Calvi-dictionary: Dissolving (stealth) Calvinism's Sugarcoating (#1: Intro 1)
Stealth Calvinist: A Calvinist (usually a pastor) who knows that their theology will instantly alarm and repel most Christians if it was presented to us forthrightly and honestly, and so they sugarcoat, obscure, and deflect from (even sometimes outright lie about) their Calvinist beliefs, trying to sound non-Calvinist so that they can spread their Calvinism covertly, strategically indoctrinating us under our radar.
Stealth Calvinism: The most effective way for Calvinists to take over non-Calvinist churches; a growing trend and persistent problem in evangelical churches, particularly the SBC and EFCA; a cult-like hijacking of churches and Christian theology that most typical Christians are completely unaware of, uneducated about, unprepared for, and unable to resist/oppose because of their ignorance and naive trust in Calvinist pastors/theologians and failure to be a good Berean.
I've been wanting to do this for a very long time (and have worked on it here and there over the years), but I just never got around to actually finishing or posting it. (It's still not done, but I'll post it as I go, as a series. This one is just the first part of the introduction, which will have a few more parts before I get to the Calvi-dictionary.)
This is my "dictionary" of words and concepts related to Calvinism and those used by Calvinists, to help you understand what Calvinism really teaches and what Calvinists really mean by the words, phrases, and verses they use (particularly stealth Calvinists who speak in deceptive and strategic ways to obscure or sugarcoat their true beliefs).
Yes, this is a little tongue-in-cheek (okay, a lot tongue-in-cheek), maybe sarcastic sometimes (yeah, so what!), but I believe it's basically true, that it accurately explains Calvinism and the things it gets wrong and what Calvinists really mean by what they say (and what they hide).
Of course, they'll probably deny it and say "No, we don't say that! You don't understand Calvinism."
But it's not that I don't understand it. It's that they are deceptive with their wording (hiding what they really mean, cloaking it in biblical words), and I'm simply dissolving off the sugarcoating to expose what's underneath: what Calvinism really is, how Calvinists operate and indoctrinate, and what they really believe and teach underneath the sweet-sounding surface that has tricked many good, trusting, well-meaning Christians into accepting a terrible theology that most would never have accepted if they saw Calvinism for what it really is.
And so, actually, Calvinists are correct in a way: They don't often say these things.
They hide them. Obscure them. Teach them in covert ways. But don't often outright say them. Because if they did, too many people would be alarmed or repulsed and would push back against them.
And, yes, they do this on purpose.
I've shared most of these before, but here are a bunch of Calvinist quotes that show why it's necessary to expose Calvinist tactics and to have a dictionary like the one I'm working on. (I'll put these in a numbered list to make it easier, breaking it up into smaller pieces. And I'll share more in the next few posts.)
1. From the Founders Ministries plan "Walking without Slipping", about how to stealthily reform a church: "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."
"Distracting"? Nice spin. Nice excuse. And notice that instead of discussing with us why we are inflamed about Calvinism - instead of hearing our concerns and arguments, instead of answering for the things we have problems with - Calvinists recommend just hiding their Calvinism to prevent us from getting inflamed (and, conveniently, from being able to share our concerns with others or get them inflamed, too).
(The title of the Founders Ministries' book that this plan comes from reveals a lot: "A Quiet Revolution." Quiet. Hidden. Stealthy. Under the radar. Under our noses. They're doing it on purpose.)
2. In the Founders Ministries article called "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey", a stealth Calvinist pastor shares his strategy in reforming his church: "We took it slow at first. I avoided the 'C' word, knowing people wouldn’t understand it. We didn’t start with classes on systematic theology (though they would come later)."
3. 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.
4. Rob Jansons shares a whole sermon series about how to preach Calvinism covertly, literally called "Covert Calvinism" (well, at least he's honest about his covert tactics😕), which he describes 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]...uses biblical, not theological, language to teach about election." And it isn't until the last sermon in the series - after indoctrinating everyone into it, making them think it was merely "biblical" - that he finally reveals what he's been teaching: "This is the summary sermon where I finally reveal that this series covers the same material that is often called the '5 Points of Calvinism.'"
5. John Piper says (in this article): "We are Christians... In other words, we are Calvinists... But that label ["Calvinist"] is not nearly as useful as telling people what you actually believe! So forget the label... If they say, 'Are you a Calvinist?' say, 'You decide. Here is what I believe...'”
Piper is literally instructing Calvinists (particularly pastors) to not answer the question forthrightly but to answer in ways that hide their brand of theology. And when you look at the Calvinist beliefs he says to share with people, he demonstrates how to hide all the bad parts of it, sharing only the pleasant-sounding parts that relate to the Calv-elect (particularly to him, believing himself to be Calv-elect).
He even goes so far as to say this pleasant-sounding deceptive bit, making it sound as if he really believes salvation is truly offered to/available to/possible for all people: "I believe Christ died as a substitute for sinners to provide a bona fide offer of salvation to all people..."
Hmm? So only a few lucky people were predestined to heaven by Calvi-god and died for by Calvi-Jesus... and everyone else is reprobated to hell, wasn't died for by Calvi-Jesus, and is totally unable (by Calvi-god's decree) to want to believe and be saved... but it's still a "bona fide offer of salvation to all people"!?!
So not only is that totally deceptive about what Calvinism really teaches, but you'll also notice that in all those "here's what I believe" statements, Piper says nothing at all about Calvinism's darker or more controversial beliefs about how Calvi-god treats the non-Calv-elect and how he preplans, causes, and is glorified by sin, evil, and unbelief.
(The Calvinism is there, subtly, but if someone doesn't know what Calvinism really is - what its bedrock dreadful doctrines and inevitable conclusions are, and how it takes Scripture out of context and misdefines words - then it's easy to miss it, to not really understand exactly what Piper is saying, to ignore alarm bells if something does sound a little "off," and to think it sounds better than it really is, especially when it's presented the way Piper presents it.)
But those good parts about how Calvi-god treats the Calv-elect aren't the parts that matter most, the parts that show what Calvinism really is or what kind of god Calvi-god really is underneath the sugarcoating.
As Piper taught in other places (six more comments of his):
A. From "Does God Predestine People to Hell?": “My answer is yes. God does determine from eternity who will be saved, who will be lost."
B. From "What do I do if I tried to believe in Jesus but can't?", in response to the question "I've concluded that I don't have saving faith. I've tried to believe in Jesus for two years but I can't. I fear I'm beyond saving. What can I do?": "Well, it may be that the Lord has put you in this situation—that is, withheld from you the kind of faith that you're looking for (saving faith)—in order to make you feel absolutely desperate... we cannot produce faith. If we have genuine faith, it is a gift... I hope you realize you are absolutely, radically, deeply, powerfully dependent on God to give you faith... You are commanded to believe, yes, you are. You are responsible to believe, but you can't believe. You're dead!... The Lord grant you to receive the gift."
C. From Is double predestination biblical?: "But my effort over the years has yielded the fact that I think [the biblical texts] do in fact teach that God plans the destiny of each person, whether judgment or salvation... Now, the primary objection to this biblical teaching of predestination — whether you call it single or double — is that it seems to result in people being punished when they are not morally accountable. So this seems to be unjust... [but] God prioritizes something above his desire for all to be saved — because not all are saved. Something restrains God from saving all... what restrains God from saving all is that he prioritizes the glory of the freedom of his sovereign grace above saving all. Better that some perish than that the freedom and greatness of God’s grace be diminished... Lots of people try to make this out to be a logical contradiction. It’s not. It runs through the whole Bible. Human beings are morally accountable, even though they do not have ultimate self-determination. There is no injustice with God... No one is punished who does not truly deserve to be punished... Though God predestines who will be saved and who will not be saved, no one comes into judgment who does not deserve judgment. [Calvinists say that the non-elect "deserve" to be punished because they "chose" to sin and reject the gospel, because they "wanted" to sin and reject the gospel... even though Calvi-god predestined them to be only able to want to sin and reject the gospel, literally unable to want to do anything else or to "choose" to do anything else. (And don't forget that Calvi-Jesus never died for them anyway - a decision Calvi-god made before they ever sinned - and so there was never ever a chance of salvation for them.) But, yeah sure, let's call that "deserving the punishment."😒] This is not a logical contradiction [uh, sure, if you say so😒], which so many try to make it out to be. It is a mystery. I don’t think the Bible makes plain how both of these truths — God’s sovereignty and man’s accountability — are in perfect compatibility. But the whole Bible testifies to both truths." [Sure, just not the way Calvinists define sovereignty and man's responsibility/accountability, which is where the contradiction comes from!]
D. From "What we believe about the five points of Calvinism", giving a fuller and more accurate picture of his beliefs (I'll quote this one at length to show what he really believes, how wrong it really is, and how skilled he is in obscuring the bad parts of Calvinism, covering the bad parts with "good parts" clothing):
"I do not begin as a Calvinist and defend a system. [Uh, yes, you do. We're not stupid. And the fact that you have to say this shows you know it's true.] I begin as a Bible-believing Christian who wants to put the Bible above all systems of thought. [And yet you fail to realize that you are, from the beginning, viewing the Bible through the Calvinist system of thought.]
... [Unconditional Election means that] God chose, before the foundation of the world, those who would be delivered from bondage to sin and brought to repentance and saving faith in Jesus. [Irresistible grace] means that the resistance that all human beings exert against God every day is wonderfully overcome at the proper time by God’s saving grace for undeserving rebels whom he chooses freely to save. [This "saving grace" is only for those whom Calvi-god "chooses freely to save," but everyone else is passed over, chosen by Calvi-god to be reprobates destined for hell. What's so "wonderful" about that kind of grace, that kind of god!?! But the words "wonderfully... saving... freely" sure do make Calvinism sound pleasant, don't they.😒]
The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all humans and effective for those who trust him. It is not limited in its worth or sufficiency to save all who believe. But the full, saving effectiveness of the atonement that Jesus accomplished is limited to those for whom that saving effect was prepared... Thus Christ died for all people, but not for all in the same way. [Translation: "Calvi-Jesus's death was theoretically enough to cover all people, theoretically offered to all people, but he actually died to save only the Calv-elect who were prechosen to be saved."]
... we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion. Someone may say, 'Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing.' But that is not what the Bible teaches. Except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God... If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God, it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard-hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given [by Calvi-god's choice and doing] such a willing spirit.
... [Your repentance] is an absolutely free gift of God’s grace. Which means he loves you more particularly than you have ever thought [and he loves you far more than all the reprobates - all the people he created to be unbelieving, unrepentant sinners that he could hate and punish/send to hell, for his glory and pleasure!].
... Irresistible grace does not drag the unwilling into the kingdom, it makes the unwilling willing. [Calvinists don't want to sound like they're saying that Calvi-god forces people to believe in him (or reject him), and so they say that Calvi-god regenerates certain sinners to cause them to "want" to repent, to make them "willing" to believe in him... and because they "want" to repent and believe, they "choose" to repent and believe, and so Calvi-god doesn't have to "force" them to do it. This is the ridiculous Calvinist version of free-will - but it's really still just Calvi-god preplanning, causing, orchestrating, controlling (forcing!) all our decisions (just at the "desire" level), causing it all to work out exactly as he predestined. It's just Calvi-god giving the Calv-elect a magic potion that causes them to irresistibly want to believe in Jesus. Sure, Calvinists can technically say that he didn't "force" them to believe in Jesus, that they "chose" to believe because they "wanted" to believe... but Calvinists ignore the fact that the forcing happens one step earlier, that the magic potion he forced them to drink (a potion he preloaded with certain desires that must be obeyed) did the forcing for him, forcing the people to want to believe. So Calvi-god might not have technically forced them to believe, but he did force them to want to believe, which is what led to their "choice" to believe. But it's all still just "forcing" people to do what he predestined them to do. Those he predestined to heaven will believe because he makes them irresistibly willing to believe, but those he predestined to hell are given no ability to believe because he withholds from them the desire/willingness to believe. There's nothing free about Calvi-choices at all! We're still doing exactly what Calvi-god predestined because that the only thing he gives us the ability/desire/willingness to do.]
... 'For whom did [Christ] die?' 'Whose sin did he atone for?' 'For whom did he purchase all the benefits of salvation?'... If you say that he died for every human being in the same way [to pay for everyone's sins so that all could be saved; to make salvation potential and available for everyone], then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ, in some particular way, died [specifically and only] for those who actually do believe.
In the first case, you would believe that the death of Christ did not decisively secure the salvation of anyone; it only made all men savable so that something else would be decisive in saving them, namely their choice. In that case, the death of Christ did not actually remove the sentence of death and did not actually guarantee new life for anyone. Rather it only created possibilities of salvation which could be actualized by people who provide the decisive cause, namely, their faith. In this understanding of the atonement, faith and repentance are not blood-bought gifts of God for particular sinners, but are rather the acts of some sinners that make the blood work for them. [Calvinists think it ruins/minimizes Jesus's sacrificial death if He died for all individual people, to make salvation truly possible for everyone - because if He died for everyone, Calvinists think it would mean His death wasn't effective enough to actually buy real salvation for anyone, that it merely bought the possibility of salvation for everyone. And that's not good enough in Calvinism. Calvi-Jesus's death only has value if he died to give some people a "for sure" salvation, instead of dying to give everyone an offer of salvation that can be accepted or rejected. Furthermore, Calvinists believe that if people had the free-will to decide for themselves to accept it or reject it, it would detract from Calvi-god's omnipotence and sovereignty and would mean that people saved themselves by their choice to believe. But these are faulty beliefs based on Calvinist errors. They misunderstand what sovereignty and omnipotence mean and what it means to accept a free gift that someone else bought for you and offers to you. They wrongly assume that sovereignty and omnipotence mean that God must always use His power all the time to control everything or else He's not a sovereign, omnipotent God. But sovereignty is really about the position of power/authority God is in, not about how He must act in the position or how He must use His power/authority, as Calvinists make it out to be. And accepting a free gift someone else bought for you and offers to you in no way implies that you worked for that gift, that you earned it yourself, or that the person who paid for it and offered it to you doesn't deserve all the credit for the existence of the gift. But Calvinists accuse people who believe in free-will (that we make our own choice to either reject or accept by faith the gift of salvation) of saying that we saved ourselves, earned our way to heaven; accusing us of taking all the credit for our salvation and not giving God any. Nonsense! But this tactic works, shaming a lot of Christians - those who have a genuine desire to be humble and God-honoring - into siding with Calvinism's belief that God chooses/causes who believes.]
... What I think the Bible teaches is that this very irresistible grace is purchased by the blood of Jesus. The new birth is blood-bought. The effectual call is blood-bought. The gift of repentance is blood-bought. [Making it sound like we disparage Jesus's blood-sacrifice if we don't believe in Calvinism effectively shames people into Calvinism. Because what good Christian wants to disparage - or appear to disparage - Jesus's sacrifice!?! (And yet Calvinists don't realize how disparaging it is to limit Jesus's sacrifice to just a few people... when He really died for all people, to give everyone the chance/option to believe and be saved!)]
None of these acts of irresistible grace is deserved [meaning that we can't "earn" them by a free-will choice to accept them, but they must be forcefully-given by Calvi-god to only certain preselected people]. They came to us [the Calv-elect!] because Christ secured them by his blood and righteousness [for only us, the Calv-elect!]. But that means, he did not secure them for all in the same way. [Translation: "He did not secure them for the non-Calv-elect in any way!"]
... For if Christ died for all people in the same way, then his death did not infallibly obtain regenerating grace or faith or repentance for those who are saved. [Where does it say in the Bible that Christ died to secure regenerating grace, faith, and repentance for those who were pre-chosen to be saved (instead of dying to pay for all people's sins in order to make salvation available to all)?]
... In other words, if we believe that Christ died for all men in the same way [yes, enough already, we get it: Calvi-Jesus died only for the Calv-elect, not the non-Calv-elect!], then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith [this has Calvinist errors embedded in it because it wrongly assumes that it's by His mercy that God regenerates certain people, those He preselected to believe and be saved], because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren’t. [This also has Calvinist errors embedded in it because it wrongly assumes that Calvi-Jesus died to definitely save the Calv-elect, that if Calvi-Jesus died for you then you are one of the Calv-elect and so you will/must believe and be saved (because of irresistible grace). And so, therefore, if he really did die for everyone, it would have to mean that everyone must believe and be saved. And so because not everyone believes and is saved, it must mean that Calvi-Jesus didn't die for everyone. A whole string of Calvinist errors, all because they're built on a faulty Calvinist foundation.]
... Therefore, it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is those who deny that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need — namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. [Translation: "Non-Calvinists bad; Calvinists good."]
They limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement so that they can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. [Yes, once again, we get it: "Calvi-Jesus didn't die for those who reject him."] In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, they must limit the atonement to a possibility or an opportunity for salvation... ["And so there can be no such thing as the true free-will choice to accept or reject the gospel, because that would mean Calvi-Jesus's death didn't accomplish what we Calvinists think it did."]
On the other hand, we [Calvinists] do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement.
Rather we say that in the cross, God had in view the actual, effective redemption of his children from all that would destroy them, including their own unbelief.
And we affirm that when Christ died particularly for his bride, he did not simply create a possibility or an opportunity for salvation, but really purchased and infallibly secured for them all that is necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.
We do not deny that Christ died to save all in some sense. [Deceptive nonsense! Bogus! The fact that he has to italicize "in some sense" shows that he knows Calvi-Christ didn't really die to save all people in the way that really matters.]
... What we deny is that the death of Christ is for all men in the same sense [in the "save your soul" sense]. God sent Christ to save all in some sense ["all" as in "all of mankind in general," but not "all individual people"]. And he sent Christ to save those who believe in a more particular sense [a "save your soul from hell" sense].
... The sending of the Son is for the whole world in the sense that Jesus makes plain: so that whoever believes in him should not perish. In that sense God sent Jesus for everyone [All he's saying is that Calvi-god sent Calvi-Jesus for the whole world - mankind in general - so that the Calv-elect would be saved, the only ones he predestined to heaven and regenerates in order to cause them to believe.]
... Christ died to provide an absolutely reliable and valid offer of forgiveness to all, such that everyone, without exception, who trusts Christ would be saved. [Calvi-Christ "offers" salvation to everyone so that all of the Calv-elect, without exception (not missing even one of them), will accept it and be saved. That's all this means. But there is no possibility of the non-Calv-elect accepting it, no true offer of salvation for them.]
... In the death of Christ, God secures a definite group of unworthy sinners as his own people by purchasing and guaranteeing the conditions they must meet to be part of his people. The blood of the covenant — Christ’s blood — purchases and guarantees the new heart of faith and repentance. God did not do this for everyone. He did it for a 'definite' or a 'particular' group, owing to nothing in themselves [meaning "not by their choice to believe but by his choice to predestine them to be his people"].
... Jesus says, 'I lay down my life for the sheep.' This is not the same as saying I lay down my life for all people. [Once again: "Blah, blah, blah, Calvi-Jeus didn't die for all people, and definitely not for the non-Calv-elect, yada, yada, yada."]... Nor does the term 'sheep' refer to those who have used their power of self-determination to produce faith. [Once again: "Free-will doesn't exist!"]
Rather they are those who God has chosen and given to the Son... Their faith is possible because they are sheep... In other words, being a sheep enables you to believe, not vice versa. So the sheep do not first make themselves sheep by believing; they are able to believe because they are sheep.
[Or as Loraine Boettner said it 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 is this what the Bible says, that we are saved first and then we believe, that belief is the result of salvation/being born again (and that only certain preselected people will be regenerated/able to believe)? Or does it say that when we believe then we are saved, that salvation is offered to all and that whoever believes (and anyone can) will be saved/born again, and that regeneration/being born again is the result of belief, a response to our choice to put our faith in Jesus? (Go ahead and look; I'll wait.)
Note: Calvinists will conflate belief with being regenerated/born again, incorrectly thinking that they're the same thing and happen in the same way, that if the Holy Spirit makes us born again (which He really does do) then it must mean He also makes us believe (which He really doesn't do), that the Holy Spirit makes us regenerated/born again so that we can believe. But this is wrong, and it reverses the biblical order. Biblically, we do our part first: believing (that's our job, our choice). And then, in response to our belief, the Holy Spirit does His part: Regenerating us/making us born again/sealing us in salvation (that's His job; God's promise of what He will do for anyone and everyone who chooses to believe, to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior). Do not let Calvinists convince you that these are the same things and that they happen in the same way. If you do, then you will inevitably be suckered into Calvinism.
And another note: Calvinism's TULIP starts with an unbiblical understanding of what depravity/spiritual death means, that it means "total inability." And so if they can get you to believe that being "totally depraved/spiritually dead" means "totally unable to believe unless God causes you to" (instead of it meaning what it really means: that mankind is separated from God by sin, unable to work our way to heaven ourselves, and in need of Jesus's sacrifice to bridge the gap for us, to make salvation possible), then they can get you to believe the rest of their TULIP, too - to believe things like "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace" and "limited atonement" and "regeneration precedes belief" and "reprobation," etc. All of their faulty views can be traced back to their foundational and faulty belief that "total depravity/spiritual death means total inability" (and that sovereignty means "God must preplan, cause, control everything, even sin and unbelief, or else He's not a sovereign God"). Error upon error upon error. But, most likely, you won't notice any errors after the first faulty belief you accept - because each faulty belief necessitates and inevitably leads to the next faulty belief, making it all seem so logical, coherent, and biblical.]
So when Jesus says, 'I lay down my life for the sheep,' he means, by my blood I purchase those my Father has given to me, and I secure their faith and all the blessings that come to those who are united with me... Because of God’s giving the Son for his people, those people — foreknown and predestined from the foundation of the world — will receive everything God has to give. Therefore, the design of God in giving the Son is not only a general offer to the whole world, but a rock solid securing of infinite riches for his people. My great desire is that God’s people see this and go deeper into the grace of this particular redemption. We are loved specifically in the atonement, not just generally. Our future is secured particularly by the blood of Christ. [Too bad for everyone else though. Just wondering, but have you seen this 2-minute video yet featuring Calvinist Tyler Vela and Beaker from the Muppets: "Me, me, me"? (FYI: Sadly, Tyler recently left the faith. But is it any wonder when we understand what Calvinism really teaches!)]
In summary, the biblical point of limited atonement is that in the death of Christ God had a particular design for his elect. He was purchasing not just a possibility for them to believe and be saved, but he was purchasing the belief itself... If we want to go deeper in our experience of God’s grace this is an ocean of love for us to enjoy. God does not mean for the bride of his Son to only feel loved with general, world-embracing love. He means for her to feel ravished with the specificity of his affection that he set on her before the world existed [and Calvi-god means for his Calv-elect to not be utterly horrified at the thought of him reprobating everyone else to hell, creating them to irresistibly want to reject him so that he could get glory when he shows off his justice and wrath against sin by punishing them in hell for their sins and unbelief... and he means for them to ignore the fact that it makes him a very untrustworthy god to command all people to believe in him even though he created most to be unable to believe and that he then punishes them for their unbelief, for being the unbelievers he created them to be, accusing them of not believing because they didn't want to believe when he's actually the very cause of their irresistible desire to not believe in the first place! "But hey, just focus on the love, people - his love for you! It's all good! Such amazing love!"😒]
... For it is the elect for whom he died with this immeasurable design of everlasting love."
[Notice how Piper goes to such great lengths to not just come right out and say "Jesus died only for the Calv-elect, and everyone else is reprobated to hell, and you're gonna like it that way!" Such great lengths to make Calvinism's dreadful doctrines sound good.]
E. From "What is the will of God and how do we know it?": "... God disapproves of some of what he ordains to happen. That is, he forbids some of the things he brings about. And he commands some of the things he hinders... That’s the first meaning of the will of God: It is God’s sovereign control of all things. We will call this his 'sovereign will' or his 'will of decree.' It cannot be broken. It always comes to pass. ... For example, if you were badly abused as a child, and someone asks you, 'Do you think that was the will of God?' you now have a way to make some biblical sense out of this, and give an answer that doesn’t contradict the Bible. You may say, 'No it was not God’s will; because he commands that humans not be abusive... But, in another sense, yes, it was God’s will (his sovereign will)...'... But in fact we should not approve of sin or do it, even though it is part of God’s sovereign will."
So he's teaching pastors to deliberately hide their Calvinism in order to win the people's trust!?!😖 (Methinks someone doth not understand the real meaning of trust.) And he admits that Calvinism is a "controversial" theology - and yet he apparently doesn't respect the people enough to inform them of his particular brand of theology or to let them know it's controversial. He doesn't trust them to be smart enough to research and decide for themselves. Instead, he takes it upon himself to decide for them, to tell them what to think. (If this is what it takes to get people to buy into Calvinism, something's wrong.)
And after five years of stealth Calvinism, he finally felt they were indoctrinated enough to be told the truth about what he had been teaching them. Because after five years, who's gonna fight back? Everyone who was alarmed enough early on would've already left, leaving only those who either agree with him, or who are too afraid to speak up because it appears like everyone else agrees with him because no one else is speaking up, or who don't care enough to investigate and doublecheck the pastor's teachings, or who've had Calvinism solidly ingrained in them without their awareness during those five years, or who've joined the church because they are Calvinists wanting a Calvinist church (they can recognize the stealth Calvinism being taught there, even though the rest of the naive, ignorant, overly-trusting church-attenders can't).
So at the same time that the disagreers are leaving the Calvinist church (the only ones able to expose it and resist it), many more people are becoming Calvinists, or growing numb to it, or being drawn to the church because they are Calvinists. And after five years of this, no one is left who disagrees with it enough to admit it or to ring the alarm bells. No wonder Piper figured it was finally safe to reveal what his theology really is... because, thanks to his patient and stealthy strategy, that's what everyone else in the church believes now, too.
[Intro comments continued in the next few posts in this series.]
