Troublemaker? (#1 The Gospel; #2 Stealth Calvinism)
Should I be making such a fuss over Calvinism, calling it out as strongly as I do?
Every time I wonder if I'm too strong, too harsh, in my criticism of Calvinism - if I should be gentler, more tolerant, more "let's just put our arms around each other's shoulders and sing Kumbaya around a campfire" (which, trust me, I'd love to be, because I'm not someone who enjoys rocking the boat, offending people, or fighting about things) - I just think again about what (and how) Calvinism teaches about God, the gospel, Jesus's sacrifice, and people's eternities... and I go, "Nope, can't do it! No mushy tolerance or ooey-gooey Kumbaya for me. No blurring the lines."
"Oh, but can't we all just get along?," asks the kind-hearted, well-meaning Christian. "It's not really that big of a deal, is it? Aren't we supposed to be unified as a church and not be divisive? And aren't we all basically saying the same thing anyway? (And if we disagree with our Calvinist pastor, aren't we really disagreeing with God and Scripture, as our Calvinist pastor says?) So this is nothing worth fussing about or causing trouble over, right?"
I appreciate your good heart, but, um, I don't know, let's see...
(I've said this stuff before, but I'm condensing it in this series to share some of my biggest concerns with Calvinism. But feel free to skip the quotes if you've already read them.)...
My ex-pastor (September 2023): "'God saves us. We do not and cannot save ourselves. That is the gospel.'... Only God elects. Only God sovereignly draws. Only God sovereignly convicts us of sin. Only God sovereignly opens blinded eyes."
The Calvi-gospel: "For God so loved the elect that He sent Jesus to die for the elect, so that He could cause the elect to believe and be saved. And only the elect!"
Good news for a very few.
The Westminster Confession of Faith: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death... All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased...to call...out of that state of sin and death...to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ."
My ex-pastor (December 8, 2024): "That is why Christ first lived for the believer, and then died for the believer, and was resurrected for the believer!"
People in the church who aren't aware of my ex-pastor's brand of theology - Calvinism - might miss the fact that he means "only the believer," which in Calvinism means "only the elect" because the non-elect can never believe, by Calvi-god's decree. But he said it exactly as he meant it: that Jesus is only for a few people, the elect believers!
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)….”
But according to the Bible, the gospel is not Calvinism or its "doctrine of election." [Note: Election is a biblical concept, just not as Calvinists define it, as we'll see in a future point.]
In the Bible, the gospel is "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
God loves all people, Jesus died for all people, and God offers salvation to all people (for us to accept or reject), and anyone can choose to put their faith in Jesus and be saved:
Romans 5:8: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
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."
This is the gospel according to the Bible: God loves all people and wants all people saved and Jesus died for all people's sins, and so anyone can call on Him and be saved. Everyone has the God-given ability to believe. This is good news for all people.
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.'"
John 1:29: “… 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the whole world.'”
And if the gospel and Jesus's sacrifice are not worth troubling over - not worth protecting and standing up for - then what is?
2. Stealth Calvinism:
I see nothing of Calvinism or their "doctrine of election" in the verses above. In fact, I don't see it spelled-out clearly and plainly in any verse in the Bible (although Calvinists will insist it is). And even more than that, I see something completely different than Calvinism: that "the whole world" means everyone in the world, all individual people, not just all kinds of people or a few people from each nation.
[If Calvinists can find even one verse that clearly, plainly says that God predestined some people to heaven and causes them to believe in Jesus, but that He prevents the rest from believing because He decreed them to reject Him because He doesn't love them and He wants them in hell for His glory... then I'll start to give Calvinism a little more credit. And "God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden" doesn't count - because it's not about individual salvation at all. See "When Calvinists say 'But Romans 9!'"]
But Calvinists have been taught to read Calvinism into the Bible by redefining words and piecing together carefully-chosen verses which were taken out of context and reinterpreted Calvinisticly... and then they teach us to read Calvinism into the Bible too, preconditioning us to interpret verses their way but convincing us "it's what Scripture really teaches," getting many good, humble, well-meaning Christians to affirm terrible things they otherwise would've never agreed with.
Examples:
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… this view certainly makes God the cause of sin.”
James White was asked this question [listen here]: “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” And White replied "... Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless... [But if He decreed it], it has meaning, it has purpose, all suffering has purpose, everything in the world has purpose, so there's no basis for despair." [So let me get this straight: "Meaningful" God-caused rape/suffering/evil is so much better than "meaningless" man-caused rape/suffering/evil!?!😟 Because then it's got purpose, making it okay!?! And then there's no basis for despair!?! (You mean other than the fact that a god like that - Calvi-god - is evil, and evil gods can't be trusted!) Note: I said in another post that I'd stop calling James White "weasely," and so please note that I did not call him "the weasely James White" this time.😁]
John Calvin (Institutes, book 3, chapter 23): "... individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction."
John MacArthur (from The Distinctive Qualities of the True Christian, Part 1): "Nowhere, or at no point, is a man's depravity more manifest than in the procreative act... How do we know man is a sinner at the base of his character? How do we know man is a sinner at the root of his existence? The answer: by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked because man is wicked. So I say to you that nowhere then in the anatomy of man or in the activity of man is depravity more manifest than in the procreative act... because it is at precisely that point which he demonstrates the depth of his sinfulness because he produces a sinner." [Then why in the world would Calvinists have children, compounding their depravity and contributing to more world depravity!?!]
R.C. Sproul (from Idol Killer's video Evil and Depraved - the Reformed View of Children): "Calvin was once talking about babies and said that babies are as depraved as rats. And I said that's the one time I really really oppose the teaching of John Calvin...because that's terribly insulting to the rat."
(You might also like Idol Killer's "God's Fault - Who is Responsible for Evil?")
What most of us average Christians don't realize is that we can't take Calvinism at face-value. Calvinism has a biblical surface-layer that sounds right to us, that matches the clear, simple, commonsense understanding of Scripture that most of us hold to and agree on... but underneath the biblical surface-layer is a hidden, deeper, purely-Calvinist layer (which Calvinists often hide as long as possible) that actually contradicts/negates/alters the biblical surface-layer.
[For a look into what Calvinists say vs. what they really mean, see "Calvinism 101: 'Free-will Choice' is not really 'free-will' or 'choice'". And for links to some Soteriology 101 videos on Calvinism's errors, see "Calvinism for beginners."]
[Challenge: Try to find the word "sovereign" defined in the Bible the way Calvinists define it, particularly in the KJV. And "total depravity/spiritual death," "reprobation," and "predestination/election" ... the way Calvinists define it in their hidden, deeper layer... which would essentially be "sovereign: God preplans, causes, controls everything, even sin and evil, and nothing different could have happened"... "total depravity/spiritual death: People are so terrible that they cannot seek God or believe in God unless God causes them to"... "reprobation: God creates specific people specifically for hell so that He can get glory when He shows off His justice and wrath against sin"... "predestination/election: God pre-picks who goes to heaven and causes them to believe in Him." Happy hunting!
If Calvinists are going to affirm and spread such terrible-sounding things that denigrate God's character and disparage Jesus's sacrifice, then they'd better have very clear verses to back them up - instead of just a patchwork of twisted, out-of-context, reinterpreted verses which, when their theology backs them into a corner, is always rationalized with "Who are you, O man, to question God? You can't understand it, so you just have to accept it."]
I have no idea who this pastor is or what else he teaches, but this video was good and on-track: Trojan Horses in the Church Today, part 1: Calvinism, particularly this part about the fundamental error of Calvinism: "Calvinism is a man-made philosophy that is contradictory to Scripture. It is built on the classic error - now listen carefully to this - of interpreting clear passages of Scripture by unclear passages of Scripture. That is a violation of the ABC's of Bible interpretation. One of the most basic rules of [Bible] interpretation is you interpret unclear passages by clear ones. Not the other way around. But Calvinism is built on the idea of interpreting clear, simple passages by unclear ones. Therefore, if you start with the unclear and you start with a false idea, then you start looking at the clear verses and you start saying, 'Well, it doesn't really mean that.'"
Totally! Calvinism has filtered clear, simple, commonsense verses through unclear, out-of-context, misapplied verses which have been carefully chosen and interpreted to fit their idea of what a sovereign God is like, according to their definition of sovereign.
But the deeper, contradictory Calvinist-layer often escapes our notice because we hear the surface-layer first - and it charms us into trusting them that they're "just preaching Scripture, right from the Bible." And so we hand our sense-making over to them, eat up what they spoon-feed us, and ignore any alarm bells or red flags we sense (until it's too late).
In Doctrine of Election, Calvinist A.W. Pink says "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the [Calvinist "doctrine of election"] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead 'here a little, there a little... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."
Hahaha, do you know what this means?
Calvinists know that Calvinism is not clearly, obviously, or thoroughly taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be carefully and systematically scraped together in bits and pieces. And so Calvinists discourage the average Christian from reading the Bible on our own because they know that we wouldn't really be able to find Calvinism in the Bible without their help, without highly-educated Calvinist experts ("Spirit-taught servants of God"😕) leading us through the Bible, interpreting and piecing together verses in a Calvinist way.
And Calvinist pastors will often do this on the sly. Stealthily, strategically. They do this either by assuring us that they're not trying to push Calvinism on us (claiming that Calvinism is just a "minor" disagreement or a "secondary" issue not worth forcing or debating) or by not even revealing their particular brand of theology as Calvinism/Reformed (maybe even saying that they're "not a Calvinist" when they definitely are, such as seen in this post: "'Saint' PJ's deceptions and manipulations").
This way, we don't catch on too early to what's really being taught. And - bonus! - if we don't know their theology's name (or that it even has a name), then we are unable to look it up for ourselves in order to see what others say about it or to research against it.
And furthermore, Calvinists convince themselves that they don't even have to identify it by name because, to them, it is simply "biblical Christianity, the gospel, what Scripture teaches." So no need to call it by any other name.
Thomas Schreiner (in this YouTube clip) says that Calvinists should call themselves "biblical" instead of Calvinist and that he "never uses the term Calvinist from the pulpit," despite the fact that Calvinism is what he preaches.
Dr. Burk Parsons ("Is Calvinism Biblical?"): "And so, while many people use that terminology ['Calvinism'], I've always hesitated to use it because...when we speak of Calvinism or when we speak of Reformed theology... we are speaking of course of biblical doctrines."
John Piper ("Saying what you believe is clearer than saying Calvinist"): "We are Christians... In other words, we are Calvinists." And he encourages pastors to drop ("hide" is more accurate) the label "Calvinist": "But that label is not nearly as useful as telling people what you actually believe! So forget the label..." [In his article, he only tells the good parts of what he believes, the stuff that pertains to you only if you're elect, but he fails to share what Calvi-god has predestined for the non-elect and how Calvi-god preplans/orchestrates/causes all sin, evil, and unbelief but then punishes people for it. Not very upfront or "clear," is it! But if he honestly admitted that he's a "Calvinist," we could have easily figured out his hidden beliefs.]
Basically, Calvinists often try to teach Calvinism using only the Bible's language, so that people don't catch on to their Calvinism too quickly, get alarmed, and push back. [See "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult (shorter version)".]
"Oh," you say, "but they're not doing it deliberately, with some hidden agenda?"
Oh, bless your sweet little heart, wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt.😊😒
Here' a Founders Ministry "church reform" plan that advises Calvinist pastors to "Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them."
Here's a sermon series from one Calvinist pastor which teaches other Calvinist pastors how to preach Calvinism's TULIP covertly - and it's literally called "Covert Calvinism", and it describes the sermons this way: "[this is] a prelude sermon to a covert series on Calvinism... This is the 'Total Depravity' sermon without using the stock theological labels. It is the first sermon in the series and it's covert because too many of our [listeners] will shut down their receptors when they hear the words 'Calvinism.'... [This sermon] focuses on God the Father choosing us to be his children. It uses biblical, not theological, language to teach about election."
And here's an article ("4 Reasons Not to be a 'Calvinist'") from a Calvinist pastor who wants to remain anonymous (which is kinda telling in itself) about why Calvinist pastors should not identify themselves as Calvinists, claiming that it's "unhealthy and even unbiblical" to identify yourself as a Calvinist to your church because "There are some who seek to stir up trouble with scare tactics... I have felt the strangest hostility from those who are most vocal about their worries concerning 'Calvinists'... [And] most people don't know what Calvinism actually is... If someone does not know what a label means, then the label itself only obstructs any hope for lucid dialogue."
So because of our ignorance or opposition to Calvinism, Calvinist pastors simply must disguise or hide what they're really teaching. How convenient.😕
The 9Marks article "Calvinist Pastors and Non-Calvinist Churches: Candidating, Pastoring, and Moving On" goes even further by shaming and criticizing Christians for researching Calvinism on the internet for ourselves, claiming that we are anti-Calvinists because we put our trust in ourselves and in online strangers, "internet hotheads". And it goes on to openly admit that "This doesn’t mean the internet has ruined the 'subversive' operations of Calvinist pastors sneaking into non-Calvinist churches."
Subversive operations? Sneaking into non-Calvinist churches?
John Piper admits to teaching his church Calvinism for five years before calling it Calvinism ("TULIP: Introduction"): "Up until that point in the life of our church — I had been there for five years — we had not made any issue at all about 'so called' Calvinism. ["So-called"... as if it's not really what it is!] We hadn’t made any issue at all of this controversial thing. I had just tried to be faithful to Biblical texts because I think that’s what wins the confidence of God’s people. They don’t want to hear a system mainly, they want to hear Bible mainly, which is what they ought to mainly hear. I tried to just win their trust to say, 'I’m a Bible man. I’m not a system man, mainly.' But after five years, it seemed like the time was right to talk about those verses."
So he admits that Calvinism is a "controversial" theology, but he apparently doesn't respect the people enough to let them know both sides so that they can decide for themselves. He apparently doesn't trust them to be able to figure it our for themselves from the Bible.
Instead, he takes it upon himself to decide for them, to tell them what to think. And he blames them for having to keep it hidden: "They don’t want to hear a system mainly, they want to hear Bible mainly, which is what they ought to mainly hear." - which is really just saying "The people don't really wanna know your particular brand of theology anyway, so don't tell them. Hide your Calvinism in biblical language because that's what they want."
John MacArthur also thought it was his duty to be covert about his Calvinism, for the good of the people and the Church of course (see this Faith on Fire video, start at 3:10): "I felt like I had an obligation to bring people who have been given a [non-Calvinist] system that was superimposed on Scripture, to bring them out of that, and I thought that labels too soon would short-circuit that."
PJ Tibayan (in his 9Marks article) says that Calvinist pastors are "burdened by [the] biblical and theological illiteracy" of those who don't believe in Calvinism.
The Calvinist author in this article says that if you agree with the non-Calvinist view of the Bible, you are "unsuspecting and uneducated" and are like those who "rely on the supermarket tabloids as your reliable source of news." (See "My review of a Calvinist review of an Anti-Calvinist book.")
The Calvinist article "Should we talk about Predestination?" accuses those who don't like or agree with the Calvinist definition of predestination of having "weak faith": "...when you talk and preach about predestination, you must always keep in mind those with whom you are speaking.... Are you talking to a congregation of professing believers? If so, some may be strong in faith and able to plumb the depths and scale the heights of such a doctrine, while others may be weak in faith and the very mention of predestination will cause them doubts and worries."
Here's how John MacArthur describes those who disagree with Calvinism and the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty (God's Absolute Sovereignty): "No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is absolutely sovereign. Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything. The carnal mind, burning with enmity against God, abhors the biblical teaching that nothing comes to pass except according to His eternal decrees. Most of all, the flesh hates the notion that salvation is entirely God’s work."
Wow, we who believe in free-will are truly wretched, terrible people, aren't we!?! Worse than rat-babies!
J.I. Packer ("Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility") says that "The root cause [of why some Christians reject the Calvinist "doctrine of sovereignty"] is the same as in most cases of error in the Church⎯ the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic... The desire to over-simplify the Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds, and it is not surprising that even good men should fall victim to it. Hence this persistent and troublesome dispute... What should one do, then, with [the Calvinist contradiction that even though God ordains/decrees sin, He is not responsible for it but man is]?... Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real [a textbook example of gaslighting!]; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other... To our finite minds, of course, the thing 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."
"Does anyone else find it troubling to hear what sounds like a growing chorus of criticism directed toward Calvinistic pastors who run into difficulties when trying to shepherd their congregations toward greater spiritual health? [The "difficulty" comes because Calvinists are hijacking churches and reforming them on the sly, and yet Ascol reframes it as "shepherding their congregations toward greater spiritual health". Now, of course, I don't doubt that's what Calvinists think they're doing... but therein lies the problem!] Mixed in with the criticism is a charge that such men have been dishonest in the way they have gone into their churches because they did not make an issue of Calvinism from the very outset."
Farther down the article, Ascol defends Calvinist Al Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, providing pastors to SBC churches) who was accused of "destroying the seminary, wounding the body of Christ and hijacking one of our prized institutions in an attempt to push his Calvinistic agenda". He says that "Al Mohler has no agenda to promote five-point Calvinism. What he obviously is doing, however, is restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity..." ["Restoring doctrinal and ethical integrity" sounds better than "promoting Calvinism," doesn't it? Less alarming.]
Ascol goes on to say that it's not Calvinism that's causing the problem in the Church, but it's that the Church is full of godless people (meaning "non-/anti-Calvinists") who resent "biblical Christianity" (meaning "Calvinism"): "... in the great majority of cases that I know about where Calvinistic pastors have encountered turmoil in their efforts to preach and teach God’s Word, it was not because of Calvinism. It was because of biblical Christianity. Calvinism tends to be the tail on which the donkey of controversy is pinned, but the real culprit is the erosion of real biblical Christianity that has occurred over the last generation or more in many of our churches... [And so therefore] if a man tries to introduce a biblical ministry into such a situation does it not stand to reason that there might indeed be some controversy along the way? When the Word of God begins to be taught and followed, those who have no appetite for it–and who have been not only allowed but encouraged to live happily in the church without it–will inevitably feel threatened, deceived and even 'lied to' by the preacher. The reason is not Calvinism, but because of the strong reaction of godlessness to biblical Christianity..."
So the real problem is not that Calvinist preachers are stealthily and strategically taking over our churches with bad theology, but it's that we non-Calvinists are godless and hate God's Word.😕
And finally, he goes on to say that pushing Calvinism is really just teaching Christianity, trying to justify why a Calvinist pastor can and should hide their Calvinism (their "theological system"): "Should not that fact, coupled with the wisdom that recognizes that the proper goal of a genuinely Reformed ministry is not to 'Calvinize' a church but to 'Christianize' it more and more, lead a man who candidates for a church to emphasize his commitment to biblical Christianity more than to a theological system? This is not dishonesty. It is wisdom...
I am not at all suggesting that a pastoral candidate refuse to speak plainly with a search committee or church regarding theological commitments. [Umm, yes, you are. We're not stupid.] But the reality is that most churches–including their search committees–are not very equipped to have that kind of conversation. [So, once again, the problem is us, not them. Because of us, they simply must hide what they're doing!] Should the details of Calvinism... be spelled out anyway, even though there is no understanding of the language, categories or constructs? [So he starts with (paraphrased) "I'm not saying don't be upfront about your theological views with search committees"... but then he immediately goes into reasons why Calvinists shouldn't be upfront about their Calvinism with search committees.😕 And here's a question: If we have "no understanding of the language, categories or constructs" of Calvinism, then wouldn't it most likely be because it's not clearly taught in the Bible!?!]
Or would it be wiser to stick with biblical categories, language and constructs? [Translation: "Cloak your Calvinism in biblical language."]
When a man does the latter [cloaks his Calvinism in biblical language] for the purpose of communicating as clearly as he can [just not clearly enough to actually admit he's a Calvinist teaching Calvinism!] I find it disheartening to hear Southern Baptist leaders criticize him as being dishonest." [He's got a funny view of what's honest and what's dishonest, if you ask me. And apparently, acting with "integrity" doesn't mean being upfront with your Calvinism; it just means continuing to push your Calvinism but in hidden ways.]
As I said, this alarms me... and it should alarm the whole Church as well because this is what's being taught to Calvinist pastors nowadays about how to lead a church. No wonder there's an epidemic of stealth Calvinism taking over churches!
Clearly, to Calvinists, if we disagree with them, we disagree with God, with the truth, with biblical Christianity. (And how long do you think non-Calvinists can survive in a church under a Calvinist pastor? How long can a non-Calvinist church remain non-Calvinist after a Calvinist pastor takes over?)
Charles Spurgeon (in a sermon): "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
Al Mohler (from The Wartburg Watch's "Church Takeover Success Using Strategies from the Calvinista Playbook"): "If you're a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you're committed to the Gospel... your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism... [pastors] are gonna have to [side with Calvinism] if they're gonna preach and teach the truth."
PJ Tibayan ("Preach the Bible, not Calvinism") "... preach the Bible, not Calvinism. Of course, if Calvinism is true, then as you preach the Bible you will preach Calvinism."
Calvinists cannot not teach Calvinism. Because in the Calvinist's eyes, Calvinism is Christianity. Christianity is Calvinism. So they will always be teaching Calvinism, and they will seriously doubt the salvation of those who don't accept it.
As my ex-pastor said in a July 2018 sermon on the doctrine of sovereign election: "The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... God chooses to give some sinners saving faith and soften them, and God chooses to not give other sinners saving faith and to harden them... This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election. [No, it doesn't. There is no phrase "doctrine of election" in the Bible. But making it sound like the Bible itself specifically calls it "the doctrine of election" tricks people into thinking it's pulled right out of the Bible... when it's really not.]... The first question when it comes to Bible study is not 'Do I like this?'... The first question is "WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?" If this is not your first question, your first burden, there is concern if you really know Christ as Lord and if you honor Him. If all you accept is the stuff you like and what is convenient for you and emotionally comfortable for you, then there is a real question whether you know Christ, if His Spirit lives in you."
Can you hear what he's saying? That if you reject his view of predestination, then you're not only letting your emotions get in the way, putting your own ideas above God's truth, and dishonoring God... but you're probably not even a Christian anyway.
A.W. Pink (in Doctrine of Election, which Calvinist pastors love and highly respect) would agree: "those who continue to cavil against [Calvinism] and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians."
He calls those who disagree with Calvinism "merit-mongers [who] will not allow the supremacy of the divine will" and he goes on to say that "when the mind perceives what the Scriptures reveal thereon [about the doctrine of election], the heart is loath to receive such an humbling and flesh-withering truth. How earnestly we need to pray for God to subdue our enmity against Him and our prejudice against His truth... The doctrine of election is so grand and glorious that to bear any opposition at all it must be perverted. Those who hate it can neither look upon nor speak of it as it really deserves... False inferences are drawn, grotesque parodies exhibited, and unscrupulous tactics are employed to create prejudice. By such devilish efforts do the enemies of God seek to distort and destroy this blessed doctrine... [and] when those who profess to be His friends and followers join in denouncing this truth, it only serves to demonstrate the cunning of that old serpent the devil, who is never more pleased than when he can persuade nominal Christians to do his vile work for him. Then let not the reader be moved by such opposition. The vast majority of these opposers have little or no real understanding of that which they set themselves against. They are largely ignorant of what the Scriptures teach thereon, and are too indolent to make any serious study of the subject. Whatever attention they do pay to it is mostly neutralized by the veil of prejudice which obstructs their vision... They take a one-sided view of this truth: they view it through distorted lenses: they contemplate it from the wrong angle."
Lawson answers: "They don't know the Bible. [The audience laughs and claps.] It's not that they know too much of the Bible... It's because they know too little of the Bible that they have come to this conclusion, and it's really their lack of knowledge of the full counsel of God as taught in the Scripture. It allows them to continue to rebel against the truth that is presented in the Doctrines of Grace. There are no truths that glorify God more than what we succinctly stated in the Doctrines of Grace. It's not a secondary issue. It's not a minor point in the Bible. It's literally in the heart of God... Why do so many resist [Calvinism]? It's a lack of knowledge of Scripture, and it's also pride and arrogance. And these truths are the great pride-crushers that leave us all on our knees before the throne of grace and saying 'Why me, Lord!?!" [Lots of clapping from the audience. And, hmm, I wonder: If the Calvinist elect are gonna cry "Why me, Lord? Why was I saved?", then how much more will the Calvinist non-elect cry "Why me, Lord? Why was I chosen to be damned, predestined to reject the gospel but then punished for it!?! Why was I chosen to be one of those whom Jesus didn't die for!?!"]
Sproul adds: "I agree with everything Steve just said. It is a lack of understanding of the Bible... [and] there are two fundamental things that people find it very hard to leave Semi-Pelagianism and read and embrace Augustinianism. The first is that they sense in the Doctrine of Grace that that theology of Calvinism teaches a corrupt view of God [and rightly so!], a God who is not good, a God who may be sovereign but He's not fair - because the idea people have is that He arbitrarily chooses to save some but not others. And that puts a shadow on the integrity of God, and people really struggle with that. [Once again, rightly so!] And it takes a board over the head, and the Bible, to get you to see that your view of God is not high enough. You haven't really really understood how righteous He is, how holy He is..."
Hmm, I wonder: If Calvinist pastors precondition people to doubt the salvation, humility, and spiritual maturity of anyone who disagrees with Calvinism, then how many people will be willing to speak up against them or to heed the red flags that pop up in their spirits?
Or would most people rather just shut up and fall in line, making it appear that most people agree with the pastor, even if they don't?
If Calvinist pastors have to be so stealthy, strategic, and manipulative in the way the preach/spread Calvinism because they don't trust us to be able to find Calvinism in the Bible without their help, then is Calvinism really in the Bible as clearly as they claim it is?
And if Calvinist pastors truly believe that Calvinism is the gospel, that it's Christianity itself, then would or could any Calvinist pastor ever be able to "not push Calvinism" or let it be a "secondary, minor issue"?
"In reality, Calvinism is nothing more than biblical Christianity... These [Calvinist] doctrines are foundational to a God-centered theology. They are the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity... What doctrines are we talking about? The doctrines that are worth dying for are foundational, biblical doctrines, not secondary ones." (See the introduction to the Founders Ministries "how to reform a church" plan.)
Though I believe that most Calvinists in the congregation are well-meaning, humble Christians, I also believe that Calvinism is not biblical. It's not the gospel. I believe it methodically twists and tweaks and redefines Scripture until it teaches a different gospel, about a different God with different values and a different Jesus who accomplished a different thing on the cross, for different goals and reasons. And in the end, it ends up slamming the door of heaven on most people and making God the cause of all unbelief, sin, and evil.
And it spreads through out-of-context Scripture, the redefinition of biblical word/concepts, deception, manipulation/shaming, systematic strategy, and stealthy tactics, under the noses of most people. We watched it happen firsthand. [If you haven't already read the short version I linked to earlier, see "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult (tiny version)".]
If Calvinists are this careful, strategic, determined, aggressive, and stealthy in spreading their Calvinism and taking over churches, then how effective can overly-gentle, vague, wishy-washy opposition to it possibly be? Who's gonna benefit from that?
Calvinists won't oppose Calvinism. Those who don't know what Calvinism is won't oppose Calvinism. Those who know what it is but don't understand what it really teaches won't oppose Calvinism. Those who don't care or don't know why it matters won't oppose Calvinism. And those who put unity and tolerance above all won't oppose Calvinism.
And so who does that leave left?
The few of us who do know and understand and care about what's being taught, how wrong it is, how stealthy it is, and what's at stake.
And if we won't take a strong, clear, mince-no-words, won't-back-down stand against it, then who will?
I don't know, but maybe it's not that I'm too strong or too harsh. Maybe it's that others aren't strong and harsh enough. Maybe that's how our churches got to be in the mess they're in.
Calvinism survives and thrives on Kumbaya.
But if we knew then what we know now, we'd have spoken up strong, loud, and often a long time ago. And if we did, maybe we wouldn't have lost our church of 20 years (the church we raised our kids in, and the only real social circle we had). Maybe we wouldn't be feeling the snowball effect of that loss, the dominoes of pain that keep falling as time goes on, the lingering frustration. And maybe our friends who began opposing Calvinism sometime after we left wouldn't be losing their church now too (and their jobs and ministry positions).
We weren't okay being troublemakers back then, but we are now.
Because now we know what's really going on, what's at stake, and why it matters.
And since we're currently in the middle of a series on Alana L, here's another video of hers that just came out on this topic: Is Calvinism a different gospel? And FYI, I'll now be interspersing this new "Troublemaker" series in between the two already-running series: "Alana L" and "As evil as it gets" series". Just to spice things up a little.😁
And another FYI: I'll be switching now to posting the bigger posts every other week over the summer, instead of every week (with a few small ones in between sometimes, maybe some memes). Get outside and enjoy your summer (or winter, depending on where you live😀)!]
