Calvi-dictionary (part 2/Intro 2)
Calvi-dictionary: Dissolving (stealth) Calvinism's Sugarcoating
Here are more comments from Calvinists that show why a Calvi-dictionary is needed. You see, Calvinists often hide their brand of theology and sugarcoat the nasty parts to try to sound as non-Calvinist as possible so that we don't catch on too early to the fact that they're Calvinists teaching Calvinism or to what Calvinism really teaches, not before they've had a chance to strategically indoctrinate us.
But if we knew what was underneath the sugarcoating, we'd be alarmed right away, would double-check them, and would realize that Calvinism contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture, and then we'd sound the alarm and oppose them. And so that's why they have to be so careful, strategic, and stealthy.
And that's why I'm writing this dictionary: To dissolve the sugarcoating so that you know what's really underneath so that you aren't suckered into a theology you never would've agreed to in the first place if it had been presented honestly and fully right from the start. (Click here for part 1)
6. 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."
According to Calvinists, Calvinism and Christianity are synonymous... and so they don't think there's any reason why they should have to admit that they're Calvinists teaching Calvinism, but they think they can simply and honesty just call themselves Christians teaching Christianity (justification for hiding their Calvinism).
And so, alarmingly, people who don't know any better will believe that what they're teaching is what Christianity really is. (Ever wonder why there are so many people who are repulsed by Christianity? And, for the record, I do not believe Calvinism teaches the true gospel - well, it does on the surface, at least - but I believe it teaches a corrupted gospel, and that it's corrupted enough to be called a false gospel. See "Calvinism: False Gospel or True (but warped) Gospel?")
But don't ever fall for a Calvinist pastor's lie* that he's just going to "preach the Bible and teach biblical Christianity," that he's not going to teach Calvinism or push it on the church, calling Calvinism a "secondary" or "non-essential" issue that's not worth fighting about or dividing over.
Because, remember, Calvinism is his biblical Christianity, making it impossible for him to not teach it, push it, and fight for it.
And so all a Calvinist pastor really means when he insists he won't teach Calvinism is that he will definitely teach it... covertly... with only biblical terms, not Calvinist ones.
As John Piper instructs in his article on "How to Teach and Preach 'Calvinism'": "Avoid theological jargon that is not in the text. The word 'Calvinism' is probably not helpful. 'Doctrines of grace' may not do it either. Just stick with what is there in the text, or come up with some new striking phrases that will cause the people to wonder and be excited."
Translation: "Hide your Calvinism in biblical words - or any other words - just don't use Calvinist words."
And notice again that this is from an article with a title about how to teach and preach Calvinism!
*Calvinists wouldn't consider this a lie because they really do think they are just teaching pure Christianity (which is what they themselves have been indoctrinated to believe), just without importing outside terms/labels.
But I call it a lie because they are most definitely teaching Calvinist doctrines after promising that they wouldn't teach Calvinism. If Calvinism is Christianity to them, then they cannot not preach Calvinism whenever they preach "Christianity" (especially so because they've reinterpreted the Bible through the eyes of Calvinist theologians).
Charles Spurgeon (in one of his sermons): "... there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism... It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach [Calvinism]."
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."
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."
From the introduction to a Founders Ministries "how to reform a church" plan: "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."
To Calvinists, Calvinism is the only option if you want to be truly biblical, truly Christian.
Here are some parts of Calvinist JD Hall's "treatise" on God's sovereignty over salvation, called "Reason With Me: On the Doctrine of Election":
From the beginning: "This short treatise has been written for those who are the committed and sincere faithful, who have heard - perhaps for the first time - the Doctrine of God's Election from the Holy Bible... those who believe in the inerrancy, sufficiency, and inspiration of God's Word... As a pastor and minister, my greatest fear is that a good many who worship on Sunday mornings are idolaters, in that they have crafted a God of their own imaginations...personal preferences... "
From the middle: "I don't expect you to like God's freedom [to choose who gets saved], at least yet. I don't expect you to enjoy hearing about God's ability to make choices [to choose some people to save and the rest to not save]. But because this treatise is written to the spiritually sincere and committed, I do expect you to acknowledge that God isn't expected to save anyone. I do expect you to acknowledge that God has a free-will, and God is entitled to make choices. I do expect you to acknowledge that if a sinner is sent to hell, it's not unjust or unfair for God to give him the due penalty for their error." [For "their error" - error which Calvi-god decreed for them, prevented them from being able to resist, and then punished them for - but, sure, let's call that "not unjust or unfair"😒! And yes, these things are biblical - God doesn't have to save anyone, God is entitled to make choices, and sinners are justly punished - but in no way do these necessitate Calvinism or its doctrine of election. And yet he conflates these, presenting it like agreeing to the above statements means agreeing with Calvinism, when that's not necessarily the case at all. Calvinist will often try use points of agreement to ensnare us in their theological views and reel us deeper and deeper into it. "Well, if you believe that God is sovereign and that man cannot/does not save himself, then you must agree that God does all the work of saving us, that man cannot do anything to save himself, not even put faith in God on his own, yada, yada, yada..."]
And from the end: "You have been presented, in as clear and simple terms possible, the doctrine of election as given in the Holy Bible [he stresses this again, making sure you know that disagreeing with him is disagreeing with the Bible, with God Himself]... Does this not give complete glory and honor to God for our salvation? Does this not make clear that God is sovereign in his distribution of both justice and grace?... Are these not doctrines from the Scripture?... Jesus taught the doctrine of election. The crowd rejected it. They detested it... They refused to share the credit of their salvation with God... and they left."
[Also in the middle, to make his case and get us to see things the Calvinist way, he shares all the classic verses that Calvinists take out of context, all the words they misdefine in Calvinist ways, and all the manipulative/shaming tactics, false dichotomies, and bad Calvinist chains-of-reasoning meant to reel you into Calvinism ("if X is true, then the Calvinist Y must be true, too," such as the Calvinist chain of reasoning which says that if you believe it's true that God saves and it's true that not all are saved, then it must be true that God did not determine to save all, or else all would be saved"), but he fails to realize that he's basing all this on a foundation of unbiblical Calvinist definitions and presumptions, such as their idea that sovereignty must mean God chooses who gets saved, that election/predestination/Romans 9 are about God choosing individuals for salvation, that people are totally unable to believe and so God must inject the chosen ones with saving faith, etc. It's one great big unbiblical mess! But such is Calvinism.]
So he starts and ends with manipulative-flattery, making those who agree with him feel like they are the faithful, sincere, committed, Bible-affirming, God-honoring Christians.
And where does this leave everyone else, those who don't agree with him, who don't believe the Bible teaches Calvinism? Well, obviously, they are the faithless, Bible-rejecting, God-dishonoring, Jesus-leaving, glory-stealing, idolatrous Christians who are following a god of their own imagination because their emotional preferences prevent them from believing in the "doctrines from the Scripture," the God of the Bible (as Calvinists present Him).
Manipulative-shaming.
What do quotes like these reveal about Calvinists' true view of non-Calvinist Christians and churches? [As A.W. Pink said in Doctrine of Election: "those who continue to cavil against [Calvinism] and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians."]
What does it reveal about who they think the spiritual authorities are and who we must go to in order to understand the Bible? [According to Calvinists, we average Christians wouldn't be able to understand the Bible on our own, not without the help of Calvinist pastors/theologians telling us how to interpret it. As Pink also says in Doctrine of Election: "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents [Calvinism's "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... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."
(But, ironically, what does this quote reveal about how "clearly" - or, I should say, "not clearly" - the Calvinist doctrine of election is found in the Bible?😄)]
And if Calvinist pastors truly believe that Calvinism is the gospel, biblical truth, Christianity itself, then would or could any Calvinist pastor ever be able to not push Calvinism on the church, to just let it be a "secondary, minor, background issue that's not worth pushing, fighting over, or dividing over"?
7. My favorite example of stealth Calvinism, which I wrote about in "'Saint' PJ's deceptions and manipulations", is about a Calvinist who was being considered for a pastoral position and was asked this question by the interim pastor: "Are you a Calvinist? If you are, this thing is dead in the water right here."
And in his article, he said, "I was taken aback. From my study and meditation on Scripture individually and in community I have deep convictions as a seven-point Calvinist. I wasn't sure how to answer. So I asked a question instead. 'What do you mean by 'Calvinist?'"
He's a self-professed 7-point Calvinist (who calls himself "saint PJ" on his blog and YouTube channel😕)... and yet he "wasn't sure" how to answer the question "Are you a Calvinist?"
But, no! He knew exactly how to answer it: In a deceptive, dishonest way that would trick them into hiring him. He played dumb about the definition of Calvinism and took advantage of naive, poorly-worded questions (repeatedly telling the interim pastor "No, I'm not a Calvinist" - even though he is a 7-point Calvinist!) to get hired at a church that outright said it didn't want a Calvinist pastor, tricking them into thinking he wasn't a Calvinist when he definitely was. Shameful!
And even worse is that he did it deliberately, is proud of it, and is encouraging others to do it, too. Even more shameful!
And he excuses it by saying "If I would have fought over the word 'Calvinist' then I would have wasted his time, my time, and may not be the pastor of Bethany Baptist Church today."
So he justifies hiding his Calvinism because honesty would've led to supposedly silly and unnecessary fighting over mere terms, over the word "Calvinist" (when the real problem is not the terms or the word "Calvinist" at all, but the Calvinism itself) and the church would've missed out on the "blessing" of having him as their pastor. So out of gracious concern for the man's time and the non-Calvinist church's unknown need to have a Calvinist for a pastor, Saint P.J. had no choice but to outright lie about his theological stance.😒
8. Likewise, here's how the pastor in the "Reformed by the Word..." article handles it when he began facing opposition to his Calvinist theology:
"By January of 1999, questions began to be raised by some in our congregation. In a deacon’s meeting, one of our deacons asked if I was a 'Calvinist.' When I asked what he meant, he really didn’t know. He just knew it was something bad. So, I asked specifically what I had taught that concerned him. Again, he didn’t know of anything. He’d just heard this word used about me. Clearly there was 'talk' going around. I decided the best way to answer his question would be to lead the deacons through a study."
And guess what? It works. In the end, the church chose to keep him as pastor. But it split the church and up to half the people left. And though he says it was difficult, he goes on to celebrate the fact that the church split, saying that it led to "great freedom" because "the people who remained [there] wanted to be there. They wanted the truth of the Gospel. They wanted reformation... [And with the opposition gone, we] were able to begin the process, unhindered, of revising our constitution to bring it in line with Scripture [he means "in line with Calvinism"]... The process of basic reformation took another three years, and really it’s still going on. Like shaping your soul, the work of shaping a church takes years of persistence. You can’t do it in a five-year pastorate."
Calvinist pastors know how to strategically play the long game. And they're in it to win it.
9. And here's one I recently found which is similar to the ones above, which might be my new favorite for his skill in excusing his stealthiness, making it seem wise and godly. (I'll cover this one at length because it's the first time I'm examining it.)
From Jason K. Allen in "Are you a Calvinist? Rethinking Theological Labels" (it's funny how it always seems to be the Calvinists who believe that theological labels - identifying our particular brands of theology - are a bad idea): "... an elderly gentleman introduced himself to me by stating, 'I am so glad you are here to preach for us today. I have looked forward to meeting you. Before you preach, though, I have one question for you. Are you a Calvinist?'... I reflexively replied, 'To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.'"
[So this pastor is totally a Calvinist but has "no idea" what "Are you a Calvinist" means!?! Puke! It's not that he really doesn't understand the question; it's that he doesn't want to answer it with a simple yes. He essentially claims that it's because he doesn't know what a person means by the word "Calvinist" - and, I agree, there is some truth in this, because we might all have different ideas of what a certain term or label means - but the problem is that this has become the excuse of Calvinists to justify hiding their Calvinism and going into stealth mode. A more honest answer - instead of these pastors trying to make it seem like they're not Calvinists, especially when they know it would be frowned upon - would be, "Yes, I am a Calvinist, but let's talk about what that means so that you understand what I really believe."]
He goes on to say: "I’ll be happy to discuss this as much as you’d like after the service, but know that I believe in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved." [So the answer he gives the elderly man is one that's been carefully-crafted to sound as non-Calvinist as possible, like it's just the plain commonsense understanding of Scripture. But what the elderly man doesn't know is that Calvinism does not take Scripture at face-value, in a plain commonsense way... but, instead, it has a deeper, hidden, specifically-Calvinist layer that supplants the biblical surface-layer, completely changing their beliefs into something totally different from ours, totally different from the plain commonsense understanding of Scripture. If the elderly man had known the word games Calvinists play, he could've and should've replied with something like, "Yeah, sure, but did Jesus die for all people's sins, to truly offer salvation to all individual people? Does everyone and anyone have the ability and opportunity to repent, believe the gospel, embrace Christ, and accept the offer of salvation? Where does that ability come from? Are we saved/regenerated/born-again before belief, causing us to believe... or after belief, as a result of our belief?" The answers to these would've painted a completely different picture of the pastor's theology than the deceptive answer he gave. (And "reflexively replied"!?! This just goes to show how ingrained the Calvinist ability/desire to hide and deceive is, how justified it is in their minds!)]
Reassured [falsely! deceptively!], [the elderly gentleman] smiled and said 'that is all I wanted to hear.' [This is how stealth Calvinism slips past the awareness and defenses of most Christians, convincing us that they believe the same way we do when they really don't - and sometimes even convincing us that they aren't really Calvinists teaching Calvinism when they most-definitely are! And this is why it's so important to really understand what Calvinists mean by the things they say (and the things they hide). We might not know that they're being stealthy and deceptive and are intent on reforming us whether we want it or not, but they know it. And they're doing it on purpose.]
... [on why Calvinists shouldn't use the Calvinism label:] As people who believe the Bible, the benefit of using biblical terms is obvious. God inspired his Word, not our favorite systematic theology. [And yet Calvinists read and interpret the Word through the lens of their favorite systematic theology!] Not only does using biblical terms self-evidently put the conversation on a healthier, more biblical footing [so it would make it seem, which is what tricks and traps people], but it also helps to standardize the theological dictionary. Using biblical language also injects the conversation with an element of grace that might otherwise be lacking. It’s easier to get worked up over some dead theologian’s prose than Paul’s definition of 'foreknowledge,' Jesus’ definition of 'called,' and Peter’s definition of 'elect.'
[Hold it right there, flag on the play: Standardized!?! The problem is that it's not "standardized" at all, not when Calvinists have completely different interpretations of verses and definitions of biblical terms/concepts while trying as much as possible to appear like we're all on the same page, like they're saying the same things we are (at least until we've been indoctrinated enough to not be alarmed or resist them). Same verses and words, totally different meanings. Nothing standardized about it. (For example, when understood biblically, foreknowledge means "to know beforehand." But in Calvinism, foreknowledge essentially includes fore-planning: Calvi-god first preplans what will happen, which is why and how he foreknows what will happen, and then he orchestrates/causes what he "foreknew/foreplanned" to happen. But this goes way past the pure, biblical definition of foreknowledge, making it Calvinist, not biblical. And once you define foreknowledge this way, it corrupts your definitions of many other things after it, like "called" and "elect".)
And so the fact is that Calvinists are not defining those terms as the Bible does, but as "some dead theologian" did. But they don't want us to realize that we are buying into the theology of some dead theologian, and so they hide the theologian in "Bible" clothing. (But, to be fair, it's not because they are deliberately trying to spread biblical errors. But, sadly, it's because they themselves believe that it's biblical, having allowed themselves to be convinced by someone else that it's what the Bible really teaches. Their hearts are in the right place, but their methods and theology are not. And I do not believe we can excuse/tolerate/defend/promote someone's bad, destructive, deceptive, upside-down theology just because their heart is in the right place.)
And so teaching Calvinism but only with the Bible's words and terms doesn't make things clearer or more standardized at all. In fact, it actually makes it worse and more deceptive, more stealthy - because we then have no clue that we aren't on the same page at all, that Calvinists are teaching something very different from the commonsense, plain-understanding of God's Word, in context. (Remember: If it's not kept in context, it's a con text.)
This is how they get us - and yet they justify their covertness by claiming that it's better for the church and for communication. Ugh!
{To be fair, from the point of view of this pastor and his theology, I can understand where he is coming from and why he would see it this way and justify it this way. If I believed that Calvinism was mere Christianity too, then I would also think it's wisdom to just use biblical terminology.
But that's the thing: Calvinism is totally wrong and unbiblical, and so these tactics don't help spread truth at all, but they spread lies, making all Calvinist efforts worthless. And even worse than worthless - because, I believe, it's actually doing the devil's work for him: destroying God's character, God's Word, Jesus's sacrifice, the gospel, and people's faith. Corrupting the church from the inside out. And the fact that Calvinists have good hearts, good intentions, love God, want to be humble, and try to be faithfully obedient by spreading the gospel (as they believe it is) can't change that.
I wish I didn't have to say it, but I do. We can't protect the church from doctrinal error by playing the "let's be ooey-gooey-nice to everybody and politely tolerant of every belief" game. (Did you ever read about the forceful stands Paul took against bad theology, how strongly he condemns bad theology and those who spread it, pulling no punches? I mean, seriously. And yet here we are, all like "Oh, we can't make anyone feel bad by calling anyone's view unbiblical heresy. Boo-hoo-hoo." Ugh.)}]
... The point is to make our categories as biblical as possible, and to beware of theological innovations foreign to scripture. [If they really did this, they would've stopped Calvinism at the door.] After all, if necessary, I’d rather bear the reproach of men for a specifically biblical doctrine than for an unbiblical abstraction. [And yet, unbiblical abstractions is exactly what Calvinism is, what it teaches!]
... Truth in advertising is a standard we expect of the world; let’s expect even more of ourselves... The best way to get off to a good start is by being relentlessly biblical and forthright about one’s beliefs. [So he says to aspire to "truth in advertising" and be "forthright about one's beliefs"... and yet he wrote a whole article about not being forthright about his Calvinism, even playing dumb about the "Are you a Calvinist" question. And so, in reality, when he says to be "relentlessly biblical and forthright," all he really means is to preach Calvinism with just biblical terms, not revealing it as Calvinism. "Truth in advertising? Forthright?" Ha, I think NOT!]
When dialoging about theological convictions...one also owes it to himself to be wise. To sign on to a label that has morphed in meaning beyond one’s own comfort zone, or has been hijacked by others altogether, may be unwise and, in its own way, misrepresentative... If someone else has hijacked the term or loaded it with freight you never intended, to embrace it might not only be unwise, but downright foolish. Instead be forthrightly biblical and not foolishly sign on to a label that was divorced from its true meaning long ago. [I understand his concerns here, and there is some truth and wisdom in it when it comes to cases where this is true. But once again, in the case of Calvinism, this is used as an excuse for stealth Calvinism, for deception, for sugarcoating an unbiblical theology to spread it to others. And, for the record, today's Calvinism has not "morphed... been hijacked... loaded with freight you never intended" or been "divorced from its true meaning long ago" - and so this isn't a real concern here or a real reason for hiding/denying the Calvinist label. Calvinism is still the same thing, still just as dreadful and disgusting as it always was, still teaching the same terrible and contradictory things it always did. It hasn't morphed at all; it's just been exposed. All the things Calvinists have tried so hard to hide, soften, and obscure over the decades have been exposed as many people have begun taking stands against it, causing many others to at least worry about it, even if they don't understand it. And Calvinists don't like this because it makes it harder for them to spread it - and so they convince themselves that they shouldn't have to use the label Calvinism when spreading their Calvinism, that it's actually wiser to not use it.]
Theological conversation is most always good, but it can be improved when it takes place on higher ground. To conceal one’s theological convictions is at once disingenuous and cowardly, and no self-respecting minister should be either. [And yet that's exactly what he's telling Calvinist pastors to do, to not necessarily hide their theological beliefs but to definitely hide their particular Calvinist brand of theology and all Calvinists terms and words that would expose it as Calvinism. This is not "higher ground." It's deceptive ground.]
Rather, let’s be Bereans, studying the Scriptures and articulating our convictions in ways that are most biblical, most forthright, and most wise." [Read: "least obviously-Calvinist". As I said, Calvinists have convinced themselves, by whatever means possible, that they shouldn't reveal their theology as Calvinism, going so far as to even convince themselves that hiding their Calvinism is the most biblical, forthright, and wisest way to do it. Which makes me wonder: When someone has become so hardened in their unbiblical theology that they define/defend their deceptive tactics this way, is there any hope for them? Or for us, the Church?]
What great lengths Calvinist pastors go to in order to defend their deceptive tactics and reframe them as good!
And so, considering these few examples of deliberate stealth Calvinism (and many more I didn't cover), here's a good lesson to learn from it all:
If you ask a pastor if he’s a Calvinist and he replies with a question or phrase like "How do you define Calvinism?" or "I have no idea what you mean/I don't understand the question" or "I don't use labels; I just call myself a Christian (or Reformed or a Biblicist)" or things like "Well, you believe in grace, don’t you? You believe God is sovereign, right? Do you think you saved yourself, or did God save you? Do you think you are in control, or is God?" or even just "How much time do you have, so that I can explain it to you thoroughly?" or any other such nonsense, then you can safely assume he's definitely a Calvinist - a strong, educated, dogmatic Calvinist who knows not to forthrightly admit it because it will scare you off or invite resistance before he's had a chance to hook you.
I believe the reason Calvinist pastors try to convince us that they "aren't Calvinists" and that they "won't push Calvinism but merely 'biblical truth'" and that they see Calvinism as a "secondary issue/minor disagreement" is because they need to prevent people from sounding alarm bells too early so that they can buy time to indoctrinate the church before people notice what's going on - tricking us into shutting up, trusting them, and letting our guards down; falsely convincing us that we're all really basically on the same page and that the differences are too minor to care about or make a fuss over (and that those who do disagree or make a fuss are bad, unhumble, divisive, God-fighting, Bible-rejecting Christians). This gives them time, without interference or opposition, to strategically and stealthily teach their controversial theology and indoctrinate the church in Calvinism before anyone exposes it or pushes back against it.
[Sidenote: I just read one Calvinist comment somewhere about how if we can't recognize Calvinism or see something wrong with their theology without the Calvinist label attached to it, then it must mean their theology is biblically-accurate but that it's just the label we have trouble with.
I can see how he would think this. But in my way of thinking, the fact that many Christians can't identify the Calvinism in stealth Calvinism or recognize its theological errors just goes to show how good Calvinists are at twisting Scripture and taking it out of context and redefining terms to make it all fit Calvinism (making it all appear like it fits the plain understanding of Scripture, when it really doesn't)... and how manipulative and persuasive and strategic Calvinists are in spreading it to people and taking over churches, hiding the darker and more controversial parts that would alarm people until we've been indoctrinated enough to not resist it... and how naive, ignorant, and overly-trusting church members are, how many non-Bereans there are in the church nowadays who ignore the red flags and alarm bells and don't put in the time and effort to double-check the pastor's teachings but simply allow the pastor to spoon-feed them his view of everything.
And so it's not a confirmation of how "biblical" Calvinism is, but it's a condemnation of how deceptive and manipulative Calvinists are and how few Bereans there are in the church nowadays.]
[More Calvinist quotes coming up in the next part of this series' introduction.]
