Quick Answers to Calvinism, part 1 (#1-8: proverbs, the gift, Rev. 13:8)
[Topics in this post: Proverbs; "faith" is not the gift; justice; foundation of the world; glory vs. love; sovereign and all-powerful; Romans 9]
(This will - like the "Snippets to Ponder" post - be a series, several points per post.)
After having studied Calvinism deeply for years now, I can honestly tell you that there is no "gotcha" argument or Bible verse that will win the "Calvinism vs. Anti-Calvinism" debate for good, beyond all doubt, at least not in a way that will satisfy all people and get everyone on the same side. Whatever argument or Bible verse we non-Calvinists use to support our side, the Calvinists (because of the lenses they wear) will find a different way to read it or understand it to support their side instead. And round and round we go. (But remember that we all have good intentions and all want to honor God and His Word, so let's be compassionate, kind, and respectful, even in our disagreement.)
And because of this, debates over Calvinism can be long and exhausting. There are many layers, issues, and misunderstandings to discuss and work through. So no debate or answer can really be "quick." And every question and answer opens the door to several more. And on and on we go.
And so I don't expect these "quick answers" to change any Calvinist's mind. But I'm sharing these quick, simplified answers for the sake of the non-Calvinist, to help them get an overall picture of where Calvinism goes wrong and how it misunderstands the Bible so that they aren't sucked into Calvinism easily (I know how slippery, sneaky, and seductive Calvinism can be) and so that they have some quick responses in their toolbox to answer some of Calvinism's arguments.
So take these or leave these as you will, but here are some quick answers to Calvinism that I hope help at least a little:
#8: Proverbs: A favorite Proverb of Calvinists is Proverbs 21:1: “the kings’ heart is in the hand of the Lord, he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” They quote it as if it's literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology in order to "prove" their idea that God controls our thoughts, desires, actions, and eternal destinies.
When they do this, you remind them that Proverbs are wise sayings, not literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology. Proverbs are general principles, not absolute promises.
And also tell them that if they want to interpret Proverbs as literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology or absolute promises, then they can't pick and choose which Proverb to do that with but must interpret all Proverbs that way, including:
21:9: "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife." (Why aren't all the Calvinist men with quarrelsome wives living on their roofs?)
12:21: "No harm befalls the righteous" (If this was a hard-core promise, it contradicts verses that tell us Christians will face hardships and maybe even be martyred.)
23:2: "and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony." (Well, the Bible literally says it, so I guess we have to take it literally, right?)
23:14: "Punish [your child] with the rod and save his soul from death." (So, taken literally, salvation can come through Jesus or beating your child with a rod, right?)
Ask the Calvinist if they would take those Proverbs as literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology or absolute promises? Would they filter the rest of the Bible and their view of God through Proverbs like those?
No? Then why would they do it with Proverbs 21:1?
[For more on this, see "Piper's Problematic Perspective on Proverbs."]
And furthermore, if they still want to insist that Proverbs 21:1 is literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology so that they can cling to their idea that God controls everything we think and do, then tell them "Okay, but then notice that the verse literally specifies that only the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand... and no one else’s. So why would you apply it to everyone?"
[Hypocritically, Calvinists will admit at other times that Proverbs are merely principles and not hard-core promises, such as in Idol Killer's clip of Steven Lawson when Lawson says that the Proverb about "train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it" is just "simply a general observation, that's not a promise." Yet when it comes to the king's heart being directed by God in Proverbs 21:1, suddenly Calvinists turn Proverbs into hard-core theological teachings and promises - all so that they can "prove" their definition of sovereignty, that God preplans and controls everything we think and do, even our sins and unbelief (which would apparently and ironically include Steve Lawson's five-year "inappropriate relationship" with a woman almost 50 years younger, which Lawson only admitted to when the girl's father threatened to expose him - see Idol Killer's video "The Steve Lawson Fallout" and this report from Julie Roys.]
#7: The "Gift" of God:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9). Calvinists say that faith - the ability to believe in Jesus - is the "gift" that God gives to people, to some people - the elect. And they can't believe until He gives them the gift of faith. And so therefore, in Calvinism, if people don't believe in Him, it must be because He didn't give them the gift of faith because they are non-elect, chosen for hell. The elect must believe because God injects them with faith, but the non-elect can never believe because He withholds faith from them. Right?
But here's the quick answer: In the Greek language, words are either female or male or neuter. And if a word relates back to a previous word, they have to agree in gender. Such as... "faith" is feminine, and so if the "this" (as in "this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God") is referring to "faith," it would also have to be feminine.
But in the Greek, the "this" in Eph. 2:8-9 is actually neuter. So it can't be referring specifically back to the word "faith." Faith is not the gift. And "grace" is also feminine, so therefore "this (gift)" cannot be referring specifically to that word either.
So neither faith nor grace are specifically "the gift." So then what is "the gift"?
The whole concept of salvation (being saved by grace though faith) is "the gift." Salvation is the gift of God. The offer of eternal life. As confirmed in another verse: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
This clearly says that eternal life - salvation - is the gift God gives. Not the faith to believe.
And according to John 3:16, John 1:29, 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Tim. 2:6, and 1 John 2:2, Jesus died for all sins of all people. According to John 16:8, the Holy Spirit convicts "the world" of guilt, of sin. According to Titus 2:11, God's grace - saving grace - is for all people. According to Romans 11:32, God has mercy on everyone. According to 2 Peter 3:9, Ez. 18:32, Ez. 33:11, and 1 Tim. 2:3, God wants all people to be saved and no one to perish.
The gift of salvation is available to everyone, through God's grace and mercy. He offers salvation to all... but He leaves it up to us to accept it or reject it.
(Where is there room for misunderstanding here? For errors as bad as Calvinism's?)
“For if, by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:17)
In this verse, the word “receive” (according to the concordance) basically involves the idea of consciously reaching out and deliberately grabbing ahold of what is offered to us. It is active, not passive. It is not like God injecting faith into someone as they passively sit there and "receive" it. It's like God holding out the gift of salvation/eternal life to all people, and we have to reach out and grab it, accept it, claim it, in order to receive it. It's offered to all, but God gives us the choice to accept it or reject it.
Ephesians 2:8-9 is not a Calvinist verse. None of these are.
[Just for fun, watch this minute-long short: "Christmas shepherds and Calvinist Angel". And - a bonus one - a 4-minute video I just watched for the first time, ugh: "Geneva Town". Well done, Warren!]
#6: "Justice"
[This was part of #3-4, but I'm highlighting it here.]
When Calvinists say that God predestined people to hell to get more glory for Himself because it allowed Him to demonstrate His justice by punishing sin/sinners, tell them that God Himself already told us how He chose to demonstrate His justice and get glory, and it's not by creating sin/sinners to punish or predestining people to hell:
“God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it [sent Jesus to the cross for our sins] to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26)
John 12:27-28: Jesus said "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!"
John 13:31: "When he was gone, Jesus said, 'Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.'"
Tell Calvinists that the Bible clearly says that God demonstrated His justice by sending Jesus to the cross for our sins. And it was through Jesus's death that He was going to get glory.
And then ask them if they can find a verse that just as clearly says that God determined to demonstrate His justice and get glory by creating sin and non-elect people to punish in hell. (They won't find one.)
And ask them "Was Jesus's death not enough?"
That God "needed sinners to punish in order to show His justice in order to get more glory for Himself" is a completely unbiblical idea that Calvinists add to Scripture to make their doctrine of election/predestination sound good and God-glorifying.
But what it actually does is contradict what God said He did to show His justice and to get glory. It replaces/detracts from Jesus's sacrifice. It steals God's glory.
#5: "Foundation of the world"
Calvinists use Revelation 13:8 to try to prove that the names of the elect are written in the Book of Life (that they are chosen and saved) before the beginning of the world: "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" (ESV).
"Written before the foundation of the world." Sounds very Calvinist-predestinationy, right?
But let’s read it in the King James: ”And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Read them both again. [And notice the word is "from" not "before."]
Very different, isn't it?
And I think there are two possible ways to understand it according to the KJV (which I think is the most reliable translation, though not perfect because no translation is), neither of which supports Calvinist predestination.
1) "From the beginning" could refer to the Lamb being slain. If so, I would suggest it means that Jesus was foreordained to be slain for our sins from the very beginning - that God knew before He even created us that we would sin and need a Redeemer, and so He planned from the beginning to pay for our sins with Jesus's death. This would be confirmed by 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Acts 2:23.
2) Or if "from the beginning" really does refer to names being written in the Book of Life, notice that it's "from" in the KJV, which is far different than "before" in the ESV. This would mean not that certain names were written/chosen before the world began (as Calvinist say, to support their idea of predestination and election) but that names started being added to the Book of Life from the beginning, meaning that new names are added as each new person comes to Christ, which would be confirmed in Rev. 17:8. (Or maybe it's about the Book of Life itself being created from the beginning.)
Either way, it contradicts Calvinism. Revelation 13:8 is not meant to say that certain people were chosen before the foundation of the world to be saved. It is not a Calvinist verse!
[For more on this, watch this video from Kevin at Beyond the Fundamentals: "Why Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 does not support Calvinism." But have a cup of coffee first, in order to keep up with his fast talking.]
#3-4: Glory vs. Love ... and Good vs. Evil/Justice vs. Injustice (I tried to keep this short, I really did.)
In Calvinism, God's greatest priority is His glory (and "fame," as my Calvinist ex-pastor says). And so everything He does is to get more glory and fame, even predestining people to hell and ordaining all sin and evil, according to Calvinism. Because for some reason, that's glorifying to Him, according to Calvinism. But since it's "for His glory," it's all okay and good, and we have to just humbly accept it and praise Him for it, right? And Calvinists will accuse us non-Calvinists of denying God the glory due Him if we say that people have the free-will to make our own decisions about Jesus and that we can choose to do things God didn't preplan/cause/want, etc., as if we're saying that we're stronger or more sovereign than Him, elevating man over God.
[This would only be true if God Himself didn't voluntarily limit His own use of controlling power. We have free-will not because we're stronger than God, but because that's how He wanted it and created it to be. Pastor Charles Stanley, in chapters 1 and 2 of his book God has an answer for Our Unmet Needs, says that God wants everyone to be healed and whole and that He gives everyone repeated opportunities to find healing and wholeness in Him, but He never forces it on anyone because He honors our human will, the free-will He gave us. Dr. Stanley says that it's not that God doesn't have the ability to force whatever He wants on people, but it's that He has chosen to give a certain level of freedom to mankind to accept or reject Him. And He won't deny that freedom, the freedom to make our own decisions that He decided to give us. So true. So simple. So rational.]
And so we're not limiting, denying, or stealing God's glory at all when we say people have free-will, not when He's the one who created it this way because that's the way He wanted it.
And so the question then is "Why? Why did He want it this way? Why would He voluntarily restrain His power/control to give us free-will, the right to make our own real decisions?"
I believe it's because His greatest priority is not glory/fame (any evil ruler or wicked pagan god can get glory and fame through evil acts during their wicked reign), but it's because His greatest priority is love, His greatest reason for making people in the first place.
God doesn't want a bunch of robots forced to love Him - because there would be no true joy, meaning, or glory in that. He is a relational Being who wants to love others (after all, He is love) and to be loved in return, voluntarily, willingly, just as we want to be, too. He wants real relationships with people who want to be with Him, not who are forced to. Because forced love is no love at all. And so He had to create us with free-will, with the right to make our own decisions, whether we choose to accept Him or reject Him, to obey or disobey.
[How amazing it is that the Creator of All - the sovereign, all-powerful One who made us, cares about us, provides for us, died for us, pursues us, calls to us, and offers us all salvation, all because of love - allows Himself to be ignored by, rejected by, mocked by His own creation! How humbling! And it makes me want to love Him even more. (And of course, He won't be ignored and mocked forever. Someday, every eye will see and every knee will bend when they acknowledge that He is God. But by then, it will be too late for those who rejected Him to change their minds.)]
The thing is, I think God knows that He already has all the glory - and always did. And so He doesn't need to seek more glory, as if He's trying to fill some void in His heart or stroke His ego or as if His glory rises or falls based on us sinners. (And I think when He does seek to bring Himself glory in the Bible, it's not necessarily for His sake, but for ours, for His creation.) His glory was always there, always shining, and He can always find a way to get glory out of any situation, even ones He didn't plan or want to happen.
And so He doesn't have to create sin and evil and predestine people to hell for more glory. (What kind of God would He be if He did? What kind of God is glorified by - not just in spite of, but by - sin and evil and people suffering eternally in hell? The non-Calvinist God is glorified in spite of allowing evil to happen, but the Calvinist god is glorified by causing evil to happen. The non-Calvinist God is glorified in spite of people rejecting Him and going to hell, but the Calvinist god is glorified by causing people to reject him and go to hell. Very different.) He always had all the glory. And always will. With or without us.
But what He didn't have in the beginning, when it was just the members of the Trinity, was other beings whom He could love and who could love Him back. And that's why He created people - because He wanted an eternal family with other people. And that's why He created us with free-will - because He wanted real relationships with real people who wanted to be with Him, voluntarily.
C.S. Lewis (in The Problem of Pain, chapter 3 on Divine Goodness) suggests that the world exists so that God may love us. Because God is love.
And so when a Calvinist brings up "God's glory is His top/only priority, and He ordains sin and predestines people to hell because He decided it was best for His glory," try this:
1. Ask them to find verses that clearly say that God ordains sin or predestines people to hell for His glory [and by "ordains" I mean the Calvinist version of it, which is more like "preplanning/causing" not merely "foreknowing it would happen and allowing it to happen"], not verses that only appear to teach it when taken out of context and read through Calvinist lenses. Here are some verses I found about things that glorify God: Psalm 29:1-2, Psalm 86:12,96, Psalm 115:1, Isaiah 42:12, Matthew 5:16, John 15:8, Romans 15:9, 1 Cor. 10:31, 2 Cor. 4:15, 2 Cor. 9:13, 2 Thess. 1:11-12. I have yet to find a verse that says God is glorified by predestining/causing sin, evil, and the eternal damnation of "non-elect" people.
[And if Calvinists bring up Pharaoh or Assyria/Isaiah 10 or Joseph telling his brothers that "though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good," tell them that the non-Calvinist belief that God foreknows the evil we will voluntarily choose to do and works it into His plans is far different than Calvinism's belief that God preplans/causes that people be evil and do evil, giving them no chance to choose anything different (and yet He punishes them for what He predestined). In fact, if Calvinists bring up "foreknowledge," ask them to define it. Because you'll see that they don't define it as just "knowing beforehand," but as "preplanning, orchestrating, directing, causing what happens." But this is NOT the definition of foreknowledge!]
2. Ask them to find a verse that clearly says that a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin was that God took away free-will, our right to make free decisions. Ask them to find a verse that clearly says that being "totally depraved" means we are so terribly wicked that we have no ability to make any decision that God doesn't cause us to make. [And Romans 3:11 does not say that mankind cannot seek God (nor does the OT passage it's quoting from), which is how Calvinists read it. It's not about being unable to seek/believe unless God causes us to, but about the fact that we're all sinners in need of salvation, in need of Jesus.]
3. Ask them why - if God's greatest priority is His own glory and getting more glory - His two greatest commandments are about love: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-38)
4. Ask them how their belief that God does everything for more glory for Himself, even causing all sin, evil, and unbelief, fits with these two verses: "...God is love" (1 John 4:8) and "Love is... not self-seeking..." (1 Cor. 13:5)
[And if we are to try to be like God, reflecting His love and character to others... and if (as Calvinists believe) God shows His "love" to the non-elect not by seeking their best welfare eternally or by offering them salvation, but merely by giving them food and water while they're alive before sending them to eternal hell for being the unbelievers He predestined/caused them to be, and all for His glory and pleasure... then what does that mean for us and for how we should "love" and treat other people, for how we should reflect God's character to them and His desires for them?]
5. If God's greatest/only goal is to get more and more glory for Himself, why would He say that Jesus's purpose in coming to earth was to save people: Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
6. If God is as big of a self-centered glory-hog as Calvinists think, to the point of sacrificing people to get more glory for Himself, then why would He want/offer to share His glory with us: "He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 2:14).
7. Calvinists believe God created sin and sinners to punish in order to get more glory for Himself when He shows off His justice/wrath against sin. When they say this, ask them what God's glory was like before sinners were created? Was it lacking? What would've happened to His glory if He didn't create sinners? Is His level of glory dependent on sin, on people?
8. And show them this verse where God Himself tells us how He chose to demonstrate His justice: “God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it [sent Jesus to the cross for our sins] to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26)
God Himself tells us that He demonstrates His justice by sending Jesus to the cross for our sins, not by creating sin/non-elect people to punish. His justice was fully satisfied with Jesus's death - "It is finished" - and so He didn't also need to show off His justice by creating non-elect sinners to punish in hell. Was Jesus's death not enough? Did that not fully demonstrate His justice (and His love at the same time)?
9. Ask them how "getting more glory for Himself through any means possible (even by preplanning and orchestrating all sin/evil and by causing people to reject Him so that they go to hell just like He predestined)" makes Him any different from the many selfish, wicked kings and pagan gods out there. What sets God apart from all the others if He acts just like them (and just like Satan, for that matter)?
If they say "it's because God is good and can be trusted," ask them what "good" means if "good" can look and act just like evil. Because "good" and "evil" lose all meaning when they look and act the same. And if God can command us not to do evil, but then cause us to do evil, and then punish us for doing the evil He predestined/caused... if He commands one thing but causes the opposite... can He really be trusted? How can we trust any command God gives us if His real Will might be that we do the opposite of what He told us to do? How can a God like that - a God whose "good" can look and act just like evil, a God who doesn't say what He means or mean what He says - be trustworthy?
Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." (What does this mean if there's really no difference between good and evil, if both are equally caused by and glorifying to God?)
Once again, any wicked king or god (and even Satan himself) can get fame and glory through their wicked deeds. Glory without love.
But when you've got love - true love - glory comes with it. The God of the Bible is love. He acts out of love. He pleads with us to let Him love us, wooing us to love Him voluntarily in return because of how good, gracious, merciful, and loving He is. And this is what brings Him glory. The most glory. Glory through love, not through causing evil. This is what sets God, Jesus, apart from all the wicked, pagan gods and kings out there: His love. It makes Him glorious.
10. And finally (but it's never really over), ask them to explain this: Calvinists believe God causes everything that happens for His own glory. And so He causes sin for His glory, yet He also punishes sin and causes us to fight against sin for His glory. He causes Satan to rebel against Him for His glory, and yet He also fights against Satan's rebellion for His glory.
John Calvin (in his Institutes, book 1, chapter 14, section 15) says that Satan's goal is to extinguish God's glory. Therefore, if God controls Satan (as Calvinists believe), then God is causing Satan to try to extinguish His glory, for His glory.
Ask the Calvinist how this makes sense, how it isn't self-sabotaging, duplicitous, or schizophrenic. And remind them what the Bible says about double-minded men and divided cities:
James 1:8: "A double-minded man [is] unstable in all he does."
Matthew 12:25: "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."
And 1 Cor. 14:33 (KJV) says that "God is not the author of confusion."
If God works against Himself, how can He be trusted? How can He stand?
And yet this is the Calvinist god. How can Calvinists ever trust Calvinism's god to mean what he says and say what he means, to truly do good instead of evil, and to be truly just instead of unjust? Can they not see what Calvinism does to God's character? Can they not see who is behind a theology that destroys God's character and Word like this?
Sweetly Broken by Jeremy Riddle
I AM! by Crowder
Secret Ambition by Michael W. Smith
Living Water by Anne Wilson
#2: Sovereign and all-powerful (And yes, this is the condensed version. Because I could say so much more than this. See what I mean by there's so many layers that it can never be "quick.")
When Calvinists use the words "sovereign" and "all-powerful" to describe God, they essentially mean that God preplans, ordains, causes, orchestrates, directs everything that happens including sin, evil, and unbelief, that He uses His power all the time to control everything.
And so when we non-Calvinists say that He doesn't preplan/control sin, evil, and unbelief but that He lets people make their own truly-free decisions, they think we're saying that He's not a sovereign, all-powerful God. And this causes us to talk past each other and to go round and round in fruitless debating, all because we have different understandings of "sovereign" and "all-powerful."
You see, we non-Calvinists (presuming most non-Calvinists see it this way) think that "sovereign and all-powerful" is about the position of authority God has over all, about God being the highest authority/power there is, answerable to no one, and no one can override Him when He has decided something. And we think that God gets to decide how to act in that position of authority. (But He never preplans/causes sin or evil. He can and does put people in situations that cause them to act out the evil He knows is in their hearts, but He didn't put the evil in their hearts or preplan/orchestrate it or give them no choice but to sin/do evil. He just gave them the opportunity to act out their own evil choices - to expose it, deal with it, and use it for His purposes.) And being a sovereign God who can do what He wants, He can even voluntarily limit His use of power and control in order to give people true free-will, the right to make real decisions, even ones He doesn't want and didn't preplan/orchestrate/force, etc. (And being supremely wise, He can still accomplish His overall plans, weaving into them whatever our decisions are, whether we obey or disobey.) That's how we see it and how we think the Bible shows God acting in His position as sovereign God.
But Calvinism has decided (wrongly so, and contrary to how the Bible shows God acting) that "sovereign and all-powerful" is about how God must be and act in His position of authority, that He must preplan, cause, control everything, even sin and evil and unbelief... or else He's not a sovereign, all-powerful God.
Non-Calvinists believe sovereign is about who God is, the position He is in. But Calvinists believe it's about what God does, how He acts.
Essentially, Calvinists are telling God how God must act in order to be God - a very stupid, dangerous thing to do: boxing God in, redefining Him to fit your views, demanding that He functions the way you think He should, even if it damages His character, Word, and trustworthiness. And on top of that, Calvinists then use "But He's sovereign, He's God" to defend the damage they do and to silence those who disagree with them or challenge them. That's using God against God, I think.
The Calvinist's fundamentally-incorrect understanding of these words taints their whole theology, their reading of the Bible, and their understanding of God's character, God's actions, Jesus's sacrifice, the gospel, people's faith, etc. They will automatically filter the Bible through their wrong definitions, removing any idea of true free-will (the ability to make truly voluntary decisions among real possible options) because, in their minds, it's impossible for us to have true free-will if God is "sovereign and all-powerful" as they define it. (For some videos from Leighton Flowers at Soteriology 101 about the Calvinist view of sovereignty, see the links in my post "Calvinism for beginners".)
And so when a Calvinist uses "God is sovereign and all-powerful" (usually to "prove" that God predestines some people to heaven and reprobates the rest to hell, and that He "ordains" sin and evil), try this:
1. Ask them what their definitions are of "sovereign" and "all-powerful" (and "in control" and "ordains"). Make them explain until they expose their underlying assumptions and presumptions of how God must act in order to be the God they think He is, according to their definitions.
2. Ask them to find verses in the Bible that clearly define these things their way. And then examine every verse the share in context, exposing any biases or preconceived ideas they are reading into the text. (Fun fact: "Sovereign" is not in the KJV anywhere, which I think is the most reliable translation. And although the NIV has it almost 300 times, it's almost always in the title "Sovereign Lord." Once again, "sovereign" is about His position of authority, not about how He must behave in His position of authority. There is no verse that defines "sovereign" as Calvinists define it.)
3. Ask them how they would explain verses like these in light of their definitions of "sovereign and all-powerful":
Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over [all the animals and earth]."
Acts 14:16: "In the past, [God] let nations go their own way."
Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval."
Isaiah 30:1: "'Woe to the obstinate children,' declares the Lord, 'to those who carry out plans that are not mine...'"
Psalm 33:10: "The Lord foils the plans of the nations ..."
1 Kings 20:42: "He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.''"
Jeremiah 19:5: "They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."
Ezekiel 13:22 (CSB): "Because you have disheartened the righteous person with lies (when I intended no distress)..."
Zechariah 7:11-13: "But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or [the Lord]. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. 'When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,' says the Lord Almighty."
And if God alone (in Calvinism) controls every single movement that everyone and everything makes, why would He need to give boundaries to people, Satan, and nature (such as putting a boundary around the one forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, and putting a limit on how far the sea can move in Job 38:11, and putting a hedge around Job and limits to how much Satan can do to him in Job 1)? Boundaries and limits are only needed when there is freedom to move within those boundaries.
4. Ask them "If a sovereign, all-powerful God can do whatever He wants, can He give people true free-will, the right to make real decisions on our own that He doesn't preplan/control/cause, and yet still work His plans out?" And see what they say.
5. If Calvinists try to support their idea that God plans/causes/controls everything that happens, even sin and evil, by using a verse like Psalm 115:3: "God does whatever pleases Him," ask them "Since all monkeys are animals, does that mean all animals are monkeys?" And point out to them that it's the same kind of false inference they're making here. The verse says that God does whatever He pleases, not that everything happens because God was pleased to do it. It's not a palindrome; reading it in reverse is not the same thing as reading it forward. Ya know what I mean?
Yes, God is sovereign and all-powerful. But God, as seen in the Bible, has chosen to not always use His power all the time to control everything. He has chosen to voluntarily restrain His use of controlling power in order to allow mankind to make real free-will decisions. (And I'll answer "Why?" in the next point.)
[And here are three important and relevant things to be aware of:
A. Calvinists will say that they're not saying that God "causes" evil and sin (and they'll often refer to the Westminster Confession, as if that clinches it, as if it's God-breathed gospel truth - but it's not), but they're really just hiding "cause" under a bunch of other carefully-selected words/ideas, all of which lead to "cause" in the end when you think through them and follow them to their logical, inevitable conclusions. And there's no way around it.
Calvinists are masters at spinning words and talking in circles and hiding what they don't want seen, even to the point of tricking themselves into thinking they're not saying what they really are. So be careful and listen closely.
(And be compassionate, gentle, and respectful - because most of them don't intend to do this and can't even see that they're doing it. It's just that they've been so brainwashed by it and trained in it themselves - convinced that they're being good, intelligent, humble, God-honoring Christians to see it the way they do - that they can't recognize Calvinism's errors, verse-twisting, manipulation, or gaslighting for what it is. And if they can't see what it's done to them, how can they realize when they're doing it to others? Their intentions are good and their hearts are in the right place, but they're trapped and need help getting free. So be respectful as you try to help them take off the Calvinist glasses that other Calvinists have put on them, instead of shaming them, mocking them, or merely trying to win an argument against them.)
B. Calvinists will say they believe in "free-will, freely choosing," but they really just mean that, in any given situation, we are "free" to make the one decision (and only that decision) that God predestined us to make. We are "free" to follow the God-determined-desire that God built into our God-determined-nature, and we're not free to resist it or choose anything else. But this is another fundamentally-wrong definition because that's not true free-will or freely choosing. And it even contradicts the very definition of choice, which necessarily involves having at least two real options to choose between, the possibility of picking one over the other, and vice versa.
To have true free-will and real choices and make real decisions, we have to have real options available to us that we can truly choose between. So when Calvinists say "we have free will and freely make decisions," ask them to explain themselves further. They will eventually reveal that their "free-will/free choice" is not really "free" or "choice" at all.
C. Many people get suckered into Calvinism because of a Calvinist's strategic use of false dichotomies, such as "Is God sovereign and all-powerful, or are you? Does God control everything, or do you?" They give us two options: a ridiculous one that no good Christian would pick and the one meant to lead you into Calvinism. Their questions and illustrations and cherry-picking of verses, etc., are intended to strategically lead you deeper and deeper into Calvinism, a step at a time. So don't answer their questions the way they ask them. Don't fall for their built-in Calvinist bias. Instead, expose it. Call it out. Point out the errors, assumptions, misconceptions, false dichotomies, bad definitions, circular reasoning, illogical ideas, false inferences, out-of-context verses, etc. that are embedded and inherent in Calvinist questions, arguments, illustrations, use of verses, etc.. Exposing this early on will save you a lot of headache and fruitless debating, and it might just keep you from being unconsciously sucked into Calvinism.]
[See "When Calvinists say 'But sovereignty!'" for more on this.]
#1: Romans 9 (a critical chapter to understand correctly!):
Calvinists think that Romans 9 is about God choosing who gets saved and who doesn't, about God predestining some people to heaven and the rest to hell. But simply put, Romans 9 is about Israel as a nation, about God punishing them for rejecting Jesus and the gospel (handing them over to their own hard-heartedness) and about Him giving the gospel/salvation/the job of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles instead because they were willing to receive it.
And because God did this, the Jews essentially cried "Not fair!" They thought that they (the Jews, the special, chosen ones) should get God's special favor and blessings (and that the Gentiles shouldn't), just because they were Jews, and that it couldn't be taken from them.
And Romans 9 is Paul's response to them, telling them that God can do whatever He wants in response to our decisions/actions. God can give His favor, the gospel/salvation, and the special task of spreading the gospel to whomever He wants to (even Gentiles), to whomever is willing to receive it (and the Gentiles were), and He can take it away from anyone (even Jews) if they resist/reject it.
This is what Romans 9 is about, not about God choosing which individuals get saved and which don't. (If you let Calvinists convince you that Romans 9 is about God predestining individual people for salvation and hardening individual people for hell, you will be a Calvinist.)
So when Calvinists bring up Romans 9 to try to prove Calvinist predestination/election, tell them to try reading it this way instead and to see if it makes sense. And if they agree that it makes sense but can't decide which one to side with, ask them whether Calvinism or non-Calvinism better upholds God's righteous, just, loving, gracious, trustworthy character? Does the Calvinist interpretation - where God commands all people to repent and believe but He also predestines most people to hell and prevents them from believing and then punishes them for their unbelief - better uphold His character and Word? Or does the non-Calvinist one - where He truly offers salvation to all people but lets people decide whether to accept it or reject it, and then He gives them what they choose in the end (life with Him or without Him)?
[See "When Calvinist say 'But Romans 9!'" for more on this.]
