When Calvinists say "But predestination!" (tiny, bare-bones version)

[I'm interrupting the "Alana L" and "As evil as it gets" series to share the tiniest version of my "But predestination!" post.  The short version with more memes and quotes and information can be found here, and the longest version (a series of posts full of many more Calvinist comments, my Calvinist ex-pastor's sermons, and my replies to them, written for my own amusement and for my ex-church) can be found by starting here.  But this tiny version includes only the most basic parts you need to know, with a few memes and quotes thrown in to spice it up and prove my points.  (I know this could be much tinier, but Calvinism has so many bunny trails, so many interlocking ideas, that it's hard to address one part without addressing more.  So this is as comprehensively tiny as I dared to make it.)  And from now on, I'll mostly be posting every other week, with a few extra posts occasionally scattered in between.  In fact, I already have a lot scheduled to be posted up through July.]

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'd go to hell (and so Jesus never died for them anyway), all for His glory."

And if we push back against this - if we say Jesus died for all people and God offers salvation to all people and that He lets us decide to accept 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).  

Firstly, Calvinism's "sovereignty":  

When having conversations with Calvinists, we often don't realize that they'll use the same words as us - such as "sovereign" and "predestination" and "choice" and "free-will" and "faith" and "all people" and "offer of salvation" - but that they have very different definitions.  

And so - because language is a way to trap people and control the conversation and its destination - it's critical to ask them first how they define "sovereignty"... or else we'll be talking past each other or smooth-talked onto their side before we realize what's happening.

And because they'll often try to hide/obscure what they really mean, the bad parts - to hook us and reel us slowly into Calvinism - keep asking more clarifying and probing questions until they admit that they think "sovereignty" means that God ultimately preplans, controls, orchestrates, causes everything that happens, including sin, evil, and unbelief, and that we could never choose to do anything different than what God predetermined.

And then ask them to find their definition of sovereignty 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.

And ask them to find the Bible's definition of sovereignty (preferably in the KJV) to compare it to their definition.    

But here's the thing: The word "sovereign" 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," which is like saying "King Jesus."  And a king doesn't have to control every little thing his subjects do - every sin, every thought, every hiccup - in order to be king.  He is king not because he preplans, causes, directs, orchestrates, controls everything the people do, but because he is the highest authority there is in that land.

In fact, the very definition of "sovereign" is about "a supreme ruler, especially a monarch; possessing supreme or ultimate power."  It's about the position of leadership someone is in, but it says nothing about how the sovereign leader must behave or use his power while in that position. 

God is sovereign because He is the highest authority/power there is, has the final say over all, and is answerable to no one.  That's what makes Him sovereign.  

And as the sovereign God, He gets to decide for Himself how to use His power and control, which means that He can decide to voluntarily restrain His use of power and control in order to give us true free-will, the right to make real decisions on our own.  

And I think Scripture shows us time and time again that this is how He made things, how He wanted things to be.  Even though He has the power and ability to control all our choices if He wanted to, He has decided to give us free-will and an awful lot of room to make real decisions among real choices that affect things in a real way (and He decided to allow demons and angels to operate freely and nature to run its course to a certain degree, within boundaries).  And He does this because He wanted real relationships with real people who voluntarily choose to love and obey Him, not fake relationships with robots forced to love and obey Him.  

[FYI: Calvinists will deceptively say "real decisions with real consequences" too.  But in Calvinism, it's like saying that a fake diamond is real, as in "it exists," not that it's a genuine diamond.  In Calvinism, "real decisions with real consequences" doesn't mean that the person actually had the ability to choose among real options available to them or that they could've chosen something other than what they did.  All it means is that they made the "decision" that God predestined/caused them to make (and they couldn't have chosen anything else) and that it will have the effects that God predetermined.  No one but Calvinists would call that "making real decisions."]

True free-will, the ability to make our own real decisions among real options, instead of God preplanning and causing our decisions for us - is the only way to adequately explain verses like these without nonsensical contradictions that destroy God's character:

1. “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 …” (Isaiah 65:2-3)

2. “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.” (Matthew 23:37)

3. "But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears.  They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or [the Lord].  So the Lord Almighty was very angry.  'When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,' says the Lord Almighty." (Zechariah 7:11-13) 

4. "They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval." (Hosea 8:4) 

5. "'Woe to the obstinate children,' declares the Lord, 'to those who carry out plans that are not mine...'" (Isaiah 30:1)

6. "He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.''" (1 Kings 20:42) 

7. "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." (Jeremiah 19:5) 

8. "Because you have disheartened the righteous person with lies (when I intended no distress)..." (Ezekiel 13:22, CSB)

9. "In the past, [God] let nations go their own way." (Acts 14:16) 

10. "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." (Exodus 13:17) 

11. "Again David asked, 'Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?'  And the Lord said, 'They will.'  So David and his men...left Keilah and kept moving from place to place."  (1 Samuel 23:12-13.  In this case, God knew what would happen if David made a particular decision, and so David made the opposite decision.  But how is this possible - and what do these verses mean - if Calvinists define "sovereignty" and "God's foreknowledge" as "God predetermines and then causes everything that happens exactly as it happens, and nothing different could have happened"?)

12. Along the same lines: "'You acted foolishly,' Samuel said. 'You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time." (1 Samuel 13:13.  If Calvinism is true that God preplans/causes all that happens, then He preplanned/caused that Saul would disobey and lose the kingdom - because that's what happened - and so it would be a lie to say that something different could have, would have, happened, that there was an alternative path that hinged on Saul's choice.  So was Samuel and God lying?  Or is Calvinism not true?)

13. "If you [Cain] do what is right, will you not be accepted?  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:7.  If Calvinism's version of sovereignty is true, then it's a total lie that Cain could have chosen any differently.) 

14. And then there's Nineveh.  Why would God warn Nineveh that they would be overthrown in 40 days if being overthrown was never a real possibility?  If Calvinism is true, then God was lying to them because He never was going to overthrow them because He predestined them to repent.

[Jonah:  "Hey, Nineveh, you will be overthrown in 40 days!  But you really won't.  Because Calvi-god's already predestined that you won't be overthrown.  But even though you won't really be overthrown, repent so that you aren't overthrown, which is what Calvi-god's already planned anyway.  Wait, Calvi-god, I'm confused.  What am I warning the people about?"  

Calvi-god:  "Jonah, you're making a mess of this.  Just tell the people to wait for John Calvin.  He'll make everything clearer."]

Calvinists have no good answers for these considering their definition of sovereign (and predestination and foreknowledge, etc.).  

In the Bible, God sovereignly works by sometimes just allowing things (such as our real free-will decisions, natural phenomena and effects, demonic activity, etc.) and by sometimes causing things.  

But He never causes sin or evil or unbelief.  But He can put people in situations that force them to make their own free-will choice to do evil.  He can foreknow that someone will choose to do evil and then incorporate their evil choice into His plans, to bring good out of it.  But He did not predestine them to be evil or choose evil.  He did not give them no choice.  (Imagine an undercover sting by cops who let criminals make criminal choices, which the cops incorporate into their plans to catch the bad guys.  The cops didn't cause the criminals to be criminals or give them no choice.  They simply knew what the criminals would choose, allowed them to choose it, and used it for good.  It's kinda like that.)  

But whatever happens - even things He didn't want/plan/cause, even our truly free-will decisions, whether we obey or disobey, everything - God can find a way to work it into His plans for good.  

God is "in control" over all not by controlling or causing all things, but by watching over everything, 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, how to bring something good out of something bad, etc.  

This is what it means that God is sovereign and in control, according to the Bible.

But Calvinists have redefined "sovereignty" for themselves, deciding that if God is truly a sovereign, all-powerful, in-control God then He must use His power all the time to preplan, orchestrate, direct, control everything, even sin, evil, and unbelief.  (Though they won't usually admit it, this truly makes Calvi-god responsible for all sin and evil and unbelief, because we could only do what he predestined and caused us to do.)

Essentially, Calvinists are telling our sovereign God how He must behave in order to be a sovereign God.  

Very stupid!  

For some reason, Calvinists think that a sovereign, all-powerful God cannot give people true free-will and yet still work His plans out.  They think He must preplan, orchestrate, cause every step and factor along the way - all sins and evils and disasters and tragedies and hiccups and farts - or else He proves He's not God, and all of His plans would fall apart. 

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 – we cannot have the slightest confidence that any promise God has ever made about the future will come to pass.”    

I would agree that if there was one molecule God couldn't control, then yes, we couldn't have full confidence in Him.  

But Calvinists mean "If there's even one molecule God doesn't actively, meticulously control every movement of, then we can't trust Him.  He must preplan and cause everything - every thought, every sneeze, every sin - in order to be a trustworthy God.  And so if there's even one piece of dust He doesn't control, then He's not really God, and we can't trust Him to be able to fulfill any of His promises.  God must preplan and cause all evil, murder, abortions, abuse, etc., or else we can't trust Him."(😕) 

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? 

Causes!

And yes, Calvinists really do mean God causes every evil, painful, tragic, and sinful thing, even though they try to hide that word under less alarming, less clear words as much as possible.  In fact, I think they even hide it from themselves, convinced that they're not saying "causes" when they really are.  (See "But Calvinists don't say God causes sin and evil!")

From my ex-pastor's August 2022 sermon on suffering and God's love: "[Atheists] argue that the sheer amount of suffering, brutality, carnage, violence, and misery on our planet rule out a loving God... [But God] is good and even what He does is good, even when cancer strikes, even when I'm lied about, even when we lose a child, lose a job, lose a dream, tragedy strikes, we lose somebody we 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... for my good and His glory..."

From his March 2014 sermon about finding hope in hard times: “Random evil doesn’t just happen to people... God is in control of each aspect of every detail... 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...'” 

From his December 8, 2024 sermon about evil leaders: "[The early church believers] knew [God] was in control of even over the choices of evil leaders.  He was guiding them to do His Will.... you might wonder 'How can these people be guilty when it says right here that all the evil things they did, it was God's plan.'  [Martin] Luther says 'God is good and cannot do evil, but He uses evil men who cannot escape the impulse and movement of His power.  [And yet Calvinists cry "But we don't say people are robots controlled by God!"  Hogwash!]  And yet when they do the very evil they're planning after being moved by God, it's their fault, not His.'"  [But biblically, God didn't plan to make them be evil or do evil.  He just foreknew they would be evil people who wanted to do evil things, and He planned to put it to good use, incorporating their self-chosen evil into His plans.]

     [In the service I didn't quote from - I think I quoted from the first service, so this would be the second service - he added that Luther is "the great German reformer.  Luther is always such a very perceptive biblical commentator.  He and other reformers were glued to the text, and they taught the Scriptures, and they preached the Scriptures."  My ex-pastor quotes from this theological hero of his - the "great" Martin Luther - all the time, as all Calvinist pastors do, to promote their Calvinist views and agenda.  Yet it's funny that in all those quotes, I've never heard him quote from Luther's highly antisemitic book The Jews and Their Lies.  Hmm?  Interesting.  And ironically enough, do you know who else quoted Luther, using Luther's teachings to promote his views and agenda too?  Hitler.  Watch this video from Andy Woods to learn more: Neo-Calvinism vs. The Bible #4.]

From his June 2022 sermon about Joseph and forgiveness: "Some of you have been horrifically abused and treated horribly by somebody....intentionally targeted, treated unjustly, someone has been cruel to us....  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... [God] arranged [it]."

And here's a quote from Mark Talbot/John Piper (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, page 42-44, 70-77) that sums up Calvinism perfectly: "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... 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. 

... God has sovereignly ordained, from before the world began, everything that happens in our world... It should be beyond all doubt that no one suffers anything at anyone else’s hand without God having ordained that suffering.

... [Jospeh] Mengele [a Nazi officer who sent people to the gas chambers and conducted horrible experiments on other people]... [was] a very evil man whom, nevertheless, God was actively sustaining and governing, nanosecond by nanosecond, through his evil existence.  And we can be sure that, from before time began, God had ordained that at that place those moments would be filled with just those persons, doing and suffering exactly as they did... that he actually brought the whole situation about, guiding and governing and carrying it by his all-powerful and ever-effectual word to where it would accomplish exactly what he wanted it to do.  

... We can be sure, as Scripture confirms, that God has made everything for its purpose, even evil persons like Joseph Mengele or Dennis Rader.  We can be sure that God has made our lives’ most evil moments as well as their best.... 

... I myself find it very difficult to understand how [God can ordain evil for our good] with some of the worst things that human beings do, like sexually abusing young children or raping or torturing someone mercilessly.

And, of course, something much less horrible than these sorts of things can happen to us and still leave us wondering how God could be ordaining it for our good.  I have seen marriages break apart after thirty-five years and felt to some degree the grief and utter discombobulation of the abandoned spouse.  I have watched tragedies unfold that seem to remove all chance for any more earthly happiness.... Many of us have tasted such grief....Yet these griefs have been God’s gifts.... [And in the end, when we see Jesus face-to-face] we will see that God has indeed done all that he pleased and has done it all perfectly, both for his glory and our good..."

[If someone can't see how blasphemous this is, then I worry for them!]

So yes, they really are saying that God does not just allow evil or allow people to make their own bad decisions or allow nature to run its course to a certain degree, but they're saying that God alone ultimately causes all evil, sin, abuse, tragedy, sickness, etc., just like He planned and wanted it to be.  This is what it means that God is sovereign, in Calvinism.

Jeff Durbin (in The Madness of Calvinism) 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."

John MacArthur ("Why does God allow so much suffering?"): "[God] 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.... He's content to leave the responsibility for evil's existence and even its action, with Himself... God wills evil to exist.... Again, and again, God takes full responsibility for the existence of evil unfolding in this world.... Let God be God and worship Him for the sovereign that he is [as defined by Calvinists], unfolding the glory of his own nature through wrath and mercy, which necessitates evil.  This is our God... You either believe in the God who is in complete control of evil, or you believe evil is in control of God."

James White (in answer to the question “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?”, listen here): "If He didn't then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose... Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless." 

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…”

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!"

But don't worry, dear hurting Christian, because as my Calvinist ex-pastor says in his September 13, 2020 sermon, God ordains all terrible things out of love for us: "[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."

Sidenote: God's Will

Gordon H. Clark (Religion, Reason, and Revelation): “... if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it."

Along with misunderstanding sovereignty, Calvinists misunderstand the concept of "God's Will."  They think that, like sovereignty, 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.

As R.C. Sproul Jr. says (Almighty Over All): “God wills all things that come to pass..."

But once again, 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?

[I'm interrupting this post to share this brilliant 4-minute video: Hitler and Calvinism.  Awesome!]

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! 

     R.C. Sproul (in Chosen by God): “The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation)….”

     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."

     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."]

     John MacArthur (The Doctrine of Actual Atonement, part 1): "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 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."

     My ex-pastor on December 8, 2024: "That is why Christ first lived for the believer, and then died for the believer, and was resurrected for the believer!"  [And most people won't realize that he means "only the believer!"  He said it exactly as he meant it, that Jesus is only for the elect believers!] 

     My ex-pastor on October 12, 2014: "God loves peoples.  But He doesn't love all people and He doesn't love all people alike.  He puts His affections on some and not others... 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."

     My ex-pastor in his December 2, 2018 sermon on God's love for sinners: "For God so loved the world... What is 'the world'?  Well, let me tell you what it's not.  Lots of people think it's a head-count of every single human being.  That's really not what John is taking about.  He's not talking about a head-count here.  In John's theology, the world is not a head-count; it is a realm... a dark realm of sin, evil, rebellion, corruption, and wickedness... So when John says 'For God so loved the world,' what he means and what he's saying is 'For God so loved the dark realm of wickedness and depravity,' and that His love breaks through that and pierces the darkness."  [I guess Calvinists will look for any other interpretation to "the world" than "all individual people," so desperate to prove that God does not love all individual people enough to offer them salvation.  Sad.]  

    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..."

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 was a total lie for my ex-pastor to say in a January 2018 sermon: "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."

He claims that the Greek specifies that the word "predestination" is about people being chosen/elected ahead of time, for salvation.

But it doesn't say that at all.  The idea of being chosen for salvation is nowhere in the Greek definition of "to determine beforehand."  So it's a blatant lie to insert the idea of saving selected people into the definition of a word that contains no such thing.

It would be like saying that the Webster dictionary's definition of "preplan" is "to choose certain people ahead of time to go heaven and the rest to go to hell."  Is that anywhere in the definition of "preplan"?  Can you see the huge stretch here, the majorly wrong implications that would result when inserting ideas into a definition that inherently contains no such thing?

The definition of "predestination" contains no such idea of choosing certain people ahead of time for salvation (and neither does "election" nor "sovereignty").  But if you let Calvinists convince you it does - if you willingly eat the slop they spoon-feed you without questioning it or double-checking it - you will become a Calvinist.

[You might enjoy my post about how Calvinism spreads so easily and aggressively: "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult".]  

"Predestination" in context

And so since the word "predestined" itself doesn't tell us what or who was predestined (since it doesn't say anything about salvation being predetermined for certain people), we need to look at the context of each verse to find out who and what was predestined.

And here it is...

The first two uses of "predestine" are in Romans 8:29-30 (KJV): “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son … Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

This doesn't say God predestined certain people to be saved.  It says that those whom God foreknows (those whom He foreknows will believe in Him, will become His children) are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.  

So it’s not about God predestining who believes, but it's about God predestining what happens to anyone who chooses to believe in Jesus.  All believers will be conformed to Jesus’s image, not only by the Holy Spirit helping us on the journey of sanctification and by God viewing us as righteous through Jesus's blood, but we'll also be conformed to His image when God transforms our bodies to be like Jesus's body: "who, by the power than enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." (Philippians 3:21, which my Bible lists as a cross reference to Romans 8:29.) 

[Warning: Calvinists also change the definition of "foreknows" to make it fit their doctrine of predestination.  They change it from God knowing what happens beforehand... to God "planning, decreeing" what happens beforehand.  They say God only foreknows what will happen because He first pre-planned/decreed what happens, and then He causes/orchestrates it.  But this is a violation of the definition of foreknows.  Do not fall for a Calvinist's bad definition of "foreknows."  Or "predestined"... or "election"... or "sovereignty" - all of which are twisted to support their idea that God picks who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.]

God doesn't predestine who believes, but He predestines what happens to someone after they believe (and anyone can): All believers will grow to be more like Jesus and eventually be glorified.

And the second two uses of "predestined" are in Ephesians 1:5,11-12 (KJV): “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 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 (just like we saw above about being "conformed" to Jesus's image, about having our bodies transformed to be like His), resulting in the “glorification” promised in Romans 8:30, eventually acquiring the full benefits of being a child of God.

And notice also that the second "predestinated" in Eph. 1:11-12 (KJV) specifies that the "inheritance" believers get is what was predestined, NOT that certain people are predestined for salvation.

And according to Strong's concordance, the usage of the word "inheritance" can be about both material/earthly inheritance and about the spiritual blessings and eternal life granted to those who believe in Jesus, to God's children.

Clearly and importantly, this is NOT about salvation/faith being granted to certain sinners, but about eternal life and spiritual blessings being given - after the visible coming of Christ, in the consummated kingdom of God - to all believers, to anyone who puts their faith in Jesus.

Sidenote: Interestingly, the NIV 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 (like a Calvinist) skips the part about our inheritance being predestined, making it sound instead like whether or not we are "chosen" is what's been predestined.  [You see, Calvinists 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 terribly unbiblical (and I would say "blasphemous") understanding of Scripture and of God and how He works.]

But even then, the NIV could still be interpreted to be saying NOT that specific individuals are chosen, but that anyone who becomes "in Him" is chosen.  And anyone can become "in Him."

[Another translation of Ephesians 1:11-12 which hits closer to the mark is the RSV: "In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory."  Once again, this is not saying that certain people are chosen to be saved, but that God has predestined that anyone who believes in Him will live for His glory.  Big difference!]

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 and eternal rewards (our "inheritance").

Second, it contradicts Calvinism’s idea that the elect are “in Christ” (“saved”) from the beginning of time, because Scripture shows 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.

Basically, the Ephesians' predestination verse is saying that we who are “in Him” (as a result of choosing to believe in Him, Eph. 1:13-14) are predestined to have our bodies redeemed, to get an inheritance, and to bring God glory.  All of this is promised by God to anyone who chooses to put their faith in Jesus.

And anyone can. 

As Dr. Evans 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."

"Predestination is the same as election"?

For the record, Calvinists will define elect/election and predestination (and chosen) the same way, as "God pre-picked who goes to heaven."  

As my ex-pastor often preached: 

     "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." 

     "The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election."  

     "The definition of election, predestination, is that it's the Bible's teaching that as God looks out on rebellious, sinful humanity, He chooses to have mercy on some sinners and not others."   

     "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."

Defining them the same way (the same incorrect way!) allows Calvinists to say (as my ex-pastor did) that "Predestination comes up in a number of books [in the Bible]," that it's "clearly taught all throughout the Bible!"

But as we saw, it's not!  

"Predestination" only comes up in two books of the Bible, twice in each, and neither is about God predestining people to heaven or hell.  

And the Bible never calls it "the doctrine of election," as my ex-pastor said it does.  Go ahead and look; I'll wait.  [But by claiming that the Bible actually uses that phrase - "This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election" - will trick people into thinking the Bible clearly spells it out and so we must believe it!]

A Calvinist's definition of predestination/election is not clearly taught in any verse in the Bible.  Go ahead and look; I'll wait.  See if you can find a verse that clearly says that God pre-picks who goes to heaven and who goes to hell and that He causes the elect to believe but prevents the rest from believing because He predestined them to hell.  After all, if the Bible "clearly teaches it," as Calvinists so often claim, then it shouldn't be too hard to find it clearly spelled out like this, right?  (And while you're at it, see if you can find a verse that clearly says that Jesus died only for the elect but not for the non-elect, and that "total depravity/spiritual death" means that we are so terrible and broken inside that we have no ability to want God or seek God or believe in God unless He causes us to.)  (*See the note at the end of this post called "Clearly and Explicitly?")

And "election" is not the same thing as [Calvinist] predestination.  Election is about how God chooses to use people in His plans, and predestination is about what God has planned for those who become believers.  Neither are about which sinners become believers and how.

Dr. Evans, in his commentary on page 15, defines "election" this way: "The sovereign prerogative of God to choose individuals, families, groups, and nations to serve his kingdom purposes as he so wills.  Election is specifically related to service, usefulness, and blessings - not individual salvation.  Jesus died for all human beings without exception and desires for all to be saved."

God decides how He uses us in His plans, which blessings or roles or responsibilities to give us.  He does not decide who gets saved.  In fact, God wants everyone to be saved, and so He made salvation possible for all, but He allows us to decide if we want Him or not.

From Dr. Evans' 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."  

And I couldn't agree more!  

[FYI: Calvinists think that faith is something God must inject into a person - the elect - so that they can believe.  They think faith (salvation, being born again) comes before - and results in - belief in Jesus.  (Hmm, faith before belief in Jesus? Faith without belief in Jesus. Faith without Jesus.😲)  And so since only the Calvinist elect can and will believe in Jesus, only the Calvinist elect can and will have faith.  But I think that faith is our belief in Jesus.  Faith is when we choose to believe in Jesus, to trust in Him as our Lord and Savior.  And anyone can.  (For more on faith, see "Is faith a gift God gives (forces on) us?"]

"Elect" Israel and Romans 9

And furthermore, often the word "elect" has to do with Israel as a nation, His "elect" people, chosen to be the bloodline Jesus came from and to be the first to receive the gospel and to get the task, the honor, of spreading the gospel.  

And so it's totally wrong for Calvinists to hijack those verses and apply them to specific sinners being "elected" for salvation, using them as "proof" that their doctrine of election/predestination is taught "all throughout the Bible, from beginning to end." 

Israel was elected by God to be the bloodline that brings the Messiah and the gospel to the world.  But they rejected Jesus and the gospel, and so God set them aside for a time and shifted His focus to the Gentiles instead, because they were willing to receive Jesus and the gospel.  

This is what Romans 9 is all about!  [See "When Calvinist say 'But Romans 9!'" for more on this.]

As Tony Evans' commentary says in the section on Romans 9:10-13: "God's election is not for personal, eternal salvation, but for blessing, service, and usefulness.  Abraham was called not so that God would save him, but because God would use him to bless all the families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3).  That line of blessing skipped over Isaac's older son Esau, even though he had not been born yet, passing to the younger, Jacob.  Why?  Not because they had 'done anything good or bad, but that God's purpose according to election might stand' (9:11).  By withholding the blessing from Esau, God effectively 'hated Esau' (9:13) - not out of preference or from an emotional motivation, but in order to display his sovereignty in going against the cultural norms so that 'the older [would] serve the younger' (9:12).  Paul clearly states that this election was about service, not eternal salvation.  Jacob - not Esau - was chosen to be the Messiah's ancestor even though both were Abraham's descendants.... The concepts of love and hate refer to God's decision to bestow inheritance, blessings, and kingdom responsibility on Jacob's descendants rather than Esau's... God has the sovereign right to choose whom he will use to accomplish his kingdom purposes."

Romans 9 - election, Jacob and Esau - is not about personal salvation or damnation at all.  It's about God's right to use different people for different purposes to further His kingdom plans.  

And, of course, God had to pick one brother over the other - either Jacob or Esau - to be the bloodline for the Messiah because...

Jesus couldn't come from both brothers.  That's physically impossible.  God had to pick one.  And so He chose to bless the younger brother with this role instead of the older brother - to show that He can do things His way, that He doesn't have to follow the cultural norms or do things according to our expectations.

And God can choose one brother over the other to be Jesus's bloodline and still be a holy, just, righteous, fair, trustworthy God.  But He cannot predestine people to hell but command them to believe and then cause them to reject Him and then punish them for rejecting Him... and yet still be a holy, just, righteous, fair, trustworthy God.

Dr. Evans goes on in the Romans 9:14-16 section to say: "Choosing Jacob over Esau raises the question of God's fairness: 'Is there injustice with God?'  Paul shouts back, once again, 'Absolutely not!' (9:14).  God has the sovereign right to 'show mercy to whom [he] will' (9:15).  This mercy is given for the purpose of receiving blessing to accomplish and advance his kingdom program, not for individual salvation.  He can accomplish his purposes with our assistance, or over our resistance."

Paul is saying there's nothing unjust about God deciding how to use us in His plans.  

But this is far different from Calvinists who think this verse is about how it's not unjust for Calvi-god to predestine people to hell, to punish them for being the unbelievers he predestined them to be... which then leads Calvinists to misuse the "Who are you, O man, to question God" reply, to shame and silence anyone who disagrees with them.

But once again, this is not about personal salvation or damnation at all.  It's about God's right to use different people for different purposes to further His kingdom plans.

Calvinists get Romans 9, election, Jacob and Esau (and many other things) very wrong, totally destroying the gospel, God's Word, God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, and people's faith. 

   

So although Calvinists think election and predestination are the same thing - that God predestines if people go to heaven or hell - 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.  

And God decides how to use us based on how we have chosen to be and to live.

The Potter and the clay

Like with Romans 9:13-15 (Jacob vs. Esau, "there's no injustice," and "God has mercy on whom He wants"), Calvinists will also use Romans 9:18-22 to support Calvinist predestination and to shut up any opposition, to "prove" that God has the right to create some people for heaven and some for hell, and that it's okay for Him to do it:

"Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.  One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us?  For who resists his will?'  But who are you, O man, to talk back to God.  "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"  Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction?" 

[I am so sick of hearing this taken out of context and used to manipulatively-shame people into Calvinism!*  And all Calvinists do it because they misinterpret Romans 9.  But once again, Romans 9 is not about Calvinist predestination.  Romans 9 is about how God chooses to use people (specifically relating to the Jews vs. the Gentiles), not to save people.  You must get Romans 9 correct or else you will become a Calvinist!  Once again, see "When Calvinist say 'But Romans 9!'"]

Calvinists read Romans 9:18-22 and say "See, God hardens whom He wants to harden, His objects of wrath He prepares for destruction.  God decides who goes to hell."

But as Tony Evan's commentary said about Romans 9:17-18: "Pharoah's actions prove a perfect picture of God's sovereign plan at work... 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)..."

And about Romans 9:19-24: "... The example of Pharoah is still fresh in his mind when Paul mentions 'objects of wrath' (9:22) and 'objects of mercy' (9:23).  '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 whether or not people experience the wrathful consequences of sin on this earth, based on whether or not they obey God. 

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 but about how God uses us in His plans.

In fact, Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says that "hardens" is a "retributive" hardening, that it's a punishment for first hardening our own hearts and for resisting God even though He's been patient and longsuffering with us.  

And "prepared for destruction" is really "fitted for destruction," and 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.  

Paul is telling the Jews that they fit themselves for destruction by choosing to reject God's truth about Jesus and the gospel.  It has nothing to do with God choosing who gets saved or not.

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.  In fact, both show that God relates to us and uses us based on how we choose to be.

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.

*"Who are you to talk back to God?"

When Calvinists get painted into a corner, usually by their own contradictions, they will always, always, always resort to some form of "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?  He is sovereign, we are not.  He is the Potter, and we are the clay.  His ways are mysterious, and we can't figure Him out.  We just have to live with the tension of not knowing, not understanding.  What right do we have to question our sovereign God and His ways?"

John MacArthur does it: "Some are shocked to find that God didn't choose everyone to salvation... [But] Paul answers all such questions with a rebuke—'who are you, O man, who answers back to God?...'  Does the clay jump up and ask the potter why it looks the way it does?  Not at all." (See "Is the Doctrine of Election Biblical?")

Wayne Grudem does it in his Systematic Theology book: "Sometimes people regard the doctrine of election as unfair since it teaches that God chooses some to be saved and passes over others, deciding not to save them.  How can this be fair?...  If each person's ultimate destiny is determined by God, not by the person himself or herself (that is, even when people make willing choices that determine whether they will be saved or not, if God is actually behind those choices somehow ordaining or indirectly causing them to occur), then how can this be fair?  Paul's response is not one that appeals to our pride, nor does he attempt to give a philosophical explanation of why this is just.  He simply calls on God's rights as the omnipotent Creator: 'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?...'"

John Piper does it: "[The doctrine of election] is a timeless problem, but especially in the modern world that assumes human autonomy and questions all authority and takes the judgment seat to decide if God even exists.  Paul addressed this issue most forcefully in Romans 9:6-23....'But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?...'"  (Notice how he sets it up with a manipulative insult, accusing us of judging against God if we disagree with Calvinism's doctrine of election.  See "Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election")

This Calvinist article from Crossway does it: "It is possible that some people may simply not like what Paul says in Romans 9... It really doesn’t matter if we like it or not... God has the right to do as he wills.... Against all such me-centered thinking stands Paul’s unanswered question, 'But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?'"  (See "Straight Talk About Predestination") 

A.W. Pink does it (Doctrine of Election): "Rebels against the supreme sovereign hesitate not to charge Him with unrighteousness because He is pleased to exercise His own rights, and determine the destiny of His creatures... They say that if God shows mercy unto one and withholds it from another, such partiality is grossly unfair. To such an objector we reply...'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?...'... And there we leave him."

J.I. Packer does it: "To our finite minds, of course, the thing [that God is "sovereign" over sin, evil, and unbelief but still holds mankind responsible for it all] is inexplicable.  It sounds like a contradiction, and our first reaction is to complain that it is absurd... [But] observe how Paul replies...he rebukes the spirit of the question. 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'... Creatures are not entitled to register complaints about their Creator."  (See "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility")

My ex-pastor does it (from his August 16, 2015 sermon on predestination): “Why do some rebellious, enslaved-to-sin sinners repent and others stay hardened?... Because of God’s sovereign predestination, His sovereign election.... God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden... So why does God still blame us if He elects some and not others?  The answer from Paul is ‘Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?’"

When Calvinists hit a wall in their theology or get tangled up in their contradictions, they will always resort to their final tactics of manipulation: "tension," "mystery," and "Who are you to talk back to God?"  These are three tactics to maintain their control, to make us ignore the red flags and distrust our discernment abilities, and to manipulate us into accepting the unacceptable (or at least into shutting up and not probing any deeper into their inconsistencies and contradictions).

But it's one thing to accept true biblical mysteries (things God has not revealed to us), but it's a completely different thing to let Calvinists manipulate us into accepting the "mysteries" they created when they altered and misinterpreted the things God did clearly reveal to us in His Word.

And if Calvinists can manipulate us into believing that God ordains all evil and predestines people to hell, that He causes sin and unbelief but punishes people for it, then what can't they talk us into believing?  It doesn't get any worse than that!  (Or maybe it does.  See "As evil as it gets: Calvinism on babies and the unreached.")

Context kills Calvinism!

Neither predestination nor election (nor Romans 9) - when read in context - support Calvinism.

But as I've said before: Calvinism and context cannot coexist!

God doesn't decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but He does decide what happens to anyone who believes (and He lets us decide whether or not to believe).  And He does decide how to use people's decisions in His plans, which roles or jobs or positions He gives them, based on what they do or don't do, on their decision to be obedient or disobedient.  And whether we are obedient or disobedient determines whether we bring wrath or blessings on ourselves.

Calvinists are so, so wrong in how they interpret the Bible - to the devastation of the gospel, God's character, Jesus's sacrifice, God's Word, and people's faith!

[For more about the difference between the Calvinist and non-Calvinist definition of predestination, see Soteriology 101's "Provisionists believe in Predestination and Election."]

And so even though "predestined" is only in the Bible four times - and none have to do with God choosing certain sinners for salvation, but all have to do with what happens after someone believes, with the blessings, roles, and destination God has in store for any who believe in Christ - Calvinists build their whole theology around it, around their wrong understanding of it.

But because most people can't recognize their errors/lies/deception... and because we don't even realize we should question the theology of Calvinist pastors because, after all, they call themselves "biblical" and claim to have a "high view of Scripture" and even claim that Calvinism is Christianity itself... and because we've been shamed into ignoring or distrusting the red flags and alarm bells going off in our spirits... and because we don't take the time and effort to double-check what Calvinists say the Bible "teaches" against what the Bible actually says... and because we simply trust the pastors because they sound so educated and confident and forceful and went to seminary and can read Greek and maybe even traveled to Israel... and because all the elders (the like-minded "yes men" they surround themselves with) and all the too-scared-to-speak-up-and-disagree church members all seem to agree with the Calvinist pastors... and because Calvinists say predestination is "for God's glory"... and because we don't want to be "divisive" troublemakers who question authority... and because we certainly don't want to be "unhumble Christians who steal God's glory and who say that we saved ourselves"... we'll probably (like everyone else in the congregation) simply nod our heads and say "sounds good" and go along with it, even if it troubles our spirits deep down.

And sadly, all of this leads to a completely different God, gospel, and way to be saved.  [In the Bible, we are saved when we put our faith in Jesus.  In Calvinism, you put your faith in Jesus because you are already saved.  Very different!  Very backwards!]

In Calvinism, Calvinism is the gospel, and people are saved by election (not by faith in Jesus)!

As Charles Spurgeon so boldly put it: "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.]

But silly me.  I thought the gospel was "good news" for all people, not just the elect.  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 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

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."

This is the gospel according to the Bible!

But not in Calvinism, where their doctrine of predestination/election is the gospel!

In my ex-pastor's sermons, I've counted at least three times that he defines the gospel as Calvinist election/predestination:

From a September 2023 sermon: "It means if someone is saved, it is wholly God's doing.  It is not a matter of God saving you partly and you partly saving yourself.  No!  God saves us.  We do not and cannot save ourselves.  That is the gospel.'  And that is the message of Jonah: Only God elects.  Only God sovereignly draws.  Only God sovereignly convicts us of sin.  Only God sovereignly opens blinded eyes."

From February 2015: "The Bible's teaching on our human condition especially outside of Christ [is that we are] hopelessly blinded and in slavery to sin unless God graciously opens human sinful eyes and summons them to Himself as Lord... That's the gospel: That there is a God who seeks hardened sinners, pursues them, turns them around, drags them to Himself, blesses them, pardons them, and justifies them."

From May 2024: "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."

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 parts 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 - and completely screw up - the "first important" truths, then they should be disqualified from teaching God's Word.

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!

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..."

*Final sidenote: Clearly and explicitly?

(I'll make this section its own post soon, expanding it even more.)  

If Calvinist predestination was so very "clearly/explicitly" taught in the Bible, as Calvinists claim, then why would Calvinist A.W. Pink (in Doctrine of Election) have to say that "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents [the doctrine of election] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead 'here a little, there a little—... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."  

This is telling!  He's basically saying that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly and obviously taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be scraped together in bits and pieces, and that we would have a hard time finding it without the help of a Calvinist teacher systematically leading us through the Bible.  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."

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?  And isn't it rather revealing that Calvinists themselves don't think we can easily find Calvinism in the Bible on our own?