Alana L. 5X: (Final notes on sovereignty)
This series is loosely based on this 14-minute video from Alana L.: 5 Signs Your Loved One is Becoming a Calvinist [This is the last of the #5 posts, finally. Just two more posts after this for the whole series, then I'm done.]
Point #5 Still:
X. A few final notes on Calvinism's "sovereignty"
1. Why deny?
As I end the posts on sovereignty, I want to ask: Why are most Calvinists so hesitant to admit that Calvi-god causes all sin, evil, and unbelief even though their theology undeniably teaches it, that Calvi-god preplans, decrees, controls, orchestrates, directs everything that happens and that humans have no ability to want/choose to do anything different? Why do they constantly try to deny it, cover it up, or soften it to make it sound less "cause" than it really is (especially when they think Calvi-god does it for his glory)?
It's because they know that "cause" is related to "blame/responsibility."
They know that according to their definition of "sovereignty," they must admit that Calvi-god preplans/controls/causes all things, even sin, evil, and unbelief (and they should admit that he is really the only cause of it all because no one but him has the ability to make decisions or control anything).
But they also know that to say "he causes sin, evil, and unbelief" implies (rightly so) that he's to blame for it. And they know they can't say that. And so this puts them in a bind, having to find other ways to say "cause" when they really do mean "cause", and having to find ways to make it seem like he's not to blame for or responsible for sin, evil, and unbelief - that we are to blame - when he really is.
From Calvinist David Mathis's article "Does God 'cause' sin?": "We May Say That God Causes Sin: For us, the question arises as to whether God can be the efficient cause of sin, without being to blame for it... [But if] the connection between cause and blame in modern language is no stronger than the connection between ordination and blame, then it seems to me that it is not wrong to say that God causes evil and sin. Certainly we should employ such language cautiously, however..."
I think this is why their Calvinist theology books are so long - because they have to come up with all sorts of convoluted arguments, circular reasoning, Calvinistic interpretations for verses, "two types of this and that," etc. - creating all kinds of contradictions and inconsistencies in logic, building error upon error, twisting the Bible as they go to make it fit their errors and creating new errors to cover for the previous errors - to make it seem like Calvinism doesn't make God responsible for sin and evil, when it really does.
To show the contrast between Calvinism's and non-Calvinism's view of sovereignty, here's a conversation between Warren McGrew (Idol Killer) and a Calvinist woman (he shared this story in his video "You don't understand Calvinism - Considering the Reformation", starting at about the 24-minute mark.):
Warren says that he was hanging out with family, and a woman walked in and said "I've been watching your videos on YouTube. I want you to know I disagree with you. I believe God is sovereign."
Warren said that he also believes God is sovereign, and he explains it this way: "When I say 'sovereign,' I mean God is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and He is the highest authority to which we can appeal. He's the ultimate Judge, our Redeemer, our Savior, our Lord. When I say 'sovereign', that's what I mean... [But when you say 'sovereign'] you mean 'meticulous effectual determinism,' that God decreed all the evil in the world, all the good, and brought everything to come to pass. You're thinking 'fatalism.' And so we're gonna disagree on how we define 'sovereign' - because I think it's a great blasphemy to accuse God of sexual abuse or decreeing and bringing about all adultery and all evil and all sin and suffering. I think that is the result of man's rebellion against God, not God's ultimate Will and that He wanted this. I think this is contrary to His Will. Ultimately, He'll redeem and restore it, but we're contrary to it." [Well said, Warren!]
Then she responded, "I want you to know something, Warren. My husband committed adultery on me... I know God did that for my good and for my husband's good - because he repented, he got more devout with the Lord and our marriage improved as a result. So I know God's the one who led him into temptation, that led him into that adulterous affair, and that God effectually decreed it for our good."
And Warren responded, "Ma'am, God can redeem without being the devil to bring that about. Just let God be the fireman, He doesn't need to be the arsonist. Just let Him be the fireman, let Him be the hero and put [the fire] out. Let's own our own evil. Don't blame God for your husband's infidelity. That's not real repentance. Don't blame God for your husband's lust. Don't blame God for your husband's abuse. Put that squarely on that man's shoulders, and he needs to take that to the cross in repentance... Don't blame God for your husband's evil."
Warren goes on to say in his video that "She just could not let go of the idea that because somehow this great sin was turned into good that ultimately that meant that God was the one who caused it. So when we talk about 'sovereignty' in the Calvinist system, we're operating under a completely different definitional set."
Once again, well said, Warren!
[And I liked when Warren responded to "You don't understand Calvinism" with "It's not that we don't understand Calvinism; it's that Calvinists are being inconsistent" (paraphrase). So true!]
And how sad is it that good, well-meaning, humble Christian have convinced themselves that God Himself is the one who preplanned and caused the terrible evils other people did to them - all because Calvinists have convinced them that that's what a "sovereign" God does and that He should be trusted and praised for it anyway.
It's truly sickening! (And eventually heart-crushing and faith-destroying.)
3. And, finally, if Calvinism is true...
A final note for Calvinists to think about:
In Calvinism, everything that happens is "God's sovereign Will," even all sin, evil, violence, adultery, murder, abuse, etc.
Gordon H. Clark (Religion, Reason, and Revelation): “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it."
Theodore Zachariades (as seen in this clip from Soteriology 101): "God works all things after the counsel of His will, even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so... and when He wants to, He orders those to commit adultery when HE WANTS TO!"
Jeff Durbin (The Madness of Calvinism) talking to a woman about evils like gang rape: “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil He plans… nothing happens in the universe apart from His will.… He actually decrees all things."
James White was asked [listen here] the question “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” and he replies with "If He didn't then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose... Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless...
But if Calvinism is true that all sin and evil is truly "God's Will," just as much as good is, then verses like these ought to thoroughly confuse and scare the crap out of Calvinists:
Psalm 40:8: "I desire to do your will, O my God..."
Psalm 143:10: "Teach me to do your will..."
1 Peter 4:2: "As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God." (Confusing. Because those evil earthly desires are also the will of Calvi-god.😕)
1 John 2:17: "The world and its desires are passing away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever."
Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Ephesians 6:6: "... doing the will of God from your heart."
Hebrews 10:6: "... I have come to do your will, O God.'"
Hebrews 13:21: "[May God] equip you with everything good for doing his will..."
Ending this section on sovereignty: As I've said before, Calvinists believe that if man had free-will, it would mean that God is not sovereign or omnipotent. They assume from the beginning that being sovereign and omnipotent must mean that God preplans, causes, controls everything, even sin and evil.
[The ironic thing is that no Calvinist would adopt that definition of "sovereign" any other time they use that word. They would never say that a sovereign king or sovereign nation must predestine/cause/control everything that happens under them, even all sin and evil, and that if they didn't then they're not really sovereign. Calvinists only use this made-up definition of sovereign when they're talking about God.]
But I agree with C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain, chapter 8, when he said this (particularly about hell, but it also fits here given Calvinist assumptions about what it means to be "omnipotent/sovereign" and about how God predestines people to hell instead of letting them make their own free-will choice to reject Him):
"In an earlier chapter it was admitted that the pain which alone could rouse a bad man to a knowledge that all was not well, might also lead to a final and unrepented rebellion. And it has been admitted throughout that man has free will and that all gifts to him are therefore two-edged. From these premises it follows directly that the Divine labour to redeem the world cannot be certain of succeeding as regards every individual soul. Some will not be redeemed... If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse.
... Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside... They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved.
... In the long run the answer to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: 'What are you asking God to do?' To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid this is what He does."
To allow people to make their own decisions, even the decision to reject Him, does not mean God is not omnipotent or sovereign. It just means that He voluntarily limited His own power in order to give people the right to choose, the ability to choose. He voluntarily allowed Himself to be rejected by His own creation - because He wants genuine, real, voluntary-love relationships with us!
This isn't weakness on His part, but it's incredible strength, amazing love!
Calvinists say that Calvi-god created people to get more glory for himself, either by showing his love and grace in predestining some to heaven or by showing his wrath and justice against sin by predestining some to hell. They think if people had free-will, it makes people more powerful than God, more sovereign than God. And to them, this diminishes God and reduces His glory.
But I'm with Lewis: It's a miracle! Astonishing, unimaginable love! And to me, this is even more humbling and awe-inspiring, and it makes Him even more glorious, more amazing, making me want to love Him even more!
He's not a diabolical tyrant causing people to reject Him and then punishing them for rejecting Him... but He's an amazing, self-sacrificial God pleading with everyone to accept the forgiveness, love, and eternal life He freely offers to all, that He paid for with His blood for everyone, even those who shun His love and sacrifice.
Forced love is no love at all. Forced praise and worship is empty, unfulfilling, and meaningless. And so He had to make people with free-will, the ability to decide and choose for themselves. (Calvinism actually cheapens the love, glory, worship, and praise of God by making it compulsory, instead of truly voluntary.)
I think God's glory is most evident in and most elevated by His love of us and our voluntary love of Him. And so He didn't predestine anyone to hell for His glory. He wants all of us in heaven with Him and Jesus paid the price for everyone's "ticket to heaven"... but He lets us decide for ourselves.
[And sadly, many will decide that they don't want Him in their lives, that they want to be their own god. To give people the right/ability to choose to love Him means giving them the option of rejecting Him. And many will choose to do that. And so, as much as it pains Him, God will give them what they want and what they chose: life without Him. Eternally. He will leave them alone with their decision, just like they wanted.]
He will not force Himself on anyone nor force anyone to love Him. He offers Himself to us freely - His love, healing, forgiveness, grace, mercy, eternal life - and all He asks is that we open our hands willingly and accept it, that we love Him in return. (A God who allows Himself to be rejected by His own creation... because love matters so much to Him... can you even imagine!?!)
That's a God I want to love! That's a God worth all the praise, worship, and glory we can give Him!
Calvinism's god who loves himself so much that he chose to predestine people to hell for his glory... and the God of the Bible who loves us so much that He chose to die in our place to offer us all salvation from hell, even those who would reject Him... are two very different Gods!
Calvi-god sacrifices people for himself.
The God of the Bible sacrificed Himself for people.
Which one would you love and trust and worship and try to be like?
[The posts in this series will be added to the "Alana L." label as they get published.]
