Original post by Ronnie W. Rogers
I agree with the Calvinist claim that the gospel is simple and clear, but I contend that Calvinism, by its very nature, complicates and obscures the simple and clear gospel.[1] Yes, someone can be saved when anyone says something like, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” but the difference between what a Calvinist and Extensivist (non-Calvinist) mean when uttering those words is quite different.[2] Just the cache of extra-biblical concepts needed to characterize Calvinism as a biblical position is telling.
Their view requires concepts such as two wills (revealed and secret), two calls (external to all and internal to the elect only), two loves (salvifically speaking rather than different kinds such as love of a child or spouse), two levels of atonement (sufficient for the non-elect but efficient for the elect only), two parallel lines (to give an appearance of reconciling unconditional election, micro-determinism, and God’s salvific love for all with man’s freedom), two gospel offers (good faith offer which is not an actual offer as opposed to the Bible’s good offer of the gospel), compatibilism (but regularly speak libertarianly),[3] mystery (gloss of Calvinistically-generated contradictions), and using the distinction between man’s intellect and moral aspects to obfuscate the plight of the non-elect (i.e., the person cannot choose to believe).[4] In Calvinism, Scripture is not simple with depth but cryptic, with these concepts only accessible to Calvinism’s theological sophisticates.
For example, in Scripture, we see Jesus making good offers to repent and be saved (Matt 4:17; 11:20-21; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47). Some Calvinists say Jesus was making a “good faith offer” (if there is such an idea) since, as a man, he did not know who the elect were. There is an insurmountable problem with imposing an unawareness of who the non-elect are upon Christ to sustain the idea that rather than presenting a good offer, he only presented a “good faith offer.”
Because Jesus said he always did the will of the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 17:4) and spoke not of his own initiative but what the Father wanted him to speak (John 3:11, 34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49-50; 14:10, 24, 31; 17:8). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was upon Jesus and filling him without measure (Isa 61:1; Matt 12:18; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14; John 3:34; Acts 10:38). Consequently, even if Jesus did not know, the Father and the Holy Spirit knew; therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of selective regeneration makes the Trinity complicitous in this unscrupulous misrepresentation. The obvious truth is that Jesus commanded them to repent because he was not willing that any would perish and desired that all would come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9), something God has grace enabled everyone who hears the truth to be able to do.
Calvinist Kevin DeYoung asks, “Is God wise enough to make himself known? Is he good enough to make himself accessible? Is he gracious enough to communicate in ways that are understandable to the meek and lowly? Or does God give us commands we can’t understand and a self-revelation that reveals more questions than answers?”[5] My answer is yes; he is wise enough, good enough, and gracious enough, but I do not think Calvinists can consistently say yes in the same sense because Calvinism burdens God with withholding, for most, what is necessary to know him and make him accessible. And if Calvinism is true, God has surely not communicated in ways understandable to the meek, lowly, or the hoi polloi but only to the enlightened theological sophisticates.
The truth is, while God made Scripture to be exoteric (to be understood by the average person), Calvinism makes Scripture esoteric (truly understood by a chosen few). This is in spite of the fact that Calvinists still proclaim the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture.[6]
[1] For example, Calvinist Kevin DeYoung states, “The saving message of Jesus Christ is plainly taught in the Scriptures and can be understood by all who have ears to hear it. We don’t need an official magisterium to tell us what the Bible means.” In his book Taking God at His Word (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 45.
[2] See my book Does God Love All or Some? Particularly chapters 20, 21, and 25.
[3] COMPATIBILISM: Determinism and moral responsibility are compatible, hence the name. This compatibility is not achieved by compatibilism being less deterministic than hard determinism. Rather, it is achieved by defining free choice to mean as long as a person chooses according to his greatest desire, he has made a free choice for which he is morally responsible; even though given the same past, he cannot choose differently in the moral moment of decision.
Consequently, the difference between compatibilism (soft determinism) and hard determinism is not to be found in the levels of the deterministic nature of each since they are the same. Rather, the difference is compatibilism simply contends people are morally responsible for their choices if they are made according to their greatest desire, and hard determinism says they are not. Therefore, moral responsibility is the product of defining free choice as a person acting in accordance with his greatest desire even though the desire is determined.
LIBERTARIAN: Man is not determined. He has the actual ability to choose between accessible options, at least in some scenarios. Libertarians contend determinism is not compatible with moral responsibility. Man possesses actual otherwise choice and can, therefore, act or refrain in the moral moment of decision, given the same past within a given range of options.
Extensivism argues God endowed man with this ability, which is an aspect of being created in the image of God. God determines the range of options. Adam’s range of options, the result of creative grace, was greater than mankind’s options after the fall. Fallen man can still choose between options, but the range of options is less than man had prior to the fall. This lessening includes losing the ability to make choices that are inherently righteous or spiritually restorative (making one right with God) based solely on creative grace. In order to make an inherently righteous choice or one that is spiritually restorative, God had to provision redemptive grace—grace enablements—which he did.
[4] Add to these Calvinism’s uniquely narrow definitions such as sovereignty being causal and only exercisable over determined or compatibly free beings, or the necessary adjectives in the TULIP.
[5] Kevin DeYoung, Taking God at His Word (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 69.
[6] DeYoung comments, “The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is not a wild assertion that the meaning of every verse in the Bible will be patently obvious to everyone. Rather, the perspicuity of Scripture upholds the notion that ordinary people using ordinary means can accurately understand enough of what must be known, believed, and observed for them to be faithful Christians.” Kevin DeYoung, Taking God at His Word (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 59. I think the Calvinist system fails here as well.
br.d patheos.com has an article headlined
“The Bible is Not Obvious and Clear”
SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 BY FELLOW DYING INMATE
About the Countless Different Interpretations of the Bible
br.d , Another good article from
patheos.com is headlined
“3 Lenses With Which to View the So-Called ‘Clear Biblical Truths’ ” on
NOVEMBER 14, 2017 BY MATTHEW DISTEFANO
Which Lense is Most correct ?
Have a Great weekend everybody
br.d
Good morning Jeff!
.
Yes – I agree with much of the wisdom in this article.
Many years ago – when I was a young fellow – I was dating a certain girl in the church I was attending.
Her family was very unhappy with her – because they were staunch Catholic and for them – her coming to the Lord – meant her leaving the Catholic church – which in their minds was the only *TRUE* form of Christianity.
.
In particular – I remember my first conversation with her mother who very quickly brought up the subject.
Her mother started trying to insist the Catholicism was the *TRUE* form of Christianity.
And I was bold enough to relate the elements of paganism which were inherent within Catholicism.
.
All of the facts I provided to her mother were historically correct.
But since those facts did not line up her biased opinion – she could not accept them.
.
Her statement was “You can disagree with me if you want to – but if you do – you are simply wrong”
.
She AUTO-MATIGALLY raised her belief system up onto a *DIVINE* pedestal
And her *DIVINE* pedestal allowed her to look DOWN at everyone else.
.
I would later identify this practice as *SELF CANONIZATION* and I would discover the same exact process with Calvinists.
.
There is a Youtube video created by “Premier Unbelievable?” which is titled: “William Lane Craig vs James White”
.
This topic comes up in that discussion between those two men.
.
Dr. Craig points out that *ALL* humans are subject to what scripture calls “The Bondage of Corruption”.
And that the scripture is divine – but we human beings who read scripture – do not have divine minds.
And our *INTERPRETATION* of scripture is very much subject to human biases.
.
James White’s claim is that the human biases which Dr. Craig refers to exist for Bible readers who are NOT Calvinists.
But the Calvinist reading of scripture is *INSPIRED* by the Holy Spirit.
.
What James is doing – is the exact same thing this Catholic mother was doing many years ago.
.
Calvinists are pretty much taught that the Calvinist reading of scripture is *DIVINE*
.
I happens all the time – I get in a conversation with a Calvinist and they will tell me – my reasoning is “HUMAN” reasoning while their reasoning is *DIVINE* reasoning.
.
That of course – is a full-blown denial of “The Bondage of Corruption” which scripture itself describes.
.
Additionally – the Calvinist is once again – in complete denial of his own belief system.
Part of the Calvinist belief system – is “TOTAL DEPRAVITY”
.
But the Calvinist does not consider himself “TOTALLY DEPRAVED”
Everyone who is NOT a Calvinist reads scripture with some degree of depravity.
But the Calvinist’s reading of scripture is *DIVINE*
.
What the Calvinist does – is *CANONIZE* himself.
.
So the Calvinist has two Canons
1) He has the CANON of scripture
2) He has the CANON of his interpretation
.
This process is of *SELF-CANONIZATION* is essentially the practice of raising a tradition of interpretation up onto a pedestal – and making it *DIVINE*
.
The Calvinist is actually calling himself *DIVINE*
But of course – he cannot be honest enough with himself – to acknowledge it.
.
Blessings!
And have a great week-end Jeff!
br.d :-]
Thank for your comments BR. I’ve certainly experienced the Calvinist believing himself to be right but have not had one come right out and say his interpretation was “divine.” The hubris and pride in that is unbelievable. I think my immediate reaction would be to just laugh in their face. Of course the other way to approach would be to say that in Calvinism, it’s obviously God’s sovereign will that I interpret scripture differently than them so in that sense any interpretation is “divine” because God caused my to interpret it that way!
br.d
Yes Andy!
.
And of course – the Calvinist knows your reaction would be to laugh.
And that would be the opposite of what he wants.
He wants you to take him seriously.
.
We can generally see – there are two kinds of statements.
There are statements which are made within EXPLICIT language
And there are statements which are couched within INFERENTIAL language.
.
All adults realize there is a certain degree of risk in the use of EXPLICIT language.
Politicians for example – are experts at evading EXPLICIT language and couching statements within INFERENTIAL language.
.
So Calvinists will use words which have LIBERTARIAN inferences – such as the word “Choice” for example.
It would not be unusual for a Calvinist to claim that within his belief system – people are held accountable for the “Choices” they make.
.
But do people have “Choice” in Calvinism?
If it is infallibly decreed that you will turn left at TIME-T – then the option for you to NOT turn left at TIME-T does not exist for you – because that option was infallibly excluded at the foundation of the world.
The option for you to turn left at TIME-T is not granted existence within creation because it would falsify the decree.
.
Consequently – you did NOT have a “Choice” between turning left and NOT turning left – because the option to NOT turn left – did not exist for you.
.
So Calvinists will use the language of “Choice” to create a FALSE PICTURE of ALTERNATIVES available for people to choose.
.
But the doctrine stipulates – an infallible decree does not grant the existence of ALTERNATIVES from that which it decrees.
.
Good points!
Blessings!
br.d :-]
Hi Andy,
You said: I’ve certainly experienced the Calvinist believing himself to be right but have not had one come right out and say his interpretation was “divine.”
They may not say “divine” but they do say “biblical.” And “God-centered.” And that Calvinism IS the gospel.
Essentially, they are calling their theology “divine” without using that word. And they make you feel like disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God and His Truth.
And yeah, it’s funny to me that they fight people who disagree with Calvinism when, clearly, our views against Calvinism were “ordained” by Calvi-god for his glory and good pleasure. Our anti-Calvinist stance is just as predestined/caused by God and just as glorifying to God as their Calvinist stance. And yet they fight us and act like we’re wrong, like we’re dishonoring God somehow. Ironic and hypocritical.
Blessings to you, Andy! 🙂
Thanks Heather. Now that I think of it you are right, there are plenty of times I’ve heard them say “biblical” and “God-centered” inferring that their interpretation is the biblical and God-centered one and any other is not, which is the same thing just using different words. The Calvinist church I used to attend, when they build their new sanctuary building, put two huge signs in the entry lobby that said “High View of God” and “High View of Scripture”. After I left I thought about those signs, and thought about the hubris of them. The inference of course is that their church is identified by this and most other churches don’t have a high view of God and of scripture like they do, If that’s not the inference and it’s not a particular distinctive of that church but not others, what’s the point of the signs?
Andy,
“High View of God” and “High View of Scripture”… That’s the exact phrases I was thinking of too. I’ve seen this a lot with Calvinists.
And it’s funny because, in my mind, the more someone has to say something, the less true it often is – such as the person who can be trusted the least is often the one constantly claiming “I’m honest. I don’t lie. You can trust me. I can keep secrets, etc.”
But the truly honest, trustworthy person shows it by their life and earns trust over time, so they don’t have to keep making these claims, trying to convince people it’s true.
I wonder if the Calvinist’s constant claims of “we have a high view of God/Scripture” are almost to comfort themselves because they sense something is wrong, deep down. And of course, it’s to get naive people to let their guards down and turn off their spiritual radars and to just trust what’s being taught.
After all, the Calvinist pastor said he’s “preaching right from Scripture and has a high view of God and the Bible,” so he can’t be wrong, can he? 😉
Brother, please find a link below to a true defence of Calvinism. Heart stirring message.
[link removed]
br.d
Hello James and welcome
.
Due to policy concerning inappropriate content – SOT101 does not allow links to other sites as content within posts.
.
But you are more than free to provide a summary of the points you feel are critical.
.
I do however have a comment concerning you automatically calling other believers “Brothers”
If you *TRULY* understand Calvinist doctrine – then you know what the doctrine stipulates.
.
The doctrine stipulates 2 very critical things
1) In Calvinism – a large percentage of believers are specifically created as CHAFF believers.
These believers are divinely deceived – having been given a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt *WITHOUT* the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
2) The doctrine does not grant the Calvinist any CERTAINTY of election
.
John Calvin
-quote
But because a *SMALL* and contemptible number are hidden in a *HUGE* multitude and a *FEW GRAINS* of wheat
are covered by a *PILE OF CHAFF*, we must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation
is his ***SECRET*** election. (Institutes 4.1.4)
.
-quote
We must thus consider both God’s SECRET election and his INNER call. For he alone “knows who are his” (Institutes. 4. 1. 2.)
.
Consequently – per the doctrine – a Calvinist has no way of knowing if he himself is a TRUE brother.
And he certainly has no way of knowing if any other person is a TRUE brother.
.
So as a Calvinist – you are not being TRUE to your doctrine to assume anyone is a TRUE brother.
.
blessings
br.d
br.d
James – the video you linked to – does not present an accurate representation of Calvinism.
.
Firstly- the presenter calls John Calvin -quote “A good man”
.
Apparently this presenter is not familiar with Jesus correcting a person who called him ‘Good”
Jesus’ expressly stated: “There is no one who is good except God”.
.
If this presenter was familiar with the words of Jesus – he would know not to put any man on a pedestal or to worship any man – or to heroize any man.
.
I’m sorry to inform you – what you are getting here is simply a *WHITE-WASHED* picture of Calvinism.
.
Calvinism is a doctrine of divine malevolence – trying to masquerade itself as a doctrine of divine benevolanece.
.
Calvin’s god has two provisions for mankind.
1) His PRIMARY provision is for THE MANY – creating them specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
2) his SECONDARY provision is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
.
Calvin’s god creates babies, and women, and men, specifically for a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god – though the reason does not appear – they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of
destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
Anyone who tries to call the act of creating babies, women, and men specifically for eternal torment for one’s pleasure an act of “Grace” is telling you lies.
.
Calvinism is not a doctrine of “Grace”
Calvinism is s doctrine of “Good-Evil”
.
Blessings!
br.d
br.d, Heather, and Everyone Else
I just found this article from the Los Angeles times website
latimes.com headlined
“Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don’t have free will”
BY CORINNE PURTILL STAFF WRITER
OCT. 17, 2023 , so could it be that we Humans are living in a Giant Computer simulation like the 1999 Film “The Matrix” What is Reality ?
Could the Scientist be right ?
br.d.
Hello Jeff – here is something for you to think about.
.
Is your brain – granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter?
If someone asks you a TRUE/FALSE question – does your brain have the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on that question?
.
If the answer is YES – then what your brain is doing – is making a LIBERTARIAN CHOICE.
.
A LIBERTARIAN CHOICE – is a choice that *YOUR* brain makes
It is not a choice that is made *FOR* your brain – by an external mind.
.
Consider the following example:
Billy is a 6 year old boy who is playing on the back padio.
Billy has a friend from next door – who is playing in his sand box.
The two of them are close enough to talk with each other.
Billy’s father comes out and tells Billy he is going to the Deli to get a treat for their supper.
Billy begs his father to bring him home a milk-shake from the Deli
.
The problem with the milk-shake is that Billy is dangerously lactose intolerant.
The last time Billy had a milk-shake from that Deli – his parents had to rush him to the hospital
While Billy’s dad is at the Deli – Billy tells his friend that he is going to get a milk-shake.
.
When Billy’s dad gets to the Deli – he looks at the milk-shake machine and decides he is NOT going to go through that experience again – so he *DETERMINES* that Billy will *NOT* have a milk-shake.
.
When Billy’s dad gets home – he tells Billy “No Milk-shake” and he hands Billy a soda instead.
.
Billy’s friend sees that Billy is *NOT* drinking a milk-shake
And Billy tells his friend “I CHOSE TO NOT HAVE THE MILK-SHAKE”
.
Did Billy tell his friend the TRUTH?
Or did Billy tell a lie?
.
The TRUTH is – Billy was not granted the option of making a CHOICE between having the milk-shake and NOT having the milk-shake – because *ONLY ONE OPTION WAS GRANTED TO BILLY*
.
Billy did not have a CHOICE between having the milk-shake – and NOT having the milk-shake – because the option to have the milk-shake did not exist for Billy to choose.
.
That story is the *MODEL* of how *DETERMINISM* functions.
.
If *DETERMINISM* is TRUE – then your brain is never granted the function of CHOOSING between TRUE and FALSE because only *ONE OPTION* can be *DETERMINED*.
.
Consequently – if DETERMINISM is TRUE and LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist – then your brain is never granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
So those people who try to argue that DETERMINISM is TRUE – are shooting themselves in the foot.
Because DETERMINISM does not grant their brains the ability to discern between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
The same is TRUE for the Calvinist.
The doctrine of decrees does not grant the Calvinist brain the function of making a LIBERTARIAN CHOICE
Therefore the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
Gregory Koukl
-quote:
The problem with determinism, is that…..rationality would have no room to operate. Arguments would not matter, since no one would be able to base beliefs on adequate reasons. One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
.
Dr. John Searle – Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley
-quote
“Rationality only makes a difference where there is the possibility of irrationality.
And all rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.” End quote – (Rationality in Action)
Therefore since the liberty to choose between multiple options is the quintessential definition of Libertarian freedom, it LOGICALLY follows – where Libertarian Freedom does not exist, neither does the ability to think rationally.
.
Blessings!
br.d
br.d
Here is a little joke about the belief that LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist.
.
There once was a farmer who drove around on his tractor all day
Trying to convince people to adopt his belief system
When he would see someone afar off – he would drive his tractor over to them – and park the tractor – and get off and try to persuade them about his belief system.
.
His belief system was simply this:
Tractors don’t exist.
.
To understand the moral of the story – LIBERTARIAN CHOICE is like a vehicle with which the mind navigates.
Just like the tractor is a vehicle with which the farmer navigates
.
So the joke is – this farmer is totally reliant upon the very thing he insists does not exist.
.
The same is TRUE for the Calvinist who insists LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist.
That Calvinist had to make a LIBERTARIAN CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE – in order to be able to insist his belief system is TRUE.
.
Thus we have what is called a SELF-DEFEATING argument.
I saw the article but didn’t read it. I just chuckled and told my son “So the scientist used their free will abilities to determine there’s no free will!?! Ironic.”
To me, concluding something like “there’s no free will” is so pointless and self-defeating that it’s not worth wasting time on.
And it makes me wonder, what purpose does it serve to declare there’s no free will?
Heather; “And it makes me wonder, what purpose does it serve to declare there’s no free will?”
Really sooooo true!!! Unless you hope there is NO freewill so much so that you have to shove a humanistic understanding of Who God is to justify something🤔 you and Br.D have great points and so silly of anyone to continue over and over to prove a point, that is self defeating…. see i don’t think every thought i have is a synaptic pathway controlled by my God i genuinely have a choice what i meditate on… God or man’s view of Him🌻
Psalm 119:15 NKJV — I will meditate on Your precepts, And contemplate Your ways.
Good to hear from you, Reggie. And good points.
Yeah, to me, a secular person (as I’m assuming the author of the article is, but I could be wrong) concluding that there’s no free-will will only lead to ridiculous conclusions not even worth considering. Especially because, as Br.d. pointed out, it just shoots them in the foot anyway. It would be like trying to make sense of nonsense.
But when a Christian claims there’s no free-will – in spite of the plain, commonsense teaching of the Bible – it doesn’t just shoot them in the foot and turn sense into nonsense, but it also does great damage to other Christian’s faith because it greatly damages God’s character, His Word, the gospel, people’s eternities, etc.. And so in that case, it needs to be addressed, fought against, and corrected.
That’s why I’ll address it if Christians say there’s no free-will, but I don’t care if secular people say it. Some fights are worth it, and some aren’t.
And as you said: “i genuinely have a choice what i meditate on… God or man’s view of Him”
And I think that’s why God delights in it when you choose to meditate on Him, to love, follow, and obey Him. It’s why it means something to Him – because you could’ve chosen something different, but you chose Him instead. You wanted HIM, despite the other options.
I can’t imagine how Calvinists can really think God finds any joy or glory in causing elect people to meditate on Him, to worship Him, to love Him. Real joy can only come from having real choices. Love and worship that is forced/manipulate/controlled is not real love at all. And I cannot imagine God getting any real delight or glory from that.
God bless you, Reggie! Thanks for your comment. 🙂
Heather
But when a Christian claims there’s no free-will – in spite of the plain, commonsense teaching of the Bible – it doesn’t just shoot them in the foot and turn sense into nonsense, but it also does great damage to other Christian’s faith because it greatly damages God’s character, His Word, the gospel, people’s eternities, etc..
.
br.d
Yes! Well said!
Also – forces the Calvinist to live *AS-IF* what (for him) the Bible teaches is FALSE.
.
In Calvinism everything that comes to pass within creation is said to be determined by an infallible decree.
No event is granted existence within creation unless that event is decreed.
.
So we start to recognize some very critical stipulations in that:
1) Prior to the decree ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist for Calvin’s god to choose among – in the process of determining what will come to pass for any given event.
.
2) That process of selection – requires that for every event Calvin’s god can select *ONLY ONE SINGLE OPTION* out of all ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS. Which means – he must *REJECT* all ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
.
3) The option which he selects will then be granted existence
And the decree will make that event’s existence infallible.
.
4) All of the ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS which he rejected are NOT granted existence.
And the decree makes their NON-Existence infallible.
.
.
*** THIS THEN BACKFIRES ON THE CALVINIST ***
For every event
1) There is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE OPTION granted to man.
2) All ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS were infallibly rejected prior to the decree.
3) Therefore ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS only exist prior to the decree
4) ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS are not granted existence within creation – and their NON-Existence is made infallible by the decree.
.
THUS
5) Any time a Calvinist insists ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist for him to choose between – he is rejecting a critical stipulation of his doctrine.
.
6) John Calvin understood the dilemma. He understood it is humanly impossible to live *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS do not exist for a person to choose between.
.
7) Calvin has to figure out a way to get around the dilemma his doctrine creates.
So he instructs the Calvinist to
-quote
“Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”
.
8) Thus the Calvinist is forced to live *AS-IF* his doctrine is FALSE
9) Thus the Calvinist is forced to live *AS-IF* what the Bible teaches him is FALSE
.
CONCLUSION:
Calvinism is the only Christian belief system – in which the believer is taught to treat the Bible *AS-IF* what it teaches is FALSE.
Well said, Br.d. (I tried sending this once, don’t think if it went through. Hopefully you don’t get a duplicate.)
I think only Calvinists are okay with the idea of people having no real choices but still being held accountable for what they do. And if they are not okay with it then they trick themselves into thinking they are – because that’s what good, humble, God-glorifying Calvinists do. They dissociate themselves from the real conundrums and contradictions of their theology, choosing to live in an upside-down world while convincing themselves it’s right-side up and that everyone else is upside down.
In the book “Once an Insider, Now Without a Church Home” (written by a woman who watched her church being taken over by Calvinism), the author said that she had a discussion once with the Calvinist pastor about Calvinism’s contradictions when it comes to moral responsibility, and he asked her this: “Why do you so strongly insist that ‘one must have a free choice in order to be morally responsible’?” (pg 144).
In response to him, I’d have said “Umm … let’s see … why do we believe that in order to be justly held accountable for our decisions, we have to have the right to make decisions!?! Umm … DUH … because it makes sense. Because it’s logical. And because it’s the only way it can be if God is a truly just God. If we had no choice about sinning – if God caused us to make the choices we do but then held us accountable for them, if He punished us for the things He caused – it would make God an unjust, irrational tyrant. Not the loving, righteous, holy, just God of the Bible that He is.”
Only Calvinists would say it’s okay to hold someone morally responsible for something they had no real choice about, that it’s okay for God to cause us to sin and to be unbelievers but then to punish us for it. It’s insane. And it’s even more insane that they can’t see the damage this does to God’s Word and character. Just goes to show the cult-like power and influence of Calvinism.
Sad. Because so many churches are falling for Calvinism (for their “high view of Scripture and of God”) and so many well-meaning Christians are held hostage by it.
br.d
Yes!
All excellent points!
.
IMHO – the reason so many Churches are falling for Calvinism – is because Calvinism paints a glorified picture of itself – and people get seduced by that picture.
.
However on the issue of whether Calvinists have CHOICE or not – it has been my experience with many Calvinists that which I communicate with – the idea that they don’t have CHOICE in the matter of anything is a consequence of the doctrine they are simply not willing to accept.
.
Especially when one unpack-ages how that would mean their brains do not have the ability to choose TRUE from FALSE.
.
That is such a devastating consequence – no Calvinist can acknowledge it.
.
It really does resolve to the Calvinist being reduced to SUB-human.
Because it removes human functionality which all people consider NORMAL.
.
.
Calvinists above all else – are intensely protective of their image!!!
.
This was very clear in a presentation produced by “Premier Unbelievable?” where they intervewed William Lane Craig – and Calvinist Paul Helms
.
Premier Unbelievable – I believe is out of the UK – and focuses on theological questions.
In this interview the host asked Dr. Craig if his belief system incorporated “Free-Will”
He affirmed it did – and then went on to provide a very precise explanation of LIBERTARIAN freedom.
.
The host then asked Paul Helm’s the same – do Calvinist’s have Free-Will?
He said “Yes”
Then the host asked: “What kind of Free-Will do Calvinist’s have”?
.
His answer was – “The kind that everyone has”
And that was it!
He would not provide any details.
.
I could just see Dr. Craig’s face as he could easily recognize this a total evasion.
.
Paul Helm’s did not want to elaborate on the kind of free-will Calvinists have – because it would easily be recognized as SUB-human. So he simply obfuscated the subject.
.
Calvinists don’t want anyone to know those kinds of details about the belief system
Because people can easily connect the dots and recognize it makes the Calvinist SUB-human.
.
The function of CHOICE is solely and exclusively reserved for Calvin’s god alone – in the exercise of divine sovereignty
Per the doctrine – the Calvinist has no control over any impulse that will come to pass in his brain.
.
No Calvinist is going to acknowledge that – because if they did – no one would embrace their belief system.
br.d , So basically you disagree with the article and the Scientist who argues Free Will doesn’t exist
br.d
What I posted makes total sense.
If LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist – and DETERMINISM is TRUE – then your brain would not have any way of knowing one way or another – because:
1) DETERMINISM – by its very nature – does not grant the human brain the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE.
.
2) The human function of discernment concerning the TRUTH-VALUE of any proposition – requires the human brain make a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on that proposition.
.
3) Since DETERMINISM does not grant the human brain the option of CHOOSING between TRUE and FALSE – it follows – the human brain cannot discern TRUE from FALSE on the matter of anything.
.
4) In such case – as Gregory Koukl stated – your brain would not have the capacity to know one way or the other whether DETERMINISM is TRUE or FALSE – because your brain wouldn’t have the capacity to discern TRUE from FALSE.
.
.
All prominent Determinists understand this conundrum – and every prominent Determinist will acknowledge he has to live *AS-IF* DETERMINISM is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
Here is Dr. Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
.
What Dr. Carroll is saying – is that as a Determinist – he knows DETERMINISM does not grant his brain the ability to make decisions.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every Determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take.
.
Here Dr. Craig is agreeing – – – every person who adopts DETERMINISM as a belief system – is forced to live *AS-IF* DETERMINISM is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
John Calvin also understood the dilema
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.” (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
.
.
So the point is this.
If DETERMINISM is TRUE – then your brain does not have the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE.
.
Every Calvinist who assumes his brain is granted the function of CHOOSING between TRUE and FALSE – is assuming his brain is granted the function of LIBERTARIAN CHOICE.
.
So what I’m telling you is – the writers of that article are shooting themselves in the foot.
.
It would be like you assuming you are human – try to prove humans don’t exist.
That is why DETERMINISM is a self-defeating belief system
.
If you’re having trouble understanding that – go back and read my post enough times so that your mind can connect the dots.
.
This may be a new subject for you
And it may take some pondering over the subject – in order for you to see the logic of it.
What do you think about the article, Jeff? Do you agree or disagree with the idea that there’s no free will?
Heather , br.d and Everyone Else
Often I’m Honestly Not Sure who or what to believe many times, with all the information, misinformation, disinformation and Fake News on the Internet, Social Media and in Real Life
I’d like to say that as a
Christian, I truly do hope Jesus Returns to Earth Real Soon , literally no later than 2025
To Eliminate all Evil, Suffering and Injustice in the World, once and for All Forever.
Countless people in America and Worldwide are Suffering in Silence from various problems,
Countless people are Very Afraid of the Future, in this Uncertain,Chaotic World often filled with sadness and suffering so I hope Jesus Returns Soon, literally no later than 2025
Imagine a Perfect World as the Bible Describes
A World with True Peace and Stability
Where there will be No More Suffering, Evil or Injustice, No War, No Racism, No Poverty, Or Hunger or Homelessness, No Fear or Uncertainty or Anxiety, No Crime, No Violence, No Bigotry or Hatred, No Animal Cruelty, No Loneliness, No Mental or Physical Disease or illness, No Hectic Stress Filled Rat Race , No Natural Disasters, etc , Where Love & Friendship, close face to face Friendship is Everywhere
See the Bible verse
Revelation 21:4
Hello Jeff,
And thank you for your wonderful post!
.
There are many people in this world who refuse to acknowledge what you so willingly and sincerely will acknowledge.
.
There are belief systems which are designed to give people a FALSE SENSE of confidence and assurance.
.
As you may suspect me to say – Calvinism is one of those belief systems.
.
FIRSTLY:
Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of the human individuals he creates – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
John Calvin
-quote
Those who perish are DESTINED to hell by the eternal GOOD PLEASURE of god. Though the reasons do not appear, then they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)
.
SECONDLY:
Calvin’s god creates a large percentage of believers – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The Lord…. INSTILLS INTO THEIR MINDS such a sense…..as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
John Calvin
-quote
He ILLUMINES ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
CONSEQUENTLY:
No Calvinist has any CERTAINTY of what he was specifically created for – because they have no way of knowing if Calvin’s god has deceived them with a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
.
.
From your last post here – it is obvious you have a very kind and sincere heart.
And you are to be applauded for your sincerity and your honesty
.
My hope and prayer for you – is that you would keep on asking and seeking the Lord as you have been.
.
But my greater hope and prayer for you – is that you would continue to grow and mature – in the process of being a CRITICAL THINKER.
.
Learning how to ask questions – and learning to exercise your mind to be able to THINK RATIONALLY so that your discernment will continue to grow and mature.
.
I am very heartened – especially by your last post!
I thank you for it!
Your friend
Br.d :-]
Jeffster: “Often I’m Honestly Not Sure who or what to believe many times, with all the information, misinformation, disinformation and Fake News on the Internet, Social Media and in Real Life
I’d like to say that as a Christian, I truly do hope Jesus Returns to Earth Real Soon…”
Amen, brother! It’s my prayer every day.
About Human Suffering, Myself and others are reminded of the Bible verse
Revelation 22:20 which says
“He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” The sooner Jesus Returns the Better
I told a fellow Christian friend of mine back in 2020 that for the sake of Argument, If I was God , I would Not just passively allow Human Suffering, Evil & Injustice to Continue. That if I was God I would simply clap my hands and make the World into a Perfect Utopian Paradise . Just to Clarify
I’m an Evangelical Protestant, Not a
Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormon. I base my views on Heaven and the Coming New Earth on
Revelation Chapters 21 & 22
I also suggest reading the various editions of the book
Heaven: by Randy Alcorn , it’s Superb
Plus, Countless people in America and Worldwide are Unable to Enjoy their Lives in the Present, because of their painful pasts and they are Afraid, Very Afraid of the Future , the sad reality is for many Suffering people things Never Get Better , just worse and worse
Countless people feel as if they are walking on Eggshells
Very Afraid of the Future
Myself and Countless Other Christians hope Jesus Returns soon , no later than 2025
Countless people are Suffering and Miserable, Lonely and Very Afraid of the Future, in these uncertain chaotic Unpredictable times , they desire and crave True, Peace, Stability and Happiness that will ONLY Exist in Heaven and the New Earth, these Christians realize that this True, Peace, Stability and Happiness is Impossible in this present Earthly Life, it will Only Come in Heaven and the New Earth
No one in Heaven and the New Earth will be Afraid of
“Suffering, Evil or Injustice, No War, No Racism, No Poverty, Or Hunger or Homelessness, No Fear or Uncertainty or Anxiety, No Crime, No Violence, No Bigotry or Hatred, No Animal Cruelty, No Loneliness, No Mental or Physical Disease or illness, No Hectic Stress Filled Rat Race , No Natural Disasters, etc ” because Everyone in Heaven and the New Earth will Know and have Peace of Mind that None of those things will Ever Happen to Anyone at Anytime, it can’t and won’t happen, so no one will ever be Afraid or Worried, There will be True Peace and Peace of Mind Knowing these horrible things will Never Happen Again, there will be Love and Close Face to Face Friendship, Fellowship for Everyone, Never Again will anyone suffer from crippling, debilitating loneliness, Social Isolation, etc.
Everyone in Heaven and the New Earth will Know for a Fact that Nothing could possibly go wrong, Nothing will possibly go wrong
br.d, Heather, etc.
I should have added
The Bible verse
Matthew 6:10 says
“Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” English Standard Version , I truly do hope Jesus Returns and Ends All Evil, Suffering and Injustice in the World, Once and For All Forever, by the End of 2025 , What do you think of my other comments of
yesterday November 7, 2023
Jesus cannot return soon Enough,
Everyone in Heaven and the New Earth will Know for a Fact that Nothing could possibly go wrong, Nothing will possibly go wrong, Nothing will ever go wrong
It deeply upsets me and other Christians the Horrible Sufferings in America and Worldwide
br.d
Yes – very true!
We Christians here in America are extremely blessed even with the degree of corruption that exists among us.
.
There are Christians in other lands – who are brutalized and murdered for the name of Jesus.
We Christians here in America are isolated from that.
.
We bless and thank the Lord for each and every day he gives us to live in peace.
But scripture tells us what is coming.
.
br.d
The Calvinist Christian website
carm.org has an article by
Matt Slick headlined
“Does everything happen for a reason?” on May 11, 2016
It’s an interesting article, some say of course everything happens for a reason, but that’s not the same as everything happening for a
Purpose
br.d
Hello Jeff
.
The Calvinist – as you must be aware at this point in time – embraces a belief system that is in conflict with itself.
.
Calvinism incorporates what is called DUALISM
.
In Calvinism’s form of DUALISM “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary.
.
In scripture the believer is taught that it is forbidden to commit evil that good may come.
And it is forbidden to call “Evil” good – and to call “Good” Evil.
But that rule does not apply to Calvin’s god – because it would compromise divine sovereignty.
.
In Calvinism – every sin and every evil is FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin’s god.
Those sins and evils which he CONCEIVES in his mind – he then MAKES come to pass INFALLIBLY.
.
Thus we have the following:
Every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within the human brain is FIRST CONCEIVED within Calvin’s god’s mind.
.
Calvin’s god’s decree then MAKES each sinful evil impulse come to pass within the human brain INFALLIBLY
.
Creation – and thus the human brain is FALLIBLE
.
And it is impossible for that which is FALLIBLE to resist that which is INFALLIBLE
.
Therefore in Calvinism – every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within the human brain is MADE IRRESISTIBLE
.
Now the typical Calvinist – is perfectly comfortable emphasizing “Good” events which Calvin’s god MAKES infallibly come to pass by a decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
But the typical Calvinist is NOT comfortable emphasizing “Evil” events which Calvin’s god MAKES infallibly come to pass by a decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Consequently – Calvinists spend a great deal of time involved in DOUBLE-SPEAK TAP-DANCE ROUTINES trying to obfuscate the “Evil” which the doctrine stipulates Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES and then MAKES TOTALLY IRRESISTIBLE to the human brain – and doe not grant man a CHOICE in the matter of what he decrees to IRRESISTIBLY come to pass within man’s brain.
.
So I can already tell you what Matt will be doing is working to MAKE JUSTIFICATIONS for sinful evil events which are CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind – and then MADE IRRESISTIBLE to the human brain.
.
For John Calvin who is the UNFLINCHING TRUE Calvinist – Calvin’s god can create whatever evil he wants to create and the Calvinist is required call whatever Calvin’s god makes come to pass “Good”.
.
So you can see how close to the line – the Calvinist comes to calling Good Evil and calling Evil Good.
.
Therefore what we have in Calvinism’s form of DUALISM is a system of GOOD-EVIL
And Calvin’s god is a god of GOOD-EVIL
.
Calvin’s god is predominantly MALEVOLENT towards his creatures
And minimally BENEVOLENT towards his creatures.
.
He creates the vast majority (THE MANY) specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his GOOD pleasure.
.
That is the component of DUALISM which is incorporated into Calvinism.
And Matt is going to have a vested interest in making Evil appear LESS Evil.
.
You should be able to understand what his urgency is.
.
Blessings!
br.d
It frustrates me no end to read Calvinist like Slick speak of God permitting and allowing evil. He knows better. His theology has no place for God just permitting and allowing. As Calvin would correct Matt… God thought all evil up, decreed it to occur and brought it about all for his good pleasure. Please Mr Slick, stop with the “permit” and “allow” language and man up to your evil theology!
Hello Larry
.
Yes – this is one of the unfortunate effects which Calvinism has on its advocates.
It teaches them to justify the use of deceptive language.
.
Calvinists practice what linguists call INSIDER language
This is a language practice in which a group will take words or terms which have STANDARDIZED meanings – and the group will ATTACH altered meanings to those words.
.
As you point out – Calvinism’s use of “Permission” language is a primary example.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term “Permission” THE MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
.
Here you can see what is happening.
Calvin reasons as follows:
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSES by divine decree – he “Permits”
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT CAUSE by divine decree – he does not “Permit”
.
So what we clearly see here – is words such as “Permit” and “Allow” are being used as REPLACEMENT words for the word CAUSE .
.
The Calvinist does not want to tell people his god CAUSES by infallible decree – every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within man’s brain – and MAKES those impulses come to pass infallibly – and thus IRRESISTIBLY within man’s brain.
.
The Calvinist knows if he tells people the TRUTH – they will reject the doctrine – and Calvinism will go the way of the dinosaur.
.
So they use REPLACEMENT words.
In this case – the words “Permit” or “Allow” are used instead of CAUSE
.
.
If you think about it – what the Calvinist is doing with words – is creating what scripture calls a FALSE BALANCE.
.
A FALSE BALANCE occurs – when a weight is placed on a balancing scale – and that weight has an IDENTIFIER or label – which states its weight – but the person who puts that weight on the scale has ALTERED its weight.
.
The money changer in the temple for example – can cheat his customer by putting a weight that is slightly heavy on the scale – making it the case that his customer has to give him more coins than he really should be giving him.
.
Thus with every transaction – he cheats his customers.
.
Words and terms – are a CURRENCY of exchange.
He who can ALTER the values of words and terms – can take advantage of others – the same way the dishonest money change cheats his customers with ALTERED weights on the balancing scale.
.
The money changer refuses to conform to the STANDARDS which are set for weights
Those STANDARDS are established to ensure people are not cheated.
As long as all parties conform to the STANDARD no one gets cheated.
.
The Calvinist follows the same pattern as the money changer.
He refuses to conform to the STANDARD meanings of words and terms.
.
The money changer gains an advantage by “slight of weight”
The Calvinist gains an advantage by “slight of words”
.
Thank you for your post!
Blessings!
br.d
I totally agree, Larry. This is one of the things that makes Calvinism so deceptive, so cult-like. so “slick.” They speak on multiple levels and have hidden definitions for words. I think it’s how it slips in and spreads so easily, because the average Christian is unaware of what they really mean underneath the things they say.
Like Br.d. points out, Calvinists have their insider language. And those in-the-know will catch on and know what they’re saying. But those not-in-the-know won’t, and they’ll be deceived because they are trusting that they can take what the Calvinist says at face-value, trusting that the Calvinist says what he means and means what he says.
Their deceptive tactics bother me so much more than if they just came right out and were honest with their bottom-line beliefs. And I think it’s how they’re taking over churches. (I actually just published a post on this very thing, called “The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult” at anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com.)
Blessings to you all!
That’s right Larry!
Calvinists claim that God ordains and decrees it all (per Calvinism) and then claim that He just “permits” and “allows” it (like the rest of us)! That are always wanting to have it both ways!
br.d, Heather, Larry, it’s me Jeff aka Jeffster again
About the Topic of God, Free Will and
Human Suffering, a person earlier this November 2023 typed on Social Media
“God in Christianity is the ultimate mafia boss.
The Mafia boss demands that you give something of value to protect you from his own violence. This is the same as God.
God isn’t saying “Pray, believe and glorify me and I will protect you from a rival God.” He is saying “Pray, believe and glorify me and I will protect you from my wrath.”
If the consequences of exercising your free will are so dire that exercising your free will causes eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell, then you really don’t have free will, just as the Mafia boss doesn’t give you free will.
Progressive theologians focus on the NT loving and hippy parts of Jesus’ message. However, they ignore the immoral repugnant basis of Christianity in general. Or progressives will deny the resurrection which places them outside Christianity entirely. I find it fascinating how progressive Christians try to put lipstick and a modern spin on an immoral bronze age belief system.”
Hello Jeff,
I can understand what the author of that article is trying to say. However, I think he’s looking at it from the wrong angle.
Many people think of it like this: “We are all bound for heaven as long as we keep doing good enough, but God is just watching and waiting for when we screw up so that He can punish us. God holds hell over our heads to keep us in line. He threatens us with punishment if we mess up too much.”
This seems to be the way the author presents it, that God threatens to punish us if we step out of line.
But I see it this way: God isn’t threatening to punish our sins if we step out of line. He isn’t threatening us with hell or holding it over our heads. He is warning us that that’s the path we are on, and He is offering to save us from that path. He pleads with us to accept the salvation He offers so that He save us from punishment.
As you quoted, the author says “Pray, believe and glorify me and I will protect you from my wrath.”
The thing the author fails to understand is that we got ourselves into the mess we’re in, and God is trying to save us from the consequences of our own choices. And not only that, but He made salvation possible for us by first dying in our place. He paid a very heavy price for us, so that we don’t have to pay it.
God is not threatening to punish us if we’re not good enough. He took the punishment that we deserved so that He could make us “good enough,” so that we could be saved from punishment. And that’s a big difference.
Blessings to you, Jeff!
br.d
Hello Jeff
.
The mafia boss analogy breaks down and collapses in the face of a loving Father who sends his only begotten Son to die and pay the price – for the sins of those who killed him.
.
Those whom he created – and lovingly placed within a garden of Eden.
.
But as you will remember – the temptation man was faced with in the Garden – was the temptation to give up being ONE with God – in order to be LIKE God.
.
The serpent – as is detailed in Isaiah 14:13
-quote
“I will ascend to heaven and set my throne above God’s stars. ”
.
Lucifer was the original creature with the desire to give up being ONE with God – in order to be LIKE God.
.
The craving that Lucifer developed in his heart – was the very craving he understood he could temp man with.
.
.
Agape love (Greek ἀγάπη ) is SELF SACRIFICING Love.
.
You will not find self-sacrificing love in a Mafia boss.
.
The poor unfortunate person who attributes those characteristics to God – is simply looking at God through the lens of his own characteristics.
.
The critical component of the temptation in the Garden was to get man to perceive God as selfish.
.
We pray for that poor unfortunate person – because he is in bondage to the very characteristics he attributes to God.
.
***HOWEVER***
The god of Calvinism is a completely different story!!
.
Here we have a deity – who designs the vast majority of the creatures he creates – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his GOOD pleasure.
.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote
By the eternal GOOD PLEASURE of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
Additionally – Calvin’s god designs a large percentage of BELIEVERS also for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his GOOD pleasure.
.
These believers – he creates as CHAFF believers – divinely deceiving them with a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such A SENSE …..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He ILLUMINES ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then He….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
.
In Calvinism – all of the promises to the believer are identified as the ENUNCIATED will of Calvin’s god – which in many cases is the exact opposite of the SECRET will of Calvin’s god.
.
So when the Calvinist reads “you are beloved” within scripture – he has no way of knowing if the SECRET will of Calvin’s god (as it pertains to himself) is the exact opposite.
.
These Calvinists will go through their whole lives having FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation – which have been decreed to infallibly come to pass within their minds.
.
They will eventually wake up in the lake of fire – and at that point realize they were created as CHAFF believers.
.
Their purpose is serve his GOOD pleasure by existing for eternity in fire and torment.
.
Now many would say – that god is even more horrible than a Mafia boss.
.
That is why John Calvin declared that his conception of god’s intent for mankind (the infallible decree) filled him with a sense of horror.
Br.d.: “The mafia boss analogy breaks down and collapses in the face of a loving Father who sends his only begotten Son to die and pay the price – for the sins of those who killed him.”
So well said! Great job putting it in a perfect nutshell. 🙂
br.d
Thank you Heather!!
And I always appreciate your kind and caring heart the Lord has blessed you with.
Growing into the measure and stature of Christ! :-]
Thank you, Br.d. I appreciate that. 🙂
The book Heaven by Randy Alcorn is Superb , do we think that
Heaven and the New Earth will a
Theocracy ? I discussed Heaven and the New Earth on my blog
About my Mother
ripmrswinters.blogspot.com
It’s really sad how actress
Suzanne Somers passed away on
Oct 15, 2023 at
Age 76 , but on the bright side, she is alive, fully conscious and self-aware , every bit as much as I am right now as I type these words , her Final Destination will be the New Earth ,
It’s a Real pleasure to interact with everyone here . I truly do hope Jesus Returns Very Soon , Real Soon, no later than the year 2025
br.d
Hello Jeff
I’m not familiar with that book
And I didn’t know Suzanne Somer’s was a believer in Jesus
.
Perhaps I don’t get out enough! :-]
br.d , Yes Suzanne Somers was a Christian , multiple online sources confirm this
I just sent my daughter home with a copy of Randy Alcorn’s “Heaven” today. I loved it. I wasn’t aware that he was a Calvinist when I read it, and I don’t recall seeing the doctrine in it. In fact, I’ve read his novels too, and didn’t recall that theology, so it rather surprises me. But then again, I wasn’t looking for it.
I landed in the non-calvinist camp several years ago because I couldn’t get past the idea that a “good” God could create people that he knew were going to be condemned, and not provide them with a way out. My church is currently doing the new city catechism sermon series, so when my pastor mentioned that it was written by Tim Keller, I immediately (during the service lol) looked up whether he was a Calvinist, and that’s how I found your website… Which honestly, is a more interesting read than my pastor’s sermons, even on a good day.
I will have to re-read the book when I get it back and see if I can identify calvinistic teachings in it. Anyway, thank you for this website. My family is talking about finding a different church, but we’re not sure where to go. Are there any denominations that are intentionally non-calvinist?
Thanks for your help.
br.d
Thank you very much Pamela – and welcome
.
What you will find with any Calvinist literature – is that it is filled with DOUBLE-SPEAK.
We understand that language is the outward expression of human thought.
The outward expression of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS is going to be DOUBLE-SPEAK.
.
The reason this is the case with Calvinists is because the doctrine is so radical that no Calvinist can emotionally embrace it and at the same time retain any sense of human normalcy.
.
The doctrine stipulates that every instance in time is 100% meticulously pre-determined having been fixed by infallible decree.
Every instance in time cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
Every sinful impulse which comes to pass within the Calvinist brain – cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
So in order to retain a sense of human normalcy – the Calvinist is forced to live *AS-IF* the doctrine of decrees is FALSE.
.
So we have a very strange phenomenon in Calvinism
He will assert the doctrine as TRUE – while simultaneously treating the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
.
That is why – NON-Calvinists have perennially observed – the Calvinist talks like a Calvinist – but he lives like an Arminian.
.
The Calvinist knows – if he tells the TRUTH about his doctrine – other believers are going to reject it.
Consequently – Calvinists spend a great deal of time and energy trying to make their doctrine APPEAR to be what they calculate NON-Calvinists will accept.
.
So there is a very unfortunate (yet consistent) degree of dishonesty within Calvinist representations.
.
One has to be extremely careful when reading any Calvinist literature.
A large percentage of it contains strategically designed FALSE representations.
They are representations – which the Calvinist calculates the NON-Calvinist will accept.
.
It takes time for the NON-Calvinist to learn and recognize when a Calvinist’s representation is FALSE
And it is very easy to be mislead by FALSE representations.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Pamela: “My family is talking about finding a different church, but we’re not sure where to go. Are there any denominations that are intentionally non-calvinist?”
Hello, Pamela. Sorry to hear that you guys might have to find a new church. That’s never easy to do. (We left the church we had been at for 20 years because Stealth Calvinism took over. I blog about it at anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com.)
But I applaud you for being willing to make the change, and for researching things for yourself instead of merely accepting whatever you’re told. If more people did that, the Church probably wouldn’t be in the mess it is.
I’m not sure if there are any specifically non-Calvinist denominations. It seems to me that we have to carefully evaluate each and every church, regardless of denomination. Ours was an Evangelical Free Church, and I know they are being slowly taken over by Calvinism. And the SBC has had a lot of problems with it. So I’d definitely be cautious about those. And Lutheran, from my research, has Calvinist leanings.
You might be better off trying a non-denominational church or a community church. But be careful of other issues with those churches, such as wokeness, prosperity gospel, charismatic/pentacostal-type things (speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, etc.), “universalism-type” theology, etc.
I really think we are in a time when we have to carefully evaluate each church on its own, when we can’t trust a label anymore. May God help your family find the right church. God bless!
Heather,
The one word that stands out to me, regarding calvinism, is the word, “Evangelical”, and “Baptist”.
For example, the Southern Bapists don’t mind making a home for Calvinists.
Any time someone states the word, “Evangelical”, that puts a sour taste in my mouth. It states, “Calvinism” to me. Even “Liberty University” fell into it.
My advice is to read every church’s, “We believe” statements, and some of those will be pretty descriptive of calvinist beliefs. Sometimes, they are hidden in the words, but you can recognize them.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Yes!
For me – I was a believer for many years prior to the point where the labels “Evangelical” and “Calvinism” had anything in common.
.
Calvinists have been working very hard to STEALTH infiltrate any NON-Catholic form of Christianity
And especially those NON-Catholic forms of Christianity which had the greatest growth statistics.
The reason for that – is because expansion is Calvinism’s highest priority
One will notice that Calvinisms – out of all theologies – exhibits a very intense urgency for marketing itself
.
Historically – Calvinism rejected charismatic forms of Christianity
And maintained a strong emphasis on the doctrine of cessation.
.
However the charismatic movement sprang up in the 70s
Charismatic denominations began to exhibit the greatest growth statistics.
.
Since Calvinism’s highest urgency is to expand and market itself – it quietly moved from its strict stance on cessation – and started working to STEALTH infiltrate charismatic churches.
.
I might be wrong – but I believe it was then – that Calvinists started adopting “Evangelical” as a label simply because they wanted to align themselves with whatever form of Christianity had the best grown statistics.
.
Calvinists are like Chameleons.
They will MASQUERADE their doctrine in whatever form they calculate will provide the best ROI
Most Calvinist churches today wear a highly ARMINIANIZED mask – simply because most Calvinists find the the doctrines implications of divine evil unpalatable.
.
I bump into Calvinists all the time – who reject John Calvin’s writings because he does not flinch at explicating the fact that Calvin’s god creates and designs the vast majority of the human population – as well as a large percentage of believers – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
Calvinists do not want to hear – they have a high probability of having been created for a lake of fire.
And Calvinist pastors are well aware of that fact.
And that is why they MASQUERADE their doctrine – trying to make it as ARMINIANIZED as possible.
Ed, Yep, that’s how I see it too. “Evangelical” and “Baptist” both raise my eyebrows. Maybe unfairly because many churches within those denominations are not Calvinist, but I think it’s spreading in them so much that we need to be careful. Blessings! 🙂
Br.d.: “One will notice that Calvinism – out of all theologies – exhibits a very intense urgency for marketing itself.”
Totally! I agree with Kevin Thompson that Calvinism is a cancer. And it needs a host to feed on, which is in many cases evangelical or Baptist churches. Calvinism is more about hijacking other churches and those who are already Christians than it is about evangelizing non-believers. I wouldn’t be so bothered by it, though, if they were upfront about their views and agendas. It’s the stealth part that gets me. The deception and manipulation.
br.d
Yes!!!
Big time!!!
Well said Heather!!
Hi Jeff, I looked up your blog. So sorry to hear about your mother passing away. (My mother-in-law passed away in 2014 too, from a brain tumor.) It sounds like you had a good relationship with her. I hope so. I noticed you posted something about Fred Rogers. I really like him too. I’ve read a few biographies on him in the last couple years, and I always enjoy reading about him. It’s peaceful and relaxing. Such a good guy. We need more like him, 🙂
God bless.
br.d, Heather and Everyone Else, Glad you like my blog
Do we think from a Biblical Perspective that Heaven and the New Earth will be a Theocracy ?
Some have said that to a certain extent God does want human beings to suffer, because they say it builds character, helps them grow closer to God, etc
But these same people also stated that if God does want human beings to suffer to a certain extent, God still certainly does Not like it when people suffer . What do we think ? On the blog I mentioned
CBS Storybreak and
“How to Eat Fried Worms” among other topics, All Worth reading
Like I said Jesus cannot Return Soon Enough
br.d
Hello Jeff,
Concerning Heaven – Jesus instructs us t pray “Thy kingdom come – thy will be done – on earth as it is in heaven”
.
So given that – I think that gives us a pretty clear picture of what we might call a Theocracy.
.
And in scripture God says:
My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
.
And in Revelations is says:
Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
.
So what I see – is a God of love – who wants to express his love on his creatures.
But the Apostle Paul tells us: Love does not seek its own
.
And I see God’s love as giving and caring desiring the best for his creatures.
.
However – it is true that he sets before his creatures – both life and death – because he wants them to be free to choose.
.
He doesn’t want a bride that is forced to love him – or does not have a choice in the matter.
He wants her to love him for who he is – not because he can decree “Love” impulses to infallibly come to pass in her brain which do not grant any ALTERNATIVE
.
When God says – behold I set before you both life and death – he also pleads with his people that they “choose life that you may live”
.
So personally – I see heaven as a place where God’s people will consider themselves to be totally blessed to be with a wonderful loving, caring, and giving creator.
Hi Jeff, no one knows yet exactly how heaven will look/act, but I do think God will still be ruling in heaven. But He will be a good, benevolent, kind, loving ruler, so we won’t be afraid of His rulership. We will want a God like that ruling.
But I’m not sure what you mean when you said: “Some have said that to a certain extent God does want human beings to suffer, because they say it builds character, helps them grow closer to God, etc.”
Are you asking if we think there will be suffering in heaven? Or is it just about conditions now on earth?
I think there will be no more suffering in heaven because suffering is the result of sin, and sin will be no more in heaven.
But on earth, I think it’s an inevitable result of being given the right to make real choices. Suffering is the consequence of sin affecting us, other people, and nature itself (in the Genesis Fall).
I think God does not want us to suffer (which is why He’s so careful to spell out boundaries and rules, a way of living that will help us have the best life possible). But since He wanted to give people the right to choose, He had to allow the possibility of sin and suffering, even if He doesn’t like it.
But I think His plan is still to do away with suffering, and He will do that in heaven. And in the meantime, on earth, He tries to keep us on the best path possible, and He hurts when we hurt, and He promises to work all the pain into something good. It’s His way of turning the bad (which He didn’t cause or want) into something good.
I’m not sure if that answers your question, but it’s what popped into my head. Blessings!
Br.d.: “So personally – I see heaven as a place where God’s people will consider themselves to be totally blessed to be with a wonderful loving, caring, and giving creator.”
Amen to that!
Hey everone,
Can I kindly suggest that you trade emails and discuss all topics outside of soteriology (Calvinism) on another platform.
Not only does it make for a lot of emails in my inbox but I’m guessing it dilutes our message when the passers-by come to read some of our more pertinent comments about how God provides for all!
br.d
Thanks FOH
I think what would be preferred is that we has people to refrain from posting comments or questions unrelated to Calvinism in order to minimize posts coming into peoples emails.
.
Thanks
FOH,
WADR (with all due respect), As if in a court of law, “I object! Goes to motive of God’s character in Calvinism as to what his character is after we die, since religion is all about the afterlife anyway.”
My objection may get sustained, but…
FWIW, I’ve got 13,948 emails that I need to delete at some point in my life, after deleting some 40,000 last year.
FOH, I understand the frustration of too many emails. I myself don’t get notifications of new comments, so I’m probably not as affected by it as you are. However, it seems to me that hardly any comments are posted here anymore, compared to what it used to be like. So I like seeing the few comments that do pop up. At least someone is sharing ideas and inviting conversation, even if they are not totally on point for Calvinism. (I myself prefer reading and writing comments on a blog instead of, say, on a YouTube video or something. Blog comment sections allow for a better back-and-forth and deeper connection, I think.)
And I think that discussing God’s rulership in heaven and whether or not He wants suffering is akin to discussing Calvinism’s idea of sovereignty and that God causes bad things for a reason. It might not be exactly the same, but I think it falls within the realm enough to be on this blog. But maybe that’s just me.
Either way, I’m still happy to see any new comments that pop up here, especially since I’m a rather lonely, introverted person who doesn’t comment in any other comment section on any other platform.
And personally, I don’t think it does water the message down. I think it actually brings the people who comment here to life more, helping us connect more with what they say and understand where they are coming from. It might not get us to the point faster, but it makes the relationships and conversations deeper. And I like that. (But I’ll try to limit my comments here, to help cut down on your overloaded inbox.)
God bless! 🙂
Heather; “And I think that discussing God’s rulership in heaven and whether or not He wants suffering is akin to discussing Calvinism’s idea of sovereignty and that God causes bad things for a reason.”
I actually agree 100% Heather though i do get many emails as well… and if i have time i read them all!!! if not i can choose not too ie true freedom not compatibilistic freedom (corresponding to my strongest desire). But that being said, i actually trust doctrine in general matters, because if we err in our doctrine hmm shouldn’t we keep a teachable mindset!! I have come to find soteriology, eschatology etc. is tied into a person’s world view in many ways.. So though i find it important i do understand what FOH is saying yet I’m still trying to figure out did Paul consider this issue or soteriology etc. secondary??? the fact is that God elevates His Word above His name.
Psalm 138:2 NKJV — I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
So anyway I have read some of Randy Alcorn’s book, but to be fair and honest when i realized his soteriology view i stopped. Ugh not saying this is right or wrong, but again i find when I’m trusting God and His Word above man then the clarity & inconsistencies of calvinism are much more clear! 🌻
Heather:
I respect your opinion and appreciate what you write so often (if not always!).
But my points and suggestions are:
1. It makes our good information hard to find with so much other stuff in the thread.
2. It is off topic in many people’s mind (even if not in yours) (will they unsubscribe?)
3. What I did for years on this site was post daily (after my daily through-the-Bible reading) all of the verses IN THAT ONE DAY’S READING that contradicted Calvinism. It was like a tidal wave of evidence (no cherry-picking Calvinist style).
So…. I would welcome people doing that!
Please post here or in another thread what you read TODAY and how that spoke to you both in a good way and in a Calvinist-error way.
Hi Reggie, thanks for commenting. You said: “So anyway I have read some of Randy Alcorn’s book, but to be fair and honest when i realized his soteriology view i stopped. Ugh not saying this is right or wrong, but again i find when I’m trusting God and His Word above man then the clarity & inconsistencies of calvinism are much more clear!’
Yeah, I too have a hard time reading anything from a Calvinist, even if it’s not related to soteriology, because Calvinism seeps into all their views on all biblical issues. So everything they say will be based on fundamentally wrong beliefs about God and faith and salvation. Not that we can’t get anything good from them, but I still can’t stomach even the good things they say because I know what’s hiding underneath.
God bless you, Reggie!
Reggie,
And you asked “I’m still trying to figure out did Paul consider this issue or soteriology etc. secondary???”
I don’t think Paul considered issues of salvation secondary at all.
1 Cor. 15:3-4: “For what I received I passed onto you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures,”.
This – the gospel, how we can be saved because Christ died for our sins – is of “first importance.”
1 Timothy 2:3-6: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…”
This message is the very reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John recorded what they did.
John 20:31: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
The message of salvation offered to all people is of first importance. And so in my thinking, if we get that wrong, it doesn’t really matter what else we get right.
And Calvinists get it wrong.
FOH: “Please post here or in another thread what you read TODAY and how that spoke to you both in a good way and in a Calvinist-error way.”
Good idea. And I see what you mean now by “water down,” that it would make it harder to find the Calvinist-related comments, not necessarily that it would dilute the meaningfulness of the blog. Makes sense. And blessings to you. 🙂
br.d, Heather and Everyone Else
Hope we all had a Great Thanksgiving , sorry to go a little bit off topic but
You Know how we have the terms
B.C. for “Before Christ” and
A.D. which is Latin for Anno Domini
“In the year of the Lord” when Jesus Christ Returns in the
Second Coming, which I hope is No later than
the End of 2024 . When Jesus Returns and Ends All Evil, Suffering and
Injustice in the World once and for All, Forever
Will a New term be created similar to
B.C. & A.D. something like R.C. which would stand for
Return of Christ , because it would be the beginning of a New Era for All
Humanity , the Whole World , a major turning point for the Human Race
Do you think that in Heaven and the New Earth Christians will each have a Nice Large House
All to themselves with an Exact Duplicate Copy of All their Earthly Physical
Possessions, Do you Speculate TV shows, Movies, Books, Magazines, Video Games, Computers, Internet, Social Media,
Our Beloved Pets will Continue to Exist ? Sports, Music,
Also does the United States Government and other World
Governments take the “Rapture” Doctrine seriously. What Emergency Plans do they
Have in place for when Hundreds of Millions of Christians suddenly
vanish into thin air and are “beamed up” as they say in Star Trek
What plans are in place for those who are “Left Behind”
Have you ever heard of something called
Project Blue Beam ? Not to be confused with
Project Blue Book ? What is your opinion on UFO’S and so-called
“Alien Abductions” Are you a Pre-Trib or Post-Trib Rapture Believer
Thanks for answering ,
Hello Jeff,
And thank you for your kind ThanksGiving greetings!
.
On your other questions – one of the users here at SOT101 has asked if we would refrain from discussions outside of the topic of Calvinism – because he feels he is being inundated with posts coming into his incoming email.
.
So I’ll leave it at that.
And a very warm and Happy ThanksGiving to you!!!!
.
br.d :-]
Hello Jeff, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving too. Without elaborating, I will say that I am definitely a pre-trib believer (and I don’t think we’ll care about the possessions we left behind on earth because I think whatever we get will be so much better, much more perfect).
And to bring this comment into the realm of Calvinism, I will add that while Calvinists fall on both sides of the debate (pre-trib vs. post-trib), from what I can tell, Calvinists who believe in a post-trib rapture (as our Calvinist pastor does) might do so because it’s the only way they can explain “elect” people being on earth during the tribulation, as seen in Revelation. Because if all the Calvinist elect are supposed to go up in the rapture, then it can’t be a pre-trib rapture. And so to make the rapture and Revelation fit their view of election, they move the rapture to post-trib. I, however, think they mistime the rapture to accommodate their wrong views of election.
Along these lines is the idea of when the millennium kingdom is or if there even is one. I believe the rapture is first, then the tribulation, then the millennium kingdom. But, if I’m not mistaken, didn’t the EFCA just change their statement of faith to allow for amillennialism? I’m not sure why they did this, but I wonder if it has something to do with Calvinism taking over EFCA churches.
Blessings to you, Jeff! Have a great holiday season.
Heather, br.d and Everyone else
Back in 2018 a Christian on
Facebook typed
“Its not God Will that evil happens. God’s Will and what God allows are not one and same.
God did not create robots, God allows people their own self physical (fleshly) will and most people they bring on themselves suffering and much is allowed by anti-God people.” How should we reply ?
jeffster,
The other day, I listened to a Christian on YouTube that discussed those being atheists, that say that if God was such a loving God, why does he allow evil to take place?
So the Christian responded by taking it back to the atheist belief, removing God from the equation, and then asking the atheist why does man allow evil to take place?
Ed Chapman
Ed, That’s a thought-provoking turn-around of the question that would lead to some interesting conversation, wouldn’t it?
br.d
Hello Jeff
.
There are two completely different answers to this question.
There is the Calvinist answer
And then there is the NON-Calvinist answer
.
John Calvin starts us off with the Calvinist answer:
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
CRITICAL FACTORS:
1) In Calvinism *EVERYTHING* without exception within creation is pre-determined and *FIXED* in the past by an infallible decree – and cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
2) An infallible decree does not grant any *ALTERNATIVE* from that which it decrees
.
3) An infallible decree *ONLY PERMITS* what it decrees
.
4) An infallible decree *ONLY ALLOWS* what it decrees
.
So – if it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T – then
– That decree does not grant the existence of any *ALTERNATIVE*
– That decree *ONLY PERMITS* you to perform SIN_X at TIME-T
– That decree *ONLY ALLOWS* you to perform SIN_X at TIME-T
– Since *NO ALTERNATIVE* is granted existence to you – it follows – you are NOT granted a *CHOICE* in the matter of whether you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T or not – because the option to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T does not exist
.
So it is critical that you understand how terms like *PERMIT* and *ALLOW* are defined within Calvinism
.
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSES – he permits
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT CAUSE – he does not permit.
.
.
The NON-Calvinist system does not have the doctrine of decrees.
So it is NOT the case the *EVERYTHING* is *FIXED* in the past by an infallible decree
.
This means
1) *ALTERNATIVES* exist within creation
2) People are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* the person.
.
So in the NON-Calvinist system –
– You have the option to SIN at TIME-T
– You also have the *ALTERNATIVE* option to NOT SIN at TIME-T
– You have a CHOICE between those two options
– That CHOICE is *UP TO* you.
.
If you have further questions on this topic – please don’t hesitate to ask
.
Blessings
Br.d
Hello Jeff, I say that Br.d. is right: “There are two completely different answers to this question. There is the Calvinist answer, And then there is the NON-Calvinist answer.”
Calvinists get it wrong because they think God’s will MUST happen and that it’s synonymous with everything that happens. And this is because they wrongly define sovereign as God preplanning, controlling, causing all things. (But this cannot mesh with Bible verses like “God is not willing that any should perish.” And so Calvinists redefine who the “any” is, saying that it must not mean He wants all people to be saved but just the elect – because, in their minds, God’s will always happens and so God cannot will that all people are saved because not all people are saved.)
In their minds, if He wills something, it must happen, and everything that happens is because He willed it (preplanned/caused it). They simply cannot accept the idea that God allows things He doesn’t want to happen and allows things He does want to not happen. They cannot accept the idea that God gave mankind the right to make real decisions with real consequences that affect what happens.
But God’s will is not about what must happen or what God preplans/causes (as Calvinists define it). It’s about what God wants to happen, His preferred plans (as the Greek defines it, as seen in the concordance). It’s what He wants for us (His best plan for us, the best option) – but He has chosen to not always force what He wants. He has chosen to allow us to decide for ourselves if we want what He wants or not, if we will cooperate with Him or not, obey Him or not. And yet, He can still work our choices – whether we choose for Him or against Him – into His overarching plans, bringing good out of it somehow.
Yes, He does make plans and cause certain things to happen, and He has overarching plans that will be carried out one way or another. But just because He plans some things and causes whatever He plans to work out doesn’t mean that He plans everything to happen the way it does or that He gives people no choices.
God has overarching plans for mankind, but He allows us the freedom to make decisions within boundaries in our own lives, on the way to working His plans out. And our decisions – making real choices among real options – affect what happens in our lives and in others’ lives. We can choose to do His will or not (to do evil or good), and it will affect our lives, world, and eternities.
But whether we obey or disobey, He can still find a way to work our decisions into His overarching plans, even if we have to pay the price and face the consequences for the choices we make. (I think I’m rambling, but I hope you get the picture.)
Ironically, Calvinists think an all-controlling God is a “Big God.” But I think they actually have a small, limited god because their version of God can only handle what he himself preplans/causes. He cannot handle any outside forces affecting his plans.
But I think the God of the Bible is much bigger, wiser, more complex, and more mysterious than that. He can allow people to do things He doesn’t want (sin and evil) and not do things He does want (believe in Jesus, obey Him), and yet He can still find a way to work it all into accomplishing His overarching plans. This is how God meshes the free-will of man with His sovereign control: He allows us to make real choices with real consequences, but then He finds brilliant ways to work it all into His plans, to bring something good out of it.
Dr. Tony Evans compares life to a football game. God sets the boundaries and writes the rulebook and watches over the game as referee, but He allows us to decide how we play the game and what we do on the field. And these decisions affect our lives. This is why it’s so important to always consult and live by the One who wrote the rulebook and set the boundaries, especially if we want to have the best lives and eternities possible. He’s always willing to guide us and lead us in the best path for us (His preferred will for us), but sadly we’re not always willing to seek it or obey. And so we create consequences that didn’t have to happen. (But even then, there’s forgiveness, and God will help us set things right again if we turn to Him in our brokenness.)
This is how I see things regarding the question you asked. Thoughtful question, Jeff. I hope my answer helps, instead of confuses the issue more. God bless! And happy holidays. 🙂
Merry Christmas Everyone
A person typed online recently
“It’s amazing how every Calvinist believes they’re part of the “chosen few” that God is going to save. At its core it’s a very self centered “religion”. Every Calvinist on Calvinism:
“God chose me and not those other people.”
But it’s far more likely that someone is born in the “non-elect caste” so why don’t we ever find Calvinists who think the “system” is true, but who believe they were born non-elect? If Calvinism were true, we would expect to find large numbers of people who not only think Calvinism is true, but think themselves to have been born non-elect instead of elect. But contrast that with the reality (?🙄) of Calvinism where the ONLY people who believe in the Calvinist system are (shocking!) those who believe they were born elect and are saved. Where are the Calvinist non-elect who believe their system is true but don’t think they’ve been born elect? And yes, Calvinism is absolutely a “caste” system” What do we think ?
br.d
Hello Jeff – and Merry Christmas!!!
.
Yes you are totally correct.
The doctrine stipulates – not only does Calvin’s god created the vast majority (THE MANY) of individuals – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
But he also creates a large percentage of believer for that end as well.
These are called CHAFF believers – who he deceives with a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt *WITHOUT* the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT* then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
-quote
A *SMALL* and contemptible number are hidden in a *HUGE MULTITUDE* and a *FEW GRAINS* of wheat
are covered by *A PILE* of chaff. We must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation
is his SECRET election. (Institutes 4.1.4)
.
I think you can understand what kind of burden that is going to impose on a person’s mind.
.
We are told by Neurologists – that the human mind experiences dread internally – as a form of pain.
And the natural instinct is to do whatever it might take to relieve oneself of that pain.
.
I think therefore – its a natural instinctive response to the doctrine – for the Calvinist to try to put away any thoughts of being created for the lake of fire.
.
And yes – when I ask Calvinists about this – a very typical response is they assume CHAFF believers are anyone and everyone – *EXCEPT* Calvinists – and especially anyone but themselves.
.
Calvin himself acknowledged that his conception of divine intent for mankind filled him with horror.
.
Calvinists today – do not have the decree of honesty which Calvin had in his day.
They are taught to have such a high urgency to promote and defend the doctrine.
.
And Calvinist leaders have – over the years – engineered a library of talking-points – all designed to HIDE the DARK aspects of the doctrine – and make it *APPEAR* to be a doctrine of benevolence.
.
But Calvin’s god is primarily a god of malevolence towards his creatures
And minimally benevolent.
.
John Piper – for example – was noted for acknowledging to his congregation that he did not know if his two sons had been created for damnation.
.
But he would never divulge to his congregation – the same question about his own salvation.
He knows – if he divulges that to his congregation – say to themselves – if John Piper does not have assurance of salvation – then how can we.
.
Blessings!
And Merry Christmas!
br.d
Another comment recently typed online about Calvinism said
“Luke 8:12 Makes No Sense if Calvinism is True
Calvinism is the false idea that God has chosen all who will be saved and all who will be damned before anyone was born
In the parable of the Sower in Luke 8, the devil snatches away the Word from people’s hearts so they can’t believe and be saved
If Calvinism is true, there is no need for the devil to snatch away the Word since those chosen by God will inevitably believe and be saved
Calvinism contradicts the belief that God wants everyone to be saved and that Jesus died for every person
Satan tries to snatch away the Word because he knows Calvinism is heresy and a false gospel
Calvinism is a lie straight out of the pit of Hell and anyone who believes it is falling for demonic lies”
br.d
Yes – this follows the pattern that every NON-Calvinist observes – where the activities of created beings – such as Lucifer and man – appear in the form of a puppet show.
.
In Calvinism – humans do not “Commit” sins – they “PERFORM” sins on behalf of Calvin’s god.
.
Impulses which human brains – and the actions of human bodies – do not originate from within those humans.
All impulses and actions have their origin in an infallible decree which is external to every human.
.
Every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain – is AUTHORED at the foundation of the world.
.
The decree makes all human function IRRESISTIBLE:
.
Every impulse comes to pass within the human brain infallibly
And since it is impossible for creation to RESIST that which is infallible – it follows – all impulses come to pass within the human brain IRRESISTIBLY
.
That is why you see IRRESISTIBLE grace as an advertisement strategy used by Calvinists.
The Calvinist doesn’t think you will be adverse to grace being IRRESISTIBLE because grace is “Good”
But what he is not telling you – is that an infallible decree makes everything IRRESISTIBLE which comes to pass within creation
.
So all sins and evils – by virtue of being MADE infallible – are MADE IRRESISTIBLE.
.
That is why in Calvinism – people do not “Commit” sins – they “PERFORM” sins
And the decree makes the “PERFORMANCE” infallible and IRRESISTIBLE
.
This creates a significant problem for the Calvinist – in regard to things like Divine “Intervention” and Divine “Prevention”
.
When you think about it – you will recognize Divine “Intervention” and Divine “Prevention” cannot exist in Calvinism any more than oxygen can exist within a perfect vacuum
.
It works this way:
1) The only events which can be “intervened” or “prevented” are events which *ARE* going to come to pass.
.
2) There is no such thing as “Intervening” or “preventing” a NON-Existent event.
.
3) In Calvinism – the only events which *ARE* going to come to pass – are events which have been decreed
.
4) All events which have been decreed – are decreed to come to pass with INFALLIBLE EXACTNESS which cannot be “intervened” or “Prevented”.
.
If Calvin’s god – is a perfect being – then everything he decrees to come to pass – will come to pass perfectly.
He does not make mistakes that he would need to “Intervene” or “Prevent”.
And why would a perfect being “Intervene” or “Prevent” something that is already perfect?
.
This becomes a problem for the Calvinist – because he desperately wants these things to exist within his belief system. But they cannot exist within the doctrine of decrees any more than oxygen can exist within a perfect vacuum.
.
So in order to have what his doctrine does not give him – the Calvinist must create them in the form of SEMANTIC FACADES. These things exist as a MAGICAL FANTASY within the mind of the Calvinist – because they are logically impossible.
.
Blessings
br.d
I read a comment attributed to St. Bernard: remove free will and there is nothing to save. Remove grace and there is nothing to save with. Why do calvinists even talk about salvation? Thank you kay
br.d
Hello Kay and welcome
Wonderful post – and very insightful!
.
Yes – that is correct.
Your statement speaks to the IRRATIONAL and IMMORAL nature of salvation in Calvinism.
.
Calvin’s god has two provisions for mankind:
1) His *PRIMARY* provision is for THE MANY
Eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
.
2) His *SECONDARY* provision is for THE FEW
He saves a few from his *PRIMARY* provision.
.
So in Calvinism – humans are not being saved from themselves
He decrees damnation for THE MANY
And THE FEW are saved from what he decrees for THE MANY.
.
How the Calvinist cannot see that picture as both IRRATIONAL and IMMORAL – is a mystery of the human nature.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Also clarion-journal.com has an article headlined
“SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?” by Richard Murray on
November 14, 2013 Any opinions on how it relates to our
Debate about Calvinism ? Could we give real life examples of events in real life that might seem to show if Calvinism is somewhat true
br.d
Hi Jeff,
.
Lets unpackage this logically:
.
1) The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
2) Lucifer is a created being – and is thus obviously identified as one of “the creatures”
.
3) Thus we have – a doctrine which stipulates *NOTHING HAPPENS* within the brain of Lucifer that Calvin’s god did not knowingly and willingly decree.
.
4) This coincides with the Calvinist conception that there is no such thing as creaturely *AUTONOMY*
.
5) Therefore – it would logically follow that Lucifer would obviously be recognized as a “Servant Angel”
.
6) However – it is logically impossible to be a “Rebel” without some degree of *AUTONOMY*
.
7) The decree which determines every impulse within every creature’s brain (including Lucifer) is infallible
.
8) All creatures within creation are fallible
.
9) It is logically impossible for that which is fallible to “Rebel” against that which is infallible
.
10) Therefore in Calvinism – it is logically impossible for any creature (including Lucifer) to “Rebel” because that would entail that which is fallible falsifying that which is infallible.
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – Lucifer – along with all creatures – is identified as a “Servant” in that the creature is granted NO ALTERNATIVE from what is infallibly decreed
.
But in Calvinism Lucifer cannot be construed as a “Rebel” because that would represent a denial of the doctrine of decrees.
Also I forgot to add, the 2006 book
“When God Winks at You: How God Speaks Directly to You Through the Power of Coincidence”
by Squire D. Rushnell can that somehow relate to our Calvinism debate ?
br.d
On the subject of how Calvin’s god communicates – we need to bear in mind that Calvin’s god will purposefully deceive people.
.
Let’s take an example:
.
Bill and Andrew are twin brothers – who are now grown up adults
Bill is a Calvinist
Andrew is a Jehovah’s witness
.
Bill and Andrew both enjoy reading the ESV Bible
Bill is reading a certain verse within the ESV Bible – and his PERCEPTION of that verse is that [X] is TRUE
Andrew is reading the same exact verse within the ESV Bible – and his PERCEPTION of that verse is that [X] is FALSE
.
The PERCEPTION within Bill’s brain is that [X] is TRUE
The PERCEPTION within Andrew’s brain is that [X] is FALSE
.
Logic tells us that two things in opposition cannot both be TRUE at the same time.
.
If Bill’s PERCEPTION is TRUE – then Andrew’s PERCEPTION must be FALSE
if Andrew’s PERCEPTION is TRUE – then Bill’s PERCEPTION must be FALSE
.
Now – we add Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees – which stipulates that *NOTHING HAPPENS* within creation that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
.
1) The PERCEPTION within Bill’s brain – was decreed at the foundation of the world to come to pass infallibly
2) The PERCEPTION within Andrew’s brain – was decreed at the foundation of the world – to come to pass infallibly
.
One of these PERCEPTIONS is FALSE
.
SUMMARY:
Calvin’s god decreed the PERCEPTION within Bill’s brain – to be a FALSE PERCEPTION
or
Calvin’s god decreed the PERCEPTION within Andrew’s brain – to be a FALSE PERCEPTION
.
In either case – Calvin’s god has decreed a FALSE PERCEPTION to exist within a human brain.
.
So we have a FALSE PERCEPTION which is FIXED within a human brain by an infallible decree
.
That decree cannot permit that human brain the ability to *DISCERN* that PERCEPTION as FALSE – because then it would be the case that that person would no longer have that as a FALSE PERCEPTION.
.
CONCLUSION:
In Calvinism – every FALSE PERCEPTION which exists within every human brain – is FIXED by an infallible decree – which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Whatsoever deception comes to pass within the human brain – is decreed by Calvin’s god.
And that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE PERCEPTION within that human brain.
.
Therefore – Calvin’s god is a god of deception.
br.d
Jeff – take a look at a very short video on Youtube by Dr. Timothy Stratton of Free Thinking Ministries
.
The title of the video is: For Calvinists, God will deceive them.
.
When you follow Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees to its logical conclusion – you recognize
1) The ability to “DO OTHERWISE” than that which is infallibly decreed does not exist for the creature
.
2) For the human brain to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any proposition – would require brain’s ability to “DO OTHERWISE”
.
3) To choose TRUE is to “DO OTHERWISE” than to choose FALSE
.
4) To choose FALSE is to “DO OTHERWISE” than to choose TRUE
.
5) In Calvinism – there is no such thing as the creature being granted the ability to “DO OTHERWISE”
.
6) Therefore – in Calvinism – the human brain is not granted the ability to choose TRUE from FALSE on any proposition.
.
7) The human function of discernment of any proposition – requires the ability to make a choice between TRUE and FALSE concerning that proposition.
.
8) That ability does not exist for the Calvinist brain – because it would entail the brain’s ability to “DO OTHERWISE”
.
CONCLUSION:
The Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter.
Thanks, Also I found this online comment from 2019 that said
“JOHN 3:16 HAS BEEN MISTRANSLATED! Here is the promised essay!
What did Jesus mean by Perish in John 3:16? Santo Calarco
The most powerful and famous verse in the whole Bible, words spoken by Jesus himself, are misleading in English translations.
John 3:16
Whoever believes in him will not PERISH but have everlasting life.
The Greek word, sloppily translated, PERISH is ἀπόληται.
In western Christian thought to “perish”has been understood to mean… To go to hell or to be annihilated. So the common western understanding of this famous verse goes like this: unless you put faith in Jesus you will miss out on eternal life (go the heaven at death) and instead go to hell… Perish!
Jesus did not mean this at all!
Before we look at what the Greek word actually means, let’s consider the unfolding story line leading up to this climactic verse.
Nicodemus has approached Jesus and enters into a conversation with him. He said to Jesus that God was with him because of the signs that he saw him do. John 3:1-2
Nicodemus was impressed with physical visible signs Jesus performed. Jesus set out to take him deeper. Jesus responded and challenged the spiritual insight of Nicodemus.
Here is a typical translation of the English text containing Jesus’ response to Nicodemus.
John 3:3 ESV
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
The way western Christianity has traditionally explained this statement goes like this … “unless you accept me as your saviour by being born again you will never go to heaven after death” – that is never see the kingdom of God.
The English in this verse does not accurately convey the Greek.
The Greek does not say “born again”. Neither does it say “Kingdom of God”!
Consider Young’s Literal Translation of the Greek.
John 3:3 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from ABOVE, he is not able to see the REIGN of God.
So instead of saying “born again” the Greek reads “born from above”. Instead of “kingdom of God” the Greek says “reign of God”.
So what?
In modern western Christian thought we are told that to be “born again” means that our first birth is faulty – evil. Born totally depraved according to Calvinism.
Hence we need to be born again. But this is not what the Greek actually says.
The Greek says being “born from above” not being born again! Jesus is not saying that our first birth was faulty or evil! Psalm 139 says that God has knitted us individually in the womb.
Neither did Jesus speak about the “kingdom” of God. The Greek word translated “kingdom” actually means “reign”. We saw this in Young’s Literal Translation.
So what? In English “kingdom” and “reign” DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING.
When we talk about United Kingdom we often think of a place, a territory. But the Greek word Basilea means REIGN of the monarch not the territory. The kingdom of God is about the RULE OF GOD – not a place.
If we go with kingdom being a “place” then we begin to think in terms of going to heaven. But Jesus is talking about the reign of God – inside of us.
Matthew 13:19
When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his HEART.
Matthew 13:19 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)
19 Every one hearing the word of THE REIGN, and not understanding — the evil one doth come, and doth catch that which hath been sown in his HEART
See? The kingdom message is about the REIGN OF GOD IN OUR HEARTS in the HERE AND NOW.
So what did Jesus mean in response to Nicodemus… Based on the Greek?
Nicodemus focused on the external signs that he saw. Jesus shifted his focus to the invisible reign of God within.
Jesus is saying to Nicodemus that unless he is born from above that he won’t SEE OR PERCEIVE THE REIGN OF GOD WITHIN.
This is supported by the following verses.
John 3:6-7,23 International Standard Version
6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is BORN of the SPIRIT.
7 Don’t be astonished that I told you, ‘All of you must be born FROM ABOVE’
12 If I have told you people about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about HEAVENLY things?
So Jesus is talking about the need for a change in perception. We need to start seeing things from a heavenly perspective… A spiritual perspective… This is what it means to be born from above. Unless we start to gain spiritual insight (not based on the physical eye), we will miss out on experiencing God’s reign in our lives in the here and now.
Jesus is not saying that unless you believe in him and get born again that you’re going to go to hell after death.
This is the immediate context of John 3:16.
Let’s consider verses 14-15.
John 3:14-15
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Now let’s pause right here. Something important is happening. Jesus just spoke about entering and seeing (perceiving) the internal reign (kingdom) of God by believing.
He now changes his words. To enter into and see the reign of God within means the same thing as having ETERNAL LIFE BY BELIEVING.
TO ENTER THE KINGDOM MEANS THE SAME THING AS ENTERING ETERNAL LIFE!
I will come back to this. In these verses Jesus tells us what we need to understand in order to be born from above.
He said that we need to understand what his death is about. “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent so too Jesus will be lifted up and as we see and believe this you have eternal life (enter enjoy experience the internal reign of God).”
When we understand the Cross we know that we have been born from above, from the Spirit.
This goes beyond seeing physical signs.
We have arrived at John 3:16. Jesus repeats what he just said and elaborates.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus places “perish” in contrast to “eternal life”.
They mean the opposite thing for Jesus.
Now here is where it gets really exciting for me. Elsewhere in this same book Jesus defines what he means by “eternal life”!
John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they KNOW YOU, the only true God, AND JESUS and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
WOW!!
Eternal life does not mean living forever in heaven after we die. Eternal life simply means KNOWING GOD – intimacy with God!
Eternal life is qualitative not quantitative. It’s relational not temporal.
This means that to enter the reign (kingdom) of God, to have eternal life simply means to ENTER INTO AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH FATHER!
And Jesus is saying we enter into this relational dimension as we are born of the spirit, born from above AS WE UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF HIM BEING LIFTED UP ON THE CROSS.
In the book of John we read “he who has seen me has seen the Father … the Father and I are one! “ John 14.
John 1:18 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side —he has revealed him.
See?!! Jesus came to show us what God is like.
As we put faith in Jesus we get the exact revelation of the Father. And once we know that the Father is like Jesus … it’s only then that we can enter into relationship with him. How can we enter into relationship with anyone without knowing what they are like?
So Jesus comes to earth … is raised up on the Cross and says: “when you see me getting killed … as you see me pronouncing forgiveness on you while you kill me … you are seeing the Father through me!”
Wow! We are now born from above.
Let’s conclude by looking at the word “perish”.
Jesus said that whoever believes in him (revealing the truth of the crucified forgiving God), will eternal into intimacy with the Father (enter the reign, eternal life”?). If we don’t get this revelation then we PERISH.
Context demands that perish is the opposite of eternal life. Since eternal life is knowing God then to perish simply means you don’t know God personally because you have not yet believed that Father is exactly like Jesus.
To perish simply means you are not in relationship with God at the present time because you are not born from above. You have not yet believed in Jesus and so cannot see the truth about God and so can’t enter into relationship with God.
I will even go further.
The Greek word translated “perish” actually means “to be lost”!
Lost not because this means you are going to Hell after death … but lost simply because you currently don’t know Father by believing that Jesus has revealed the truth about him!
Here is the Greek translated “not perish”: μὴ ἀπόληται. I believe that this phrase more accurately should be translated as “not be lost”. Why?
This identical phrase occurs elsewhere in John and is NOT translated “not perish”!
The below passage is identical in Greek but instead of “not perish” it says “not be lost”!
John 6:12 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
12 When they were filled, He said unto His disciples, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost (μὴ ἀπόληται).”
What follows has been cut and paste from Bible Hub. Note the way that bible hub has placed the following two verses one after the other.
“John 3:16 V-ASM-3S
GRK: αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ
NAS: believes in Him shall not perish, but have
KJV: should not perish, but have
INT: him not might perish but might have
John 6:12 V-ASM-3S
GRK: μή τι ἀπόληται
NAS: so that nothing will be lost.
KJV: that remain, that nothing be lost.
INT: nothing anything might be lost”
So even bible hub shows the inconsistency in translations.
Why do tanslators say “not perish” in John 3 but “not be lost” in John 6 when the Greek is the same?
Lost and perish don’t necessarily mean the same thing! Something can be lost and then found. But when something perishes it sounds pretty permanent.
The Greek word ἀπόληται comes from apolummi which simply means to be lost AND DOESN’T MEAN A PERMANENT STATE OF DAMNATION. In fact in the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son, Jesus uses the exact same Greek word as John 3. And the point is this: being lost comes just before being found and saved! Luke 15.
Jesus said a number of times that he came to seek and save that which is lost. Luke 19:10. The Greek is apolummi once again.
Being lost precedes being found.
Conclusion. When Jesus said that those who do not believe in him end up perishing, all he saying is this: they are simply in the current state of being lost which he defines as not knowing God. That’s all. There is nothing inherent in this word that means a permanent irretrievable or beyond repentance state. In fact in other places this same word is directly connected with being found after being lost.”
br.d
Hello Jeff
.
Firstly – any post anyone makes which is overly long – is going to be a post no one is going to bother to read.
So I would suggest you moderate the length of your posts
.
Secondly – on the subject of whether anyone perishes – you have Jesus’ statement in Matthew chapter 25
-quote
“And he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ……… they [the goats] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
And in Matthew chapter 5
-quote
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
.
So in one place Jesus speaks of Hell – and in another place Jesus speaks of eternal punishment.
One can assume he is talking about the same place in both instances.
.
And in Calvinism it works this way:
.
John Calvin
-quote
By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god = though the reason does not appear , they [the damned] are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
Another comment I found online from 2020 is
“Three years ago today, I renounced universalism, which I had taken on as my religious stance for a while. No one hit the unfriend button over it, but there was a very long discussion.
I think being a universalist was an important part of my journey that led me to dig deeper and to stop believing a lot of false/faulty things.
Someone labeled my view as “hyper Calvinism” and after self examination, I realized that was true. I also didn’t like the de-emphasis of faith and belief. Also, I figured out the view I had of “sovereignty” was totally wrong.
After intensive study in the Spirit, I saw that “eternal fire” only does one of two things – 1) turns to ash (totally consumes, the individual is “no more”) 2) purifies. I saw that faith and belief and acceptance are very necessary to BE and to experience the salvation of all.
I saw that “heaven versus hell” is not what Jesus and prophecies discussed. It was kingdom Life (on earth) verses “fire” (outside the “open gates” to the “Holy Place” on earth). No talk of “eternity” or “final destination in eternity” anywhere.”
Jeffster,
I have long proposed that Calvinism and Universalism are essentially the same.
They both say that God does it all to (imposes it all on) man. They just differ on the number!
A certain number are saved no matter what they think, plan, believe, do or want.
One says a teeny tiny fraction of man, and the other says all….. but it is based on the same idea.
Happy New Year Everyone
Some More Thoughts
Some people have suggested the
1991 book titled
“The Other Side of Calvinism” by Laurence M. Vance
Plus the book
“Christian Soldier’s Battle Notes”
Volume 1 by John Davis, Fourth Edition , Published in 2020
On pages 93 to 105 , the section is called
“The Errors of Calvinism”
My point is, can we humans ever really know if Calvinism is true or partially true in this life, how can we grasp an infinite God , how can we even begin to Grasp it, other than the very basics. So many Countless different Interpretations of Scripture, endless back and forth debate, it seems unsolvable
and impossible to know for certain
Endless debate and Interpretations in English, different translations and Bible versions in English, but also in the Original Greek & Hebrew
Calvinist James White in one video online says
God ordains both the ends and the means. We might disagree with
James White on some topics, but he has written Superb books in Defense of The Trinity, so he is correct on many things
What about people who are Happy being Calvinist Christians , and have come to believe Calvinism is true through intense study , some people have even said that the Bible hopelessly contradicts itself on certain issues, with verses both for and against a certain viewpoint , that some debates are unsolvable, only God alone knows for certain
br.d
Hello Jeff and thank you for your kind words – and happy New Year to you also!
.
Let’s address your primary question
.
Jeff:
-quote
My point is, can we humans ever really know if Calvinism is true or partially true in this life, how can we grasp an infinite God , how can we even begin to Grasp it……
.
br.d
In order to TRUTHFULLY address this question – we need to TRUTHFULLY ACKNOWLEDGE what Calvinism stipulates
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
It is critical that we acknowledge the fact – an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
For example – if it is decreed that you will be born on the month of January – then that decree does not grant the option of you being born on any ALTERNATIVE month.
.
So in Calvinism – because everything within creation is 100% meticulously determined to infallibly come to pass – then it follows – every human event – and every human impulse – is determined in the past by an infallible decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE
.
Now lets say that James White is required to take a Bible exam.
And all of the questions on the exam are TRUE/FALSE questions
Jame’s brain comes in contact with the first question – at TIME-T
.
The doctrine stipulates whatsoever comes to pass is infallibly fixed at the foundation of the world by an infallible decree.
.
Therefore the PERCEPTION which comes to pass within James’ brain concerning the first question – is fixed at the foundation of the world by an infallible decree.
.
At the foundation of the world – Calvin’s god has two options:
OPTION_A:
The PERCEPTION within James’ brain will be that the answer is TRUE
OPTION_B:
The PERCEPTION within James’ brain will be that the answer is FALSE
.
Now remember – an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
.
IF CALVIN’S GOD DECREES OPTION_A:
OPTION_A is granted existence
OPTION_B which is the ALTERNATIVE is not granted existence.
The infallible decree does not even permit James’ brain to PERCEIVE the answer as FALSE.
.
IF CALVIN’S GOD DECREES OPTION_B:
OPTION_B is granted existence
OPTION_A which is the ALTERNATIVE is not granted existence.
The infallible decree does not even permit James’ brain to PERCEIVE the answer as TRUE.
.
Are you noticing something here????
James brain is not being granted the ability of making a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE
The PERCEPTION in Jame’s brain is determined by factors outside of his brain’s control.
.
In order for James’ brain to choose between TRUE and FALSE the PERCEPTION in his brain would have to be UNDETERMINED. And that would make Calvinism FALSE.
.
Now lets say – Calvin’s god decrees James’ brain to PERCEIVE the answer as TRUE – while Calvin’s god knows the correct answer is FALSE.
.
We now have a compounded situation:
1) The decree does not permit James’ brain the ability to PERCEIVE the truth
2) Jame’s brain is not permitted the ability to discern between TRUE and FALSE on this matter
3) The PERCEPTION within Jame’s brain was FIXED by infallible decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE
.
Jeff
At some point you are going to need to come to grips with this!
You need to recognize there are SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES with Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
This situation provides just one simply example – of how Determinism within Calvinism works.
.
Because the doctrine stipulates that EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION is determined at the foundation of the world – it follows EVERY PERCEPTION which comes to pass within every human brain – is determined at the foundation of the world by a decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Calvin’s god not only creates the vast majority of the human population for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
He also decrees a large percentage of the believing population to have FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation.
These believers are created as CHAFF believers.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such A SENSE as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
John Calvin
-quote
He illumines ONLY FOR A TIME to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
So it becomes obvious – that within Calvinism we have the DECEPTION OF THE BELIEVER
.
In the case of James White taking the Bible exam – we have an example of the DECEPTION OF THE BELIEVER.
.
In the case of CHAFF believers – we have a second example of the DECEPTION OF THE
BELIEVER.
.
So the Calvinist answer to your question – is – an infallible decree determines every PERCEPTION in your brain – and does not permit any ALTERNATIVE.
.
This leaves you with NO ASSURANCE that you can really know the truth – simply because you (just like James in our example above) have no way of knowing whether any PERCEPTION within your brain is TRUE or FALSE.
.
Take time to read this over as many times as you need – in order to really come to grips with it.
.
Blessings
br.d
Hi Jeff,
My reading of Calvinist (mostly John Calvin himself) leaves me to understand their doctrine to teach: 1) that God thought up and decreed that the vast majority of mankind (as individuals known by God) were to hate Him 2) that God thought up and decreed all men and women were to commit their specific sins exactly as he had thought them up before their creation and then 3) when they die, God thought up and decreed that they were to be unable to repent and instead they were to be damned to eternal conscience torment in hell. AND 4) all this for his good pleasure.
In your research, have you found any of the above to be in error?
If not in error, would we do well to sit back and let our brothers believe and teach other to believe this about our Lord?
I’m thinking we are called to contend against such teaching.
Blessings,
Larry
Larry: “If not in error, would we do well to sit back and let our brothers believe and teach other to believe this about our Lord? I’m thinking we are called to contend against such teaching.”
Amen to this! Unfortunately, Calvinists present their theology as “minor differences about second-level issues,” convincing people (and churches they’re trying to take over) that the differences between Calvinism and non-Calvinism are so minor that we shouldn’t fight over them, that we should all just agree to disagree and lovingly put our arms around each other and sing Kumbaya.
I think this is strategic, especially in stealth Calvinism. They’re trying to keep the opposition quiet as they take over non-Calvinist churches, convincing us that God wants us all to be joined in humble unity even if we have “minor disagreements” about “non-critical” things they teach.
But I think Calvinism hits at the very heart of God’s character and the gospel (salvation, Jesus’s sacrifice, faith) and it contradicts the plain teachings of the Bible. This makes their teachings not minor, secondary issues… but fundamental, critical issues which affect everything else we believe and which determine the way we read the Bible and if we take God at His Word.
And if the gospel, God’s character, Jesus’s sacrifice, salvation, and biblical truth are not worth fighting over, nothing is.
Calvinism is a slow poison that works from the inside out, rotting churches and people’s faith slowly over time, oftentimes without people’s awareness, until there’s nothing left to salvage at the end. This is why I think it’s so critical to fight against it now, before it spreads more, hurting more naive, trusting, vulnerable people and churches. (We recently lost our church to it.)
The more Calvinists present Calvinism as “the gospel/Christianity”, the harder it will be later to reclaim the true, pure teachings of God’s Word. Time is of the essence, and our silence and refusal to fight back only gives them more time and room to spread their unbiblical theology.
Personally, I think a lot of people who recently “left the faith” were trying to get away from Calvinism, not God. But since they were taught to believe that Calvinism IS the gospel, they didn’t know there was a difference. They didn’t know they could have just gotten rid of the Calvinism but kept the faith. Sad.
(For more on my look into stealth Calvinism, see my series on “The 9 marks of a Calvinist Cult” at anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com.)
God bless. Keep up the good fight. And happy 2024!
Hi Jeff! Serious question. Do you believe the “Bible hopelessly contradicts itself” on this theological choice of God pre-determining everything, even sin, or God sovereignly giving man free will to be able to sin and able to freely seek the light God gives everyone?
Jeff: “some people have even said that the Bible hopelessly contradicts itself on certain issues, with verses both for and against a certain viewpoint…”
Just because some people say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Usually what it means is that we haven’t yet figured out how to properly understand the verses that appear to contradict the others. And it’s usually because we haven’t taken the time and effort to research deeply enough or properly enough. Just my thought on this.
br.d
Here is something else for you to think about Jeff
.
Calvinism is a belief system which the Calvinist claims is divine.
.
But what do we do when a given belief system is logically or morally problematic?
What if we simply don’t want to give up that belief system even though it has the problems it has?
So we have a belief system which has problems – which we do not want to give up.
.
One of the arguments we could make – is that the problems are not *REAL* they are divine mysteries which we humans are incapable of grasping.
.
We are instructed to accept the belief system and ignore its problems.
.
if we are going to do that – then we must allow *ALL* others who have different belief systems to do the same.
.
For example – we may find logical and moral problems with the Jehovah’s Witness belief system.
Or we may find logical and moral problems with the Mormon’s belief system.
.
The Jehovah’s Witness can argue the logical and moral problems with his belief system are not *REAL* problems.
They are simply divine mysteries which the JW is to ignore and simply continue to embrace his belief system.
.
The Mormon can argue the logical and moral problems with his belief system are not *REAL* problems.
They are simply divine mysteries which the Mormon is to ignore and simply continue to embrace his belief system.
.
The Sun Myung Moon believer can argue the logical and moral problems with his belief system are not *REAL* problems. They are simply divine mysteries which he is to ignore and simply continue to embrace his belief system.
.
This argument – if used by a Calvinists – shows their belief system to have a serious weakness.
Because in order to justify continuing to embrace their belief system – they have to lower themselves to the same arguments used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Moonies.
.
Any Bible Based Cult could easily rely on the same argument.
.
I could claim – the Bible teaches the earth is flat.
And you must believe it – and not question it – because it is a divine mystery beyond your grasp.
.
The Scripture tells us “The fool believes every word”
.
Any Calvinist teacher who is instructing you to simply believe Calvinism with its problems because it is a divine mystery or beyond your grasp – is asking you to play the fool.
.
Blessings
br.d
Br.d.: “Any Calvinist teacher who is instructing you to simply believe Calvinism with its problems because it is a divine mystery or beyond your grasp – is asking you to play the fool.”
Well said! Very succinct!
Yes, there are some true mysteries in the Bible (the end times, what God really looks like, the exact nature of the Trinity, etc.) but these are mysteries because God chose not to tell us all the details about them.
But Calvinism doesn’t teach true mysteries, things God didn’t reveal. Calvinism teaches things that contradict what God did clearly reveal in His Word (plain teachings of the Bible that can be and should be read in commonsense ways), making His Word unreliable and making God a two-faced, duplicitous, deceptive God.
But then to get out of a jam, they call their self-created contradictions “mysteries” and act like the problem is with us, as if we’re being prideful by refusing to submit to God’s sovereignty, by demanding to know things He doesn’t want to reveal to us, and by expecting Him to explain Himself to us lowly humans.
Calvinists first create the contradictions and problems, but then they blame us when we challenge them. They demand that we just sit back quietly and eat whatever they spoon-feed us without pushback or question… because we’re too human to understand.
I think demanding that people hand their sense-making and reasoning-skills over to someone else is very cult-like, like MacArthur saying that Alana should just keep her views to herself and not challenge him, one of the golden calves of Calvinism.
Nice. Well said Heather!
Yes, He leaves some things to mystery, but when He says, “I would have…if only you…..” hundreds of times in His Word He is doing that to tell us something!
I am confused. Everyone I hear says this is an in-house debate. How can that be. Calvinism is a different gospel, not obscuring the gospel in my opinion. How can they believe what they do and still be considered the true gospel?
Welcome Kay! Thank you for the question. Here is my take for what it is worth. 🙂
Calvinism, imo, has a deformed view of the true gospel, but still the true gospel.
Calvinism’s Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned for it to be “freely” and irresistibly accepted by some.
NT Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned and provided for all to be sufficiently enabled to freely seek it.
The bigger problem, imo, is that Calvinism must have God as the author of evil for their idea of reprobation to work. And reprobation is the logical outcome of believing the divine plan was that only some were to benefit from the offer of salvation. The gospel, to them, is not good news for everyone. And they admit it.
But they are professing the true gospel, but it is a deformed view of it, like looking at your real self in a warped mirror. So, we shouldn’t immediately think Calvinists are all unsaved. They would have to be if they believed in a false gospel, right?
I understand the view others have that Calvinists have a false gospel. And the ones who call Calvinism the gospel certainly should be called out for claiming a false gospel. But Calvinists still do invite each and every person to trust only in Jesus for salvation. Yes, they undermine that message later to harmful results in many, especially those who never were truly saved, but thought they were. I think that happens a lot because of infant baptism and childhood indoctrination into Calvinism without any true conversion experience.
Brian, In trying to think this out let me push you a bit. If a neo-Calvinism were to teach only elect men can be saved, even though God has sufficiently provided for women as well, would you consider this to be a false or a warped gospel? I think we both agree its a pretty horrific gospel : )
Thank you for the question, Larry! That hypothetical might force the intentions of the gospel to become part of the definition of the gospel. I understand the view that wants to force the intentions of the gospel to always be seen as part of the definition of the gospel, but then you will have to say that all Calvinists who firmly believe the gospel was to be proclaimed to all, and is sufficient for all, but is only intended for the elect are truly unsaved! Are you prepared to believe that? I’m not.
They believe the gospel. They just also believe the false teaching that the true gospel is not intended to be believed by everyone. That is certainly bad, false news that is related to the gospel, and it is harmful teaching that harms gospel ministry. But I do not see it as part of the gospel. Brian
br.d
Although many Calvinists do not find this aspect of the doctrine palatable – the Calvinist conception of the “Divine Potter of Romans 9” is of a THEOS who creates/designs individuals (THE MANY) specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god though the reason does not appear they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
In such case – the “Good News” of Christ dying for a given person – would not apply to an individual who has been created/designed specifically for the lake of fire.
.
This brings about – the contention concerning whether the offer of “Good News” for that individual is a “WELL MEANT” offer.
.
The NON-Calvinist concept of the offering of a gift – is such that if that gift is *REALLY NOT MEANT* for that recipient – then that offer cannot be construed as a “WELL MEANT” offer.
.
One common Calvinist argument is to shift the definition of “WELL MEANT”
A gift that is *NOT REALLY MEANT* for a given recipient when offered – can still constitute a “WELL MEANT” offer of that gift.
.
The whole thing eventually becomes a game of word-juggling and playing shell-games with definitions – in order to make an offer of salvation that is *NOT MEANT* for a given individual be treated *AS-IF* it was.
.
Thus the SHAPE-SHIFTING nature of Calvinism.
Brian,
Thank you for your reply! I greatly appreciate your wisdom. I apologize for the delay (and length) but the old man brain needed a few days to ponder. Also, please understand I don’t necessarily disagree with you, its just my personality to push the thinking to expose truth. And don’t feel obligated to read or reply.
First, If I understand correctly, you hold that the existence of saved Calvinist is proof the “Calvinist Gospel” is a true gospel (although warped). I certainly agree with you on there being saved Calvinist. My son for example came to faith in his youth in a non-Calvinist environment and later bought into J Piper Calvinism. Others in my current Calvinist take-over church are coming to faith in Jesus despite a hidden Calvinist teaching that God most likely does not want them. You don’t get the heavy/hard “Calvinist Truth” in Sunday morning service. Rather it comes in the nightly $350 “Institutes” course. In the case of our Church, God has apparently ordained from eternity past that our pastor often misspeak on Sunday mornings and present the true gospel message. This last Sunday, for example, ended with the statement regarding new life in Christ “the only way you can have this life is to admit I am a sinner”. God apparently ordained for pastor to get the ordo salutis mixed up allowing for totally depraved to admit their sin. Who knows, perhaps someone got saved at Storyline Arvada this week! : )
In thinking out your comment on forcing intentions upon the true gospel, would you agree that when someone does this, i.e. force intentions and then claims these to be part of the gospel (like Spurgeon’s “Calvinism is the Gospel”) they move into false gospel territory? Galatians false gospel of faith + circumcision seems to be in this realm. My hypothetical did possibly force an intention of “men only” into the “gospel message”. But, might the Calvinist gospel do the same when it claims “only a preselected group can get saved”?
A parable to help with my simplemindedness: A migrant family of 10 is trapped in a train box car dying of thirst. Texas border patrol cuts thru the concertina wire : ) bringing along a boat load of water. They open the box car door and ask me to present the good news of available water. I advise them with my crippled Spanish that there is sufficient water for two of the ten family members. They peek around me and see plenty of water upon which, the entire family runs out for salvation water.
In my parable, I would understand my good news to them to be partly true yet also false, and yet salvation still plays out. My intentions for the false gospel may have been good (bad Spanish perhaps) or bad (a hatred of immigrants) yet either way I gave an erroneous message of salvation which was enough to assist in the salvation. Rambling too much here but to conclude, I’m thinking that the gospel, although critical, does not save, it just points. And sometimes even with a bad or a false one, the Holy Spirit is quite capable of fulfilling the goal.
Larry, and Brian…and Heather,
Yesterday, and today, you guys really surprized me with agreeing with the following:
“Calvinist Gospel” is a true gospel (although warped).
Calvinism, in my view, is the most dangerous, and abusive sect of cults that I have ever witnessed in my life. About 15 years ago, I DISCOVERED Calvinism, not even knowing what it was yet, through Spiritual Abuse Blogs. The doctrines that I heard are doctrines that I had never ever heard of before. And the abuse that I read completely disgusted me.
And now, to read that from all of you guys…it puts a sour taste in my mouth.
I do know that in a couple of places on this blog site, that I had posted a letter that Thomas Jefferson had written about his thoughts on Calvinism.
“I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the god whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent and governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”
—Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
I agree.
Satan himself TOLD THE TRUTH, mixed with WARP.
Genesis 3:5 (SATAN SPEAKING)
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:22 (GOD SPEAKING)
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
Satan, in the tempting of Jesus quoted scripture correctly. But Jesus countered with other scripture.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I would assume that would include warped gospels.
Ed Chapman
quote
his religion was Daemonism….
.
br.d
Some interesting things to note about this particular word:
.
The Ancient Greek: δαίμων, pronounced daimon or daemon (meaning “god”, “godlike”, “power”, “fate”)
The word is derived from Proto-Indo-European daimon “provider, divider (of fortunes or destinies),” from the root *da- “to divide”
.
THE GNOSTIC DAIMONS OF GOOD AND EVIL
In the ancient system of Gnosticism which thrived in Augustine’s day – Daimons were both Good and Evil.
.
Many pagan religions have god’s who appear in the form or TWINS
Twins were often cast as two halves of the same whole or as rivals
One as “Good” and the other as “Evil”.
.
The gods Apollo and Artemis are twins.
The god Pan appeared in either a benevolent, or malevolent form.
In Hinduism, the Ashwini Twins or Ashvins are the Healers who are also offered sacrificial offerings or oblations as per the Rig Veda.
.
In Xingu mythology of Brazil, the twin brothers Kuat and Iae forced the evil king Urubutsin to give light to the world, and Kuat became the sun with Iae as the moon.
.
The Egyptian creation story included the earth god Geb and the sky goddess Nut, who were twins.
.
Thus – pagan gods are DUALISTIC:
When a DUALISTIC (“Good” – “Evil”) cosmology and a NeoPlatonic view of God, are synchronized with the monotheistic God of Christianity, what will appear is an immutable God whose relationship to good and evil are utilitarian.
Calvin’s gospel…
Jesus died for the elect only…he didn’t die for everyone. Neener, neener, neener…I’m saved, your not, God decided before you were born that you are going to burn for eternity…and you can’t blame God, either…it’s all your fault.
Now, tell me how that is good news,…anyone?
Thank you Larry for your thoughtful reply. As I think I said before, a Calvinist who says Calvinism is the Gospel does need to be confronted, for they are either lying, probably ignorantly, or they are preaching a false gospel and would believe rejection of Calvinism means a person is unsaved.
Your illustration is cute, but almost no Calvinist preaches the gospel that way, because they hide behind their argument that they don’t know who the elect are. But they should be challenged as to why would it matter if they told each person that the probability is that Jesus’ atonement wasn’t meant for them. If the person is elect, nothing will delay their regeneration, and if reprobate, nothing could make them more lost!
Yes, truly saved Calvinist preachers leak out the truth, because the Holy Spirit often overrides their thinking, and also they have gotten used to believing contradictions are true. So I still think they teach the true gospel, but have deformed it with their harmful theology.
Larry,
I say often that Calvinists and Universalists (who they despise) are almost exactly the same.
They both believe that God has chosen people that He will force into believing in the sacrificial blood of Christ.
They only differ in the number!!
Ed, thanks for your thoughts, but let me clarify my position as succinctly as possible.
Calvinism, in my estimation, is not just a warped version of the true gospel. It’s a deception, presenting the true gospel but only as a way to sucker people into their deeper unbiblical layers. It’s a false gospel on the whole, covered in the deceptive veneer of the true gospel. It teaches the true gospel on the surface, but there are so many unbiblical teachings underneath which alter/contradict/negate the biblical surface teachings… and consequently, it has to be taken as false gospel on the whole, even if they do say some good biblical things now and then, on the surface.
So, no, I do not say that the “Calvinism gospel” is the true gospel. It is a corruption of the true gospel. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. They share the true gospel on the surface but mean something very different underneath, which makes it deception and half-truths, very similar to how Satan best operates, in my opinion.
I go so far on my blog as to call it heresy. And I recently wrote a series about the deceptive, cult-like tactics it uses to trap people. So I totally agree with you when you say: “Calvinism, in my view, is the most dangerous, and abusive sect of cults that I have ever witnessed in my life.”
I think it’s one of the biggest, most seductive and sinister threats to the evangelical church, which is why we need to mince no words about condemning it as such (and it’s why I call their god Calvi-god, to differentiate him from the God of the Bible), even if I have to admit that they do (deceptively, disingenuously) share the true gospel on the surface in their hopes that they can sucker naive people into it.
I hope that’s clear enough. God bless.
Heather,
Well, when you put it that way…lol. Yes, I agree with what you have said here.
However, the SBC has no problem with Calvinism in their ranks/midst/congregations, which is where the problem in spiritual abuse takes place, when you read the spiritual abuse blogs that flourished about a decade ago. The internet really exposed the abuse that was hidden for so many years. You generally don’t find Calvinists in a Church of Christ, Aiden’s denomination. Not in Pentecostal church’s, etc. But the Baptists really love these guys for some reason.
They take Matthew 18, for example, as a means to forgive the perp, but kick out the victim, calling Matthew 18 the DISCIPLINE chapter, when I don’t even see DISCIPLINE as any part of Matthew 18 at all. And do you know who plays judge and jury for this so-called discipline? Pasters/Elders, when it is clear that it’s the congregation’s responsibility to KICK a person out, not the leaders. And they take the word “witness” to mean people to confront the accused to repent, that didn’t even “WITNESS” the sin. And now look at what mess that the SBC is in with lawsuits from the government, etc. over the sexual abuse from the leaders!
NOTE: I was in the US Navy…I know what discipline is. Kicking a person out is not discipline. Discipline is for those who you keep, to CORRECT a deficiency.
SBC is complicit in the spiritual abuse, because of cover-ups, because they abused the true nature of Matthew 18, which means that witnesses must be witnesses of the sin, for one, and if no witnesses of the sin, then it stops right there in its tracks. And no one should be discouraged from calling 9-1-1 to file a police report, and let the authorities do the investigating. And the ONLY one who has the authority to forgive is the VICTIM, not the church, not the pastor, not the elders. That’s what Catholics do, and we don’t believe that priests can forgive sins…unless they are the victim. So why does the church think that they can corporately forgive, when they were never the victim?
Why am I rambling about Matthew 18? Because Calvinists don’t even LIVE the gospel. They twist the scriptures so-much so that it causes good people to become atheists. Some used Homeschooling as a means to abuse the family. Men have AUTHORITY to practically do anything they wanted, and the woman is to shut her mouth, and take the abuse, and she can never ever get a divorce. Girls were strongly told, DON’T GO TO COLLEGE! Marry and have TONS of babies, calling them babies the KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH!
Sounds like Islam, not Christianity.
So it goes a lot deeper than just “Christ died on a cross to forgive the elects sins, and rose from the dead on the third day”, which is a FALSE gospel in that statement alone. Delete the word “the elect”, and maybe we can give a little latitude.
I don’t see the LOVE OF JESUS in them. And, by the way, Satan is just an EMPLOYEE of God! There is just a LOT that they get wrong. How to LIVE like a Christian…you know them by their fruits. What fruit have they brought to the dinner table?
Ed Chapman
Hello Kay,
i definitely appreciate your honest opinion and post. i do trust Brian knows far more than i do. –Though i too see it as a false gospel as well!! But I’m learning to trust not all who hold to it understand the horrible implications and the distortion it does to our Holy God and how it places Him in box.. I find it curious that I’ve heard of leading calvinist describing it as an itchy blanket or crying for days when they excepted it as truth…. How bizarre indeed!!! There is no fear or dead in love and we are told He is love.. but even this attribute gets twisted by others.. just a thought,
—maybe if someone is trusting man above God the Word gets obscure (void of light), & to me that is why i find calvinism so dangerous… though they claim we are man centered bowing at the altar of free will, so odd they don’t see the flip side EDD (though some do and are at peace with it ie.. placing God not only as the author of all sin, but clearly in a box and not as Amazing as He truly is!!!)… It also seems once someone adheres to this they either avoid a non-calvinist or they adamantly fight for their system. Ugh i soooooo dislike calvinism!!!
Thank you for your post🌻
Hello Kay and welcome
There is a very unfortunate aspect to Calvinism which follows the pattern that we seen within Islamic patterns
That pattern is to plead for unity or acceptance in order to obtain a foot-hold
And once the foot-hold is obtained – then that pleading for unity changes to aggressive attacks
The pleading for unity was a ruse in order to gain the foot-hold
The hidden strategy is domination.
.
Calvinists calling the conflict between themselves and other Christians an “in-house debate” is part of that ruse
The argument is used during the “pleading for unity” phase
.
As soon as the foot-hold is obtained – the “in-house debate” will transform into attacks against what they claim is the gospel.
.
As soon as they have a foot-hold in any platform – they themselves will declare their system the ONLY TRUTH gospel.
So you are correct – and are moving in wisdom.
.
br.d
Brdmod: “Calvinists calling the conflict between themselves and other Christians an “in-house debate” is part of that ruse. The argument is used during the “pleading for unity” phase. As soon as the foot-hold is obtained – the “in-house debate” will transform into attacks against what they claim is the gospel. As soon as they have a foot-hold in any platform – they themselves will declare their system the ONLY TRUTH gospel.”
Very well said! Very well!
Calvinists constantly claim that the debate over Calvinism is merely about the “finer points” and “secondary, non-core issues.” And they cry for unity: “Let’s not divide over these finer points. God wants us all to be unified!”
But they don’t do this because they want to compromise with us, tolerate us, or “agree to disagree.” They do it to take over, to dominate, to get is to let our guards down and keep our mouths shut. And so our tolerance of them and compromising with them only gives them more room and time to dominate, to replace all non-Calvinism with Calvinism. Or as they call it: “THE gospel”. And so if we acquiesce to them by also calling it “the true gospel,” we’re only helping them, giving them more legitimacy than Calvinism deserves, and confusing the issue for everyone. Just my two cents. God bless!
br.d
Yes! Well said Heather!
.
Isaiah 59:8
The way of peace they do not know.
There is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads.
No one who walks along them will know peace.
.
The way we know Calvinism’s road is a crooked road – is by observing the characteristics of its language.
.
It is a language of obfuscation
It is a cosmetic language – designed to hide the dark things on the face of the doctrine
And to paint over those things with SEMANTIC masks in order to produce an acceptable appearance.
.
Misleading language is its predominant mode of language.
Misleading language is crooked language which follows a crooked path.
.
Calvinism’s language should be a red-flag to anyone who is a true follower of Jesus.
Kay, I agree with you that Calvinism is a different gospel. And I agree with Brian that Calvinism does teach the true gospel… but the thing is, I believe it only teaches the true gospel on the surface layer. But when we dig past that surface layer, there’s so much false teachings underneath that it contradicts the biblical surface layer, making it deserving of being considered a “false gospel” on the whole.
Just because something has a biblical surface layer doesn’t make it truly biblical on the whole. It’s the deeper layers – the things they REALLY believe at the heart of it all – that determine if it’s truly biblical or not. If we were to judge the biblical-ness of a theology on whether or not they say salvation comes through Jesus, then we would have to say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons share the true gospel too. So when is there enough error in a theology – despite the few good things they say on the surface – for it to be resisted as a false gospel, instead of tolerated and compromised with?
I believe Calvinism’s god and Calvinism’s Jesus and Calvinism’s faith and Calvinism’s path to salvation are very different from the Bible’s views of these things. They might appear the same on the surface – because of Calvinism’s many layers – but at the heart of it, they are very different. So different … and so damaging … that Calvinism cannot be considered biblical truth on the whole, even if it has lots of true things on the surface.
This is something I wrote in an earlier comment on this post:
“Personally, and maybe this is just me, but I do say that Calvinism is a false gospel and that it severely damages God’s character, His Word, Jesus’s sacrifice, and people’s ability to be saved.
I believe the Bible says that God truly loves all people, that Jesus died for all sins of all people, that salvation is truly offered to all people, that God is not responsible for evil or sins or unbelief, and that the one “work” we must do to be saved is to believe in Jesus (it is our responsibility, and all people have the option/ability to do it).
But this is the opposite of what Calvinism teaches (underneath all the deceptive layers they use to obscure it), which is that God only really loved the elect enough to save them, that Jesus only died for the elect, that salvation is only truly offered to the elect, that God is the ultimate (and essentially only) cause of sin, evil, and unbelief (but He punishes us for it), and that we cannot believe in Jesus unless and until God makes us do it.
These are opposing messages, opposing gospels. And so I have to call Calvinism a false gospel. It has a different idea of who God is, how God works, how salvation happens, who Jesus died for, who’s responsible for evil, etc.
If God says we have to believe in Jesus to be saved (that it’s our responsibility and choice), but Calvinism says we cannot believe in Jesus (that it’s not our responsibility or choice), then how can anyone be saved under Calvinism?
Calvinism attacks the very heart of salvation and God’s character, which is an attack on the gospel.
And I think one of the biggest dangers of Calvinism is that it presents itself as the true gospel, as biblical truth. And so if people can tell there’s something wrong with it, they don’t end up just rejecting the Calvinism but they reject the Bible, God, the gospel. Because they think they are one and the same. (This has happened recently to several well-known Christians who left the faith. But if they had known that Calvinism was not biblical truth, maybe they would’ve know enough to reject the Calvinism but keep faith in God.)
It’s because Calvinists are so deceptive, stealthily infiltrating churches and replacing the truth of the Bible and leading many people astray, that I feel it’s all the more critical to take a very firm stance against Calvinism, to call it out for the false gospel it is. If we are overly gentle or tolerant or hazy about it, if we try to make it seem like our different versions can coexist just fine, then we’ll just be helping to confuse people, allowing Calvinism to sneak in and do its damage behind the scenes and in the long run.
I agree with Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals who calls Calvinism a cancer that needs to be cut out from the church. We can be and should be nice and kind and tolerant towards the people, but not towards the theology itself. This is just my two cents on it. God bless, everyone.”
I got a little pushback for this comment from other non-Calvinists, but I stand by it. I try my best to be gracious to Calvinist people (the ones we know are wonderful, godly people – truly wonderful!), but I take a very firm stand against the theology. And I don’t think it does any favors to anyone or any good for the true Gospel, for God’s character, or for people’s faith to compromise with Calvinism, to be soft on it or accommodating with it. I do not think a biblical surface layer equals a biblical theology. I do not think that Calvinism’s surface layer of “we need to have faith in Jesus to be saved” is enough to make it truly biblical, not when their idea of “faith” and Jesus’s death and how we are saved differs wildly from the Bible. Same words, sure, but very different definitions. (And that’s how cults and corrupt leaders often take over and operate: same words, but hidden, different definitions.)
And so at what point are the errors in a theology enough to deem it “false” instead of merely distorted?
Personally, for me, when a theology completely changes the character of God, the definition of faith, the way people are saved, the work of the Holy Spirit, the intended effect of Jesus’s sacrificial death, etc., then it is enough error to call it a false gospel. As Calvinism does and is.
And sadly, the fact that Calvinism has such a biblical surface layer is what’s so dangerous about it. Satan works best through deception and small subtle attacks on God’s character and small subtle tweaks to God’s Word, not through outright lies and attacks on God’s character and God’s Word which we would all stand against. This is why Calvinism sneaks in so well and so unopposed, because they say the right things on one level… while hiding (and slowly reeling us into) the deeper, unbiblical levels. And so if we don’t nip it in the bud – if we tolerate it and allow it to grow and spread in the church because of its biblical surface layer – then we are only helping a destructive theology take over and crowd out biblical truth. And I can’t be part of that. So I will take a strong stand against it, despite the good things it says.
And to Brian: You said “Calvinism’s Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned for it to be “freely” and irresistibly accepted by some.”
Does Calvinism’s god really provide salvation for all? (Or is this just what they want us to think?) What’s “sufficient” about it if Jesus never even died for the non-elect and if God made it impossible for them to believe?
If Calvinism’s god doesn’t truly provide salvation for all but the God of the Bible does, can Calvinism really be considered truth, at the heart of it all? And if Calvinism’s god is truly the author of evil but the God of the Bible isn’t, are these truly the same God? If Calvinism has a different God and a different way to salvation and different results of Jesus’s sacrificial death, can it truly be considered the true gospel? How much deep, fundamental error will it take to finally deserve the label “unbiblical”?
Personally, I think your (Brian) heart is in the right place (concerned for those trapped in Calvinism and not wanting to hurt them) but I think you’re incorrectly thinking that if we say Calvinism is a false gospel then we’re saying no Calvinist is saved. As you said: “So, we shouldn’t immediately think Calvinists are all unsaved. They would have to be if they believed in a false gospel, right?” But Kay never said that, nor do I.
As I’ve said before, Calvinism has a biblical surface layer (the layer it uses to trap people and to get them to put their guard down)… and through this biblical surface layer, many people can still find Christ and salvation and the true gospel in it, because they are unaware yet of the unbiblical layers, the unbiblical foundational beliefs of Calvinism that they have to be educated into.
Yes, I agree with you that Calvinists “believe the gospel” (because it has a biblical surface layer and lots of good things to say), but just because they have a biblical surface layer and just because people can still find Jesus through it doesn’t make the theology itself biblical. It just means people can still find Jesus in it despite its deeper, unbiblical teachings. (It would be like someone going to a Jehovah’s Witness church and hearing about the need to believe in Jesus to be saved, and so they believe in Jesus… unaware that the theology itself is unbiblical overall.)
Not to mention that Calvinism is usually about taking over non-Calvinist churches, about converting those who are already Christians to Calvinism. And so, yes, many Calvinists are true believers… and many people can still find the true gospel in it, in the surface layer… but this does not make Calvinism a true, biblical gospel on the whole. And I judge it more based on what it is “on the whole” than what its surface layer is.
Personally, I think it’s more damaging to the Church and biblical truth to be too soft on Calvinism, too compromising with it, than it is to take a firm, clear, mincing-no-words stand against it. (Yet we still need to be loving and gentle with the people, of course, with those who are trapped in it and who are just doing their best to be good, humble, God-honoring Christians as best they know how. It’s not the people I have a problem with; it’s the theology.)
God bless! And please take what I say only worth a grain of salt. It’s just my opinion based on my experience with our church being taken over by Calvinism. God bless!
Heather, thank you for your deep and thoughtful response. This is definitely an issue with quite a bit of nuance that can’t just be addressed in a couple of sentences. I very much agree with the way you’ve laid it out here.
When we were in an ultra-Calvinist church for 10 years, the pure, simple, gospel was presented many times. Never mind that quite often it completely contradicted the Calvinistic sermon that the pastor just spent 45 minutes preaching (in his invitation he would use words like I implore you, I urge you, etc.). I was actually glad that he was grossly inconsistent and contradictory with the Calvinism he preached when presenting the gospel. Most non-believer would not even pick up on the contradictions. So what is preached most of the time is the top layer simple gospel, which is a good thing as far as the gospel being preached. If his invitation to salvation to unbelievers was actually consistent with what he preached in his sermons, including the “calvinistic gospel” (ie. that Jesus probably didn’t die for them, that they don’t have the ability to repent and believe, that they just need to sit around and wait to see if they are one of the elect and for God to “regenerate” them) then I would had a big problem with that false gospel being presented to non-believers.
As far as salvation is concerned, I’ve said many times and it’s still true in my experience, I’ve not ever met, known, or read of one single instance of a Calvinist who was a Calvinist when they became a Christian or who became a Calvinist simply by reading the Bible shortly after he became a Christian. Every one of them became a Christian through the hearing of the true gospel and repenting and believing. They then became a Calvinist sometime later not from reading the Bible, but when they were taught it by other people either through Calvinist preaching, Calvinist books, or Calvinist friends and then overlaid that Calvinism on top of the Bible.
So what you almost always hear preached or taught or presented to an unbeliever on the surface from a Calvinist is nearly always the true gospel. But what you hear from them when they tell you the deeper theology they believe in is a different and false gospel.
Andy
So what you almost always hear preached or taught or presented to an unbeliever on the surface from a Calvinist is nearly always the true gospel. But what you hear from them when they tell you the deeper theology they believe in is a different and false gospel.
.
br.d
What you are observing there – is the presentation of a “Gospel” which the Calvinist calculates people will accept.
.
And this is of great concern to Dr. Flowers – because of the degree to which Calvinists evade being honest – and people are being mislead.
.
If you watch Dr. Flower’s Youtube videos – you will quite frequently see how he will play a video clip of a John Piper or a John MacArthur…etc making statements which are highly misleading or completely inconsistent.
.
The reason Dr. Flowers plays those clips – is to expose the misleading nature and the inconsistency.
.
Calvinist statements – follow a consistent pattern of *LIES OF OMISSION*
.
A lie of omission – is communication designed to mislead – by strategically omitting critical facts – which if not omitted would not mislead.
.
The term “Gospel” in the Greek is defined as “Good News”
.
Calvin’s god per the doctrine – creates and designs the vast majority of individuals within the total human population – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
.
Creating people specifically for eternal torment – is Calvin’s god’s provision for THE MANY
And thus his PRIMARY provision for mankind
.
His SECONDARY provision is for the FEW
To save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
.
Those two provisions for mankind and salvation are the Calvinist “Gospel”
Creating people specifically for eternal torment is also a part of the Calvinist definition for “Grace”.
.
Calvin’s god also creates a large percentage of believers for eternal torment – divinely deceiving them by giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation. These believers will eventually wake up in the lake of fire. And at that time realize they were created as CHAFF believers
.
Calvinists are extremely aware they cannot TELL THE TRUTH to people.
Because they know people are going to see their “Gospel” and their “Grace” as evil
They know people will reject it
.
So yes – your point is correct – Calvinists will present a “Gospel” they calculate people will accept.
.
The process requires the Calvinist paint a cosmetic mask over the face of his “Gospel” in order to get people to accept it.
Thank you Heather for your thoughtful reply. You will need to work through, imo, the conflicting idea, imo, that people who strongly believe a false gospel can be called by you as “wonderful godly people, truly wonderful” and yet not be lost!
Brian, I understand what you’re saying: “You will need to work through, imo, the conflicting idea, imo, that people who strongly believe a false gospel can be called by you as “wonderful godly people, truly wonderful” and yet not be lost!”
And I appreciate your perspective and challenge. I know it’s a messy topic. And Andy said it well: “This is definitely an issue with quite a bit of nuance that can’t just be addressed in a couple of sentences.” And so while it might be clear in my head, it’s harder to get across. (And you’ll have to excuse my lengthy, blathering replies. It’s not necessarily directed to you, but I am just trying to explain myself more clearly, trying to be careful because this is such a serious, sensitive topic.)
But for me, I guess it comes down to the difference between the conflicting layers of Calvinism, and what we should do with Calvinism on the whole. Calvinism has a biblical surface layer (where we find the true gospel which can and does save many people) but it also has a deeper layer (their true beliefs which contradict/alter/negate the surface layer). That’s why I say I agree with you (they have the gospel) and yet agree with Kay (they ultimately are a false gospel when taken as a whole). Calvinism has two conflicting layers, and I am judging it based on the whole thing, instead of just the biblical surface layer.
It’s like a two-layered cake: vanilla on the outside, chocolate on the inside. If we look at the cake without cutting into it, we’d say it’s a vanilla cake. And we would be correct to a degree, on one level. It IS a vanilla cake… but it’s not JUST a vanilla cake. There’s more to it than meets the eye. And it takes digging into it to realize it.
Calvinism has the biblical truth in the surface layer, but it has a deeper layer which changes what the cake is, on the whole. It’s no longer just a truth-filled cake. It’s now a truth-coated cake filled with unbiblical teachings. And the unbiblical layer is so huge and damaging and it alters/negates the surface layer so much that the whole thing can no longer be taken as pure, biblical truth (at least in my opinion).
Calvinists themselves equate Calvinism with “the gospel.” And so if we affirm their gospel, then we appear to affirm Calvinism on the whole. I can give credit to them for having the gospel and biblical truth on the surface, but not on the whole. And if that surface layer is really just there to trap people and reel them into the deeper unbiblical layer, then I’d be doing no great service to the Church or the Truth or God’s Word to give them credit for their biblical surface layer. I’d be merely helping them spread their unbiblical theology through their deceptive tactics.
The thing is, Calvinism wants us to take it face value. It wants us to think that when they say “God loves sinners and Jesus died for sinners and we need to believe in Jesus to be saved” that they really mean that God loves all sinners (all people), that Jesus died for all people, and that we all have the chance and ability to believe in Jesus and be saved, that it’s our choice.
That’s what they want us to think they really mean so that they don’t alarm us, buying them time to reel people deeper into Calvinism. And of course, this surface layer can reach and save a lot of people… because most people don’t realize what’s hiding underneath. (But when they do learn the deeper layer after becoming saved through the surface layer, it often messes up their faith and their trust in God severely.)
I don’t think Calvinism should be taken at face value or should be given credit for having a biblical surface layer… not when that layer is there to trap people and when it’s contradicted by the deeper layer.
If we dig past the surface layer (and I know I don’t need to explain this to you, Brian, because you are far more intelligent and educated than I am, but I’m just saying it to explain myself more fully), we discover that they don’t really mean what they said the way they said it at first. What they really mean is “God determined your sins and has already determined whether you will believe in Him or not; He either causes you to believe or causes you to reject Him and there’s nothing you can do about it; He loves only the elect enough to save them; Jesus didn’t die for the non-elect and so the non-elect have no chance or ability to believe and be saved”.
This is far different than what they wanted you to think they meant at first. And I think it’s deceptive enough and damaging enough that it should be called out and condemned, not encouraged by giving them credit for having a biblical surface layer. (I know I’m harsh, but I don’t think it’s helpful to those trapped in Calvinism – or who might be sucked into Calvinism – to be overly gentle about Calvinism, not when it’s so sneaky and deliberate in its deceptive tactics.)
Calvinism cannot and should not be taken at face value because they don’t really mean things the way they first say them.
In my mind, the true biblical gospel boils down to “Believe in Jesus and you will be saved.” And Calvinists want you to think, at first, that this is what they believe too. But what they really believe is “You’ll believe in Jesus IF you are saved.” They make it sound like they mean “We’re saved because we believe,” but what they really mean is “We believe because we’re saved.” As Calvinist Loraine Boettner says in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”
But Scripture says “believe and be saved” not “you’ll believe because you are saved”:
“… Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31)
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16)
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12)
Calvinism, at the heart of it all, cannot be the same gospel as the Bible, the same way to salvation – not when they reverse the order of belief and being saved, reversing which leads to which.
And so yes, Calvinists have the true gospel on the surface if we take them at face value. And this is why many people can be saved in Calvinism. But it’s IN SPITE of Calvinism, not because of it. Thankfully, many people aren’t aware of the deeper unbiblical layer of Calvinism until after they become believers, which is why they can be saved with the surface layer.
But sadly, it’s because people aren’t aware of the deeper layer that Calvinism spreads so easily and is succeeding in flipping the gospel and biblical truth on its head.
Anyway, thanks for your reply, Brian. I do like to be challenged in things like these so that I can deeply consider what I am saying/thinking and if I am being fair enough to the other side. I might not often come across with an attitude of fairness and gentleness and respect, but I do try to have fair beliefs and views of it. And I am working on my attitude, on being more gentle (it’s been a process for me since we lost our church of 20 years over this issue, our friends, our whole social circle, our dreams for our kids and their futures, etc.). God bless!
Thank you Heather for your reply… But to be honest, I only see it as a fuller explanation of your position without directly addressing my comment. Let me rephrase my last comment as a direct question.
Do you really believe the Calvinists whom you know as “wonderful godly people, truly wonderful”, and I’m assuming they believe firmly in Calvinism, which you call a false gospel, are truly saved while believing a false gospel? In other words, can someone get saved with the true gospel, become nice Christians, and believe fully and support fully the teaching of a false gospel, denying the true gospel.
I personally don’t, and would consider them not yet saved, no matter how godly they might seem, if indeed Calvinism is a false gospel. I would think the same of those who professed to be at one time evangelicals, but now believe and teach Roman Catholicism’s salvation from sin through sacramental grace and proxy faith.
I hope that clarifies what I’m wanting you to consider. 😃
Andy: “They then became a Calvinist sometime later not from reading the Bible, but when they were taught it by other people either through Calvinist preaching, Calvinist books, or Calvinist friends and then overlaid that Calvinism on top of the Bible. So what you almost always hear preached or taught or presented to an unbeliever on the surface from a Calvinist is nearly always the true gospel. But what you hear from them when they tell you the deeper theology they believe in is a different and false gospel.”
Yes! Absolutely, I agree. This is why many Calvinists are true Christians. They were Christians first, then Calvinists… or they heard the surface-layer true gospel and believed it and then were educated into the deeper unbiblical layers.
Sadly, it got to the point at our church where I couldn’t stomach anymore even the good things the Calvinist pastor said when he was trying to SOUND non-Calvinist… because even though I agreed with what he said on the surface, I knew what he really meant underneath and how deliberately deceptive he was being in how he presented his beliefs. Thankfully, most people didn’t know what he really meant and so they could probably get a lot of good teaching from it.
But since this is also how it spreads so easily and slyly, I am now at the point where I wish they would just be upfront with their terrible beliefs, just tear off the non-Calvinist-sounding surface layer and say what they really mean, warts and all, which our pastor has done a few times here and there “God doesn’t love everyone. He chose some for eternal life and the rest for damnation…. Jesus died only for HIS people… God controls the devil… God ordained your childhood abuse for His glory and to humble you…. Even babies are born rebellious, God-hating, wicked sinners. No one gets a free pass to heaven. Everyone needs to repent, and if they don’t, they don’t go to heaven.”
It would sound terrible if they were upfront with their true beliefs, but at least we’d know what they really believe and they couldn’t sucker naive, well-meaning people in with cult-like tactics and carefully-worded deceptions.
Thanks for your comment, Andy. God bless!
Hey guys,
I realize this “Are they Christians?” has been discussed a lot (and I’m late to the party), but a few thoughts here.
One of the themes in our house and our ministry is, “Remember: Everybody’s thing is the best thing.” Since we are in ministry and in a leadership position, we get lots of people approaching us with the silver bullet…best thing ever.
We non-Calvinist can fall for that too. Our way is right and all else is not Gospel.
Go to a Calvinist site. Many of them think the same thing about us!!
I have never met a Calvinist (of course outside of those raised in a Calvinist denomination) who was not a Christian for quite some time before becoming a Calvinisty. One national pastoral colleague was a believer for 40 years!! He even said to me —in the language of the country where we served 30 years— that he was so happy “since he discovered Calvinism” (via his 20-something, online-scouring, book-reading son of course). Discovered!? Where was it hiding!?
Anyway…my point is simple. He now believes in what some on this site would call a “false doctrine” and he is “therefore not saved.” So he was not saved those 40 years or did he lose his salvation cuz he is now following a false doctrine?
It is actually very similar with some of the big guns like Piper and MacArthur. They both moved to Calvinism after many years (and books) under their ministry belt.
So…IMHO we cannot say it is a “different Gospel” any more than they should say it about us.
br.d
Hey FOH great to hear from you!!!!
I hope this finds you and yours well!
.
I personally don’t make judgments or declarations about any Calvinists being saved or not.
.
However – I think you will have to acknowledge – what Calvinism calls “Good News” is not what NORMAL people would call “Good News”.
.
Creating the vast majority of human individuals within the total human population – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for one’s good pleasure – I don’t believe NORMAL people would call that “Good News”
.
Since that is the case – I can’t see how it could be rational to identify the Calvinist “Gospel” as the NON-Calvinist has.
.
The NON-Calvinist “Gospel” is a message in which people are granted ALTERNATIVES from which to choose – in regard to whether they will [SIN] or [NOT SIN] at any given instance.
.
In Calvinism – an infallible decree determines whether you will [SIN] or [NOT SIN] at any given moment.
And an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from what it decrees
So if it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T – then that event is granted existence
And the option to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T is NOT granted existence.
.
On the subject of whether one should call a Calvinist saved or not.
Calvinism’s doctrine (if the Calvinist is TRUE to his doctrine) does not permit him to identify anyone as elect
The elect are a divine secret which only Calvin’s god knows
.
Additionally – Calvin’s god creates a large percentage of believers as CHAFF believers
He divinely deceives them with a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
These Calvinists will go through their whole lives having a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation
And eventually wake up in the lake of fire
And at that time realize what they were created for.
.
So if a Calvinist is going to be TRUTHFUL he cannot call anyone his brother or his sister in the Lord
Most Calvinists simply are NOT TRUTHFUL in this regard.
They automatically assume they are automatically ELECT
.
The Calvinist should not expect anyone who understands the doctrine assume the Calvinist is elect simply because the Calvinists own doctrine forbids it.
.
Blessings!
br.d :-]
br.d
I’m not planning to go on much with this. Just a few remarks here.
You could easily find in these pages the MANY times that I have said that the Calvinist message is not “good news.”
Much of what you say…..”Creating the vast majority of human individuals…. specifically for eternal torment…..for one’s good pleasure….” has been stated by me dozens of times on these pages.
The point that you make so many times (as do I) about the end result of Calvinism (or theistic determinism) being robotic non-choice is correct….but that is the “logical end” or “where this all leads” discussion that the vast, vast majority of average Calvinist dont know about or (contradictorily) reject.
With that said, the theistic determinist (of all decisions on all days by all people) is not the Gospel.
The Gospel is simple.
John 3:16“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Acts 4:12And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
John 14:6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
On this one main idea all Calvinists and non-Calvinist would agree.
Even your next idea of “does not permit him to identify anyone as elect” is not the Gospel.
Calvin’s idea of a false sense of salvation is (1) not known by the vast, vast majority of Calvinists and (2) not part of the Gospel discussion.
What saves? Exclusive belief in the sacrificial death of a divine Christ.
In my opinion 100% of Calvinists I know would agree with that.
All other points —- even though they are a logical end of their camp’s philosophical position —- are peripheral.
In the same way, say, Free Methodists, would agree with the “Exclusive belief in the sacrificial death of a divine Christ,” but they say it is a continual belief. Stopping believing would shipwreck their faith (to quote Paul). But they, unlike Calvinists, believe that they can stop believing.
Does that mean that if we think that Free Methodists (Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc) are wrong on this point they preach another gospel?
Again…Everybody’s thing is the best thing.
br.d
Nicely said FOH!
.
One comment on one point.
Calvin’s idea of a false sense of salvation is (1) not known by the vast, vast majority of Calvinists and (2) not part of the Gospel discussion.
.
Both of those are totally understandable because the Calvinist does not want to face this aspect of his doctrine.
.
Calvinism is – as we both know – predominantly a doctrine of divine malevolence.
.
Calvinists want to LABEL it a “Doctrine of Grace” for emotional reasons.
They simply do not want to face a truth about the doctrine which I’m sure would terrify them.
.
However – Calvin’s description of a FALSE SENSE of salvation is 100% consistent.
.
Take for example a Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of scripture when he reads it.
If you ask any Calvinist – if the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of scripture is accurate – he will of course say NO.
.
Well – according to the doctrine of decrees – whatsoever comes to pass is infallibly decreed.
Thus whatsoever interpretation comes to pass within a JWs brain – must have been infallibly decreed.
.
So a LOGICAL Calvinist would have to acknowledge that what has been decreed for the JW is a FALSE SENSE of scripture.
.
And that would be the case for the Mormon and the Atheist etc.
.
So Calvin’s god does in fact decree humans to have FALSE PERCEPTIONS
If a Calvinist is NOT ELECT and his PERCEPTION is that he IS ELECT – then Calvin’s god must have decreed it.
.
So part of the doctrine of decrees in Calvinism entails the deception of the believer.
.
Of course – asking a Calvinist to come to grips with that aspect of his doctrine is unrealistic.
.
Any Calvinist pastor honest enough to convey that aspect of the doctrine to his congregation knows he risks people leaving and not coming back – for obvious reasons.
.
Blessings!
br.d
FOH,
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I’m going to do just that. You had referenced the following:
John 3:16“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Acts 4:12And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
John 14:6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Then you said:
“On this one main idea all Calvinists and non-Calvinist would agree.”
My response:
Do they both, though? Really? Anyone can quote the bible verses and say that they agree with the verses (in church, the preacher quotes verses all the time, everybody in the congregation shakes their head in agreement with an “AMEN, PREACHER, PREACH IT, BROTHER!”…until it’s time to dissect those verses. Then those verses end up saying anything but what was quoted. Such as, who is the “world” that God so loved? Who is the “whosoever”. Pre-sellected people from a raffle, and you might not be one of them…sucks being you! But God Loves Me! I’ve got the winning ticket! I can become an atheist tomorrow, and I’ll still be saved! But you…you can’t believe even if you wanted to. And that is GREAT NEWS!.
Now, in a multiverse, that would be a different Jesus, and wouldn’t that would be anathama?
Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
FOH,
And then we also have…
2 Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.
20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.
Not gonna spar with you Ed.
My point is simple: defining “another Jesus” is relative. Everyone’s thing is the best thing.
I noticed your quotes from the KJV. Do you know that there are many people that say that anyone who uses a translation other than the “authorized version” is “he that cometh [and] preacheth another Jesus”?
Claim’s this group “Other than the KJV is a false Gospel!” Everyone’s thing is the best thing.
There can be doubt in no one’s mind of my dislike for Calvinist philosophy …demonstrated for 10 years on this site. But….
Calvinists preach Christ and Christ crucified.
I certainly did when I was one! And by no means do I think that when I came out of Calvinism is when I got saved.
I have made my last comments on this thread.
FOH,
So, live and let live, huh? Interesting. But I’m sure that you would say differently to the Jehovah’s Witnesses that believe the gospel, but that Jesus is not God, or the Mormon’s who believe the gospel, who also believe that you can be the savior of your own planet, and the Satan is the brother of Jesus? I know you won’t respond, however. That’s fine.
On that note, I used to say, everybody has a truth. But at some point, you gotta ask, whose truth is truer?
(I tried sending this once and it froze. Hopefully it doesn’t send a duplicate.)
Brian: “Do you really believe the Calvinists whom you know as “wonderful godly people, truly wonderful”, and I’m assuming they believe firmly in Calvinism, which you call a false gospel, are truly saved while believing a false gospel?”
I think that, yes, Calvinists can be (and most probably are) true believers… because they either became Calvinists after becoming Christians, or they heard the biblical surface layer of Calvinism and put their faith in Jesus and then learned the deeper unbiblical parts of Calvinism.
[But I would doubt the salvation of those who became “saved” through honest Calvinist theology. Such as if a Calvinist told them that we can’t choose to believe in Jesus but that God has to give us faith, and so they just waited for God to give them faith and then they woke up one day and went “Well, I guess I’m one of the elect,” without ever having made a conscious choice to believe in Jesus… then I would doubt the authenticity of their faith. (Like John MacArthur who claims he always believed, that he never rebelled, and that he couldn’t even discern the moment God put saving faith in his heart. That’s suspect, to me.) But most Calvinists don’t evangelize that way. Most will make it seem like we can really make a choice about Jesus, and so, yes, people can be saved through that. And then it’s only afterwards that they get sucked into the deeper, unbiblical layer. Like I said, I think Calvinism is more about hijacking those who are already Christians.]
And you asked: “In other words, can someone get saved with the true gospel, become nice Christians, and believe fully and support fully the teaching of a false gospel, denying the true gospel.”
I never said they deny the true gospel. I think they believe the true gospel, but they’ve added a deeper, unbiblical layer to it later (after becoming a Christian) that they’ve been tricked into thinking coincides – in mysterious ways – with the surface layer, thinking it’s just a deeper understanding of the surface layer. I think they got trapped in bad theology after becoming saved. But instead of calling them all non-Christians, I’d rather give them the benefit of the doubt and try to help them see the error of the deeper layer, so that they can spit out the bad but keep the truth and their simple faith in Jesus.
You said: “I personally don’t, and would consider them not yet saved, no matter how godly they might seem, if indeed Calvinism is a false gospel.”
So then do you think true Christians cannot fall into error or get sucked into bad theology or be deceived later by cleverly-devised myths? If they fall for bad theology later, does it mean they were never saved to begin with? Paul warns the Church about not falling for error, but I don’t think he accuses them of never being truly saved if they do.
Once again, this is no expert opinion. It’s just my view based on knowing the people I know and watching Calvinism take over our church up-close. But in no way is this meant to be a blanket statement of all Calvinists.
Sure, Heather, believers can fall into believing unsound doctrine that is unhealthy, which is how I view Calvinism. But no, I don’t believe they can start believing a false gospel, which would be by its very nature an act of denial of the true gospel, imo.
For your view to be true, “wonderful godly people” can believe a true gospel and a false gospel at the same time and still be godly. Hmmm. 🤔 Believing and teaching harmful doctrine would not be a “wonderful, godly” thing. And believing and teaching a true gospel and false gospel at the same time would also not make me identify someone as “wonderful, godly”.
Thanks for the conversation and answering my pointed question. I’ve nothing more to add. Keep up the good work, standing for the truth!
And when I say “Paul warns the Church about not falling for error, but I don’t think he accuses them of never being truly saved if they do”… I’m not saying there are not cases where those who seem to be believers are truly unsaved. I’m sure there are plenty of cases of that. But I am saying that I don’t think Paul ever makes a blanket statement that every believer who falls into error was never a true believer.
True believers can get swayed later by lies, but it doesn’t mean they were/are not really saved. Just my two cents. And maybe this starts entering the realm of the debate over OSAS. And so for the record, I do not think true, Spirit-filled believers can lose salvation, even if we fall into theological error later. Once again, just my two cents. And I’m sure Ed might jump in here with views from the other side on this issue. 😉
God bless!
Brian, thanks for your thoughts and for making me think deeply about this. 🙂
And to clarify, not that it will make a difference, but when I said “godly,” it was less about their beliefs and more about their behaviors and how they live: they are some of the most thoughtful, loving, helpful, self-sacrificing people I know. The kind of Christians I would want beside me through any hard time.
But I agree that to believe a true gospel and yet a contradictory false gospel at the same time (though they don’t realize it) is not ultimately “godly” – not truly God-honoring or accurately representing God and His Truth – even if they behave in some of the most wonderful ways we would expect of Christians.
God bless! And thanks for asking deep, probing questions. Iron sharpens iron. 🙂
Hello FOH, Good to hear from you.
I think you might be mixing up what Brian and I say, unless I am understanding it wrong.
Brian says, as I understand it, that Calvinism is not a false gospel, and so Calvinists are truly saved. He thinks that it’s not possible for true believers to start believing a false gospel, and that if they did then it would mean they aren’t truly saved. And so since they are saved, it means Calvinism cannot be a false gospel. Just a warped one.
I, however, say that Calvinism is a different/false gospel, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that people who believe it are not saved. I think most Calvinists definitely are saved because they were Christians first before becoming a Calvinist. They just fell into a different, false gospel later.
So neither of us, as far as I can tell, are saying that Calvinists are not saved because they believe a false gospel. (I would add the caveat that if someone came to faith under honest Calvinist teaching – the idea that they just have to wake up one day and realize they are elect, that they cannot make a decision on their own about Jesus – then I would question their salvation. But Calvinism doesn’t usually spread this way. It spreads by taking over Christians.)
Although Brian thinks that true believers cannot, at some later point, fall into believing a false gospel, I think the Bible does show that the Church, true believers, can and do fall into false gospels.
Paul warns and condemns the church of Galatia about this when he writes: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Gal. 1:6-7)
The “gospel” the Galatians began believing in – after coming to faith in Jesus – was that in order to be saved they needed faith in Jesus PLUS Jewish laws and customs (circumcision, in particular). Clearly this is a different way to salvation (faith plus works), a false way. And yet true believers were falling for it.
As Paul says, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?… Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” (Gal. 3:1-3)
They clearly started in the faith believing the true gospel, but then were bewitched – tricked – into the false gospel of “faith plus works.”
Three take-aways here:
1. Christians can fall for false gospels later. They can be tricked, bewitched, into foolishly believing a false gospel after starting faith “with the Spirit,” in truth.
2. The fact that Christians begin believing various things about salvation later doesn’t make it “true, just warped.” As Paul said, the Galatians – though they were saved – began believing in “a different gospel, no gospel,” and it was even deserving of eternal condemnation (verses 8-9). And notice that, like Calvinists, the Galatians weren’t really denying that salvation comes through Jesus – they still believed the true gospel, that salvation comes through Jesus – they just added another layer to it that Scripture doesn’t support. But the true gospel plus certain kinds of unbiblical layers equals “a different gospel,” not merely a “true but warped” gospel.
3. Just because we fall for a false gospel after coming to faith in Christ doesn’t mean we were never truly saved to begin with or that we lost our salvation. (But it will have a detrimental impact on our faith, our witness, our eternal rewards, and the Church.) Paul continues to acknowledge the Galatia church as “brothers” in the Lord, as true believers. But he challenges them to get back in line with the true gospel, to reject the lies and deceptions of false gospels that seek to pull them from the pure truth. There’d be no need to warn Christians about not falling for false gospels if Christians were not at risk of it.
Just some things to back up what I think. True Christians can fall for false gospels later, but it doesn’t mean they lost their salvation or were never really saved to begin with. And I think this is the case with many Calvinists.
So what is the gospel, according to Scripture, and why would I say Calvinism is a false gospel?
In addition to the verses you quoted, there’s 1 Cor. 15:1-4: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you… that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures…”
The gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again, and through His death we are saved. And yes, Calvinists believe this at a most basic (limited) level.
But who is the “our” in “our sins”? What is the fuller picture of the gospel, of Jesus’s death, “according to the Scriptures”:
1 John 2:2: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
John 1:29: “… ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the whole world.”
1 Timothy 2:3-6: “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all men …”
1 Timothy 4:10: “… that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men…”
Romans 5:18: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”
Here’s where Calvinism goes off-track and becomes a false gospel. (I’m not trying to convince you of this, just backing up what I think.) The Bible says that Jesus died for all people so that God could offer salvation to all people because God wants all people saved. But Calvinism says “No! Only the elect.” This doesn’t just warp the gospel; it changes it (the gospel, Jesus’s death) into something it’s not, into a plan of salvation for only a few pre-selected people even though the Bible says no such thing. In fact, it says the opposite. This is not the same kind of “good news.” It is a different kind of “good news,” limited to only a few people, contrary to what the Bible says. And if it’s contrary to something Scripture clearly says, I think that’s enough to make it false.
(Calvinism’s errors are not about things the Bible is unclear on, true mysteries. Calvinism’s errors are about things the Bible clearly says. The Bible clearly says one thing, but Calvinism goes “Nope! It doesn’t mean that.” This makes it not just warped, in my opinion, but false. A direct attack on God’s Truth.)
And not to mention that 1 Cor. 15:2 says, “by this gospel you are saved.” According to this and other verses, belief leads to salvation. Salvation is a result of belief. (And anyone can believe.)
But in Calvinism, belief is a result of salvation. Salvation leads to belief. (For a few preselected people.) This does not line up with “by this gospel you are saved.” Calvinism is “by election you are saved, and then you will believe in the gospel.” In Calvinism, salvation happens before belief in the gospel, before faith in Jesus, which technically makes it being saved without (before) the gospel and faith in Jesus.
I think this is warped enough to be a different way to salvation. A different gospel. A false gospel.
But once again, this doesn’t mean most Calvinists are not saved. I think most Calvinists are Christians who don’t realize they’ve been bewitched into false teachings about Christ’s death, His work on the cross, and how to be saved. (And if they did realize that Calvinism is an attack on God’s truth, they wouldn’t have fallen for it. They’ve been tricked into thinking it’s just “deeper truths,” when it’s really different “truths.”)
This is just my two cents.
God bless, FOH. And thanks for sharing your thoughts. And I won’t go on further with this either, just wanted to clarify because I think you’re misunderstanding what Brian and I are saying. Either that, or I’m misunderstanding. But I’ll let this issue rest now. Blessings! 🙂
Oops, my reply ended up in the wrong string of comments. It should be lower, under FOH’s. Oh well.
Oops, scratch that. Wrong again. Should be higher. Sorry. (Stupid computer.)
Heather wrote: “Sadly, it got to the point at our church where I couldn’t stomach anymore even the good things the Calvinist pastor said when he was trying to SOUND non-Calvinist… because even though I agreed with what he said on the surface, I knew what he really meant underneath and how deliberately deceptive he was being in how he presented his beliefs. Thankfully, most people didn’t know what he really meant and so they could probably get a lot of good teaching from it.”
This was our exact experience as well. We simply couldn’t continue in that environment and had to leave.
Heather wrote: “It would sound terrible if they were upfront with their true beliefs, but at least we’d know what they really believe and they couldn’t sucker naive, well-meaning people in with cult-like tactics and carefully-worded deceptions.”
I actually had a conversation with a good friend, who is a staunch Calvinist, about this very thing. I asked, so why doesn’t the pastor just come out and say what he really believes. His response was “it wouldn’t sell”! Can you believe that. They certainly know what they are doing.
Thanks for your well thought out commments Heather. God bless you as well!
Andy, Sorry to hear about your experience with your church. I totally understand.
You said that your friend’s response was “it wouldn’t sell”. I agree they know what they’re doing. And yet I don’t understand how they can believe, on one hand, that their theology is the most accurate, godly one which brings God enormous glory… and yet, on the other hand, believe that they have to hide or obscure it as much as possible, slathering it in more palatable ideas. It’s ironic and very telling!
God bless. And I hope you’ve found a good church after leaving the other one. 🙂
br.d
Hello ANDYB and welcome.
.
Yes – you make good points!
.
In my dialogs with many Calvinists over the years – I have discovered – the face of Calvinism which they present has been carefully DE-FANGED.
.
All of the components of divine evil are hidden behind carefully crafted language.
.
The art of Calvinism is the ability to ply SHELL-GAMES with words.
.
It is a highly engineered language designed to hide what they don’t want to see – and don’t want others to see.
.
That Calvinism has been presented to them by some Calvinist pastor or teacher – who understands if he TELLS THE TRUTH about the doctrine and reveals its components of divine evil – his congregation will dwindle down to a handful of hard-core Calvinists who can look people in the face and tell them his god enjoys throwing babies into the fire – and takes pleasure in their torment.
.
No Calvinist pastor or teacher wants to end up with a congregation like that!
So they learn to become experts in the use of COSMETIC language.
.
I believe this trend actually started about 100 years after Calvin’s death.
This is when we have the creation of Calvinism’s TULIP
And the TULIP is simply a marketing tool – designed to hide tho dark aspects of the doctrine.
.
Calvinists over the years have also created confessions.
Which if you examine the wording in them – you will discover they are also designed to hide the dark aspects of the doctrine.
.
You will find – many Calvinist teachers today will refuse to quote from Calvin
Because Calvin was in his day – the sole defender of his doctrine – and would not blink at declaring divine evil.
.
Calvinists today do not have a stomach for that.
Blessings!
br.d
I’m just throwing this out there since it seems to fit here, even though it’s from the other side.
Here’s something High Calvinist John MacArthur said about the “doctrine of total depravity” in the article “The Most Hated Christian Doctrine” at Grace to You:
“As long as people try to hide the doctrine of depravity, as long as people try to take the offenses out of the gospel, they will disillusion people in the most severe way, who think they’re evangelicals when they couldn’t possibly be Christians at all. We have to be honest enough to give the hated bad news [Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity] in order to deliver to the sinner the good news that, ‘Oh, by the way, though you can do nothing about it, Christ will accept you by grace.’ That’s the message of the gospel.”
According to MacArthur, the gospel is that because of total depravity, we can’t do anything to be saved, not even choose to believe in Christ. And if we don’t agree, then we aren’t even Christians at all.
Also from MacArthur (in “Answering Big Questions about the Sovereignty of God,” Grace to You): “We would say you can’t be a Christian if you have a wrong view of Christ. Can we – can you be a Christian if you have a completely wrong view of God?… [No.]”
So according to him and his belief that Calvinism is the right view, those of us who have a non-Calvinist view of God and Christ are not even Christians.
A.W. Pink agrees (in “Doctrine of Election”): “those who continue to cavil against [Calvinism] [who make petty or unnecessary objections against it] and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians.”
So basically, according to Calvinists, if we disagree with Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity or have “wrong” views of God and Christ (compared to their supposedly “right” views), then we aren’t Christians at all, which means we are believing and spreading a false gospel.
Sounds like they themselves consider Calvinism and non-Calvinism different gospels, and – of course, in their eyes – only theirs leads to salvation.
Just some food for thought. 🙂
br.d
The interesting thing about this argument by MacArthur – is that he is doing the very thing he is accusing others of doing.
-quote
As long as people try to hide the doctrine of depravity……
.
What MacArthur himself is hiding – is the fact that by punting to the CONDITION of the creature – he is *OBFUSCATING* the foundational core of Calvinist doctrine.
.
John Calvin
-quote
For it did not take place by reason of *NATURE* that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation.
.
-quote
Since this cannot be ascribed to *NATURE* it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….plan of God (Institutes 3.23.7)
.
-quote
men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it. (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
.
In Calvinism – an infallible decree determines that state of every man’s *NATURE* at every nano-second in time.
And at any nano-second in time – the state of man’s *NATURE* cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
And man is granted NO SAY, NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL in the matter.
.
So MacArthur punting to *NATURE* as the CAUSE of anything – is MacArthur TRYING TO HIDE the truth of his own doctrine.
Heather, br.d & Everyone Else
On the website
stillchasinglight.wordpress.com
I found an article headlined
“Gods Of The Quid Pro Quo”
MARCH 11, 2024 by GREG DOLES
What do we think ?
Is Calvinism a form of
Spiritual gaslighting or Manipulation ?
It’s important to Reiterate, that I hope Jesus Returns no later than the End of the year
2025. There is too much Evil, Suffering, Hatred & Injustice in America and Worldwide
I truly hope Jesus Returns literally by the End of 2025 and Eliminates all Evil, Suffering and Injustice in the World once and for All Forever, and makes the World a Perfect Utopian Paradise, where there will be Perfect Love and Face to Face Friendship and Fellowship
With other Human Beings, Among Human Beings
Quality but also Quantity of Friendships
There is too much Loneliness and Social Isolation in America and Worldwide . I don’t want my fellow Human Beings or Animals to Suffer
br.d
Hello Jeff – good to hear form you.
.
Yes – if one knows what to look for, one can clearly see the language of Calvinism is a highly manipulated language.
.
You need to be able to distinguish the difference between a LOGICAL argument and a SEMANTIC argument.
.
There is a good example of a SEMANTIC argument on Youtube
The title is: I identify as the correct person” – Michael Knowles
.
A person who is born a man argues the following:
I identify as a woman – therefore I am a woman – and you are required to accept my claim.
.
Michael Knowles is a logical person.
He understands this is NOT a logical claim.
.
I have many dialogs with Calvinists that follow this same exact pattern.
.
Calvinist: I believe 2×3=6
.
Me: You do realize that 6/3=2 logically follows from that don’t you?
.
Calvinist: NO! That is not what I believe! You are misrepresenting my belief!
.
Concerning the topic of “Quid Pro Quo”
If you do any research on witchcraft you will find “Quid Pro Quo” is the fundamental principle.
In order to get something from a Demon – you have to give something to that Demon.
What the person gives to the Demon – is one piece of their soul after another piece of the soul – after another.
.
You will recall the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel and the prophets of Baal
Elijah challenges them
What you will find the prophets of Baal doing – is trying to “Quid Pro Quo” Baal
But we both know Baal is not real – it is simply demons whom the prophets of Baal are dabbling with.
But the relationship between the Demon and the prophets of Baal is a “Quid Pro Quo” relationship.
.
This is the case with King Saul also – when he disobeys God’s command at Gilgal
He wants to offer a sacrifice to God in order to get God to do what he wants
Saul is treating God the same way he would treat a Demon – by “Quid Pro Quo”
Saul will eventually turn to a witch in order to get what he wants
.
Another example is with Baalam in the book of Numbers
Baalam is trying to get God to give him what he wants
He goes from one high-place to another offering up sacrifices
This is a “Quid Pro Quo” relationship.
.
Personally – I don’t see Calvinists falling into this pattern.
But Calvinists are extremely reliant upon WORD GAMES in order to evade what their doctrine stipulates.
.
A serious consequence of Calvinism’s system of WORD GAMES is that it forces them into various forms of dishonesty.4
.
Calvinist WORD GAMES include:
– Lies of omission – (obfuscating the component of divine malevolence towards mankind)
– SEMANTIC TAP-DANCE ROUTINES (attempts to evade what the doctrine stipulates)
– DOUBLE-SPEAK (attempts to evade what the doctrine stipulates)
.
The key things to understand – are what the doctrine stipulates – and the Calvinist’s natural response to what the doctrine stipulates.
.
You will eventually discover every serious Calvinist is involved in an internal struggle with what the doctrine stipulates.
And WORD GAMES are his primary strategy of evasion.
.
blessings
br.d
jeffster,
You had said:
“There is too much Loneliness and Social Isolation in America and Worldwide . I don’t want my fellow Human Beings or Animals to Suffer”
When Disturbed’s cover version of Simon and Garfunkle’s “Sound of Silence” came out, it was extremely emotional, brought tears to me, and it affected me for days. I’ve watched a lot of YouTube reaction video’s of that cover song, and it has the same emotional effect on a lot of people, knowing that in the days of Simon and Garfunkle, we didn’t have that much loneliness or social isolation. Their version was like a prophesy, whereas Disturbed’s version is like reality today. It’s gut wrenching to see that reality as we live now.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed when you say this i find it to be, true;
“in the days of Simon and Garfunkle, we didn’t have that much loneliness or social isolation” but i do agree we have much more now!
i appreciate you bringing this particular song into this conversation sadly it happens to be one of the last songs on a cd i have of my son’s favorites. This song still causes pain and tears for me, so thank you for bringing it up because there is defiantly a lack of hope within it.
My son took his own life on October 21 2016 not long after i learned of calvinism or rather was deeply troubled by it…
I hate this systematic, but I’m learning to love the people within it or at least trying to.. and to point out the flaws ie. contradictions when i feel led to…
I was not raised to trust God nor did i raise my children to trust Him, but i trust He’s above this “ism” –ugh i find it hard not to feel h***** toward it….
I’m hoping to always remember this is a spiritual battle, though I’m beyond thankful for all of you who see calvinism for what it is…
Yey i want to know/trust when it’s time for me to walk away.
Thank you again🌻
Reggie
Reggie,
Oh, Reggie, I’m so sorry about your son. Yes, we are living in a time in the world where it is so upside down, and I certainly never expected to live to see the extreme serious spiritual battle that the whole world is under right now. When I grew up, we had church bells ringing on Sunday. Now, it’s an offense to a lot of people. I don’t understand it. God is being kicked out of society, where evil is good, and good is evil.
YouTube also has a video where back in 1965 I think, Paul Harvey, who used to do a radio show, predicted today. It’s called, “If I were the Devil”. And we have arrived.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Ed Chapman
Thank you Ed
I absolutely agree with you such a rejection of God and an exchange for less so very sad to see those call evil good and good evil, but it’s definitely more prevalent.. I did listen to this Paul Harvey clip once a while ago, and it was good i will check it out again.
Maranatha🌻
Reggie
Sorry i meant exchange for lies.. not less.
In Early 2024 , a fellow Christian
typed online
About Heaven and the
Coming New Earth
“The SAME NEW Heavens and NEW Earth — (again NOTE that its ALSO a NEW EARTH) that the Apostle Peter spoke about that is PERFECT AND COMPLETE
That is why GOD said He will create NEW Heavens AND NEW Earth meaning He will NOT ONLY purge out the old HEAVENS (where Satan has access to GOD in accusing our brethren) BUT ALSO THE old Earth where wickedness rules
That is why there will not only be perfect spiritual (Heavens) blessings, bliss and happiness in the WORLD TO COME but ALSO physical and material (Earth) blessings and happiness as well.
But UNLIKE the present world we now know, the World to Come would be A PERFECT WORLD and not a mixture of good and evil, joy and sorrow BECAUSE Satan the devil and the fallen would no longer exist in that Age BUT only the SAVED ONES with their Savior AND KING for all eternity.
So yes, the WONDROUS BEAUTY AND GLORY OF World to Come is beyond our wildest imaginations and would be “MORE than we ask OR think” because its not just a perfect Utopia BUT A Golden Age.
A NEW Heavens AND A NEW Earth where RIGHTEOUSNESS Reigns. (2 Peter 3:13) where both The KING and His People will live a happy, harmonious and peaceful life forevermore
Lets all look forward to that Day.”
See Also Matthew 6:10
Revelation 21:4
& Revelation 22:20
br.d
And the biggest blessing of all – is that we are going to be with Jesus!!!!
And we’re going to be closer to the God of this universe – who dearly loves us!!
.
Oh what a wonderful day!!! 😀
blessings!
Someone typed online earlier today
“On this Easter Sunday. March 31st, 2024 many sincere Roman Catholics will go to church to take part in the Mass.
The Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the doctrine that is called Transubstantiation which in the teaching that the mass wafer turn into the actual, literal Flesh of Christ.
The reason for belief is that the words of Jesus are taken literally, by many people, for Jesus had said “This is my body” about the bread at the last Supper. The same about His blood. When Jesus said “This is my blood” Could it be that Jesus was really using a figure of speech in that Jesus meant it in a symbolic way? In reply the priests of the church of Roman will say “Then why didn’t Jesus then say “This represents my body “and “This represents by blood”? The reason Jesus did not use the word “represents” is because Jesus knew His disciples had enough sense to understand that they were not eating literal flash and drinking literal blood. After all, the disciples of Jesus were not ghouls and Jesus saw still whole for He had not yet gone to the cross. To explain this in another way, at the gym I had shown one of the women ,who likes cats , two pictures of my cats. I said to her “These are my cats” and not “These pictures represent my cats” She understood by common sense, without me saying so that those pictures only represented my cats. Jesus had also said the he was a door, John 10:9. Was Jesus literally a door? He said I was. Jesus also said that He was a vine, John 15:1. Was Jesus really a vine?’ he said he was .
Furthermore, Jesus had taught that he “did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.’ Matthew 5:17. The point is that the Old Testament law had forbidden the drinking of blood, Genesis 9:4. So Jesus would have had his disciple be breaking the law, as in going against the law if He had His disciples literally drink blood. Much later after the New Testament Christian Church was established, by church law the drinking of blood was further forbidden. Acts 19:20.
In addition to all of this, in relation to this topic of the Eucharist. Back in the twentieth century I had visited the wonderful city of Paris in France. In That city on the top of a hill sat a church that is called Sacr’e –Coeur.in that church at the top of the that church’s altar stood a Mass Wafer it was supposed to have had been changed in the literal flesh of Jesus by transubstantiation . This seen In the light of the Bible as the way to tell doctrinal truth from doctrinal error, as taught in Isaiah 8:20. The Bible book of Acts 1:9,10 which gives information about the ascension of Jesus up into heaven and the disciples were watching this great and one-time event there stood two men , maybe angles ?,”in white apparel who said to them “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven / This same Jesus Who was taken up from you into heaven .will so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven.” So since Jesus will come back to earth in the same way He left ,in the sky with people seeing him. Jesus could not be then, in essence, on a hill in Paris or any other city for that matter. All this I have keyboarded not to upset or offend but to inform and make known the truth . Which is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Transubstantiation is a hoax. I don’t enjoy keyboarding this but it need to be known.
In addition ,for more little known information about Christmas and the rite of the Mass there is the site theconversioncenter.com ”
How can we relate this to our Discussion about Calvinism and Biblical Interpretation ?
Hello Jeffrey and welcome
.
Yes – what you are describing is highly recognized as the study of “Semantics” within Philosophy.
.
Philosophy has been described by Dr. Alvin Plantinga – as simply thinking “Deeply” about something.
But it also assumes to be thinking “Logically” about something.
.
Semantics is the study of meaning.
One of the issues with semantics is “Equivocation” in which there can be more than one meaning.
.
Your example of a picture of cats is a good example.
Another example would be a mother whose son is dressed in a suit.
The mother says: “Look at Johnny’s suit”
.
What are the implications of this statement?
Did Johnny have a choice about whether or not he would be dresses in this suit?
.
If Johnny is a 40 year old man – the answer would commonly be understood as YES
If Johnny is a baby – the answer would commonly be understood as NO
.
The difference between these two is the degree of what people commonly understand as “Autonomy”
Autonomy equates to a state of “Self-Determining”
.
A grown adult man is commonly understood as “Self-Determining”
A baby is commonly understood as not “Self-Determining”
The baby’s parents assume the role of “Determining” what will be the case for the baby
.
Your last statement asks the question – how can we relate this to our Discussion about Calvinism?
.
This is a critical question
Because – as Dr. William Lane Craig points out – Calvinism entails “Radical Distinctions”
.
The foundational core of Calvinism – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
So in Calvinism – there is no such thing as a human being “Self-Determining”
The relationship between Calvin’s god and all humans – is identical to the relationship between a parent and a baby.
.
Calvin’s god makes all of the determinations about whatsoever will come to pass.
The Calvinist – because of this – becomes a *RADICALLY* different human.
The Calvinist is no longer a NORMAL human.
The Calvinist is thus faced with an internal struggle
And this struggle will show up in Calvinist “Semantics”
Calvinist “Semantics” have a well earned reputation of being highly misleading.
.
Consider these two statements:
A) The Calvinist committed a sin
B) The Calvinist performed a sin
.
Which statement is misleading within the context of Calvinism?
Statement (A) is misleading because it *OBFUSCATES* the critical factor of Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
An infallible decree determines every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
And an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
.
So if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Then that decree does not grant Calvinist_A any ALTERNATIVE
That decree also includes the impulse that will infallibly come to pass within Calvinist_A’s brain at TIME-T
And NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted existence within Calvinist_A’s brain
.
So Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees *RADICALLY* alters what is understood as the case
.
This is why so numerous NON-Calvinist authors recognize DOUBLE-SPEAK as a consistent characteristic of Calvinist language.
.
Dr. William Lutz – American Linguist writes
-quote
Double-speak works by taking advantage of the inherent implicitness of meaning conveyed through everyday language.
.
It takes advantage of the fact that normal everyday language use is fundamentally cooperative.
Doublespeak exploits these principles to do just the opposite.
.
To *APPEAR* like honest communication while actually hiding incriminating facts. “
.
Understanding this characteristic about Calvinist language – is critical – because one is otherwise guaranteed to be mislead by Calvinist statements.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Thanks, I hate to be redundant
But earlier this year
I found this interesting comment online
“(Christian universalism) Philippians 2:11 King James Version “And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
[Christian universalists use Scriptures like Acts 3:21 (“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began), and Colossians 1:20 (And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven) to show that GOD intends to restore all things to their original state of purity through Christ Jesus. This doesn’t run counter to the teachings of some other Scriptures which state “all who call upon the name of the Lord” will be united to Christ and eternally saved. Christian universalists acknowledge GOD already has the way for all people in general to call upon the name of the Lord of their own choice. YES, all creation will confess Christ Jesus as Lord and believe that GOD has raised Christ from the dead (Romans 10:9) and all creation will ultimately be saved and reconciled to a right relationship with GOD through Christ (Colossians 1:20). This will happen in this life or the afterlife. See 1 Peter 3;19-20 that Christ preached to the spirits in prison which sometime were disobedient.
Some Scriptures seem to support “eternal” punishment or “eternal” separation from GOD. Matthew 25 contains some of them and these cannot be taken as a correct translation. Much of Christian universalist thought depends on the translation of the word αἰώνιος(Gr), aionios (E), into English from the ancient Greek. A period of endless duration was never the most literal acceptation of the Greek adjective aionios. Throughout the whole of ancient and late antique Greek literature, an “aion”, the noun form of aionios, was most properly an “age,” which is simply to say a “substantial period of time” or an “extended interval.” At first, it was typically used to indicate the lifespan of a single person, though sometimes it could be used for a considerably shorter period (even a single year).
The phrase “unto the ages of ages” can imply the idea of eternity when used in reference to GOD (e.g. in Philippians 4:20, “Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”), but most literally it is an indeterminate number of ages. The phrase “unto the ages of ages” is a translation of the original Koine Greek phrase εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (eis toùs aionas ton aiṓnōn), which occurs in the Greek manuscriptss of the Christian New Testament.
It seems clear we should understand passages such as in Matthew 25:46 when it states, “And these shall go away into (aionios) everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (aionios)”, to be referring to the life of the “age” to come and the fire or punishment of the “age” to come. This fits the meaning of the word, and it fits the context. This means it would be inappropriate to use these passages to teach eternal conscious torment. To insist that the punishment mentioned must be eternal because the life is eternal is simply erroneous. This verse is not addressing the duration of either the punishment or life. By the way, we have many other passages that tell us the life to come is, in fact, never-ending. We don’t need this passage to establish that truth. And we have many passages that tell us GOD’s wrath isn’t eternal such as (Sodom”s fiery judgment is “eternal” (Jude 7), that is–until–“the Lord will restore the fortunes of Sodom” (Ezk.16:55). The word aionios doesn’t mean eternal (as most agree). So, it’s completely improper to import this meaning “eternal” into this verse when it’s not what the Scripture is saying in this verse about either punishment or life.
However, one of the pillars of Christianity is that the Bible, as the Word of God, is inerrant. Most recognize this statement is referring to the original manuscripts not the translations. We got to have the translations, but to go back to the Greek manuscripts for a word study is to go back to the Word of GOD.]” What do we think of this comment and how can we apply it to our debate and discussion on
Calvinism ?
Hi Jeff,
I hope this finds you well
.
Well – universalism is a minority view to the extreme.
You do understand – every group who adheres to a given theology is going read that theology into scripture.
.
The Calvinist reads EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) into the text of scripture.
.
Of course – every group is going to claim they do not read their theology into scripture
They simply read what the text says.
.
And any logical person can realize how irrational that claim is!!!
.
We had a fellow pop in here a while ago who is convinced the scripture teaches the earth is flat.
He gets upset with people who laugh at him.
I think that fellow was also a Calvinist.
But he didn’t necessarily have to be a Calvinist.
.
Personally – I think a major vulnerability to universalism – is the fact that all of the warning texts within the NT are going to have to be MADE VOID in order for the universalist to ignore them.
.
The major vulnerability for the Calvinist – is that Determinism is such a radical belief system – that it is humanly impossible to live coherently with what the doctrine stipulates – and at the same time retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
Here is something for you to think about.
When you look at a picture of a Duck – you know by looking at it – what kind of creature it is.
When you look at a picture of a Cow – you know by looking at it – what kind of creature it is.
.
The word “Duck” is a LABEL
The word “Cow” is a LABEL
.
These words are LABELS which point to a creature – which has certain attributes.
.
In Calvinism we have “Determinism” and we have “Libertarian Choice”
These are LABELS
Each LABEL points to a world and a reality having certain attributes.
.
A world governed by “Determinism” has certain attributes
Everything is 100% predestined – and *INFALLIBLY FIXED* and cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to be.
And an infallible decree does not grant ALTERNATIVES from that which it decrees.
.
So ALTERNATIVES do not exist within a world governed by “Determinism”
.
Libertarian Choice – is defined as a choice between ALTERNATIVES which exist
For example:
[SIN] vs [NOT SIN] are ALTERNATIVES
.
In a world governed by “Determinism” (aka Calvinism)
If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
That decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE
Any ALTERNATIVE which existed – would falsify the decree
.
Consequently – Calvinists – per the doctrine – do not have CHOICE between ALTERNATIVES
Simply because ALTERNATIVES do not exist for the Calvinist to choose between.
.
Calvinists do not like that aspect of their doctrine
They want to have choice between ALTERNATIVES
What they want is “Libertarian Choice” – which is a choice which they themselves are granted the “Liberty” of making.
.
So the Calvinist cannot live coherently with “Determinism”
He will claim “Libertarian Choice” does not exist
But every time he assumes to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter – he is choosing between two ALTERNATIVES which his belief system stipulates do not exist.
.
So the universalist has the vulnerability of assuming he is saved no mater what.
And the Calvinist has the vulnerability of being DOUBLE-MINDED – and living in a world of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
.
I do not envy either of these people!!!
.
blessings
Br.d