things we're struggling with, examined the contradictions we're examining, faced the doubts we're facing... and so if they came out the other end convinced about the "truth" of Calvinism and comforted by it, so will we. They want us to trust that if we just keep following them - even though our red-flag radar is going off like crazy - it will all be okay.
The Crossway article Help! I'm struggling with the doctrine of predestination says "If you have struggled with this doctrine, you are not alone. A brilliant young man named Jonathan Edwards once wrestled with what he then viewed as 'a horrible doctrine,' though he later became fully satisfied with it and found himself overwhelmed with the sweet beauty of 'the King eternal.'
You know, if you have to try so hard and long to talk yourself into something, maybe it's because you shouldn't!
And I think something is severely wrong when someone takes sweet comfort in the idea of a God who punishes us for sins He "ordains" and who predestines people to eternal hell for being the unbelievers He caused them to be. Severely wrong!
That article goes on to say: "There are various reasons why people find it difficult to accept the idea that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell. [And none of the reasons are "because we think it's unbiblical."] As we will see, each of these reasons starts with a biblical truth about predestination and draws from it a false inference that leads to experiential struggles of faith."
So basically, in their eyes, if we disagree with their view of predestination, it's not because they're wrong but because we developed false ideas about this "biblical doctrine" and got all upset for no good reason.
(Anyone who calls it the "doctrine of predestination, election, grace, etc." is a Calvinist. Either that, or they're just parroting words they heard and don't really know what they're saying. Only in Calvinism are these things "doctrines.")
Along these lines is "We're saying the same things," which I've heard so many times from Calvinists. It's another way to build comradery with us, trying to convince us that we're on the same side, to get us to let our guard down and follow them.
But don't fall for it. You know they're not saying the same thing you are, even if you can't put your finger on it quite yet. If you know something's "off" but can't figure out what yet, just keep praying about it, reading Scripture, and researching against Calvinism until it becomes clear.
And whatever you do, do not take Calvinists up on their offer to "talk to you about it more" or to take you through Calvinists studies to help you understand it more.
That's like asking Jim Jones to pour you a glass of Kool-Aid.
"You don't understand Calvinism": If Calvinists don't like the arguments we use against their views - if we point out their wrong assumptions, unbiblical definitions, hidden layers, contradictions, or the terrible logical conclusions of their beliefs - they'll say "You don't understand Calvinism." (See Soteriology 101's post You don't understand Calvinism.)
And if we "don't understand Calvinism," then our opinions don't count and we should just shut up and listen to them.
But it's not that we don't understand Calvinism (actually, yes, it is - because you can't really understand something as convoluted, illogical, and contradictory as Calvinism!), but it's that they don't. They refuse to see their contradictions, multiple layers, bad definitions, the terrible end-result of their beliefs, etc.
Not to mention that because they have multiple contradictory layers, any point we make will inevitably conflict with one of those layers. Such as, if we say that Calvinists believe God causes sin, they'll say "You don't understand Calvinism. God does not cause sin. We make our own choices, the ones we want to make." But then if we say "So, you believe in free-will then?," they'll say "You don't understand Calvinism. God is sovereign and controls all things." And so we'll say "Then doesn't that mean that God controls us, so He is responsible for our sins?" And they'll reply, "You don't understand Calvinism. God 'ordains' our sins but does not author them." (As if that makes any sense!)
And so we will always appear to "not understand Calvinism," on one level or another. This keeps us running in circles. Furiously rocking back and forth on a rocking-horse. Always moving but never getting anywhere.
But it's not that we "don't understand Calvinism," as if the problem is with us. It's that they use doublespeak, have irreconcilable contradictions, have multiple layers, and speak on multiple levels. And so we can never really make sense of what they say or pin them down or get a consistent, logical answer from them.
Personally, I don't even think they understand what they really think, which is why they always have to resort to "We don't have to understand it. We just have to accept it."
"You don't understand God": In addition to "You don't understand Calvinism" is the accusation that we can't understand God and His ways because He is so far above us - and so, clearly, we should just be quiet and accept what Calvinists tell us without trying to think through it too much.
But it's not that we don't understand. It's that Calvinists are locked in their erroneous views of God and how He works. And so when we disagree with them and point out how contradictory or illogical their beliefs are, they accuse us of "not understanding God," of trying to judge Him according to our limited human perspective. (Sometimes they'll even say something like "If you disagree with me, with Calvinism, then you disagree with God.")
They refuse to consider that their fundamental beliefs about God are wrong from the very beginning and that they're not thinking their Calvinist ideas through to the logical and terrible ends, to the damage it does to God's character and Word.
A Calvinist reply I've heard to shut us up when we point out their illogical, contradictory views is something like this: "We can't use human logic to figure out God or to judge His ways. That's putting human understanding over God, judging Him according to our flawed standards and imperfect logic. But He is so far above us."
I've even heard a Calvinist say "Sin is when we break God's laws. But since He didn't give Himself these laws - since He didn't tell Himself that He can't do those things - then it's not sin for Him to do them. And God gets to decide what's just and what's not. So even if something seems unjust to us, it doesn't mean it is unjust. Because it might be just in God's judgment." (See "Exposing Calvinism: Causing evil isn't sin for God.")
I pointed out earlier how MacArthur did this too when he said, "Above all, we must not conclude that God is unjust because He chooses to bestow grace on some but not to everyone. God is never to be measured by what seems fair to human judgment. Are we so foolish as to assume that we who are fallen, sinful creatures have a higher standard of what is right than an unfallen and infinitely, eternally holy God? What kind of pride is that?..."
Calvinists present their wrong views about God and how He acts and then say "Don't judge God, you tiny sinful human" when we disagree.
[And let me get this straight: So we're bad Christians if we think it's unjust and wrong to punish people for sins and unbelief that they had no control over, but we're good Christians if we think it's just and right!?! And non-Calvinists use sinful, flawed, human logic when we say that a good, holy, righteous, trustworthy God cannot cause sin/unbelief or predestine people to hell, but Calvinists use godly, humble, God-honoring logic when they say He can and does!?! How sick and twisted is that! (And who's prideful now!?!)]
What Calvinists are really saying is that we mere humans - with our tiny, dysfunctional, sinful brains - cannot really discern fair from unfair, justice from injustice, right from wrong, good from evil. They're saying that what we consider bad or wrong might actually be good and right because God might see it as good and right, even if we don't. And since He is God then we just have to shut up and be okay with it.
According to Calvinism, your brain is broken and sinful if you conclude that God doesn't cause sin or predestine people to hell, but your brain is just fine (and humble and God-glorifying) if you conclude that God does cause evil and does predestine people to hell for His glory.
That's really weird. And evil.
Mind you, the big problem here is not when it comes to causing "bad" things like storms or diseases, which are natural consequences of living in a fallen world. The big problem is when it comes to causing bad things like moral evils and sins.
Teaching that God causes sin and evil is far different than teaching that He causes things like storms - because causing a storm does not involve contradicting Himself or violating moral codes He set up. But Calvinists lump moral evils like murder in with natural "evils" like storms and say that God causes it all and that it's okay because He is God.
And once again, if Calvinists still consider God good, righteous, and trustworthy in spite of the fact that He preplans and causes abuse and murder (according to Calvinism), then why don't they also consider people who preplan and cause abuse and murder "good, righteous, and trustworthy"? What makes the difference?
Is it just because God does it "for His glory"? So then why can't people also claim it's "for His glory" and get away with it, especially since God is the one who is (according to Calvinism) causing them to do it for His glory? (Not to mention that He sets the standard for us, and we are supposed to reflect His characteristics more and more.)
And if Calvinists think that "Well, we can't understand it, so we just have to accept it in faith" is a legitimate reason to believe it's okay for God to preplan/cause all evil, sin, and unbelief but to punish people for it, then what's to stop people from using "we can't understand it, so we just have to accept it in faith" as a reason for why people can do evil but still be considered good? (And maybe we non-Calvinists should use "Well, we can't understand it so we just have to accept it" to support our idea that God can still be sovereign while allowing people to have free-will?)
Can you not see how messed up this is? Think through all this. I mean really think through it all to see how much damage Calvinism does to God's character, word, and trustworthiness, and to people's faith, logical thinking, reason, and morality. I'm just sayin'.
(Listen here for James White's comment on God ordaining child-rape.)
"Pumpkinpie666" (whoever that is) left a comment on a Reddit post called "Calvinism is disgusting" that neatly (yet vulgarly) sums up Calvinism's answer to their idea that God is the ultimate cause of all evil:
"The Calvinist answer to every question about injustice is 'f*ck you, he's god.' It's just 'might makes right'. It's a pretty convenient theology for its adherents when you think about it. They don't have to defend any absurdities or injustices dealt out by God in that paradigm because by definition he's God, so he's right and you can go f*ck yourself."
Sidenote: Of course, we humans do misunderstand certain things sometimes because we don't have God's perspective. But it's one thing to misunderstand something that God did not clearly explain to us in His Word, such as the nature of the Trinity or what heaven looks like or the date of the end times... but it's another thing to misunderstand things He clearly, plainly says in His Word.
God clearly tells us in His Word that He wants all people to be saved, that Jesus died for all, that salvation is offered to all, and that anyone can believe. And so there's no good reason for Calvinists getting this so wrong.
And He clearly tells us the difference between wrong and right, between things that are evil and things that are good. And yet Calvinists say that evil might really be good, that injustice might really be justice, but that we're just too human to see it and understand it.
But if we're supposed to believe Calvinists when they say that we can't really tell the difference between right and wrong, between justice and injustice - if we're supposed to believe that there might not really be a difference after all - then how in the world can God expect us to follow these verses:
Mystery/Tension: When we point out contradictions in Calvinism that they cannot resolve satisfactorily or biblically, they will inevitably appeal to "mystery" or "tension," and to the idea that we have to "humbly accept" the things we can't understand.
"God's ways are so far above us that we can't fully understand Him, and so we shouldn't try. It needs to be enough for us that God knows how these things work out, and so we don't have to. It's like two parallel trains tracks running off into the distance that, to us, look like they never meet... but in eternity, they do. And until then, God just wants us to trust Him. That's what being humble like a child really means. There are some mysteries God reserves for Himself, and who are we to think we can try to peer into them, to figure them out? We don't have to like these things, but we do have to accept them and learn to live with the tension."
Calvinists want us to think that we are unable to reconcile their contradictions not because their beliefs are wrong but because they're "mysteries" that God chose not to reveal to us. And so we shouldn't try to figure them out or to find a more reasonable way to view things - because then we'll be dishonoring or distrusting God!
What a convenient way to stop people from exploring and opposing their contradictions!
The Calvinist pastor at our former church tried to explain away the obvious contradiction inherent in Calvinism's belief that God "ordains" sin but holds people accountable for it (see this post) by saying, "The Bible teaches both God's sovereignty (hidden definition: "God causes all things, even sin") and God holding us accountable for our sins (that He Himself caused, according to Calvinism). And so we have to accept them both as true. It teaches both these 'truths' with no tension. It's only we who have trouble accepting it and understanding it. But God has no problem with it."
And here's a story of a Calvinist high school Sunday School teacher who was deliberately sly about teaching Calvinism, who "cleverly did not use the terms 'unconditional election' or 'Calvinism,'" who carefully chose verses that could be twisted to teach the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty, who falsely claimed that "foreknows" can't mean that God knew beforehand what people would choose because that would mean He was bound by human decision (that He lost control), and who, in the end, convinced the kids to accept his Calvinist views by appealing to "mystery" (that there are some things we can't figure out and so we shouldn't try but should just accept what we're told).
That Sunday School teacher then quoted a Calvinist comment he liked from a post called "Paradox Files, Vol. 18", which has to do with accepting the "mysteries" that we can't understand: "The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in the same apophatic domain. We can’t make sense out of them and once we do, we have entered into error."
This goes along with what I just talked about. It's saying that it's a "mystery" how God could predestine people to reject Him but then hold them accountable for it. A "biblical" mystery. But then it goes even further by saying that if we try to figure it out, we're automatically in error, in sin (and, as the article goes on to say, we're not trusting God). Wow! Talk about some manipulative-shaming and gaslighting!
As that "Should we talk about Predestination?" article says: "...Predestination is a topic shrouded in mystery..."
Yeah, but that's only because Calvinists have created "the mystery" and the "tension" with their unbiblical view of predestination and election and sovereignty.... and then they try to convince us that it's humble and God-honoring to just live with the nonsense, to not try to solve it or make sense of it. They have made a mess of God's Word by altering/denying/contradicting what it clearly, plainly, commonsensely says, and then they try to manipulate us into accepting the problems they've created by calling them "mysteries."
[But I say that when it comes to accusing God of being the reason for sin and unbelief and eternal damnation of most people, you'd better have a good explanation! You'd better not just pathetically, spinelessly, and manipulatively appeal to "mystery." You'd better be able to defend that idea biblically, solidly, especially since you'll be standing before God one day giving an account for why you taught these things to people, things that destroyed His character and that contradict the plain, commonsense teachings of Scripture. You'd better have a reason for your terrible views that goes beyond "I don't know. It's a mystery. But I believe it anyway."]
[Leighton Flowers looks at John MacArthur's answer to the "mystery of human responsibility and God's sovereignty" in this Soteriology 101 video (15 minutes long): Lady asks the question most Calvinists don't like to answer.]
And when all else fails: And if we still can't accept their views - if we still keep asking probing questions that challenge their contradictions and errors, and if the Calvinist cannot talk his way out of it - he will always, always, always resort to some form of "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? He is sovereign, we are not. He is the Potter, and we are the clay. What right do we have to question His ways or to judge how He gets glory for Himself?"
"You would never dream of dividing the credit for your salvation between God and yourself. You have never for one moment supposed that the decisive contribution to your salvation was yours and not God’s. You have never told God that... you realize that you have to thank, not Him, but yourself for the fact that you responded to His call. Your heart revolts at the very thought of talking to God in such terms... This is the way in which, since you became a Christian, your heart has always led you. You give God all the glory for all that your salvation involved, and you know that it would be blasphemy if you refused to thank Him for bringing you to faith. Thus, in the way that you think of your conversion and give thanks for your conversion, you acknowledge the sovereignty of divine grace. And every other Christian in the world does the same…" [Manipulative mind-games and propaganda to reform your thinking to lead you to the conclusion they want you to reach.]
... The root cause [of why some Christians reject the Calvinist "doctrine of sovereignty"] is the same as in most cases of error in the Church⎯ the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic. People see that the Bible teaches man’s responsibility for his actions; they do not see (man, indeed, cannot see) how this is consistent with the sovereign Lordship of God over those actions. [No, it's not God's sovereignty we have a problem with; it's the Calvinist's unbiblical view of sovereignty we have a problem with.]
They are not content to let the two truths live side by side... The desire to over-simplify the Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds, and it is not surprising that even good men should fall victim to it. Hence this persistent and troublesome dispute..."
And what's Packer's solution to the contradiction (or as he calls it, the "antinomy": a contradiction that only seems to be a contradiction but that's actually reasonable, even if we can't see it) between God's sovereignty over sin, evil, and unbelief (as Calvinist's define sovereignty) and yet God then holding mankind responsible for their sin, evil, and unbelief?
"What should one do, then, with an antinomy?... Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other..." [Gaslighting! A totally cult-like way to get people to accept any illogical, unreasonable, contradictory, unbiblical, God-dishonoring garbage they teach.]
"To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable. It sounds like a contradiction, and our first reaction is to complain that it is absurd... [But] observe how Paul replies... he rebukes the spirit of the question. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’... Creatures are not entitled to register complaints about their Creator."
But no! It's not you. It's them. It's their Calvinism. And they're gaslighting you.
So what do you think: Did God say what He means and mean what He said, or not? Does He, for the most part, speak clearly and plainly and in commonsense ways that everyone can understand, or do we need a Calvinist Interpreter to tell us what God supposedly really meant to say? Are we supposed to roll over and accept Calvinism's terrible beliefs because it would be prideful of us and dishonoring to Him if we examined it more closely or rejected it? Is the problem with our ability to understand and accept truth, or is the problem with Calvinism's totally messed-up, unbiblical views of what God is like and what the Bible says?
Contrary to Calvinist accusations, I have no problem with what the Bible says.
But I do have a big problem with what Calvinists say the Bible says.
Because these are two very different things!
[Okay, now, I want to veer off-course here a minute. I've been really hard on Calvinism, and this makes it too easy to get angry with Calvinists, with the people. But I want us to remember that these are real people with real feelings, and most of them are true believers with good hearts who have put a lot of time, effort, sweat, and tears into their walk with God, their journey of faith. They're good people, just wrong in their views. (And all of us have been wrong at some point or other about something. We're all growing and maturing in the faith. I hope.)
And so to remind us of how human they are and how we need to love and respect the person even if we disagree with their theology, I'm going to share this journal entry written by the pastor who wrote the "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey" article I've been critiquing. Yes, there is some unintentionally insulting things about non-Calvinists in there, but I think it takes a lot of vulnerability to pour out our deepest thoughts, fears, heartaches, and struggles. And I appreciate that he opened up his heart like this. This is what he wrote in his journal in response to the church split that happened over his attempts to push Calvinism on the church:
The bleeding continues as former friends and one-time church members continue what can only be considered a campaign of slander against the Doctrines of Grace and me for preaching them. Each week brings fresh wounds and accusations, yet also, fresh mercies as God continues to uphold and support his servant. I suppose it is the complete ignorance that gets to me. How willing otherwise sane people are to believe the ridiculous and how blind Christian people can be to the clear truth of God’s word – and resistant! Our losses have been tremendous, at least 1/3 of our membership so far and half the deacons. My name is slandered throughout the county. Branded a hyper-Calvinist and a liar (that one truly hurts!) Yet Lord, I can do nothing but look to you in faith and throw myself, my reputation, my integrity, my future, my family, my ministry, my all upon you! You will uphold! You will strengthen! You will bring stability! And then move us forward in accomplishing your divine will. You alone do I trust!
Many Calvinists have also taken great risks and faced great loss over disagreements about theological matters. Many of them are just doing their best to walk with the Lord and learn truth, as best they can, just like we are. And I want us to remember that. To remember to see them as and treat them as people, the way we'd want to be treated, even if we disagree.
Attack the theology, not the people. The people are the ones we're trying to help (and we can only help them by attacking their bad theology).
[On a slightly different note, I do wonder if Calvinism and non-Calvinism can be - or even should be - united. Or should we both draw strong lines and call out the other side as "heresy"? I ask that question to a Calvinist in this post: "Non-Calvinism is DISGUSTING and IMMORAL," starting at the line "Roland (Calvinist), who previously challenged me on how I use "Calvi-god"...").]
Cults are authoritarian (disagreeing with or opposing the leaders is not allowed), and cult leaders are malignant narcissists.
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association - in the article "How do cults differ from Christianity?" - lists these things as characteristics of a cult (my paraphrase):
Cults reject the basic beliefs of the Chistian faith. They act like they alone have the truth and that we must come to them to get it. They have their own writings which they add to the Bible or replace the Bible with. They have a strong leader who demands obedience and claims to speak for God.
Now, of course, Calvinists don't reject the basic beliefs of the Bible; they just redefine them, qualify them, or add other layers to them until they become something completely different.
And they do believe they have the truth. But don't we all? We all think we have "the truth." No one willingly believes a lie.
But what makes Calvinism different than mere Christianity is this:
In mere Christianity, the Bible is for everyone, God's truth is for everyone, the gospel is for everyone. Anyone can read the Bible and learn for themselves God's truths that He revealed to us, and anyone can be saved by it.
But in Calvinism, it's only for the elect. No one can understand Calvinism's hidden gospel or their deeper Scriptural "truths" without their help, because it's not clearly, plainly in the Bible for all to see. (And only the elect can and will see "the truth" and be saved.) This makes Calvinists "the keepers of the truth" (as they define truth).
I believe this plays into the "authoritarian" side of Calvinism, the underlying vibe of "we are the authorities, we have the truth, we tell you how to think." Not all of them give off this vibe openly and obviously, of course, but it is inherent in their theology.
Now of course, many Calvinist pastors don't claim to "speak for God" (some do). Many do their best to present a humble posture. There are lots of articles on Calvinist websites calling Calvinist pastors to be humble and loving and gracious, etc.
But I think that while they might not outright claim that they speak for God - that they are "the authority" - they do say it in other ways, such as when they call themselves "the biblical, God-centered truth" or when they act like it's absolutely necessary that we study Calvinist writings to properly understand the Bible.
They may not admit to it, but Calvinists (especially leaders) don't have a high view of the average Christian, of our ability to read and understand Scripture. To them, we are simpletons who need them and their big Calvinist books and their months-long Calvinist classes to help us understand what God supposedly meant to say.
[My Calvinist pastor wrote a post once about how dangerous it is for Christians to study the Bible on their own without the aid of theological resources, without theologians who are smarter than us helping us understand the Bible. When he wrote it, I didn't know he was a Calvinist. But now that I do, I can see why he would write something like that: gaslighting. "You can't trust your discernment, so trust ours!"]
In their eyes, we need them to carefully, gently, covertly reform our thinking. We need them to hide/obscure their true beliefs and agendas - because if they revealed it all up front, we might overreact and let our emotions get in the way. We might let our biblical "ignorance," pride, and un-humbleness keep us from "the truth." And so they simply must be stealthy about leading us into Calvinism - "for our own good, of course."
As "Saint" PJ puts it in his 9Marks article, Calvinist pastors are "burdened by [the] biblical and theological illiteracy" of those who don't believe in Calvinism. [Oh, the poor things - burdened with fixing the mess the rest of us Christians are!]
The Calvinist author in this article against non-Calvinist Dave Hunt says that if we agree with the non-Calvinist view of the Bible, we are "unsuspecting and uneducated." (I critiqued this article in my post "My review of a Calvinist review of an Anti-Calvinist book.")
And in that 9Marks article "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches: Candidating, Pastoring, and Moving On" - the Calvinist author posits that anti-Calvinists are anti-Calvinists because when we researched Calvinism online, we put our trust in ourselves and in strangers online ["internet hotheads"]. In the eyes of Calvinists, we couldn't possibly research or understand theology correctly without their help. [Actually, we couldn't reach Calvinist conclusions about God's Word without their help. No wonder they insist so much that we shouldn't study Scripture without them!)
I'm not saying the internet always leads us correctly - it doesn't! - so we need to be careful and discerning. But Calvinists do not think that we common, tiny Christians have the ability to research theology, understand God's Word, and come to an educated opinion on our own, without the help of theologically-superior Calvinist pastors and theologian. (Who needs the Holy Spirit to help us understand things and guide us into truth (John 14:25, 16:13) when we've got Calvinist pastors!)
In Doctrine of Election, Calvinist A.W. Pink says "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth [the doctrine of election] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead 'here a little, there a little—... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."
This is telling! He's basically saying that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly and obviously taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be scraped together in bits and pieces, and that we would have a hard time finding it without the help of a Calvinist teacher systematically leading us through the Bible. (Duh!) So it takes a highly educated expert to teach these things, because the average common Christian cannot understand or learn them on their own.
This confirms two things: The sense of pride and spiritual authority that Calvinists have, and the fact that Calvinism is not clearly, easily found in the Bible and so people have to be educated into it by other Calvinists. Very revealing! (Is God's Word, the gospel, meant to be so painful, so difficult to read and understand? Or is it only that way because of the damage Calvinism does to it?)
Shouldn't it alarm us that, according to Calvinists, we're biblically-illiterate if we disagree with them and that none of us can really understand the Bible or the gospel until we've gone through months of study with them and their Calvinist literature?
And yet what does God's Word say? John 20:31: "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Notice that it's not "But these are written so that Calvinists can take you through months of studying it alongside big, complicated Calvinist books so that you can figure out what God really meant to say, so that you may believe - if you are one of the elect."
That's much different, isn't it?
(Here's one person's look at Calvinism's trap of intellectual pride: "Origen's Revenge".)
And this flows into the next point, about cults having their own writings that they add to the Bible or replace it with.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have the Watchtower publications and their own translation of the Bible (New World Translation). The Mormons have the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price which supersede the Bible. Christian Scientists have the Bible and Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures, which also supersedes the Bible.
And Calvinists have Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Grudem's Systematic Theology, Spurgeon's and MacArthur's writings (and others), and confessions like the Westminster Confession, Synods of Dort, etc.
Yes, they have the Bible and see the Bible as authoritative, but they cannot see (or admit) that they hold up the teachings of men to almost "Bible level." And I would even go so far as to say that their Calvinist writings (those "big, meaty" theology books) actually supersede the Bible - because Calvinists view/interpret the Bible through them (which is the only way to read Calvinism into the Bible to the extent they do).
In that "10 things to know about the psychology of cults" article, it says "Cults satisfy the desire for absolute answers."
What do you think those massive Calvinists theology books are for? It's to make you feel like you are learning deep, rich, complex answers to biblical "mysteries" and to so many of our questions about life, God, and faith. And in order to learn these things, we have to go to Calvinists - not just the Bible - for the answers. (However, many of the things they write are really just to try to fix the problems and contradictions they first created.)
Calvinist's have their "giants of the faith," their golden calves - Spurgeon, Calvin, MacArthur, Piper, Packer, Pink, Grudem, Sproul, etc. - and don't you dare question them or think they're wrong!
Because if you do, watch how shocked, offended, or insulted Calvinists get, almost as if you'd said that you believe God is a baboon or Jesus was a woman.
And so if you ask a particularly difficult question or point out a contradiction in their theology, you'll probably get an answer like "Well, MacArthur (or Grudem or Piper or Packer or Sproul or whoever) says..."
Such as, when you ask how they think God can cause sin but not be responsible for it, they'll say "Well, the Westminster Confession says that God ordains everything that comes to pass but that He is not the author of sin." (As if that's not a contradiction!)
Well, I don't care what the men who wrote their opinions down in the Westminster Confession say. I don't care what MacArthur or Grudem or Piper say. I don't care what Spurgeon or Augustine or Calvin said.
I care about what the Bible says... and about the damage Calvinists do to it. I care that they teach people to read the Bible through other men's writings. I care that they stealthily and strategically maneuver people into Calvinism using deception, manipulation, double-talk, bad interpretations of Scripture, etc. I care that they shame people into not questioning them, into not thinking for themselves, and into not researching the Bible for themselves. I care about how when you challenge the contradictions Calvinism creates, they think it suffices to give you answers that aren't really answers at all but that are just meant to shut you up. I care that Calvinism gaslights people, making us feel like we cannot trust our own ability to reason or think through things or understand the Bible, thereby ensuring that we go to them for the answers. I care that Calvinism manipulates good, well-meaning, humble, naive, trusting Christians into unwittingly joining a cult(ish), when all we really wanted to do was honor God and learn more of God's Word.
You know, Calvinists love to say "sola Scriptura" - Scripture alone! - but what they really mean is "Scripture through the eyes of Calvinists."
[Calvinists won't think that they read the Bible through Calvinist lenses. But you'd be surprised at how often we all read the Bible through previously-held ideas, assumptions, misconceptions, presuppositions, philosophical ideas, etc., instead of reading what it really says. Try this sometime when you're reading the Bible: Ask yourself what you are assuming about it from the beginning or what you're reading into it that might not really be there. And see what you learn. Also see 12 Tips on how to think critically about Calvinism.]
You know, I was just thinking today of the verse "knowledge puffs up." And I totally think this is what happens when studying those big Calvinist theology books. People spend months learning a lot of information through Calvinist books and sermons and videos, etc., and it makes them feel smarter, more spiritual. It puffs them up. But what they don't realize is that it's all air, all emptiness. They mistake learning lots of information for growing in the faith, in truth.
Imagine you wanted to study world history - to get really good at it and to feel closer to the world because of it. And so someone took you through an intensive study of some big, meaty, complicated, history books... of Middle-earth. You read The Book of Lost Tales and The Lays of Beleriand and others. You devoured The Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings. You wrestled with some of the difficult, disturbing aspects of it all. You know all the history of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, the Ents, the Wizards, Sauron, Numenor, Gondolin, Valinor, etc. Maybe you even learned to read Elvish.
You gained so much knowledge and feel so close to the people and events of history because of it... until you sit down to take an official test on world history and realize that you've got nothing.
Sadly, you were learning all the wrong things. And as a consequence, you missed out on all the right things. But you didn't realize it at the time because you were deceived by, enchanted by, how much knowledge you were gaining.
I think Calvinism is like that. Calvinists think that all the knowledge they are gaining means they are growing in the faith, in truth ... until they wake up one day and realize that their faith is on life-support, that it's been starving all this time for real truth and hope. And yet they couldn't feel it through all the information they were learning.
Furthermore: It's one thing to recommend the books, resources, and theologians we like. As I said before, there's nothing particularly bad about Calvinist pastors recommending Calvinist resources or teaching what they believe (as long as they're upfront about their beliefs). That's to be expected from anyone who strongly believes in something.
But when Calvinist tactics really cross a line is when they don't allow disagreement or when they silence or kick out those who disagree with them. This is a whole different level of control, because it's not just "here's what I think," it's "you're not allowed to think anything else." (Of course, Calvinist do this in more subtle, gentle ways than extreme cults.)
Our Calvinist pastor would regularly tell us that when it came to the "truth" of predestination (his Calvinist definition of it), we only had three options: we could ignore it, get angry about it, or accept it.
Clearly, disagreeing with him was not allowed.
[He had given a sermon where he essentially taught that babies who die go to hell because they couldn't repent, but then he immediately wrote a post on the church blog saying that babies who die might really go to heaven. I'm thinking he got hammered after the sermon and had to do some damage control. But I couldn't let this go unchallenged, letting him think that he pulled the wool over our eyes, and so I called him out for it in a comment on the church blog (not so politely). And of course, they didn't publish it (but I saved it because I expected that). And then they stopped allowing comments altogether (but I didn't expect that). (Click here for my belief about the "age of accountability.")]
When I saw my predestination comment removed, I knew it was the nail in the coffin for us. We could've stayed there if they allowed open discussion about this, but it was clear that they wouldn't. So not only was he filling the church library with Calvinist books and quoting almost solely from Calvinist theologians and roping everyone into Calvinist Indoctrination classes or "sermon-based" small groups, but now he was not allowing opposing ideas to be heard, not allowing someone to openly disagree with him and to point out why they disagree from the Bible. (It wouldn't have bothered me so much if my comment never got posted in the first place. But it's very telling to me that it was posted but then deleted.)
And my husband and I couldn't, in good conscience, stay at a church that demanded having such a tight grip on what people are allowed to think and on what views they're allowed to share. And we couldn't keep our kids there. We couldn't teach them, by example, that compromising God's Word and the gospel is okay. We couldn't let them grow up in a Calvinism-saturated environment any longer. (Remember: Saturation leads to slow and subtle subjugation.) We had to resign.
Thankfully, for us, we chose to resign and there was little drama over it. Some people are not so lucky. Some people are forced out of the church because they dared to question the pastor, the authority. Here is one such story: Excommunicated for Exposing Stealth Calvinism (video).
(Interestingly, after we resigned and my husband left his youth-leadership position, he ran into someone from church who asked him if he was enjoying his break. Apparently, instead of telling people that he resigned - which would raise eyebrows and questions - they must've been telling people that he was taking a break. Clever!)
I think what makes me saddest about leaving our church is not just the isolation we feel and having to start over, but it's also that it hands them over to Calvinism's stronghold even more. When all those who disagree with Calvinism leave or are silenced or forced out, all that's left are those who agree with it (or who appear to agree with it), and the Calvinism grows stronger. (But maybe that's for the better - because when Calvinism is more "out in the open," incoming people will know what they're getting into because the Calvinists won't have to be deceptive and stealthy anymore. They can be bold and open and obvious.) Sadly, though, this makes those who still secretly disagree or struggle with Calvinism feel more alone, more hopeless, more suffocated. It's sad.
But there is a time for everything: a time to stay and fight, and a time to shake the dust from your feet and run for the hills.
"Cult leaders are malignant narcissists":
Hahaha, I'll just leave it at that, only adding this:
Or you know what? Maybe I'll quote High-Calvinist John MacArthur talking about Alana L who studied the Bible on her own and discovered that Calvinism is wrong and spoke out about it. [MacArthur doesn't call her out by name, but it's obvious whom he's talking about if you know the whole story.]
In a video, he said this about her: "You know I was looking at the internet the other day and some wistful girl said 'How I became a Calvinist and left Calvinism'... well, the sophomoric comment ["pretentious or juvenile," I looked it up] like that, from somebody who should keep her thoughts to herself because she has no idea what she's talking about, is to be measured against someone who for 50 years has taken every text of the Bible and put doctrine into that text and see if it survives. And I can say that it has." [Translation: "Don't listen to that ignorant, uneducated girl, but listen to me, to someone who's proven that Calvinism is true."]
Prideful much!?! It's like "No one questions ME! Don't you know who I am!?! Who is this tiny, stupid girl who comes out against me, a spiritual giant of the faith? Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks?"
[And MacArthur is bad enough, but what gets me almost even more is the adoring fan sitting next to him in this video clip (from Great Light Studios, at the 2:30 minute-mark), chuckling and nodding his head in approval and admiration, almost like "May I worship at your feet, Johnny? May I kiss your ring, Johnny? May I prechew your food for you, Johnny?"
For those in Calvinist churches (9Marks' churches, in particular), be forewarned that disagreeing with the doctrinal views of the Calvinist pastors and telling people about it could be a serious enough offense to get you disciplined by the church. This 9Marks article (A Church Discipline Primer) shares one preacher's list of what the church should discipline, and notice that it includes: "the denial of Christian doctrine... [and] the stirring up of division," both of which could be accusations leveled against Christians who disagree with Calvinism and who tell others about it. Calvinist churches might discipline you for this because, in their eyes, they are protecting the gospel against those of us who "mislead both the world and other sheep about Christianity."
And on a related note: Oh funny! Today in my normal Bible reading, I stumbled across high-and-mighty Calvinist leaders summed up in one verse: "[The Pharisees] replied, 'You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out." (John 9:34)
That, folks, is Calvinism in one verse!
[I guess we can find Calvinism in the Bible after all! 😄]
And I'll also requote a line from that "Reformed by the Word..." article where the Calvinist pastor says "As I was soon to discover, reshaping a church from its man-centered assumptions to a God-centered Gospel is rarely done without opposition and pain."
Can you hear the "I am the authority, the leader, the hero" undertone in this?
Calvinist pastors labor under the (delusional) burden of "It's my job to fix this church, for God's sake. I will lead the tiny, lost, stupid, man-centered sheep into the Calvinist Promised Land. Come hell or high water, I will rescue this church!"
For more on this, here are some videos, articles, or blog posts from other people who also think there are huge problems with Calvinism, that it's cult-like, or that there may be something "off" with Calvinist pastors:
Calvinism and Narcissism Link Examined (Beyond the Fundamentals video, 1 hour, 50 minutes. I found this and watched it after I wrote my post. It's really good and relates to a lot of what I say in this post.)
Pulpit Narcissism vs Godly Women, video from Brian at Faith on Fire. Watch it to the end - it's good (but disturbing). Well said, Brian! (Also from Brian: Christian Apostacy & Cults: Calvinism, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses)
Narcissism + Christianity = Calvinism
Extraordinary Christian testimonies that expose John MacArthur's church as a mind control cult
Just how "healthy" is the 9Marks organization?
What makes 9Marks churches so unhealthy?
What should we do about 9Marks and other abusive churches?
Conclusion:
I think Calvinism does this to people too. I think the longer someone stays in a Calvinist church, the more it will destroy their faith (what should be a simple faith), their relationship with God, their trust of God, and their ability to discern truth for themselves, to understand the Bible the way God meant it to be understood. And if and when someone leaves a Calvinist church, it may destroy their relationships with others and their ability/desire to get involved in a new church.
People leaving Calvinism will be so burned by it that they'll always be on the lookout for it now, always over-analyzing every word and phrase. They will always flinch at good words like "grace" and "sovereign" and "biblical"... always shudder when they hear "high view of Scripture" and "God-centered" and "salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone"... always feel like pastors have an agenda and hidden layers... always distrusting the church and other Christians, afraid of being fooled again and too exhausted to care... and if their church was an authoritarian, legalistic kind, they might rebel against God and all of His rules and truths as a way of breaking free from the legalistic, domineering control of the church leaders (and this can lead to all sorts of heart-breaking consequences in their lives).
A kind of spiritual post-traumatic stress disorder.
You know what, maybe it'd be best to let you hear it right from the people. Here are some stories I found online of the real-life damage that Calvinism has done to people (quoted in my post "Calvinism's Heart-Breaking Destruction"):
From a Reddit post called "Calvinism is disgusting":
"As an ex-Christian who used to be a Calvinist, what alarmed me is that all the fears about satan applied to god... [Calvinists] ascribed so many characteristics to god that could be applied to satan that made them seem indistinguishable." (from 'deleted')
"I remember as I was leaving my faith, I thought 'If God exists, then he let my parents waste thousands on private Christian education, let me be baptized and study his word and be confirmed, let me have periods of doubt and repentance, all when he knew that I would be damned to hell.' Even when I was still a Christian, he knew that I was damned and he never helped me." (Uriah_Blacke) [When you're taught that everything is predetermined by God, that Satan is really just God in disguise, and that you don't really have any control over your choices - not even the choice about whether or not you leave the faith - this is where you end up.]
"My parents used to say 'even the cutest baby is a dirty rotten sinner.' It was somewhat of a joke in our family, but also definitely what we all believed. I’m turning 30 this year and I still have trouble turning down the volume on this narrative about myself. It has led to issues in my friendships, with my partner, and now, with my parents... I have deconstructed to the [point] of agnosticism... This has crippled my emotional growth as an adult in ways..." (foreverlanding)
"The [Calvinist] concept of total depravity is so completely toxic. I'm still unlearning this as well. It does make me angry sometimes thinking about how absolutely f*cked up it is to teach children they are inherently awful just for being... The system is designed to make you feel like a POS [piece of sh*t] just for being a human. I'm 37 now and am agnostic after trying really hard to believe until about 2ish years ago. I feel more hopeful and free without the church." (eab1728)
"Agreed. Total Depravity isn't the "Good News" espoused in Reformed circles... Reformed doctrine never allowed me to truly accept my own self-worth; it robbed me of dignity and replaced it with constant, grating guilt. And it's utterly worthless in the face of real hardship... I am a universalist now, which couldn't be further from Reformed doctrine. And honestly, what a relief." (come_heroine)
"This is a screenshot from an email that I sent to my mom when I was 12 years old, simply titled "distressed". [In the email, the 12-year-old is telling the parent that she (I'll just assume it's a 'she' for now) is distressed because she's praying and reading the Bible, but nothing is happening. She's looking for assurance that she's saved, one of the elect. And the father replies that she should keep asking God to show her the way, that only God can save her, that only God can awaken her dead spirit and make her alive, that she can't do anything to save herself. So essentially, it's "Do something about it, but you can't do anything about it, and so wait to see if God convinces you that you're one of the elect." So confusing. So biblically off-track. And it basically just boils down to "if you're not elect, you can't do anything about it and there's no hope for you." No wonder the kid is distressed!] I'm so angry that I was taught that I was completely bad, simply by being human, and I deserved to be tortured by the Creator for all of eternity, AND I COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. All I could do was pray to God and hope that he had mercy on such a miserable, worthless, depraved wretch such as twelve-year-old me. I lived with a phobia of hell until the cage of my mind opened when I was 22, and I could finally think for the first time in my life..." (why-homo-sapien)
"A few years ago I was wondering why my self-esteem was so crap and then suddenly realised that the people who taught me to hate myself were my parents, through the medium of calvinism :)" (pktechboi)
From the Reddit post (with a few minor spelling and punctuation corrections) called: I have posted on another Group as well. I NEED SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN Calvinism to me because what I understand of it is scaring me!!! : r/Christians (reddit.com)
"Okay.... so I have just watched a sermon from Paul Washer (which I thought was one of the most amazing sermons I have ever seen). That man has a fire for Christ that cannot be extinguished. But for the first time, I found out what Calvinism is. And I am scared to death!!! So if I am not elected by God to be saved, I will not be saved??? No matter how much time I devoted to prayer, how many times I have been broken by his feet have, how many hours I spent learning scripture, how many days I "thought" I was talking to my best friend. It was all just a lie??? I come in heaven just to realize I was never elected??? And get thrown into hell because the day I was born I was already doomed from the beginning??? And my whole faith is just one big hoax???" (Dingus_bellator1027) (That's some serious struggling going on right there! And Calvinism can offer no real hope, no real help, no real comfort other than "wait until you die to see if you won the salvation lottery or not".)
If you are raising kids in a Calvinist church, take all of this very seriously. Because this could be them someday:
"I have recently discovered the doctrine of election and I believe that I am not elect. I don't have any spiritual fruit and I hate God with all my heart. My question is, at this point is it right to want to die? Might as well go to hell now instead of later. I do not want to kill myself (I never will hopefully) but I cant see a reason to live when my end destiny will be the same." (from "deleted") (Found in Election and Suicide : r/Calvinism (reddit.com))
(And I can only hope that the last one is a sick joke.)
Is it any wonder that people under Calvinism end up with that kind of despair and hopelessness when this is what Calvinists teach:
John Piper, in answer to the question “Does God Predestine People to Hell?”, says “My answer is yes. God does determine from eternity who will be saved."
John MacArthur: “God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love... Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.”
Wayne Grudem: “If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can insist that it was not fair... Reformed theologians say that God deems his own glory more important than saving everyone, and that God’s glory is also furthered by the fact that some are not saved.”
R.C. Sproul Jr.: “God wills all things that come to pass… God desired for man to fall into sin... God is as delighted with His wrath as He is with all of His attributes."
John Piper: “Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe... and all of our besetting sins?... Yes, every horrible thing and every sinful thing is ultimately governed by God… He controls everything, and he does it for his glory and our good.”
Gordan H. Clark: “... if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God... this view certainly makes God the cause of sin."
Theodore Zachariades: "God works all things after the counsel of His will, even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so... and when He wants to, He orders those to commit adultery when HE WANTS TO!"
James White, in answer to the question: “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?”, says "... Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless..."
Mark Talbot/John Piper: “God brings about all things in accordance with his will. It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as … the sexual abuse of a young child.”
Paul Washer: “If you reject Christ, then the moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you. That’s how not good you are."
Kevin DeYoung: "Should Christians rejoice in the doctrine of hell?... in one sense it is appropriate for Christians to say 'I don’t like the idea of hell.' But be careful. It’s never safe to dislike the truths God has revealed. We should actually like what the Bible teaches."
R.C. Sproul: "Don't you know that when you're in heaven, you'll be so sanctified that you'll be able to see your own mother in hell and rejoice in that, knowing that God's perfect justice is being carried out."
Vincent Cheung: “All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and righteous for him to create the reprobates."
Vincent Cheung: "…man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God... man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant."
Vincent Cheung: "God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory... One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity [and] should reconsider their spiritual commitment, to see if they are truly in the faith.”
Vincent Cheung: “The popular position that all infants are saved is wishful thinking, and continues as a groundless religious tradition... Thus [it] deceives the masses and offers them hope based on mere fantasy... if the parents cannot finally accept [the idea of infant damnation], that God is always right, then they are headed for hell themselves and need to become Christians… If someone dies without hearing the gospel, it just means that God has decreed his damnation beforehand... This would mean that those who are unable to exercise faith are all damned to hell, and this would include infants and the mentally retarded... I have no misgivings about this. I have no problem with the idea that all who die as embryos, infants, and mentally retarded would burn in hell... if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell…”
Calvinism makes me sick!
And I think it's majorly responsible for much of the atheism out there today. Because if this is how God really is (He's not!) - and if people are tricked into thinking that Calvinism and Christianity are one and the same - then it's no wonder people reject God and the gospel. A God like that cannot be trusted and is really no better than Satan. [For more quotes (and the resources where the quotes are from) and for my responses to the quotes, see "A Crash Course in Calvinism (Calvinist quotes)."]
You know what I think? I think there needs to be a taskforce set up to help deprogram people and churches from Calvinism - you know, someone to come in and clean up all the damage Calvinism has done, to help people read the Bible correctly again, to fix beliefs about God and faith, and to help people learn to trust God again and to feel His love again. (I told my husband that even if our church got rid of the Calvinist pastor, I couldn't go back because I couldn't trust the elder board until they were deprogrammed from the Calvinism.)
Calvinists won't realize how brainwashed they were until they start to come out of their Calvinist coma. They won't realize how starved they were for truth and God's love until they begin to feel it again, until they realize it's been missing all this time. And actually, I should say "if" not "until" - because some people don't ever want anything to do with God or His kind of "love" ever again. All they know is the Calvinist god... and too much damage has been done in his name. And consequently, they are too disgusted, tired, or heartbroken to care anymore about even trying to rebuild their faith. They'd rather no God than the Calvinist god. It's sad.
I think one of the hardest parts for those struggling in a Calvinist church is that they are being torn - squashed - between two pains: the pain of staying and the pain of leaving. That's a lot of pain. Not a good place to be in.
And sadly, they'll stay in that tension, in that tug-of-war of pain, until the pain of staying is greater than the pain of leaving. That's a hard place to be in, a hard decision to make, because there's pain on all sides of you.
But if you do leave your church over it (if you can't stay and make a good difference in your church), hopefully, in time, you'll realize that it was worth it to leave, even if it hurt and cost you a lot.
And God-willing, you can help someone else who's struggling with it too. And one by one, we'll help each other find our faith again, a pure, biblical faith.
Trust me, it's worth it!
The end of my story (or is it just the beginning?):
"So," you might be asking, "how did things end up for you after your church was taken over by Calvinism?"
Well, thank you for asking. And here's the quick version: My husband and I and our four sons sat under the new Calvinist pastor for six years - six years of comparing his teachings to the Bible, six years of my husband and me getting angrier and angrier and sadder and sadder, six years of feeling our souls slowly suffocating and our faith crumbling, and six years of feeling so freakish and alone because no one else seemed bothered by the pastor's teachings except a couple of close friends.
And, finally, when we got a good grasp on just how wrong the pastor's theology is... and when we knew we couldn't take one more day of it... and when we knew the elders wouldn't do anything because they all sided with him... and when the pain of staying was worse than the pain of leaving... we resigned from the church that we had been an active part of for 20 years. The church we raised our kids in. The church filled with people we loved seeing. The church we wanted to stay at forever.
Coming from a very broken, dysfunctional family, I always wanted a "forever" kind of place. I'd have been happy to be there forever, to raise my kids and any future grandkids there. To see the same-old friendly faces, week in, week out. I'd have been happy that way.
But we had to leave for the sake of our faith, our kids' faith, the gospel, and the truth. (Another friend left the church too because, as she said, "the heart went out of the place when the new pastor came in.") We could not be a part of spreading the soul-killing, faith-destroying Calvinist gospel. And we didn't even want to risk appearing like we were part of it, like we supported it.
And so after six years, we knew it was time to shake the dust from our feet, say goodbye, and hand them over to what they wanted. And the gap we left filled in quickly and quietly, almost as if we were never there. (If you want to see just how dispensable you are at your church no matter how long you've been there, just leave it over theological disagreements with the Calvinist pastor and watch how quickly it moves on without you, relieved to have the dissenters gone.)
At first, we were so hurt and upset and disillusioned that we decided we wouldn't go to another church right away. I'd even said that I'd be fine if we never set foot inside another church ever again. And so for months, we sat home watching Tony Evans' sermons alone as a family - which, at the time, was just what we needed. It was so great, so peaceful. It fed our souls, started reviving our spirits, and began fanning the dying embers of our faith. (Click here for a few recommendations on "Healing your soul from Calvinism's damage," to help you get back on track.)
[Even though we left that church, our kids still attended the youth group. And so every week when I'd drop them off or pick them up, I'd see our old friends. And I'd see their kids growing up. And I'd get sad thinking about all we gave up, all we're missing out on. And I'd wonder if we could've done something different. If we could've found a way to stay. If the sacrifice was worth it. If we're hurting our kids and their futures. If... if... if...
And so when I sat in the parking lot waiting for my boys, I'd turn my car away from everyone and roll up my windows and put on some music so that I didn't have to hear everyone else having fun together. I didn't need to be constantly reminded of how alone I felt, how left out we were, or how my boys might be affected by our decision. We had made our choice, and I had to trust that it was the right one for us all, even if it hurt.]
And then, after Covid lockdown, we started meeting with another family on Sundays in our own homes to just read the Bible and pray together. It was simple and pleasant, and we did that for about a year and a half. But eventually, for the sake of their kids, they found a "real" church to attend. It was sad for us and left us feeling a bit abandoned and lost all over again, but we understood.
And then not too long after, we found a church of our own to attend. It's bigger and louder than we like, but the sermons are right on track and filled with the true gospel and messages of hope and God's love and healing and help. It's so refreshing to my soul. And as we listen to the truth-filled, hope-filled sermons, all I can think is how those in the Calvinist church are missing out, how they're being spiritually starved to death. It's sad.
[But even though I like this new church and am trusting it more and more, I'm still not ready to get too plugged in yet. And I still flinch when I hear certain words, even from a good church. And I am highly alert for any Calvinist-sounding things. I plan on sounding the alarm very early in this church, at even just a whiff of things going wrong. And in fact, as I mentioned, I already did sound the alarm very early when I heard them using too many quotes from Calvinist pastors. (See "A Crash Course in Calvinism (A letter for pastors) and (Calvinist quotes)." I don't think any warning can be "too early" when it comes to protecting the gospel and God's Truth.]
It's now been over four years since we left the Calvinist church. And only just now is another family starting to realize that something is very wrong with the pastor and his teaching. (And they're even more connected to that church than we were, so I can only imagine how hard it will be on them. They have my deepest sympathies and strongest support.)
So in under ten years (probably even under six), that church went from being non-Calvinist to being fully Calvinist, all because of Stealth Calvinism. And as those of us who disagree with Calvinism leave or get pushed out or get silenced, there will be no one left to sound the alarm. It's sad, but that's what happens when Calvinism takes over.
But at least my family and I got out. (And at least we've been able to use this experience to educate our kids on the dangers of Calvinism and on what the true gospel is, what the Bible really says.) There comes a point when - after doing what you can to try to make a difference - you have to look out for you and your own. You have to do what's best for your family, for the faith of you and your children. And that's all you can really worry about.
And you can't even worry about where you'll end up, where your obedience and sacrifice and efforts will lead to. All you can do is trust and obey (for there is no other way), taking one step at a time as God leads.
Yes, this has been hard on us all and it cost us a lot and it's not the path I would've wanted, but there is a silver lining: I would've never started researching or writing against Calvinism if we didn't go through what we did. I would've never thought to put my thoughts and research online if the elders had listened to me, if I could've helped people in my own church. It's only because no one (but a friend or two) was listening or cared that I got so frustrated that I felt like I had to do something - to put it all online for anyone out there who might actually want my help, to make sure my experience and research wasn't wasted.
[My advice, if you leave your church over Calvinism, is to make as much noise as possible on the way out, alerting as many people as possible to what's going on, encouraging them to research for themselves what the pastor is teaching. That's something we didn't do. We left too quietly, too meekly, allowing an unbiblical theology to take over more people. Maybe if we had made more noise, it wouldn't have taken four years for one more family to be alarmed by what the pastor is teaching. If I could go back and do it again, I would've printed up and handed out cards that said something like "Do you know what Calvinism is and that it's spreading aggressively through the Church? Do you know why it's unbiblical and dangerous? For the sake of your faith and the church, watch some videos at Soteriology 101 to learn what it is, how to recognize it, and why it's a really bad theology."]
Do what you know God is calling you to do - whether that's to stay and fight, or to grab your kids and run for higher ground - and let Him figure out how to work it into His plans, to turn it into something good. He'll straighten your path in the best way possible as you walk in faithful obedience. He'll honor your efforts and sacrifice and faithfulness in whatever way He deems best.
And I have to believe that. I have to believe that the sacrifice was worth it and that it will all be okay in the end.
A word to worried Calvinists:
If you're a Calvinist who's getting worried right now because you're thinking "Oh no! I really enjoy Calvinist preachers and my Calvinist church. But now I'm afraid I've been misled this whole time. What do I do? What should I think?," let me just say this:
Just because the deeper layers of Calvinism are unbiblical doesn't mean you didn't or can't get a lot of good teaching from Calvinists. 95% of what they teach in any given sermon could sound great, setting off no alarm bells, because they still do preach a biblical surface layer and have some good practical insights and knowledge about other non-gospel issues. And I think there's enough truth in Calvinism's surface layer that unaware people could still find the Lord through it. God can use anything, good or bad. So it's not all been a waste.
[But when you know what the last 5% is - the bottom-line of Calvinism, the hidden layers they cover up with the 95% good stuff - it all becomes tainted, and you can't listen to even their good points anymore because you know what they really believe, how deceptively they present it, and how very wrong their fundamental beliefs are. And in fact, that 5% is the most important stuff, the issues that matter most: their views of the gospel, sin, salvation, forgiveness, Jesus's death, faith, God's true character, etc. That 5% is so huge and critical that it overshadows and defines the 95%. And so since they get that 5% wrong, it doesn't really matter what lesser issues they get right. They got the most important, fundamental truths wrong, and it taints everything else. (Kinda like if a witness to a murder got 95 details right, such as the color of the clothes the people wore, the time of day, the weather conditions, the weapon used, etc., but they got 5 critical details wrong: the city it happened in, the year it happened, the gender of the victim, and the gender and name of the murderer. These 5 details are so critical that they would obliterate their testimony, far overshadowing the 95 details they got right.) Listening to Calvinists is like drinking a glass of 95% clean water and 5% poison. It might not get you at first, but the longer you drink it, the more likely it is to hurt you, to destroy your faith and your trust in God.]
But if you are just now starting to come out of a Calvinist coma and it's freaking you out, don't worry. And in fact, rejoice - because the true biblical truth is even more beautiful than what you've been told by Calvinists, even more faith-affirming. And the farther you get away from Calvinism, and the closer you get to the plain and simple truth of the Bible, the deeper you are going to dive into God's love, faithfulness, righteousness, trustworthiness, grace, joy, peace, etc.
And not only that, but you'll be able to freely spread it to others because you'll begin to truly understand that what God did for you, He can do for anyone.
In Calvinism, God loves only the elect, Jesus died for only the elect, and God offers salvation only to the elect. And so only the elect can/will be saved. The non-elect have no chance to be saved, no hope at all. And not only that, but "the elect" have no real hope either - because they cannot know for sure until they die if they are truly elect or if they just got "evanescent grace" which only makes them think they are saved for a short time. And so until they die, they always have to worry that they might not really be elect, even if they think they are. And if someone does backslide or "lose faith," it's because God made it happen... and there's nothing they can do to change it. There is no real hope or assurance in Calvinism because no one can know for sure that God really does love them, that Jesus really did die for them, and that God really did give them real faith. What a sad kind of faith to cling to!
[You know, the Bible says that the angels rejoice over every sinner that repents. But in Calvinism, the angels would also be rejoicing over every sinner that doesn't repent. Because both are equally God's Will. Both are equally caused by God. Both bring God glory, equally. As Calvinist Paul Washer says, "The moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you." That's sick. And so unbiblical.]
But in the Bible, God really does love all people and want all people to be saved, and Jesus really did die for all sins of all people, and so anyone can believe in Him and be saved. This includes me, and you, and our kids, our family members, our neighbors, our friends, and, yes, even our enemies. We can all know for sure that God loves us personally, that He wants us to be saved, that Jesus died for us, that God offers us salvation, and that we can be saved if we choose to believe in Jesus. Because the Bible tells us so.
And so no one is beyond God's reach, beyond His love, grace, forgiveness, healing, salvation, etc. No one is predestined to hell. No one is hopeless. God loves all, Jesus died for all, and God offers salvation to all - an offer that all of us can accept. And so no matter how far we've fallen or how long we've been running from God, we can turn around and throw ourselves upon His grace, grabbing ahold of His promise to save anyone who puts their faith in Jesus. A promise that's for all people. And we can trust His promise because the God of the Bible (unlike Calvinism's god) is trustworthy. This is where our hope and assurance is found.
The truth of the Bible is so much more beautiful, hope-filled, life-giving, faith-affirming, and "for all people" than Calvinism ever could be. And so don't worry. When you give up Calvinism for the plain teachings of the Bible, you get something so much better!
[Also, you might find encouragement in this 5-part series from Jason Breda at Living Christian: "Why I don't believe in Calvinism anymore." My husband watched it all and said it's one of the best summaries of what's wrong with Calvinism.]
Summing it all up:
I'd like to end this post on a quote from a video called Stealth Calvinism and How it Splits Churches from The Church Split. These guys - Brian and Will - have a lot of great insights to share about the dangers and errors of Calvinism, especially Stealth Calvinism. (And I love Brian's self-deprecating "Hello, heretics" that he often greets us with.😄)
Near the end of that video (starting at the 1:46:36 minute mark), Will said this (I am quoting him with his permission):
"I am not attacking my church, okay. It's just when you see it happen before your very eyes... It can happen anywhere. You think that you're safe, maybe in your church, but you're not, even though you trust the people around you. They're good people around you. They're loving, thoughtful, serving. But because they might not be aware of this particular issue... anyone can bring something stealthy in. You have to just know what that is, right. You have to be aware of the terminology. You have to be aware of what you believe. You have to be aware of precision: 'How can I be more precise in my speech so that I'm very clear in where we stand on things?'... You have to be aware of the issues. Because if you don't, they WILL split your church or you're gonna have a bunch of brainwashed people or you're gonna have a bunch of people so theologically confused that they defunct from the faith or they're no good in their evangelistic efforts because they have a ton of contradictory views."
This is pretty much my whole post condensed into one paragraph. And it nicely sums up my reason for this post and, in fact, for this whole blog. (Thank you, Will!)
[And lastly, here are two worthwhile videos from Kevin at Beyond the Fundamentals: If you don't vehemently oppose Calvinism, you don't understand the Gospel (5-minute clip) and 35 Truths that Destroy Calvinism (11 minutes long, which is warp-speed for Kevin).]
So considering all we've looked at, what do you think? Cult-ish or not? Unbiblical or not?
It's okay if you say not. I won't fight you on it.
[But I might point out that Calvinism may have connections, historically-speaking, with Freemasonry. And apparently, a good percentage of Presbyterian ministers are Freemasons. I'm not sure how true this is, but it might be worth checking out. Here are some resources to get you started, but you'll have to evaluate them for yourselves (I'm terrible at history, got a D in my college history class): Huguenots, John Calvin and Freemasonry, Charles Spurgeon 100% Freemason, Calvinist connections with freemasonry, and Calvinism: More Evidence of Cultic Origins. And I might suggest that you consider the roots of Calvinism as shared in this post: "The Pagan, Gnostic Origin of Calvinism" from 20/20 Scriptural Vision Ministry.]
But if you say cult-ish - if you agree that Calvinism corrupts the gospel and destroys God's character, truth, and people's faith - then what are you gonna do about it? Who are you going to tell? How are you gonna help protect the gospel, God's Truth?
The gospel is at stake here. God's character and Word. People's faith and eternities and their relationship with Him. And if that's not worth fighting for, nothing is.
If you'd like to, watch a couple of these songs and consider what Jesus went through to be able to offer salvation to all people... and then think about how Calvinism destroys that, how it minimizes and demeans Jesus's sacrifice and how it declares the majority of people un-save-able, unlovable, hopelessly damned: Secret Ambition by Michael W. Smith, Sweetly Broken by Jeremy Riddle, Oh, What Love by The City Harmonic, I Am by Crowder, Hallelujah Christmas by Cloverton, and My Jesus by Todd Agnew. (They're all so good!)
And now for the links:
Here are all the links from this post, in order. I hope I got them all. (I marked which are mine and which are videos. And I only list them once, even if I linked to them multiple times.):
In the Introduction:
The Psychology Today article: Understanding Cults: The Basics
(mine) "Are Calvinists really saved?"
(mine) Calvinism is a different gospel: A Tale of Two Gospels
(mine) Can you lose your salvation?
#1 Using deception to get into the church
The Church Infected with Calvinism
(mine) Watching Stealth Calvinism in Action
John Piper's Saying what you believe is clearer than saying "Calvinist"
Piper's "How to teach and preach 'Calvinism'"
Calvinist Thomas Schreiner's YouTube clip
(mine) Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible?
The "how to reform a church plan" from Founder's Ministries: "Walking Without Slipping"
"4 Reasons Not to be a 'Calvinist'"
Faith on Fire video (26 minutes long) of John Piper calling John MacArthur a "closet Calvinist"
Truth Snitch's post about church splits
(mine) "Saint" PJ's deceptions and manipulations"
A.W. Pink, Doctrine of Election
John MacArthur, Robert Morey, and Paul Washer in the video from Discerning the World
Steven Lawson, Salvation is of the Lord
PJ's article "Preach the Bible, Not Calvinism"
(mine) How to tell if a church, pastor, or website is Calvinist
#2 Hidden Agendas
9Marks' plan to reform a church: A Roadmap for Church Reform
9Marks article "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches: Candidating, Pastoring, and Moving On"
(mine) A Calvinist pastor has problems with Christians who research Calvinism
"The Five Points of Calvinism and Your Church's Sunday Meeting"
Wartburg Watch's article "How to figure out if your non-Calvinist or non-Authoritarian church is being taken over"
Stealth Calvinism in Oklahoma (video, Beyond the Fundamentals, 90 minutes long)
How the Young, Restless, and Reformed Split My Church (video, The Church Split, 1 hour 46 minutes long)
Church Takeover Success Using Strategies from the Calvinista Playbook
Spiritual Abuse in EFCA: Review of Once an Insider by Amanda Farmer
John Piper's article "TULIP: Introduction"
"Dishonest Calvinists (?) and the call for integrity"
Ascol in another Founder's Ministry article, about the recent pushback Calvinist pastors are facing
Christianity Today article "The Reformer"
Baptist News Global article about Mohler
#3 Multiple layers for maximum deception
(mine) The Calvinist's Big Ugly "But"
(mine) "Why is Calvinism so dangerous? #12 (Predestination, election)"
Pastor Search Committees and Stealth Calvinism (video, Soteriology 101, 80 minutes long)
Stealth Calvinist Strategies (video, Beyond the Fundamentals, 70 minutes long)
Stealth Calvinism's New Brand: 3 Dot Theology (video, Beyond the Fundamentals, 100 minutes long)
Calvinist Infiltration Prevention Resolution (video, Beyond the Fundamentals, 48 minutes long)
#4 The Fun Stuff (Strategic Tactics)
(mine) Calvinist Bad Logic #7: False Dichotomies
(mine) When Calvinism's "bad logic" traps good Christians
(mine) "Things My Calvinist Pastor Said #2: You're like a 'dead body'"
(mine) MacArthur's Manipulations
(mine) "Is faith a gift God gives (forces on) us?"
(mine) "Predestined for salvation? Or for something else?"
(mine) A Quick Study of Calvinism's favorite words
Calvinism's Proof Texts Examined
Calvinistic Proof Texts for Determinism (video, Soteriology 101, 1 hour 24 minutes long)
"Answering Calvinist Proof Texts" (article)
(mine) "Exposing Calvinism: 'Anyone' can believe and be saved"
(mine) "Exposing Calvinism: The 'Non-Elect' can come to Christ? Really!?!"
(mine) A not-so-imaginary conversation with a Calvinist
(mine) "Calvinism 101: 'Free-will choice" is not really 'free-will' or 'choice'
(mine) "On Spurgeon's 'Calvinism is the gospel'"
(mine) "Derek, the 10-point Calvinist!"
Founder's Ministries article: "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey"
"The Subtle Secrets of the Gospel Project"
Beyond the Fundamentals video series on the errors of 9Marks:
Part 2d: Biblical Theology - Sovereign God
#5 Information Isolation and Control
(mine) Why is Calvinism so Dangerous? #3 (Free-Will Choices?)
(mine) For Alana L (foreknowing vs predetermining)
(mine) Calvinist Bible translation: A Random Verse that destroys Calvinism (And "Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible?")
Article by Roger E. Olsen at Patheos about another person's experience with Calvinism taking over their church
(mine) "Satan vs. Calvinism's god"
9Marks article, "Church Reform when you're not (necessarily) the pastor"
(mine) "Is 'Accept Jesus in your heart' unbiblical and dangerous?"
(mine) "Calvinists, Altar Calls, and Evangelism"
10 things to know about the psychology of cults
#6 Fear and Coercion
(mine) Predestination Manipulation
John MacArthur's God's Absolute Sovereignty
R.C. Sproul's God's Sovereignty
"Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism"
"3 Reasons People Reject Total Depravity"
A.W. Pink's Doctrine of Man's Total Depravity
John Calvin's Institutes... book 1, chapter 18
"What I learned when I preached the doctrine of election"
(mine) "When Calvinism Infiltrates Your Church"
(mine) "Why is it so hard for Calvinists to get free from Calvinism?"
"Predestination is Biblical, Beautiful, and Practical"
Divine Providence: The Supreme Comfort of a Sovereign God
(mine) Does God cause childhood abuse?
(mine) Exposing Calvinism: I love my grandchild but God might not
Listen here to Calvinist James White say child-rape has to be decreed by God or else it would be a meaningless, purposeless evil
(mine) Why am I so harsh towards Calvinism?
#7 Mind-Control, Thought-Reform
(mine) Calvinist Bad Logic #1: Never Let a Calvinist Define the Terms!
(mine) "Is Calvinism's TULIP biblical?"
Michael Heiser's The Unseen Realm (video, 72 minutes long)
(mine) Why is Calvinism so dangerous?
"Covert Calvinism" sermon series
(mine) "Calvinism: False Gospel or True (but warped) Gospel?"
9Marks' article Build Fences Around Your Flock
(mine) "A Crash Course in Calvinism (A letter for pastors)"
(mine) "A Crash Course in Calvinism (Calvinist quotes)"
#8. Silencing the members' inner voices
"Should we talk about Predestination?"
(mine) Exposing Calvinism: Causing evil isn't sin for God
Tim Keller's 3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election
Calvinistic Compelling Truth article: What is the doctrine of predestination?
The Crossway article Help! I'm struggling with the doctrine of predestination
Soteriology 101's post You don't understand Calvinism
(mine) Things my Calvinist pastor said #6: God has no problems with these 'truths,' but we do
The Sunday School teacher who "cleverly" used "mystery" but not the word Calvinism: "Sneaky Calvinism (Calvinism on the Sly in Action)"
Lady asks the question most Calvinists don't like to answer (Soteriology 101 video, 15 minutes long]
John MacArthur's "Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?"
Wayne Grudem, as shared in this person's overview of his Systematic Theology book
John Piper's "Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election"
Crossway's article "Straight Talk About Predestination"
J.I. Packer "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility"
(mine) "Non-Calvinism is DISGUSTING and IMMORAL"
#9. "Cults are authoritarian (disagreeing with or opposing the leader is not allowed)"...
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association article: "How do cults differ from Christianity?"
The Calvinist article against non-Calvinist Dave Hunt: "What Theology is this? Dave Hunt's Misrepresentation of God and Calvinism"
My review of the article against Hunt: "My review of a Calvinist review of an Anti-Calvinist book.")
On Calvinism's trap of intellectual pride: "Origen's Revenge"
(mine) List of Calvinist preachers, authors, theologians, websites, etc.
(mine) 12 Tips on how to think critically about Calvinism
I share my deleted predestination comment here: Letter to our elders regarding Calvinism growing in the church
my response about the "babies in hell" sermon: Things my Calvinist pastor said #14: Babies die as unrepentant sinners
my belief about the age of accountability: Do babies go to heaven if they die? A Critique of Calvinism's answer
Excommunicated for exposing stealth Calvinism (video, Beyond the Fundamentals, 2 hours, 16 minutes long)
Cult Leaders are Malignant Narcissists:
The MacArthur and adoring fan clip (go to the 2:30 minute mark), from a video from Jordan at The Great Light Studios: Leaving Calvinism after 19 years with Alana L (1 hour 21 minutes long)
9Marks' article: A Church Discipline Primer
From other people who also think there are huge problems with Calvinism, that it's cult-like, or that there may be something "off" with Calvinist pastors:
Calvinism and Narcissism Link Examined (Beyond the Fundamentals video, 1 hour, 50 minutes.)
Pulpit Narcissism vs Godly Women (video from Faith on Fire, 13 minutes long)
Christian Apostacy & Cults: Calvinism, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) (video from Faith on Fire, 26 minutes long)
Narcissism + Christianity = Calvinism
Extraordinary Christian testimonies that expose John MacArthur's church as a mind control cult
Just how "healthy" is the 9Marks organization?
What makes 9Marks churches so unhealthy?
What should we do about 9Marks and other abusive churches?
Conclusion:
(mine) "Calvinism's Heart-Breaking Destruction"
Reddit post: "Calvinism is disgusting"
Reddit post: Election and Suicide : r/Calvinism (reddit.com)
(mine) "A Crash Course in Calvinism (Calvinist quotes)"
(mine) "Healing your soul from Calvinism's damage"
5-part series from Jason Breda at Living Christian: "Why I don't believe in Calvinism anymore"
If you don't vehemently oppose Calvinism, you don't understand the Gospel (5-minute video clip)
35 Truths that Destroy Calvinism (11-minute video)
Huguenots, John Calvin and Freemasonry
Charles Spurgeon 100% Freemason
Calvinist connections with freemasonry
Calvinism: More Evidence of Cultic Origins
The Pagan, Gnostic Origin of Calvinism
Secret Ambition by Michael W. Smith
Sweetly Broken by Jeremy Riddle
Oh, What Love by The City Harmonic
I Am by Crowder
Hallelujah Christmas by Cloverton
My Jesus by Todd Agnew
