Alana L. 5S (Calvinism's "free will"/"Dismantle")

This series is loosely based on this 14-minute video from Alana L.: 5 Signs Your Loved One is Becoming a Calvinist 

Point #5 still: 

S: "Sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign."  

Since we're on the topic of God's sovereignty over mankind's actions - how God's "sovereignty" relates to ("predetermines/controls") man's "free will" - here's seven more quotes (and a conversation in the comment section of Soteriology 101's blog) about Calvinism's view/definition of "free will," to show that their idea of "free will" is not free at all.

1. John MacArthur ("Doctrine of Election, part 1"): "You’re guilty.  You’re culpable.  You did it.  You did it with your own will.  But God had predetermined it would be done."  

2. Mayhue ("Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation"): "... And the other thing that people stumble over: If God is sovereign, and He is, if He predestined, and He did, if He elected, and He did, and if man is responsible, and they are, then how do you reconcile that?  [Calvinists can't reconcile this because they have an incorrect, unbiblical understanding of sovereign, predestination, election, man's responsibility, etc.]... the Bible doesn't tell us this. [Gee, I wonder why?  Could it be because it's not a biblical teaching!?!]

... No matter where you go, God is sovereign, God's determinative; man is responsible, and man participates with his will.  But he doesn't have free will to determine, and he doesn't have free will to override. ["He only has the free-will to choose what Calvi-god predetermined."]"  

["He doesn't have free will to override?"  Oh, really?  Then what about 1 Kings 20:42: "He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.'''  We humans have the ability to ignore, resist, disobey God's Will, the things He wants us to do.  Of course, God can still find other ways to get His plans done, such as by getting someone else to do it or by incorporating our disobedience, instead of our obedience as He preferred.  But we have the ability to disobey His Will.  This doesn't mean that our disobedience is His Will - as Calvinism would say - just that we have the free-will to determine for ourselves if we will obey His Will or resist His Will.  And God will let us have the consequences that go with our decision.  And it will be fair and just because it truly was our decision, not His.]

3. From Clearly Reformed's "Theological Primer: Freedom of the Will": "Arminian critics sometimes accuse Calvinists of believing that when people are raped, maimed, murdered, and tortured that it is ultimately God who performs these heinous acts.  What this criticism misses, however, is the distinction between remote and primary causes.  No thoughtful Calvinists would say God abuses innocent people.  God is never the doer of evil.  Reformed theologians have always made clear there is a difference between the role of God in ordaining what comes to pass and the role of human agency in actually and voluntarily performing the ordained action.* 

... It is sometimes suggested that the human will in Reformed theology is only an illusion.  The picture painted is of a God who forces people do what he wants, whether they will to do so or not.  This is not the view of the Reformed confessions or the Bible.  [Right😕, because in Calvinism, we will "will to do" evil because Calvi-god causes our wills to want to do evil.  So of course, no Calvi-person does evil against their will. They do evil because Calvi-god created their wills with the desire to do evil.  See how slippery Calvinists are with their wording, saying things like "people choose to do what they want to do," which sounds "free-will" and like we got to choose among options, but they really just mean that Calvi-god causes us to want to do what he predestined us to choose.  And it's the only thing we had the ability to choose because it's the only thing we could "want" to do, by Calvi-god's design.]

... Reformed theology denies that our choices can be other than God has decreed and that our will is free to choose what is good, but it does not deny human choice and human willing altogether... In short, there is a divine will prior to all human willing, and the will of the unregenerate man is enslaved by sin [so he can only sin and only want to sin, by Calvi-god's decree, but Calvi-god will punish him for it].  At the same time, our wicked choices are really our choices [preplanned/orchestrated by Calvi-god, but we carried them out], and they do have real world consequences."

[*So Calvi-god isn't the "doer" of evil, just the planner/orchestrator of evil, but it's okay because at least he didn't do the evil himself, right?  He got others to do for him what he planned, and they "voluntarily" did it because he made sure they had the desires to do it, and so they are guilty, not him, right?😕  Hmm, so applying that Calvinist logic to humans, evil leaders (such as Nazi leaders, for example) who plan and orchestrate evil actions and command others to carry it out aren't actually guilty of evil or responsible for the evil that happens, but only those who carried out the orders and actually did the evil actions are guilty and responsible for the evil.  Right, Calvinists?😕]

4. Vincent Cheung (The Problem of Evil): "… man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability (So we have no ability to choose on our own, but we're still held responsible for whatever we do.😕); that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God.  It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he has the ability to do otherwise.  [The Calvinist definition of sin: "Being caused by God to disobey God, but God will still hold you responsible for it."😕]  Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will; rather, moral responsibility is grounded on God's sovereignty – man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant..."

5. Commenter nvisel (reddit post on predestination) agrees that the non-elect have only the desire/ability to reject Jesus... and yet he calls the punishment "deserved" even though that's all the non-elect could choose, and they only chose it because it's the desire Calvi-god created them with and predestined them for.  "Mankind's natural course is against faith and repentance and towards a life separated forever from God.  In other words, God need not intervene, we're perfectly capable of staying unrepentant ourselves... he doesn't cause fresh evil in the hearts of anyone... It is not evil of God to allow us, by our free will, to continue on our way to a deserved punishment reserved for us in hell."

Translation: "Unregenerated man is preprogrammed to want to reject God and is only able to want to reject God.  And so since that's what he'll naturally choose, God doesn't have to 'force' him to reject Him.  God just lets him continue on the natural path he's already on (the path God predestined for him, the only path he can walk, the path he has no ability to leave).  And the unregenerated sinners deserve their punishment for rejecting God because that's what they 'wanted' to do, even though that's all they could do."

And Calvinists call this "free will" and "deserved punishment"!?!

[Could you imagine if the American courts were full of Calvinists as judges, full of judges who believe that it's "justice" to punish people for doing what they were created, preprogrammed, and irresistibly forced to do, for what they had no real choice about or control over, no other options?  Could you imagine if judges held the hypnotized-robots fully responsible and guilty for the crime they did, while deeming the hypnotist-programmers totally blameless, good, and righteous?  Oh, the mess that would be!  

It's ironic (and disturbing) that we wouldn't tolerate that in our courts, but Calvinists think it's okay, good, glorious, and righteous for God to be that way.😕😖]

6. My ex-pastor, August 2015, simply denies that free-will exists: "[Some people] say that evil and suffering are the result of [free-will choices]... [But] we have to conclude that God is in full control of every detail of the universe [he means "controls," not just "in control of"], including the suffering, evil, and tragedy in our lives.  God is in full control of everything that happens to us... [We] rush to get God off the hook for human suffering [by saying things like] 'Well, this is not what He really intended; this is not really Plan A.'...  And every time we do that, God puts Himself back on the hook and says, 'I am in charge, thank you, and I will run the universe as I see fit, and I don't owe you an explanation.'... Are you trusting God in the midst of your past, present, and future in whatever He has ordained and appointed for you [Calvi-god's "Plan A" for you] as far as suffering, tragedy, abuse or trials or difficulties or illness or disease or betrayal?... Or are you murmuring against Him ["murmuring by his decree"]?... Do you perhaps need to repent of your murmuring and the chip on your shoulder against God ["the murmuring and chip he decreed"] ... Some of our hearts this morning are breaking.  Find refuge and hope in a good and holy God who says 'I have all things under My control.  Everything that's going on in your life, or has gone on in your life, or will, I know about and have ordained for you ["my Plan A for you; I never had anything else in mind for you than your tragedies, abuse, betrayals, etc."].  And you can find comfort and hope and trust Me.'"

7. And here's R.C. Sproul in "What is free will?" (I'm going to examine this one in-depth): "In Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards defines biblical freedom.  Man is free, he says, to choose according to his disposition.  Human beings always choose according to their strongest desire, and so we make free choices.  We do what we want to do.  Apart from Christ we are dead in sin... and wholly disposed to hate God. We only want darkness, and so we freely choose to reject Him.  We freely choose to love and to serve Jesus only if the Spirit changes our hearts (John 3:1-8).  Otherwise we remain lost." 

First off, he calls it the definition of "biblical freedom," but he doesn't even get his definition from the Bible... but from Jonathan Edwards, 1700 years after the Bible was written.😕  

Secondly, see how he says "according to his disposition" and "according to their strongest desire."  Calvinists always qualify choice and free-will with "according to our nature/desires/disposition/will."  And what it means is not that we are "free" to choose among options or to decide what we desire or to change our minds, but that we are "free" to follow the desires Calvi-god implanted in us.  And "free" to follow only those desires.  

You see, Calvi-god determines what our desire is in any given situation (he creates our natures with those desires, and only those desires), and then we act according to our Calvi-god-determined desires, doing exactly what he predestined us to do... and that's the only thing we had the ability to "choose" because it's the only desire Calvi-god gave us (and because we 'wanted' to do it, he holds us responsible for it).  

So it's very deceptive when Calvinists say things like "We do what we want to do" - because they don't mean "we decide our own course of action" (as everyone but them would interpret it), but they mean "Calvi-god predetermines what we desire to do and then we 'freely' do it because we 'wanted' to do it."  (Calvinists must be so proud of themselves, giggling all day long about how many people they trick into Calvinism with their word-games and deceptive language.)  

So even though Calvinists use the word "free," they clearly teach that the non-Calv-elect are only "free" to reject Jesus because that's the only desire Calvi-god lets them have... and the Calv-elect are "free" to believe in Jesus after he regenerates their natures and gives them to desire to believe in Jesus.  

Only Calvinists would call it "freedom" to be only able to do what you were predestined/caused to do.

Thirdly, Calvinists misunderstand what "dead in sin" means.  They think it means that humans are completely unable to do anything at all, just like a dead body can't do anything but lay there all dead and helpless, that we cannot even think on our own, decide anything on our own, or seek/want/believe in God unless God makes us do it.  (But apparently, "dead people" still have the ability to sin, to reject God, and to "wholly hate" God.😕  Everything but want Him, seek Him, or believe in Him.)  

But biblically, "dead in sin" is not about being unable to think/decide/believe, but it simply means that our sins have separated us from God and that we are unable to close that gap ourselves, to pay the price for our sins ourselves or work our way to heaven... and so God did it for us by sending Jesus to die for our sins.  And God offers eternal life to all people as a free gift - because Jesus died for all - and anyone can accept it.  Everyone is able to believe; it's just that most choose not to.  [If you let Calvinists trick you into thinking "dead in sin" means "unable to believe in God unless God causes you to," you will become a Calvinist!]

Fourthly, about "We freely choose to love and to serve Jesus only if the Spirit changes our hearts":  "Regeneration before belief" is a purely-Calvinist invention, and it's what sets Calvinism/Reformed theology apart from other Christian denominations.

As R.C. Sproul says (MacArthur and Sproul: Special Questions & Answers, start at 22:45) in reply to the question "Is faith a gift or a response?  If it is a gift, why are we responsible for exercising it?":

"Yes.  It is a response that we have to make, a necessary condition for our justification.  And yet, we are told in the New Testament that the response that we make is because it is a gift that has been given to us sovereignly by the Holy Spirit who, when we were dead in sin and trespasses, quickened us together with Christ.  [But, biblically, faith is not the gift of Ephesians 2:8-9.  And even if it was a gift, gifts can be accepted or rejected.]  The defining doctrinal statement about Reformed theology that separates us from all other schools of thought is this: Regeneration precedes faith, that in order to exercise faith, in order to respond according to the way we're called to respond in order to be saved, we have to first be born again of the Holy Spirit.  [Think about it: Saved and born again before belief in Jesus means saved and born again without belief in Jesus, apart from belief in Jesus!  In Calvinism, faith in Jesus's sacrifice is not what saves us, but it's what happens to those who are already saved and born again, making our belief in Jesus a footnote, inconsequential, and taking the responsibility to believe in order to be saved away from us.  And who do you think wants to spread those ideas?😈]

The vast majority of professing evangelicals reverse the order of that, and they believe that if you want to be justified and if you want to be saved you first have to have faith and then you're born again.  [Yeah, because that's what the Bible clearly teaches.]  But spiritually dead people can't exercise faith.  [So Calvinists got their incorrect, unbiblical understanding of "regeneration before faith" from their incorrect, unbiblical understanding of "spiritual death/total depravity/total inability."]  

Jesus tells us that in John 6**.  You know, that we're not able, we are not capable in our fallenness, in our spiritual death, to quicken ourselves.  It's only after the Spirit of God changes the disposition of our souls and our hearts that we hear and respond to Christ.  So, the necessary condition for faith is rebirth, not the other way around."  [**He's referring, most likely, to John 6:44.  But see these Soteriology 101 videos for another take on it: JOHN 6:44 In Its TRUE CONTEXT and John 6:44 MAKES PERFECT SENSE When You Realize THIS | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism.]

John MacArthur adds: "And, of course, the sinner is held responsible for his unbelief and is condemned on the basis of that unbelief, and it's just because that unbelief has produced sin against holy God.  [So it's not "just/justice" as in "they freely made their own decision without being compelled to, and so they can be held accountable for it."  But it's "just/justice" - in Calvinism - because the non-Calvi-elect's rejection of Calvi-god, which was predestined/orchestrated by Calvi-god for his glory, produced sin against holy Calvi-god.😕  Hmm, methinks someone doesn't understand what responsibility means, what true justice is, or how a holy God would and wouldn't act, etc.!]  

You know, this question comes up always no matter how long you've been in Reformed theology [because people can tell there's something wrong with it, that it doesn't make sense or fit what the Bible plainly says], putting those two together [Calvi-god's sovereign control of sin/unbelief, but mankind's responsibility for doing it].  And I'm so very content with the mystery of it, the part that I can't understand with 'the secret things belonging to the Lord,' with knowing that God has a mind that is infinite, I have a mind that is finite, it's hard to harmonize.... It was [Calvinist] John Murray who said in every major doctrine in the Bible there is a divine paradox and trying to unscramble that is unnecessary; to believe those realities is necessary." 

Correction: In every major Calvinist doctrine there is paradox/contradiction, and Calvinists can't unscramble it... and so they decide to ignore it instead, to accept their nasty doctrines anyway and live with the contradictions, making themselves feel godly and better about it by calling it "mystery" and acting like only unhumble Christians try to figure it out, to make sense of it, instead of just blindly accepting it.  "Who are you to talk back to God or to try to peer into the 'mysteries' that belong to Him alone!?!" 

[Part of Calvinism's error - what leads to their idea of "regeneration before belief" - is that they misinterpret John 3:1-8, the idea of being born-again.  They conflate the idea of being born again with belief, believing that if the Holy Spirit makes us born again, then it must mean He also makes us believe in Jesus, as if they are the same thing.  But these are two different things.  And the Bible teaches that when we do our job (believe) then the Holy Spirit will do His job (make us born again).  (But if Calvinists can convince you that they're the same thing and that they're both the Spirit's job, you will become a Calvinist!) 

And they misunderstand John 3:8's reference to the Spirit being like the wind blowing wherever it wants.  They think it means that the Spirit goes to whomever He wants to regenerate them to make them believe.  But that's not what this verse means at all.  Comparing the Spirit to the wind is not saying that the Spirit picks whom to regenerate/cause to believe, but it's saying that being born again is an invisible thing, like the wind is invisible.  The whole passage is contrasting physical birth and spiritual birth, saying that the work of the Spirit happens on the inside, in the heart, and that it isn't a visible physical thing, like a physical birth is.  

Also, keep in mind that this was before Jesus' death, before the Spirit entered each person after they placed their faith in Jesus.  This was at a time when the Spirit worked differently, coming and going as He wanted - not to cause people to believe, but to work through them or in them to accomplish His purposes, such as when He inspired people to prophesy or anointed them for service, like King Saul.  But based on the person's response/behavior, the Spirit could choose to leave them, such as when He left King Saul because of Saul's disobedience.  In no way is this a verse about the Spirit causing someone to believe/be saved or a verse about how the Spirit picks who gets saved.  

After Jesus's death and resurrection, anyone who chooses to believe in Jesus (our choice/responsibility - and anyone can believe) will be born again and regenerated on the inside by the Spirit (His job, in response to our choice).  Faith - our choice to believe in Jesus - leads to being regenerated/born again by the Spirit.] 

And fifthly, if Calvinism is this confusing and contradictory, if Calvi-god is this double-minded and unclear, if it takes so much strategy to teach Calvinism so people don't reject it outright, if it takes so many months of reading Calvinist theology books to get people to understand the gospel... do you really think Calvinism is biblical and that Calvi-god is the God of the Bible?

1 Cor. 14:33 (KJV): "For God is not the author of confusion..."

James 1:8: "A double-minded man [is] unstable in all he does."

Matthew 12:25: "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."

2 Corinthians 4:2-3: "Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God.  On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."  The verses go on to say that if the gospel is veiled, it's because those who are perishing (who reject it) can't understand it.   

But in Calvinism, the Calvi-gospel/Calvi-Word is anything but plain and clear, full of paradox and contradiction.  And Calvi-god is confusing and double-minded, often working against himself (predestining sin but commanding people not to sin; ordaining sin for his glory but then ordaining that people fight against sin for his glory; ordaining that Satan tries to work against him and steal his glory, for his pleasure and glory; etc.)  And Calvinists do not present their true beliefs honestly and upfront, but they veil them, hiding their most disturbing teachings as long as possible so that people aren't scared off too early, so that we buy into it a little bit at a time until we're too deep in to get out.

Does this sound like how Jesus and the disciples operated?  What the gospel really is?  How truth should really be shared?  Does it sound like how God really acts and who He really is?

Or is something seriously wrong with Calvinism's beliefs and tactics?

Biblically, we believe and then we are regenerated/born again... but Calvinists reverse this order and say that we are regenerated/born again before we believe, so that we can believe.  A complete reversal of what the Bible says (go ahead and look it up for yourself in the Bible, see what you find).  But it's effective at tricking people because it's the same words and concepts, just in a reverse order that escapes most people's attention.  Slippery and tricky.  Deceptive.  (See this "Quick Answers to Calvinism: born again" post for more on this.)

------------------------------------------------

Conversation at Soteriology 101

These comments are from Soteriology 101’s post “What You Meant For Evil, God Meant For Good.”   (I wrote more about it in "Calvinist Comments: Twisting and Torturing "Free Will".)

Notice the Calvinist’s (Rhutchin) twisted view of free-will and how deceptively it's worded, trying to make it seem like we really have true free-will - when, in Calvinism, we're only "free" to follow the desires Calvi-god implants into us.  (FYI: I don't think I need to add too many comments here explaining what Calvinists are really teaching underneath the words they use or how they're being deceptive, because it's all been explained above in other places.  And note: I made minor alterations to these comments for better clarity and explanation.)

Rhutchin (Calvinist):  “Free-will is the freedom to do as one desires.  If one desires to obey Satan, he can do so; if one desires to disregard Satan, he can do so.”  [But in another comment, Rhutchin confirms that Calvi-god puts into our natures the desires we must follow: “God does not coerce people to reject the Gospel; it’s built into their nature.”]... Calvinists reject the idea that unregenerate man can choose good without first being regenerated.  Calvinists affirm free-will that is not coercive and that reflects the person’s desires.  Man is free to sin until God intervenes to bring about a different outcome."  ["Free to sin”... just not free to do anything else but sin.  Ha, nonsense!]

One of my replies to Rhutchin, further down in the comments: "... And don’t bring up the fake 'free-will' again, saying that Calvinism says people still 'freely' make their own choices according to their natures – when we all know you mean that God alone determines what nature a person gets, whether they get the new 'saved/regenerated' nature or whether they have to keep the old 'sinner/unrepentant' nature where all they can do is sin.  That is not free-will or freedom!  It’s not mankind being able to make choices.  It is still God causing you to be what you are and to do what you do.

If I threw you out of a plane with no parachute and said you were 'free' to do whatever you wanted as you fell to the ground, who would be responsible for you crashing into the ground?  Me?

'Oh, no,' I would say, 'you had ‘freedom’ to do whatever you wanted while you were in the air.  It’s not my fault you crashed, because you were ‘free’ to do what you wanted while falling.  So don’t blame me.'

... I don’t have any problem with saying that God works His Will out through the wills of men, that God takes what we choose to do and works it into His plans.  I have a problem with Calvinism saying that God controls the wills of men (so in Calvinism, there really is no such thing as 'man’s will' because it’s ALL Calvi-god’s will).  I have a problem with saying that God decrees everything that happens (meaning that He preplanned and caused it all) because this means God causes us to do the things He commands us not to do (sin, rebel, disobey, etc.) and that He actively prevents us from doing the things He commands us to do (believe, repent, obey, etc.), which is a total contradiction of His character and makes Him unjust and untrustworthy and a liar.

And then it means that Calvinists have to do this crazy Scripture-twisting to try to make it seem like man can justly be held accountable for the things God ultimately causes us to do - a desperate attempt to absolve God of any responsibility for the evil things we do, making it sound like it’s our fault ("we're the proximate cause," Calvinists say) while still trying to say He 'sovereignly' controls all things ("He's just the remote cause," Calvinists say).  

It’s nonsense.  Instead of just rethinking their incorrect definition of God’s 'sovereignty' and their wrong interpretation of a few 'Calvinist-sounding' verses until they fit with the rest of the Bible, Calvinists alter the rest of the Bible to fit their incorrect (and blasphemous!) view of God’s sovereignty and misinterpretation of verses - all the while not caring about the damage it does to God’s character, the Gospel, and Jesus’s sacrifice!  Nonsense and garbage!"

Rhutchin’s reply to me: "That is a great illustration - 'If I threw you out of a plan with no parachute and said you were free to do whatever you wanted as you fell to the ground, who would be responsible for you crashing into the ground?  Me?'  God brings a baby into this world but does not give the baby faith.  That baby grows up and lives the days given to it by God, and if God does not give that person faith, he dies without mercy.  It would be just like God throwing a person out of an airplane with no parachute.  If you don’t accept that position, then you must believe that God gives faith to each person at birth... Is that your position?" 

BR.D. (anti-Calvinist) calls out Rhutchin’s bad logic:  “A False Dilemma Fallacy”: When only two choices are presented (either 'God gives faith to only certain preselected people'” or 'He gives faith to everyone') yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between the two extremes.  False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omission of choices."  

Non-Calvinist Fromoverhere adds: "Remember that great quote from Henry Ford that reminds us so much of Calvinists: 'You can have the Model T in aaaaaaany color you want … as long as it’s black.'"

BR.D. adds: "Good one!  Yes … Hotel Calvin-fornia:  You’re FREE to check out any time or way you like, but you can never leave."

[Like BR.D. said, it's a "false dilemma," a classic false dichotomy where Calvinists present an absurd, obviously-false option along with the Calvinist option: "Either God gives faith to everyone (everyone is saved), or God gives faith to only some (only the elect are/can be saved)."  And by simply rejecting the absurd one, we end up unwittingly siding with the Calvinist option - because those are the only two options they gave us.  This is why Calvinists often accuse us of being Universalists if we say we don't think God chooses who gets saved, or if we say that Jesus died for all people and God gives everyone the chance to be saved.  They reply, "Oh, you must be a Universalist then, believing everyone gets saved."  

But we don't believe that giving everyone the offer of salvation means giving everyone salvation/saving everyone.  Calvinists conflate those two things.  It's their error.  And they are basing their reasoning on their own false dichotomy of "it's either God picks all to save or God picks some."

And this false dichotomy is bad from the beginning because it's built on a false premise, has an incorrect Calvinist-bias built right into it: That God gives people faith, that God chooses.  (See "Is faith a gift God gives (forces on) us?")  

Calvinist logic, examples, questions, illustrations, and dichotomies are often wrong from the very beginning, with built-in Calvinist-leanings.  And so if we answer their questions as asked, we are automatically drawn into their theology, conceding home-court advantage to them.  This is why I say to never answer Calvinist questions as they're stated, but to dismantle them instead, exposing the built-in Calvinist-bias or incorrect Calvinist-interpretations.  Whoever controls the language - whoever sets the definitions - controls the conversation and destination.  (See "Don't answer Calvinist questions.  Dismantle them.")

Maybe someday I'll write a post full of examples of where they go wrong and how to dismantle them, but super-briefly: Any time a Calvinist brings up sovereignty, foreknowledge, election, predestination, total depravity/spiritual death, belief/regeneration/being born-again/the work of the Spirit, Lydia, "names written before the foundation of the world," Potter and the clay, Romans 9/God has mercy on whomever He wants and hardens whomever He wants, etc., you can bet that they are wrong in how they are viewing these things, interpreting them Calvinisticly.  And so instead of letting their definitions stand - which will only pull you onto their side, into their theology - expose their built-in Calvinist-bias and error as early as you can.

Such as...

a. Calvinism's "sovereignty" means that God preplans/orchestrates/controls/causes all things that happen, even sin and evil, and nothing could have ever been different.  But non-Calvinism's "sovereignty" (the biblical view) says that God gives people true free-will but He is still in control over the world, watching over all and deciding how to work our truly free-will decisions into His plans.  And so we decide whether to obey or disobey - we have the ability to do either one - and God decides how to use our decisions in His plans or bring good out of it, whether we chose obedience or disobedience.  He doesn't need to preplan which we choose because He can work with either.  (I'm not saying God doesn't sometimes orchestrate things - like Pharaoh and the plagues - but He never overrides our free-will to do this.  He gives us a choice and knows what we'll choose, and He incorporates it into His plans, sometimes even solidifying people's freely-made decisions to disobey/resist Him, making their self-made decision permanent at some point.  But make no mistake, they chose first.  And they didn't have to choose disobedience/resistance, as Calvinism would say because, in Calvinism, God first plans it, then causes it.)   

b. In Calvinism, foreknowledge automatically includes God preplanning what happens and then making it happen, even sin and evil.  But biblically and dictionary-ily, foreknowledge simply means knowing beforehand.

c. Calvinism's "predestination/election" means that God decides who gets saved and who doesn't from the beginning of time, and then He causes "the elect" to believe in Jesus after the Holy Spirit regenerates them and gives them faith.  But non-Calvinism's "predestination" (the biblical view) says that God has predetermined what happens to whomever chooses to put their faith in Jesus: they will get an inheritance, have the bodies redeemed one day, reach glory, and reflect Christ.  And non-Calvinism's "election" is about God choosing how to use people in His plans, which roles/responsibilities/jobs/blessings to give them.  Neither has anything to do with choosing people for salvation.  [So keep in mind that a Calvinist's use of the words "elect" and "non-elect" are wrong from the very beginning because they're contain the inherent Calvinist error that God chooses who gets saved and who doesn't.  So don't get into discussions with them about "the elect and the non-elect" without exposing this, or else you'll be talking past each other, on separate pages, with different definitions.]   

d. Calvinism's "total depravity/spiritual death" means that we're so "dead" inside that we can't do anything unless God makes us do it, like a dead body that just lays there all dead and helpless, that we can't believe in Jesus until God makes us do it.  (Comparing spiritual death to physical death is a huge error of Calvinism.)  But non-Calvinism's "total depravity/spiritual death" (the biblical view) is not about people being unable to seek God or to believe in Jesus unless God makes them do it - but it's about our sins separating us from God so completely that we can't work our way to Heaven, can't close that gap ourselves, and so God needed to do it for us by sending Jesus to die for our sins, to offer us the gift of eternal life - a gift anyone can accept.  

e. Calvinism's "belief/regeneration/being born-again/the work of the Spirit" says that the Spirit chooses whom to regenerate, whom to make born again... and He gives the chosen people faith, causing them to repent and believe in Jesus.  But non-Calvinism's view (the biblical view) is that God lets us decide whether or not we will believe in Him - and anyone can - and then if and when we do believe in Jesus, the Spirit regenerates us/makes us born again.  In Calvinism, being born again/regenerated leads to - results in - repentance and belief in Jesus.  But in non-Calvinism, repentance and belief in Jesus leads to - results in - being born again/regenerated.

f. In Calvinism, God opened Lydia's heart (Acts 16) to cause her to believe the gospel.  But in non-Calvinism, God opened Lydia's heart - but the Bible doesn't specify about what.  It doesn't say it was about the gospel, as Calvinists assume.  Plus, the Bible says Lydia was already a worshiper of God.  Therefore, the most likely conclusion is that Paul was preaching about the need for a believer to get baptized, and that God opened her heart to this truth - because that's the next thing she and her family does.  (This is similar to what happened a couple chapters over in Acts 19 with believers who were convinced by Paul to be baptized.)  God opens the hearts of believers to help them understand spiritual things.  He does not open the hearts of unbelievers to cause them to believe the gospel.  (See "Lydia (Acts 16:14) totally destroys Calvinism's Total Depravity" for more on this.)  

g. Calvinists believe the names of the "elect" are written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world, supporting their idea of predestination.  But this is based on a bad translation (ESV, in particular) of Rev. 13:8, which we looked at in an earlier post.  Correctly understood, it's not that the names of people were written before the foundation, it's either that Jesus was destined to go to the cross before the foundation of the world or that the Book of Life was written before the foundation of the world or that names began being added to the Book from the foundation of the world, all of which would be supported by other Scriptures, unlike Calvinism's interpretation of it. 

h. Whenever Calvinists refer to the Potter and the clay, they are saying that God created us to be exactly as we are, believers or unbelievers.  But this is not what Scripture teaches when it takes about the Potter and the clay.  Biblically, it's that God chooses how to use us based on our decisions of how to act and be.  [Look for "verses 19-21" in this post for an explanation.]

i. In Calvinism, Romans 9 is about God choosing who gets saved and who doesn't.  But biblically, it's about Israel as a nation, about God punishing them for rejecting Jesus and the gospel (handing them over to their own hard-heartedness) and about Him giving the gospel to the Gentiles instead (and the job of spreading it) because they were willing to receive it.  Romans 9 is basically God's response to the Israelites who cried "Not fair!  God shouldn't punish Jews and give His favor to the Gentiles!"  It has nothing to do with God picking which individuals go to heaven and which don't.  And "hardens" is not about God arbitrarily causing someone to be unable to believe in Him without their choice, but it's about God solidifying someone's self-made decision to reject Him after they resisted His patient lovingkindness again and again.  (See "When Calvinists say 'But Romans 9!" for more.  You MUST correctly understand Romans 9, or you'll easily be talked into Calvinism.) 

 

Those are just some examples to watch out for.  Those errors will be embedded into all Calvinist logic, questions, illustrations, etc.  And if you don't expose it - if you let them set the course and define the terms - you'll either be talking round and round in circles, talking past each other, or you'll be slowly, methodically reeled into Calvinism.  

And one more note: If Calvinists are being vague about their true beliefs on these things - such as their views that sovereignty really means that God preplans/causes all evil, that God determines who goes to hell and never gives the non-elect a chance to believe in Jesus, that Jesus didn't die for all people but only for some prechosen people, etc. - keep digging deeper and asking them more and more questions to make them explain themselves more and more.  The more question you ask, the more you'll expose their true beliefs and the fact that Calvinism's "free will" is not free at all and that Calvi-god alone is truly responsible for all sins and evil.

Example: If Calvinists try to sound too "free-will" or say something like "God commands everyone to repent and believe, and anyone who wants to believe will be saved," then ask them if all people - all individual people, not merely all kinds of people - have the ability to believe in Jesus, if all people are able to want to believe.  The more you dig, the less "free" it gets.]

------------------------------------------------

Final thought on this post: So in Calvinism, we have no moral ability, huh?  No ability to choose for ourselves what moral decisions we will make because Calvi-god decides and causes it all?  But it's still "sin" if we "disobey" what Calvi-god told us to do (even though "disobeying" his spoken commands is really just obeying his secret, unspoken decree/Will), and so he can punish us for it, right? 

Then I wonder what Calvinists would make of verses like these, which clearly imply "moral ability/the ability to choose":

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

Hebrews 3:12-15: "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God…. so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness… Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts...” 

Matthew 23:37: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”

Isaiah 65:2-3: “All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations – people who continually provoke me to my very face …”

John 5:40: “yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” 

Deuteronomy 30:15,19: "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction... Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." 

Psalm 14:2: "The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God."

Acts 17:27: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

Isaiah 55:6:  "Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near."

Joshua 24:15: "So if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve ... But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord!"

If God determines and controls everything we think and do - if it's all preplanned and orchestrated for us by God - then what a joke it all is: the Bible, all commands to seek/repent/believe/obey, our "responses" to Him, God's feelings about what we do, His justice and wrath against sin, His forgiveness and grace and mercy to "the elect," etc.  

Calvinism thinks it upholds God and His Word, but it actually makes a mockery of Him and His Word, dishonors Him, shrinks Him, and destroys His character and trustworthiness.

[The posts in this series will be added to the "Alana L." label as they get published.]