Calvinism's Systematic Theology (and how to fend it off)
(This is not an official part of the "Calvi-cult" series, but I'll include it anyways because it fits.)
Here's a very insightful comment from Malaclypsell in the Reddit Reformed post The System in Systematic Theology:
"Systematic theology strives to give an orderly, coherent account of Scripture, such that the entire system of belief could potentially be explained, so to speak, in a power point presentation of sufficient length. And all the points in all the slides would be seen to connect and reinforce each other and be textually grounded, as much as possible... the goal is to clear up ambiguity wherever possible.
As I reflect on this, and on the Scriptures, I can't help but notice, the procedure of Scripture is very different. Scripture teaches primarily through narrative. It also contains other genres, like prophecy, instruction, poetry, legislation, letters of exhortation, etc., and in places like Romans there is extended theological reflection. Just the same, the main business of Scripture is to relate a narrative of what happened, and what those happenings mean.
So, the Bible is not like a treatise in philosophy, or in science, where everything is clarified as much as possible. It is not, in other words, systematic. Moreover, attempts to make it systematic, where the plain text just isn't, seem to incentivize forced readings, of the kind, 'we must suppose it was really meant, X,' because the other parts of the system rely on that 'X' for support, and it makes sense in a general sort of way, that 'X' - notwithstanding, the text simply does not say 'X.' It says something else, if we really look closely at it. So a system can easily be imposed rather than derived.
What do you think?"
What do I think?
I think "You're absolutely correct! Well said!"
I believe Calvinists do not read, understand, or teach the Bible in context, as it should be read, understood, and taught, but they impose their own ideas onto Scripture. (I've said this before and I'll say it again: If a verse is not kept in context, then it's a con text).
In fact, many of us do this without realizing it, reading various passages the way we've been taught to read them, with built-in presuppositions or assumptions, not realizing that there may be a different way to read it. And it takes a conscious decision to read it with fresh eyes (as much as possible), as it is written, in context, without our presuppositions tainting our interpretation.
It's just that while most people usually do it with an idea or two, a verse or two, Calvinism has made an art form out of it (and taken over the Church with it) by creating a whole, huge, thorough, complex web of theological ideas (which were all built on a few incorrect foundational ideas) that shapes the way people read the entire Bible and how they understand God's character and the gospel, leading them in a completely wrong direction - away from, and in opposition to, any plain, simple, commonsense, in-context interpretation - as they're trained to interpret the Bible in a twisted, out-of-context, non-commonsense, non-face-value way (this is why there's so much "mystery" and contradiction in Calvinism).
And how does this happen?
Systematic Theology! It has trained them to read Calvinism into the text, to redefine words and interpret verses in purely-Calvinist ways.
You see, every Calvinist idea is built on the previous one, naturally flowing from one to the next, necessitating each link along the way. "If X is true, then it must mean Y is also true." But the thing is, X is an incorrect Calvinist presupposition or definition, and neither X nor Y are clearly stated in any verse in the Bible but they only appear to be in the Bible when various verses are taken out of context (with words redefined Calvinisticly) and pieced back together in a systematic Calvinist order.
And then - abracadabra - the Bible teaches Calvinism!
If you read their theology books and articles, you can see that Calvinism is absolutely overflowing with this - one idea creating the next, one presupposition necessitating the next presupposition - as they slowly nibble their way lost, bit by bit, through a long string of unbiblical ideas all founded on the previous unbiblical idea.
[I've only found one verse in the whole Bible that truly fits Calvinism: "[The Pharisees] replied, 'You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out." (John 9:34) That is Calvinism in one verse: "You're all wicked, depraved sinners from birth. Don't you dare question what we teach you. And get out of the Church if you disagree with us!" (I guess we can find Calvinism in the Bible after all!)]
And because their foundational presuppositions and definitions and verse-interpretations are wrong, Systematic Theology ends up being a whole web of unbiblical doctrines, teachings, and ideas. And then, because we can all tell that it doesn't fit the plain, commonsense interpretation of Scripture, Calvinists must also employ and resort to all sorts of manipulative and shaming tactics to get people to accept it, to not question it too much or examine it too closely (such as bad analogies, false dichotomies, accusations of being unhumble and dishonoring God if we don't agree, etc.)
And so Calvinism's Systematic Theology ends up being not a way to understand the "deeper truths" of the Bible (as Calvinists like to say), but rather a cult-like tool that shapes people's thinking and manipulates them right into the deepest, darkest Calvinist-conclusions. Unbiblical conclusions.
For example: If Calvinists took the Bible at face-value, in a commonsense way, they would trust that when God says "Seek Me, repent, believe," it means that we are able to seek Him, repent, and believe, that He gave us the option to do it and the responsibility to decide to do it or not do it, and that He will hold us accountable for what we freely choose to do. That's the commonsense way to view God's commands and justice.
But Calvinism's non-commonsensical way to view it is that when God says "seek Me, repent, believe," He really means that we cannot do these things, that He must cause people to do it and that He will only cause certain prechosen people to do it, and that He will punish everyone else for not doing it, those whom He created unable to do it in the first place because He predestined them to hell for His glory.
Only a Calvinist thinks that way.
Why? Because of Systematic Theology - one unbiblical idea built on the previous unbiblical idea built on the previous unbiblical idea built on an unbiblical foundation of ideas and definitions that they don't even realize are incorrect. (Of course, it's "biblical" as far as it's based on the Bible, but it's "unbiblical" because it's based on an incorrect interpretation of the Bible, resulting in doctrines that the Bible doesn't teach.)
Most Calvinists can't see that Calvi-glasses have been strapped to their heads - that they've been trained to read the Bible in Calvinist ways, through Calvinist lenses - and so it's nearly impossible for them to do anything about it or to even know that anything is wrong, that they need to question the way they're seeing things.
After you step through the theological looking-glass to the wrong side - the incorrect, backwards, upside-down side - you'll accept every incorrect, backwards, upside-down teaching on that side as "biblical." And you won't even realize that you need to question it - and you'll resist any attempts by those on the other side to correct you - because you'll be convinced that your side is right-side-up and that it's the other side that's upside-down.
And so all that Calvinism's Systematic Theology has to do is get us to accept the first couple of (unbiblical) Calvinist ideas/definitions/verse-interpretations (and to keep us from examining/questioning/double-checking them against Scripture, in context, on our own, without their "help")... and then we're trapped and will be easily, strategically reeled into the next point and the next point and the next point, until we're full-blown Calvinists who've been manipulated into believing that we're being good, humble, God-honoring Christians for accepting (and celebrating/worshiping God for/promoting the idea) that God ordains/orchestrates/causes all sin, evil, and unbelief, for our good and His pleasure and glory.
John Piper ("Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election")"... [the doctrine of election] is one of the best ways to test whether we have reversed roles with God... The doctrine of election is one very effective test of whether you are being delivered from the indigenous ocean of arrogance in the modern world, or are still drenched to the bone." [Translation: "You're arrogant and playing God if you disagree with Calvinism."]
John MacArthur, "Why does God allow so much suffering?": "You either believe in the God who is in complete control of evil, or you believe evil is in control of God..." ["If you don't see it my way, you're denying God's sovereignty and power." But this is a false dichotomy meant to reel people into Calvinism, saying that God must control (preplan/orchestrate/cause) evil, or else evil would control Him, as if those are the only two possible options.]
Vincent Cheung ("The Problem of Evil"): "... One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity... Christians should have no trouble affirming all of this, and those who find it difficult to accept what Scripture explicitly teaches should reconsider their spiritual commitment, to see if they are truly in the faith.” ["You're unhumble and probably not even a Christian if you have a problem with what I'm teaching." And "explicitly teaches?" Where? If he can find even one verse that explicitly teaches that God created people to be non-elect and predestined them to hell so that He could get glory for damning them, then maybe I won't think Calvinists are totally backwards.]
My ex-pastor, July 2018: "The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... The first question when it comes to Bible study is not 'Do I like this?'... The first question is "WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?" If this is not your first question, your first burden, there is concern if you really know Christ as Lord and if you honor Him. If all you accept is the stuff you like and what is convenient for you and emotionally comfortable for you, then there is a real question whether you know Christ, if His Spirit lives in you." ["If you reject my view of predestination, you're denying Scripture, letting your emotions control you, and probably not even a Christian."]
And two more sermons (quoted at length) from my ex-pastor that show how unbiblical and manipulative Calvinism is, what Systematic Theology resorts to and relies on to help it spread:
From his August 16, 2015 sermon on predestination: “We call that the doctrine of internal depravity, inherited depravity… human beings are born infected and absolutely contaminated by sin on every level… We are under the power of sin… The unsaved person, outside of Christ - because they are slaves to depravity, every one of us born that way - is not able to seek God. Not only don’t they, they can’t… unwilling and unable... ["Unable" is not biblical, but it's a Calvinist presupposition based on their incorrect understanding of depravity/spiritual death, and it's often one of the very first steps of indoctrinating people into Calvinism.]
... Once you begin to understand [how wicked we are], the question is not ‘Why aren’t more people elect? Why isn’t everyone going to heaven?’ What’s the real question? ‘Why is anybody elect? Why is anybody going to heaven?’ [Deflection! And these questions wrongly presuppose that election means God chooses who goes to heaven and who doesn't.]
... Why do some sinners believe and some don’t?... This is going to make people in Western culture where choice is supreme, it’s going to make us uneasy [manipulative-shaming]. Why do some rebellious, enslaved-to-sin sinners repent and others stay hardened?
The answer from the Apostle Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is one phrase: Because of God’s sovereign predestination, His sovereign election [where sovereign, predestination, and election have all been defined in an unbiblical, purely-Calvinist way].
It’s a doctrine of grace, a doctrine of mercy… God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden [an unbiblical understanding of and application of "hardens"]. That’s a difficult verse in American culture. [It's only "difficult" because they misinterpret it so badly.]
But I tell you where it’s not difficult: Christians in the Middle East don’t struggle with this nearly as much. Muslims don’t struggle with this concept nearly as much as Christians. [Because Calvi-god is not too different from Islam's Allah.]
… But in America – where ‘Have it your way’ is our national slogan and 'choice' always comes out on top of every survey of national values - freedom of choice is the air we breathe. ["Shame on anyone who believes in free-will choice!"] We’re blind to how much it seeps in and is part of us. You read a verse like this, and it absolutely almost has a visceral reaction. ["If you disagree with me, it's just because you're having an emotional reaction to things you don't like hearing and can't accept."]
The definition of election, predestination, is that it's the Bible's teaching that as God looks out on rebellious, sinful humanity, He chooses to have mercy on some sinners and not others. [Mercy on some and not others? See Romans 11:32. And see this 11-minute Soteriology 101 video - Provisionists believe in Predestination and Election - for a different explanation of predestination, one that actually makes sense, fits all of Scripture, and upholds God's loving, righteous, just, gracious, merciful, trustworthy character.]
… In other words, He’s not an equal opportunity convicter. [See John 16:8 about the Holy Spirit convicting the world and Romans 2:15 about God's law being written on our hearts and consciences.]
We can’t make ‘What do I feel [about this]?’ our first response… it has to be ‘What does Scripture say?’ [Yeah, but Scripture doesn't say what Calvinism says it says.]
If it wasn’t for predestination, election, nobody would go to heaven [well sure, if you don't count the ability God gives everyone to choose to believe in Jesus and accept the offer of salvation He extends to all people] because we’re born slaves to sin, in bondage to sin, under the wrath and judgment of God, no one seeking Him… Dead people don’t choose. Dead people can’t choose anything. If you went to the cemetery today with a stack of menus and passed them out among the tombstones and said ‘Dinner’s on me. What do you choose?’, what would happen?... I can guarantee you that zero would order anything because dead people can’t pick. Dead people can’t choose anything [except, of course, to sin and reject Calvi-god] unless a miracle happens. And so therefore election is based on nothing we do... It’s why He sovereignly elects and gives grace and mercy to some. [Spiritual death is not the same thing as physical death. But this bad analogy works, tricking a lot of people into buying their Calvi-nonsense.]
… [But some people object and say] 'Doesn’t election make God look bad?' Honestly, a lot of our visceral reactions to this stuff are emotional reactions, based on family and friends who aren’t saved. [So the problem is our emotions, not his theology, right?]
… But on the contrary, election does not make God look bad; it makes God look good. In fact, election and even its opposite - hardening - both glorify God. God is equally glorified in the salvation of sinners as He is in the damnation of sinners. [Which should scare Calvinists, not elicit their praise.]
… The elect get mercy. The unelect get justice. Nobody is treated unfairly. [Calvinists have unique understandings of "justice" and "unfairly."] So remember that everything God does is for His glory. Everything. We want to get God off the hook on this one, but God puts Himself right back on the hook on this one. ["So shut up, don't question me, fall in line with everyone else, and accept what I'm teaching you, or else you're a bad Christian who dishonors and opposes God!"]
... [About the “mystery” of God saying He wants all to be saved while simultaneously predestining people to hell:] God is infinitely complex, and if God doesn’t give you a headache at times, you’re worshipping the wrong God. If you think you’ve got Him all figured out, you’re worshipping a God of your own imagination. ["Don't even try to figure out why my teachings sound so wrong and terrible. In fact, if you don't accept what I'm teaching without pushback, it's because you made up a false god that you like and understand better."]
… Election is designed not for theological debate. It is designed to drive God’s people to their knees in humble thanksgiving and praise to their Maker. ["Only bad Christians resist what I'm teaching and refuse to worship God for predestining some people to heaven and not others."]
… So why does God still blame us if He elects some and not others? The answer from Paul is ‘Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?’ [Romans 9 has nothing to do with the Calvinist doctrine of election.]
… You know what the problem is with the question ‘Why does God blame us if no one can resist His will’? [Yeah, the problem is the fact that Calvinists think God's Will is something He always forces to happen and that everything that happens is His Will.] The problem is that embedded in that question is an accusation that somehow God isn’t good because He elects some and not others. [And the problem here is, once again, that Calvinists think election is about predestining people to heaven. When Calvinism's presuppositions, bad definitions, or incorrect verse-interpretations are embedded into a question or idea, it will be wrong from the very beginning and be totally unanswerable in a biblical way without first exposing and tossing the Calvinist presupposition, bad definition, or incorrect verse-interpretation. If you let Calvinist definitions/interpretations stand, you give them home-court advantage and will be arguing from their foundational ideas, which means you'll be in a losing position right out of the gate.]
… There are 3 typical responses whenever the doctrine of predestination is preached:
#1: Anger/agitation - Because it goes against everything we are and breathe in American Western culture, in a liberal secular democracy where choice is everything, to be told that God is actually the one who makes the choice. ["You bad, prideful Americans who believe in choice and free-will!"]
… #2: Avoidance - But let’s call that what it is: sin. If it’s taught in the Bible, no matter what it is, we need to take a good hard look at it. There’s a reason it’s there. God is not apologetic about it. He’s not embarrassed by [it]… So don’t avoid this doctrine.
… #3: And the third response is acceptance.
[No disagreement allowed, apparently.]
… When we see God in His glory in election and predestination, it’s actually a God-entrenched theology that exalts who God is and makes God the center of the universe and not us [manipulative-shaming].… One of the best books to recommend to you about this is Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul." [Of course! As always, ending with a recommendation of a Calvinist book!]
[The fact that Calvinists have to use this much shaming and manipulation to get people to fall in line and accept Calvinism should tell us that something's very wrong with it and that it's not nearly as "clearly taught in the Bible" as Calvinists say it is!]
And from his August 23, 2015 sermon about God "ordaining" suffering: "God is all powerful and He doesn't owe us explanations ["So shut up, all you who don't like what I'm teaching!"]... [Some people] say that evil and suffering are the result of [free-will choices]... [But] the most famous American theologian in our history, Jonathan Edwards [so "famous" equals "godly and infallible"?], spent a lot of time thinking about suffering and God's sovereignty and came up with two inescapable conclusions that are worth thinking on, enumerating on, and chewing on again and again.
As you think about the tragedies that have struck your life and shaken your world, Jonathan Edwards said that #1, we have to conclude that God is in full control of every detail of the universe, including the suffering, evil, and tragedy in our lives. God is in full control of everything that happens to us. [In Calvinism, "in full control" doesn't just mean that God is in authority over all things, but that He preplans, causes, orchestrates, and actively and meticulously controls all things, even sin and evil and unbelief - an unbiblical understanding of "in control/sovereign/omnipotence"]
And #2, God is good and that whatever He does, He does for His own glory and for the advancement of His name among the nations [Calvinists can't just say that everything Calvi-god does is good because he is good and whatever he does is for his glory, even if he does evil - because the very fact that Calvi-god does evil (ordains it, orchestrates it, causes it, controls it, but punishes us for it) would make him not good, not glorious.]
... The Puritans remind us that we don't need to get God off the hook when it comes to evil and suffering... [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.' [So all evil and suffering is Calvi-god's Plan A, exactly what he intended to happen.😕]
... Are you trusting God in the midst of your past, present, and future in whatever He has ordained and appointed for you as far as suffering, tragedy, abuse or trials or difficulties or illness or disease or betrayal?... Or are you murmuring against Him?... You may get an answer someday about why you were abused or why you lost a child or why a spouse walked away. ["You may get an answer why" means "God might someday tell you why He deliberately decreed, orchestrated, and caused your abuse, your child's death, and your divorce/spouse's affair."]
But, friends, answers at the end of the day don't provide a whole lot of comfort. What provides comfort are promises from God's Word. [Would you trust a god who preplans and causes moral evils he commands us not to do and who then punishes us for doing what he "ordained" us to do? Would you seek comfort from Calvi-god about the suffering you're experiencing from all the evils and tragedies in your life... when he's the very one who decreed and caused them in the first place? Should you? Would you trust that Calvi-god ordained all this suffering for his glory and for your good and to help you grow in faith... when he's also the one who's responsible when people have the opposite reaction of losing faith, ordaining them to turn their backs on him, also for his glory? Can you trust and find comfort in the promises of a god like that!?!😕]
... Do you perhaps need to repent of your murmuring and the chip on your shoulder against God, and surrender today and say 'Lord, I don't understand the way You run the universe, and I don't necessarily like it, but You're God and You're good.' It'll make all the difference in your path to healing. All the difference."
... 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. And you can find comfort and hope and trust Me.'
But this kind of manipulation, shaming, gaslighting, and underhanded, cult-like tactics are what's required when a theology does not understand or teach the Bible in a commonsense, face-value way; when it's trying to systematically train you to see it in a Calvinist way even though it seems to say something else entirely.
And even Calvinists know this: That Calvinism is not clearly, obviously, thoroughly taught in any place in Scripture and that we would have a hard time finding Calvinism in the Bible without their "help," that we average Christians need Calvinist "experts" to help us understand the Bible "properly" (because we couldn't do it on our own) as they piece together verses (carefully-chosen and taken out-of-context) so that it appears to teach the Calvinism that they believe is in there.
A.W. Pink, Doctrine of Election: "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents the truth [the doctrine of election] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead 'here a little, there a little'... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg 331: "... we confess that we do not understand how it is that God can ordain that we carry out evil deeds and yet hold us accountable for them and not be blamed himself.... Scripture does not tell us...how it can be that God holds us accountable for what he ordains to come to pass." [Well don't you think you better figure that out! Because it's a huge thing to claim that God ordains our evil but holds us responsible for it. And I don't think that saying "Well, the Bible doesn't explain it, but let's believe it and teach it anyways" is going to suffice.]
Hmm, if the average Christian cannot find Calvinism in the Bible on their own without the help of Calvinist experts... if Calvinism is so not-clearly taught in the Bible and can't really be understood without months of study alongside a Calvinist pastor/theology book - then wouldn't the most likely reason be because the Bible doesn't actually teach it!?!
Is God and His Word so unclear that He needed the help of Calvinist/Reformed theologians to explain it, theologians who came along hundreds of years after the Scriptures were written?
Something is very wrong, very unbiblical, with Calvinism - and the fact that Calvinists have to spread it in such systematic, manipulative, cult-like ways proves it, because that's not how the God of the Bible acts.
But we all know who does act that way, right?
Starting point of Systematic Theology:
Briefly, if Calvinists can get us to naively agree with their unbiblical understandings of just a few things - like "God's sovereignty" and "total depravity/spiritual death" and "predestination/election" and Romans 9 - then they've already got us trapped, because the rest of their theological views will naturally fall into place after that.
And they know this, which is why they are so careful to start with these things.
R.C. Sproul (Total Depravity part 1): "... if a person really embraces the doctrine of total depravity, the other four points in this five-point system more or less fall in line. They become corollaries of this first point."
Nick Batzig (Ligonier Ministries, "What is Unconditional Election?"): "The first doctrine represented in the acronym TULIP sets the logical course for this subsequent doctrine of unconditional election. The doctrine of total depravity (perhaps better termed pervasive depravity) necessitates unconditional election."
Dr. Mayhue (Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation): "If you don't start with the total depravity of mankind, and understand that we are dead in our sins and trespasses, you'll never get unconditional election..."
From the "church reform" article from Founders Ministry: "... We speak first of all of the doctrines of grace [that's code for Calvinism]. Teach your people that they are utterly depraved and dead in their sins without God. Teach them that God chose the elect for salvation from the foundation of time out of his own mercy and desire..."
Got Questions (What are the Doctrines of Grace?): "Because man is dead in sin, he is unable (and stubbornly unwilling) to initiate a saving response to God. In light of this, God, from eternity past, mercifully elected a particular people unto salvation." [Non-Calvinists don't believe we "initiate" salvation either. God does, by revealing Himself to people and calling all people to believe. We just choose how we will respond to Him.]
[See how they build each idea on the previous one. And so when the first idea is bad - such as their unbiblical understanding of depravity as "inability" - then it's all bad, with errors all down the line.]
Pastor Johnson, Election and Predestination: The Sovereignty of God in salvation": "... all this hinges on and stems from the doctrine of total depravity... [depraved people are] not capable of loving God or pleasing Him or even obeying Him. They cannot do it. It's impossible for them, because their hearts are so fixed against Him... And so he changes that animosity that we are born with towards God into a love for Him. That's what we mean by irresistible grace. That's another—that's the I in the tulip...."
John Piper ("Total Depravity - Unconditional Election"): "Total depravity means that apart from any enabling grace from God, our hardness and rebellion against God is total. Everything we do is in rebellion against him in sin. Our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment. [😕 "Totally deserving of eternal punishment" for being unable to submit to God or reform ourselves!?!😕 That's like the total opposite of "totally deserving!"]... But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the other four points... Let’s turn now to the doctrine of unconditional election. This is a hope-filled doctrine for those who feel totally depraved and utterly without hope and help [which is exactly how Calvinist pastors want to make you feel so that you will more easily accept their TULIP.]..."
Loraine Boettner ("The Five Points of Calvinism"): "These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism,' and they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests... Furthermore, these are not isolated and independent doctrines but are so inter-related that they form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won the admiration of thinking men of all creeds [and has deceived many into thinking it's "sound doctrine."]. Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system... They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other."
This is why their theology appears rock-solid, consistent, and logical - because each idea flows into the next so that it all holds together tightly as each point proves, requires, and supports all the other ones. It's so tightly-woven and internally-supportive - each link in the chain is absolutely necessary to make it all work, and you must accept the next point if you accept the previous point - that all they have to do is get us to accept the first link, swallow the first bite, and we're already trapped, inevitably on our way to being a full-blown Calvinist if we don't wake up, step outside the echo chamber, and examine Scripture for ourselves, double-checking them against the Bible in context.
But because most people trust their pastors and many aren't even aware that their pastor is teaching them a controversial theology called Calvinism, many don't even realize that they are in an echo chamber, that they are reading the Bible through Calvi-lenses, and that they need to compare what the pastor says the Bible teaches against what the Bible actually says. (You can't get someone to leave a cult when they don't even know they're in a cult.)
And before we know it, we'll end up here...
Ending Point of Systematic Theology (two examples):
#1. My summation of Calvinism's teachings, its nonsensical, Alice-in-Wonderland-like gibberish:
"God predestines all evil, but He's not the author of evil. God preplans/orchestrates/causes all evil, but He Himself is not evil or responsible for evil. God's not happy when we sin, but He orchestrates/causes all sin for His pleasure and glory.
Satan fights against God, but God ordained/causes Satan to fight against Him. Satan wants people to sin and reject God and go to hell, but so does God (and God preplans, orchestrates, controls, causes everything Satan does)... but Satan is bad and can't be trusted, while God is good and can be trusted.
You need to repent and believe in the gospel to be saved, but you can only repent and believe if you were already saved in eternity past and were born again before repenting, believing, or even hearing the gospel.
We're free, but we're not free. We choose, but we don't choose. When we sin, it's because God decreed that we disobey His decrees. God predestines all our sins and unbelief, but then He commands that we obey and believe, and then He orchestrates our sins and prevents people from believing, and then He punishes us for doing what He predestined because we "deserve" it, because we disobeyed Him... and all of this is okay because He's "sovereign."
God ordains sin for His glory, but He also ordains that we fight against/resist sin for His glory. God is equally pleased by and glorified by belief and unbelief, by good and evil, by obedience and disobedience, but we should still prefer that people believe, do good, and obey, for some reason, even though God's glory should be our top/only priority because that's all He cares about anyway.
You must fully submit to God's sovereign control, but God sovereignly controls whether you submit or not. We need to pray for God's Will to get done and seek to do God's Will - even though God's Will is the only thing that ever happens, and so it's God's Will whenever someone doesn't pray or do His Will. Prayer affects things, but everything's been predestined and can't change. God predestines who will believe, but we still need to evangelize.
What looks like evil/injustice to us (predestining people to sin and reject Him but holding them responsible for it) is really good/justice in God's eyes because He sees things differently than we do - and yet even though we can't recognize or tell the difference between true justice and injustice, between true good and evil, we must administer "justice" and seek to do "good," like the Bible tells us to.[😕]
God says one thing but means another, and so we can't take the Bible at face-value because there's a hidden, deeper layer to all the things God says, and so we need to spend months with Calvinist books and teachers to learn what God really meant to say, underneath the surface.
Yes, Calvinism is full of contradictions that appear to destroy God's character and Jesus's sacrificial death, but it's a 'mystery' that 'humble' Christians simply accept anyway, no matter how bad it sounds... and God is still good and so we can trust Him, even when He sounds terrible and untrustworthy. Besides, God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants, and so who are you, O man, to talk back to Him?
Etc. Etc. Etc."
And yet Calvinists can't understand why we "can't understand" Calvinism.
#2: Yes, I've shared this many times before, but it really is Calvinism, the inevitable conclusion of Calvinism's Systematic Theology if you eat whatever garbage they spoon-feed you without looking too closely at it:
Mark Talbot/John Piper (editor) (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God): "It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child... God's foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil.
... In summary, this means that we should affirm the age-old Christian doctrine of God’s complete providence over all. God has sovereignly ordained, from before the world began, everything that happens in our world... It should be beyond all doubt that no one suffers anything at anyone else’s hand without God having ordained that suffering.
During his first hour or so in Birkenau, Elie Wiesel saw the notorious Joseph Mengele...casually directing [people] either to his left, so that they went immediately to the gas chambers, or to his right to the forced-labor camp. In seeing Mengele, Wiesel was seeing a very evil man whom, nevertheless, God was actively sustaining and governing, nanosecond by nanosecond, through his evil existence. And we can be sure that, from before time began, God had ordained that at that place those moments would be filled with just those persons, doing and suffering exactly as they did... that he actually brought the whole situation about, guiding and governing and carrying it by his all-powerful and ever-effectual word to where it would accomplish exactly what he wanted it to do.
[Footnote: Mengele was a medical doctor who was nicknamed 'The Angel of Death.' He carried out unspeakable experiments on some of his prisoners, including injecting chemicals into children's eyes in an attempt to change their eye color from brown to the preferred Aryan blue. He would visit the children, acting kindly and bringing them candy and clothing in order to keep them calm and happy, and then transport them in what looked like a Red Cross truck or in his personal vehicle to his laboratory beside the crematoria where he would perform his horrible experiments and then burn their bodies. He specialized in experiments involving identical twins. He was intrigued to see if he could make them differ genetically by, among other horrors, performing sex-change operations on one of them or removing one twin’s limbs or organs in macabre surgical procedures that were performed without the use of anesthesia and that had no scientific basis or value.]
... Even though he ordains all of our free sinful choices ["Free" that's not free is not free. Duh!], those sinful choices still 'count' and we are held responsible for them.... In ordaining the evil works of others, he himself does no wrong, 'upright and just is he.'... We can be sure, as Scripture confirms, that God has made everything for its purpose, even evil persons like Joseph Mengele or Dennis Rader. We can be sure that God has made our lives’ most evil moments as well as their best....
... I myself find it very difficult to understand how [God can ordain evil for our good] with some of the worst things that human beings do, like sexually abusing young children or raping or torturing someone mercilessly.
And, of course, something much less horrible than these sorts of things can happen to us and still leave us wondering how God could be ordaining it for our good. I have seen marriages break apart after thirty-five years and felt to some degree the grief and utter discombobulation of the abandoned spouse. I have watched tragedies unfold that seem to remove all chance for any more earthly happiness.... Many of us have tasted such grief....Yet these griefs have been God’s gifts.... [And in the end, when we see Jesus face-to-face] we will see that God has indeed done all that he pleased and has done it all perfectly, both for his glory and our good..."
How to fend off Calvinism's Systematic Theology
Here are 19 brief examples of Calvinism's foundational errors that will trap us if we don't question them... and reasons why we should resist them, showing how badly Calvinists misunderstand Scripture. If you can understand just a few of these (and can recognize the gaslighting and manipulation they do, which is why I share long quotes from sermons with you, to point it all out), you're on your way to resisting the cult-like vice-grip that Calvinism's Systematic Theology has gotten on the Church and people's minds:
1. Predestination/election: Calvinists always define these are being about God predestining individuals for heaven or hell. But biblically, God predestines what happens to those who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior - the general path all believers will take, the end they will reach, and the inheritance they will receive because they put their faith in Jesus - but He does not predestine who believes and who doesn't, as Calvinists wrongly think. And election is not the same as predestination, as Calvinists wrongly think. But biblically, election is about God's choice about how to use people in His plans (their obedience or disobedience), which roles/blessings/tasks to give them. It has nothing to do with God choosing individual people for heaven or hell. God elects people and nations to service, to certain roles in His plans, not to salvation.
2. Romans 9: Calvinists think this also is about God choosing who goes to heaven and who doesn't. But Romans 9 is not at all about God predetermining the salvation or damnation of individuals. It's about God choosing Israel to be the nation that brings Jesus and the gospel to the world. But when they rejected Jesus, God turned His attention to the Gentiles and offered them the salvation the Jews rejected and gave them the job of sharing the gospel with the world because the Jews wouldn't do it. And yet the Jews cried "It's not fair" because they didn't think God would or should punish Jews because they thought they were His favored people. And they didn't think God should extend grace, mercy, and salvation to the Gentiles or give them the special job He first gave to the Jews. And Romans 9 is God's response to the Jews who cried "it's not fair." God is saying that He can punish anyone, even Jews, if they reject Him and that He can extend salvation/favor to anyone, even Gentiles, if they accept Him. That's what Romans 9 is about. But if you let Calvinists convince you it's about God choosing whether individuals are saved and which are unsaved, you will become a Calvinist.
(Similarly, Calvinists also misapply verses about Jesus "choosing" His disciples, making it about God choosing who believes in Him... when it should not be interpreted that way because that's not what it's about. Just because Jesus chose His disciples doesn't mean God chooses who gets saved.)
3. Hardens: Calvinists think this means that God decides who doesn't believe in Him and that He hardens them to make sure they can't believe in Him so that they go to hell just like He predestined. But according to the concordance, hardens is a retributive hardening, a punishment for first choosing to harden your own heart against God and to resist His patient, longsuffering dealings with you. It's the response to self-chosen unbelief, not the cause of unbelief as Calvinists wrongly think.
(And, not to mention, but Calvinists often use the verse from Romans 9 about God having mercy on whom He wants and hardening whom He wants to support their theology. But since, as I said, Romans 9 has nothing to do with God predestining individuals to salvation or to damnation, any verse from this chapter that Calvinists use to support or defend Calvinism - which are a lot - has been misinterpreted, taken out of context, and misapplied.)
4. Faith: Calvinists believe that this is the gift in Ephesians 2:8-9 and that God decides whom to give it to, and only those He gives it to can believe while everyone else remains unable to believe so that they go to hell just like He predestined. But faith in not the gift. (Even if it was, gifts can be accepted or rejected. It's not a "gift" if someone forces it on you.) In the Greek, words have genders, and when certain words refer to another word, it must match its gender. "Faith" and "grace" are both female, but "this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" is neuter, which means that the "this/gift" cannot be referring to either faith or grace specifically. So what it is referring to is the whole idea as one: the offer of salvation by grace through faith. Salvation/eternal life is offered to all as a gift, to be accepted by faith. And we choose whether to accept it or reject it. Faith is not the gift, not something that God forces into prechosen people to cause them to believe, as Calvinists wrongly think.
5. Total depravity/spiritual death: Calvinists believe these teach "total inability," that people are so dead/depraved inside that they are unable to - that they cannot even want to - seek/believe in God or want to be saved unless He causes them to (and, of course, He will only cause the Calv-elect to). But inability is unbiblical, going far beyond what Scripture teaches. Biblical, depravity/spiritual death simply means that sin has separated mankind from God and that we cannot close that gap on our own. And so we needed Jesus to make salvation possible for us because we could not work our way to heaven ourselves. And so Jesus died to pay the ransom for our sins so that we didn't have to live eternally in spiritual death, and if we accept His sacrifice on our behalf (and anyone can) - His free gift of salvation, accepting Him as Lord and Savior - we will be saved.
6. God's Will: Calvinists think that God's Will is everything that happens, that everything He wills happens and that everything that happens does so exactly as He preplanned, wanted, orchestrated, caused, even sin, evil, and unbelief. But biblically, according to the concordance, His Will is about His preferred plans for us, what He wants us to do and wants for us and from us. But He has given us the choice of whether we follow Him in His best plans and obey His Will... or whether we reject His best plans, disobey His Will, and go our own way instead. God's Will doesn't always happen and not everything that happens is God's Will - because He has given us free-will, the right and responsibility to choose to obey or disobey Him, to follow Him or ignore/reject/resist Him. Make no mistake, He can work whatever we choose - our obedience or disobedience - into His plans and bring good out of it, but that doesn't mean that our disobedience was His Will or that it was destined to happen. It just means that we freely chose to resist His Will when we could've chosen obedience to His Will instead. He lets us decide... and then He lets us face the consequences that go with our choice.
7. "Only evil all the time": To support their view of total depravity/total inability - that we're totally wretchedly evil all the time, with nothing good at all in us that would make us want to seek God on our own and so He has to cause the Calv-elect to do it by regenerating them first - Calvinists refer to Genesis 6:5 "And the Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."
"See, only evil all the time," they say. "Unable to believe in God unless He regenerates us to make us want to and able to believe in Him."
But, in context, this is not a generalized statement about humans (and it doesn't necessarily imply inability, as Calvinists wrongly think). It's about the people of Noah's day, a mixed human-demon hybrid of people who were so wicked that God had to flood the earth to start over again. (But Noah was spared because his bloodline was pure, uncorrupted by demonic genes.) This extreme situation cannot be used to prove Calvinism's extreme view of the extreme depravity of humans in general. And it certainly can't be used to push "total inability." That's reading something into the text that isn't there.
8. "No one seeks"/Romans 3: Calvinists also insert "inability" into Romans 3:11 ("There is no one who seeks God"), using it to support their idea that people are totally unable to seek God unless and until He regenerates them to cause them to. But the verse doesn't say "no one can seek God" or "we are unable to seek God unless He causes us to." It just says that we don't.
And the important thing to know is that Romans 3:10-18 is a reference to Old Testament verses, such as Psalms 14 and 53. And these Psalms clearly explain why people don't seek God: Because they have turned away from Him and claimed that there is no God.
"The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'... All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:1,3).
And Romans 3:12 echoes it: "All have turned away."
Those who turn away from God and cling to their wickedness won't seek Him and can't understand spiritual things. They have rejected Him and chosen to ignore His truth, and so their spiritual eyes and ears have become worthless. So it's not that we can't seek God, but it's that people who choose their sin over God become corrupt, hard-hearted, and spiritually blind, and so they won't seek Him. God didn't cause or predestine them to be the way they are; they chose it.
As Psalm 10:4 says: "In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God."
Their prideful decision to reject God and essentially worship themselves leads to their inability to see Him, seek Him, and believe in Him - not the other way around, as Calvinism teaches. No one is prevented from being able to find God or believe in Him, except by their own choice and their first step away from Him.
Romans 3 is not about inability, as Calvinists teach. But, in context, it's about Paul teaching the Jews that they are no better than the Gentiles, spiritually speaking - that everyone is separated from God by sin (Gentiles and Jews), that God is just in punishing everyone (even Jews) for their unrighteousness (Jewish people don't get a free pass just because they're Jewish), and that Jewish people aren't declared righteous just because of their bloodline or because they follow the law.
Paul is teaching that everyone is a sinner who needs Jesus (including the Jews), that salvation is found in Jesus alone (not in good works or bloodlines), and that the Jewish people can't hoard God and salvation for themselves, that God is the God of all people, that salvation is offered to all people, and that anyone who believes will be saved, even Gentiles.
But if you let Calvinists convince you that "no one seeks" and Romans 3 are about "total inability/total depravity," you will become a Calvinist.
9. Lydia: To "prove" Calvinist election and irresistible grace, Calvinists quote Acts 16:14 - "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message" - and then they say "See, God opened Lydia's heart to believe the gospel. God predestines who believes and then causes them to believe."
But first off, the text does not say that God opened her heart "to believe." "To believe" is an assumption, added by Calvinists. And it does not say that Paul's message was the gospel message. In fact, it doesn't say what the message was. And so it very easily could have been - as I believe it is - a message about the need for believers to be baptized... because that's the very next thing she does in the next verse. (And this is the same thing that happened in Acts 19 when Paul preached to believers about the need to be baptized in the name of the Lord instead of just in John the Baptist's "baptism of repentance.")
Given that Lydia was already "a worshiper of God" before God "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message", this is not a case of God causing certain unbelievers to believe, but it's about God leading a believer to know the next step of obedience they need to take, which in Lydia's case was baptism.
[See this quick answer about Lydia and this post about Acts 16:14/total depravity for more.]
10. Works: Calvinists define "belief" unbiblically, as a way to work our way to heaven. And so since we all know we can't work our way to heaven, they convince us that we must not be able to believe on our own either, because that would be "works." But biblically, God does not define belief as works. In fact, He makes a distinction between faith/belief that saves and the righteous things we do to try to work our way to heaven that don't save.
"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to a man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" (Romans 4:3-6)
God is contrasting Abraham's belief/faith/trust in Him with those who "work" for their justification and righteousness, who try to earn/work their way to Him. He's saying that "belief/faith" is not the same thing as "working for your salvation," and that belief/faith is what we must do to be saved. God has done all the work to make salvation possible for us, and all He asks - all He requires - is that we accept it, that we open up our hands and receive it and say "Thank you. I believe." And that's not "working for salvation." Unless you're a Calvinist.
And, besides, even if you wanted to call belief a work, it's still the one "work" God says we must do to be saved, our responsibility:
John 6:28-29: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'"
Acts 16:31: “… Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved …”
11. Born again/regeneration/belief: Calvinists treat being born again/regenerated the same as belief, teaching that if the Holy Spirit makes us born again/regenerated then it must also mean that He makes us believe too. And they believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates people first - makes them born again first - so that they can and will believe. In Calvinism, regeneration results in belief. But biblically, it is our responsibility and choice (of our own free-will) to believe in Jesus (or reject Him) - and if and when we choose to believe in Jesus (our part), the Holy Spirit then does His part and regenerates us and makes us born again. In the Bible, our free-will belief comes first, resulting in the Holy Spirit regenerating us and making us born again.
(And when John 3:8 talks about spiritual birth being like the invisible wind going wherever it wants to, it doesn't mean the Holy Spirit chooses whom to regenerate, but it means that spiritual birth is an invisible thing that happens on the inside, contrasted with physical birth which we can see.)
12. Foundations of the world: Calvinists believe that God decided before the foundation of the world who would believe and who wouldn't and that He causes it to work out the way He planned.
But this is based on a mistranslation/misunderstanding of Revelation 13:8, usually from Calvinists' favored translation, the ESV, which says "... everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain."
"Written before the foundation of the world." Sounds very Calvinist-predestinationy, right?
But here's the King James, which I think is the most reliable and most accurate version: "... whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Very different, isn't it?
And two possible ways to understand it according to the KJV are:
1) "From the beginning" could refer to the Lamb being slain. If so, I would suggest it means that Jesus was foreordained to be slain for our sins from the very beginning. This would be confirmed by 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Acts 2:23.
2) Or if "from the beginning" really does refer to names being written in the Book of Life, notice that it's "from" in the KJV, not "before." This would mean that names started being added to the Book of Life from the beginning, meaning that new names are added as each new person comes to Christ, which would be confirmed in Rev. 17:8 and Eph. 1:13. (Or maybe it's about the Book of Life itself being created from the beginning.)
Either way, it contradicts Calvinism.
And, furthermore, Calvinists also misunderstand Ephesians 1:4 (NIV): “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight …”
Calvinists think this means that God chose which individual people would be saved, before the creation of the world. But that's not what it says or means. Basically and biblically, Ephesians is not saying that God predestined which individuals to save, but it's saying that God planned from the beginning that there would be an "in Him" group and that anyone who becomes “in Him” (through our free-will belief, Ephesians 1:13) will be saved, will become "holy and blameless" in His sight, and will get the benefits and blessings He planned to give all those who are "in Him." [See this post for more on this.]
Neither Ephesians 1:4 nor Revelation 13:8 - nor any other verse - teaches Calvinism's predestination of individuals to salvation.
13. "Sinful at birth": Calvinists always use Psalm 51:5 - "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (NIV) - to "prove" their idea of "total depravity," that from birth we are all wicked, rebellious, God-haters who could never come to God unless God makes us do it.
But here's the KJV: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." It does not say that David was sinful from birth but that he was conceived in sin. It is not a comment about our "total depravity from birth," but it's about David's mother's sin which led to his conception (or at least his belief that she sinned) or about the sin-filled world that babies are born into. Big difference!
(My husband read of an old belief people used to have back in the day, which was that people were born on the same day of the week that they were conceived. And so if a baby was born on the Sabbath, it meant the parents conceived the baby on a Sabbath, which meant they would have violated Sabbath rules about not having sex on the Sabbath. Who knows, but maybe David is referring to a "sin" along those lines. It's an interesting thought.)
14. Potter and the clay: Calvinists use Romans 9:21 ("Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?") to support Calvinist predestination, to "prove" that God has the right to create some people for heaven and some for hell.
But neither of those verses are about Calvinist predestination because that's not what Paul is talking about. It's about how God chooses to use people, not save people. Once again, what Paul is telling the Jews in Romans 9 is that although God chose the Jews to have a special role in bringing Jesus and the gospel to the world (the gospel was given to the Jews first so that they would spread it to the world), He has decided to take that special role from them because they rejected Jesus and the gospel and to give it to the Gentiles instead because they wanted it. God opened up the door of salvation to the Gentiles and transferred to them the job of spreading the gospel because the Jews rejected it (until the Tribulation, when God will again turn His attention back to the Jews so that they will become His focus and main missionaries again. God's promises and plans don't fail; He just adjusts them as He needs to, incorporating our decisions along the way.).
And, as I said, the Jews essentially cried "But that's not fair! How could God choose to pass over, to punish, natural-born Jews and to favor Gentiles instead? How could He give them the promises and blessings that belonged to us?"
And Romans 9 is about Paul's answer to that, telling the Jews that God can use people the way He wants to for His plans, that if the Gentiles were willing to receive the gospel and obey Him but the Jews weren't, then God can shift the blessings and promises to the Gentiles and adopt them into His family, giving them the special role that was supposed to be for the Jews (spreading the gospel). God has the right to give some people noble jobs and to give others common jobs, based on our choices. And we have no right to say that He's wrong in His decision about this.
And don't forget that there are at least two other places in the Bible that talk about the potter and the clay or about vessels for noble or ignoble use - and neither have to do with God predestining someone's salvation. Let's see what we learn from them:
Jeremiah 18: God shows Jeremiah a potter who was shaping a pot, but the clay was marred (notice that the potter didn't mar the clay) and so he shaped it into a different pot that would better fit the clay's condition. Likewise, God says that He can plan something for people, but then He can change His plans for people based on what they do or don't do. This is contrary to Calvinism which teaches that God preplans everything to happen the way it does and that He doesn't base His decisions on our decisions.
2 Timothy 2:20-21: Like Romans 9:21, this also talks about some vessels in a house being for noble purposes and some being for ignoble purposes (this is not about salvation but about God using people for different purposes/jobs, based on what kind of people they are). This passage also contradicts Calvinism in that it says that "If a man cleanses himself from [being ignoble], he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy..." This shows that the decision to be how we are - to be fit for noble or ignoble purposes - lies with us, not with God. We choose how we will be and how we will respond to God's calls/laws, and then He will use us accordingly. He does not make us be one way or other, but we choose which way to be and then He finds a way to use us in His plans. And so if we want to be sinful, rebellious people, He lets us be that way and finds a way to work it into His plans. But if we want to be fit for "noble purposes," we must make decisions to live in such a way that God will use us for noble purposes. We affect whether or not we are used for noble purposes or for ignoble purposes, based on whether or not we cleanse ourselves from being “ignoble.” God doesn’t do it for us and hasn’t pre-decided it. He responds according to our choices.
15. "Fitted to destruction": Calvinists also use Romans 9:22 to teach Calvinist predestination/the doctrine of election (NIV): “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction?”
They use this to "prove" that God predetermined who would go the hell, that He prepared certain people for destruction from the beginning of time.
But in the King James, the word is not “prepared” but “fitted.” And according to Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository dictionary, “fitted” indicates a strong correlation between someone’s character and their destiny. It’s written in such a way to imply that the objects of wrath prepared themselves for destruction. So it’s not that God made them that way; it’s that they made themselves that way by how they chose to live and be. We fit ourselves for destruction by how we choose to live and be, by choosing to live/believe the way that leads to destruction. (This goes along with the potter and clay verses above.)
Romans 9:22 is not saying that God creates some people for hell, but it's saying that God deals patiently with those who willingly choose to resist/reject Him because He can still use them to carry out His plans to bless others - which, in the case of Romans, it's about God dealing patiently with the Jews who reject Him because He can use them to help bring Jesus, the gospel, and salvation to the Gentiles, to the world.
Romans 9 is not a Calvinist chapter! It’s not about God predestining the salvation of individual people. But if you let Calvinists convince you it is, you will become a Calvinist too.
16. Sovereign/Omnipotent/Foreknowledge: Calvinists believe that sovereignty and omnipotence necessarily mean that God always uses His power all the time to preplan/control/orchestrate/cause everything that happens, making it all happen just as He planned.
And they think that God only foreknows what will happen because He first preplanned it to happen (and then He orchestrates/causes it to happen) - and that's how He "foreknows" it. But that's going outside the proper definition of foreknowledge, which is just "to know beforehand," adding something that's not there.
And contrary to Calvinist presuppositions, sovereignty is not about how God must use His power and authority, but it's simply about God being in the highest position of power and authority - and as such, He gets to decide how to use His power and authority, even if it means He chooses to voluntarily restrain His ability to preplan/cause everything that happens by giving people the free-will ability to make their own decisions.
And did you know that the word "sovereign/sovereignty" isn't even in the King James Bible anywhere, despite the fact that Calvinists build their whole theology around their definition of it? (I think the KJV is the most reliable, least corrupted translation.)
And in other translations like the NIV, it's used mostly in a title like "the Sovereign Lord"... King Jesus. But nowhere does it define sovereignty as God predetermining or controlling all things. It's a title referring to God's position of authority over all, not a description about how God must actively control all.
As I said, earlier, Calvinists wrongly think that if God is "in control over all things" (biblical), it must mean that He is always preplanning/controlling all things (unbiblical; Calvinist). This is an unbiblical leap that Calvinists make. One of many.
[And just because God does preplan/control some things doesn't mean He preplans/control all things - another unbiblical leap Calvinists make. And another one is when they decide that since God caused/controlled some natural evils in the Bible like storms or illnesses, it must mean He also causes/controls all moral evils, like sin, murder, abuse, etc. But causing a natural evil does not violate a command He gave, whereas causing a moral evil does. These are two very different things, and Calvinists destroy God's character, Word, and trustworthiness when they make a huge unbiblical leap from one to the other.]
Question: If Calvinists are correct that sovereignty means that God preplans and controls all things that happen, then why are these verses in the Bible:
Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval."
Isaiah 30:1: "'Woe to the obstinate children,' declares the Lord, 'to those who carry out plans that are not mine...'"
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.''"
Jeremiah 19:5: "They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."
Ezekiel 13:22 (CSB): "Because you have disheartened the righteous person with lies (when I intended no distress)..."
Calvinists have no good answers for these, nor do they factor them into their systematic theology.
17. Salvation belongs to the Lord: Calvinists always use Jonah 2:9's "salvation belongs to/comes from the Lord" to support their idea that God determines who gets salvation and who doesn't. But according to Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary, "salvation" in the Old Testament never refers to eternal soul salvation from sin, but with God delivering people from any earthly evil/enemy/distress they need deliverance from. I'm just sayin'.
18. God removes hearts of stone and replaces them with hearts of flesh: Calvinists also use this verse (Ezekiel 36:26) to try to prove that God causes people to believe (and that He chooses who believes). But what they fail to realize is that God doesn't do this arbitrarily, but He does it after they choose to repent and turn to Him, in response to their repentance. This is what they are required to do in order to get the new heart God promises. (And of course, in context, this is a verse about Israel in the end times, not about the predestined salvation of random individuals in the Church age.)
As Ezekiel 18:30-32 says: "Therefore, O house of Israel. I will judge you, each one according to his ways, says the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourself of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord Repent and live!"
Calvinists say that God alone decides whom to give a new heart to and whom to seal in their sin/predestined damnation...
... but the Bible tells us to get ourselves a new heart and a new spirit, and it even tells us how to do this so that we can avoid judgment.
19. And finally, Proverbs and Psalms: Calvinists often use Proverbs or Psalms to try to support/prove Calvinism, such as (for one example) Proverbs 21:1: “the kings’ heart is in the hand of the Lord, he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” They quote it as if it's literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology in order to prove that sovereignty means God controls our thoughts, desires, actions, and eternal destinies.
But what they fail to realize is that Proverbs are wise sayings, not literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology. Proverbs are general principles, not absolute promises. And Psalms are songs, prayers, and heart cries (as are the things Job says, which Calvinists quote a lot too in order to prove Calvinism).
[Not that there isn't biblical truth/theology/prophecy in these books. But Calvinists go above and beyond Scripture, taking verses too far, taking them out of context, and reading into them things that aren't there. And they use the wrong verses to make their theological foundation (verses that can be twisted to be Calvinist), and then they filter all the other verses through them, completely changing the clear commonsense meanings into unclear, contradictory, Calvinist ones.]
And so the next time a Calvinist quotes a Psalm or Proverb to try to prove Calvinism, tell them that if they are going to take that Psalm or Proverb as literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology or absolute promises, then they can't pick and choose which Psalm or Proverb to do that with but must do it will all Psalms and Proverbs, including:
Proverbs 21:9: "Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife."
Prov. 12:21: "No harm befalls the righteous" [So no righteous Calvinist will ever face harm?]
Prov. 23:2: "and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony." [Well, the Bible literally says it, so I guess we have to take it literally, right?]
Prov. 23:14: "Punish [your child] with the rod and save his soul from death." [So, taken literally, salvation can come through Jesus or beating your child with a rod, right?]
Prov. 16:7: "When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies live at peace with him."
Prov. 16:31: "Gray hair is... attained by a righteous life."
Psalm 6:6: "You made [man] ruler over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet." [So then, if taken literally, man has been given God's sovereign position over everything but God. Man rules, not God.]
Likewise, Psalm 115:16: "The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth He has given to man."
Psalm 115:17: "It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down in silence." [So no dead person ever praises God? Then what about all those around the throne in Revelation?]
Psalm 73:13: "Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; in vain have I washed my hands in innocence." [Really?]
Ask the Calvinist if they would take these Psalms and Proverbs as literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology or absolute promises? Would they filter the rest of the Bible and their view of God through Psalms or Proverbs like these or use them as the foundation of their whole theological system?
No?
Then why would they do it with Proverbs 21:1?
[For more on this, see "Piper's Problematic Perspective on Proverbs."]
And if they still want to insist that Proverbs 21:1 is literal, hard-core, bottom-line theology so that they can cling to their idea that God controls everything we think and do, then tell them "Okay, but then notice that the verse literally specifies that the king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand. No one else’s."
These are just some of Calvinism's foundational errors and how it traps people. And if you can understand just these few, you are well on your way to fending off the powerful, hypnotic pull of Calvinism's Systematic Theology!
[Footnote: Oh, and there's one more ending point for Calvinism's Systematic Theology, shown in stories like these which I've shared time and time again:
"My parents used to say 'even the cutest baby is a dirty rotten sinner.'... I’m turning 30 this year and I still have trouble turning down the volume on this narrative about myself. It has led to issues in my friendships, with my partner, and now, with my parents... I have deconstructed to the [point] of agnosticism... This has crippled my emotional growth as an adult in ways..." (foreverlanding)
"The [Calvinist] concept of total depravity is so completely toxic.... The system is designed to make you feel like a POS [piece of sh*t] just for being a human. I'm 37 now and am agnostic after trying really hard to believe until about 2ish years ago. I feel more hopeful and free without the church." (eab1728)
"Agreed. Total Depravity isn't the "Good News" espoused in Reformed circles... it robbed me of dignity and replaced it with constant, grating guilt. And it's utterly worthless in the face of real hardship... I am a universalist now, which couldn't be further from Reformed doctrine. And honestly, what a relief." (come_heroine)
"I'm so angry that I was taught that I was completely bad, simply by being human, and I deserved to be tortured by the Creator for all of eternity, AND I COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. All I could do was pray to God and hope that he had mercy on such a miserable, worthless, depraved wretch such as twelve-year-old me. I lived with a phobia of hell until the cage of my mind opened when I was 22, and I could finally think for the first time in my life..." (why-homo-sapien)
"A few years ago I was wondering why my self-esteem was so crap and then suddenly realised that the people who taught me to hate myself were my parents, through the medium of calvinism :)" (pktechboi)
From the Reddit post "Verily verily I say unto thee, f*ck this sh*t!": "...When I realized our own judicial system treats us better than this sadistic god, I was out. 30 years of my life. Sure, there were good memories. But the weight of it all sure took a toll on me eventually. Thankful I can breath a bit more easy now not worrying if I have committed the unpardonable sin. I’m certain I have 100x over. ;) ..." (Miss_an100)
And, most heartbreaking, from the reddit post Election and Suicide: "I have recently discovered the doctrine of election and I believe that I am not elect. I don't have any spiritual fruit and I hate God with all my heart. My question is, at this point is it right to want to die? Might as well go to hell now instead of later. I do not want to kill myself (I never will hopefully) but I cant see a reason to live when my end destiny will be the same." (from "deleted")
If you are raising kids in a Calvinist church, take all of this very seriously, because this could be them someday.
You know, I'm not sure which one's worse: The person whose faith and self-esteem is totally destroyed because of Calvinism... or the person who gets so trapped in Calvinism that they start to sound just like the Talbot and Piper quote above. They're both just so tragic!😞]
