When Calvinists say "But predestination!" (shorter version)
[Finally, the much-shorter version - I said shorter, not short😉 - of my "But predestination!" series. The longer version - full of many more Calvinist comments, my Calvinist ex-pastor's sermons, and my replies to them - can be found by starting here. But in this simplified version, I'm simply sharing the basics. And I'll do a tiny version soon too, cutting out almost all quotes and memes. But, oh, they add so much that it's hard to cut them out.]
At the heart of Calvinism is predestination and God's sovereignty (among other things, like "total depravity"), which according to Calvinism essentially amounts to: "God preplans and controls everything, even sin and evil and all our decisions, and so He pre-picks who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. He causes the 'elect' to believe in Him and be saved, but He made sure the 'non-elect' have no chance or ability to believe and be saved because He predetermined they would go to hell. All for His glory."
From the Calvinist's beloved Westminster Confession of Faith: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."
John Piper ("Does God Predestine People to Hell?"): “My answer is yes. God does determine from eternity who will be saved.”
And if we push back against this - if we say God offers salvation to all people but that He lets us decide if we want to accept it or reject it - Calvinists go "But God is sovereign, and predestination is in the Bible, and so you have to believe it!"
But the problem is not that we misunderstand the Bible or can't accept biblical truth. It's that Calvinists mis-define both sovereignty and predestination (among other things).
[I already have a "When Calvinists say 'But sovereignty!'" post, but I'll cover it here too because it's so closely tied to predestination.]
Firstly, Calvinism's "sovereignty":
Calvinism's definition of God's sovereignty undergirds their whole theological system, especially their concept of "election/predestination."
As Calvinist Marshall Beretta says ("Why doesn't God allow a window period of repentance from Hades?"): "Only the elect can be saved.... Both [the elect and non-elect] are obviously part of God's decree. Since God is Omnipotent and sovereign, the elect cannot possibly 'choose' to not be saved; neither can the Non-elect choose to be saved..."
Jonathan Edwards ("Man Naturally God's Enemies", Chapter 8: Mercy, justly withheld): "This doctrine affords a strong argument for the absolute sovereignty of God, with respect to the salvation of sinners.... [God] will have his liberty to choose the objects of his mercy; to show mercy to what enemy he pleases, and to punish and destroy which of his haters he pleases. And certainly this is a fit and reasonable thing. It is fit that God should distribute saving blessings in this way, and in no other, viz. in a sovereign and arbitrary way."
John MacArthur (Doctrine of Election, part 1): "In Revelation 19 we are told the Lord God reigns... What does it mean? It means he makes every decision that’s ever been made, essentially, about everything.... He is the decider and determiner of every person’s destiny, and the controller of every detail of every individual’s life. Which is only another way of saying God is God."
Only in Calvinism can God not be sovereign unless He predestines the salvation and damnation of people. In Calvinism, God's God-ness - His omnipotence and sovereignty - requires that He predestine some people to heaven and the rest to hell, along with controlling everything everyone does, including our sins and evil and everything Satan does:
John MacArthur (Divine Providence: The Supreme Comfort of a Sovereign God): "Well of course; He 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."
But their definition of sovereignty is not supported by Scripture. It has to be read into Scripture, inferred from Scripture, especially through their cherry-picking of various verses (especially Proverbs or Psalms, neither of which is necessarily meant to be taken as hard-core bottom-line theology) or verses where God incorporates someone's wickedness into His plans, which Calvinists interpret as God preplanning/ordaining/causing them to be wicked and to choose to do wicked things, with no chance of choosing anything else.
[For God to allow someone to make bad free-will choices - and then for Him to work it into His plans - is nowhere near the same thing as Calvinism, where God preplans/orchestrates/causes all evil decisions, and we had no ability to do anything else. In the first one, sin and evil is truly our decision/responsibility, for we could have chosen otherwise. But in Calvinism, all sin and evil is truly God's decision/responsibility, for we could only do what He predestined and caused us to do. And yes, Calvinists do mean "causes," even though they try to hide that word under less alarming, less clear words as much as possible. See "But Calvinists don't say God causes sin and evil!"]
[Sidenote: Another error Calvinists make is that they take verses where God causes something like a natural disaster or physical malady and say, "See, so it means God causes all sin and evil too," as if causing moral evil is in the same boat as causing a natural or physical condition. But it's not! For God to cause a storm or an illness doesn't violate any of His commands, but to cause someone to sin does. So these are like comparing apples to oranges. It can't, shouldn't, be done. Causing a storm doesn't destroy His character, but causing people to sin, to disobey His commands (and then He punishes them for it), does destroy His character, His trustworthiness, His goodness, His justness, etc.]
So when talking to Calvinists - unless you want to talk round and round in circles with them, talking past each other - it might be best to start by asking them how they define "sovereignty" (and keep asking more clarifying/probing questions until they admit that they think it means that God ultimately preplans, controls, orchestrates everything that happens, including sin, evil, and unbelief)... and then ask them to find the Bible's definition of "sovereignty" (preferably in the KJV) to compare it.
And I don't mean just allusions to "sovereignty" that they find in verses that are taken out-of-context or that can be read in non-Calvinist ways too, but the actual word "sovereignty" defined in the Bible. If they are going to use their version of "sovereignty" as the basis for their theological views of God and how He acts, they should be able to find that word clearly defined in the Bible, not just defined as people tell them to define it.
But here's the thing: The word sovereignty is not in the KJV anywhere. And when it's used in other translations like the NIV, it's usually in the title "Sovereign Lord." No translation defines "sovereignty" the way Calvinists say it's defined - that God must use His power all the time to preplan/control everything, even sin, evil, and unbelief... "or else He's not God," they say.
Calvinists define sovereignty as about how God must act, how He must use His power. Essentially, Calvinists are telling God how He must behave in order to be a sovereign God. Very stupid!
But I believe sovereignty is about the supreme position of power God is in: He is the highest authority there is, has the final say over all, and is answerable to no one. "Sovereign God" is like saying "King Jesus." A king doesn't have to control every little thing his subjects do - every sin, every thought, every sneeze - in order to be king. He is king not because he causes, directs, orchestrates, controls everything they do, but because he is the highest authority there is in that land.
"Sovereign" says nothing about how God must use His power and control, and it especially says nothing like "God must preplan/cause/control everything, including all evil, sin, and unbelief - or else He's not God."
Calvinists say that, but the word "sovereign" does not.
As sovereign God, He gets to decide how to use His power and control, which means that - if He wants to - He can decide to voluntarily restrain His use of power and control in order to give people true free-will, the right to make real decisions on their own. Scripture shows us time and time again that this is how He made things, how He wanted things. He wanted mankind to have free-will, even though He has the power and ability to control all our choices if He wanted to.
[And why did He want to give people free-will? Because He wants real relationships with people. He wants to be with people who voluntarily choose to love Him and worship Him, not with robots created to love and worship Him. There is no real joy or glory in programming a robot to love you. And if it's something we wouldn't want or put up with for ourselves, why do Calvinists think God would?]
For some reason, Calvinists think a sovereign, all-powerful God cannot give people true free-will and yet still work His plans out. But they think He must preplan and orchestrate everything, including all sins, or else He proves He's not God and can't work His plans out. In Calvinism, if there was even one speck of dust that God didn't actively control, He'd cease to be a sovereign, all-powerful God.
R.C. Sproul (Does God Control Everything?): “If God is not sovereign, God is not God. If there is even one maverick molecule in the universe – one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination [meaning "one molecule that God doesn't control"] – we cannot have the slightest confidence that any promise God has ever made about the future will come to pass.”
Hmm, I wonder: If one randomly roaming piece of dust or one truly free-will decision from one person could dethrone God and thwart all His plans, then can He really be as sovereign and all-powerful as Calvinists think?
Calvinist "sovereignty" vs. Non-Calvinist "sovereignty"
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.)
*********************************************
Calvinism and Counseling (I've shared these quotes before, so skip this section if you want to.)
I mean, seriously, how is a Calvinist pastor supposed to counsel hurting people when he believes God ordained/caused all the evil, sin, tragedy, and suffering that we go through (such as that husband's affair), for our good and for His glory?
Can Calvinist pastors truly help and encourage hurting people who've been betrayed, violated, or damaged by the wicked sins of other people when Calvinists believe things like this:
Theodore Zachariades (as seen in this clip from Soteriology 101): "God works all things after the counsel of His will, even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so... and when He wants to, He orders those to commit adultery when HE WANTS TO!"
Gordan 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…”
Jeff Durbin (see clips in The Madness of Calvinism or the full video in Jeff Durbin Answering 'The Problem of Evil') talking to a woman about evils like gang rape: “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil He plans… nothing happens in the universe apart from His will… He actually decrees all things."
James White (listen here) in answer to the question: “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?”, says "Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless."
From my ex-pastor's June 2022 sermon about Joseph and forgiveness: "Any time we're physically abused, verbally abused, emotionally abused, lied about, oppressed, taken advantage of, wrongly blamed... it was God who brought these circumstances into our lives in the first place, painful as they may be."
From my ex-pastor's March 2014 sermon about finding hope in hard times: “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.)
From my ex-pastor's September 13, 2020 sermon on God being in control: "[The doctrine of God's providence] is a huge source of comfort to the people of God because it is a regular reminder that whatever's going on in our lives, even if it's painful, it is being directed by an all-knowing, good and loving and wise heavenly Father, who does everything for His children out of His love."
From my ex-pastor's August 2022 sermon on suffering and God's love: "God's providence means His sovereign, wise leading and active directing of all things for His glory, and of all events, everything, the good, the bad, and the ugly."
From my ex-pastor's October 2019 sermon on forgiveness: "How you handle and respond to mistreatment, when someone has hurt you, wounded you, lied about you, betrayed you, abused you...directly reflects what [you] really believe about God deep down inside... The Bible teaches that God sometimes strategically uses sinful people in our lives to refine us and humble us, to do His good work in our lives. ("Using" evil is one thing, but "preplanning, controlling, orchestrating, directing, causing" evil is another, which is what Calvi-god does.)... ON PURPOSE to humble us and teach us dependence on Him.... for His purpose, His glory, and for our good." (Translation: "God deliberately caused the abuse, betrayals, and tragedies in your life for His glory and your good, to humble you and make you dependent on Him.")
A Calvinist grandfather-to-be (who said that God might not love his unborn grandchild and might have created it for damnation or to be a murderer, see "The total depravity of certain Calvinists" and my post about it) also said this about God decreeing rape: “God must then direct the rapist not just who to rape but how to perform the rape and how long… Amen, but I would go even farther than that, God originated every detail in His mind from all eternity and decreed it to be so.”
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… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child.”
"It is a true pastoral story, summarized here:
The crying couple is in the Reformed (Calvinist) pastor’s office. She is weeping that the husband has been cheating with her sister for years. The husband confesses. The pastor says it is not good.
The husband tells the pastor that he (the pastor) has been teaching for years on the (Calvinistic) 'sovereign will of God.' God decrees/ordains/wills all things that happen.
The reformed pastor tries, in the midst of the sobbing, to explained that it was not God’s 'will of command,' even though, it must have been, hmmm, curiously enough, God’s 'ordained decree' (a bumpy few sessions, as you can imagine, with the husband reminding the pastor of previous messages).
For a Calvinist, all that has happened and will happen is directly ordained and decreed by God. As long as one holds to that position, then ultimately all sin and misery are directly the responsibility of God. Of course for 'His glory' and 'your own good' (what a thoughtful husband to do all that for his wife’s ultimate good!)."
Only go to a Calvinist pastor for counseling and comfort about your traumas if you want to come out the other end as a Christian who distrusts God or an atheist who wants nothing to do with God.
*********************************************
In Calvinism, God's sovereignty and providence means that He preplans, controls, determines, causes everything, even our decisions, evils, sins, and unbelief. In Calvinism, everything that happens is God's Will, including abuse and affairs and violence. As R.C. Sproul Jr. says (Almighty Over All): “God wills all things that come to pass..."
But notice how differently (read carefully!) Dr. Tony Evans, whose theological views I trust, defines "sovereignty" and "providence" in The Tony Evans Bible Commentary (pg 22): "The sovereignty of God means that he exercises his prerogative to do whatever he pleases with his creation. His providence is the outworking of God's eternal plan for mankind and all of his creation. Providence is the invisible and mysterious hand of God at work in the details of history to bring to pass his sovereign will. God's providence includes every part of creation, from the inanimate world to individuals to entire nations. In his righteous, wise, and loving providence, God is bringing to pass his eternal purposes for his glory and our eternity."
He's saying that God does what He pleases, not (as Calvinism says) that everything happens because God was pleased to do it. He's saying that God has plans, not (as Calvinism says) that God planned everything. He's saying that God has things He wills to happen and that He will work everything toward that end, not (as Calvinism says) that He wills everything that happens. He's saying that God accomplishes His overarching plans by working in and through all parts of His creation over history, weaving it all together to lead it in the direction He wants it to go, not (as Calvinism says) that God preplans and controls everything and everyone.
Along with misunderstanding sovereignty and providence, Calvinists misunderstand the concept of "God's Will." They think that, just like sovereignty and providence, it's about God wanting, preplanning, causing everything that happens. They assume that God's Will always happens, that He always gets what He wants, and so, therefore, everything that happens is "His Will," what He wanted and planned and caused.
But they are wrong. According to Strong's Concordance/HELPS Word-studies, "God's Will" - especially in verses talking about what He wants for us and from 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.”
So when it comes to our lives, it's not about a pre-set plan that must happen. It's not that whatever happens in our lives - abuse, affairs, disease, divorce, etc. - is "His Will."
No. God tells us in His Word what His Will is for us - how He wants us to live, what He desires for us and from us, the path He prefers we take - but He lets us decide to obey Him or not, to follow Him in His Will or not. And because we can disobey and resist His preference (and because demons and natural processes, or a breakdown in natural processes, can affect things too), His Will doesn't always get done, and not everything that happens is His Will.
And yet, whatever happens and whatever we choose, He can still find ways to weave it into His plans or to get something good out of it. He doesn't have to meticulously predetermine/cause every step, every microscopic detail, in order to work His overarching plans out. He is big enough and wise enough and powerful enough to allow people to make real choices - even choices He doesn't want, choices that disobey His Will - and yet still work it together for good, for His purposes.
Unlike Calvi-god who must preplan/control/cause every tiny detail... or else he would fall apart. The only way Calvi-god's plans can work out is if he himself meticulously controls it all, allowing for no other factors but himself to influence or affect anything. But it's a tiny, unsovereign, unpowerful god who can be undone by one rogue piece of dust!
Non-Calvinism's "God causes all things to work together - even things He didn't plan or cause - to accomplish His overarching plans" is far different than Calvinism's "God preplans, causes, and controls all things."
Can you hear the difference?
A Calvinist once asked this question on a post at Soteriology 101 (can't remember which post): “If God destines something to an end or permits it and sustains it to the same end, what is the difference?” What he's asking is "What's the difference between God causing something or God simply letting it happen?" But Calvinists don't ask this because they really want to know the difference. They ask it rhetorically, as in "There is no difference because it doesn't change what happened."
What’s the difference between a God who genuinely offers salvation to all people, but who lets us make our own choice about if we want Him in our lives or not, and allows us to face the consequences of our choice … and a God who predestines our eternities and choices, who causes unbelievers to be unbelievers, who never gives unbelievers a chance to seek/find Him or to find salvation, and who then punishes unbelievers in hell for being the unbelievers He caused them to be?
If you can’t see a difference, what does that say about your view of God and the Gospel? Either that, or you’re just not thinking about it carefully enough."
As I've said before: If you can't see the damage Calvinism does to the gospel, God's truth, and God's character, then you either don't really understand Calvinism or you don't really understand the Bible.
I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to say it.
[I'm interrupting this post to share this brilliant 4-minute video: Hitler and Calvinism. Awesome!]
And secondly, Calvinism's "predestination":
Because Calvinists define sovereignty the way they do, they believe that God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, that He makes our decision for us. Calvi-god predestines the elect to heaven and the non-elect to hell. Calvi-god gives the elect the faith to believe in him, but he makes sure that the reprobates can never believe in him because he predetermined that they'd go to hell for his glory, and so Calvi-Jesus never died for them anyway.
In Calvinism, God's love, the gospel, salvation, and Jesus's death are only for the elect, for those chosen for heaven by God before time began!
In their own words (Skip these quotes if you don't need it proven to you, especially since I've already shared them in other posts. If you want, skip right to "The Bible's Teaching on Predestination" after the quotes. But seriously, they're so incredible that they're worth reading again... and again... and again... until you vomit.):
John MacArthur (Doctrine of Election, part 1): "And I have often said, if you believe the Bible, you believe in predestination. If you believe the Bible, you believe in God choosing who would be saved.... Don’t you dare question God. God’s the potter, you’re the clay. The clay is so far beneath the potter. It is inanimate dirt. It has no right to even entertain the idea of speaking to the potter.... [God] makes every decision that’s ever been made, essentially, about everything.... He is the decider and determiner of every person’s destiny, and the controller of every detail of every individual’s life... 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." [Uhh, yeah, it's so "very clear" that Calvinist theologians have to write hundreds and hundreds of pages to explain it in their quasi-sufficient superficially-biblical way, and the average Calvinist has to spend months and months studying the massive, convoluted Calvinist literature to try to understand it. And even then, when their bad theology paints them into a corner, they always have to fall back on "It's a mystery" and "Who are you, O man, to question God?" As if those are real answers to the contradictions Calvinism creates.😕]
A.W. Pink ("The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation"): "[God] decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved--to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire! ... From [the human race] God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His sovereign grace; the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity..."
J.I. Packer ("Predestination: God has a purpose"): "... predestination means specifically God’s decision, made in eternity before the world and its inhabitants existed, regarding the final destiny of individual sinners... God’s choice of particular sinners for salvation and eternal life... [and] an advance decision [of God's] about those who finally are not saved...
John Calvin (Institutes, book 3, chapter 23): "Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children... individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.... The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet 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."
My ex-pastor in June 2015: "God, in His love and compassion, sent [Jesus to die on the cross]...out of love for His sheep." ["His sheep" is Calvinist-lingo for "the elect." Therefore, "Jesus died only for the elect."]
R.C. Sproul (Limited Atonement): "Did God simply send Christ to the cross to make salvation possible, or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which, according to the riches of His grace and His eternal election, He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people?... God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect. And even though Christ’s death is valuable enough to meet the needs of everybody, there was a special and unique sense in which He died for His sheep. He laid down His life for those whom the Father had given Him." [Translation: "Even though Jesus's death was valuable enough to cover everyone's sins, He died only for the elect, to save only the elect."]
John Piper (What we believe about the five points of Calvinism): "The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all humans and effective for those who trust him. It is not limited in its worth or sufficiency to save all who believe. But the full, saving effectiveness of the atonement that Jesus accomplished is limited to those for whom that saving effect was prepared." [Translation: "Even though Jesus's death was valuable enough to cover everyone's sins, He died only for the elect, to save only the elect."]
A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election): "It is to call the elect that the Scriptures are given, that ministers are sent, that the gospel is preached, and the Holy Spirit is here... the preaching of the gospel is the appointed instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit whereby the elect are brought to Christ... The gospel, then, is God's great winnowing fan, separating the wheat from the chaff. ["The gospel is only for the elect."] ... it is unmistakably evident that the 'all men' God wills to be saved and for whom Christ died are all men without regard to national distinctions." ["Jesus died only for the elect from all nations."]
Jarvis Williams (Desiring God, "For Whom Did Christ Die?"): "... many interpreters assert that Jesus died for the entire world, and not for a predestined number of people... But what does the term 'world' mean when used in association with Jesus’s death? Does it refer to everyone without distinction or to everyone without exception? There is a difference. Everyone without distinction would mean that Jesus died for all kinds of people from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. Everyone without exception would mean that he died for every single individual person without any exception.... I believe the Scripture teaches that Jesus died for all people in the world without distinction — meaning, Jesus died for all kinds of people from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. And he died not only to give a bona fide offer of salvation to all but to actually purchase and effect the final salvation of his elect. [So Calvi-Jesus bought salvation only for the elect, but it's still a "bona fide offer" to all people? Hogwash! Deceptive nonsense and hogwash!]... The verbal proclamation of the gospel makes known to the elect the salvation accomplished by Christ for them ["The gospel, Jesus's death, and salvation are only for the elect!"]..."
From a Heidelberg Theological Seminary article called "The Doctrine of Limited Atonement..." (quoting Rev. Paul Trieck's book Faith of our Fathers, Living Still: Study of the Five Points of Calvinism): "While the messenger of Christ may never say to all men indiscriminately, 'Smile, God loves you' or 'Christ died for you,' yet he must say that Christ died for the sins of His people and all men are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ... It is precisely through this preaching of the gospel that God has determined to save His elect for whom Christ died.... God will also use the preaching of the gospel to condemn those who reject it and continue in their unbelief ["by His decree"].... The decree of election determines for whom Christ would lay down his life... It may sound like a nice way to approach all men and say 'Christ died for you, now you must choose Him,' but it is not true, and does grave injustice to the intent of Christ on the cross.... It should be remembered the purpose of preaching the gospel is two-fold. It is a message of salvation to all who believe, and a message of condemnation to all who reject it. But all men need to hear it..."
So the purpose of the Calvinist gospel is partly to condemn the non-elect (because God wants them in hell for His glory)!?!
And yet John 3:17 says "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
And John 12:47 says "... For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."
And John 20:31 says “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.”
And Ezekiel 33:11 says: "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..."
And 2 Peter 3:9 says: "... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
Totally different purposes for the gospel! Totally different Gods!
Well, the only answer to the question that makes any real sense [so he uses his own reasoning to get these conclusions, not Scripture!] is that Jesus Christ died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe, so that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one that can be disregarded... the atonement is limited. And by 'atonement' I mean the sacrifice of Christ, by which He paid the penalty for sin. The atonement is limited... I don’t mind believing God can limit the atonement. God does limit the atonement... I don’t have any problem at all saying the atonement is limited.
It’s limited to those who believe. And I have no problem saying and those who believe are those whom God grants faith. And therefore, the atonement is limited because God limited it. I’m much more comfortable with that than that sinners can limit the atonement that Christ has provided, or that the atonement that Christ has provided is wasted on the vast majority of people. [Just say it, Johnny: "Jesus died only for the elect. And that's fine by me."]... I just can’t bring myself to believe that hell is full of millions of people whose sins were paid for in full by Christ on the cross... Well, I’ll tell you what. I don’t feel very special if you say to me, 'Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell.' That doesn’t make me feel very special."
[It's very revealing in this article when MacArthur says, "I didn’t invent this. This doctrine [of limited atonement] goes way back, back to the Reformation, back to John Owen, and even back to Charles Spurgeon." Notice that MacArthur didn't say "back to the Bible." But he said to Charles Spurgeon! From the 1800's!?! (And what's that phrase again that Calvinists love to use to describe their theology: "Sola Scriptura"? Scripture alone? Bogus.)]
John MacArthur (2010 Shepherd's conference, see in the first video here, starting at the 8:20-minute mark), about why Calvinists should evangelize if God's already elected who would be saved: "I will not resolve the problem of the lost other than to do what the Scripture tells me to do... and that is that the Bible affirms to me that God loves the world, the specific people in the world, the specific human beings. ["Only the elect."] I don't know who they are. Spurgeon said 'if you'll pull up their shirts and show me an 'E" stamped on their back and I know the elect, then I'll limit my work to them.' ["The gospel is only for the elect."] But since there is no such stamp, I am committed to obey the command to preach the gospel to every creature... But I don't think it's a good solution to diminish the nature of the atonement and have Jesus dying for everybody..." ["Jesus is only for the elect."]
[Methinks someone thinks too highly of his own opinions!]
Steven Lawson ("Salvation is of the Lord"): "As a sin-bearing sacrifice, Jesus died a substitutionary death in the place of God’s elect. On the cross, He propitiated the righteous anger of God toward the elect.... Jesus’ death did not merely make all mankind potentially savable. Nor did His death simply achieve a hypothetical benefit that may or may not be accepted. Neither did His death merely make all mankind redeemable. Instead, Jesus actually redeemed a specific people through His death, securing and guaranteeing their salvation. Not a drop of Jesus’ blood was shed in vain. He truly saved all for whom He died... With oneness of purpose, the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world to apply this salvation to those chosen and redeemed." ["Jesus and the gospel are only for the elect."]
Paul Washer (from the second video here, from Discerning the World): "You know that wonderful statement that goes something like this: 'God loves the sinner and hates the sin'?... That's not [what Scripture] teaches, sorry... It does not say here that God's hatred is manifested towards the wicked deed. It says that God's hatred is manifested towards the one who commits the deed... [So] how can anyone be saved? Here's our answer: the cross of Jesus Christ... [Christ] died the death of His people..." ["His people" is Calvinist-lingo for "the elect." So Jesus died only for the elect, and God hates everyone else. In Calvinism.]
Arthur Pink (The Sovereignty of God): "Faith is God's gift, and 'all men have not faith' (2 Thess. 3:2); therefore, we see that God does not bestow this gift upon all. [See this post to learn how faith is not the gift, but eternal life is, a gift that can be accepted or rejected.] Upon whom then does He bestow this saving favor? And we answer, upon His own elect- … Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating grace… When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody…" [Translation: "God does not love the non-elect but only the elect."]
Rev. Angus Stewart, Covenant Protestant Reformed Church ("Does God really desire to save the reprobate?"): "Election, briefly stated, is God’s eternal, unconditional choice of some fallen sinners unto eternal life in Jesus Christ. Reprobation is God’s eternal rejection of others. God chose not to save them but to punish them in the way of their sins. This too is an unconditional choice of God before He formed the world.... It was pleasing and good to God that some people would have the gospel hidden from them, even though they heard it preached...
So then, does God love everybody, including the reprobate, those whom He has chosen not to save? Does God desire to save everybody? Does God have a wonderful plan for everybody’s life?
God does love all His elect people... God does desire to save the elect... God does have a wonderful plan for the lives of all of His elect people...
If these questions, though, are applied to the reprobate, the answer to all of them is 'No.' God does not love them... All who are reprobated, God hates. God does not desire to save them... They are cursed in their unbelief and rebellion both in this world and in the world to come. They perish forever and ever in hell. This is not a wonderful plan for them. In God’s purpose it brings glory to Him. It magnifies His justice. But for them it is not a wonderful plan. He does not have a wonderful plan for the reprobate...
God judged that it was good not to save these people but to punish them for their sins... It was a sovereign choice of His, and it pleased Him. To say it pleased God means that God desired to do it; that is what He willed and wished and wanted to do."
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.” [Translation: "If you don't agree with me about predestination, you're probably not even a Christian." And don't fall for words like "explicitly." It's only "explicit" when you let Calvinists train you to see Calvinism in the Bible. And for the record, it's God who thought highly of humanity, more than we could ever deserve - highly enough that Jesus would give His life for us. And since an object is only worth the price someone will pay for it, when Calvinists lower the value of humans, they lower the value of Jesus's life, death, and sacrifice, which lowers God's glory.]
Robert Morey from the "Does God love everyone?" video: “There are those whom God loves and there are those whom God hates. Obviously, hello!... I submit to what the Bible teaches, and the Bible teaches Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, there are two classes of people and that’s the way it is. [Jacob and Esau isn't even about God choosing which individuals to save, but about God choosing Israel for a special role, to bring Jesus and the gospel to the world.] If you’re not happy with biblical teaching… fine… go out and find your own religion. Leave the Christian church and go into the Unitarian of the new age. Stop cluttering up the pews. We who remain will be in revival the moment you hit the door - because the greatest hinderance to revival and reformation are the deadbeat unregenerate humanists who clutter up the church, shouldn’t be here because you don’t submit to the Scripture. Shouldn’t be here.” [Seriously one creepy dude! You could make a Halloween mask of him, and it would sell big.]
Rejoice in hell (you can skip these too, if you want):
Some Calvinists will even go so far as to tell us that we should delight in the "reprobation" of people, in the fact that God predestines people to hell. And I'm not making this up. In their own words:
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!"
Paul Washer (“The Gospel is only Good News to a needy man”): “If you reject Christ, then the moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you. That’s how not good you are."
[And yet Luke 15:10 says that angels rejoice when even one person is saved. And Ez. 18:23 says that God Himself does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that He'd rather they turn from their evil ways and be saved. But apparently Calvinists think that everything and everyone should - and will - take pleasure in the death and destruction of the non-elect. That's sick.]
Greg Morse ("What does hell say about God?", Desiring God): "Hell, like all of creation, tells of the glory of God... The Almighty is not embarrassed by it... He shows his wrath and makes known his power. Why? In order to communicate the full riches of his glory to his children. [Lucky us!]... Heaven will not be heaven, in God's perfect plan, without the reminder of God's righteous condemnation [uhh, sure, if you can call it "righteous" for Calvi-god to condemn people whom he created to be wicked unbelievers with no ability to change!?!]... We will be sobered. We will be amazed. We will be thankful for God's mercy to us. ["We will be horrified into praising Him, terrified of what He might do to us if we don't, seeing as how he treated the non-elect."]"
Robert Murray M'cheyne, Monergism ("Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" [from a sermon preached in 1843, talking up the "good" reasons for the damnation of the non-elect]: "All will not be saved... Some of you, I think, are going to hell, and some, I trust, are going to heaven; and doubtless it is best it should be so, though I cannot explain the reason of it... Every one of you will be to the glory of God. You will be made to glorify him in one way or another... either a beacon of wrath or a monument of mercy... the chief end of God in the world to manifest his glory... self-manifestation... This seems to be the reason why there are vessels of wrath as well as of mercy - that they might be mirrors to reflect his attributes... Last of all, the destruction of the vessels of wrath will be no grief to the vessels of mercy. I once spoke to you of this before; but I would again remind you of it. The redeemed will have no tears to shed; and here is the reason - the very destruction of the wicked makes known the riches of divine grace..."
[For the record, Calvinists misunderstand the "vessels of destruction" verse, Romans 9:22: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” (The Calvinist ESV)
Hang in there, almost done...
Vincent Cheung (The Author of Sin): “All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and righteous for him to create the reprobates… Some would be horrified by this because they are more concerned about man’s dignity and comfort than God’s purpose and glory., but those who have the mind of Christ would erupt in gratitude and reverence, and affirm that God is righteous, and that he does all things well.” [So instead of thinking "Hmm, a good, just, righteous God couldn’t predestine/cause unbelief and sin, so I should probably reevaluate my theological views to see if I'm misunderstanding Scripture and God's character," Calvinists unconsciously think "Well, since I believe a sovereign God must preplan/cause everything and since God is good, then it must mean that it’s good for Him to preplan/cause sin and unbelief." And then they shame us for disagreeing with them, as if we are calling God not good and not sovereign. But Calvinism's god and the God of the Bible are very different beings!]
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."
David Mathis, 9Marks ("Hallelujah over hell? How God's people rejoice while their enemies perish"): "Yet [in the end]... we will rejoice in his power on display in the destruction of the wicked [who were wicked by Calvi-god's decree]. Even now, we can shape our hearts to rejoice appropriately in those truths... 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. [What!?! So we're sinning and spiritually immature if we don't like the idea of hell!?! So good Calvinists take pleasure in the idea of hell? Well, I guess that makes sense that they'd see it this way because they are made in the image of their Calvi-god,*]... 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 ["whom He predestined to be wicked"]... Divine judgments against the wicked are for you."
The Bible's teaching on predestination:
Just like "sovereign," Calvinists have a very different view of predestination (and of God's character and heart), far different than what the Bible teaches. And so when talking with a Calvinist - just like with "sovereign" - ask them to clearly, fully define "predestination," and then ask them to find that word defined that way in the Bible.
Predestination is definitely a biblical concept, but here's the thing: The word "predestination" only shows up 4 times in the King James, and it's never defined as God predetermining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
[If you pay attention, you'll see that Calvinist pastors first tell you how to define predestination - implanting their definition in your head - and then they lead you to verses that have the word "predestined" in it and go, "See! I'm right. The Bible teaches predestination, so you have to believe it." Always question Calvinist definitions and double-check verses they share with you (that anyone shares with you), to see what it says in context, especially when they're trying to get you to believe something you know sounds wrong.]
And according to the concordance, in the Greek "predestined" simply means that something is determined beforehand. But it doesn't say what was determined beforehand or how it was determined beforehand, nor is there any indication in the definition that it's talking about salvation or choosing people.
And so it is a huge error/deception (dare I say "a lie") to say, as my Calvinist pastor did, things like this:
"We in the West tend to have a problem with the idea that God can choose who to save and who not to save. We don't like it. But the Bible clearly teaches it. The Bible calls it 'the doctrine of election, the doctrine of predestination'." (This one is paraphrased, the rest are exact quotes.)
"Predestination comes up in a number of books [in the Bible]."
"Why is it that some believe and some don’t? This is not the first time Paul brought up the doctrine of election, sometimes called predestination."
"Predestination in the Greek pretty much means what it does in English. It means 'prechosen, preselected, elect ahead of time.'... It is an act of God in which - before time began, before creation - He chooses to have mercy on some sinners and not others. In other words, God is not an equal opportunity convicter."
"The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... Why is it that some sinners soften and repent and seek God, and others harden and rebel and have no interest in God?... Because God chooses to give some sinners saving faith and soften them, and God chooses to not give other sinners saving faith and to harden them... This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election."
"Before we leave the topic of election, of predestination, the Bible says not only does it apply to peoples, to ethnic groups, but it also applies to people, individuals. God loves people, but He does not love all people alike. The Bible is very clear. Some sinners are elect unto salvation, some are not."
"And here's where the doctrine of sovereign election comes in... God chooses to have mercy on some, and God chooses not to have mercy on others. He chooses to soften some and not others... [God] says 'I don't have mercy on all, I have mercy on some but not others.' Friends, the doctrine of election, of predestination, is designed to drive us to thanksgiving and worship. It's not designed to divide churches or be controversial. It's not controversial in many parts of the world. It is in the West where choice is everything. But in more traditional cultures, in tribal cultures, where decision-making is not an individual thing but a corporate thing, it's not nearly as offensive." [Well, hooray for the mob-mentality!]
“To be alive is often to be on a brand-new journey, for good or bad, difficult or not. The question is ‘Do we really believe our theology, that God is sovereign, that He controls every detail of the universe, that He knows the good from the bad, that He has ordained it in our lives.'… God is all-powerful. He knows exactly what He is doing. He’s sovereign and in control of every detail of the universe, including our destinies.”
I couldn't agree more!
So although Calvinists think election and predestination are the same thing - that God predestines if people go to heaven or hell (allowing them to use all "elect/election" verses to support their "doctrine of predestination" and to say "See, it's taught all throughout the Bible!") - they're not the same thing, and neither means what they think it does.
Predestination is about what God's promises for people after they believe (and anyone can believe), not about who becomes a believer and how. And election is about God choosing who to use in His plans for His purposes (which roles, responsibilities, blessings to give them), not about God choosing certain sinners to be saved.
But once again, that's not talking about Calvinist predestination, because that's not what Paul is talking about in Romans 9. Romans 9 is about how God chooses to use people (specifically relating to the Jews vs. the Gentiles), not to save people.
And not only that, but there are at least two other places in the Bible that talk about the potter and the clay or about vessels for noble or ignoble use - and neither have to do with God predestining people's eternal destinations.
Jeremiah 18: God shows Jeremiah a potter who was shaping a pot, but the clay was marred (notice that the potter didn't mar the clay) and so he shaped it into a different pot that would better fit the clay's condition. Likewise, God says that He can plan something for people, but then He can change His plans for people based on what they do or don't do. It's about what kind of service we are fit for, about how God will use us, based on our self-chosen condition.
2 Timothy 2:20-21: Like Romans 9:21, this also talks about some vessels in a house being for noble purposes and some being for ignoble purposes. And it says "If a man cleanses himself from [being ignoble], he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy..." This shows that our decision about what type of person we are determines how God uses us. And if we want to be used for noble purposes, we must cleanse ourselves so that God can use us for great things. God doesn't determine what kind of person we are or what decisions we make, but He does determine how to use us and what roles/responsibilities to give us, based on how we choose to be.
This backs up the Bible's whole message that election is about service, about how we decide what kind of people we are and what decisions we make, and about how God chooses to use us in His plans according to our decisions. It's not about personal salvation or Calvinist predestination.
Neither predestination nor election - when read in context - support Calvinism.
But as I've said before: Calvinism and context cannot coexist!
Calvinists are so, so wrong! To the devastation of the gospel, God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, God's Word, and people's faith!
"The Bible's teaching on our human condition especially outside of Christ [is that we are] hopelessly blinded and in slavery to sin unless God graciously opens human sinful eyes and summons them to Himself as Lord... That's the gospel: That there is a God who seeks hardened sinners, pursues them, turns them around, drags them to Himself, blesses them, pardons them, and justifies them."
"The context of Ephesians 2 - in fact, the whole New Testament - is that of enslavement [to sin]. Jesus said the same thing, that he who sins is a slave to sin, meaning that the unsaved, the unregenerate, cannot see spiritual truth, they have no appetite for the things of God, they hate God's authority - that's our natural state - and they are unwilling and unable to commit to God... And the only hope - hear this, because that's what this miracle [of the blind man] is about and what this message is about - the only hope is if God in His mercy, just like Jesus with this [blind] guy, chooses to open blinded eyes, just like Jesus did in this miracle... Exodus 33:19: 'The Lord God says, 'I have mercy on those I've chosen to have mercy on, and I will have compassion on those on whom I choose to have compassion.' That is the gospel."
As Charles Spurgeon so boldly put it: "Calvinism is the gospel." "And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace...nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people..." [Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. I (Baker Books, reprinted 2007), 88-89.]
Silly me, but I thought the gospel was "good news" for all people. I thought the gospel was "For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son (to die on the cross for our sins and then rise again), that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."
1 Cor. 15:3-4: "For what I received I passed onto you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures,".
Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 3:23-24: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ."
Romans 10:9,13: "That 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... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
John 3:16: "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."
But not in Calvinism, where "Calvinism is the gospel," where their "doctrine of predestination (and reprobation)" is the gospel!
[If someone can't even get the simple gospel right then they have no business being a pastor. And I don't care whatever else they do get right. If they get the gospel (and God's character) wrong - the most important part of Christianity - then it doesn't really matter that they get some minor, secondary things right. Like Paul said, "of first importance." If Calvinists cannot understand the "first important" message, then they should be disqualified from teaching God's Word.]
Calvinism's "gospel" is only good news for the elect. But the Bible's gospel is good news for all people: God loves all people and Christ died for all our sins so that anyone can believe in Him and be saved.
Luke 2:10: "But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people."
Romans 11:32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
2 Peter 3:9: "... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
Ezekiel 33:11: "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..."
This is telling! He's basically saying that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly and obviously taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be scraped together in bits and pieces, and that we would have a hard time finding it without the help of a Calvinist teacher systematically leading us through the Bible. So Calvinists confirm that it takes a highly educated "expert" to teach these things, because the average common Christian cannot understand them or learn them or even find them in the Bible on their own.
Calvinism is not clearly, explicitly, or easily found in the Bible anywhere, and so we have to be educated into it by Calvinists. And they know it, which is why they don't want us reading the Bible without their input, their guidance.
As my ex-pastor once wrote in a blog post (paraphrase) "It's dangerous to read the Bible on your own, without the help of theologians helping you interpret Scripture."
And as a "church reform" article from Founders Ministry says: "The third principle of reforming a local church involves both the demolition of misguided theological notions and the laying of a biblical foundation anchored by the doctrines of grace."
Translation: "Replace all other theological views with Calvinism," which the the introduction to the plan calls "biblical Christianity...foundational to a God-centered theology... the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity." [Never trust a Calvinist pastor who says that Calvinism is a secondary, back-burner issue. That's just to shut you up and gain your trust so that they can stealthily spread their Calvinism without resistance or alarm.]
The 9Marks' article Build Fences Around Your Flock even emphasizes the importance of indoctrinating prospective members into Calvinism before letting them join: "One of the first questions we ask each prospective member is: 'What is the gospel?' We want to make sure every member understands the gospel. If it becomes clear they don't understand it, we immediately pause the interview and move the candidate into a class called 'Christianity Explained'."
And that class - surprise, surprise - uses a book by Calvinist Mark Dever, head of 9Marks, to teach the Calvinist version of Christianity and the gospel. Because, as the article warns, "our sheep aren't safe if we've allowed false teachers [those who don't hold to Calvinism] to slip in among them."
Shouldn't it alarm us that, according to Calvinists, none of us can really understand the Bible or the gospel until we've gone through months of study with them and their Calvinist literature?
Is God's Word, the gospel, meant to be so unclear, so painfully difficult to read and understand that we couldn't figure it out until Augustine and John Calvin came along? (Or is it only that way because of the damage Calvinism does to it?)
And yet what does God's Word say? John 20:31: "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Not "But these are written so that Calvinists can take you through months of studying it alongside big, complicated Calvinist books so that you can figure out what God really meant to say, so that you may believe - if you are one of the elect."
Much different!
