9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult #8 (gaslighting)

[This series is "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult" split up into smaller, individual posts.] 

(Merry Christmas, everyone!  Hope you have a blessed holiday season.)

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.

According to Calvinists, we hate Calvinism's predestination because we're upset that God doesn't automatically save everyone or because we think it's unfair for God to choose to save some people but not others.

According to Calvinist Tim Keller's article 3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election, the #1 objection against Calvinism is "If you believe in election, doesn’t that leave you with the problem of why God doesn’t choose to save everyone?"

And from a Calvinist Compelling Truth article: "One of the most common objections to the doctrine of predestination is that it is unfair.  Why would God choose certain individuals and not others?"

First off, why would we worry about this at all if we don't even think God chooses who gets saved, if we believe that everyone has the opportunity and ability to believe in Jesus and be saved?  This is a straw-man argument, a false representation of what we believe so that they can proceed to tear it down and appear to win.  Ridiculous.  

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." 

Yeah, that's pretty much Calvinism in a nutshell, minus the colorful language.

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:

Isaiah 1:16-17: "... Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!  Seek justice ..."

Micah 6:8: "He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly ..."

Psalm 106:3: "Blessed are they who maintain justice, who constantly do what is right."

Lev. 19:15: "Do not pervert justice..."

Jer. 22:3: "This is what the Lord says: Do what is just and right..." 

Amos 5:15: "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts..."

Zec. 7:9: "This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'Administer true justice...'"

And these are just a few.  All of these verses mean nothing if we are to believe Calvinists when they say that there might not be a difference between justice and injustice, between good and evil, that they might be one and the same.

But do you know what's really funny here?  

Proverbs 28:5 tells us "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully."  

Proverbs 2:6,9 says "For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding... Then you will understand what is right and just and fair - every good path."  

And Hebrews 5:14 tells us "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."

And so what does this tell us about Calvinists?

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?"

John MacArthur does it: "Those statements defining God's sovereign choice of believers are not in the Bible to cause controversy, as if God's election means sinners don't make decisions.  Election does not exclude human responsibility or the necessity of each person to respond to the gospel by faith... Admittedly the two concepts don't seem to go together.  However, both are true separately, and we must accept them both by faith.  You may not understand it, but rest assured—it's fully reconciled in the mind of God... Some are shocked to find that God didn't choose everyone to salvation... [They ask] 'So why does God still find fault in unrepentant sinners when He didn't choose them?  Doesn't this deny human responsibility?  Is it fair for God to still hold them accountable?'  Paul answers all such questions with a rebuke—'who are you, O man, who answers back to God?  The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?". Does the clay jump up and ask the potter why it looks the way it does?  Not at all." (See "Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?")

Wayne Grudem does it in his Systematic Theology book: "Sometimes people regard the doctrine of election as unfair since it teaches that God chooses some to be saved and passes over others, deciding not to save them.  How can this be fair?...  If each person's ultimate destiny is determined by God, not by the person himself or herself (that is, even when people make willing choices that determine whether they will be saved or not, if God is actually behind those choices somehow ordaining or indirectly causing them to occur), then how can this be fair?  Paul's response is not one that appeals to our pride, nor does he attempt to give a philosophical explanation of why this is just.  He simply calls on God's rights as the omnipotent Creator: 'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?...'"

John Piper does it: "... [the doctrine of election] is one of the best ways to test whether we have reversed roles with God.  [The doctrine of election] is a timeless problem, but especially in the modern world that assumes human autonomy and questions all authority and takes the judgment seat to decide if God even exists.  Paul addressed this issue most forcefully in Romans 9:6-23.  As he did, he heard the ancient and modern objection, 'Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?' his answer to that was, 'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?...'... The doctrine of election is one very effective test of whether you are being delivered from the indigenous ocean of arrogance in the modern world, or are still drenched to the bone."  (Manipulative-shaming!  See "Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election")

This Calvinist article from Crossway does it: "How, then, should we approach a passage such as Romans 9:18-29 with its heavy emphasis on God’s sovereignty in our salvation? [That's a misinterpretation of Romans 9!]... It is possible that some people may simply not like what Paul says in Romans 9.  If so, there isn’t much I can do about it.  You’ll have to take it up with the great apostle himself... It really doesn’t matter if we like it or not.  It is what it is.  Having said all that, we are still left with many questions.  Does the Bible really teach predestination?  Does it destroy free will?  Does it turn us into robots or puppets on a string?  How can we reconcile God’s sovereignty with the dignity of human choice?... Answer #1: God has the right to do as he wills.  One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'  But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?... These verses sound harsh to modern ears tuned to talk of personal freedom.  We live in a “Do your own thing” era in which the highest human value is to seek your own happiness....  Against all such me-centered thinking stands Paul’s unanswered question, 'But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?'  There is no answer because the question answers itself: No one can talk back to God."  (See "Straight Talk About Predestination."  You know, it would be a lot more "straight" if they got the definitions of predestination and sovereign right!) 

A.W. Pink does it (Doctrine of Election): "Rebels against the supreme sovereign hesitate not to charge Him with unrighteousness because He is pleased to exercise His own rights, and determine the destiny of His creatures. They argue that all men should be dealt with on the same footing, that all should be given an equal opportunity of salvation. They say that if God shows mercy unto one and withholds it from another, such partiality is grossly unfair. To such an objector we reply in the language of Holy Writ: 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?'... And there we leave him."

Is this stuff making you mad?  'Cuz it's making me mad.  (And if it's not making you mad, go back and read it again and look for the manipulation and shaming.)

Here's a brilliant and rather comprehensive example of Calvinist gaslighting and manipulation from J.I. Packer ("Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility"):

"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."

When Calvinists feel painted into a corner, they will always resort to their final tactics of manipulation: "tension," "mystery," and "Who are you to talk back to God?"  Three tactics to maintain their control, to make us ignore the red flags and distrust our discernment abilities, and to manipulate us into accepting the unacceptable (or at least into shutting up and not probing any deeper into their inconsistencies and contradictions).

But as I said, it's one thing to accept true biblical mysteries, but it's a completely different thing to let Calvinists manipulate us into accepting the "mysteries" they created when they altered and misinterpreted God's Word.

And if Calvinists can manipulate us into believing that God ordains all evil and predestines people to hell, that He causes sin and unbelief but punishes people for it, then what can't they talk us into believing?  It doesn't get any worse than that!

If we let someone convince us that we can't understand basic things like justice and injustice, good and evil, fair and unfair, the gospel, how to get to heaven, who Jesus died for, how to read a verse as clear as John 3:16, and the other things God clearly tells us in His Word, then they can talk us into accepting any terrible, unbiblical, blasphemous thing.

I could probably go on for days quoting all the Calvinist who do this, but I'll just share two more versions of "Who are who, O man" from the Paradox Files article I linked to above:

From C. Michael Patton, who is quoted in the article: "To the Calvinist, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God's election is unconditional.  This creates a problem.  It creates great tension.  For the Calvinist, this tension cannot, and should not, be solved.  So how does the Calvinist live with this?  How does the Calvinist answer the Why? questions?  'Why does God choose some and not others?  Why does he still find fault?'  What is the Calvinist answer to the How? question?  'How can there be true freedom when God is sovereignly in charge of election?'  We have no answer.  We get off our stool and punt to apophatic theology.  The tension is left intact.  We place our hand over our mouth here and say, 'Though we have no answers to why God did not choose people he truly loves, we will trust him without judgment.'"

Sounds pretty humble, right?  But the depth of error, manipulation, and self-deception here is amazing!  So cult-like.

And from the Calvinist author of the article, in support of the Patton quote he shared: "There is no need to solve all tensions... [There are things] beyond our ability to comprehend... The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in [this category]... There are many things God reveals that confuse us and baffle our thinking.  They seem irrational.  Yet we find God saying 'Chill.  Just trust me.  I've got this under control.  While I have revealed a lot and I know you have a lot of questions, this is a test of trust.  I love everyone but I did not elect everyone.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Will you trust me or will you redefine things?'"

Wow!  These include so many things I've explored in this post: subtle accusations of pride, shaming us into not looking deeper into Calvinism's contradictions, accusing us of dishonoring God (distrusting God) and having weak faith if we have problems with Calvinism's teachings, manipulating us into thinking it's humble and God-honoring to just shut up and accept terrible-sounding things, etc.  

[Calvinism is ironic.  It uses God's Word against God, quoting Bible verses like "Who are you, O man..." to cover for their attack on God's character and Truth.  It uses God's glory against God, saying "It's for God's glory that He 'ordains' sin and predestines people to hell, so it's okay."  It uses people's humility against them, convincing them that it's truly humble and God-honoring to buy into their unbiblical theology.  It's really quite ironic.  And amazing.  And something this sly and twisted could only come from one source, one serpent: Satan.]    

All of this gaslighting is to make it seem like the problem is with us if we disagree with Calvinism.  Calvinists try to convince us that any resistance we have to Calvinism comes from some problem within us, within our personality, our feelings, our ability to understand Scripture, our pride, or whatever.  

It couldn't possibly be that the problem is with them and their theology.

You know, if we hear enough times that there's something wrong with us (and if everyone else seems to have no problem with what's being taught), then we probably will begin to think something is wrong with us:

"Maybe my emotions really are getting in the way.  Maybe I'm really not humble enough.  Maybe I'm too prideful.  Maybe I'm not smart enough.  Maybe I don't trust God enough.  Maybe I have weak faith.  Maybe I'm a disgrace to God.  Maybe all I care about is me and my views and my expectations.  Maybe it really is me.  Maybe I'm the problem."

But no!  It's not you.  It's them.  It's their Calvinism.  And they're gaslighting you.

[And when Calvinists say "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?", it might be fun to reply with "But you - who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12b).  And if they say, "But I'm not judging you," you say "And I'm not talking back to God."  Or if they say, "But that's out of context," you say "And so's yours."  It might lead to some interesting conversation.  (Or not.)] 

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"...").]