Alana L.: 4j (active belief; "anyone")
This series is based on this 14-minute video from Alana L.: 5 Signs Your Loved One is Becoming a Calvinist
Point #4 Still:
J. Alana states the obvious, simple, biblical truth that "We are made in God's image, and we have the capacity to think and determine things." We have the ability to decide how we will respond to the gospel call. We decide whether to reject/ignore it or to believe it. And when we believe, we are saved.
“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:4, 13)
“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...” (Ephesians 1:13)
We have to hear and believe. “Hear and believe” refers to a responsibility on our parts to accept and embrace the Truth that we hear.
But Calvinists will say that only the elect can "hear" the gospel because only the elect are brought to life first by the Holy Spirit/given life/born-again... and then they can hear and believe. (If they can a find a verse that clearly says this, I'll give them more credit.) And the Holy Spirit does not do this for the non-elect, and so they can never hear or believe.
But as I've said in other posts:
1. "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life... he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." (John 5:24-25).
The first two "hears" (as far as I can tell from Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary) are about sensing the words spoken, and the third "hear" ("those who hear will live") is about yielding obediently to the voice we hear, to accept it, abide by it. So all spiritually-dead people have the ability to "hear and believe" the gospel and the call of God, but only those who choose to yield obediently to it/accept it/abide by it will be saved.
2. Inevitably, Calvinists will say something like "Belief is a work, and we can't work for salvation. And we can't make ourselves born again. Only the Spirit can make people born again. Just like we had nothing to do with our physical births, we have nothing to do with our spiritual births. And the Spirit moves where He wants to, like the wind, regenerating whomever He wants to." And they'll bring up Nicodemus, saying that Jesus never gave Nicodemus instructions on how to be born again because it's something we can't do. And they'll bring up Lydia, saying that God opened Lydia's heart to believe the gospel.
But here are some quick answers to all that:
a. Calvinists think that "the Holy Spirit makes us born again" (which is true) means that "the Holy Spirit makes us believe, the Spirit decides and controls who believes" (which is false). They conflate belief and being born again. But they are two different things. Yes, it's true that we can't make ourselves born again (that's the Spirit's job)... but it's also true that He does it in response to what we can do: believe. Believing is our job, the one responsibility God gave us to do to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" John 6:28-29. Our job is to believe, and the Spirit's job is to make us born again in response to our belief.
b. Calvinists reverse the order of belief and born again. They say that we are given the Holy Spirit/saved/born again first, before we believe, that being saved/born again leads to being able to believe. As my Calvinist ex-pastor said: "the unmistakable sign that someone has been born again is that they have the ability to repent and believe the gospel." And as Calvinist Loraine Boettner famously said in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: "A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved."
But contrary to Calvinism, no one is saved, born again, or given the Holy Spirit first, before believing, in order to make them believe. The Bible never teaches that. But it does clearly and repeatedly teach that it's only after believing that we are given the Holy Spirit, born again, given eternal life, saved.
Acts 2:38: "... Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Ephesians 1:13: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit."
John 20:31: “... by believing you may have life in his name.”
John 3:16,36: “... whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life... Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life...”
Romans 10:9: “… if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Acts 16:31: “… Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved …”
John 5:24: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
John 1:12: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”
[If Calvinists can find one verse that just as clearly says that we are given the Holy Spirit first, brought to life first, saved first... before believing, in order to make us believe... then I'll start to reconsider.]
Now think about this, really think about it: If Calvinists say that we are saved/born again before we believe in Jesus, then they are really saying that we are saved/born again without belief in Jesus, apart from belief in Jesus.
And who do you think is behind the idea that salvation happens without belief in Jesus?
c. As I (and Alana) already pointed out in 1b: God does not view "belief" as a "working for salvation" thing, as Calvinists do: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" (Romans 4:3-6)
God is contrasting Abraham's belief/faith/trust in Him with those who "work" for their justification and righteousness, who try to earn/work their way to Him. He's saying that "belief/faith" is not the same thing as "working for your salvation," and that belief/faith is what we must do to be saved.
God has done all the work to make salvation possible for us, and all He asks - all He requires - is that we accept it, that we open up our hands and receive it and say "Thank you. I believe." And that's not "working for salvation."
Unless you're a Calvinist.
And so the two big questions to consider here are these: If the Bible says that "belief" is the one thing we must do to be saved, but Calvinists say it's something we can't do to be saved, can anyone really be saved under honest Calvinist preaching?
And who do you think profits from spreading the idea that people cannot decide to believe in Jesus to be saved, when God Himself says that we must believe in Jesus to be saved?
d. Calvinists use John 3:7-8 to "prove" that the Holy Spirit controls who gets regenerated/born again: "You must be born again. The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
As my Calvinist ex-pastor said: "[New life] is a sovereign gift of God given to some. And like the wind from our perspective, God's Spirit blows where He chooses."
But that's not what this verse means. Jesus is not saying that the Spirit chooses who gets saved or that He causes them to believe. He's saying that work of the Spirit in spiritual birth is an invisible thing, like how the wind is invisible. He's contrasting invisible spiritual birth to visible physical birth. That's all this verse is about: the invisible compared to the visible. Not about who gets saved or how they are "chosen" or regenerated. (Ridiculous.)
It's ironic that when Calvinists say things like "just like you had nothing to do with your physical birth, you can have nothing to do with your spiritual birth because God's Spirit blows where He chooses," they have actually fallen into the same trap as Nicodemus in John 3:4.
After being told he must be born again, Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?... Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Nicodemus conflated spiritual birth and physical birth, treating them as the same thing. But Jesus corrects Nicodemus by saying that spiritual birth is not the same as physical birth, that one is invisible (on the inside, of the heart/spirit/mind, etc.) and the other is visible (on the outside, of the tangible, physical body). They are not the same thing: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (verse 6).
And Calvinists conflate them too, acting like they happen the same way, that since we can't affect our physical birth, then we can't affect our spiritual birth either.
Of course, we can't affect our physical birth, but the Bible tells us that we do affect whether or not we are spiritually born again. God has given us the job - the one job - of deciding if we will believe in Jesus or not. That is our job, our God-given responsibility. And if we choose to believe - to put our faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior - then we will be born again by the Spirit.
We do the believing part first, and then the Spirit does the "born again" part second, as a result of our belief - not the other way around, as Calvinism teaches.
e. To "prove" Calvinist election and irresistible grace, Calvinists will quote Acts 16:14 - "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" - and then they say "See, God opened Lydia's heart to believe the gospel."
First off, the text does not say that God opened her heart "to believe the gospel." "To believe" is an assumption, added by Calvinists. And it does not say that Paul's message was the gospel message. In fact, it doesn't say what the message was. And so it very easily could have been - as I believe it is - a message about the need for believers to be baptized. Because that's the very next thing she does in the next verse.
Secondly, as the first part of verse 14 says, Lydia was already "a worshiper of God" before God "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message." This is not a case of God causing certain unbelievers to believe, but it's most likely about God leading a believer to know the next step of obedience they need to take, which in Lydia's case is baptism.
Thirdly, if I'm correct, then what happened with Lydia would be similar to what happened to other believers just a couple chapters over, in Acts 19. Paul met believers who did not yet have the Holy Spirit because they hadn't been baptized in the name of the Lord but only in John the Baptist's "baptism of repentance." And Paul convinced them to be baptized in the name of the Lord to receive the Holy Spirit. (Note: Acts is a transitional time-period as the church was forming, when the Holy Spirit was given to the people "in stages," before it was the standard that He entered each believer at the moment of belief.)
I believe both this story and the Lydia story are cases of believers being convinced to be baptized, not unbelievers being caused to believe.
[Like the Lydia story, Calvinists will use Luke 24:45 - "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures" - to try to prove that God causes people to believe or not. But once again, this isn't about causing unbelievers to believe. It's about Jesus opening the minds of those who already believe - His disciples - to help them grow in their wisdom and faith.]
f. To further show how the stories of Lydia and the Acts 19 believers actually destroy Calvinism, instead of supporting it:
If, as Calvinists say, Lydia was not a true believer until after Paul's message, then she was still an unregenerated "totally depraved" person, which would mean that she was an unregenerated "totally-depraved" person who was worshiping the one true God - something that's impossible according to Calvinism which says that totally-depraved people cannot seek God, want God, or believe in God until God causes them to respond to the gospel. Lydia's story disproves the T (total depravity/inability) in Calvinism's TULIP. And if the T falls, so does the rest of it. Disproving "total depravity/inability" opens the door of salvation to all people, as God intended.
Contrary to Calvinism, “believe” in these verses does not mean “to believe through God's work of causing you to believe, with no effort or thought on your part; to passively have faith injected into you.”
According to Strong's Concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary, “believes” is active, not passive. It's not about God injecting faith into us, but it involves a conscious and willing action on our part. It's about being persuaded by something, choosing to commit to it, and placing our confidence and our faith in it. And we can only be "persuaded" by something if we have the ability to think and determine things, to reason through them. And we can only commit to it and place our confidence in it if it's our choice to believe it and accept it as truth.
But if God forces/causes us to believe (as He does in Calvinism), then there is no "being persuaded" by it. It would be "being forced into it while you passively do nothing."
But biblically, "believe" is something we do, not something God does to us while we passively absorb it.
And similar to this is the word "receive," which is also a part of belief/salvation:
“Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship...” (Romans 1:5)
“through whom we have received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:11)
“For if, by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:17)
Strong's concordance (with Vine's dictionary) says that the word “receive” involves the idea of deliberately grabbing ahold of something, of consciously accepting what is offered. Like the word “believe,” it’s active, not passive. It's intentionally reaching out and grabbing something, as opposed to passively acquiring something. There is a responsibility on our parts to grab ahold of the grace and salvation God offers us, to not let it pass us by.
Let’s say you are sitting in a room with lots of people, and someone walks in and places a golden ticket into the hands of 10 of them. Then they say, “If you have received a golden ticket in your hand, you are going to the chocolate factory.” This is like Calvinist election, the idea that God decides who gets the tickets and who doesn’t. And in this case, “receiving” is passive. It involves no effort or decision on your part to get that ticket.
But “receiving” in these verses (according to the concordance, according to the Bible) involves the idea of reaching out and grabbing, of willfully and deliberately accepting what is offered. It would be more like someone walking into the room, placing a golden ticket down on the desk before each person, and saying, “Anyone who reaches out and grabs the ticket in front of them - who receives this gift - is going to the chocolate factory.”
This is more like the kind of “receive” we read in these verses. It is active. It involves a response on our part, a conscious, willful decision. It is our willingness to reach out and take hold of the gift that is offered to us. This is free-will. The gift of eternal life is offered to all, but we choose to accept or we choose to reject.
And this is why no one will have an excuse for why they didn’t turn to God (Romans 1:20). Because God has made Himself clear to all, in His creation and deep down in our hearts. And we will be held responsible for how we respond to it, for whether we believe and receive it or whether we ignore/reject/resist it.
4. And since we're looking at Romans and Ephesians in light of Strong's concordance (with Vine's expository dictionary):
“Ignorance” and “Blindness”
“They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.” (Ephesians 4:18-19)
The people hardened themselves, became ignorant and darkened in their understanding, lost sensitivity to God, and then gave themselves over to sensuality.
But Calvinists will say that this verse means that God caused them to be ignorant by hardening their hearts. That He “forced” them to be blind to Him because they were predestined to hell.
But actually, the word in the concordance is not “hardening” of heart but “blindness” of heart. And according to the concordance, “blindness” in this passage involves the idea of being callous toward something. And it comes from a word which is used of the Israelites who deliberately refused God’s ways and His Will.
It’s not that God chose to harden their hearts and make them ignorant; it’s that they chose to be callous toward Him, to deliberately refuse Him. And this led to their ignorance, their darkened understanding, and their insensitivity to God.
And “ignorance” is not just “not knowing” or “being unaware,” as though God never revealed Himself to them, never gave them a chance. According to the concordance, it is a deliberate, willful decision to be blind.
Refusing God’s way. Willfully blind.
This is basically saying, “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because they have willfully chosen to be blind, due to their callous refusal of God’s Will and way.”
The decision to believe or not believe lies with mankind. We choose to either submit to the truth or to be blind to it. And that’s why we can justly be held accountable for our unbelief.
Romans 10:3 (RSV) also mentions “ignorant”: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
Paul says that the people are "ignorant" of the righteousness that God gives (through salvation in Jesus). But once again, "ignorant" in this passage does not mean "God never told me" or "I had no idea because God blinded my mind," as it would be in Calvinism. It means to deliberately ignore something, being unwilling to see it.
Paul is saying that the Israelites knew the truth and chose to ignore it. It is a deliberate ignorance. They were unwilling to see it. They chose to resist it, to be ignorant of God’s way. And they created their own way instead.
This is not "God predestined them to be that way." It's that they were responsible for their choice, for their blindness and hard hearts. And Paul knew it, which is why he grieved over them and worked so hard to reach them.
“Unbelief” and "disobedience"
“... They were broken off because of unbelief... And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in... ” (Romans 11:20,23)
According to the concordance, “unbelief” is along the same lines as dis-believing something or being unfaithful to it. It is not just an ignorance of God, as though He blinded us or never revealed Himself to us. It is a refusal to believe in the God who calls to us and who has made Himself known. You can’t disbelieve something you never knew about. So this word “unbelief” refers to the idea of hearing the truth, but choosing to reject it. If we are “broken off,” it is because of our unbelief, our unwillingness to believe what He has revealed to us. But if we will choose to believe, we will be grafted in.
Another word along these same lines is “disobedience.”
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” (Ephesians 2:1-2)
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.” (Ephesians 5:6)
In the concordance, this “disobedience” implies the idea of not allowing yourself to believe something or be persuaded by it. Instead of being persuaded by God’s truth, you deliberately and stubbornly refuse it or reject it. You choose disobedience by refusing to believe Him and obey Him.
It is not that God makes people to be disobedient or to not believe; it’s that we choose it by refusing to be persuaded by the truth. Once again, it places the responsibility on man to choose to believe or to choose to resist.
If we are blind, ignorant, and resistant to the truth, it's because we chose to be that way willingly. Because that's what we wanted. Because we didn't want the truth.
And three more: "Hardens," "prepared for destruction," and "wrath"
Calvinists use Romans 9:18 and 9:22 to "prove" Calvinist election: “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth... What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” (KJV)
They say, "See, God predetermines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. He makes the elect believe and prevents the non-elect from believing."
However, Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says that "hardens" (look under C-2, verb, G4645) is a "retributive" hardening. It's a punishment for first hardening our own hearts and for resisting God even though He's been patient and longsuffering with us.
As The Tony Evans Bible Commentary says about Romans 9:17-18: "Pharoah's actions prove a perfect picture of God's sovereign plan at work. God told Pharaoh 'I raised you up for this reason so that I may display my power...and so that my name may be proclaimed' (9:17). God, then, was the one raising up Pharoah. But he was also the one hardening Pharaoh's heart (9:18). Importantly, God does not harden the hearts of people until they reject him. It was only after Pharaoh hardened his own heart (see Exod. 7:22, 8:15,32) that God hardened it further (Exod. 9:12)... This hardening is not predestination to damnation; it's an expression of God's prerogative to choose whom he will use to serve his purposes and how he will use them (see Jer. 18:1-13). God punishes the wicked by using their wickedness to accomplish his purposes. God uses obedience and disobedience to accomplish his kingdom agenda while holding people responsible for their own decisions."
And regarding "fitted for destruction" (but the Calvinist ESV and other translations say “…prepared for destruction,” which makes it sound much more Calvinist, like people are specifically created/prepared by God to be destroyed): According to Strong's with Vine’s, the Greek word for “fitted” in this verse is about the people's destiny being tied to their character. And it's in the middle voice, meaning that the people fitted themselves to destruction by how they chose to be. Big difference! When we reject the truth, we fit ourselves for destruction.
And regarding "wrath" (a view of it I hadn't heard before but that's worth considering): The Tony Evans Bible Commentary says this about Romans 9:19-24: "... 'Wrath' refers to the present consequences of sin (as we've seen earlier in the writing of Paul), not to eternal destiny. And that wrath is tied to rejection or acceptance of the will of God. But whether God is acting in wrath or in mercy, he is accomplishing his plan. The big difference is in how we experience that plan - as willing sons and daughters, or as unwilling slaves."
What he's saying is that the "wrath" in this passage isn't even about our eternal destinies, about hell, but it's about people experiencing the wrathful consequences of sin and disobedience here on this earth. If we obey God, He shows us mercy in this life. If we disobey God, we experience His wrath in this life, being handed over to our own hard hearts. Interesting. [And even if "wrath" is about eternal hell-wrath, the verse would still imply that we fit ourselves for wrath - for hell - based on our decisions, not that God fashions us that way.]
So although Calvinists use these verses, especially the "hardens" and "prepared for destruction" parts - to support their doctrine of election/predestination, those verses aren't about God predestining eternal salvation at all, but about how God uses us in His plans and the consequences of our decisions.
All of the verses that Calvinists use to "prove" Calvinism fall apart when read in context and when properly defined and interpreted.
[If you haven't seen it yet: Hitler and Calvinism. Awesome!]
-----------------------------------------------------
Since we're on the topic of belief, one thing to be aware of is that Calvinists will deceptively say something like "Anyone can believe." But they don't mean what we all think they would mean: that anyone can believe because everyone has the ability to believe.
What they mean is "Anyone can believe... if God makes them believe." Or "Any type of person can believe: rich or poor, woman or man, Jew or Gentile." Or "Because we don't know who the elect are, anyone out there could be one of the elect. (But if they're not, then they cannot believe because the non-elect can never believe.)"
Here are parts from two other posts of mine to show what I mean (If you've read it before you don't have to read it again. I just felt like repeating it here.):
First: From "Exposing Calvinism: 'Anyone' can believe and be saved"
In a Soteriology 101 post "Frustrated by the state of the world?" (in these quotes, I made minor corrections for clarity and added some notes), I replied to a Calvinist names Roland with this:
Roland, would you mind explaining how your comment "I agree that anyone can believe in Jesus" fits with your comment "unless God gives [you] a new heart, you will not seek God" ... and with your denial that God calling everyone to believe means that we're all able to believe ... and with your agreement with Rhutchin (Calvinist) that “Certainly, God has determined who will be saved and who will not…”?
How can you say "anyone can believe" and yet hold those other beliefs? (This isn’t rhetorical. I’m asking seriously.) If the non-elect are never given a new heart (by God) then how can they believe in Jesus? Do you define "anyone" as all people, elect and non-elect, or as "only the elect"? If it’s "all people," then how can you, as a Calvinist, say that the non-elect can believe in Jesus, when they will not be given a new heart or the faith to believe? But if it’s "only the elect," then how can you say “anyone”?..."
Roland (Calvinist) replies to me:
Thanks for the reply Heather, and the question, I will do my best to answer as I struggle to communicate what I’m saying well. If you have any questions about response and answer, please reply, I’ll do my best to answer, thanks. [My note: To be fair, I think Roland is one of the more polite, respectful Calvinists who comment at Soteriology 101, in my experience. I think he tries to be decent and mature in his responses, and I really like him.]
... As far as "anyone" can believe, I believe it is the biblical teaching that anyone can believe. There is not requirement for belief besides believing. To many non-calvinists this sounds like a contradiction, a paradox, double mindedness, double speak, but to us as Calvinists we believe any can be believe. However, I also said that unless God gives them a new heart, no one can seek God. [He's saying that anyone who believes - anyone who is able to believe - can believe, which is only the elect in Calvinism. If you read between the lines of his comments overall, he is saying not that "anyone can believe" but that "God can make anyone believe." Big difference! I hope you see how tricky Calvinists are with their wording, their meanings of words. Everything they say that sounds good and biblical is a cover for something else or is only about the elect. And I think that a theology this deceptive can only be demonic.]
... As far as "anyone," I would further point to evidence as the classes of people who came to believe in Christ; slaves, Jews, Gentiles, woman, all types. So the kingdom of God is limited, but while anyone can believe [he means "While God can make anyone from any nationality or gender or group of people believe"], it is only for those who believe. I hope that’s making sense.
... I would clarify by saying that all people can believe, and I don’t mean that there is an inherent capacity in our nature to believe. I just mean it's open to all people. But only some will believe. [So all people "can" believe, but not all people have the ability to believe!?! Interesting. Nonsensical. Essentially, he's clarifying that "anyone can believe" does not mean that we all have the ability to believe, but that anyone - and from any nationality - can believe IF Calvi-god has chosen them to believe. In Calvinism, salvation is "open" to all, but only those who can believe (the elect) will believe, and the rest are predestined to reject it. Not very "open," is it? This would be like opening up your front door to all people standing outside in the freezing cold and giving them an offer to come into your warm house, but then chaining up most people outside to a tree so that they can't walk through it ... and giving them a magic potion that makes them want to stay outside ... and gouging out their eyes so that they can't even see that the door is open to them. The door is "open" to all, but only those who can walk through it (the ones you chose to make able to walk through it) will walk through it. This is Calvinism. This is how they can say that the door of salvation is "open" to all people - even though only some are able to walk through it, while the rest are, by Calvi-god's design, incapable of seeing it, wanting it, or walking through it. So deceptive!]
Yes, the willingness to believe is only granted to the elect. I know I used to believe it was contradictory and foolish [because it is!], but I believe there is a biblical argument for the Calvinist position [How tragic!].
... As a Calvinist, I do not contemplate God predestining people to hell. [And this is one of the problems with Calvinists, that they don't want to think about the unpleasant parts of Calvinism. I guess it's best for them to just ignore all those people that Calvi-god predestined to hell and to simply focus on the fact that they themselves are one of the lucky few who won the "salvation lottery" - randomly chosen to be loved and saved without any responsibility on their part. Hooray for them! (Too bad for everyone else, though. But let's not think about that.)].
My reply to Roland:
Well, Roland, I do want to say thank you for taking the time to try to explain it to me. But it doesn’t make it more clear to me. In fact, yours and Rhutchin’s answers only make it worse, in my way of thinking. It sounds to me like long, fancy, convoluted answers as a way of saying "Yes, anyone can believe … but, no, not anyone can believe."
Clearly, you both mean that "anyone" equals "all types of people" … and not what commonsense would tell us: that anyone means ("all individual people"). Therefore, it makes it deceptive for Calvinists to say "anyone can believe," knowing that most people would interpret "anyone" to mean "all individual people."
And I would suggest that Calvinists do this on purpose, strategically omitting the "types of" so that they can say "all … people." I think that, in their minds, they are not lying by omitting "types of" because at least the words they do use – "all … people" – are true.
But as I said, I do thank you for taking the time to give a thoughtful, thorough, respectful answer. For that, you have my respect as well.
Non-Calvinist Fromoverhere adds:
Calvinists: “Anyone can believe!! As long as they are chosen."
Henry Ford: "You can have your Model T in any color you want… as long as it’s black!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, just for fun: From my post "A not-so-imaginary conversation with a Calvinist":
Calvinists will do their best to hide what they really believe, to make you think they are saying the same thing you are. They will agree with you on one level, while hiding the fact that they really believe in a secondary level which contradicts that first level. (But they've been so well-trained in their standard replies and pat answers that they might not even realize they're doing it. They probably truly think they are being biblical and making sense, not being deceptive or contradictory.) And they rely on your ignorance to give them time to subtly slip their Calvinism in, to stealthily reel you into Calvinism without you realizing it.
And if they can convince you that they are saying the same thing you are and using words the same way you do ... if you buy into their definitions of things like depraved, dead, sovereign, regeneration, faith, grace, etc. ... if you let them convince you that there's a deeper, "hidden" layer of meaning under what the Bible plainly says (a layer that they have to teach you to see) ... if you don't question them deeply to expose what they really mean ... if you don't research the verses they use, comparing it all to what the Bible plainly says, then they've already got you beat!
You want to see what a conversation with a Calvinist might be like, how tricksy they can be?
Read this not-so-imaginary one:
Me: Do you believe God loves the world and that Jesus died for all people?
Calvinist: Absolutely!
Me: So then can anyone believe in Jesus and be saved?
Calvinist: Oh, yes. Anyone can believe and be saved, if they want to. Everyone who desires to be saved will be saved.
Me: But doesn't Calvinism teach that God forces people to either believe in Him or to reject Him?
Calvinist: Of course not! People either believe in God or reject Him because that's what they want to do. He doesn't force anyone to do anything. They choose to do what they want to do.
Me: So you believe in choice then? In free will?
Calvinist: Oh, yes. We all freely choose to do what we want to do, according to our natures.
Me: So then do we all have the chance, the ability, to believe in Jesus?
Calvinist: Well, it takes faith to believe, right? So if you don't have faith in something, you can't believe in it, can you?
Me: So, according to Calvinism, faith comes before believing in Jesus? Can anyone have faith?
Calvinist: Yes, you need faith to believe. And anyone can have faith if God elected them and gives them faith.
Me: But ... can anyone have faith? Any person out there, not just the elect?
Calvinist: Well, God is sovereign, and so He decides who to give faith to and who to withhold it from. And if He doesn't give you faith (the non-elect), you can't create faith in yourself. Unless you think people can save themselves. Does God save us or do we save ourselves? Are we in control or is God?
Me: But earlier you said anyone can believe. And now you're saying the non-elect can't. So which is it? If God doesn't give you faith, can you still believe in Jesus, if you want to?
Calvinist: If you don't have faith, you can't believe. You won't even want to believe. Faith is a gift [in Calvinism*], and God gives it to whomever He wants to, to those He loves and has chosen for salvation.
Me: But I thought you said that God loves all people and that Jesus died for all people and that anyone can believe in Jesus.
Calvinist: No, I said that God loves the world. He loves the elected people from all over the world, all kinds of people, but not all individual people. Well, I mean, He does love all people, but He loves them differently. He loves the elect by saving them from hell, and He loves the non-elect by caring for their needs while they're on earth. And yes, Jesus died for all people, but it means He died for all of His people. All those who will believe. The elect. You must be a universalist, that's what you are - saying that all people will go to heaven. But the Bible says all people won't go to heaven, so Jesus couldn't have died for all people. And why would He die for those predestined to reject Him anyway? That would be a waste of His blood and make His death ineffective. His blood is sufficient for everyone (it's enough to cover all men's sins) but it's efficient to save only the elect (it's only applied to the elect). And I said that anyone can be saved - anyone can believe in Jesus - if they want to, if that's what they desire. But only the elect will desire to be saved because only regenerated people will want to be saved. The non-elect will never desire to be saved because they are totally-depraved, unrepentant, unregenerated sinners. And totally-depraved, unrepentant, unregenerated sinners don't want God. They will always want to sin and so they can only choose to sin. Basically, anyone can believe in Jesus, if God regenerates their nature and gives them faith to believe.
Me: I'm not a universalist. I'm not saying that "'Jesus died for all people' means that all people will go to heaven." I'm saying that Jesus's death gives all people the option to go to heaven, that it offers everyone the gift of eternal life, but we have to choose to either accept it or reject it. And so it's up to us if we are saved or not. But in Calvinism, who determines if we are saved or not, if we are elect or non-elect, if we are regenerated or not?
Calvinist: God does. Because He is sovereign. Or do you think you're sovereign?
Me: So then whose fault is it when we sin and reject God and go to hell? If God decides who's regenerated and who's not and we can't be saved without being regenerated (according to Calvinism), doesn't that mean it's His fault that people sin and reject Him and go to hell, because He didn't regenerate them?
Calvinist: No, of course not. You don't understand Calvinism. God ordains sin but He is not the author of sin. People choose to sin and reject God because that's what they wanted to do. And so they deserve their punishment.
Me: Doesn't ordaining sin, in Calvinism, basically mean that God preplanned it, causes it, and controls it, and that the sinner couldn't do anything differently. And so then how can you say that God "ordains" sin but is not the author of sin?
Calvinist: There are two sources of sin. On one level, God ultimately decrees [read: predestines/causes] everything that happens, even sin, for His purposes and glory. And He orchestrates and directs all circumstances to accomplish what He decreed. Everything that happens is because He decreed it. But on a secondary level, humans choose to do what God decreed. We choose it because we want to do it, because of the desires in our natures. And so He doesn't have to force us to sin because we do it willingly, because of the desires of our nature. We can't change our natures (only God can do that), and so we have to obey the desires of our natures, which means we can only do - and will only do - what God predetermined we'd do. We can't choose anything else because we can't desire anything else other than what God predetermined we'd desire. But since we wanted to do it and chose to do it (on one level), He can hold us accountable for it. It's a mystery that we don't and can't understand, and so we just have to accept it.
Me: But isn't that just basically saying that people are simply robots, forced to do what God preprogrammed them to do?
Calvinist: Of course Calvinists don't say we're robots. That's ridiculous! A false accusation!
Me: But you just said that we have to do - and can only do - what God predetermined we'd do. That sounds like a robot to me - only able to do what the programmer preprogrammed it to do. And then what about when people disobey His commands? If everything God decrees has to happen, how can we disobey His commands/decrees? Doesn't that mean He is causing people to break His own commands and that He decrees things He wants us to disobey?
Calvinist: Well, God can decree that we disobey His decrees, if that's what brings Him more glory and if it fits His plans. And like I said: God ordains the sin but is not the author of sin. Even though He decrees/ordains the sin, we are still responsible for it. I know it's confusing and hard to accept emotionally. It confused me and made me feel bad for a long time too. It's like an itchy sweater that's hard to get used to. But if you stick with it and read books by MacArthur and Sproul and Grudem, then you'll come to accept it. It's just our human emotions and human logic that get in the way because we don't like the way it sounds. It sounds unfair. But our human emotions and logic can't be used to determine what's biblically true. That's putting ourselves above God. And so we need to put our pride aside and humbly accept these things, even if we don't like it or understand it, because that's what it means to be humble like a child.
Me: I don't think the "humble like a child" verse means accepting, without question, things that sound unbiblical or damaging to God's character. Anyway, you said that faith is a gift. Doesn't the Bible say that eternal life is the gift, that salvation is the gift we can all accept by faith, not that faith is the "gift" that God forces only on some people?
Calvinist: Can a totally-depraved person create faith in themselves? Of course not! Mankind is so depraved that there is nothing good in us that makes us want God or think about God or seek God. Before regeneration, we are dead in sin. You'd know that if you didn't cut that verse out of your Bible. Can a dead body get up and do anything on their own? No, because it's dead. And like a dead body that can't do anything, we can't do anything on our own, not even want God or seek God or have faith in God, unless God makes it possible. That's why it has to be a gift from God. And He doesn't have to force it on the elect because they want to have faith because they've been regenerated.
Me: But if God won't give the non-elect faith to believe, doesn't that make God responsible for their unbelief, for them being in hell? And then isn't it unfair for Him to punish them for something they didn't deserve, that they had no control over, that He made them do?
Calvinist: Since the non-elect don't get saving faith, they will remain dead in sin. They will stay a slave to sin. So God doesn't make anyone sin or reject Him. Sinners want to sin and reject God, according to their natures. So unregenerated people are just doing what comes naturally to them, freely choosing to sin and reject God. Because that's what unregenerated sinners will always want to do. And so God is exercising justice when He punishes them for it, because they chose what they wanted to do. No one deserves to go to heaven anyway. We all deserve hell. God doesn't owe anyone eternal life. Do you think He owes you eternal life? Are you so good and righteous on your own that you somehow earned your salvation? God gets to decide who gets saved and who doesn't, who gets faith and who doesn't, because He is the sovereign God and we are not. And it is not unfair for Him to punish the non-elect because "fairness" would be putting us all in hell - because we are all sinners who deserve hell. But God, out of His abundant love and grace, didn't want all people to go to hell, so He graciously chose to save some people. Imagine there are 100 people on death row for murder. And God decides to have mercy on 10 of them, to set them free, even though they don't deserve it. God has a right to have mercy on whomever He wants to. But since none of them deserved mercy, since they all deserved death, it was not unfair for Him to save some but to pass over the other 90 men, allowing them to face the penalty for their crimes. Because that's what they all deserved: death. It's not unfair for God to choose to have mercy on some sinners but to pass over the rest, to let the non-elect go to hell for their sins, because that's what we all deserve for our sins anyway. God is actually being very loving and gracious to save any of us, when no one deserves to be saved.
Me: Yeah, but in Calvinism, isn't God the reason for them being on death row in the first place, because He predestined their crimes and caused them to do it. How is that justice then? They're not paying for their crimes, but for crimes God made them do. And if unregenerated, non-elect people only have one option - to reject God - and so they have to choose that option, how is that "freely choosing," when there is no other choice available to them? How is that NOT God "forcing" them to be a sinner who rejects Him?
Calvinist: Unregenerated sinners are slaves to their sin-nature, to their sinful desires, which is another verse you refuse to believe. And so unregenerated sinners freely choose what they want to do, according to their sin-nature. And so God doesn't have to force them to sin and to reject Him because that's already what unregenerated people will naturally want to do. Always. And that's why they deserve their punishment, because they did what they wanted to do.
Me: But who determined that they would have the sin-nature in the first place, a sin-nature that has only sinful desires?
Calvinist: God ordains all things for His purposes and glory. He has mercy on whomever He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whomever He wants to harden. He is the Potter and we are the clay, and He does whatever He wants with us for His glory. Do you think God doesn't deserve glory? That He doesn't have a right to get more glory for Himself however He wants to?
Me: Um, okay. So you're saying the non-elect can never believe in Jesus because they will never want to believe in Him because God gave them the sin-nature that makes them only, always, want to reject Him. And yet you say God is abundantly gracious and loving. How can predestining most people to hell and then giving them a sin-nature that can only reject Him so that they go to hell, just like He predestined, be considered gracious or loving?
Calvinist: God doesn't "give" them the sin-nature. That's the nature we all start out with. So He doesn't force them to have the sin-nature and sinful desires; He just doesn't give them the regenerated nature that He gives to the elect. And He doesn't "predestine" them for hell or "cause" them to go to hell; He just didn't predestine them for heaven or cause them to be regenerated. He passes over them, choosing to not regenerate them, and they go to hell by default. But He is loving and gracious to provide them with sunshine and food and water while they're alive, because He didn't even have to do that much for such depraved sinners. And by having non-elect people who will be punished, the elect can see how gracious and loving God is to them, the elect, because He chose to give them eternal life they didn't deserve. They could've just as easily been in the same boat as the non-elect, but God graciously chose to save them when they - just like the non-elect - didn't deserve it. And so God's grace and love for the elect shine more brightly against the backdrop of His justice and wrath towards sin, towards the non-elect. If there were no sinners to punish, then God would have never been able to show His full attributes, like His justice and wrath, and we would never have seen how great His love and grace is towards the elect.
Me: So God needed sinners to be fully God? So He wasn't fully God before mankind came along and sinned?
Calvinist: Of course He was always fully God, but He decided that having sin was better for His glory. We are mere humans and can't understand everything. And it's pride that makes us want to understand everything, to think we can peer into the mysteries that God reserves for Himself. So we don't have to know how predestination works or God's reasons for what He does; we just have to humbly accept it as truth and to let God be God.
Me: But if the non-elect could never choose to believe in Him anyway, then why does He command them to believe in Him and to obey Him, when He made it impossible for them to do it? Isn't that just fake commands then, and a fake offer of salvation?
Calvinist: It is real commands, but God commands things He knows we can never do. He commands us to be holy knowing we can never be perfectly holy, right!?! And it's a real offer of salvation, it's just that the non-elect can't accept it. Because they don't want to. Because they don't have faith. But God commands them to believe and obey so that they would be guilty of sin when they broke His commands, and then He could demonstrate His justice and wrath - and get glory for it - by punishing them for their sins.
Me: What!?! How can you really call that "justice" if God is punishing them for doing what He predestined them to do, what He caused them to do? And yes, God commands people to be holy, but He doesn't actively prevent us from being holy. He doesn't command holiness but then cause us to do the opposite. And so this is different from Calvinism, which teaches that God commands the non-elect to repent and believe in Him but then He actively prevents them from believing, causing them to reject Him. (And besides, "holy" doesn't mean being perfect; it means "otherness, being set apart," and this is something we can do as Christians.)
Calvinist: You're deliberately trying to twist my words and misrepresent my beliefs. He doesn't cause them to sin; He just allows them to carry out the sinful desires that are already in their hearts, that come with their sin-nature. Besides, God gets to decide what real justice is, not us. And who are you, O man, to talk back to Him anyway? He is the Potter and we are the clay, and so He has the right to do whatever He wants with us for His glory. Humble Christians don't question Him.
Me: But doesn't the Bible say that God wants all men to be saved, that He doesn't want anyone to perish? If Calvinism is true, then God actually wants most men to perish, which contradicts the Bible.
Calvinist: God does want all men to be saved. He doesn't like it that anyone goes to hell. But He also wants to show off His justice against sin, to be worshipped for it. Humans are not God's top priority. Our salvation is not His main focus. His glory is. And so He does what's best for His glory. That's why He created us, to glorify Him, and if that means predestining the non-elect to hell, then that's what has to happen. You see, God has two wills: a revealed one that wants all men to be saved and a deeper one that wants glory for His justice. And so even if it makes Him sad - on one level - that people are in hell, He still predestined it anyway because of His deeper will, because it's best for His glory.
Me: But if God predestines most people to hell, isn't He just lying then when He says He wants all people to be saved, that He wills that no one perishes, and when He talks like salvation is available to all, that Jesus died for all, and that anyone can be saved if they would just believe? How can we trust a God that says one thing but means another? And if God doesn't regenerate someone, doesn't that mean it was His choice that they have the "sin nature" that forces them to want to sin and choose to sin, which would make God the real cause of...
Calvinist: I'm done talking to you now. If you're just gonna keep choosing to twist my words and create strawman arguments and cut verses out of your Bible, then I can't talk to you. Come back when you're ready to really listen and learn.
Me: But if God predestined me - for His glory - to twist your words and create strawman arguments and to oppose Calvinism, then how can I choose to ...
Calvinist: Good-bye, you Pelagian!
I'm not kidding, this is what conversations with them are like, except they also throw in a lot of names/quotes from Calvinist authors and the Westminster Confession, and they use lots of Bible verses, taken out of context of course, thinking it triumphantly proves their case.
[*If you're interested, see "Is Faith a Gift God Gives (forces on) Us?"]
And so when it comes to trying to find out what Calvinists really believe, remember this simple rule: Dig! And keep digging, way past what they first tell you. Eventually they will contradict themselves, revealing a hidden layer of beliefs that is far different from what they first told you. You cannot take what they say at face-value, because they do not take the Bible at face-value, even though they want you, at first, to think they do.
You MUST question every term and every verse a Calvinist uses.
You MUST compare everything they say to what the Bible plainly says. (Which do you really think is the more accurate one: What God plainly says … or what the Calvinist tells you God meant to say? Does God mean what He says or not? Does God say what He means or not?)
And you MUST take Calvinist teachings to their logical and natural conclusions to see how wrong they are, how damaging it is to God's Word and God's character.
[The posts in this series will be added to the "Alana L." label as they get published.]
