Snippets to Ponder, part 1 (#1-8: manipulation, ESV, evangelism, the gospel)
[Topics in this post: Doctrine of election; tactics to sucker people into Calvinism; the ESV vs. the King James; Calvinism's "free-will"; Jesus died only for blondes; Calvinist evangelism; "Calvinism is the gospel"; rebellious angels.]
I was going to be done with this blog, but I don't think that's going to happen. Because I want to start a series - well, two series: This "snippets" one where I highlight some things I've already written that are worth pondering, the smaller points or random interesting things or important points that got buried in this big blog, and another one that contains "quick answers" to some of Calvinism's theological errors (but of course, nothing I write is "quick"). I'll post them in bunches, several points per post, and then when a post is long enough, I'll simply start a "part 2...part 3... part 4, etc.", keeping things as condensed as possible.
I won't add much further explanation to these snippets, but I might rewrite them a bit for clarity. And I will add a link to the post they're taken from so that you can see them in context.
So here we go, some random snippets to ponder (When I add new ones, they will be on top.):
#8: In Doctrine of Election, Calvinist A.W. Pink says "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth [the doctrine of election] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead 'here a little, there a little—... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."
This is telling! He's basically saying that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly and obviously taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be scraped together in bits and pieces, and that we would have a hard time finding it without the help of a Calvinist teacher systematically leading us through the Bible. (Duh!) So it takes a highly educated expert to teach these things, because the average common Christian cannot understand or learn them on their own.
This confirms two things: The sense of pride and spiritual authority that Calvinists have, and the fact that Calvinism is not clearly, easily found in the Bible and so people have to be educated into it by other Calvinists. Very revealing! (Is God's Word, the gospel, meant to be so painfully difficult to read and understand? Or is it only that way because of the damage Calvinism does to it?)
[Snippet from "9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult #9 (authoritarian narcissists)"]
#7: Many people get suckered into Calvinism because of a Calvinist's strategic use of bad definitions, false dichotomies, bad analogies, etc.
Such as, Calvinists have a bad definition of "sovereign/all-powerful," believing that it's about how God must use His power all the time to preplan and control everything, even sin and evil (and so therefore, people can't have the free-will to make their own decisions, especially ones God didn't preplan or want)... because if God didn't preplan/control everything (even sin and evil) and if people did have true free-will, then He wouldn't be sovereign and all-powerful, according to the Calvinist understanding of these words.
Calvinism has decided that God must behave and use His power the way Calvinism thinks a "sovereign and all-powerful" God should behave and rule... or else He can't be God. [But biblically, "sovereign and all-powerful" are really just about His position of power and authority over all - not about how He has to behave in His position of authority or how He has to use His power.]
And false dichotomies are things like these: "Is God sovereign, or are you? Does God control everything, or do you? Did God save you, or did you save yourself?" Calvinists give us two options: a ridiculous one that no good Christian would pick and the one that is designed to strategically lead us deeper into Calvinism.
And these are very effective tactics for a simple reason: We never challenge their questions or their definitions of words, such as "sovereign." We often never even realize that we have to challenge them. We simply - foolishly - trust them. We answer their questions the way they ask them, which gives them the upper-hand and control over the direction of the conversation, leading us deeper and deeper into Calvinism. We go "Oh, of course God is sovereign," and then we let them implant their definition of "sovereign" into our heads (their idea of how a sovereign God must act) and let them lead us through their cherry-picked, out-of-context verses that seem to appear to affirm their views... and before we know it, we're viewing the Bible through their lens.
Such as the bad Calvinist analogy of "100 people on death row": "There's 100 people on death row for murder, and God graciously chooses to save 10 of them, but He lets the other 90 go to their punishment. Was He unjust to save some but not others? No. None of them deserves to be saved. They all deserve to be punished. So it's not unjust to rescue some but let others pay the penalty they deserve."
This kind of analogy hooks many people because it seems to fit, seems to make sense, right?
Wrong! Because the inherent flaw in this analogy is that, in Calvinism, those people are only on death row in the first place because God "ordained" their crimes. He preplanned, orchestrated, directed, caused them to do the crimes they did, giving them no option or ability to do anything differently or to resist doing the crimes, but then He punishes them for it, as if that's true justice.
And so when Calvinists use this analogy, ask them what "justice" is. Ask them if it's justice for God to punish people for doing what He predestined/caused them to do, what they had no choice about. (Eventually, they'll resort to their old standbys - "the Potter and the clay" and "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" - the things they think win every difficult debate, and overcome any insurmountable obstacle, and rationalize any unjustifiable contradiction of theirs.)
And if they answer with "Well, God defines justice differently than we do. What we see as injustice might be justice in God's eyes," ask them this: "If we can't tell the difference between justice and injustice because there might not really be one, then how in the world can we obey any of the verses that tell us to seek and administer justice?" And remind them that Proverbs 28:5 tells us "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully." And Proverbs 2:6,9 says "For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding... Then you will understand what is right and just and fair - every good path."
And also be sure to show them Romans 3:25-26 which tells us that God chose to show His justice by sending Jesus to the cross for our sins, not by predestining people to hell. Ask them "Was Jesus's death not enough?" And see what they say. (In fact, ask them to find a verse that just as clearly says that God predestines people to hell to demonstrate His justice, and give them time to find one. Lots and lots and lots of time.)
Similar to that analogy, here's one my Calvinist pastor gave to reel people into believing that it's okay for God to predestine some people to heaven and the rest to hell: "If a wealthy person went into the inner city and said 'I’m gonna pick 25 young, poor people, and I’m gonna bless them with a full ride to any Ivy League university’… could we say he was being unfair to the people he didn’t give that gift to? The answer is: No. He has a right to bless whomever he wants to, and he’s good and grace-full for doing it."
But once again, this is a bad analogy because it doesn't accurately reflect what happens in Calvinism. In Calvinism, God first created all the people to be in inner-city poverty, giving them only the desire to be in poverty and with no ability to get out of poverty themselves even though He commands them all to get out of poverty, and then He comes in and acts like He's "so gracious" to at least rescue a few, leaving everyone else in the inner-city poverty with no ability to get out... and then when His chosen ones are safely in their Ivy League dorm rooms, He blows up the inner city with a nuclear bomb to kill everyone He didn't choose because He decided from the very beginning to hate them and to get glory by destroying them. Now that's a more accurate Calvinist analogy!
Find it, expose it, make them answer for it. Expose, challenge, and dismantle the inherent Calvinist preconceptions, the errors, the contradictions, the Calvinist-bias, and the bad logic in their questions, definitions, false dichotomies, bad analogies, out-of-context verses, etc. (However, many of them may not even realize that they're doing what they're doing or saying what their saying. That's how sinister and thoroughly "brain-washing" Calvinism is. And this is why they need to be helped, not attacked.)
Make them define their terms clearly. Make them carefully examine the verses they misuse (even using a concordance to understand the words better), to see the proper context and definitions. Make them see how what they're saying doesn't make sense or line up with a plain, commonsense reading of Scripture in context. Make them answer probing questions about what they really mean, forcing them to admit the deeper beliefs they're hiding or sugar-coating, the ones that contradict the things they say on the surface.
And when they resort to something like "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God," tell them that's a non-answer, a smokescreen, and that if they're going to go around spreading a theology that essentially makes God the ultimate cause (and the only real cause) of all the sin, evil, and unbelief that He supposedly punishes people for, then they had better come up with a more solid, reasonable answer than that. Because they will have to stand before God someday defending the things they taught others about Him - and "Well, we were told not to question what we were taught because it would be dishonoring to You" is not going to cut it.
The more you force Calvinists to explain themselves, the more obvious their errors, contradictions, bad definitions, bad use of Scripture, deceptive and manipulative tactics, etc., will be. And the less likely it is that you'll be manipulated, shamed, or gaslit into Calvinism.
[For more on this, see "Don't answer Calvinist questions. Dismantle them."]
#6: The ESV (the "Calvinist's Bible") vs. The King James:
Read these articles about the men who wrote the Greek texts that the ESV is based on (and many other modern translations, but I pick on the ESV because it's the preferred translation of Calvinists): "Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs" and "Westcott and Hort and the Greek Text."
The ESV is based on the RSV, which is based on the Greek Texts of these two men (who, apparently, rejected the infallibility of Scripture, despised evangelicals, questioned Jesus's divinity and an eternal hell, did not believe that Genesis and the creation story were literal, affirmed Darwin and evolution, etc.), which is based on two corrupted manuscripts which differ from the majority of the more reliable manuscripts that the KJV is based on.
So when something says that the ESV has only made 6% changes, it means "from the RSV," meaning that it's 94% the same as the RSV it was based on, a translation which was based on two corrupted manuscripts that disagree with the majority of the manuscripts available. It would be like if a journalist interviewed 100 people about an event ... and 95 of them said the exact same thing, but 5 told a different story ... and the journalist decided to side with the 5 and print their story as fact. Raises some red flags, doesn't it?
In the course of researching this issue, and after not knowing for decades what to think of the whole "which translation is most accurate" debate, I now side with the King James. I mean, I have several other translations, and I think different ones are good for different reasons, such as readability, compare and contrast, to hear God's Word in a fresh way, etc. But when having to decide which one is more reliable and accurate, especially considering the significant differences between them, I have to side with the KJV (not the New King James, just the King James). And I've never been more sure of it than now, after all this research.
Interestingly, David Cloud writes this in an article from Way of Life Literature called Are the modern versions based on Westcott-Hort? (emphasis is Cloud's):
"... [Those who support modern Bible translations] often disassociate themselves from Westcott-Hort and claim that they merely use an “eclectic” Greek text... [and some] imply that Westcott and Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because 'no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism.'...
This position DODGES THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WESTCOTT AND HORT REPRESENTED THE SIGNAL DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT THAT IS REPRESENTED TODAY IN THE POPULAR THEORIES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own unique blend, and their Greek New Testament represented the first popular departure from the Greek Received Text [the "textus receptus" is the Greek text of the New Testament which the KJV is based on].
While today’s textual scholars do not always admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by these men.
Bruce Metzger... one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament... makes the following plain admission: 'The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament...ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT... ' (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264).
... Brooks further states, '... It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version, and to a lesser extent, also the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible' (Ibid.).
... Ernest Cadman Colwell, a textual scholar who published a number of widely used grammars and textbooks [says] '... HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS....'
...that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism and that the current 'eclectic' Greek New Testaments continue to reflect, for the most part, the decisions made by Westcott and Hort....
Dr. Zane Hodges [says] 'MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY ‘ADDICTED’ TO WESTCOTT AND HORT.... The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent. It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts' (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).
... The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the Received Text in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from the W-H text... Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something."
I know for me, after comparing KJV verses to ESV verses (see this post), I trust the KJV much more than the ESV or any other modern translation that is based on Westcott and Hort's texts. And this was the verse that clinched it for me:
Philippians 2:6 in the ESV (and most other modern translations): “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
If you're like me, I always thought this was just a way to over-stress Jesus's humility, that He was being super humble to submit to the Father's Will and give up heaven for awhile to come down here in a human body, for our sakes. I always just figured it was teaching that if Jesus, who is God, is that humble, then we should be humble too.
And I was okay with that interpretation of it... until I read the KJV version of it: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is saying that Jesus did not think it was robbing God of glory to claim that He [Jesus] is equal to God - because Jesus is God, in the flesh.
After realizing that this is what the verse should say, I now have a big problem with ESV (and others) because - compared to the KJV - I no longer think the other translations are merely emphasizing Jesus's "super humility," but that they actually have Jesus denying His divinity.
In the KJV, Jesus does not think it's wrong for Him to consider Himself equal to God. But in other translations, Jesus does not consider equality with God something He can grasp. Total opposites!
And this is disturbing to me and makes me totally question the reliability of any translation that uses the manuscripts that say this. And so if I have to choose which one is more right, I am going with the KJV over all these newer ones. Because Jesus could never deny His divinity, even in the name of humility.
[Also keep in mind that in order to copyright any new translation - to make it "their own" - it has to differ a certain percentage from any other translation. So therefore, all new copyrighted translations must make a certain amount of changes. To me, this weakens the integrity and reliability of every new copyrighted translation. However, I still do read other translations - I grew up with the NIV - but when I wonder about the correct translation of a verse, I almost always go back to the KJV.]
#5: In point #2, I said that in Calvinism John 3:16 is not an offer or invitation to all people. It's not instructions on how you - on how anyone and everyone - can be saved. It's not an offer of salvation to all people. In Calvinism, it's simply information about what happens to the elect. In Calvinism, "whoever believes" doesn't mean that anyone and everyone can believe; it just means "the elect," who are the only ones who can and will believe.
But be aware that in order to sound more "free-will," more non-Calvinistic, Calvinists will (very deceptively) say things like "Anyone can believe. Whoever wants to can come to Jesus and be saved. God doesn't force anyone to go to hell."
But they don't mean that Jesus died for all and so anyone and everyone can believe and be saved, that everyone has the option and ability to make their own decision to put their faith in Jesus. What they really mean is this (and you'll discover it if you keep them talking, asking them more and more questions to get them to explain themselves more fully):
"Anyone could be one of the elect, because we don't know who the elect are. (And only the elect can believe and be saved because Jesus only died for the elect, not the non-elect.) Whoever wants to can come to Jesus... but only the elect will want to because God will only cause the elect to want to. The non-elect can never and will never want to, by God's decree. God gives everyone the nature He wants each person to have, that He predetermined for them. And these natures come with built-in desires, determined by Him, that we must obey and cannot resist or change. To the elect, God gives the repentant nature that comes with the desire to believe in Him, repent, and be saved. And so that is what the elect must do. But to the non-elect, God makes sure they have the unrepentant-sinner nature that comes only with the desire to sin, rebel, and reject Him. And so that is what the non-elect must do, because that is the only desire they have, and they cannot resist it or change it. And so since we 'willingly' make decisions based on our desires - since we follow our 'desires' and do the things we 'want' to do - God doesn't have to 'force' us to do what we do. He doesn't 'force' people to accept Him or reject Him. It's what we 'want' to do, and we do it 'willingly,' based on our desires. And so, therefore, when we sin and when the non-elect reject God, we 'deserve' our punishment, because we 'chose' to do it." (As if we could've chosen anything else!)
And Calvinists think this qualifies as "free-will/freely choosing/not being forced/deserving the punishment."
Insane!
[Never take what a Calvinist says at face-value. They are often hiding the other half of it - the bad half that would alter, contradict, or negate the good things they said at first - until they think you are sufficiently hooked enough, brainwashed enough, to accept the "difficult" parts of Calvinism without pushback.]
Now let's apply this reasoning to a different scenario:
Let's say that I gave you a magic potion which created in you an irresistible desire to strangle every puppy you see... and you had to obey that desire and couldn't resist it or change it. And so you went around strangling every puppy you see. Who would be responsible for all those puppies being killed? Who should be punished for it?
Non-Calvinists would say that I am clearly the one responsible and so I should be punished, because you were simply doing what I caused/forced you to do through the potion. You had no ability to change it or resist it, and so you shouldn't be held responsible for it.
But, applying Calvinist logic, Calvinists would say that you are responsible for all those dead puppies because you were doing what you "wanted" to do. You "wanted" to strangle them. I didn't have to force you to do it. I didn't physically grab your hands and wrap them around the puppies' necks and apply pressure to force your hands to squeeze the life out of them. You "freely chose" to do it "willingly" - it's what you "wanted" to do - and so you deserve to be punished for it.
That, folks, is Calvinism.
[For more on this, see "Exposing Calvinism: 'Anyone' can believe and be saved" and "A not-so-imaginary conversation with a Calvinist."]
#4: This is for Christians who don't see what the fuss is all about when it comes to Calvinism; those who think their Calvinist pastor is such a biblically-sound preacher because he preaches all sorts of other good biblical things (especially about morality and the need to repent, believe, and obey); those who - because of their pastor's good sermons about other things - let the Calvinism slide; those who don't think it's such a big and critical issue and so they say "Can't we all just be unified? We shouldn't let Calvinism divide us. It's just a secondary, minor issue anyway."
And to those people, I'd say:
Imagine your pastor gave many good biblical sermons about all kinds of issues: the need for personal holiness and obedience, missions work, the need for all people to repent and believe, biblical morality and standards of conduct, etc.
But every so often, he preaches (but not this honestly and forthrightly) that "God really only loves blondes, Jesus only died for blondes, and only blondes can believe and be saved. And all non-blondes are predestined by God to reject Jesus, but He will hold them responsible for rejecting Jesus, even though they had no ability or option to choose otherwise. And if you are a non-blonde, you cannot choose to become a blonde, because God made that decision for you before the beginning of time. In fact, He made sure you would never even have the desire to become a blond. Oh, and God preplans and orchestrates every sin and evil thing we think and do, for His glory, but we will be punished for it, even though we couldn't choose not to do it. And if you don't agree with this, you're just having bad emotional reactions to things you don't like hearing... and putting man above God... and wanting to be in control, fighting God's sovereignty, and denying the Word... etc. After all, if God wants to 'ordain' sin and predestine non-blondes to hell for His glory, who are you, tiny insignificant human, to question His right to do that and to deny Him the glory He gets for doing it!?! Just humbly accept what I teach you because only bad Christians oppose it."
Would you not react violently against something like this? Wouldn't it massively throw into question God's character and Word? Wouldn't it cast a much different light onto (and make a mockery of) all the pastor's sermons about how God commands all of us - blondes and non-blondes alike - to repent and believe in Jesus in order to be saved and how we should glorify God by obeying Him and living holy lives? Wouldn't every other good thing he preached pale in comparison to this critical teaching?
But this is Calvinism in a nutshell, just substitute the word "elect" for blondes and "non-elect" for non-blondes. To me, anything else Calvinist preachers get right pales in comparison to the massive, critical, fundamental things they get wrong, the things that obliterate God's character, His trustworthiness, His Word, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, and people's chance for salvation.
Calvi-god sacrifices most people for himself, for his glory, giving them no chance to be saved.
But the God of the Bible - Jesus - sacrificed Himself for all people, out of love, giving everyone the chance to be saved.
These are two very different Gods!
And this is why Calvinism is such a big, critical issue, one worth fighting against.
[Snippet from "Calvinism for Beginners" which contains lots of links to Soteriology 101 videos to help you understand the basics of why Calvinism is so wrong and such a destructive theology.]
Added note: I think the only Christians who say something like "Calvinism is just a minor, secondary issue not worth fighting about or dividing over theologically" are Christians who either don't really understand what Calvinism really teaches underneath the glossy, biblical-sounding, deceptive surface-layer, those who don't want to put the time and effort into researching it deeper for whatever reason... or else they're stealthy Calvinists who need time to slowly reel others into Calvinism, and so they manipulate us into thinking that anyone who questions them or examines their theology too closely is a bad, unhumble, divisive Christian. They need to convince us to ignore our red flags and silence our alarm bells until we're sufficiently indoctrinated, having been strategically led deeper and deeper into Calvinism one step at a time while we handed our sense-making over to them bit by bit. And "don't be divisive, but just be unified" is one effective way to make us shut up and fall in line, using our desire to be humble and God-honoring against us, against the Church, against God's truth.
(See "9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult #7 (thought reform)" for more on this.)
#3: About the goal of evangelism in Calvinism (and this is horrifying):
Calvinists believe that the goal of evangelism is not to win people to Christ, but it's to win the elect to Christ and to bring condemnation to the non-elect (everyone else) when they reject the gospel as Calvi-god predestined. Calvinists call it "successful evangelism" - they call it good and God-glorifying - when the non-elect reject Christ and compound their guilt. Examples:
A. From a Calvinist article called "If God predestines people, why evangelize?": "If God is Sovereign, Our Evangelism Has a 100% Success Rate: In a culture where evangelism may lead people to walk away and even scoff at our words, we can have confidence in our preaching efforts. Because God is the Author of salvation (and not our evangelistic proficiency or presentation), our faithful proclamation of the Gospel will yield the exact result the Lord has willed." [Translation: "If someone rejects Christ, it's because God planned/wanted it to happen exactly that way, and so your evangelism efforts were 'successful'."]
B. An atheist (Godless Granny) asks a Calvinist named Joe this question [Watch the video of this conversation at Soteriology 101's "Warning: This may be the CRINGIEST video you watch about Calvinism"]: "What is the purpose of telling people about God if the only way they can come to believe is if God chooses to come and move them?"
Joe answers "Because any kind of evangelistic efforts, I have a 100% success rate for the kingdom of God. So either it is going to add to the condemnation of vessels prepared for wrath, for destruction, that God will use to glorify Himself - so it will be adding to the condemnation of unbelievers where God will be just in destroying them for eternity - or He will use the preaching of the gospel...[to] draw the elect to Himself. So I have a 100% success rate with whatever I'm doing because I'm accomplishing God's purpose either way." [It's "success" to bring people more condemnation in hell? And it's "for God's glory"? Sick and disturbing.]
Godless Granny then asks, "If you found out that God chose not to save one or more of your children, how would you feel about that?"
Joe answers "It means He's God. You see, God is a bigger being than I am. He's higher than I am. And I sure hope that God has chosen my children...but if God chooses not to save my children, that is His prerogative because He is God and I am not God. He decides who's in His heaven. He decides who's in His hell."
Godless Granny then points out that the odds are that at least one of Joe's children is predestined to eternal torment in hell, and she asks "And you don't have a problem with that?"
And Joe responds "Okay, we've got two ways to look at this. This is a glass half-full or half-empty. Either I can rejoice that God chose a wretched sinner for salvation, which is me, or I can worry about God's choices with other wretched sinners. [So "Don't worry about the damnation of others. Be concerned only for yourself and no one else." Does this sound to you like God's truth, like God's heart?] When I realize that the human nature and the human position against God is that I've sinned against an almighty God and that everyone deserves His judgment, I should be mystified, shocked, and stunned whenever He chooses anyone, not surprised when someone doesn't get chosen." [This is the glorious end of Calvinism, where it leads to! Oh, how this must hurt his children's hearts! And not to mention, but what kind of a God would He be if we should be shocked that He loves and wants to save even one person!?! We'd be shocked to find out that a loner, cannibalistic, serial killer who kidnaps, tortures, kills, and eats a victim every day of his life would genuinely love even one other person, but why should we be surprised that our God - who is love, who is amazing, gigantic, generous, gracious, merciful, self-sacrificial love - loves people and wants to save people, even "depraved" sinners like us? A Calvinist's shock at God's love - their reduction of it to a very sparse, minimalistic, stingy love - says worse things about their theology and the kind of God they think He is than it does about the "depraved" people He loves. As Leighton Flowers said about the "cringiest" video linked to above: Given how compassionate and loving and self-sacrificial Jesus is, we should be shocked to find that God wouldn't be gracious and loving and merciful to even one person, not shocked that He would. (The whole, longer video can be seen here: Calvinism and Apologetics DON'T MIX..)]
It is inaccurate to say that we 'offer' salvation to all men. The preaching of the gospel is not an offer, but a 'command' to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The non-elect person will never have ears to hear this and obey. Yet, the call of the gospel must be sincerely given, allowing God to gather his people by the power of His Holy Spirit.
... While the messenger of Christ may never say to all men indiscriminately, 'Smile, God loves you' or 'Christ died for you,' yet he must say that Christ died for the sins of His people and all men are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ... It is precisely through this preaching of the gospel that God has determined to save His elect for whom Christ died.... God will also use the preaching of the gospel to condemn those who reject it and continue in their unbelief [by Calvi-god's decree].
The success of preaching is guaranteed, for none of the sheep will be lost... Others do not hear the voice of Jesus and will not believe, because they are not His sheep whom He died for.
... Success is not determined by how many become Christians, but it is a matter of faithfulness in bringing the true gospel of salvation to the ends of the earth.
... Unfortunately, in a mistaken attempt to bring all men into the Church, men have forsaken true doctrine in order to give greater appeal to the sound of the gospel. It may sound like a nice way to approach all men and say 'Christ died for you, now you must choose Him,' but it is not true, and does grave injustice to the intent of Christ on the cross.
... When we say that we 'freely proclaim' the gospel we must not think that all men are equally capable of receiving it in faith. The unregenerate man is not 'free' to believe – not until and unless the Holy Spirit has brought new life and freedom into his heart. No man can do this himself. Only the sheep will listen, and that will be only because the Holy Spirit works faith in their hearts.
E. And as my ex-pastor preached in April 7, 2019: “God is the one who opens eyes. God is the one who closes eyes. To God be the glory. And this should bring a freedom in our evangelism [and] in our mission endeavors. Otherwise, someone like [a missionary who had no converts] would come home and feel like an utter failure. But the reason he didn't - and the reason he doesn't have to - is because he understood the sovereignty of God. And it’s God who gives the results... J.I. Packer, in his classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, writes this: ‘It’s a Christian’s job to share the gospel. It is God’s job to open people’s hearts.’ Meaning that whether someone ends up believing or not, that’s God’s call. And what many miss is this is a very liberating thing when you share the gospel... God sovereignly opens some regions and hearts to the gospel, and He sovereignly closes some hearts and regions to the gospel. And ladies and gentlemen, that is needed tonic to the Western church which has become so man-centered. [If the damnation of the non-elect is equally desirable, successful, and God-glorifying as the salvation of the elect, then why does Paul, in Romans 9, anguish over lost Jews and plead with/for them, even wishing that he could trade places with them so that they might be saved? It doesn't sound to me like Paul shared the same kind of laissez-faire "praise God for the damnation of the reprobates"-attitude that Calvinists have about lost people.]… It is God only who gives results. And that is something the Western church needs to embrace, remember, and rejoice in as the gospel goes out.”
Rejoicing that God supposedly causes people to reject the gospel so that they can burn eternally in hell for His glory? Calling it "successful evangelism"?
[And yet, what does God say: "... 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live...'" (Ezekiel 33:11) and "... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)]
Does anyone else's heart hurt right now?
[Snippet from "'But predestination!' (#17: double-speak and the gospel)".]
#2: About the gospel:
If you listen closely, you'll notice that in Calvinism, Calvinism IS the gospel. And in fact, mega-Calvinist Charles Spurgeon even point-blankly says "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
From my ex-pastor's September 2023 sermon, quoting Calvinist Tim Keller: "'It means if someone is saved, it is wholly God's doing. It is not a matter of God saving you partly and you partly saving yourself. No! God saves us. We do not and cannot save ourselves. That is the gospel.' And that is the message of Jonah: Only God elects. Only God sovereignly draws. Only God sovereignly convicts us of sin. Only God sovereignly opens blinded eyes."
From February 2015: "The Bible's teaching on our human condition especially outside of Christ [is that we are] hopelessly blinded and in slavery to sin unless God graciously opens human sinful eyes and summons them to Himself as Lord... That's the gospel: That there is a God who seeks hardened sinners, pursues them, turns them around, drags them to Himself, blesses them, pardons them, and justifies them."
And from May 2024: "... the unsaved, the unregenerate, cannot see spiritual truth, they have no appetite for the things of God, they hate God's authority - that's our natural state - and they are unwilling and unable to commit to God... And the only hope is if God in His mercy...chooses to open blinded eyes... Exodus 33:19: 'The Lord God says, 'I have mercy on those I've chosen to have mercy on, and I will have compassion on those on whom I choose to have compassion.' That is the gospel."
Really, that is the gospel!?! No mention of Jesus's death or resurrection or of God loving people or of our need to choose to believe in Jesus, to call on Him - just the Calvinist doctrine of election/predestination, that God chooses who gets saved and makes them believe.
That's the gospel in Calvinism? (If they can find a verse that clearly says that "(Calvinist) election/predestination is the gospel," then maybe I'll start to believe them.)
... Furthermore, in Calvinism, the gospel is not an offer of salvation for all people, but it is merely an announcement that some people (the elect) will be saved... As my ex-pastor said in July 2018: "The gospel is very clear: It is the announcement that God is reconciling sinners to Himself through the life, death, and resurrection of His uniquely begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth."
Notice the carefully-chosen word "announcement." The gospel, in Calvinism, is not an invitation or offer to all people to believe in Jesus and be saved; it's an announcement that God will save some sinners. Some prechosen sinners. The elect. Calvinist election.
John 3:16, in Calvinism, is not an offer or invitation to all people. It's not instructions on how you - on how anyone and everyone - can be saved. Like the gospel, it's simply information, an announcement, about what happens to the elect. In Calvinism, "whoever believes" doesn't mean that anyone and everyone can believe; it just means "the elect," who are the only ones who can and will believe.
... I think that if someone can't even get the simple gospel message correct, then they have no business being a pastor.
[Snippet from "'But predestination!' (#17: double-speak and the gospel)".]
#1: Various Calvinists have claimed that God's refusal to show mercy to rebellious angels is proof that God is under no obligation to extend mercy to people, to "reprobates," and even (according to Jonathan Edwards) to reprobate infants.
From Edwards's "The Miscellanies", point n. on infant damnation: "... it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments... Wherefore, if it be very just, it is but a foolish piece of nonsense, to cry out of it as blasphemous to suppose that it ever is [just], because (they say) it is contrary to his mercy. [Translation: "Even infants deserve damnation, so it's perfect justice for God to throw newborn infants in hell, and it's foolish for you to call this blasphemous just because you think it goes against His mercy."]... There was no mercy showed to [the fallen angels] at all. And [so, therefore] why is it blasphemous to suppose that God should inflict upon infants so much as [the infants] have deserved, without mercy, as well as [upon the fallen angels]? If you say, they have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved, as much as the fallen angels... For we know [the infants] have enough [sin] to make their damnation very just."
So because God didn't extend mercy to fallen angels, it means it's okay (just and good and righteous) for God to likewise not extend mercy to "reprobates," whether infant or adult.
But here's the thing: Angels and people are totally different beings, created with different capacities, under different conditions, and for different purposes. And one important difference is that angels stood in the presence of God from the beginning of their creation, and so when they rejected Him, they knew exactly what they were doing, making a conscious decision based on all the facts. But not so with people. When we make a decision about God, we ultimately have to make it based on faith, on what we can't see. But angels made their decision based on what they could see, first-hand. Plus, we have to grow in understanding and maturity and spiritual knowledge as we age, but the angels didn't. They were created, as far as we can tell, mature and ageless.
This is why there's mercy and grace for people, not angels; why Jesus died for people, not angels. So it's totally improper and unbiblical to use God's relationship with and treatment of angels as support for bad Calvinist ideas of how God relates to and treats people, of how He supposedly (according to them) gives reprobates no chance to be saved just like He gave fallen angels no chance to be saved. [And furthermore, there's a difference between babies and older people. And I believe God Himself shows all throughout the Bible that He doesn't hold the "sins" of babies against them, not until we are old enough to make conscious decisions about Him and about right and wrong. See "Do babies go to hell if they die? A critique of Calvinism's answer".)
[Snippet from "But predestination! (#16A: God's Will, babies)", with a few adjustments.]
