Alana L. on how to recognize (and defeat) Calvinism
Here's a great new video from Alana L.: 5 Signs Your Loved One is Becoming a Calvinist
I've been wanting someone to make a video like this for awhile now - to help people recognize Calvinism when they hear it, to help them realize it's a big deal that they should take seriously and research, and to help them know why it's wrong and how it spreads.
Those who've studied against Calvinism know how very tricksy it is. But those who don't know anything about it, or how to recognize it, or how it takes over, or how it sounds like it's teaching one thing when it's really teaching something totally different, or how it twists or misinterprets Scripture... well, they are sitting ducks, fish in a barrel who become easy targets for a Calvinist pastor (especially a stealth Calvinist pastor) who slowly and strategically indoctrinates them into this twisted theology, before they ever see it coming, like boiling a frog in a pot. [Sounds like the beginning of a dumb joke: "So a duck, a fish, and a frog all walk into a church..."😁]
[Note: I am not judging the hearts of Calvinists. I think most garden-variety Calvinists in the congregation are good, well-meaning people trying to honor God as best they know how, as Calvinists have taught them. And I think most are true Christians, because most were Christian before they got bewitched by Calvinism. (Read this friendly "debate" between another non-Calvinist and myself about if Calvinism is a false gospel or the true gospel just warped.) But they are trapped in this bad theology and need help getting out of it, not condemnation for being in it. So my problem is not with them, but with the leaders, pastors, and theologians who are doing the trapping. But that being said, I am not saying that all Calvinist pastors are consciously and deliberately deceptive or intentionally trying to manipulate/gaslight/shame people into Calvinism. Some are, but not all. But while their intentions might be good (to spread what they truly think is Gospel Truth), it's still manipulative and deceptive, even if the pastor thinks he doesn't mean to be that way.]
People in my last church - which we left because of a Calvinist take-over - can't even seem to identify the pastor's theology as Calvinism (they're taught it's "just what the Bible teaches, right from Scripture, and it's a mystery that you can't fully understand so just accept what I tell you"), and so they don't think it's a big deal or something worth worrying about.
And they can't tell that Calvinism teaches something very different from the plain commonsense teachings of the Bible, because they've been strategically taught to view Scripture through Calvinist glasses (and taught to not examine it too closely or question it - because that would be questioning God), and so they become convinced that Calvinism is really in the Bible, when it's really not.
And so they can't even see that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
And how in the world can we rescue people who are trapped in a twisted theology when they don't even realize that they're trapped, that it's twisted, and that they need to be rescued!?!
If I ever wondered before how "cults" get such a tight grip on people's minds so easily, I don't wonder anymore. I've seen it happen firsthand. [Here's our letter to our elders about the Calvinism in our church and "We left our church because of Calvinism (things my Calvinist pastor said)". And here's a post on how different Calvinism is from the plain, clear, commonsense understanding of the Bible: "Why is Calvinism so dangerous?".]
The average Christian has no idea that they need to be on alert for, and alarmed by, Calvinism and its tactics. They don't know that it spreads by deception, out-of-context verses, bad definitions, bad analogies/illustrations, false dichotomies, manipulation, gaslighting, thought-reform, strategic control of resources and leadership positions, and by flattering those who agree but shaming those who disagree, etc. [Here's my post on how Calvinism spreads: "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult".]
And so they simply trust their Calvinist pastor and willingly ingest what he spoon-feeds them, convinced that they're being "good, intelligent, humble Christians who are honoring God and seeking unity in the church" - unlike those "bad, stupid, ignorant, divisive, troublemaking Christians who dishonor God, resist His truth, and steal His glory" when they question their Calvinist pastor and push back against his theology.
Alana herself learned the hard way what happens when you disagree with and push back against Calvinism. See her videos "In and Out of Calvinism: The Whole Story" and "Shunning in the Church/My story: where I've been and where I am now".
And, much to her shock and dismay, she even had high Calvinist John MacArthur demean her in a pubic interview - not to her face or by name, but if you know the story then you know he's talking about her (see Great Light Studios video "Leaving Calvinism after 19 years, with Alana L", at the 2:31 minute mark.). Here's what he said about her:
"You know I was looking at the internet the other day and some wistful girl said 'How I became a Calvinist and left Calvinism'... well, the sophomoric comment ["pretentious or juvenile," I looked it up] like that, from somebody who should keep her thoughts to herself because she has no idea what she's talking about, is to be measured against someone who for 50 years has taken every text of the Bible and put doctrine into that text and see if it survives. And I can say that it has." [Translation: "Don't listen to that ignorant, uneducated girl, but listen to me, a giant of the faith."]
[Prideful much, Johnny!?! It's like "No one questions ME! Don't you know who I am!?! Who is this tiny, stupid girl who comes out against me, a spiritual giant? Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks?"]
It's sad. It's sad to watch good Bereans who double-check what they're being taught against the Bible and who are willing to take the risk of speaking out and pushing back against bad theology being mocked, shamed, silenced, shunned, villainized, pushed out, fired, expelled, etc. by the Calvinist church (it's happening to a few wonderful friends of ours right now too, at the church we left in 2019, and all we can do is watch it happen while praying for them and giving them a supportive, listening ear)...
... while, at the same time, watching other good, well-meaning, humble Christians slowly slide into the powerful grip of smart, stealthy Calvinist pastors, without even realizing it - because they don't know what's happening, can't recognize it, and don't even know why it matters. And even more sad is that most of them won't realize it until it's too late, until they're either fully indoctrinated (and totally unable to understand the plain, simple, beautiful truths of Scripture anymore) or until their faith has been suffocated to death and their hearts destroyed.
Like these people:
From a Reddit post called "Calvinism is disgusting":
"As an ex-Christian who used to be a Calvinist, what alarmed me is that all the fears about satan applied to god... [Calvinists] ascribed so many characteristics to god that could be applied to satan that made them seem indistinguishable." (from 'deleted')
"I remember as I was leaving my faith, I thought 'If God exists, then he let my parents waste thousands on private Christian education, let me be baptized and study his word and be confirmed, let me have periods of doubt and repentance, all when he knew that I would be damned to hell.' Even when I was still a Christian, he knew that I was damned and he never helped me." (Uriah_Blacke)
"My parents used to say 'even the cutest baby is a dirty rotten sinner.' It was somewhat of a joke in our family, but also definitely what we all believed. I’m turning 30 this year and I still have trouble turning down the volume on this narrative about myself. It has led to issues in my friendships, with my partner, and now, with my parents... I have deconstructed to the [point] of agnosticism... This has crippled my emotional growth as an adult in ways..." (foreverlanding)
"The [Calvinist] concept of total depravity is so completely toxic. I'm still unlearning this as well. It does make me angry sometimes thinking about how absolutely f*cked up it is to teach children they are inherently awful just for being... The system is designed to make you feel like a POS [piece of sh*t] just for being a human. I'm 37 now and am agnostic after trying really hard to believe until about 2ish years ago. I feel more hopeful and free without the church." (eab1728)
"Agreed. Total Depravity isn't the "Good News" espoused in Reformed circles... Reformed doctrine never allowed me to truly accept my own self-worth; it robbed me of dignity and replaced it with constant, grating guilt. And it's utterly worthless in the face of real hardship... I am a universalist now, which couldn't be further from Reformed doctrine. And honestly, what a relief." (come_heroine)
"This is a screenshot from an email that I sent to my mom when I was 12 years old, simply titled "distressed". [In the email, the 12-year-old is telling the parent that she (I'll just assume it's a 'she' for now) is distressed because she's praying and reading the Bible, but nothing is happening. She's looking for assurance that she's saved, one of the elect. And the father replies that she should keep asking God to show her the way, that only God can save her, that only God can awaken her dead spirit and make her alive, that she can't do anything to save herself. So essentially, it's "Do something about it, but you can't do anything about it, and so wait to see if God convinces you that you're one of the elect." So confusing. So biblically off-track. This girl is doing her part, reaching for God, crying out for God, and yet the father basically tells her that she can't do that, that all she can do is wait to see what God does, and that if she's not elect then there's nothing she can do about it and there's no hope for her. No wonder the kid is distressed!] I'm so angry that I was taught that I was completely bad, simply by being human, and I deserved to be tortured by the Creator for all of eternity, AND I COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. All I could do was pray to God and hope that he had mercy on such a miserable, worthless, depraved wretch such as twelve-year-old me. I lived with a phobia of hell until the cage of my mind opened when I was 22, and I could finally think for the first time in my life..." (why-homo-sapien)
"A few years ago I was wondering why my self-esteem was so crap and then suddenly realised that the people who taught me to hate myself were my parents, through the medium of calvinism :)" (pktechboi)
From the Reddit post (with a few minor spelling and punctuation corrections) called I have posted on another Group as well. I NEED SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN Calvinism to me because what I understand of it is scaring me!!! : r/Christians (reddit.com): "Okay.... so I have just watched a sermon from Paul Washer (which I thought was one of the most amazing sermons I have ever seen). That man has a fire for Christ that cannot be extinguished. But for the first time, I found out what Calvinism is. And I am scared to death!!! So if I am not elected by God to be saved, I will not be saved??? No matter how much time I devoted to prayer, how many times I have been broken by his feet have, how many hours I spent learning scripture, how many days I "thought" I was talking to my best friend. It was all just a lie??? I come in heaven just to realize I was never elected??? And get thrown into hell because the day I was born I was already doomed from the beginning??? And my whole faith is just one big hoax???"(Dingus_bellator1027)
[That's some serious struggling going on right there! And Calvinism can offer no real hope, no real help, no real comfort other than "wait until you die to see if you won the salvation lottery or not".)
From the Reddit post "Verily verily I say unto thee, f*ck this sh*t!" which starts with this quote from Kevin DeYoung (which can also be found in his article on limited atonement): "Jesus did not die for every sinner, but for His own people. The Good Shepherd gives His life not for the goats, but for the sheep":
"This was a huge factor in my own deconversion. Even if this was an actual literal proven fact, there's no way I could love and worship a being who did/does this." (from justalapforcats)
"Welp, that takes a lot of pressure off of me as an atheist. I won't worry about whatever Jesus did, because he didn't die for me anyways." (from chucklesthegrumpy)
Miss_an100 responds to that with "...When I realized our own judicial system treats us better than this sadistic god, I was out. 30 years of my life. Sure, there were good memories. But the weight of it all sure took a toll on me eventually. Thankful I can breath a bit more easy now not worrying if I have committed the unpardonable sin. I’m certain I have 100x over. ;) ..."
If you are raising kids in a Calvinist church, take all of this very seriously. Because this could be them someday: "I have recently discovered the doctrine of election and I believe that I am not elect. I don't have any spiritual fruit and I hate God with all my heart. My question is, at this point is it right to want to die? Might as well go to hell now instead of later. I do not want to kill myself (I never will hopefully) but I cant see a reason to live when my end destiny will be the same." (from "deleted") (Found in Election and Suicide : r/Calvinism (reddit.com))
(And I can only hope that the last one is a sick joke.)
Yeah, that's pretty much Calvinism in a nutshell, minus the colorful language (or not, because even that colorful language was "ordained" by Calvi-god for his glory).
When they're taught that "Calvinism IS the gospel, Calvinism IS Christianity," how could they know any better? They don't know that they can - that they should - throw out the Calvinism, but keep God, Jesus, the Bible, the gospel. And so in their desperate efforts to escape the destructive Calvinist doctrines, they throw it all out. Sad. So sad. Many of them would rather have no God than the Calvinist god.
This is why it's so important to speak out against Calvinism, to help people know that Calvi-god is not the God of the Bible, that Calvinism is NOT the gospel! Because Calvinists are constantly claiming it is. And so if we don't research it and expose it and push back against it - if we are lazy, apathetic, or compromising/tolerant about it - the more Calvinism will spread, the more churches it will take over, and the more people it will destroy.
I agree with Kevin Thompson at Beyond the Fundamentals who said something like this: If we're nice and tolerant and "can't we just be unified and not make a big deal about this" about Calvinism, the Calvinists will just use our niceness against us, to push their doctrines even more. They don't want to be unified with those who don't see things their way; they want to convert them to Calvinism. And nothing less will do. Kevin calls Calvinism a cancer in the Church. And you can't politely tolerate a cancer - because its main job is to grow and spread and take over. And so the cancer needs to be cut out, not tolerated.
In fact, I think Calvinism is one of the biggest threats to the evangelical church today, destroying the church from the inside out... because compared to other more obviously-wrong theologies that we know to reject right away, Calvinism appears to be (presents itself as) so godly, intelligent, God-glorifying, and on-track, so "we have a high view of Scripture," so "aren't we so humble to accept such difficult teachings." And this tricks and traps many people before they even realize it.
I can't remember where I read it, but I once heard that discernment isn't being able to tell right from wrong, but it's being able to tell right from almost right. Because "almost right" is more deceptive, more effective at tricking people because it's harder to discern. Where have all the good Bereans gone!?!
And so thank you, Alana, for making a video like this! It's much needed and appreciated, and I hope you do more like it.
“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what [their pastor] said was true.” (Acts 17:11, slightly modified😉)
Okay, so, now I'm gonna highlight Alana's points about how to recognize when a friend is becoming a Calvinist (watch her video first though; it's good, concise, and full of information, and she gets even more in-depth about getting out of Calvinism in this 54-minute video: "5 Years out of CALVINISM"). And I'll add a bunch of additional notes of my own. (I wish this was short and sweet, but y'all know that's not my style😏. I'll try to make a super-short version of this post eventually, a "just give us the bottom-line" one. And I'll break this long post up into a series of shorter posts soon.):
Point #1:
A. Alana pointed out how Calvinists say "I could never choose God. I would never choose God. I can't even want God or seek God, so He had to choose me."
When Calvinists say this, there are (at least) two possible things going on:
1. They're repeating what Calvinists have taught them to say and believe, convinced that it's what "humble, God-honoring" Christians believe and what the Bible really teaches. It's part of their doctrine of "total depravity," that humans are so terrible - so "spiritually dead" inside - that they can't do anything on their own, not even think about God, want God, seek God, or believe in God - not unless and until God regenerates them by giving them the Holy Spirit who makes them born-again and injects saving faith into them, causing them to want God, seek God, and believe in God. [If they can find a verse that clearly teaches this, then I'll start to consider it a little more.]
But here's the thing: Total depravity/spiritual death does not mean "inability" or that our brains don't work. That's a presupposition Calvinists read into the Bible and support with out-of-context, misinterpreted verses.
"Death" is about separation. When we're physically dead, our spirits are separated from our bodies. When we're spiritually dead, we're separated from God.
We need to let the Bible tell us what "dead" means, instead of letting Calvinists tell us:
“As for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1).
"But your iniquities have separated you from your God..." (Isaiah 59:2).
Because of our sins, we are "dead." And "dead" means that we are separated from God. Not that we are "unable to think, seek, believe."
[It's funny that Calvinists will compare spiritually-dead people to physically-dead bodies and say that since a physically-dead body can't do anything, then spiritually-dead people can't do anything either, like think about God, want God, seek God, believe in God, or want to do anything truly good... but then they'll go and say that spiritually-dead people desire to sin, choose to sin, choose to do evil, and choose to resist the truth and reject God, etc. Hmm? I didn't know that physically-dead bodies can desire/choose to sin and reject God. Interesting. So... Calvinist zombies!?! I don't think that's a dead body I want to meet.]
Depravity/spiritual death just means that our sins have separated from God spiritually (and if we die physically in that state, we will remain eternally separated from God), and that we cannot work our way to heaven. And so we needed God to make a way for us, which He did by sending Jesus to the cross for our sins, making salvation available to us all and possible for us all. It has nothing to do with being "totally unable" to seek or believe in God.
And so even though we are spiritually dead (separated from God), our brains still work. Our minds are still alive. And God expects us to use our living brains to want Him, seek Him, and find Him.
Acts 17:27: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
Look for a moment at Amos 5:4: "Seek me and live ..." and Deuteronomy 30:15,19: "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction... Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."
God says "Seek Me and then you will live... Choose life and then you will live." If they have to seek/choose Him in order to live, it means they are currently "dead," which means that God is telling "dead" people to seek Him and choose Him in order to live. This is the reverse of Calvinism, which says the elect must be brought to life first in order to seek and choose. (Calvinism often uses the same concepts but in reverse order, making it easier to trick people who hear the biblical concepts but don't notice the flip.)
Do you know who else was considered “dead” in the Bible? The prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32. And yet he himself “came to his senses” and chose to return to his father - a father who wasn't dragging him back with some big heavenly hook, but who was waiting eagerly for him with arms outstretched, eyes full of love, and a heart full of forgiveness.
Also consider this verse: "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life... he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:24-25).
Notice that the people get life after hearing and believing, which means that before hearing/believing they are "dead," which means "dead people" can hear and believe. And notice that it's only after they believe that they are brought to life, which contradicts Calvinism's teaching that spiritually-dead people must be brought to life by the Holy Spirit first in order to believe.
[And as best I can tell, considering what Strong's Concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says, the first two uses of "hear" in those verses are merely about sensing the words that hit our ears. So "hear and believe" is about sensing the words and then believing them. And "the dead will hear" is about spiritually-dead people sensing the words that hit their ears. Therefore, spiritually-dead people (which we all are at first) can hear the Word and believe.
But the third use of "hear" - "those who hear will live" - is a different kind of "hear." It means to yield obediently to the voice we hear - not just to sense/listen to the words, but to really hear, to take it in, to accept it and abide by it.
So taking all this together, these verses don't mean, as Calvinists think, that only certain "elect" people can sense the voice/call of God (after being brought to life first by the Holy Spirit, of course) and understand the Word and believe in it.
It means that all dead people are able to "hear and believe" the Word, the call of God, and that all who choose to believe it/yield obediently to it will be saved. And only after believing are they brought to life, given eternal life. This contradicts the Calvinist view that dead people cannot hear/believe and that only certain preselected people are brought to life first, before hearing/believing, in order to make them hear/believe.
And these verses confirm that it’s “believe first, then get the Holy Spirit,” and not Calvinism's “get the Holy Spirit first who then causes you to believe”:
Acts 2:38: "... Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Ephesians 1:13: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit."]
Contrary to Calvinism, "dead people" can want/seek/choose/believe in God. And God knows this, which is why He's constantly calling to dead people, telling them to seek Him and choose Him. God knows that though our sins have separated us from Him, our brains still work - and He expects us to use our living brains to find Him.
Total depravity/spiritual death does not mean "totally inability," like Calvinists think it does. So don't let them trick you with the bad analogy of "Spiritually dead people are the exact same as physically dead bodies." It's unbiblical.
2. And then there are those who truly believe that they were such hardened, resistant, terrible people before coming to Christ - hopeless cases - that they don't think they ever could have, would have, come to Jesus if God didn't make them do it.
I would say that these people's hearts are in the right place, but they are actually basing their sense of salvation not on Scripture, but on their own feelings. "I feel like I would never, could never, have wanted Christ on my own, so God must have made me do it." And feelings are not the basis for truth. And you can't have much assurance of salvation (of Truth) when it's based on your feelings.
[I think "basing assurance of salvation on feelings" is exactly what John MacArthur teaches when trying to comfort a woman who was doubting her salvation in a video clip I wrote about in "MacArthur on Calvinism's (lack of) Assurance of Salvation".]
B. Alana pointed out how Calvinists say that belief is a work, as though we were working for our salvation or "saved ourselves," something Calvinists accuse us of if we believe God gave us the free-will to choose Jesus.
Unlike Calvinists who use philosophy and presuppositions to build their beliefs, Alana went to the Bible and pointed out how, in Romans 4, God says that belief is the opposite of works:
'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" (Romans 4:3-6)
"A man who does not work but trusts God." Paul is contrasting Abraham's belief/faith/trust in God with those who "work" for their justification and righteousness, who try to earn/work their way to Him. He's saying that "belief/faith" is not the same thing as "working for salvation," and that belief/faith is what we must do to be saved.
In fact, "believing" is the only thing we must do to be saved, the one responsibility God gave us to do to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" John 6:28-29
And yet Calvinists insist that "believing" is something we can't do because that would be "working for salvation," and we can't work for salvation.
But "believing" is not work. It is simply embracing all the work that Jesus did for us to get us into heaven. Accepting the free gift of eternal life that He paid for with His blood and that He freely offers to us is not work... unless you're a Calvinist.
And so I wonder: If Calvinism says that we have no ability to do the one thing God said we must do to be saved, can anyone really be saved through honestly-presented Calvinism?
C. Alana said that, according to the Bible, faith comes by hearing and believing the Word.
She's right. The Bible teaches that faith comes by hearing the Word. We hear the Word, and then we believe it, and then we are saved.
But not in Calvinism.
In Calvinism, faith comes by election only, by being saved first. As Calvinist Loraine Boettner said in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: "A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved."
And A.W. Pink in Doctrine of Election: "... [faith] cannot be the cause of our election... the reason why any believe is because God gives them faith." As he says: "[faith] was a gift of God (Eph. 2:9), and the operation of the Spirit (Col. 2:12)" (*both verses are misunderstood, which I'll explain below).
What they mean - what all Calvinists mean - is that the elect are not saved because they have faith/believe, but they have faith/believe because they were first saved.
[Do you realize that Calvinism rescues no one from hell? Because the "elect" were never on their way to hell at any point in time, they were always saved, and the "non-elect" can never be rescued from hell no matter what. Calvinism rescues no one. All it does is convince the "elect" that they were always saved, even without making their own conscious, voluntary decision to make Jesus their Lord and Savior, and convince the "non-elect" that they can never be saved because God always hated them and predestined them to hell for His pleasure and glory. It's sick and sad and so very unbiblical.]
In Calvinism, the elect are saved/born again first, and then God gives them saving faith so that when they hear the gospel, they will believe it - salvation before belief, before even hearing the gospel.
But the Bible clearly and repeatedly - clearly and repeatedly! - tells us the true order of salvation: We hear the gospel, then we believe/put our faith in Jesus, and then we are saved/born again.
John 20:31: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
John 3:16,36: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.... Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life...”
Romans 10:9: “… if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Acts 16:31: “… Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved …”
John 5:24: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
John 1:12: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”
How much clearer could God have been?
How much more wrong could Calvinism be?
Calvinism reverses this and teaches a very different, backwards path to salvation. And that's why it's so deceptive: same words, different order. Leading to a totally different gospel.
[Note: Calvinists misunderstand what faith is. They think it's something God injects into the elect to make them believe, a prerequisite for believing. But I think faith IS our belief. When we choose to believe in Jesus, we have put our faith in Him.]
Now think carefully about this: If Calvinists believe that we are saved/born again before we believe in Jesus, then they are really saying that we are saved/born again without belief in Jesus, apart from belief in Jesus. And who do you think is behind the idea that salvation happens without belief in Jesus?
[*About the two verses Pink used to support Calvinism:
Pink says (as all Calvinists do) that faith is the gift God gives to people, to the elect. And so if you don't have faith, it's because God didn't give it to you because you were non-elect, and so you can never believe in Jesus. But when you research the gender of the Greek words in Ephesians 2:8-9, you learn that "faith" is not the gift, but that the whole thing (salvation by grace through faith) is the gift: the offer of eternal life through faith by grace.
Eternal life is the gift, as verified in Romans 6:23: "the gift of God is eternal life." And it's a gift that's offered to all people (Romans 11:32, Romans 3:23-24, Titus 2:11, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, Ezekiel 33:11, 1 John 2:2, John 3:16, etc.), but we choose to accept it or reject it. (See more on that here: "Is faith a gift God gives (forces on) us?")
{Don't be tricked when Calvinists say something like "Eternal life is offered to all who believe in Jesus." When they say this, they mean it's only offered to those who believe in Jesus. And in Calvinism, only the elect can/will believe. Therefore, eternal life is offered only to the elect, which means only the elect can/will be saved. But in the Bible, eternal life is offered to all, but only those who accept it will be saved. And anyone can accept it.}
And Colossians 2:12 is not saying that the Holy Spirit makes the elect believe, but that the Holy Spirit makes us born-again in response to our decision to believe, to put our faith in Jesus and receive Him as Lord (Colossians 2:6). Our job is to believe, and when we do, the Holy Spirit's job is to make us born again, a new creation. (See Quick Answers to Calvinism, part 3 for more on that.)
Neither of those verses support Calvinism when read in proper context.
But as I've said before: Calvinism and context cannot coexist.]
D. Alana correctly notes that the section in Romans 3 about no one seeking God, no one understanding, is taken from Psalms about "the fool who says in his heart that there is no God."
I agree. Romans 3:10-18 is taken from Psalms about wicked people who reject God. Notice even in Romans 3:12: "All have turned away..." This is why they do not seek God or understand, because they've turned away from Him. Wicked people who reject God, fools who say "there is no God," people who turn away from God, will not seek God or understand. They have rejected Him and chosen to ignore His truth, and so their spiritual eyes and ears have become worthless.
So it's not that people are born "totally unable" to seek God or understand (nowhere in that section does it say people cannot seek God, just that they don't), but it's that those who turn away from God, who choose their sin over God, will not seek Him or understand. Their decision to reject Him leads to their inability to see/believe in God, not the other way around, as Calvinism teaches.
And this truth - that our decision to either turn to God or away from God determines whether or not we see and understand truth and believe in Jesus - is confirmed over and over again in other verses, such as these:
Matthew 13:15: "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.'" [Jesus is saying that if the people didn't choose to be calloused to the truth, to cover their ears and close their eyes to the truth, then they would be able to see the truth, turn to Jesus, and be healed. But they chose to be blind and hard-hearted, and so they couldn't understand Jesus and wouldn't believe in Him.]
John 12:37,39: “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.... For this reason, they could not believe.” ["Would not" led to "could not."]
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 to [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."
Hebrews 3:12-15: "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God…. so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness… Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...”
2 Kings 17:14-15: “But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the Lord their God. They rejected his decrees and the covenant he made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless…”
Romans 11:20,23: "But they were broken off because of unbelief ... And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in ..."
John 5:40: “yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
Matthew 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”
Isaiah 65:2-3: “All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations – people who continually provoke me to my very face …”
Romans 1:18-2:5: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened... Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind... But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed."
How many more verses do Calvinists need to see before they will believe it, before they will realize Calvinism is wrong?
[Here's a "must watch" 4-minute satirical video: Hitler and Calvinism. Awesome!]
Point #2:
E. Alana then pointed out how Calvinists say that Jesus's work on the cross was "sufficient for all of humanity, but it's not efficient [for all]." It's only "efficient" for some, for the elect.
I love it when she said this about "sufficient and efficient": "Okay, huh, new words, not in Scripture." Priceless!
I think these bogus terms - which are not in the Bible - are merely a way for Calvinists to sound like they're saying one thing when they really mean another, to sound like they're saying Jesus died for all when they're really not. They know that if they outright said Jesus didn't die for all, it would contradict certain verses and set off people's alarm bells - and so they speak on multiple levels to obscure what they're teaching, to buy them time to slowly, strategically manipulate people into Calvinism without resistance or pushback.
But "sufficient for all but only efficient for some" really just means that Jesus's death is of no benefit whatsoever to the "non-elect." It would be like me saying that I have sufficient money in my bank account to feed all starving people in the world, but I choose to only feed some (it's only efficient for some), while I choose to let the rest of the people starve to death. Even though I had more than enough to cover them too.
It's sick. Truly sick. (And personally, I think Calvinism's idea that Jesus could've saved all but deliberately didn't is worse than saying that Jesus's death was not sufficient for all but only for some and that He saved all the people He could. At least that Jesus would be saving all the people that He was able to, instead of being able to save more but choosing not to. Both ideas are wrong, of course, but at least the second hypothetical Jesus is better than Calvi-Jesus. Because the second Jesus saved all He possibly could.)
"Sufficient for all, efficient for some" is really just Calvinist doublespeak - contradictory hogwash - for "Yes, Jesus's death was for all... but, no, Jesus's death was not for all. It wasn't for the non-elect."
And false doctrine thrives on confusion, deception, and doublespeak.
As the article "The Subtle Secrets of the Gospel Project" points out: "[Calvinists] are prolific writers who are masters in propagating their doctrine without using recognizable Calvinist terms. Try asking one of these guys if they’re a Calvinist and you will probably get a 15-page essay about God’s sovereignty.... You most certainly will not get a direct answer to your question though and that is because they realize how unpopular it is to answer 'yes.' They’re banking on one thing: Given enough time and enough trust, they can sprinkle in the right amount of Calvinism to infect your brain and make you comfortable with their terms. Then it’s simply a matter of putting all the pieces together in their deranged puzzle... So don’t be surprised when you look around and discover a generation whose faith is built on the TULIP but they got there without ever hearing the label 'Calvinism.' We know what they’re doing. The evidence is undeniable."
I believe God clearly tells us what His Will is - His desire - for people's eternities:
"... [God is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9, KJV)
“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32)
"Say to them, '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)
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
God wants everyone to be saved, and no one to perish. And a God who wants everyone to be saved will make it possible for everyone to be saved. And I believe He has emphasized this over and over again in Scripture, in addition to the above verses (emphasis added):
"And he died for all ..." (2 Cor. 5:15)
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." (Titus 2:11)
“but now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)
“But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” (John 12:32)
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men..." (1 Timothy 2:5)
“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” (Romans 5:18. Life has been bought for all, paid for by Jesus's blood, but we decide to accept it or reject it.)
“Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29. Everyone's sins have been already paid for by Jesus, but if we reject Jesus's payment, then we choose to pay for them ourselves.)
"But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people." (Luke 2:10. The true gospel is good news for all, but Calvinism's gospel is only good news for the elect.)
"... that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10. Calvinists wrongly assume that if Jesus died for you, then you will be, must be, saved. And so if you're not saved, then Jesus didn't die for you. This is an overflow of their incorrect doctrines of unlimited atonement and irresistible grace. But as this verse shows, Jesus died to be the Savior of all men, not just those who believe. But people can decide to reject Him as Savior, even though He died for them too.)
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32)
"... Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
And yet despite these clear verses and the repeated theme of "all, all, all," Calvinists are still so eager to hoard salvation all for themselves for some reason, convinced that they're honoring God to think like that. (But I think what would be more honoring to God is if we take Him at His word, His clear, plainly-revealed word.)
Where Calvinists go wrong - besides not taking Scripture at face-value and building one bad idea on another - is that they assume that God always gets what He wants, that His Will always happens. They think His Will is always about what He preplanned to happen, and so He will definitely cause it to happen.
And so to explain why everyone doesn't get saved, they came up with the idea of "two Wills": God's spoken Will is that He wants everyone to be saved, but His secondary, hidden, contradictory Will is that He wants most people in hell for His glory. Likewise, His spoken Will is that He wants people to not sin, but His secondary, hidden, contradictory Will is that He wants/preplans/causes every sin that happens. And "it's a mystery that we can't understand anyway, so just accept it."
In order to accommodate their bad presuppositions and definitions, Calvinists turn Him into a schizophrenic, duplicitous, lying, self-opposing God.
[And what does Scripture say 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."
And yet that is the Calvinist god. But if God says one thing but means another, how can He be trusted? If He works against Himself, how can He stand?]
But biblically, when it comes to our lives and choices, God's Will isn't about preplanning/causing what happens. (Yes, God has some overarching plans for mankind that He will work out one way or another, but He does this by incorporating our choices, not preplanning/causing them. He causes all things to work together - not preplans/causes all things - to fulfill His overarching plans.)
But according to Strong's Concordance/HELPS Word-studies, "God's Will" - especially in verses talking about what He wants for us - is about His “desire/preferred Will; His 'best offer' to people which can be accepted or rejected; the result hoped for with the particular desire/wish.” It's about what God desires to have happen in our lives and what He desires us to do, not about a pre-set plan that must happen.
This means that we - through our obedience or disobedience - decide if we are in His Will or not, if His Will for us gets done or not. Therefore, what He wants doesn’t always happen and things happen that He doesn’t want (yet He can still work it all for good, into His plans – He’s just that wise and powerful and sovereign).
This helps make sense of the times when the Bible talks about things God wills that don't happen, such as that all men are saved. That's what He prefers to have happen, what He made possible, but He leaves the choice up to us.
Calvinism's misunderstanding of what "God's Will" means has led to massive errors in their theology (such as their idea that "Jesus's death was sufficient for all but only efficient for some"), massive errors in their understanding of why things happen, how things get done, what God's role/responsibility is, what our role/responsibility is, who Jesus died for, and how we get to heaven.
His Will is not as mysterious as Calvinists make it out to be. He tells us clearly in His Word what His Will for us is, what He wants for us and wants us to do - and He gave us the ability/choice to do it. It's not that "mysterious." It only becomes "mysterious" in Calvinism because they claim that we have no ability to do the things God tells us to do and that God has two opposing Wills.
[If Calvinists can find one verse, just one, that clearly says God wills/wants people to perish for His glory and pleasure - as clearly as the verses that say He doesn't will that people perish and doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He wants all people to be saved - then maybe I'll start to believe them.]
And furthermore, it's worth noting that in Acts 20:27 Paul says "For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God." The whole Will of God! Paul's consistent message was "God wants you to be saved: to repent and believe in Jesus." And he calls that the whole Will of God.
And so I wonder: If this is the whole Will of God, where is there any room for a secret, secondary, contradictory Will where God really does want most people to perish for His glory?
F. Alana noted how Calvinists say that they were chosen before the foundation of the world (that their names - the names of "the elect" - were written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world).
This error is based on two things:
1. It's based on a mistranslation of Revelation 13:8, usually from the Calvinist's favorite translation, the ESV: "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."
"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.
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), 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 Calvinists 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 and Eph. 1:13. (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 a Calvinist verses!
Calvinists think this means that God chose which individual people would be saved, before the creation of the world. But that's not what it says or means.
As Dr. Tony Evans (one of the preachers I trust most) says in his The Tony Evans Bible Commentary under Ephesians 1:5-6: "... The focus of the book of Ephesians is on the corporate church, not on individual Christian salvation... Therefore, the choosing and election to which Paul refers is not for individuals to eternal life but regards God's choice to establish a group of people (that is, the body of Christ) in the Beloved One whose purpose is to live godly lives and reflect his holy character in a sinful world. This election defines the corporate identity believers share because of their relationship to Christ... Election is for service and spiritual benefit, not for individual, personal salvation."
Basically and biblically, Ephesians is not saying that God predestined which individuals to save, but it's saying that God planned from the beginning that there would be an "in Him" group and that anyone who becomes “in Him” will be saved, will become "holy and blameless" in His sight, and will get the benefits and blessings He planned to give all those who are "in Him."
And Ephesians 1:13 tells us how to become "in Him": "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit".
God doesn't choose who will be saved from before the creation of the world. But from the beginning, He planned to send Christ to die for all sins so that anyone who believes in Him will be saved.
And anyone can. As Dr. Evans says in his commentary on John 12:32-33: "The cross drew all judgment for all people to Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world (1 John 2:2). The death of Christ saved all humankind from the consequences of original sin (Romans 5:18) and made all people savable for their personal sin when they place personal faith in him. This is why we are to share the gospel with everyone in the world."
[Special note: Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says that the Greek word "chose" in Eph. 1:4 (Strong’s 1586) is about picking out, selecting. It carries with it the ideas of kindness, favor, love. But it doesn’t say what we are "chosen" for. And it definitely doesn't say that it's about salvation or who gets eternal life. And so we have to let the verse tell us what we are "chosen" for. And as we saw, Eph. 1:4 does not say that certain sinners are chosen for salvation, but it says that those who are "in Him" (through their belief in Him) are chosen to be holy and blameless. Also note that, according to the concordance, the word "chose" does not necessarily mean that the “not chosen” ones are rejected, as it would be in Calvinism.]
Briefly, let's examine Ephesians 1:4-5,11-12 (KJV) a little closer, in context, to see what else it says, to see if it really does teach Calvinist predestination: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself … In him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”
Does this say certain sinners are predestined to salvation/eternal life?
No. It says that believers are "predestinated unto the adoption of children" and that our inheritance has been predestined.
And to know what “adoption of children” means (the NIV words it “adoption as sons”) go to Romans 8:23 (NIV): “… we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”
“Predestined for adoption” is not about certain sinners being predestined for salvation/eternal life. It’s about the promise that God will redeem the bodies of all believers, that we will reach the “glorification” talked about in Romans 8:30, eventually acquiring the full benefits of being a child of God.
Also of note is that Strong's Concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says "adoption" in Romans 8:23 is NOT about being brought into God's family by spiritual birth, but about God promising to "adopt" anyone who believes into His family. Anyone who believes in Jesus, who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior - and this offer is open to all - will become one of His children: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12) And all His children are predestined to be brought into His family and to experience the dignity/full benefits of being His child, being fully realized at the redemption of their bodies. This is God’s promise, that if you put your faith in Jesus, you will be part of His eternal family!
And Ephesians 1:13-14 (NIV) confirms all this when it says that “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory.”
Notice that those believers were not included in Christ until after they believed. And after they believed, they were given the Holy Spirit as a promise that they will be redeemed. This contradicts Calvinism on at least three points:
First, it confirms that predestination is not about certain sinners being preselected for heaven, but it's about believers being predestined for redemption and glorification.
Second, it contradicts Calvinism’s idea that the elect are “in Christ” (“saved”) from the beginning of time, because it shows that they were not in Christ until after they believed.
And third, it contradicts Calvinism’s view that the elect have to get the Holy Spirit first who causes them to believe in Jesus, because it shows that they didn’t get the Holy Spirit until after they believed, as a result of believing.
And notice also that the second "predestination" in Eph. 1:11-12 (but you have to use the KJV, the more trustworthy translation; see "Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible?" for why I trust the KJV but totally distrust the Calvinist ESV) specifies that the "inheritance" believers get is what was predestined, NOT that certain people are predestined for salvation.
Interestingly, the NIV (which I grew up with and use but don't fully trust either) translates Ephesians 1:11 like this: "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,"
Now again in the KJV: "In him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"
Notice what's missing?
The NIV skips the part about our inheritance being predestined, making it sound instead like whether or not we are "chosen" is what's been predestined. Big difference!
Likewise, Calvinists miss the part that our "inheritance" was predestined, not our salvation - because they need it to be about salvation in order to fit with their bad definitions of words and out-of-context verses so that it supports their terrible, unbiblical (and I would say "blasphemous") understanding of Scripture and of God and how He works.
Biblically, God doesn't decide who will believe in Jesus, but He does decide what will happen to anyone who chooses to believe in Jesus. And anyone can.
Neither Ephesians 1:4 nor Revelation 13:8 - nor any other verse - teaches Calvinism's predestination of individuals to salvation.
Point #3:
G. Alana talked about how Calvinists claim to be "surprised" (happy, thrilled, thankful) that God has enough grace to save anyone at all, because we're all so bad and deserve hell.
You'll hear this over and over again in Calvinism, such as these quotes from my Calvinist ex-pastor:
... From his October 12, 2014 sermon: "After thousands of years of [human] rebellion, that God would be willing to elect any rebellious sinner to eternal life shows tremendous love and grace and mercy."
... From his February 1, 2015 sermon on unbelief: "... Now your question might be this: 'Why doesn't God draw everybody? And why doesn't He save everybody and open the eyes of every sinner and have mercy on them all?'... He does not. He does not. (*see the note below) You know what: When we ask that question, we are forgetting the biblical doctrine of sin. In light of the Bible's graphic description of our wickedness and cruelty and rebellion, the question, friends, is 'Why does He save anybody?'... And the fact that God has mercy on anybody should cause all of us to fall on our knees in thanksgiving... The doctrine of election was not designed to cause controversy. It was designed to cause thanksgiving and to cause praise in God's people.... That is why the gospel is called 'good news' [for the elect only, but it's very bad news for the non-elect.]"
[*Note: It's interesting that he says God doesn't draw all people or have mercy on all people.... because the Bible says otherwise. John 12:32: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” John 16:8: "When [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment." Romans 11:32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."]
... From his June 28, 2015 sermon on hell: "When you begin to pile up the evidence and even get a glimpse of the depravity, wickedness, rebellion, and evilness of the human heart, ladies and gentlemen, the real question is not 'Why will so many go to hell?' The question really becomes 'Why will anybody go to heaven?' [Deflection. Manipulation.] That's what we are missing when it comes to questions like [hell] or predestination. We want to ask, 'How come God isn't fair and gives everyone a chance?' [But] when you stack up the biblical evidence against the human race, the issue on that isn't 'Why didn't God give everyone a chance to go to heaven,' it's 'Why did God elect anybody?'... Doctrines like predestination or salvation are designed to drive us to our knees in thanksgiving that there is a way left [for the elect only], that He does have mercy on some. Otherwise, we're all toast, literally."
... From August 16, 2015: "Once you begin to understand [how wicked we are], the question is not ‘Why aren’t more people elect? Why isn’t everyone going to heaven?’ What’s the real question? ‘Why is anybody elect? Why is anybody going to heaven?’ … But on the contrary, election does not make God look bad; it makes God look good [gaslighting].… Election is designed not for theological debate [manipulation to make you fall in line, to make those who push back look like bad Christians]. It is designed to drive God’s people to their knees in humble thanksgiving and praise to their Maker.… When we see God in His glory in election and predestination, it’s actually a God-entrenched theology that exalts who God is and makes God the center of the universe and not us."
... From June 9, 2016: "[Given our horrible sinfulness and rebellion against God], the question is not ‘Why doesn’t God choose everybody?’ The real question is ‘Why does God choose any of us?’"
... From June 26, 2016, in answer to "Is God unjust for electing some but not others": "Once you realize [how wretchedly, utterly depraved we are] the question is not 'Why doesn’t God elect everybody?' The question becomes 'Why does He elect anybody? Why does He have mercy on anybody?'"
... From July 8, 2018: ""God is not unjust to have mercy on some and not others - because of the wickedness, depravity, and innate rebellion of mankind... He's dealing with a planet of rebellious, sinful, wicked human beings. And so anything He does for them is merciful.... [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?' When you preach on [predestination], 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. [As long as you pay no attention to the fate of the non-elect.] Because God owes it to nobody."
[Yeah, it got annoying to hear over and over again in person too, and there's more than this. And incidentally, it's a proven fact that the more we hear something, the more we tend to believe it.]
And he's not alone. Here's Wayne Grudem ("Election and Reprobation" in Systematic Theology): “Sometimes people regard the doctrine of election as unfair... [but] we must remember that it would be perfectly fair for God not to save anyone…. But if he does save some at all then this is a demonstration of grace that goes far beyond the requirements of fairness and justice.” [Uhh, sure, if you think it's "justice" to damn people for a decision they had no control over!😕]
Beeke and Smalley ("Help! I'm struggling with the Doctrine of Predestination"): "We do not understand why God has chosen some and not others. However, Why didn’t God choose to save everyone? is the wrong question to ask. In light of man’s heinous rebellion against his Maker, we should ask, Why didn’t God damn everyone to hell? The astounding fact is not that God damns sinners to hell, but that he saves and reconciles sinners to himself. Unconditional election is the friend—not the enemy—of sinners, for without it no one would be saved. In the end, however, we must bow before God’s rights as our Maker....The Creator has the right to do what he pleases with his creatures."
Eric Cramer ("Is God glorified when people go to hell?"): "We need to not give ourselves more importance than we really deserve. God is totally justified and glorified if He threw all of us into hell as punishment for breaking His law... God is glorified when a sinner repents of his or her sins and places their faith in Christ and Christ alone for salvation.... He is also glorified when a sinner is punished and sent to hell because it upholds His holiness and justice."
Greg Gilbert ("Why hell is integral to the gospel"): "the doctrine and reality of hell actually throws the glory of the gospel into sharp relief for us. It helps us to understand just how great God really is [if you ignore the fact that Calvi-god predestined all sin and unbelief], how sinfully wretched we really are [by Calvi-god's decree], and how unutterably amazing it is that he would show us grace at all [well, some of us, the lucky ones who were graciously not forced to be unrepentant sinners]... We may not understand it fully now, but one day hell itself will declare God’s glory.... In fact, the horrific nature of what we have been saved from only intensifies the glory of what we have been saved to. Not only so, but as we see ever more clearly the horror of hell, we look with ever more love, ever more gratitude, and ever greater worship to the One who endured that hell for us and saved us. [And we'll have ever more horror that Calvi-god predestined people to go there, that he forced them to be sinning unbelievers, then pretended to offer them salvation that was never intended for them, and then punished them for rejecting his fake offer and for being the sinners he made them be. If Calvinists trust, love, praise, and worship a god like that, then that's tragic.]"
Some Christians today may reluctantly think about hell, Well, God said it. I’ll believe it, but I don’t like it... While we might admirably profess to hold to God’s Word, our 'not liking it' is no evidence of maturity. In fact, it’s an expression of moral immaturity, if not error or sin. The admission that we do not like something that God says, does, or commands presents us with an opportunity to grow emotionally in our likeness to Christ. [A brilliant bit of manipulation! Well done!]
... We want to mature in this by meditating on the happiness of God’s people not despite but because of God’s destruction of the wicked... As God's horrific judgments fall one after another on the wicked, the torments of the damned in hell cannot diminish the delight of the saints in heaven... God's people rejoice because they know themselves to be recipients of his grace [Lucky them, winners of the salvation lottery!]... Divine judgments against the wicked are for you.... When we get to glory, we’ll find eternal joy in the God of lavish mercy and uncompromising justice... While we may struggle now with how the eternal destruction of the wicked [whom Calvi-god ordained to be wicked] could be a cause for joy, we won’t struggle forever... [In the end] We will not cringe. We will cry hallelujah."
Matthew McMahon (The Two Wills of God, pg 349): "The saints should delight in the reprobation of the wicked... We come to understand and praise God concerning the damnation of other people. We understand that we could have been what they are. We contemplate their eternal destiny, and bow before the throne to praise the Creator and the Father we have. How awesome is that grace which He bestowed upon us in His Son!"
Terrance Tiessen ("God's great grace to the non-elect") "... since by definition no grace is 'deserved,' no one has ground to complain about how God treats them... how very gracious God is to everyone, including the non-elect. Admittedly, all God's grace serves to increase the guilt of those who reject it or who take it for granted, but this does not diminish the intrinsic goodness of the kindness God shows to all undeserving sinners." [So he calls it "great grace" for the non-elect even though it's only meant to make them more damnable!?! That's sick and twisted. Like fattening up a pig for slaughter! And I bet Calvinists wouldn't be so quick to call Calvi-god so great, gracious, loving, and kind if they were one of the non-elect. And for the record, although Calvinists teach that God is kind to the non-elect to show them a little pseudo-love and pseudo-grace before sending them to their predestined damnation, the Bible itself tells us why God shows kindness to the unrighteous: "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4). This is very different. God intends for His kindness to lead stubborn, unrepentant, storing-up-wrath-against-themselves sinners (verse 5) to repentance, to salvation. He intends for unrepentant people to see His kindness and, consequently, to turn to Him, repent, believe in Him, and be saved. That is His intention for all sinners, all unrepentant people. He does not intend for anyone to go to hell. He has not predestined anyone to hell. He desires that we – all of us sinners - see His goodness, seek Him, turn to Him, and be saved, not that most people burn in hell for all of eternity because He only really loved the elect enough to save them. (Oh, does Calvinism make me mad!!!)]
R.C. Sproul ("The reformed view of predestination"): "God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some and gives justice to those passed over in election.... We rejoice in the biblical clarity which reveals God’s sovereignty in majestic terms. We rejoice in the knowledge of divine mercy and grace that go to such extremes to redeem the elect. We rejoice that God’s glory and honor are manifested both in His mercy and in His justice." [Yeah, but, Calvi-god's kind of justice is not justice. It's injustice disguised as justice, evil disguised as good.]
An atheist (Godless Granny) asked a Calvinist named Joe this question: "If you found out that God chose not to save one or more of your children, how would you feel about that?"
Elected 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 Elected 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 [Enjoy this 2-minute video featuring Calvinist Tyler Vela and Beaker from the Muppets, called "Me, me, me." FYI: Tyler recently left the faith. Apparently, he had "evanescent grace."] or I can worry about God's choices with other wretched sinners. [Translation: "Don't care if others are damned to hell, just be happy that you're one of the elect."] 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! Watch the video of this conversation at Soteriology 101's "Warning: This may be the CRINGIEST video you watch about Calvinism".)
To justify their doctrine of election/reprobation, Calvinists always say things like "We're all sinners who deserve His judgment, no one deserves heaven, so we should just be happy that God saves anyone at all." [Nevermind that Calvi-god deliberately created most people to burn in hell for all of eternity for his pleasure and glory!] They use this to justify why they think it's okay for Calvi-god to elect some lucky people to heaven but send the rest to hell with no chance to be saved: "Well, none of us deserve heaven anyways, we all deserve hell, and so there's nothing wrong with God predestining people to hell."
But first off, this is a false, unbiblical inference. Just because "we are all sinners who deserve hell" in no way means that God must predestined sinners to hell, or that He does not and cannot offer salvation to all people, or that He must pick only a few to save while damning the rest. Calvinists make a huge unbiblical leap from "everyone deserves hell" to "and so therefore God must send some to hell; He cannot offer salvation to all people but must reprobate the non-elect to hell." This is not in the Bible, but it's in their own heads, according to their own philosophical, unbiblical theology.
And second of all, think about this... I mean really think about it (something Leighton at Soteriology 101 also alludes to): What does it say about the kind of god Calvi-god is if Calvinists are "mystified, shocked, stunned" that he loves anyone at all?
We'd be shocked to find out that a cannibalistic serial killer who tortures, kills, and eats a victim a day has any real love for anyone - but why should it shock us that God loves people? God (but not Calvi-god) is love. It's in His nature to love, to be gracious, to be merciful, to be forgiving, to be compassionate - in an abundant, extravagant, self-sacrificial way. He is patient and long-suffering, slow to anger and rich in love, restraining His wrath and the just punishment of the wicked as long as possible, giving us many chances and years to repent.
If He would forgive a whole city full of wicked people for the sake of one good person (Jeremiah 5:1), and spare a whole city of wicked people from destruction if only ten righteous people could be found in it (Genesis 18), and plead with a whole city of wicked people to repent so that they didn't have to be destroyed (Nineveh, the book of Jonah), and give a world full of severely wicked people 120 years to repent while Noah built the ark and preached to them, and ask for forgiveness for those who crucified Him even while He was dying on the cross (Luke 23:34), then what makes Calvinists think that He is so quick and eager to dish out damnation and "justice" (as they define it), to send people to hell?
Calvinists are far quicker to consign huge swaths of people to hell than God ever was.
(And just wondering, but why would God warn "non-elect" people and patiently wait for them to repent if He made it impossible for them to repent and if He predestined them to hell for His glory? And if He predetermined to get glory from their destruction, then He's working against His own glory to call them to repentance, isn't He? It doesn't make sense. Calvinism doesn't make sense.)
It shouldn't surprise us that the God of the Bible truly loves all people, all sinners, and that He wants all people to be saved, even wicked people, and that He offers salvation to all people, to all sinners. It would surprise us if the patient, loving, forgiving, merciful, gracious God of the Bible didn't truly love someone and want the best for them - because His love, His mercy, His grace is so big and far-reaching. The exact opposite of Calvinism's god.
Calvinists accuse us of hating Calvinism because it doesn't worship mankind enough or because we want our free-will or because we don't want God over us (*see note below). But that's not why we hate it. We hate it because of what it does to God's character. And Alana hit the nail on the head when she said that Calvinism "totally twists the heart of God." This is the biggest problem I have with Calvinism: It destroys God's character!
As Alana says later "God is not a trickster. He is honest and trustworthy." But Calvinism turns Him into a God who says one thing but means another, a God who preplans/causes all sin and evil and unbelief but then punishes people for it, and a God who is pleased with and glorified by evil and putting people in hell. This is NOT the God of the Bible. Calvinism completely destroys His good, loving, honest, just, trustworthy character.
And if we don't have a good, loving, honest, just, trustworthy God, then we've got nothing - no reason to trust Him or anything He says in His Word or any of His promises. (And ironically, this means that Calvinists have no reason to trust that they are truly elect and will get the eternal life promised to them. After all, they could have gotten "evanescent grace" instead, the kind Calvi-god gives some non-elect people to trick them into thinking they are truly elect, just so he can take it away later and punish them even more severely in hell.)
[*Note: Notice some of the accusations Calvinists throw at those who reject Calvinism, as if the problem is us and not their theology (from my "9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult #6 (fear, coercion)"):
From A.W. Pink's Doctrine of Election (emphasis added in all these quotes): "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." [In another place, Pink also calls us "merit-mongers."]
From John MacArthur's 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."
R.C. Sproul, in "God's Sovereignty", took a different approach and accused the seminary students in his class who didn't accept the Calvinist definition of God's sovereignty of being "atheists" - and he did this in front of everyone. (And it's ironic because when he asks them if anyone is an atheist, he says that no one will shame them if they admit they are. But apparently, there's major shame for being a Christian who doesn't accept the Calvinist definition of "sovereignty"!)
[And which side do you think most of those students would join: "us good Calvinists" or "them bad atheists"? It would take a very strong person indeed to stand up against that kind of shaming from a professor in front of all your peers who are now staring at you and judging what kind of Christian you are. Sproul ought to be ashamed of himself!]
The author in the article "Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism" says that those who strongly oppose Calvinism do so because "they hate the idea that they are not in control... Simply put, they want to think that they are fully in control of their own eternal destiny."
An article from a reformed (Calvinist) seminary - "3 Reasons People Reject Total Depravity" - says that people who reject Calvinism's idea of "total depravity" (which is rejecting Calvinism itself) do so because "It presents a low view of man. Human nature loves to be coddled. Men and women love to be told of their self-worth, self-importance, and innate goodness. Total depravity destroys all that... Total depravity is rejected by man because it presents a low view of man. God is not gushing over us like a high school crush but 'has bent and readied his bow' because 'If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword.'" (Wow!)
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."
And more from his Doctrine of Election: "when the mind perceives what the Scriptures reveal thereon [about the doctrine of election], the heart is loath to receive such an humbling and flesh-withering truth. How earnestly we need to pray for God to subdue our enmity against Him and our prejudice against His truth." Manipulation!
"Saint" PJ says in his 9Marks article that Calvinist pastors are "burdened by [the] biblical and theological illiteracy" of those who don't believe in Calvinism.
The Calvinist author in this article says that if we agree with the non-Calvinist view of the Bible, we are "unsuspecting and uneducated."
The author in this 9Marks article says that anti-Calvinists are only anti-Calvinists because when we researched Calvinism online, we put our trust in ourselves and in strangers online ["internet hotheads"].
I guess Papa John Calvin taught them well: "As I have hirtherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously stated in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God... Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapter 18, Section 3)
Calvinists have come up with many ways to discredit the opposition, to make our arguments seem illegitimate and unreasonable from the very beginning, as if there's something wrong with us that we're unable to accept Calvinism, such as that we're biblically ignorant, prideful, have a problem with authority, insecure and need coddling, or that we're having an overly-emotional reaction to things we don't like hearing. In their minds, it couldn't possibly be that the problem is with them and their theology!
And if this is the kind of attitude that underlies Calvinism, if Calvinists are taught to have almost no respect for those who oppose Calvinism and to completely distrust their judgment and to think the worst of their hearts and motives, if this is the kind of manipulative-shaming and gaslighting that's taught from the pulpit... then is it any wonder that most people in the congregation will side with the Calvinist pastor, will ignore and silence the alarm bells going off in their spirits, and will look at those who disagree with disdain, scorn, or pity?
It takes a very strong, wise person indeed to refuse to be manipulated by this kind of garbage, to stand up in the face of these kinds of accusations and to oppose Calvinism anyway in front of everyone, taking the risk of being labeled all these terrible things that Calvinists call them.
Amazing job, Alana! You're one of those few strong, wise people willing to do this. And we thank you for it and are inspired by it.]
H. Along with the Calvinist idea of "it's fair and just for everyone to go to hell anyway, so we should be thankful that God saves anyone at all," Alana shares two analogies about salvation:
The Calvinist One: God reaches down and only scoops up a few people to save, and then leaves the rest to go to hell. Calvinists say that hell is what we all deserve anyway for being sinners, that we're all on our way to hell anyway (which contradicts Calvinism's belief that the elect were never on their way to hell at any point in time because they were created for heaven)... and so it's not wrong for God to let the non-elect continue in the direction they were already headed, giving them what they "deserve," while "graciously" plucking out a few sinners to save.
The non-Calvinist One: God scoops up everyone (offers salvation to everyone), but most jump out of His hand (reject the offer of salvation).
I agree with Alana that this is what the Bible really teaches.
Something to watch out for with Calvinists is that they use bad analogies all the time to try to slowly, subtly, stealthily reel people into Calvinism, convincing them it makes sense and is "fair and just." And if you don't know how to pick it apart, you'll probably fall for it.
Such as these two bad analogies (get ready for a wild ride, a romping good time through some crazy Calvinist quotes):
First analogy: The classic "100 people on death row" analogy: "There are 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. God predestines the non-elect to hell to show His justice in punishing sin (and to get glory for it), and He predestines the elect to heaven to show His grace and mercy."
Seems to fit, to make sense, to be fair and just, right?
After all, as my ex-pastor preached: "If it wasn’t for predestination, election, nobody would go to heaven because we’re born slaves to sin, in bondage to sin, under the wrath and judgment of God, no one seeking Him… God is a God of mercy. He is a God of grace. And He delights in summoning a remnant to Himself, forgiving and bestowing mercy and grace on them.... It’s why He sovereignly elects and gives grace and mercy to some.… election does not make God look bad; it makes God look good. In fact, election and even its opposite - hardening - both glorify God. God is equally glorified in the salvation of sinners as He is in the damnation of sinners. [Which should scare the crap out of Calvinists, not elicit their praise.]… The elect get mercy. The unelect get justice. Nobody is treated unfairly."
Like I said, kinda legit-sounding, right? Mercy is gracious, and justice is fair - so even if it feels wrong to us, we shouldn't really have any problem with God predestining people to hell for their sins, right? God is not required to free murderers on death row because they deserve the punishment, right? So let's just be thankful He saves any one of us wretched, evil, God-hating sinners at all, which is so very gracious of Him. After all, it's all for His glory, so it's totally okay and good.
Right?
Wrong! Because the critical, inherent flaw in their "100 murderers on death row" 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.
[And God "ordained" that kind of ending for the victims they killed. God had no other plan for them than death by murder, for His pleasure and glory. As Calvinist Gordon H. Clark says in Religion, Reason, and Revelation: “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it… Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything…”]
And Calvinists call that kind of God "good," and they call it "justice" and "deserving the punishment."
And furthermore, it's not "grace and mercy" for God to save people whom He created to be totally-depraved sinners in the first place, people whose sins He preplanned and orchestrated. Grace and mercy can only be true grace and mercy if it's in response to truly voluntary, free-will choices. We can only be truly guilty and truly deserve to be punished if we are truly responsible for our own sins. That's what makes it true grace and mercy. Otherwise, God is just a grand puppet-master playing with dolls, first causing the puppets to sin and resist Him, and then extending fake grace and mercy to them by causing them to repent and believe in Him. It's ridiculous.
And further-furthermore, it's very important to know that God Himself tells us how He chose to demonstrate His justice and get glory, and it wasn't by creating non-elect people to predestine 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 to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26, emphasis added).
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 12:27-28)
"When he was gone, Jesus said, 'Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him.'" (John 13:31)
God Himself tells us that He sent Jesus to take our punishment for sin in order to demonstrate His justice and for His glory. Jesus's death demonstrated and satisfied God's justice. Fully. "It is finished." For His glory.
And so He didn't also need to create sinners for hell to show His justice and get glory, as Calvinists say:
Vincent Cheung, ("The Problem of Evil"): "One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity... Christians should have no trouble affirming [that God creates people for hell for His glory], and those who find it difficult to accept what Scripture explicitly teaches should reconsider their spiritual commitment, to see if they are truly in the faith.”
Robin Schumacher ("If God wants everyone saved, why isn't everyone saved?"):"God’s passion for His glory takes priority over the salvation of everyone... God gets glory when He showcases His justice and wrath in the same way He does when He distributes His mercy... [God] desires to put His justice on display with those He allows to continue in their chosen sin. He receives glory in this as well... This is the answer, then, as to why everyone is not saved and what God desires more than everyone’s salvation... what God desires most – His glory that comes from displaying both His mercy and justice on those He chooses." ["With those He allows to continue in their chosen sin": "Allows" and "chosen" are deceptive words because, in Calvinism, God predetermined that the non-elect would have the unregenerated nature which comes only with the desire to sin and reject Him, which means the non-elect only have the ability to desire to sin and reject Him, which means they can only "choose" to sin and reject Him. (This is why Calvinists will always qualify "we sin/make decisions/choose freely" with "according to our nature." That is a key qualifier which means "you can only choose what your God-given nature makes you choose, as God predestined.") No other options or abilities are possible for the non-elect than to sin and reject God. They cannot change their nature or the desires of their nature, and they cannot resist the desires of their nature... and so they must obey the desires to sin and reject God, as determined by God. They "choose" to sin and reject God because God predestined that it's all they could choose. And no one but Calvinists would call that truly "allowing" anything or having a true "choice"! *See extra comments below.]
Jim Hamilton, 9Marks ("How does hell glorify God?"): "Hell glorifies God. Do you object to this?... You are a creature in the Creator’s work of art. Accept it. He is the Creator, not you."
Was Jesus's death not enough? Why do Calvinists feel the need to add to it, to supplant it? [If Calvinist can find one verse that clearly says God created non-elect people to punish in hell to show off His justice and get glory, maybe then I'll start to give them more credit.]
If we end up in hell, it's not because we were predestined by God to hell for "justice" and for His glory, but it's because we chose to reject the sacrifice Jesus made on behalf of all people which satisfied the requirement for justice, the gift of eternal life He offers to all people that He paid for with His blood, the death He died for us so that we didn't have to die too.
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 unbiblical doctrine of election/predestination sound good and God-glorifying. [But all it actually does is contradict what God said He did to show His justice and to get glory, and it replaces/detracts from Jesus's sacrifice, stealing God's glory.]
And "the non-elect deserve their punishment" is what Calvinists say to make it seem logical and "fair," to manipulate us into accepting what we know in our spirits sounds wrong.
*Just a few extra comments to prove that, in Calvinism, "allows" and "choice" are not really truly "allows" and "choice," that we can only "choose" what God predestined/caused us to choose, and that God only "foreknows" what we will "choose" because He first preplanned it (emphasis added):
A.W. Pink in Doctrine of Election: "Man is a moral agent, acting according to the desires and dictates of his nature: he is at the same time a creature, fully controlled and determined by his Creator."
John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapters 17): "the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly...[cannot do any evil or even move a finger] unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands."
Erwin Lutzer (this quote was found at Examining Calvinism): "...we can say that God permitted evil, as long as we understand that he thereby willed that the evil happen... In a word, what God permits, he ordains." (The Doctrines That Divide, pg. 210)
Jonathan Edwards ("Remarks on Important Theological Controversies, Chapter III"): "It cannot be any injustice in God to determine who is certainly to sin, and so certainly to be damned... God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that is sinful, and every circumstance of those actions... It can be made evident by reason, that nothing can come to pass, but what it is the will and pleasure of God should come to pass... It is a contradiction to say, he wills it, and yet does not choose it... God decrees all the good that ever comes to pass... [which means that] no more [people will] believe, no more [people will] be godly, and no more [people will] be saved, than [those] God has decreed that he will cause to believe, and cause to be godly, and will save." [If you read this work of Edwards, you'll see it's a bunch of philosophical ramblings, one bad idea leading to another. And yet Calvinists claim that Calvinism is all right from the Bible and that they don't use philosophy or "human logic" to determine truth. (Hahaha, good joke!)]
Parsons, Ligonier Ministries ("How is God's sovereignty compatible with man's responsibility?"): "We have to understand that God is sovereign over all. He orchestrates all things. He foreordains all things that come to pass... God ordains the ends of all things as well as the means of those ends... He ordains our works, our deeds, what we do, what we say, what we believe, and the ends of those things... God is ultimately the One orchestrating all things. He is permitting, but He is permitting 'not by a bare permission' as the Westminster Confession states... Does God sovereignly, in some mysterious way, permit us to sin (though not by a bare permission)? Absolutely." ["Not by bare permission" means that God doesn't just allow us to make truly free-will choices. He doesn't merely foreknow and allow what we will choose. But it's that He only "permits" us to do what He first decreed/ordained us to do. This is why it's not "bare permission," mere permission, but "permission" of only that which He pre-planned and orchestrates.]
Vincent Cheung (The Problem of Evil): "…man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God... Scripture teaches that God's will determines everything. Nothing exists or happens without God, not merely permitting, but actively willing it to exist or happen … God controls not only natural events, but he also controls all human affairs and decisions... God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power."
Mayhue ("Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation"): "... No matter where you go, God is sovereign, God's determinative; man is responsible, and man participates with his will. But he doesn't have free will to determine, and he doesn't have free will to override." (Translation: "We only have the 'freedom' to do what God determined we'd do, but we'll still be held responsible for it.")
John MacArthur ("Doctrine of Election, part 1"): "You’re guilty. You’re culpable. You did it. You did it with your own will. But God had predetermined it would be done. It was set in his predetermined plan and foreknowledge. That is to predetermine, to foreknow, is not simply to have information about what’s going to happen, but to predetermine it. So we understand, then, that the Bible is very clear on the doctrine of election ['but it's only clear after you spend many months immersed in our huge Calvinist Systematic Theology books']."
Tom Hicks (Founders Ministries, "The Nature of God's Eternal Decree"): "In the case of sin, human beings can always choose otherwise, but God’s decree makes their choice certain... But the confession denies that God’s decree depends on knowledge conditioned by the future free choices of human agents. Rather, God’s knowledge of the future depends on God’s decree alone. God knows the future because He decrees the future." (So Calvi-god doesn't just foreknow what man will choose, but he decides/decrees what man will choose. So then tell me again, Calvinist, how we could have made different choices!?! 'Cuz I still don't get it.]
Mark Talbot/John Piper (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, page 42-44): “God brings about all things in accordance with his will. It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… God speaks and then brings his word to pass; he purposes and then does what he has planned. Nothing that exists falls outside of God's ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God's foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil.”
Jeff Durbin, talking to a woman about evils like gang rape (see clips of it in this review The Madness of Calvinism and the full video in Jeff Durbin Answering 'The Problem of Evil'.): “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil He plans… nothing happens in the universe apart from His will… So let’s say this evil happens. How do [people try to] get God off the hook?... By saying 'He didn’t want that to happen, or He’ll fix it, or He wouldn’t mess with your free will'… [But] the truth is that all those answers make God unworthy of worship… He actually decrees all things."
Gordon H. Clark (Predestination): “[Some people] do not wish to extend God’s power over evil things, and particularly over moral evils… [But] the Bible therefore explicitly teaches that God creates sin.”
John Calvin (Institutes, book 3, chapter 23): "... it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he so ordained by his decree."
J.I. Packer ("Predestination: God has a purpose"): "Predestination is a word often used to signify God’s foreordaining of all the events of world history, past, present, and future."
My ex-pastor's (March 2014 sermon about finding hope in hard times): “God is on the throne! Random evil doesn’t just happen to people. Random loss doesn’t just occur in our lives. God is in control of each aspect of every detail, right down to our salvation... We want to get God off the hook [for sin and evil and suffering], and every time we try to, God puts Himself back on the hook in the Bible and says, 'Yes, I did!'… God is sovereign over those who seek to harm us. Who of us hasn’t been harmed by somebody?... We’ve had people betray, lie, steal, vilify, slander, and do unspeakable things to us. Some of us have undergone horrific abuse at the hands of parents or aunts or uncles or brothers. God is sovereign over those who seek to harm us.
That means, friends, that there is no such thing as random evil or random acts of tragedy... John Flavel in The Mystery of God’s Providence says '… In all the sad and afflictive providences that befall you, eye God as the author. Set before you the sovereignty of God…' Amen!?!” [No! Not Amen! Not with the way Calvinists define sovereignty, allows, foreknows, choice, etc..]
And from my ex-pastor's November 2019 sermon about Job, about trusting God in our times of confusion, pain, suffering, and uncertainty (he started this sermon with a true-life story of a young father who died early of cancer): "God is in full control of His universe, including suffering and tragedy. And frankly, He's not interested in trying to get off the hook.... God allows and appoints suffering for His own good reasons... God allows-slash-appoints tragic disasters. These are really two sides of one coin. Saying 'God allowed it' is too soft. God clearly is orchestrating what is going on here... and He ordains suffering for His own good reasons.... in the end [Satan] will find out he did exactly as God sovereignly decreed, under God's sovereign decree."
4. In Jeremiah 19:5, God says, "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." If God foreknew/predetermined that these people sacrificed their children, then He's lying when He says He didn't have anything to do with it.
5. Isaiah 30:1: "Woe to the obstinate children," declares the Lord, "to those who carry out plans that are not mine..." If He predetermined/orchestrated what the "obstinate children" did, then He's lying when He says the plans weren't His.
6. Acts 14:16: "In the past, he [God] let nations go their own way." What does "going their own way" mean if God really predetermined what they did? If every way is God's way, then there would be no "going their own way."
7. Kings 20:42 says, "He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.''" If everything that happens is because God predetermined/orchestrated it, then how could God determine something that didn't happen? What kind of God predetermines that people don't do what He predetermined? Does this make any sense? How "sovereign" can [Calvinism's] God be if the thing He predetermined to happen didn't happen? And then which one was His true Will: kill the man or don't kill the man? If it's "kill the man," then He caused the people to not do His Will (He willed that His Will didn't get done). But if it's "don't kill the man," then He gave a command at first to put the man to death that He didn't really mean. Either way, it makes Him untrustworthy and double-minded, working against Himself and His own decrees/plans.
8. Exodus 13:17: "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country. For God said 'If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." I probably don't even have to spell it out by this point, but... if foreknowing means predetermining and orchestrating, then there would be no "if" or "might" about it. In Calvinism, the fact that God foreknew the people would turn back should mean that He predetermined and orchestrated it to happen. But it didn't happen. How is that possible if Calvinism is correct that "foreknows" means "fore-decreed/fore-ordained" and that it must happen because God will orchestrate it to happen?
Second analogy: Similar to that analogy is this one my Calvinist ex-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 save 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!
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 they're wrong. 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/shouldn'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. Read it this way and see if it fits.
Romans 9 is not about God choosing which individuals get saved and which don't. But if you let Calvinists convince you that it's about God predestining individual people for salvation and hardening individual people for hell, you will become a Calvinist.
See "When Calvinist say 'But Romans 9!'" for more on this.]
Point #4:
I. Alana notes that Calvinists will often ask "What makes me so special? Why did I choose God but my friend or neighbor did not? Obviously that means God chose me. Because why would I choose God, and not them?"
My note: Alana notes that this is to shape the mind to "irresistible grace," to make us more amenable to the idea that God draws some but not others, which is the only explanation in Calvinism for why some believe and some don't.
I believe Calvinists have been brainwashed into thinking that if given a true free-will choice, everyone in the world would choose eternal life over eternal death. No one would voluntarily choose hell. They assume that if all people were really given the offer to be saved then all people would definitely accept it because no one would be stupid enough to turn it down. (I've seen this time and time again in Calvinist arguments.)
And so therefore, since most people are not going to heaven, then it must mean that they were not really given a true free-will choice, which must mean that we don't really have free-will, which means that God choses who believes and who doesn't and that He only really offers salvation to those He already chose to save. Calvinist election!
To Calvinists, that is the only explanation for why some people believe and others don't. (Can they find a verse to support this? No! It comes only from their own philosophical fantasies.)
But what's the biblical answer for why people reject Jesus and the offer of eternal life?
Because they don't want it. Because they want to follow their earthly desires. Because they don't take the Bible seriously or believe it's God Word. Because they don't think God is real. Because they don't want to be under anyone else's thumb. Because they think all paths lead to heaven or that they can get to heaven just by being good enough. Etc.
As we already read:
Zechariah 7:11-12: "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 to [the Lord]...."
2 Kings 17:14-15: “But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the Lord their God. They rejected his decrees and the covenant he made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless…”
John 5:40: “yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
Matthew 23:37: “...how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”
Romans 1:18-2:5: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness... For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened... Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind... But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath against yourself..."
There are a multitude of reasons why people choose to reject Jesus, none of which has to do with "Because they were predestined to, because they had no choice, because salvation was never offered to them."
People throughout history have thrown all of their philosophical ideas, presuppositions, assumptions of how God must act, bad definitions of words (like depravity and sovereignty), doubletalk/double meanings/double layers, "two types of this and two types of that," and misinterpreted/out-of-context verses into a great big pot, stirred it all up, sprinkled in a little pseudo-humility and a whole lot of other people's ideas, and - voila - out comes Calvinism.
But in the end, it still doesn't make sense and is so full of contradictions and damage to Scripture and God's character that they always have to come back to "Yeah, well, who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Don't question it. You're not supposed to understand it anyway. It's a mystery. So just be a humble Christian and accept it."
(Do you know how cults work?)
Calvinists simply cannot accept the simple idea that God gave people the ability to choose to believe in Jesus or to reject Jesus and that many will choose to reject Him because they don't want to be accountable to anyone other than themselves. They want to be their own gods.
As Alana said, "There's clearly a spiritual war out there, you guys, and the Deceiver has deceived the nations that a life ruled by your own will is to be preferred over a life led by the will of God, and many choose to be their own god."
It's really just that simple.
But I don't think Calvinists like "simple." Anyone can understand simple - and Calvinists don't want to be just "anyone."
Unlike us simple folk who read the Bible in a plain, commonsense way and who believe that anyone can understand it and find the truth in it, Calvinism appeals to those who want to be part of the lofty, high-and-mighty, spiritually-elite crowd. (You've read about the Pharisees, right?)
Calvinists like (and are impressed by) their massive, convoluted "systematic theology" books full of lofty, complex ideas - ideas which actually end up creating many contradictions that they spend many pages trying to solve before they simply resort to "It's a mystery that we can't understand anyway."
But Calvinism's "mysteries" are not true mysteries, things God didn't clearly reveal. Calvinist "mysteries" happen because they twist, deny, or contradict what God did clearly say, and then they have to figure out how to make their twisted ideas fit with the rest of Scripture and to make it seem like they're not saying God is responsible for evil when that's exactly what their theology teaches. But they can't make it work because their effort to solve one error/problem/contradiction creates a new one... and their systematic theology books keep getting longer and longer.
I believe Calvinism's big, complex, convoluted, "mysterious" theology makes people feel like they are on some upper-level, elite group of theological-thinkers, more intelligent and spiritual and humble than us simple folk who take the Bible at face-value. And that's how they get you!
You know, I was just thinking the other day about the verse "knowledge puffs up." And I totally think this is what happens when studying those big Calvinist theology books. People spend months learning a lot of information through Calvinist books and sermons and videos, etc., and it makes them feel smarter, more spiritual, more "humble," so honored that God would see fit to open their eyes to "spiritual truth." It puffs them up.
But what they don't realize is that it's all air, all emptiness. They confuse learning lots of information about God with growing closer to God, closer to truth.
Imagine you wanted to study world history - to get really good at it and to feel closer to the world because of it. And so someone took you through an intensive study of some big, meaty, complicated, history books... of Middle-earth.
You read The Book of Lost Tales and The Lays of Beleriand and others. You devoured The Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. You wrestled with some of the difficult, disturbing aspects of it all. You know all the history of Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, the Ents, the Wizards, Sauron, Numenor, Gondolin, Valinor, etc. Maybe you even learned to read Elvish.
You gained so much knowledge and feel so close to the people and events of history because of it... until you sit down to take an official test on real world history. And it's only then that you realize that you've got nothing.
Sadly, you were learning all the wrong things. And as a consequence, you missed out on all the right things. But you didn't realize it at the time because you were deceived by, enchanted by, how much knowledge you were gaining.
I think Calvinism is like that. Calvinists think that all the knowledge they're gaining through those huge Calvinist theology books means that they're growing in the faith, in truth, closer to God ... until they wake up one day and realize that they've got nothing, that their faith is on life-support because it's been starving all that time for real truth and real hope, and yet they couldn't sense it because of all the noise created by all the bad information they were learning.
It's sad.
J. Alana states the obvious, simple, biblical truth that "We are made in God's image, and we have the capacity to think and determine things." We have the ability to decide how we will respond to the gospel call. We decide whether to reject/ignore it or to believe it. And when we believe, we are saved.
“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:4, 13)
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...” (Ephesians 1:13)
We have to hear and believe. “Hear and believe” refers to a responsibility on our parts to accept and embrace the Truth that we hear.
But Calvinists will say that only the elect can "hear" the gospel because only the elect are brought to life first by the Holy Spirit/given life/born-again... and then they can hear and believe. (If they can a find a verse that clearly says this, I'll give them more credit.) And the Holy Spirit does not do this for the non-elect, and so they can never hear or believe.
But as I've said in other posts:
1. "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life... he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:24-25).
The first two "hears" (as far as I can tell from Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary) are about sensing the words spoken, and the third "hear" ("those who hear will live") is about yielding obediently to the voice we hear, to accept it, abide by it. So all spiritually-dead people have the ability to "hear and believe" the gospel and the call of God, but only those who choose to yield obediently to it/accept it/abide by it will be saved.
2. Inevitably, Calvinists will say something like "Belief is a work, and we can't work for salvation. And we can't make ourselves born again. Only the Spirit can make people born again. Just like we had nothing to do with our physical births, we have nothing to do with our spiritual births. And the Spirit moves where He wants to, like the wind, regenerating whomever He wants to." And they'll bring up Nicodemus, saying that Jesus never gave Nicodemus instructions on how to be born again because it's something we can't do. And they'll bring up Lydia, saying that God opened Lydia's heart to believe the gospel.
But here are some quick answers to all that:
a. Calvinists think that "the Holy Spirit makes us born again" (which is true) means that "the Holy Spirit makes us believe, the Spirit decides and controls who believes" (which is false). They conflate belief and being born again. But they are two different things. Yes, it's true that we can't make ourselves born again (that's the Spirit's job)... but it's also true that He does it in response to what we can do: believe. Believing is our job, the one responsibility God gave us to do to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" John 6:28-29. Our job is to believe, and the Spirit's job is to make us born again in response to our belief.
b. Calvinists reverse the order of belief and born again. They say that we are given the Holy Spirit/saved/born again first, before we believe, that being saved/born again leads to being able to believe. As my Calvinist ex-pastor said: "the unmistakable sign that someone has been born again is that they have the ability to repent and believe the gospel." And as Calvinist Loraine Boettner famously said in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: "A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved."
But contrary to Calvinism, no one is saved, born again, or given the Holy Spirit first, before believing, in order to make them believe. The Bible never teaches that. But it does clearly and repeatedly teach that it's only after believing that we are given the Holy Spirit, born again, given eternal life, saved.
Acts 2:38: "... Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Ephesians 1:13: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit."
John 20:31: “... by believing you may have life in his name.”
John 3:16,36: “... whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life... Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life...”
Romans 10:9: “… if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Acts 16:31: “… Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved …”
John 5:24: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
John 1:12: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”
[If Calvinists can find one verse that just as clearly says that we are given the Holy Spirit first, brought to life first, saved first... before believing, in order to make us believe... then I'll start to reconsider.]
Now think about this, really think about it: If Calvinists say that we are saved/born again before we believe in Jesus, then they are really saying that we are saved/born again without belief in Jesus, apart from belief in Jesus.
And who do you think is behind the idea that salvation happens without belief in Jesus?
c. As I (and Alana) already pointed out in 1b: God does not view "belief" as a "working for salvation" thing, as Calvinists do: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" (Romans 4:3-6)
God is contrasting Abraham's belief/faith/trust in Him with those who "work" for their justification and righteousness, who try to earn/work their way to Him. He's saying that "belief/faith" is not the same thing as "working for your salvation," and that belief/faith is what we must do to be saved.
God has done all the work to make salvation possible for us, and all He asks - all He requires - is that we accept it, that we open up our hands and receive it and say "Thank you. I believe." That's not "working for salvation."
Unless you're a Calvinist.
And so the two big questions to consider here are these: If the Bible says that "belief" is the one thing we must do to be saved, but Calvinists say it's something we can't do to be saved, can anyone really be saved under honest Calvinist preaching?
And who do you think profits from spreading the idea that people cannot decide to believe in Jesus to be saved, when God Himself says that we must believe in Jesus to be saved?
d. Calvinists use John 3:7-8 to "prove" that the Holy Spirit controls who gets regenerated/born again: "You must be born again. The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
As my Calvinist ex-pastor said: "[New life] is a sovereign gift of God given to some. And like the wind from our perspective, God's Spirit blows where He chooses."
But that's not what this verse means. Jesus is not saying that the Spirit chooses who gets saved or that He causes them to believe. He's saying that work of the Spirit in spiritual birth is an invisible thing, like how the wind is invisible. He's contrasting invisible spiritual birth to visible physical birth. That's all this verse is about: the invisible compared to the visible. Not about who gets saved or how they are "chosen" or regenerated. (Ridiculous.)
It's ironic that when Calvinists say things like "just like you had nothing to do with your physical birth, you can have nothing to do with your spiritual birth because God's Spirit blows where He chooses," they have actually fallen into the same trap as Nicodemus in John 3:4.
After being told he must be born again, Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?... Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Nicodemus conflated spiritual birth and physical birth, treating them as the same thing. But Jesus corrects Nicodemus by saying that spiritual birth is not the same as physical birth, that one is invisible (on the inside, of the heart/spirit/mind, etc.) and the other is visible (on the outside, of the tangible, physical body). They are not the same thing: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (verse 6).
And Calvinists conflate them too, acting like they happen the same way, that since we can't affect our physical birth, then we can't affect our spiritual birth either.
Of course, we can't affect our physical birth, but the Bible tells us that we do affect whether or not we are spiritually born again. God has given us the job - the one job - of deciding if we will believe in Jesus or not. That is our job, our God-given responsibility. And if we choose to believe - to put our faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior - then we will be born again by the Spirit.
We do the believing part first, and then the Spirit does the "born again" part second, as a result of our belief.
e. To "prove" Calvinist election and irresistible grace, Calvinists will quote Acts 16:14 - "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" - and then they say "See, God opened Lydia's heart to believe the gospel."
First off, the text does not say that God opened her heart "to believe the gospel." "To believe" is an assumption, added by Calvinists. And it does not say that Paul's message was the gospel message. In fact, it doesn't say what the message was. And so it very easily could have been - as I believe it is - a message about the need for believers to be baptized. Because that's the very next thing she does in the next verse.
Secondly, as the first part of verse 14 says, Lydia was already "a worshiper of God" before God "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message." This is not a case of God causing certain unbelievers to believe, but it's most likely about God leading a believer to know the next step of obedience they need to take, which in Lydia's case is baptism.
Thirdly, if I'm correct, then what happened with Lydia would be similar to what happened to other believers just a couple chapters over, in Acts 19. Paul met believers who did not yet have the Holy Spirit because they hadn't been baptized in the name of the Lord but only in John the Baptist's "baptism of repentance." And Paul convinced them to be baptized in the name of the Lord to receive the Holy Spirit. (Note: Acts is a transitional time-period as the church was forming, when the Holy Spirit was given to the people "in stages," before it was the standard that He entered each believer at the moment of belief.)
I believe both this story and the Lydia story are cases of believers being convinced to be baptized, not unbelievers being caused to believe.
[Like the Lydia story, Calvinists will use Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures" - to try to prove that God causes people to believe or not. But once again, this isn't about causing unbelievers to believe. It's about Jesus opening the minds of those who already believe - His disciples - to help them grow in their wisdom and faith.]
f. To further show how the stories of Lydia and the Acts 19 believers actually destroy Calvinism, instead of supporting it:
If, as Calvinists say, Lydia was not a true believer until after Paul's message, then she was still an unregenerated "totally depraved" person, which would mean that she was an unregenerated "totally-depraved" person who was worshiping the one true God - something that's impossible according to Calvinism which says that totally-depraved people cannot seek God, want God, or believe in God until God causes them to respond to the gospel. Lydia's story disproves the T (total depravity/inability) in Calvinism's TULIP. And if the T falls, so does the rest of it. Disproving "total depravity/inability" opens the door of salvation to all people, as God intended.
Contrary to Calvinism, “believe” in these verses does not mean “to believe through God's work of causing you to believe, with no effort or thought on your part; to passively have faith injected into you.”
According to Strong's Concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary, “believes” is active, not passive. It's not about God injecting faith into us, but it involves a conscious and willing action on our part. It's about being persuaded by something, choosing to commit to it, and placing our confidence and our faith in it. And we can only be "persuaded" by something if we have the ability to think and determine things, to reason through them. And we can only commit to it and place our confidence in it if it's our choice to believe it and accept it as truth.
But if God forces/causes us to believe (as He does in Calvinism), then there is no "being persuaded" by it. It would be "being forced into it while you passively do nothing."
But biblically, "believe" is something we do, not something God does to us while we passively absorb it.
And similar to this is the word "receive," which is also a part of belief/salvation:
“Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship...” (Romans 1:5)
“through whom we have received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:11)
“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)
Strong's concordance (with Vine's dictionary) says that the word “receive” involves the idea of deliberately grabbing ahold of something, of consciously accepting what is offered. Like the word “believe,” it’s active, not passive. It's intentionally reaching out and grabbing something, as opposed to passively acquiring something. There is a responsibility on our parts to grab ahold of the grace and salvation God offers us, to not let it pass us by.
Let’s say you are sitting in a room with lots of people, and someone walks in and places a golden ticket into the hands of 10 of them. Then they say, “If you have received a golden ticket in your hand, you are going to the chocolate factory.” This is like Calvinist election, the idea that God decides who gets the tickets and who doesn’t. And in this case, “receiving” is passive. It involves no effort or decision on your part to get that ticket.
But “receiving” in these verses (according to the concordance, according to the Bible) involves the idea of reaching out and grabbing, of willfully and deliberately accepting what is offered. It would be more like someone walking into the room, placing a golden ticket down on the desk before each person, and saying, “Anyone who reaches out and grabs the ticket in front of them - who receives this gift - is going to the chocolate factory.”
This is more like the kind of “receive” we read in these verses. It is active. It involves a response on our part, a conscious, willful decision. It is our willingness to reach out and take hold of the gift that is offered to us. This is free-will. The gift of eternal life is offered to all, but we choose to accept or we choose to reject.
And this is why no one will have an excuse for why they didn’t turn to God (Romans 1:20). Because God has made Himself clear to all, in His creation and deep down in our hearts. And we will be held responsible for how we respond to it, for whether we believe and receive it or whether we ignore/reject/resist it.
4. And since we're looking at Romans and Ephesians in light of Strong's concordance (with Vine's expository dictionary):
“Ignorance” and “Blindness”
“They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.” (Ephesians 4:18-19)
The people hardened themselves, became ignorant and darkened in their understanding, lost sensitivity to God, and then gave themselves over to sensuality.
But Calvinists will say that this verse means that God caused them to be ignorant by hardening their hearts. That He “forced” them to be blind to Him because they were predestined to hell.
But actually, the word in the concordance is not “hardening” of heart but “blindness” of heart. And according to the concordance, “blindness” in this passage involves the idea of being callous toward something. And it comes from a word which is used of the Israelites who deliberately refused God’s ways and His Will.
It’s not that God chose to harden their hearts and make them ignorant; it’s that they chose to be callous toward Him, to deliberately refuse Him. And this led to their ignorance, their darkened understanding, and their insensitivity to God.
And “ignorance” is not just “not knowing” or “being unaware,” as though God never revealed Himself to them, never gave them a chance. According to the concordance, it is a deliberate, willful decision to be blind.
Refusing God’s way. Willfully blind.
This is basically saying, “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because they have willfully chosen to be blind, due to their callous refusal of God’s Will and way.”
The decision to believe or not believe lies with mankind. We choose to either submit to the truth or to be blind to it. And that’s why we can justly be held accountable for our unbelief.
Romans 10:3 (RSV) also mentions “ignorant”: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
Paul says that the people are "ignorant" of the righteousness that God gives (through salvation in Jesus). But once again, "ignorant" in this passage does not mean "God never told me" or "I had no idea because God blinded my mind," as it would be in Calvinism. It means to deliberately ignore something, being unwilling to see it.
Paul is saying that the Israelites knew the truth and chose to ignore it. It is a deliberate ignorance. They were unwilling to see it. They chose to resist it, to be ignorant of God’s way. And they created their own way instead.
This is not "God predestined them to be that way." It's that they were responsible for their choice, for their blindness and hard hearts. And Paul knew it, which is why he grieved over them and worked so hard to reach them.
“Unbelief” and "disobedience"
“... They were broken off because of unbelief... And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in... ” (Romans 11:20,23)
According to the concordance, “unbelief” is along the same lines as dis-believing something or being unfaithful to it. It is not just an ignorance of God, as though He blinded us or never revealed Himself to us. It is a refusal to believe in the God who calls to us and who has made Himself known. You can’t disbelieve something you never knew about. So this word “unbelief” refers to the idea of hearing the truth, but choosing to reject it. If we are “broken off,” it is because of our unbelief, our unwillingness to believe what He has revealed to us. But if we will choose to believe, we will be grafted in.
Another word along these same lines is “disobedience.”
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” (Ephesians 2:1-2)
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.” (Ephesians 5:6)
In the concordance, this “disobedience” implies the idea of not allowing yourself to believe something or be persuaded by it. Instead of being persuaded by God’s truth, you deliberately and stubbornly refuse it or reject it. You choose disobedience by refusing to believe Him and obey Him.
It is not that God makes people to be disobedient or to not believe; it’s that we choose it by refusing to be persuaded by the truth. Once again, it places the responsibility on man to choose to believe or to choose to resist.
If we are blind, ignorant, and resistant to the truth, it's because we chose to be that way willingly. Because that's what we wanted. Because we didn't want the truth.
And three more: "Hardens," "prepared for destruction," and "wrath"
Calvinists use Romans 9:18 and 9:22 to "prove" Calvinist election: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth... What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (KJV)
They say, "See, God predetermines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. He makes the elect believe and prevents the non-elect from believing."
However, Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says that "hardens" (look under C-2, verb, G4645) is a "retributive" hardening. It's a punishment for first hardening our own hearts and for resisting God even though He's been patient and longsuffering with us.
As The Tony Evans Bible Commentary says about Romans 9:17-18: "Pharoah's actions prove a perfect picture of God's sovereign plan at work. God told Pharaoh 'I raised you up for this reason so that I may display my power...and so that my name may be proclaimed' (9:17). God, then, was the one raising up Pharoah. But he was also the one hardening Pharaoh's heart (9:18). Importantly, God does not harden the hearts of people until they reject him. It was only after Pharaoh hardened his own heart (see Exod. 7:22, 8:15,32) that God hardened it further (Exod. 9:12)... This hardening is not predestination to damnation; it's an expression of God's prerogative to choose whom he will use to serve his purposes and how he will use them (see Jer. 18:1-13). God punishes the wicked by using their wickedness to accomplish his purposes. God uses obedience and disobedience to accomplish his kingdom agenda while holding people responsible for their own decisions."
And regarding "fitted for destruction" (but the Calvinist ESV and other translations say “…prepared for destruction,” which makes it sound much more Calvinist, like people are specifically created/prepared by God to be destroyed): According to Strong's with Vine’s, the Greek word for “fitted” in this verse is about the people's destiny being tied to their character. And it's in the middle voice, meaning that the people fitted themselves to destruction by how they chose to be. Big difference! When we reject the truth, we fit ourselves for destruction.
And regarding "wrath" (a view of it I hadn't heard before but that's worth considering): The Tony Evans Bible Commentary says this about Romans 9:19-24: "... 'Wrath' refers to the present consequences of sin (as we've seen earlier in the writing of Paul), not to eternal destiny. And that wrath is tied to rejection or acceptance of the will of God. But whether God is acting in wrath or in mercy, he is accomplishing his plan. The big difference is in how we experience that plan - as willing sons and daughters, or as unwilling slaves."
What he's saying is that the "wrath" in this passage isn't even about our eternal destinies, about hell, but it's about people experiencing the wrathful consequences of sin and disobedience here on this earth. If we obey God, He shows us mercy in this life. If we disobey God, we experience His wrath in this life, being handed over to our own hard hearts. Interesting. [And even if "wrath" is about eternal hell-wrath, the verse would still imply that we fit ourselves for wrath - for hell - based on our decisions, not that God fashions us that way.]
So although Calvinists use these verses, especially the "hardens" and "prepared for destruction" parts - to support their doctrine of election/predestination, those verses aren't about God predestining eternal salvation at all, but about how God uses us in His plans and the consequences of our decisions.
All of the verses that Calvinists use to "prove" Calvinism fall apart when read in context and when properly defined and interpreted.
[If you haven't seen it yet: Hitler and Calvinism. Awesome!]
-----------------------------------------------------
Since we're on the topic of belief, one thing to be aware of is that Calvinists will deceptively say something like "Anyone can believe." But they don't mean what we all think they would mean: that anyone can believe because everyone has the ability to believe.
What they mean is "Anyone can believe... if God makes them believe." Or "Any type of person can believe: rich or poor, woman or man, Jew or Gentile." Or "Because we don't know who the elect are, anyone out there could be one of the elect. (But if they're not, then they cannot believe because the non-elect can never believe.)"
Here are parts from two other posts of mine to show what I mean:
First: From "Exposing Calvinism: 'Anyone' can believe and be saved"
In a Soteriology 101 post "Frustrated by the state of the world?" (in these quotes, I made minor corrections for clarity and added some notes), I replied to a Calvinist names Roland with this:
Roland, would you mind explaining how your comment "I agree that anyone can believe in Jesus" fits with your comment "unless God gives [you] a new heart, you will not seek God" ... and with your denial that God calling everyone to believe means that we're all able to believe ... and with your agreement with Rhutchin (Calvinist) that “Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not…”?
How can you say "anyone can believe" and yet hold those other beliefs? (This isn’t rhetorical. I’m asking seriously.) If the non-elect are never given a new heart (by God) then how can they believe in Jesus? Do you define "anyone" as all people, elect and non-elect, or as "only the elect"? If it’s "all people," then how can you, as a Calvinist, say that the non-elect can believe in Jesus, when they will not be given a new heart or the faith to believe? But if it’s "only the elect," then how can you say “anyone”?..."
Roland (Calvinist) replies to me:
Thanks for the reply Heather, and the question, I will do my best to answer as I struggle to communicate what I’m saying well. If you have any questions about response and answer, please reply, I’ll do my best to answer, thanks. [My note: To be fair, I think Roland is one of the more polite, respectful Calvinists who comment at Soteriology 101, in my experience. I think he tries to be decent and mature in his responses, and I really like him.]
... As far as "anyone" can believe, I believe it is the biblical teaching that anyone can believe. There is not requirement for belief besides believing. To many non-calvinists this sounds like a contradiction, a paradox, double mindedness, double speak, but to us as Calvinists we believe any can be believe. However, I also said that unless God gives them a new heart, no one can seek God. [My note: He's saying that anyone who believes - anyone who is able to believe - can believe. That's only the elect! So if you read between the lines of his comments overall, he is saying not that "anyone can believe" but that "God can make anyone believe." Big difference! I hope you see how tricky Calvinists are with their wording, their meanings of words. Everything they say that sounds good and biblical is a cover for something else or is only about the elect. And I think that a theology this deceptive can only be demonic.]
... As far as "anyone," I would further point to evidence as the classes of people who came to believe in Christ; slaves, Jews, Gentiles, woman, all types. So the kingdom of God is limited, but while anyone can believe [my note: Translation: "While God can make anyone believe"], it is only for those who believe. I hope that’s making sense.
... I would clarify by saying that all people can believe, and I don’t mean that there is an inherent capacity in our nature to believe. I just mean it's open to all people. But only some will believe. [My note: So all people "can" believe, but not all people have the ability to believe!?! Interesting. Nonsensical. Essentially, he's clarifying that "anyone can believe" does not mean that we all have the ability to believe, but that anyone - and from any nationality - can believe IF Calvi-god has chosen them to believe. In Calvinism, salvation is "open" to all but only those who can believe (the elect) will believe, and the rest are predestined to reject it. Not very "open," is it? This would be like opening up your front door to all people standing outside in the freezing cold and giving them an offer to come into your warm house, but then chaining up most people outside to a tree so that they can't walk through it ... and giving them a magic potion that makes them want to stay outside ... and gouging out their eyes so that they can't even see that the door is open to them. The door is "open" to all, but only those who can walk through it (the ones you chose to make able to walk through it) will walk through it. This is Calvinism. This is how they can say that the door of salvation is "open" to all people - even though only some are able to walk through it, while the rest are, by Calvi-god's design, incapable of seeing it, wanting it, or walking through it. So deceptive!]
Yes, the willingness to believe is only granted to the elect. I know I used to believe it was contradictory and foolish [my note: because it is!], but I believe there is a biblical argument for the Calvinist position [my note: How tragic!].
... As a Calvinist, I do not contemplate God predestining people to hell. [My note: And this is one of the problems with Calvinists, that they don't want to think about the unpleasant parts of Calvinism. I guess it's best for them to just ignore all those people that Calvi-god predestined to hell and to simply focus on the fact that they themselves are one of the lucky few who won the "salvation lottery" - randomly chosen to be loved and saved without any responsibility on their part. Hooray for them! (Too bad for everyone else, though. But let's not think about that.)].
My reply to Roland:
Well, Roland, I do want to say thank you for taking the time to try to explain it to me. But it doesn’t make it more clear to me. In fact, yours and Rhutchin’s answers only make it worse, in my way of thinking. It sounds to me like long, fancy, convoluted answers as a way of saying "Yes, anyone can believe … but, no, not anyone can believe."
Clearly, you both mean that "anyone" equals "all types of people" … and not what commonsense would tell us: that anyone means ("all individual people"). Therefore, it makes it deceptive for Calvinists to say "anyone can believe," knowing that most people would interpret "anyone" to mean "all individual people."
And I would suggest that Calvinists do this on purpose, strategically omitting the "types of" so that they can say "all … people." I think that, in their minds, they are not lying by omitting "types of" because at least the words they do use – "all … people" – are true.
But as I said, I do thank you for taking the time to give a thoughtful, thorough, respectful answer. For that, you have my respect as well.
Non-Calvinist Fromoverhere adds:
Calvinists: “Anyone can believe!! As long as they are chosen."
Henry Ford: "You can have your Model T in any color you want… as long as it’s black!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, just for fun: From my post "A not-so-imaginary conversation with a Calvinist":
Calvinists will do their best to hide what they really believe, to make you think they are saying the same thing you are. They will agree with you on one level, while hiding the fact that they really believe in a secondary level which contradicts that first level. (But they've been so well-trained in their standard replies and pat answers that they might not even realize they're doing it. They probably truly think they are being biblical and making sense, not being deceptive or contradictory.) And they rely on your ignorance to give them time to subtly slip their Calvinism in, to stealthily reel you into Calvinism without you realizing it.
And if they can convince you that they are saying the same thing you are and using words the same way you do ... if you buy into their definitions of things like depraved, dead, sovereign, regeneration, faith, grace, etc. ... if you let them convince you that there's a deeper, "hidden" layer of meaning under what the Bible plainly says (a layer that they have to teach you to see) ... if you don't question them deeply to expose what they really mean ... if you don't research the verses they use, comparing it all to what the Bible plainly says, then they've already got you beat!
You want to see what a conversation with a Calvinist might be like, how tricksy they can be?
Read this not-so-imaginary one:
Me: Do you believe God loves the world and that Jesus died for all people?
Calvinist: Absolutely!
Me: So then can anyone believe in Jesus and be saved?
Calvinist: Oh, yes. Anyone can believe and be saved, if they want to. Everyone who desires to be saved will be saved.
Me: But doesn't Calvinism teach that God forces people to either believe in Him or to reject Him?
Calvinist: Of course not! People either believe in God or reject Him because that's what they want to do. He doesn't force anyone to do anything. They choose to do what they want to do.
Me: So you believe in choice then? In free will?
Calvinist: Oh, yes. We all freely choose to do what we want to do, according to our natures.
Me: So then do we all have the chance, the ability, to believe in Jesus?
Calvinist: Well, it takes faith to believe, right? So if you don't have faith in something, you can't believe in it, can you?
Me: So, according to Calvinism, faith comes before believing in Jesus? Can anyone have faith?
Calvinist: Yes, you need faith to believe. And anyone can have faith if God elected them and gives them faith.
Me: But ... can anyone have faith? Any person out there, not just the elect?
Calvinist: Well, God is sovereign, and so He decides who to give faith to and who to withhold it from. And if He doesn't give you faith (the non-elect), you can't create faith in yourself. Unless you think people can save themselves. Does God save us or do we save ourselves? Are we in control or is God?
Me: But earlier you said anyone can believe. And now you're saying the non-elect can't. So which is it? If God doesn't give you faith, can you still believe in Jesus, if you want to?
Calvinist: If you don't have faith, you can't believe. You won't even want to believe. Faith is a gift [in Calvinism*], and God gives it to whomever He wants to, to those He loves and has chosen for salvation.
Me: But I thought you said that God loves all people and that Jesus died for all people and that anyone can believe in Jesus.
Calvinist: No, I said that God loves the world. He loves the elected people from all over the world, all kinds of people, but not all individual people. Well, I mean, He does love all people, but He loves them differently. He loves the elect by saving them from hell, and He loves the non-elect by caring for their needs while they're on earth. And yes, Jesus died for all people, but it means He died for all of His people. All those who will believe. The elect. You must be a universalist, that's what you are - saying that all people will go to heaven. But the Bible says all people won't go to heaven, so Jesus couldn't have died for all people. And why would He die for those predestined to reject Him anyway? That would be a waste of His blood and make His death ineffective. His blood is sufficient for everyone (it's enough to cover all men's sins) but it's efficient to save only the elect (it's only applied to the elect). And I said that anyone can be saved - anyone can believe in Jesus - if they want to, if that's what they desire. But only the elect will desire to be saved because only regenerated people will want to be saved. The non-elect will never desire to be saved because they are totally-depraved, unrepentant, unregenerated sinners. And totally-depraved, unrepentant, unregenerated sinners don't want God. They will always want to sin and so they can only choose to sin. Basically, anyone can believe in Jesus, if God regenerates their nature and gives them faith to believe.
Me: I'm not a universalist. I'm not saying that "Jesus died for all people" means that all people will go to heaven. I'm saying that Jesus's death gives all people the option to go to heaven, that it offers everyone the gift of eternal life, but we have to choose to either accept it or reject it. And so it's up to us if we are saved or not. But in Calvinism, who determines if we are saved or not, if we are elect or non-elect, if we are regenerated or not?
Calvinist: God does. Because He is sovereign. Or do you think you're sovereign?
Me: So then whose fault is it when we sin and reject God and go to hell? If God decides who's regenerated and who's not and we can't be saved without being regenerated (according to Calvinism), doesn't that mean it's His fault that people sin and reject Him and go to hell, because He didn't regenerate them?
Calvinist: No, of course not. You don't understand Calvinism. God ordains sin but He is not the author of sin. People choose to sin and reject God because that's what they wanted to do. And so they deserve their punishment.
Me: Doesn't ordaining sin, in Calvinism, basically mean that God preplanned it, causes it, and controls it, and that the sinner couldn't do anything differently. And so then how can you say that God "ordains" sin but is not the author of sin?
Calvinist: There are two sources of sin. On one level, God ultimately decrees [read: predestines/causes] everything that happens, even sin, for His purposes and glory. And He works out all circumstances to accomplish what He decreed. Everything that happens is because He decreed it. But on a secondary level, humans choose to do what God decreed. We choose it because we want to do it, because of the desires in our natures. And so He doesn't have to force us to sin because we do it willingly, because of the desires of our nature. We can't change our natures (only God can do that), and so we have to obey the desires of our natures, which means we can only do - and will only do - what God predetermined we'd do. We can't choose anything else because we can't desire anything else other than what God predetermined we'd desire. But since we wanted to do it and chose to do it (on one level), He can hold us accountable for it. It's a mystery that we don't and can't understand, and so we just have to accept it.
Me: But isn't that just basically saying that people are simply robots, forced to do what God preprogrammed them to do?
Calvinist: Of course Calvinists don't say we're robots. That's ridiculous! A false accusation!
Me: But you just said that we have to do - and can only do - what God predetermined we'd do. That sounds like a robot to me - only able to do what the programmer preprogrammed it to do. And then what about when people disobey His commands? If everything God decrees has to happen, how can we disobey His commands/decrees? Doesn't that mean He is causing people to break His own commands and that He decrees things He wants us to disobey?
Calvinist: Well, God can decree that we disobey His decrees, if that's what brings Him more glory and if it fits His plans. And like I said: God ordains the sin but is not the author of sin. Even though He decrees/ordains the sin, we are still responsible for it. I know it's confusing and hard to accept emotionally. It confused me and made me feel bad for a long time too. It's like an itchy sweater that's hard to get used to. But if you stick with it and read books by MacArthur and Sproul and Grudem, then you'll come to accept it. It's just our human emotions and human logic that get in the way because we don't like the way it sounds. It sounds unfair. But our human emotions and logic can't be used to determine what's biblically true. That's putting ourselves above God. And so we need to put our pride aside and humbly accept these things, even if we don't like it or understand it, because that's what it means to be humble like a child.
Me: I don't think the "humble like a child" verse means accepting, without question, things that sound unbiblical or damaging to God's character. Anyway, you said that faith is a gift. Doesn't the Bible say that eternal life is the gift, that salvation is the gift we can all accept by faith, not that faith is the "gift" that God forces only on some people.
Calvinist: Can a totally-depraved person create faith in themselves? Of course not! Mankind is so depraved that there is nothing good in us that makes us want God or think about God or seek God. Before regeneration, we are dead in sin. You'd know that if you didn't cut that verse out of your Bible. Can a dead body get up and do anything on their own? No, because it's dead. And like a dead body that can't do anything, we can't do anything on our own, not even want God or seek God or have faith in God, unless God makes it possible. That's why it has to be a gift from God. And He doesn't have to force it on the elect because they want to have faith because they've been regenerated.
Me: But if God won't give the non-elect faith to believe, doesn't that make God responsible for their unbelief, for them being in hell? And then isn't it unfair for Him to punish them for something they didn't deserve, that they had no control over, that He made them do?
Calvinist: Since the non-elect don't get saving faith, they will remain dead in sin. They will stay a slave to sin. So God doesn't make anyone sin or reject Him. Sinners want to sin and reject God, according to their natures. So unregenerated people are just doing what comes naturally to them, freely choosing to sin and reject God. Because that's what unregenerated sinners will always want to do. And so God is exercising justice when He punishes them for it, because they chose what they wanted to do. No one deserves to go to heaven anyway. We all deserve hell. God doesn't owe anyone eternal life. Do you think He owes you eternal life? Are you so good and righteous on your own that you somehow earned your salvation? God gets to decide who gets saved and who doesn't, who gets faith and who doesn't, because He is the sovereign God and we are not. And it is not unfair for Him to punish the non-elect because "fairness" would be putting us all in hell - because we are all sinners who deserve hell. But God, out of His abundant love and grace, didn't want all people to go to hell, so He graciously chose to save some people. Imagine there are 100 people on death row for murder. And God decides to have mercy on 10 of them, to set them free, even though they don't deserve it. God has a right to have mercy on whomever He wants to. But since none of them deserved mercy, since they all deserved death, it was not unfair for Him to save some but to pass over the other 90 men, allowing them to face the penalty for their crimes. Because that's what they all deserved: death. It's not unfair for God to choose to have mercy on some sinners but to pass over the rest, to let the non-elect go to hell for their sins, because that's what we all deserve for our sins anyway. God is actually being very loving and gracious to save any of us, when no one deserves to be saved.
Me: Yeah, but in Calvinism, isn't God the reason for them being on death row in the first place, because He predestined their crimes and caused them to do it. How is that justice then? They're not paying for their crimes, but for crimes God made them do. And if unregenerated, non-elect people only have one option - to reject God - and so they have to choose that option, how is that "freely choosing," when there is no other choice available to them? How is that NOT God "forcing" them to be a sinner who rejects Him?
Calvinist: Unregenerated sinners are slaves to their sin-nature, to their sinful desires, which is another verse you refuse to believe. And so unregenerated sinners freely choose what they want to do, according to their sin-nature. And so God doesn't have to force them to sin and to reject Him because that's already what unregenerated people will naturally want to do. Always. And that's why they deserve their punishment, because they did what they wanted to do.
Me: But who determined that they would have the sin-nature in the first place, a sin-nature that has only sinful desires?
Calvinist: God ordains all things for His purposes and glory. He has mercy on whomever He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whomever He wants to harden. He is the Potter and we are the clay, and He does whatever He wants with us for His glory. Do you think God doesn't deserve glory? That He doesn't have a right to get more glory for Himself however He wants to?
Me: Um, okay. So you're saying the non-elect can never believe in Jesus because they will never want to believe in Him because God gave them the sin-nature that makes them only, always, want to reject Him. And yet you say God is abundantly gracious and loving. How can predestining most people to hell and then giving them a sin-nature that can only reject Him so that they go to hell, just like He predestined, be considered gracious or loving?
Calvinist: God doesn't "give" them the sin-nature. That's the nature we all start out with. So He doesn't force them to have the sin-nature and sinful desires; He just doesn't give them the regenerated nature that He gives to the elect. He doesn't predestine them for hell or cause them to go to hell; He just didn't predestine them for heaven. He passes over them, choosing to not regenerate them, and they go to hell by default. And then the elect can see how gracious and loving He is to the elect, because He chose to give them eternal life that they didn't deserve. God's grace and love for the elect shine more brightly when compared to His justice and wrath towards sin, towards the non-elect. If there were no sinners to punish, then God would have never been able to show His full attributes, like His justice and wrath, and we would never have seen how great His love and grace is towards the elect.
Me: So God needed sinners to be fully God? So He wasn't fully God before mankind came along and sinned?
Calvinist: Of course He was always fully God, but He decided that having sin was better for His glory. We are mere humans and can't understand everything. And it's pride that makes us want to understand everything, to think we can peer into the mysteries that God reserves for Himself. So we don't have to know how predestination works or God's reasons for what He does; we just have to humbly accept it as truth and to let God be God.
Me: But if the non-elect could never choose to believe in Him anyway, then why does He command them to believe in Him and to obey Him, when He made it impossible for them to do it? Isn't that just fake commands then, and a fake offer of salvation?
Calvinist: It is real commands, but God commands things He knows we can never do. He commands us to be holy knowing we can never be perfectly holy, right!?! And it's a real offer of salvation, it's just that the non-elect can't accept it. Because they don't want to. Because they don't have faith. But God commands them to believe and obey so that they would be guilty of sin when they broke His commands, and then He could demonstrate His justice and wrath - and get glory for it - by punishing them for their sins.
Me: What!?! How can you really call that "justice" if God is punishing them for doing what He predestined them to do, what He caused them to do? And yes, God commands people to be holy, but He doesn't actively prevent us from being holy. He doesn't command holiness but then cause us to do the opposite. And so this is different from Calvinism, which teaches that God commands the non-elect to repent and believe in Him but then He actively prevents them from believing, causing them to reject Him. (And besides, "holy" doesn't mean being perfect; it means "otherness, being set apart," and this is something we can do as Christians.)
Calvinist: You're deliberately trying to twist my words and misrepresent my beliefs. He doesn't cause them to sin; He just allows them to carry out the sinful desires that are already in their hearts, that come with their sin-nature. Besides, God gets to decide what real justice is, not us. And who are you, O man, to talk back to Him anyway? He is the Potter and we are the clay, and so He has the right to do whatever He wants with us for His glory. Humble Christians don't question Him.
Me: But doesn't the Bible say that God wants all men to be saved, that He doesn't want anyone to perish? If Calvinism is true, then God actually wants most men to perish, which contradicts the Bible.
Calvinist: God does want all men to be saved. He doesn't like it that anyone goes to hell. But He also wants to show off His justice against sin, to be worshipped for it. Humans are not God's top priority. Our salvation is not His main focus. His glory is. And so He does what's best for His glory. That's why He created us, to glorify Him, and if that means predestining the non-elect to hell, then that's what has to happen. You see, God has two wills: a revealed one that wants all men to be saved and a deeper one that wants glory for His justice. And so even if it makes Him sad - on one level - that people are in hell, He still predestined it anyway because of His deeper will, because it's best for His glory.
Me: But if God predestines most people to hell, isn't He just lying then when He says He wants all people to be saved, that He wills that no one perishes, and when He talks like salvation is available to all, that Jesus died for all, and that anyone can be saved if they would just believe? How can we trust a God that says one thing but means another? And if God doesn't regenerate someone, doesn't that mean it was His choice that they have the "sin nature" that forces them to want to sin and choose to sin, which would make God the real cause of...
Calvinist: I'm done talking to you now. If you're just gonna keep choosing to twist my words and create strawman arguments and cut verses out of your Bible, then I can't talk to you. Come back when you're ready to really listen and learn.
Me: But if God predestined me - for His glory - to twist your words and create strawman arguments and to oppose Calvinism, then how can I choose to ...
Calvinist: Good-bye, you Pelagian!
I'm not kidding, this is what conversations with them are like, except they also throw in a lot of names/quotes from Calvinist authors and the Westminster Confession, and they use lots of Bible verses, taken out of context of course, thinking it triumphantly proves their case.
[*If you're interested, see "Is Faith a Gift God Gives (forces on) Us?"]
And so when it comes to trying to find out what Calvinists really believe, remember this simple rule: Dig! And keep digging, way past what they first tell you. Eventually they will contradict themselves, revealing a hidden layer of beliefs that is far different from what they first told you. You cannot take what they say at face-value, because they do not take the Bible at face-value, even though they want you, at first, to think they do.
You MUST question every term and every verse a Calvinist uses.
You MUST compare everything they say to what the Bible plainly says. (Which do you really think is the more accurate one: What God plainly says … or what the Calvinist tells you God meant to say? Does God mean what He says or not? Does God say what He means or not?)
And you MUST take Calvinist teachings to their logical and natural conclusions to see how wrong they are, how damaging it is to God's Word and God's character.
Point #5:
K. "Sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign."
Hahaha, Alana nailed this one!
And as she said, "What many new Calvinists don't understand, and what they'll learn little by little by little - because if they were told this in the beginning they probably would catch on a little too quick and not follow the path (my note: bingo!!! She hit the bulls-eye!) - sovereign is not just a word that means 'supreme ruler' in Calvinism (as it should mean)... The sovereignty of God [in Calvinism] means that God has decreed all things - all things in eternity past that have ever happened and that will ever happen. All things that you do, think, feel. Everything! And everybody for that matter. All events, all sins, all evil - everything has been decreed. Not just permitted, not just allowed. Decreed! Caused! Brought to pass [by God]!"
You don't believe her?
John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapters 16-17, emphasis added in all quotes): "everything done in the world is according to His decree"... “the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined"... "the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands"... "...God claims for himself the right of governing the world... [his will is] the most perfect cause of all things..."
Ligonier Ministries ("How is God's sovereignty compatible with man's responsibility?"): "We have to understand that God is sovereign over all. He orchestrates all things. He foreordains all things that come to pass."
R.C. Sproul Jr. (Almighty Over All): “God wills all things that come to pass"
Ligonier Ministries ("Vessels of destruction"): "As Christians in the Reformed tradition, we affirm the biblical view of providence that affirms the world is governed by God’s sovereign ordination... The length of our lives, the color of our hair, your reading of this magazine, and everything else that ever happens was decreed by God.... Those things that God has ordained include also the eternal salvation of His people, thus leaving the rest of mankind eternally damned."
John MacArthur ("Why does God allow so much suffering?"): "He's absolutely in charge of everything. Everything. He controls everything... He is governing history in every minute detail. There's not one molecule in the universe that's out of line with His purposes."
Erwin Lutzer (this quote was found at Examining Calvinism): "Calvinists pointedly admit that God ordains evil - that is consistent with both the Bible and logic. In ordinary discussions about human events, we can say that God permitted evil, as long as we understand that he thereby willed that the evil happen... In a word, what God permits, he ordains."
From my ex-pastor's July 2023 sermon on Hosea: "[The minor prophets emphasize] God's sovereignty, His absolute reign and jurisdiction, His ordaining of all things that come to pass, for His glory, over the nations, over rulers, over world events, and over our lives, that God foreordains anything that comes to pass..."
The Westminster Confession of Faith: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin." [Merely claiming that your theology doesn't make God the author of sin doesn't make it true.]
John MacArthur (Divine Providence: The Supreme Comfort of a Sovereign God): "Well of course; God controls everything... The devil is God’s devil; he’s totally controlled by God. The world is controlled by God. Every single movement, as R.C. said, of every molecule is controlled by God, and a whole lot of it is evil."
Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, pg. 331): "... we confess that we do not understand how it is that God can ordain that we carry out evil deeds and yet hold us accountable for them and not be blamed himself.... Scripture does not tell us...how it can be that God holds us accountable for what he ordains to come to pass."
From my ex-pastor's April 22, 2018 sermon: "As R.C. Sproul so eloquently puts it, 'There is not one maverick molecule in the universe where God is not sovereign.' Nothing is operating outside of His sovereign decree. That means that nothing happens in the universe, not even in the origin of sin and evil, without God not only allowing it but ordaining it."
Edwin Palmer (The Five Points of Calvinism): “All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history… come to pass because God ordained them. Even sin– the fall of the devil from heaven, the fall of Adam, and every evil thought, word, and deed in all of history… Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe… He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen... He has foreordained everything… even sin… Although sin and unbelief are contrary to what God commands…”
Gordon H. Clark (Religion, Reason, and Revelation): “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it… Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything…”
See! This is exactly what Calvinism's definition of sovereignty entails.
I think their misunderstanding of "God is sovereign" is the foundation of their bad theology (along with their misunderstanding of "total depravity," "spiritually dead," and a bunch of others). And it's the best tool they have to manipulate people into Calvinism - "Is God sovereign, or are you? Does God control everything, or do you? If God doesn't control everything, then God controls nothing. Etc." - because what good Christian is going to deny that God is sovereign and in control.
Calvinists use "God is sovereign" to beat everyone into submission, convincing us that if we disagree with them or oppose their ideas about God, then we are disagreeing with God Himself and the Bible, that we are opposing His sovereignty, elevating man above God, and stealing His glory. (Do you know how religious cults work?)
But the real problem is not us; it's them and their bad theology. They mis-define "sovereignty," assuming that it must mean that God preplans, controls, causes, orchestrates, directs everything - even sin, evil, and unbelief - or else He's not a sovereign God who's in control of things.
But true "sovereignty" is about the position of authority and power God has over all, about how He reigns over all (sovereignty). It's not about how He must use His power all the time to control everything, even sin and evil and unbelief, "or else He's not God."
God can be "in control" over all without preplanning/controlling all... except in Calvinism.
A king is still sovereign over his kingdom (the highest authority there is, reigning over the land) without actively preplanning/controlling/causing everything his subjects do - except in Calvi-land, where the king must preplan/cause/control every fart, burp, sin, evil, disaster, tragedy, rebellion against him... or else he's not really the king.
"In control over all" and "controlling all" are very different. And one is biblical, while the other is not.
Calvinists don't realize it, but they are essentially telling our sovereign God how He must be and act in order to be a sovereign God. (So who's really sovereign and in control now?)
But biblically, God gets to decide how to use His authority and power. And clearly, in the Bible, He has chosen to voluntarily restrain His ability/power to control everything in order to give us the free-will to make our own choices - not because He's not all-powerful or not sovereign or is at the mercy of humans (a false accusation Calvinists make against us if we say that we have free-will), but because He wanted it that way.
God gave us free-will because He wanted to spend eternity with people who voluntarily choose to love Him and obey Him (which necessitates giving people the option to reject Him and disobey Him). He didn't want to spend eternity with robots forced to love Him (where's the joy and glory in that!?!), but with people who truly, voluntarily want to be with Him too.
"Forced love" is no love at all. And since God is love, it makes sense He would love us with a non-forcing love and would want real, non-forced love in return.
(Would we be happy with forced love? No? Then why do Calvinists think God would be, expecting Him to settle for something we wouldn't settle for.)
[The following has been added from my post "When Calvinists say 'But predestination!' (shorter version)":]
Personally, I like the way I've heard Tony Evans describe God's sovereignty. He says that in His sovereignty, God sometimes just allows things (I would say like our decisions, natural phenomena and effects, demonic activity - and Dr. Evans means true "allows," not the Calvinist kind where God "allows" what He first preplans and orchestrates)... and He sometimes causes things (but never sin, evil, or unbelief, although He can put us in situations that force us to make our choice between obedience and disobedience, and then He can work our self-chosen decisions into His plans).
God is in control over all, but that doesn't mean He controls all. Yes, He does control/cause some things (not sin or unbelief), when He chooses to. But for the most part (because He set this world up with free-will humans and natural processes that He allows to function as they will, within boundaries), He is "in control" over all not by controlling all, but by deciding what to allow or not allow, when and how to intervene, what the consequences should be, how to work things into His plans, etc. But He gives us free-will and an awful lot of room to make real decisions that affect things. Because He wanted real people, real relationships, not robots.
God does not preplan our decisions and actions, but He gives us the ability to choose among real options that are possible for us. And He knows how to work whatever we do into His plans, whether we obey or disobey. And so if we sin, it is truly our choice. We didn't have to choose it. But He will work it into His plans. And if we had chosen the opposite - to not sin - then He would have worked that into His plans instead. He "causes all things to work together for good," not "causes all things."
To show the contrast between Calvinism's and non-Calvinism's view of sovereignty, I'd like to quote a conversation between Warren McGrew (Idol Killer) and a Calvinist woman (he shared this story in his video "You don't understand Calvinism - Considering the Reformation", starting at about the 24-minute mark.):
Warren says that he was hanging out with family, and a woman walked in and said "I've been watching your videos on YouTube. I want you to know I disagree with you. I believe God is sovereign."
Warren said that he also believes God is sovereign, and he explains it this way: "When I say 'sovereign,' I mean God is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and He is the highest authority to which we can appeal. He's the ultimate Judge, our Redeemer, our Savior, our Lord. When I say 'sovereign', that's what I mean... [But when you say 'sovereign'] you mean 'meticulous effectual determinism,' that God decreed all the evil in the world, all the good, and brought everything to come to pass. You're thinking 'fatalism.' And so we're gonna disagree on how we define 'sovereign' - because I think it's a great blasphemy to accuse God of sexual abuse or decreeing and bringing about all adultery and all evil and all sin and suffering. I think that is the result of man's rebellion against God, not God's ultimate Will and that He wanted this. I think this is contrary to His Will. Ultimately, He'll redeem and restore it, but we're contrary to it." [Well said, Warren!]
Then she responded, "I want you to know something, Warren. My husband committed adultery on me... I know God did that for my good and for my husband's good - because he repented, he got more devout with the Lord and our marriage improved as a result. So I know God's the one who led him into temptation, that led him into that adulterous affair, and that God effectually decreed it for our good."
And Warren responded, "Ma'am, God can redeem without being the devil to bring that about. Just let God be the fireman, He doesn't need to be the arsonist. Just let Him be the fireman, let Him be the hero and put [the fire] out. Let's own our own evil. Don't blame God for your husband's infidelity. That's not real repentance. Don't blame God for your husband's lust. Don't blame God for your husband's abuse. Put that squarely on that man's shoulders, and he needs to take that to the cross in repentance... Don't blame God for your husband's evil."
Warren goes on to say in his video that "She just could not let go of the idea that because somehow this great sin was turned into good that ultimately that meant that God was the one who caused it. So when we talk about 'sovereignty' in the Calvinist system, we're operating under a completely different definitional set."
Once again, well said, Warren!
[And I liked when Warren responded to "You don't understand Calvinism" with "It's not that we don't understand Calvinism; it's that Calvinists are being inconsistent" (paraphrase). So true!]
And how sad is it that good, well-meaning, humble Christian have convinced themselves that God Himself is the one who preplanned and caused the terrible evils other people did to them - all because Calvinists have convinced them that that's what a "sovereign" God does and that He should be trusted and praised for it anyway.
It's truly sickening! (And eventually heart-crushing and faith-destroying.)
L. I agree with Alana that Calvinism contradicts the plain, clear, commonsense understanding of Scripture, and that we have to be taught to find Calvinism in the Bible because it's not there.
And even the Calvinists know this!
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."
Hahaha, do you know what this means? That Calvinists know that Calvinism's doctrine of election is not clearly, obviously, thoroughly 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.
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 anywhere in the Bible and so people have to be educated into it by other Calvinists (often while the Calvinist hides the "Calvinism" label so that we can't research for ourselves what they're teaching). Very revealing!
Unbelievably, here's a whole sermon series by a Calvinist on how to preach Calvinism covertly, literally called "Covert Calvinism". And he does exactly what I said - strategically teaching Calvinist theology without calling it Calvinism, slowly modifying people's thinking through Calvinist definitions and carefully-chosen verses interpreted Calvinisticly, until they believe that Calvinism is really taught in the Bible.
And don't just take my word for it. Read the sermons. Or even just the descriptions to the sermons, which includes: "[this is] a prelude sermon to a covert series on Calvinism... This is the 'Total Depravity' sermon without using the stock theological labels. It is the first sermon in the series and it's covert because too many of our [listeners] will shut down their receptors when they hear the words 'Calvinism.'... [This sermon] focuses on God the Father choosing us to be his children. It uses biblical, not theological ["Calvinist"], 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.'"
He deliberately waits until after he indoctrinates people with Calvinism - through biblical-sounding sermons full of carefully-chosen, Calvinisticly-interpreted verses - before he reveals that he's been stealthily teaching Calvinism all along, without their awareness.
Basically, the plan is "indoctrinate them with Calvinism without telling them, and then once they're hooked, reveal to them that they are now Calvinists."
This is how Calvinists reform our thoughts under our radar.
And, lo and behold, the "Christianity Explained" class uses a book by Calvinist Mark Dever - head of 9Marks - to teach the Calvinist version of Christianity and the gospel. This is nothing more than a Calvinist Indoctrination Class that prospective new members who don't see things in a Calvinist way are required to take before being allowed into the church as members.
And guess what? It works. In the end, the church chose to keep him as pastor. But it split the church and up to half the people left. And though he says it was difficult, he goes on to celebrate the fact that the church split, saying that it led to "great freedom" - because "the people who remained [there] wanted to be there. They wanted the truth of the Gospel. They wanted reformation."
And with the opposition gone, they "were able to begin the process, unhindered, of revising our constitution to bring it in line with Scripture [he means "in line with Calvinism"]... The process of basic reformation took another three years, and really it’s still going on. Like shaping your soul, the work of shaping a church takes years of persistence. You can’t do it in a five-year pastorate."
From a "church reform" article from Founders Ministry: "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*... We speak first of all of the doctrines of grace [that's code for Calvinism]. Teach your people that they are utterly depraved and dead in their sins without God. Teach them that God chose the elect for salvation from the foundation of time out of his own mercy and desire..."
*To Calvinists, Calvinism is "the gospel/Christianity itself," so never believe a Calvinist who says that Calvinist doctrines are "secondary, back-burner issues not worth fighting about or dividing over." (That's merely an attempt to manipulate people into keeping quiet, falling in line, and not fighting back.) As that article says in the introduction to that "reform plan": "In reality, Calvinism is nothing more than biblical Christianity... These [Calvinist] doctrines are foundational to a God-centered theology. They are the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity."
To Calvinists, Calvinism IS the gospel, the Bible, the sum total of Christianity. So do you really think they would ever or could ever let Calvinism be a secondary, back-burner, not-that-important, shouldn't-cause-division issue? No Calvinist worth his salt would do that.
Make no mistake, they will always be pushing Calvinism because they think it's synonymous with Christianity itself. But if they think we'll resist it, they'll call it a "secondary issue" and "finer points" and they'll promise to put it in the background, in favor of "more important issues." But no good Calvinist pastor will ever let this truly be a background issue. They'll just go underground with it, undercover, cloaking it in "biblical" language so that they can spread it in more inconspicuous ways that don't trigger our alarm bells as easily.
Keep in mind that whoever controls the language - and the cherry-picking/interpretation of Scripture - also controls the conversation and destination. This is a way that cults work.
In Chapter 2 (Scaling the Language Barrier) of Walter Martin's book "The Kingdom of the Cults" (The Revised, Updated, and Expanded Anniversary Edition, October 1997), we read this about religious cults (this is my paraphrased summary):
Terminology and definitions matter. When words are allowed to be redefined incorrectly - and those incorrect definitions are allowed to spread to people and throughout generations (because of our apathy or ignorance) - it can become a powerful weapon to enslave the masses. Cult leaders know this and use it to their advantage, hijacking language with their own definitions to slowly, hypnotically lead people in the path they want them to go.
Cultists are experts at taking texts out of their proper context, with no concern for the laws of language, logic, or proper biblical interpretation.
Religious cult leaders use the Bible's terminology and concepts, but in a very different way than how it was originally intended and how it's commonly, historically understood. They use the Bible's terms, but they secretly redefine them to fit their own theological framework.
This is why the cultist will often appear to be - and claim to be - in full agreement with you, because they are using the same words, same concepts, same verses. You just don't realize that they've got very different definitions and interpretations.
At first glance, a cult's redefinitions will appear to be in harmony with the historic teachings of the Christian faith. But this harmony is superficial at best - because it cannot hold up under serious biblical scrutiny when Scripture is read properly and in context and when words are correctly defined.
Cults take advantage of the fact that the average Christian is almost totally unaware of the "subtle art" of redefining terms. And much time is wasted debating about Scripture with cultists - talking in circles - when spending just a few minutes at first defining the terms would have disarmed them of one of their most powerful tools: theological term-switching.
The cultist's redefining and juggling of terms puts the cultist at an advantage because it frustrates the average Christian who can sense that something is wrong and that they're both not really saying the same thing, but the Christian can't quite put his finger on what's wrong. And so therefore, not realizing the words games the cultist is playing, he often falls silent for fear of ridicule or of continuing to talk in circles.
Calvinist pastors control the direction of the church by controlling not just the resources and staff, but also by controlling the definitions of words, the theological language we speak, and the way we interpret verses, such as by filling our minds first with their Calvinist definitions of "predestination/election/chosen" and then leading us to verses that have those words in it and going, "See! It's in the Bible, so you have to believe it."
And this traps us because we never thought to question their definitions or to double-check the verses in context, never suspecting that there's a different, non-Calvinist way to read it. We trusted that what they're spoon-feeding us is accurate and biblical. We let them slowly modify our thinking and our perspectives on God and His Word, causing us to see everything through the lens of Calvinism - until our minds have been wiped clean of the ability to read the Bible in a clear, plain, commonsense way anymore.
Point #6 (added to the end of her video):
M. At the end, Alana points out how you can recognize a Calvinist by how they constantly refer to themselves as depraved, wretched, worthless, etc.
Calvinists are taught to see themselves this way as a way of being humble, of honoring God and His "sovereignty." It is drilled into their heads repeatedly.
From my ex-pastor's February 1, 2015 sermon on unbelief: "Why would people reject Jesus?... The answer from the Bible goes back to the stubbornness, blindness, perversity, depravity, wickedness of the human heart... The human heart is described as sinful, wicked, blind, dead, deceitful, corrupt, evil..."
... and from his June 28, 2015 sermon on hell: "The Bible says...we are born enemies of God...in rebellion against God... depravity, wickedness, rebellion, and evilness of the human heart..."
... and from his August 16, 2015 sermon on predestination: “... we’re born steeped in sin... infected and absolutely contaminated by sin on every level…under the power of sin…slaves to depravity..."
... and from June 2, 2024: "Once we're reminded, friends, of our wickedness from the Bible, and our depravity, and our corruption, and our sheer propensity to evil, and how prone we are to selfishness, self-deception, dishonesty, pride, bitterness, anger, lust, laziness, envy, the real question is not 'Why doesn't God elect everybody?'... What's the real question? It's 'Why does God, in His infinite love and mercy, elect anybody?'" ["Infinite love and mercy"... but only enough for the "elect"? Hmm? Methinks someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word "infinite".]
... and from July 8, 2018: "God is not unjust to have mercy on some and not others - because of the wickedness, depravity, and innate rebellion of mankind...a planet of rebellious, sinful, wicked human beings.... [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?'
... and from April 17, 2022: "There is something radically wrong with human nature. It is dark, evil, bent, corrupt. The Bible's message is that we are thoroughly corrupted with wickedness, evil, selfishness, and sin, cut off from God. And if something doesn't change in that [meaning "if God doesn't change you"], we will not be reconciled to Him."
... and from his March 19, 2017 sermon about why there's suffering and evil in the world (referring to Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs): "The secular assumption is that ‘normal’ people – whatever that means – don’t do things like that. They’re not cannibals and sadistic killers. Something went wrong with him. That’s a secular assumption… [because] from birth we’re born corrupt and evil. And so it’s a secular assumption to think that something has to happen to make us really evil. Any of us are capable of that kind of horrific evil. Hannibal Lector answers [the question 'What made you like this?'] very biblically...‘Nothing happened to me. I just am. I’m evil.' That’s the biblical worldview."
Calvinist pastors and theologians relentlessly hammer on total depravity. On how wretched we are.
And this is deliberate. They know that "total depravity" is the key to breaking people down (kinda like how abusers break down those they abuse to get them to stay and to feel like they deserve the abuse).
It gets us to feel so ashamed for being the terrible human beings we are that we will believe them when they say that we have no ability to think for ourselves or to choose God, and so we'll gratefully accept the idea that God must do it for us and, additionally, we'll just be so thankful that God chose to save anyone at all - because we're all so wretched and evil - that we won't push back too hard against the idea that God predestines people to hell. Because, after all, the non-elect "deserve" it for being such "wretched, evil" people.
As Alana said, "Once they start to believe this about themselves [total depravity], that's when they start to say 'I could never choose God. I'm too awful to chose God. He would have to choose me."
And when we're sufficiently broken down to the point that we no longer trust our own judgment, thoughts, logic/reasoning capabilities, ability to make decisions, and our ability to understand the Bible for ourselves, then Calvinists can more easily and strategically lead us through Scripture and mold our thoughts and help us "connect the dots" until we believe that the Bible really does teach Calvinism and that it really does make sense, for the most part (and we'll just chalk up any lingering confusion, doubt, or alarm to "mystery." After all, "who are we to talk back to God anyway?").
And Calvinists themselves admit that one TULIP petal is built on the other, that there's a strategy to it, and that it all starts with total depravity:
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, you'll never get 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." {Their unbiblical definition of total depravity leads to their unbiblical doctrine of election.}
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... 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..."
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."
From the "church reform" article from Founders Ministry: "... We speak first of all of the doctrines of grace [that's code for Calvinism]. Teach your people that they are utterly depraved and dead in their sins without God. Teach them that God chose the elect for salvation from the foundation of time out of his own mercy and desire..."
From my ex-pastor's January 24, 2016 sermon: “We are God-haters. And unless God chooses to seek us and open blinded eyes, we are helpless and hopeless as slaves to sin.”
From April 21, 2024: "What is the doctrine [of election]? Well, here's the biblical doctrine: It is the Bible's teaching that unless God chooses to override - that's key - our sin, our resistance, our wickedness, our rebellion - that we are unable to see, savor, and treasure Christ as Savior."
From February 28, 2016 sermon: "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. [Wow, we are horrible beings, aren't we?]... 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.
Theologians over the years have tagged this with the phrase 'total depravity'... which means that sin has infected and corrupted us internally, down to our core, it has suffocated any hunger for God. Total depravity means sin has invaded our entire being and has poisoned our hearts and minds and cut us off from God and completely squelched any hunger for God. That's what total depravity means.
Because our human nature is corrupted by sin, because our depravity has permeated us to the core, unbelievers cannot grasp God's truth clearly. It is only the Holy Spirit who can give a person the ability to go 'I believe that. That's me. That is who I am.' Or 'That is who Christ is and that is the gospel.' [See, total depravity is the first step. It leads to total inability, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and limited atonement: Calvinist predestination and election.]
Pastor Johnson, Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in salvation": "... all this hinges on and stems from the doctrine of total depravity... there are no depraved people who really want to know God. The thing is they hate God... they're not capable of loving God or pleasing Him or even obeying Him. They cannot do it. It's impossible for them, because their hearts are so fixed against Him.... And so he changes that animosity that we are born with towards God into a love for Him. That's what we mean by irresistible grace. That's another—that's the I in the tulip...." [They start with their bad definition of total depravity/spiritually dead (making it "total inability"), and it leads to a bad definition of election/regeneration, which leads to errors all down the line.]
John Piper ("Unconditional Election") shakes up the order a little in this quote, 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."
Do you know what those big Calvinist Systematic Theology books are for? To lead us systematically from one point to the next, to educate us into Calvinism, into accepting terrible things we never dreamed we'd believe when we were a "simple-minded" Christian just reading the Bible in a commonsense way and taking it at face-value.
[If Calvinists can find one verse which says that a consequence/curse of the fall of Adam and Eve was that God took away our ability to want Him, seek Him, believe in Him and make our own decisions - if they can find one verse that clearly defines "total depravity/spiritual death" as "total inability" - then I'll start the believe them a little more.]
The thing is, the petals of Calvinism's TULIP all rise and fall together... which means that if you disprove one of them, you disprove them all. And Calvinists know it:
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..."
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..."
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."
Loraine 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."
Calvinists themselves have issued the challenge: "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."
So why not test it?
Read "Is Calvinism's TULIP biblical?" to determine if you think the TULIP truly holds together or if it must be thrown out completely.
[And lastly, watch Hitler and Calvinism. Seriously, you gotta see it.]
Well, that about does it for me.
Great video, Alana! I hope you do more like it to help educate people in how Calvinism takes over and where it goes wrong, how it contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture and destroys God's character, and why it's such a big deal and should be studied and refuted openly and firmly.
We've seen and heard it firsthand, watching it take over a whole non-Calvinist church full of good, well-meaning, God-fearing Christians within about 6 years. Unbelievable! And so we know that videos like Alana's are so important. Every voice helps in the battle against this relentless, voracious juggernaut.
[We left our church voluntarily in 2019 when we realized the elders would do nothing about the pastor's aggressive Calvinism. But sadly, very recently, it's gotten to the point at that church where they are now asking (forcing) long-term members and employees who disagree with the pastor's theology to leave, using bogus reasons for kicking them out like "failure to abide by the membership contract." Cult! I knew this was where it was headed when I saw that the church joined the 9Marks church-finder network after we left. Once again, here's our letter to our elders about the Calvinism in our church.]
You know, as a final warning, I think I'll end this post with a quote from another person who speaks against Calvinism, also showing how Calvinism takes over and the damage it does. This is from Will Hess from The Church Split (near the end of the interview called Stealth Calvinism and How it Splits Churches):
"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."
Yep, it happens just like that. We watched it happen. So act early when you suspect that your friends are wading into Calvinism or that it's taken over the pulpit. Because time is of the essence. The longer people are immersed in Calvinism, the stronger the Calvinist vice-grip gets on their minds, and the more their faith suffocates without even realizing it. If you wait too long, it may be too late.
