"But predestination!" (#15: total depravity, manipulation)
This is a series where I examine some things my Calvinist ex-pastor preached about predestination. Click on these for the pastor's sermons ("When Calvinists say 'But predestination!'"), and my comments 1-4 (election) and 5-6 (Romans and sovereignty) and 7-9 (depravity, Book of Life, predestine) and 10-11 (shaming tactics, Feb. 2015) and 12-14 (dead, regeneration, born again) and 16A (God's Will, babies) and 16B (sin, evil, suffering) and 17 (double-speak and the gospel).
The shorter version of this series - with a lot less quotes and a lot less of my thoughts, written for everyone and not mainly for those in my ex-church - can be found here.
Fifteenth:
Switching tracks: I think a Calvinist's over-emphasis on total depravity - their insistence that we realize how terribly wretched we are before we can be saved - hurts more than helps in evangelism and that it exposes some fundamental flaws in Calvinism.
From his July 2018 sermon on the doctrine of sovereign election (I'm going to quote a lot of it because it was added late to the post on his sermons, but I won't comment much because I already did on other sermons like this), notice the constant manipulation, shaming, and gaslighting:
"The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... Why is it that some sinners soften and repent and seek God, and others harden and rebel and have no interest in God?... Because God chooses to give some sinners saving faith and soften them, and God chooses to not give other sinners saving faith and to harden them... This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election. [No, it doesn't. There is no phrase "doctrine of election" in the Bible. But making it sound like the Bible itself clearly calls it "the doctrine of election" tricks people into thinking Calvinism's doctrine of election is biblical, pulled right from clearly-spelled-out Scriptures.]
... The first question when it comes to Bible study is not 'Do I like this?'... The first question is "WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?" If this is not your first question, your first burden, there is concern if you really know Christ as Lord and if you honor Him. If all you accept is the stuff you like and what is convenient for you and emotionally comfortable for you, then there is a real question whether you know Christ, if His Spirit lives in you. [Can you hear what he's insinuating? That if you reject his view of predestination, you're probably not even a Christian.]...
In verses 14-21 (of Romans 9), Paul deals with the accusation that predestination makes God unjust, that it makes Him guilty of bias, prejudice, discrimination, favoritism, not being a nice guy... This doctrine is especially difficult for American culture...because our baseline cultural narrative is freedom. It is our top value in Western culture: freedom, choice... It is the cultural air we breathe. It's the cultural glasses we look through and bring into the text, and we're not even aware of it. And then we read a passage about hell or judgment or election or predestination or whatever, and immediately we recoil because our whole edifice, our whole presuppositional system, rules it out...like 'the text can't mean that!'
... 'Is God unjust' is an accusation that God is not good. It is an accusation disguised as a question... The accusation is that 'God is unjust, unfair, not nice, this is wrong, He can't elect somebody over somebody else or harden one but soften another, what's going on, this isn't American!'... That's the accusation.
... [And the Bible's answer is] God is not unjust to have mercy on some and not others - because of the wickedness, depravity, and innate rebellion of mankind. In other words, we have forged our own damnation, and therefore, God cannot be guilty of partiality, of favoritism, of prejudice, of discrimination. Because He's dealing with a planet of rebellious, sinful, wicked human beings. [Whom He created to be that way, in Calvinism.] And so anything He does for them is merciful. [Is it really mercy to first create people to be wicked sinners and then to save some of them, changing them to believers? To predestine sin and then forgive sin?]
... [Here he goes on and on about how wicked, depraved, and rebellious humans are.] Once you grasp the...wickedness, evil, corruption, rebellion on the human heart, the real question is not 'Why didn't God elect everybody?' The real question is 'Why does He elect anybody?' [These are bad questions with a Calvinist-bias from the start, presupposing Calvinist election. And so if you get trapped into these questions the way they're worded, you're on your way to Calvinism. Don't answer questions like these. Expose the error and Calvinist bias in them.]
... God elects some out of love. The elect get mercy. The unelect get justice. Nobody is treated unjustly, not even those who are damned. Nobody! And God is glorified in all. [He's got a weird definition of "justice" if God first predestined people to irresistibly reject Him but then He punishes them for rejecting Him. If that's justice, I'd hate to see injustice.]
... The creation has no right to question the Creator's ways... You have no right - I have no right - to call God unjust. How dare I! How dare you!... [God says] 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy; I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' By the way, that's God's prerogative.
... God hardens whom He wants to harden and has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy... Who are you, adult [here we go again! of course!]; who are you, teenager; who are you, kid; who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God?
... [Here he goes into denying free-will, saying that God doesn't elect people based on foreknowing their free-will choice, because if God waited for people to choose Him, no one would choose Him because we are all depraved and no one seeks God, blah, blah, blah.] ... God made the first move. He elected some wicked sinners to salvation and not others...
[Some people ask] the question 'But doesn't God want all people to be saved?... [The answer to that is] that God doesn't choose/decree to do everything He desires. [Yeah, but that's not what's happening in Calvinism. Not decreeing what He desires would be God wanting all people to be saved but not forcing all people to be saved. But in Calvinism, God says He wants all people to be saved when He's really predestined most to hell. That's God decreeing the opposite of what He desires, not simply "not decreeing what He desires." And that's a big difference. It's like the difference between God saying He wants no one to murder but letting people decide for themselves to murder (instead of forcing them to not murder)... and God saying He wants no one to murder while predestining people to murder. Big difference!]
... Election keeps nobody out of heaven. It assures that there will be people in heaven.
... When you preach on this, there are usually 3 responses to the doctrine of predestination: anger... avoidance... appreciation.
... Appreciation is the fact that if you are saved, God chose you, had mercy on you, turned you around, gave you a new heart, put His Holy Spirit in you, and then dumped a boatload of blessings on you, promising you eternal life on a new heaven and new earth - it's staggering. That's what election is designed to foster: thanksgiving and worship. Because God owes it to nobody.
... We need to be very careful how we speak about God and His ways [Yes, we do, pastor!]...especially when it comes to doctrines and passages and things we don't like in the Bible.
... Don't ever accuse God of being unjust or of not being good. It's a serious sin. You may not understand His ways. His ways may hurt you. They may confuse you. You may find yourself right this moment going through a dark thing and you don't understand what in the world God is doing, but don't say that He's unjust or ungood. Just because you don't understand a doctrine is no excuse to speak ill of God or to take a clear teaching in the Bible and mangle it to say something I'm emotionally comfortable with. [Translation: "If you have a problem with what I'm teaching, the problem is you, not my teaching." It's gaslighting and manipulation, making you feel like if you disagree with them, it's that you're doing something wrong and can't understand Scripture, not that they're misinterpreting it. But Calvinism is not "clearly taught" in the Bible. If it was, you should be able to find verses that clearly, plainly say - written out in words - that God predestined people to hell to show off His justice and wrath, that He preplans/controls/causes everything including sin, that total depravity/spiritual death means we cannot believe unless God makes us believe, that He is glorified by evil and people being in hell, that He controls Satan, that some people were not loved by or chosen by God, that Jesus only died for specific pre-picked people, that the Holy Spirit regenerates us before we believe in order to make us believe, that we are saved in eternity past, etc. (Go ahead, look for these verses. I'll wait.) Calvinism requires reading into Scripture things that aren't there, redefining words, creating secondary layers of interpreting verses, illegitimately breaking biblical concepts up into "two different types of...", taking verses out of context, etc.
But, yeah, sure, the problem is us!]
... If you are saved, thank God for His mercy on you, that He turned your stone heart - your hard heart - around, and gave you a new heart to chase after Him... And if you're unsure if you're saved, if you're elect, ask yourself some questions. [Here he lists some "signs" you are elect, like believing the gospel, desiring to be holy, seeing signs of life in yourself, wanting to be baptized, being part of a church, believing Jesus is the only way to the Father. And he says to ask yourself this:] 'Am I the worst sinner I know?' If you're saved, the answer is 'Yes, you're the worst sinner you know.'" [Admitting to this is a sign that you're elected, according to him.]
In The Most Hated Christian Doctrine, John MacArthur (whom I believe our pastor emulates, copies, and tries to be like) tries to explain why "total depravity" (and Calvinist predestination/election) is the most hated "Christian doctrine" (as Calvinists call it). And of course, he also puts the blame not on Calvinism's bad theology, but on people, on our being unable or unwilling to accept it because of pride and depravity:
"
... Because you speak the truth [when sharing the gospel], they don’t believe [False! In Calvinism, they don't believe because they weren't elected! That's what it all comes down to.], because it’s so alien to their nature; and you can’t be more hostile than to say to someone, 'You’re from hell.'
... So when you talk to somebody about the gospel, there may be a natural tendency to avoid talking about the true condition of a nonbeliever. You have to have some courage to do that. You have to be willing to take the hostility. And when they reject with hostility, you say, 'That’s exactly what I would expect. That’s the evidence of the depth of your sin: that you will not believe because you cannot believe... You don’t have a capacity to come. You are so profoundly captive to sin. You are under the deceptive leadership of Satan. You have a natural aversion to the truth, particularly the truth about your own wretchedness. You are unwilling to come, and you are unable to come.' [Yeah sure, that'll win their hearts for Christ!?! But I guess you can get away with any kind of insult against the non-elect, because it's all been ordained by Calvi-god anyway - your words and their damnation - and nothing you do or don't do can change it.]
... The offer of life, the true offer, the true gospel, will offend. [So will twisting and corrupting the gospel!] It will generate hostility and hatred. And because it’s the truth they can’t accept it, because they are under such pervasive deception [decreed by Calvi-god, of course.]
... So if I were to define total depravity in a simple way, it is simply this: that people on their own are unwilling and unable to come to Christ... [and] are hostile to His message.
... So the most hated doctrine is that everyone is a sinner, and seriously so, and profoundly so, so that it incapacitates, so that it’s impossible to believe the truth, so that the truth sounds like a lie, so that Jesus sounds like a demon-possessed person [all by Calvi-god's decree, of course].
... So this is your condition: You’re a sinner, and you are headed for eternal judgment in hell. That is so offensive, so unacceptable, so unbelievable. It’s the most hated doctrine... But when you say, 'This is the truth. This is all the truth, and the truth is that you are a sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, as we will see, and your default position is to believe lies to such a degree that the truth seems demonic. That’s how profoundly evil you are, and you are headed for eternal judgment.', you have just destroyed the sinner’s house of cards that he has built for self-protection [by Calvi-god's decree, of course].
So this is the most hated doctrine, but at the same time, it is the most distinctively Christian doctrine [according to Calvinists only]... All religion, even all false forms of Christianity, affirm that people are good or have enough good in them, a prevenient kind of grace that allows them to contribute to their salvation. They [think that they] can choose to believe... can choose to be saved... can choose to accept Christ. [But] only Christianity says you bring nothing... And in order to be a Christian, you have to understand that the salvation that you receive is all of grace, because if you add works, then grace is no more grace. [True, but Calvinism twists the truth, corrupting the gospel.] So the doctrine of human depravity is the most hated doctrine. It is the most distinctively Christian [Calvinist!] doctrine. Only Christian truth teaches that. It is also the most contrary Christian doctrine.
... So do you understand? This is the challenge in evangelism. You’re talking to people who hate where evangelism has to start - and that is with their recognition of their utter sinfulness, unwillingness, inability to hear the truth, understand the truth, embrace the truth, love the truth and come to God and come to Christ [by Calvi-god's decree, of course].
... 'You were dead in your trespasses and sins'... Dead is dead, folks. If you’re going to pick an analogy, then dead is the chosen analogy. Dead means no life, no capacity, no response, no impulse, no understanding. [False! Spiritual death means being separated from God because of sin. It has nothing to do with an ability or inability to understand, think, choose. That's a purely Calvinist thing.]...
So this is the sinner’s condition. You’re so sinful, you’re unwilling and unable to believe the truth. And because you have no capacity for that, you hate it.... The sum is that we are evil and selfish, unwilling, unable, dead, dark, ignorant, with no capacity to do anything to change that. [I don't think he's been stressing this point enough. Maybe he should try harder.]
That’s what you have to say to the sinner: 'Yeah, this is who you are, and you can’t do anything about it. You can’t do anything about it.'... You can’t fix what you are. You have to be reborn... If you are born again, it is the work of God, totally the work of God.
... So what does the sinner do? Well he only has one option. He brings nothing. He offers nothing. All he can do is cry out to God in mercy to save him. But the sinner, in order to do that, must’ve come to the true recognition of who he is by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, who has convicted him of sin and righteousness and judgment. [So, basically, it's "you must cry out to be saved, but you can only cry out to be saved if the Spirit makes you cry out because you were already saved." Ridiculous Alice-in-Wonderlandy-type nonsense!]
... As long as people try to hide the doctrine of depravity, as long as people try to take the offenses out of the gospel, they will disillusion people in the most severe way, who think they’re evangelicals when they couldn’t possibly be Christians at all. [Translation: "If you don't agree with Calvinist total depravity, you're not a Christian."] We have to be honest enough to give the hated bad news in order to deliver to the sinner the good news that, 'Oh, by the way, though you can do nothing about it, Christ will accept you by grace [if you are elect].' That’s the message of the gospel. [Um, no, it's not. Calvinist predestination/election is not the gospel.]
------------------------------------
Our pastor gave a similar sermon to the above two, including another version of his "'Am I the worst sinner I know?' If you're saved, the answer is 'Yes, you're the worst sinner you know.'" line.
This one's from February 2016: "All people, all cultures, all generations are universally evil, spiritually ignorant, rebellious, wayward, worthless, morally corrupt, evil-mouthed, deceitful, full of bitterness, violent, miserable, and have no fear of God in their eyes... We're dead in sin, slaves to sin, unable and unwilling to seek God... No one is righteous... We are depraved down to the core... utterly saturated, permeated, and consumed by corruption... No one is righteous. [Wow, we're terrible, aren't we? Bad, bad people. Worthless, no-good worms.]
... Why does nobody seek God? Because no one is able to seek God on their own and the reason goes back to total depravity... We are born slaves to sin, wickedness, depravity.
... You don't understand the gospel until you realize you're the worst sinner you know."
"You don't understand the gospel until you realize you're the worst sinner you know."
Okay, first of all, this contradicts something he said earlier in the sermon (which I didn't quote): "Total depravity doesn't mean utter depravity. Utter depravity means you could not be any worse as a human being. But let's be honest, all of us can be worse... But total depravity doesn't mean utter depravity, that we are as bad as we can be. It means we are as bad off with God as we could be."
And yet, now he says that we must see ourselves as the worst sinner before we can come to God. This isn't just utterly depraved; it's utterly utterly depraved. It's being not just the worst you that you can be, but it's being the worst of all people. I understand the value of hyperbole, but who in their right mind would admit to something like this?
Secondly, this demonstrates a major flaw of Calvinism, one of the reasons their theology goes off the rails so badly: They constantly go above and beyond what the Bible teaches, outside the bounds of Scripture by pushing things too far, farther than God does. It's almost like they want to be the most extreme Christians, on some upper-elite level - as if staying merely Christian is not good enough for them.
Such as, if it's humble to admit that we're sinners separated from God, then it must be even more humble to say that we're so utterly depraved that we can't even think about God unless God causes us to.
If it's biblical to think that God is in control over all, then it must be even more biblical to think that God preplans and controls everything we think and do, even sin.
If it's correct that the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin are that we were separated from God and that our eyes were opened to evil and that we inherited a sin nature (the ability and propensity to sin), then it must be even more correct to think that we also lost the ability to make free-will decisions and that we become so depraved that we can't even want, seek, or believe in God unless He causes us to and that we inherited their guilt.
If it's true that God caused a natural "evil" in the Bible like a storm, that He uses wicked people in His plans, and that He allows people to go to hell... then it must be even more true to believe that He causes all natural "evils" and moral evils too, that He caused the wicked to be wicked in the first place in order to work it into His plans, and that He predestines people to go to hell.
They take a biblical truth to such extremes that it's not biblical anymore. Such as "All people...are universally evil, spiritually ignorant, rebellious, wayward, worthless*, morally corrupt, evil-mouthed, deceitful, full of bitterness, violent, miserable, and have no fear of God in their eyes... You don't understand the gospel until you realize you're the worst sinner you know."
[*A note about "worthless": What a terrible, stupid, irresponsible description to include, especially considering that many people already have severe self-esteem issues, often from neglect, mistreatment, abuse, etc. And yet now they're told that not only do they feel worthless, but they actually are worthless in God's eyes. Truly terrible, stupid, and irresponsible.
(But what do you expect from a pastor who also told hurting people - with no compassion, help, or encouragement - that depression is a sin, that God ordains abuse for His glory, and (on Mother's Day) that there is no age of accountability, that babies who die do not get a free pass but are depraved, rebellious sinners who need to repent before they can be saved.)
And not only is it terrible, stupid, and irresponsible, but it's also unbiblical and destroys the value of Jesus's sacrifice. An object's value is in the price someone is willing to pay for it, and Jesus paid for mankind with His life, His blood. And so if we're worthless, as this pastor says, then it would have to be because Jesus's blood was worthless too. Because that's what Jesus paid for us.
God loves us not because of things we've accomplished or who we are or because we deserve it. He loves us just because we are His. Because He created us and wants us and loves us. Just because. Because of who He is. Our value is determined by His view of us, regardless of how little we might think of ourselves. And He wanted us so much that He died to save us. He'd rather die a violent death on a cross in our place than spend eternity without us. That is some major value, some major worth!
And it's just because God said so.
And yet Calvinists want us to view mankind as worthless. That's sick. And it's their pride disguised as humility, elevating their opinions over God's, minimizing God's love and devaluing Jesus's sacrifice. Sick. And it's even sicker that it's passed off as biblical, humble, and God-honoring.]
Thirdly, I think that Calvinism's over-emphasis on total depravity (constantly insisting that we admit how wretchedly terrible, God-hating, and rotten to the core we are) - while probably intended to "humble" us before God to supposedly make us more receptive to the gospel - actually backfires in evangelism for several reasons:
1. Over-exaggeration causes loss of credibility. If you know someone who always exaggerates everything - like "I caught a twenty-pound fish" that was really just five pounds, or "I saw a ten-car accident" when it was really just three cars, or "My boss screamed at me for ten minutes" but he only raised his voice for ten seconds - you're going to learn to not trust anything that person says because everything and anything could be exaggerated, blown out of proportion. Calvinism does this with the Bible, taking things to extremes that God doesn't, and it's going to make people less trusting of Christians and the Bible, convincing them that we'll use whatever tactics we can, even dishonest exaggeration and manipulative-shaming, to maneuver people into faith. And people will resent it and resist it, inadvertently resisting God in the process.
2. Being told that we're totally-depraved, completely-wicked, God-hating, worthless sinners will automatically put people on the defense because it's interpreted as an attack on them and their character, personally. And so instead of humbling people, it will make them angry and defensive (which Calvinists will simply point out as a sign of the person's depravity and rebellion).
3. Making everyone admit that we are all on the same extreme level of badness makes it seem like the issue is about our amount of badness, inviting comparison between sinners and how bad we are. This gives most people an automatic "out," an escape, because they can simply point out the good things they do/think and who is worse than them, saying something like "Mass murderers and serial rapists and child-abusers and Hitler are worse than me." Because not everyone is on the same level of extreme "badness."
4. It's based on a wrong understanding of "depravity" and "spiritual death." In Calvinism, total depravity means that we are so corrupt and wicked that we are unable to want God, seek God, or believe in God unless God makes us do it (the elect only).
But depravity and spiritual death are really about sinfulness, about our sinful condition causing a separation between us and God. (See "...You're like a 'dead body'" and "The Holy Spirit and 'Dead People'".)
Notice how non-Calvinist Dr. Tony Evans defines it in The Tony Evans Bible Commentary (pg 23): "Total Depravity: Every facet of human nature has been polluted, defiled, and contaminated by sin. This is the inborn corruption we inherited as children in Adam, which means there is nothing within us to commend us to a holy God. We are sold into sin - unable to save ourselves, and totally dependent on God's grace in Christ, which he offers to all mankind."
He's not saying, as Calvinists do, that sin has affected us so badly that we are unable to believe in God and so God has to make us do it. He's saying that sin has affected us so badly that we cannot save ourselves, that we're not good enough - and can never be good enough - to earn salvation on our own, which is why Jesus had to die for us (all of us), to cover our sins. And if we believe in Him (and anyone can), we will be saved.
Total depravity is not about being unable to believe, but it's about sinners being unable to save ourselves, which is why we need Jesus.
For Calvinists to convince people that God makes our decisions for us because we're too depraved to make them ourselves is a bad evangelism strategy that will backfire, either convincing people to just wait and see if God makes them believe or convincing them that they might be non-elect and there's nothing they can do about it. Unbiblical and demonic.
5. And maybe most importantly, it goes against Scripture's truth that all it takes is one sin to keep us out of heaven.
James 2:10: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
The point here is that all it takes is one sin to be a sinner, to become separated from God because of sin. We don't all need to be at the most depraved level of badness to earn hell, to need a Savior. We just need to sin once. The person who sins just once in his life in even the tiniest way is just as much separated from God and in just as much need of a Savior as the person who sins every day in all the worst ways.
Though we are not all on the same level of wickedness, rottenness, and depravity, we are all at the same level of being separated from God because we all sin, regardless of how bad or many our sins are. The person standing one foot outside a building in the rain gets wet just like the person standing fifty feet outside.
Calvinism raises the bar, insisting that people admit how extremely wretched, depraved, evil, worthless, and God-hating they are before they can be saved - whereas God asks that we admit that even one sin makes us a sinner in need of a Savior. And I think shifting the bar (which I would consider a demonic tactic) actually makes more people resistant to Jesus than attracted to Jesus. It loses more people than it wins.
[Sidenote: Contradictorily, my pastor said this in an August 2015 sermon on predestination: “How many sins does it take to be a sinner? The answer is zero because we’re born steeped in sin, because we inherit it from Adam and Eve and their rebellion. We call that the doctrine of internal depravity, inherited depravity." So in one place, total depravity is about being the worst sinner we know, but in another it's about not even sinning once. So which is it? Are we barred from heaven because we are the worst sinner or because we don't even sin at all? And on a different note, is spiritual death the wages of sin... or is spiritual death merely the wages of being born, being human?]
The Bible frames us as imperfect people - and even one sin means we're imperfect - who can't stand in the presence of a holy, perfect God without a Mediator (Jesus Christ, His blood shed for us). And God tells us that to come to Him and be saved, we need to admit that we sinned, that we are sinners. All of us past the age of accountability have willingly sinned at least once, and no good, honest person would deny it. All good, honest people would admit that they're not perfect, that they sinned at least once, which means they need Jesus to get into heaven.
But Calvinism frames us as "totally depraved" people who - before we can be saved - have to admit that we are the most terrible, evil, rebellious, God-hating, worthless, no-good, totally-wretched-from-the-top-of-our-heads-to-the-tip-of-our-toes, worst-of-the-worst sinners that we can be. And no honest, decent person would - or should - admit to something as outrageous as this.
Can you see how this actually works against evangelism, against God's Truth? Because it's demanding more out of people than God does.
I think Calvinists lose people with their theology, with that approach, demanding more than God does, going beyond what Scripture teaches. No decent, honest person who evaluates themselves fairly would call themselves "the worst sinner they know, a totally wicked, purely evil, no-good, God-hating, wretched sinner." But all decent, honest people will admit that they've sinned at least once, that they don't meet God's perfect standard, even if they've got a lot of good going for them.
And this is why the focus needs to be on the fact that all it takes is one sin to separate us from God. It's about imperfectness - which cannot stand before a perfect God - not about being the worst totally-depraved sinner there is.
If you ran a soup kitchen, how many people would come in and eat if you said "All you have to do to be fed is admit that you're hungry and need help"?
But now how many would come if you said "What you need to do to be fed is admit that you're a worthless, wretched, no-good, wicked, total-failure of a loser who hates those who love you and resists those who want to help you and that I had to force you to admit that you were hungry and that you needed help getting food... and then I'll feed you"?
It's not our extreme level of badness that separates us from God, but it's the fact that we sinned even once. And all of us would admit to that. Even one sin makes us a sinner, imperfect, and disqualifies us from heaven. It caused a separation between us and God that we cannot fix, a gap that we cannot cross on our own. And this is why Jesus had to come and die for us - to pay the penalty for our sin, even if it's just one sin, so that we can enter God's presence again, covered by His blood and the righteousness He offers through faith in Him.
Calvinism's extreme emphasis on "total depravity" actually ends up hurting the gospel and evangelism because it demands more than what God does and frames people in ways that God doesn't.
No wonder there are so many atheists out there, if this is what they're told Christianity actually is and what God is actually like and how He actually sees us and what He actually expects out of us.
Calvinism - while claiming to be "the gospel" - actually twists the gospel and God's truth so badly that it destroys God's character, Jesus's worth, the work of the cross, the value of people, and people's eternities, their faith in God and chance for salvation.
And this is why I fight against Calvinism as much as I do...
and why I feel like this when I hear Calvinist sermons:
I've posted most of these before (in The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult, I believe), but I want to show you again how Calvinists view those who disagree with them and how they use flattery, shaming, and gaslighting to try to manipulate people into accepting their controversial "doctrines" of depravity, sovereignty, election, etc. (I won't comment much on these, but I'll let them speak for themselves as much as possible. Emphasis added by me.):
John Calvin: "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)
A.W. 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..."
Our heroes!
Pink also (in Doctrine of Election) calls those who disagree with Calvinism "merit-mongers [who] will not allow the supremacy of the divine will." He goes on to say "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."
And he says 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."
From "Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism": "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."
A reformed (Calvinist) seminary article, "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.'"
John MacArthur (God's Absolute Sovereignty): "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."
For some "You want to glorify God, right?" from Steven Lawson (Salvation is of the Lord): "From beginning to end, salvation is of the Lord. In reality, these five doctrines of grace form one comprehensive body of truth concerning salvation. They are inseparably connected and therefore stand or fall together. To embrace any one of the five necessitates embracing all five. To deny one is to deny the others and fracture the Trinity, setting the three persons [of the Trinity] at odds with one another. These doctrines speak together with one voice in giving the greatest glory to God. Such high theology produces high doxology. When it is rightly understood that God alone—Father, Son, and Spirit—saves sinners, then all glory goes to Him."
For a little "that's okay, you don't have to understand it, and it's better that you don't" from John MacArthur (Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation): "So God elects those that are saved; those that perish do so without any help from God. He is, as Phil said, passive... It is also true that God does love humanity, and manifests that in common grace, as I said. Now, having said that you believe all of that, you now have a problem. And that is that your brain can't handle all of that information and bring complete resolution. But that's okay; because if you could, you wouldn't be human. There are things that only God can understand. And I really do believe that. I'm very content with that. That's one of the reasons I know the Bible is written by God, because men would fix it. If I wrote a book that had those contradictions, Phil would edit them all out. One of the bench marks of divine inspiration is the fact that you're dealing with transcendence. And an element of transcendence is the inability to grasp fully everything. So you're content to believe what the Scripture clearly reveals [except Calvinism isn't clearly revealed; it's created by piecing together out-of-context verses, bad definitions, and hidden teachings not found clearly in the Bible.] And yet, we're told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. And so there is a universal offer that, from the standpoint of God [but not us] is a legitimate offer, and which, sad to say, even heightens the culpability of the sinner, because if he treads under his feet the covenant and counts the—Christ as an unholy thing, his punishment is even greater. So God doesn't have a problem harmonizing all that. Man, playing God, coming up with his concoctions in the middle, tends to destroy that all."
How about some flattery, making those who agree with them feel special and good? A.W. Pink (in Doctrine of Election) 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 be assured that they're elect?]
And 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.
Wayne Grudem (Election and Reprobation in Systematic Theology): "... people who remain in unbelief do so because they are unwilling to come to God [foreordained by Calvi-god, of course], and the blame for such unbelief always lies with the unbelievers themselves, never with God... [Furthermore] 'But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?'"
John MacArthur ("Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?"): "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."
From Truth Story's overview of Grudem's Systematic Theology book: "Another objection is that election is unfair. After all, why would God create some people that he knew would be eternally condemned in the end? Peter addresses this question in one way. God did not save any of the fallen angels (2 Peter 2:4). So why is he obligated to save any humans? Simply put, he’s not. Paul further illuminates the answer by saying God has every right to do with his creation as he wants. Because he is God. But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"
John Piper ("Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election"): "... [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."
The Calvinist article from Crossway "Straight Talk About Predestination": "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."
A.W. Pink (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."
C. Michael Patton, who is quoted in "Paradox Files, Vol. 18", written by a Calvinist Sunday School teacher who brags about teaching his class Calvinism without calling it "Calvinism": "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.'"
And also from that 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?'"
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."
And if all that's not enough, some good old-fashioned insults might work:
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."
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.")
PJ Tibayan (in his 9Marks article) says that Calvinist pastors are "burdened by [the] biblical and theological illiteracy" of those who don't believe in Calvinism.
In the 9Marks article "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches: Candidating, Pastoring, and Moving On" - the author criticizes people who research Calvinism online for ourselves, claiming that we are anti-Calvinists because we put our trust in ourselves and in online strangers, "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!)
And John MacArthur, in the video here, said this about a woman (believed to be Alana L.) who came out of Calvinism and began speaking against it: "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"] 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, a spiritual giant who's 'proven' that Calvinism is true. Take my word for it."]
Prideful much?
[Alana shares her story in these videos on her YouTube channel: "In and out of Calvinism, part 1: Finally, the whole story" and "Shunning in the church: My story: Where I've been and where I am now, part 2".]
The thing is, Calvinists believe that Calvinism IS the gospel, the only way to interpret Scripture... and so, of course, they alone have the biblical truth, and we need to go to them to get it. (Be aware of any group of people who makes you feel like you can't understand the gospel or God's Word without their interpretation. That's what a cult is.) But even though they think Calvinism is the gospel, if they (especially pastors) think that we will resist their "doctrines," they'll go into stealth mode - until enough of us are indoctrinated that any resistance will have little effect.
Charles Spurgeon (in one of his sermons): "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]."
PJ Tibayan (in a 9Marks' article "Preach the Bible, Not Calvinism") "... preach the Bible, not Calvinism. Of course, if Calvinism is true, then as you preach the Bible you will preach Calvinism." In this article, he admits that he's a 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! (See my post about it, see "Saint" PJ's deceptions and manipulations.")
As a Founders Ministry "church reform" plan says in their introduction: "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." And in a later chapter it says: "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. [To Calvinists, Calvinism will never be and can never be a "secondary issue about minor theological differences that we should put on the back-burner for the sake of unity," as they often claim it is in order to get past our defenses and silence the opposition.]... We speak first of all of the doctrines of grace [that's code for Calvinism]. Teach your people [repeatedly, all the time, over and over again until they choke on it] 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..."
John Piper ("Saying what you believe is clearer than saying Calvinist"): "We are Christians... In other words, we are Calvinists... But that label 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 yet, he only shares half of his beliefs, the good-sounding part that relates to the elect, not what he believes about the non-elect. And notice that not only is he saying to not use the word "Calvinist" while preaching Calvinism, but he's also teaching (by example) to not honestly answer the direct question of "Are you a Calvinist?"]
John Piper again, in an article on how to preach Calvinism ("How to teach and preach 'Calvinism'"): "Avoid theological jargon that is not in the text. The word 'Calvinism' is probably not helpful."
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.
Founder's Ministries (in that "how to reform a church" plan): "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." [It's a nice spin, isn't it, to call being upfront about your specific theology "providing distracting labels"? And guess what the name is of the Founders Ministries' "book" that this plan comes from? "A Quiet Revolution." Quiet. Under the radar. Under our noses. They know what they're doing, and they do it on purpose.]
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'... 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." [So it's our fault that they have to be deceptive! And "lucid dialogue" really just means, in my opinion, "any chances of manipulating people into Calvinism before they catch on to what Calvinism really teaches."]
In this Faith on Fire video (start at the 3:10 mark), Brian shows a clip of John Piper praising John MacArthur for being a "closet Calvinist," a stealthy 5-point Calvinist pastor for years. And what's MacArthur's reason (excuse?) for his stealthiness? "I felt like I had an obligation to bring people who have been given a [non-Calvinist] system that was superimposed on Scripture, to bring them out of that, and I thought that labels too soon would short-circuit that." [He's basically saying it was his spiritual duty to be furtive, deceptive, to hide his Calvinism, and that it was for the good of the people, the gospel, the Church. But what's he gonna short-circuit anyway? Calvi-god's predestined plans? Contradictory and nonsensical.]
The 9Marks article above "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches..." not only criticizes Christians for researching Calvinism on the internet for ourselves, but it also comforts Calvinist pastors with this: "This doesn’t mean the internet has ruined the 'subversive' operations of Calvinist pastors sneaking into non-Calvinist churches."
"Subversive"? "Sneaking into non-Calvinist churches"? Well, at least he's honest.
Unbelievably, here's a whole sermon series by Rob Jansons on how to preach Calvinism covertly, literally called "Covert Calvinism" where he strategically preaches through 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. The descriptions to the sermons include: "[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." It isn't until the last sermon in the series that he reveals what he's been teaching: "This is the summary sermon where I finally reveal that this series covers the same material that is often called the '5 Points of Calvinism.'"
John Piper, in his article "TULIP: Introduction," even admits that he taught Calvinism for five years at his church without calling it Calvinism: "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."
Calvinist Tom Ascol (in "Dishonest Calvinists (?) and the call for integrity") criticizes those who criticize stealth Calvinist pastors: "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? 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..."
Later he says this in defense of Calvinist Al Mohler who aggressively spread Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: "Al Mohler has no agenda to promote five-point Calvinism. What he obviously is doing, however, is restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity. [So "pushing Calvinism" is reframed as "restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity."]
He 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..."
And finally, he says 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. We're just too stupid to understand the Bible and their lofty beliefs and to have intelligent, biblical conversations. Thanks, Ascol, for letting us know that. We're just too dumb to know how dumb we are, I guess.] Should the details of Calvinism... be spelled out anyway, even though there is no understanding of the language, categories or constructs? Or would it be wiser to stick with biblical categories, language and constructs?"
[So notice how he starts with (paraphrased) "I'm not saying don't be upfront about your Calvinism with search committees," but then he immediately goes into reasons why Calvinists shouldn't be upfront about their Calvinism with search committees. And apparently he thinks we're too stupid to notice. And what he's really teaching is what other Calvinists teach too: "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."
Question: If Calvinism is so clearly biblical, why the need for such strategic, stealthy methods? Another question: If the vast majority of us Christians, us non-Calvinists, have supposedly 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!
And A.W. Pink agrees in Doctrine of Election: "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth [the Calvinist 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." Translation: "You need to be carefully educated into Calvinism because you can't find it clearly in the Bible."]
"When a man does the latter [hides his Calvinism in biblical language] for the purpose of communicating as clearly as he can [but not clear enough to actually admit honestly that he's a Calvinist teaching Calvinism] I find it disheartening to hear Southern Baptist leaders criticize him as being dishonest."
Al Mohler - who, according to Ascol, "has no agenda to promote five-point Calvinism" - said himself (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." [But, of course, there's "no agenda to promote five-point-Calvinism"!😒]
In fact, according to A.W. Pink (in his Doctrine of Election): "those who continue to cavil against [Calvinism] and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians."
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. And they know it takes a long time and careful strategy to reform a church, and so they will be slow, subtle, deliberate, and patient in their efforts:
From the 9Marks article, "Church Reform when you're not (necessarily) the pastor": "Reforming a church can take years, and it is never something that happens easily. So settle in for the long haul... 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... 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. 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... 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..."
The 9Marks' article Build Fences Around Your Flock emphasizes the importance of stopping non-Calvinism at the door by "educating" prospective new members into Calvinism before they are allowed to become members: "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 to make sure all new members are Calvinists - while not calling it "Calvinist" but "Christian."
The Calvinist pastor in this "Reformed by the Word" article was asked by a deacon if he was a Calvinist, and instead of just answering the question forthrightly, he took the deacons through a study (which would, of course, be Calvinist indoctrination): "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. [Once again, in typical form, not answering a direct question.] 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 with the opposition gone, they "were able to begin the process, unhindered, of revising our constitution to bring it in line with Scripture ["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."
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."
We've seen it happen. And sadly, we didn't speak up enough at the time, eventually leading us to leave our church of 20 years.
Will Hess (in a now-removed video called "Stealth Calvinism and How it Splits Churches" from The Church Split, though you can probably still find the audio online) shares this bit of wisdom about stealth Calvinism:
"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."
Sidenote: Do you know why Calvinists have to try so hard to push "total depravity" as "total inability"? Because they know that the rest of their TULIP theology hinges on it and flows from it. You see, if they're wrong and if God gave everyone the ability to seek, find, believe in Him, then there is no Unconditional Election, no Limited Atonement, no Irresistible Grace, and no "elect" people to cause to persevere (but I still believe true believers cannot lose salvation, just not for the reason Calvinists say).
And Calvinists know this. They admit that one TULIP petal is built on the next, that they all rise and fall together:
R.C. Sproul (Total Depravity part 1): "I say this because there’s a sense in which, if a person really embraces the doctrine of total depravity, the other four points in this five-point system more or less fall in line. They become corollaries of this first point."
Dr. Mayhue (Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation): "If you don't start with the total depravity of mankind, and understand that we are dead in our sins and trespasses [according to Calvinism's bad definition of "dead"], you'll never get unconditional election..."
Nick Batzig (Ligonier Ministries, "What is Unconditional Election?"): "The first doctrine represented in the acronym TULIP sets the logical course for this subsequent doctrine of unconditional election. The doctrine of total depravity (perhaps better termed pervasive depravity) necessitates unconditional election."
Got Questions (What are the Doctrines of Grace?): "Because man is dead in sin, he is unable (and stubbornly unwilling) to initiate a saving response to God. In light of this, God, from eternity past, mercifully elected a particular people unto salvation." [Non-Calvinists don't believe we "initiate" it either. God does, by revealing Himself to people and calling all people to believe. We just choose how we will respond to Him.]
John MacArthur (Doctrine of Election, part 1), about how, according to Calvinism, total depravity means spiritual death which means total inability to believe in God, and so therefore God has to be the one to cause the elect to believe: "Now the problem with this is how are these dead sinners going to resurrect themselves to do this unaided by God? You answer that question? How are those who are totally depraved, totally blind, totally dead going to come to the place where they make the decision for salvation? How they going to do that?" [Non-Calvinists don't believe we "resurrect ourselves" either. We first put our faith in Jesus... and then the Holy Spirit, in response to our faith, resurrects us. We do the believing part; He does the "new birth" part. In that order! See this post for more on that.]
John Piper ("Total Depravity - Unconditional Election"): "Here’s the conclusion for total depravity. Total depravity means that apart from any enabling grace from God, our hardness and rebellion against God is total. Everything we do is in rebellion against him in sin. Our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment. It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad. If we think of ourselves as basically good, or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the other four points... Let’s turn now to the doctrine of unconditional election. This is a hope-filled doctrine for those who feel totally depraved and utterly without hope and help..."
Is it not a little suspicious that they know they need to strategically hook you with the first point to lure you into the others? Is it not a little alarming that all their unbiblical points bolster all their other unbiblical points to make it all appear so cohesive and biblical? They start with their bad definition of total depravity/spiritually dead (making it "total inability"), and then it leads to a bad definition of election/regeneration, leading to errors all down the line.
John Piper ("Unconditional Election") shakes up the order a little here, but it's the same bad chain of reasoning: "So that’s why I’m starting...at irresistible grace. To see that grace is sovereign implies that depravity is total — that is, that we are totally unable to respond. [So he used human reasoning to reach this conclusion, not the Bible.] That’s what the implication is of saying that my resistance has to be overcome. Left to myself, I won’t and I can’t believe. That’s the meaning of total depravity."
The petals of Calvinism's TULIP all rise and fall together, so if you disprove one, you disprove them all. And they know it:
Grover Gunn (A Short Explanation and Defense of the Doctrines of Grace): "... the five points are logically related such that any one of them implies the other four..."
Steven Lawson ("TULIP and the Doctrines of Grace"): "In reality, these five doctrines of grace form one comprehensive body of truth concerning salvation. They are inseparably connected and therefore stand or fall together. To embrace any one of the five necessitates embracing all five. To deny one is to deny the others..."
Herman Hanko ("The Five Points of Calvinism"): "It is apparent that all the five points of Calvinism... are important. Indeed, if any one of the five points of Calvinism is denied, the Reformed heritage is completely lost."
Heidelberg Theological Seminary ("The Doctrine of Unconditional Election: Based on Total Depravity"): "As we progress with this study it will be easy to see that one of these doctrines cannot be left out without destroying them all. They are dependent on each other and are welded together as the links of one chain because they have their unifying basis in the Bible. Those who claim to hold to only some of these doctrines will eventually have to admit that they hold to none of them as we have explained them here."
Do you know what those big Calvinist Systematic Theology books are for? To lead you systematically from one point to the next, to educate you into Calvinism, into accepting terrible things you never dreamed you'd accept when you were a "simple-minded" Christian just reading the Bible in a commonsense way and taking it at face-value.
Lorraine Boettner ("The Five Points of Calvinism"): "These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism,' and they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests... Furthermore, these are not isolated and independent doctrines but are so inter-related that they form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won the admiration of thinking men of all creeds. [ And has deceived many into thinking it's "sound doctrine."] Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned. They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other."
