A Crash Course in Calvinism (Calvinist quotes, part 2)
Here are the rest of the quotes from Calvinists which I sent in a letter to the new church we are attending when I heard the pastor quote from too many Calvinists. Click here for part 1 of the quotes. [My comments on these quotes are in brackets and italics]:
Tim Keller (in “3 Objections to the Doctrine of Election”): “A person who doesn’t believe in [Calvinist] election faces this dilemma: (a) God wants everybody saved. (b) God could save everyone. (c) God does not. The question, though, still remains: Why not? That is the ultimate mystery, but abandoning the doctrine of election does not answer it… Regardless of whether you think we are saved by our choice or by God’s, you still face the same question: Why wouldn’t God save us all if he has the power and desire to do so? Again, it is a hard question, but it cannot be used as an argument against the doctrine of election.”
[This is a Calvinist’s attempt to say “See, you who believe in free-will also have this problem. We’re in the same boat.” (They do this a lot, about all kinds of issues.) They want you to feel unsure of your beliefs, like you have the same conundrums and contradictions they do, because then you’ll be more susceptible to joining their side. But the big problem here is that Keller/Calvinists refuse to accept the truth that God offers salvation to all but gives people the ability/choice of rejecting it. The Calvinists refusal to believe in free-will and their adherence to their unbiblical misconception of “If God really wanted all people saved then He would make sure all people were saved, and so since not all people are saved, it must mean God didn't really want all people saved, meaning that He created non-elect people to go to hell” (once again, an error stemming from their refusal to accept the truth of free-will and from their misconception that God always does what He wants/wills and so everything that happens must be because He wanted/willed it) creates all sorts of conundrums that shouldn’t be there The problem is not with the Bible; it’s with them, their bad understanding of the Bible!]
Tim Keller, in the same article, about why we should evangelize if God’s already predestined who gets saved [listen for the subtleness, how he cleverly spins a bad thing to make it sound good]: “We are never to try to guess who is ‘elect’—ever! ["Shame on you if you try to guess who's elect, but hurray for you for believing that God predestines people to hell!"] God calls all to repentance and so should we. In fact, the doctrine of election should give us far more hope about working with people. Why? Because no one is a hopeless case! From a human point of view, many look totally hard and lost, but since salvation is by God’s election, we should treat everyone and anyone with hope, since God calls the dead to life through us. Therefore, God’s absolute sovereignty is a motivation to evangelize, not a discouragement… The point is this: the next person you pray for and/or share the gospel with may be one of God’s elect, and you may be part of the way God has ordained to bring them to faith.”
[He very deceptively says “no one is a hopeless case” to make it sound like all people have the ability/opportunity to find salvation. But that’s absolutely not true in Calvinism. All he really means is that since we don’t know who’s elect and who’s not, then anyone we evangelize could be one of the elect, could’ve won the “salvation lottery.” And since the elect are guaranteed to come to salvation. then we can evangelize with hope and confidence knowing that if they are elect, then our efforts will succeed.
But, of course, the non-elect are hopelessly predestined to hell. But then again, the Gospel was never for them anyway.
And remember, Calvinism gets election wrong. It’s not about God choosing who gets saved; it’s about God choosing to give all believers the roles, responsibilities, and blessings that He's prepared for all those who are in Christ. Big difference.]
Voddie Baucham, in a sermon (regarding total depravity): “People who don’t believe in original sin don’t have children. … That’s a viper in a diaper. The angry cry happens early. The demanding cry happens early. The stiffening up of the body, that happens early. … One of the reasons God makes them so small is so that they won’t kill you. And one of the reasons he makes them so cute is so that you won’t kill them.”
The solution (in another sermon) is: “God says your children desperately, desperately need to be spanked. Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord, and spank your kids. Okay? They desperately need to be spanked. And they need to be spanked often. They do. I meet people all the time, and they’re like ‘Yeah, you know, I can think of maybe four or five times I ever had to spank Junior.’ Really? That’s unfortunate. Because unless you raised Jesus the Second, there were days when Junior needed to be spanked five times before breakfast… You need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out.”
[Why? To what end? Especially since in Calvinism, no one can overcome their “total depravity” until and unless God causes them to. So isn’t this, then, just beating incapable, incapacitated people? Plus, what does Voddie hope to accomplish if God predestined these kids to remain unregenerated sinners? Does he think he can thwart God's will or influence His plans? And why would he try to stop their sins if God is causing them for His glory? Doesn’t make sense.]
Vincent Cheung (another honest Calvinist, from The Author of Sin): “All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and righteous for him to create the reprobates… Some would be horrified by this because they are more concerned about man’s dignity and comfort than God’s purpose and glory., but those who have the mind of Christ would erupt in gratitude and reverence, and affirm that God is righteous, and that he does all things well.”
[Calvinists use the wrong lens, viewing things in reverse, which leads to altering the wrong things. Instead of realizing that a good, just, righteous God couldn’t predestine people to hell and cause sin - and then reevaluating/correcting their theology in light of this - they start with their bad theology (God causes sin/unbelief) and then say that since He is good, it must mean it’s good for Him to cause sin/unbelief. And then they shame you for disagreeing, accusing you of elevating man over God and of elevating your feelings over God’s rights, sovereignty, and glory. "Shame on you, bad Christian, for not accepting God's right to get more glory for Himself by predestining people to hell!"]
Vincent Cheung (in an article “The Problem of Evil,” monergism.com): "…man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. ["No theological problem to see here, folks. Don't be alarmed. Keep moving. Everything's good!"] It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he has the ability to do otherwise. Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will; rather, moral responsibility is grounded on God's sovereignty – man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant."
[And I say, "WHAT!?!" But Calvinists will try to get us to accept completely illogical, contradictory, unrighteous, unjust things by claiming that we can't use human logic to evaluate a holy, sovereign God who's so far above us... and so we should just accept what they tell us. "It's doesn't have to make sense to us because He's God and can do whatever (we say) He does! And whatever (we say) He does must be good because He is good! So there! Now shut up, you tiny unhumble Christian, and stop complaining about how bad and unbiblical it sounds!"
(If this doesn't make you horrified and righteously angry, you're not really listening.)
And on top of that, Calvinists will use things like “God commands that we be holy even though He knows it’s impossible for us to be holy” to support their idea that God commands the non-elect to believe even though He knows it’s impossible for them to believe. However, they ignore this critical difference: In Calvinism, it’s not just that God commands what He knows we can’t do; it’s that He commands us to do one thing but then causes us to do the opposite. (And they forget that the true definition of "holy" is about being set apart, being wholly different, not about being perfect.) Calvinism is more like God commanding us to be holy while causing us to be wicked. This is much different than merely setting high standards for us (be holy) while knowing that we’ll fall short of it and then sending Jesus to accomplish for us what we couldn’t do for ourselves.
They have many ways of shutting us up and shutting us down, shaming us into not pushing back, manipulating us into accepting Calvinism despite the many huge and glaring red flags.]
"Scripture teaches that God's will determines everything. Nothing exists or happens without God, not merely permitting, but actively willing it to exist or happen: … God controls not only natural events, but he also controls all human affairs and decisions… If God indeed determines all natural events and human affairs, then it follows that he has also decreed the existence of evil. This is what the Bible explicitly teaches."
[If it "explicitly teaches" this, without having to read into verses or take them out of context, then he should be able to find a chapter and verse that explicitly says all this. So where is it? Note: I've noticed that Calvinists tend to say "The Bible teaches this" instead of "The Bible says this" - because they know the Bible doesn't outright say this stuff. But if they can just cobble together enough verses taken out of context and reinterpreted, then they can make it seem like the Bible "teaches" it.]
"God controls everything that is and everything that happens. There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man. Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it, as if anything can originate and happen apart from his will and power… God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory, although it is not necessary to know or to state this reason to defend Christianity from the problem evil… Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity. A creature's worth can only be derived from and given by his creator, and in light of the purpose for which the creator made him. Since God is the sole standard of measurement, if he thinks something is justified, then it is by definition justified. Christians should have no trouble affirming all of this, and those who find it difficult to accept what Scripture explicitly teaches should reconsider their spiritual commitment, to see if they are truly in the faith.”
[See what I mean!?! Plus, what a contradiction to say “There is not one thing that happens that he has not actively decreed – not even a single thought in the mind of man” and then to say that “those who find it difficult to accept what Scripture explicitly teaches should reconsider their spiritual commitment,” AS IF we can consider or reconsider anything if God controls our thoughts, AS IF any advice a Calvinist gives makes any difference at all in what God’s predestined! Nonsense and hogwash!]
Vincent Cheung (in “Infant Salvation”): “there is not biblical basis to believe that all who die as infants will go to heaven… We insist that if infants can be saved, then only chosen infants are saved… Perhaps the same applies to those who are mentally retarded, although there seems to be no biblical evidence to say that some mentally retarded people are saved. Their salvation is only a possibility. It is also possible that all mentally retarded people are damned. If this is the case, it would be misleading to complain that they are punished for being mentally retarded; rather, on the basis of the doctrine of reprobation, they would be created as damned individuals in the first place. There is no theological problem either way.… [And that's what's so alarming: that Calvinists see no theological problems with this!]
The popular position that all infants are saved is wishful thinking, and continues as a groundless religious tradition. Those who affirm the doctrine of election have never been able to establish that all those who die as infants are elect. Their arguments are forced and fallacious. And those who reject the biblical doctrine of election lacks even this to fabricate a doctrine of infant salvation. Thus the invention deceives the masses and offers them hope based on mere fantasy. The way to comfort bereaved parents is not to lie to them, but to instruct them to trust in God. Whatever God decides must be right and good. It may be difficult due to their grief and weakness at the time, but if the parents cannot finally accept this, that God is always right, then they are headed for hell themselves and need to become Christians… [What's with Calvinists!?! So quick and eager to dish out damnation!]
The possibility in consideration does not apply to mentally aware infants, teenagers, and adults who never heard the gospel – they will all surely go to hell… If someone dies without hearing the gospel, it just means that God has decreed his damnation beforehand....
In itself, I have no problem with the idea that for anyone to receive salvation, in the absolute sense and without exception, he must exhibit a conscious faith in the gospel. This would mean that those who are unable to exercise faith are all damned to hell, and this would include infants and the mentally retarded, if we assume that they cannot exercise faith. I have no misgivings about this. I have no problem with the idea that all who die as embryos, infants, and mentally retarded would burn in hell. If this is what God has decided, then this is what happens… [Phew! So nice that he sleeps easy at night, unconcerned about other people's predetermined, eternal damnation!]
If he loves his chosen ones so much that he wishes to show forth his glory and wrath to them by visiting the reprobates with judgment and hellfire, then loves wins again… [Yeah, kinda like how a demented, obsessed kidnapper-serial-killer shows his kidnapped victim how much he "loves" her by killing other people as a gift to her. Love wins!]
But whether a fetus, infant, or adult, if you can read this and understand this, then I am telling you that you must believe in Jesus Christ to save your wretched soul. As for my critics, yes, even obnoxious morons like you can be saved. My concern is not so much about whether embryos can exercise faith, but that as annoying and unintelligent as you are, whether you can exercise faith….. As for the embryos, if they perish, they will go where God decides – if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell…”
[This is where Calvinism leads! So unlike the compassionate heart of Jesus!
Anybody else sensing something severely wrong with this guy's heart attitude, or is it just me? Calvinists talk like they are so humble, but many of the Calvinist leaders/teachers sure do think a lot of themselves and their theological "intelligence" and are so eager to hoard salvation for themselves and damn others. A modern-day Pharisee.
(And FYI, hyper-Calvinism, which some Calvinists might call this, is really just ordinary Calvinism without the sugar-coating. It's the logical end result of regular old Calvinism, when people carry out their beliefs to the end instead of hiding, denying, ignoring, or sugar-coating the bad stuff. It's Calvinists who refuse to live in a state of denial and cognitive dissonance but who boldly and proudly declare what Calvinism really does teach and where it really does lead.)
And contrary to Cheung, I think God gives big clues about what happens to babies who die (and I would add mentally-handicapped people) - that they are in heaven - when He says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children (Matt. 19:14), and that the angels see the face of God in children (Matt. 18:10), and that God has ordained praise from the lips of children and infants (Matt. 21:16), and when He calls the children sacrificed in fires “My children” (Ez. 16:20-21) and “innocent” (Jer. 19:4-5), and when David says that he will go to his dead son (2 Sam. 12:23), and when God refers to an age when we are old enough to choose right from wrong (Is. 7:16) and to know good from bad (Deut. 1:39), and when He says that it’s not His will that any little one perishes (Matt. 18:14).
There are many clues all over about how God views children, infants. It’s not that babies don’t have a sin nature (it will kick in as they grow); it’s that before they can make conscious decisions about sin and about Jesus, they (and the mentally-handicapped) are considered innocent, falling under God’s grace, until they are old enough to understand and to choose between accepting or rejecting Jesus. Contrary to Cheung's beliefs, God does not damn people who are unable to make a choice.
Calvinism makes me sick!]
Also regarding the damnation of children, John Calvin (from Institutes, book 3, chapter 23) says: "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God?"
[From what I can tell, "seemed meet to God" means that it pleased God to have Adam's sin lead to the eternal destruction of most people, with no chance of being saved, including their "infant children." Calvin is attributing the destruction of infants in hell to God's pleasure.]
And from his Harmony of the Law, Volume 2, Deuteronomy 13, paragraph 15: "If any should object that the little children at least were innocent, I reply that, since all are condemned by the judgment of God from the least to the greatest, we contend against Him in vain, even though He should destroy the very infants as yet in their mothers' wombs."
[So since everyone is condemned, so are infants who die. "And don't question God on this, bad Christian!" But you know what? According to Calvinism, if we "contend with Him," then it's because God made us do it. So that's really just Him contending with Himself. Ridiculous!]
"... Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death."
[Translation: "God has a right to do whatever He wants to, even kill babies. Besides, remember that the only babies who die are ones that God has already predestined to hell anyway. So it's all good!"]
"But if we admit God’s right to deprive of the hope of salvation whomsoever He sees fit, why should the temporal punishment, which is much lighter, be found fault with?"
[Translation: "If we admit that God has the right to predestined anyone to hell, even babies, then it really doesn't matter if they die young. Besides, dying young is not so bad, not nearly as bad as going to hell. So don't get upset about it."]
[Oh, what a relief! It's so much nicer to know that when Calvi-god puts babies in hell (and mentally-handicapped people, according to Cheung), it's not because of anything they did or didn't do, but it's simply because he predestined them to hell before they were ever born and never loved them to begin with. Phew! So Much Better!]
[Psalm 8:2 - not 8:3 - says that God has ordained praise from the lips of infants (nursing infants, in the KJV). Basically, God's glory/pleasure is reflected even in infants. But Calvin reinterprets it to say that even infants who are starving to death reflect God's glory and pleasure. (Sicko!)
According to Calvin/Calvinism, it's not just that the Fall and sin and Satan has affected the world and made nature go so wrong that some mothers are unable to produce enough milk; it's that God took delight in making sure some babies starved to death. (Well, non-elected babies, that is. Phew!)
Sicko! Sicko! Sicko!
(Have I mentioned that I hate Calvinism?)]
Also from Calvin (in Volume 4 of Tracts and Letters) is a letter to the father of a young man who died (a student of Calvin's). In this letter, Calvin tries to use the idea of predestination to comfort the grieving father, also adding this bit: "... [God] took him away because it was both of an advantage to him to leave this world, and by this bereavement to humble you..." According to Calvin, God took the young man to, in part, humble the father. Sounds like what our Calvinist pastor preached when he said that God "ordained" your childhood abuse for His glory, for your good, and to keep you humble, because He knew what it would take to humble you. I wanted to throw up! And yet no one else in the audience seemed to notice or care.
Wayne Grudem (from Election and Reprobation in Systematic Theology): (In response to the non-Calvinist's objection that being predestined to be saved means we don’t have a real choice) “In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willing decisions in accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free, because…God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees that our choices come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily.”
[All he is saying here is that if God predestined you to be saved, then He will give you the desire to believe in Jesus, and so, consequently, you will be “willing” to choose Jesus and so you will “voluntarily” choose Jesus. Only Calvinists would call being forced to choose what was predestined for you - having no ability to choose among options or to do anything differently - a “real, voluntary choice.”]
"Someone might object that if a choice is caused by God... it is nonetheless not a genuine or real choice, because it is not absolutely free. Once again we must respond by challenging the assumption that a choice must be absolutely free in order to be genuine or valid. If God makes us in a certain way and then tells us that our voluntary choices are real and genuine choices, then we must agree that they are. God is the definition of what is real and genuine in the universe.”
[Grudem is essentially telling us that we need to simply accept Calvinism’s illogical, contradictory nonsense that forced, predestined choices are really free, real, voluntary choices because (paraphrased) “God said so, and God doesn’t have to make sense. God can be illogical and contradictory because He gets to decide what’s real.” Grudem pushes Calvinism’s nonsense onto God, and then tells us that we have to accept it because “God is God.” So much manipulation. Cult-like manipulation.]
“Two responses can be made to [the objection that election means unbelievers never had the chance to believe, making the entire system unfair]. First, we must note that the Bible does not allow us to say that unbelievers had no chance to believe. When people rejected Jesus he always put the blame on their willful choice to reject him, not on anything decreed by God the Father."
[“Willful choice,” in Calvinism, means that God gave you the desires He wanted you to have, and so you “willfully” made the choice He predestined for you.]
"… people who remain in unbelief do so because they are unwilling to come to God [because God prevented them from wanting to come to Him, they had no choice but to be unwilling], and the blame for such unbelief always lies with the unbelievers themselves, never with God. At a second level, the answer to this question must simply be Paul’s answer to a similar objection: “But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?”
[When their bad theology paints them into a corner, they always come back to this!]
And Grudem continues: “Sometimes people regard the doctrine of election as unfair, since it teaches that God chooses some to be saved and passes over others, deciding not to save them. How can this be fair? Two responses may be given at this point. First, we must remember that it would be perfectly fair for God not to save anyone… to save none of those who sinned and rebelled against him.” [Basically, “Ignore those predestined to burn and just be thankful God saved anyone at all!”]
“But if he does save some at all then this is a demonstration of grace that goes far beyond the requirements of fairness and justice…. But who are you, a man, to answer back to God?” [It always comes back to this: deflect from the bad, highlight the good, shame those who voice opposition!]
“there is a point beyond which we cannot answer back to God or question his justice. He has done what he has done according to his sovereign will.” [As shown in the last post, Calvinists have wrong views of “sovereignty” and “will.”]
“He is the Creator; we are the creatures, and we ultimately have no basis from which to accuse him of unfairness or injustice.” [We don’t have a problem with God and His Word; we have a problem with what Calvinists have done to God and His Word! And Calvinists have terrible definitions of fairness and justness if they think it's fair and just for God to first predestine people's sins, and then to command them not to sin, and then to essentially cause them to sin, and then to punish them for doing what He ultimately preplanned and caused them to do, giving them no chance or ability to do anything different. If that's fairness and justice, I'd hate to see unfairness and injustice! And think about it, if we have no real basis for knowing what's just and unjust - if injustice can be justice, if there's no way to tell the difference - then how in the world can God, in His Word, constantly command us to seek justice and do justice and pursue justice? If He alone knows what "justice" is and withholds from us the knowledge of the difference between justice and injustice, then all those commands are meaningless, a mockery of justice. (And who do you think wants to make a mockery of justice, wants to erase the line between justice and injustice? Because it's sure not God.)]
“If God ultimately decided to create some creatures to be saved and others not to be saved, then that was his sovereign choice, and we have no moral or scriptural basis on which we can insist that it was not fair.”
[Note that none of his answers actually answers the problem of the unfairness of predestination. It's all just manipulation and shaming that boils down to "shut up and accept all the contradictory, nonsensical, ungodly stuff we tell you, like good little Christians who submit to our theological brilliance."]
Grudem continues: “Another objection to the doctrine of election is that it contradicts certain passages of Scripture that say that God wills for all to be saved… One common solution to this question (from the Reformed perspective advocated in this book) is to say that these verses speak of God’s revealed will (telling us what we should do), not his hidden will (his eternal plans for what will happen). The verses simply tell us that God invites and commands every person to repent and come to Christ for salvation, but they do not tell us anything about God’s secret decrees regarding who will be saved.”
[Because Calvinists made up His “secret decrees”! That’s why the Bible doesn’t talk about them! And Calvinists see no problem with God having hidden wills/decrees that contradict, violate, negate His revealed wills/decrees. They have no problem with the two-faced God they turned Him into.]
“But… there is something else that God deems more important than saving everyone. Reformed theologians say that God deems his own glory more important than saving everyone, and that (according to Rom. 9) God’s glory is also furthered by the fact that some are not saved.”
["So since it’s 'for God’s glory' that He predestines people to hell, you'd better just shut up and accept it and praise Him for it!" And for the record, Romans 9 has nothing to do with God predestining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. See "When Calvinists say, 'But Romans 9!'"]
“When we [incorrectly!] understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them. This decision of God in eternity past is called reprobation. Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow [Hogwash! Fake sorrow!] deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice… It is something that we would not want to believe, and would not believe, unless Scripture clearly taught it.”
[No, Scripture does not teach it. Calvinism does. But if he can find a verse that clearly says that God predestined people to hell to display His justice, then maybe I'll start to listen to them more.
Grudem also tries to say that Calvinism’s predestination is even more gracious than what people think because at least God makes sure some people are saved, instead of offering salvation to all people and letting them choose, risking that no one accepts it and gets saved. Hogwash! Don’t you think that if God foreknew that no one would accept Jesus’s sacrificial death, His offer of salvation, that He wouldn’t even have bothered to create us or come and die for us!?! Essentially, this argument from Calvinists is a denial/criticism of God’s ability to foreknow what would happen. But God knew from the beginning that many would accept Him, even though most would reject Him, and it was enough for Him to send Jesus to die for us.]
Along similar lines, R.C. Sproul, in “Chosen by God: God’s Sovereignty,” said that one of the biggest problems people have with Calvinism’s “doctrine of election” is that we think it’s unfair for God to force only some people to be saved but not all people, that we think if He does it for some then He’s got to do it for everybody, that we think He’s not being gracious enough.
[THIS IS ABSURD, and it’s absolutely NOT the biggest problem we have with Calvinism. The biggest problem we have with it is that, in Calvinism, God says one thing but means another, which means that He cannot be trusted. Calvi-god commands us to not sin but causes us to sin “for his glory” … and he commands all people to repent and believe but prevents most people from doing it … and then he punishes us for it, calling it “justice.” And in the Bible, he makes it sound like he loves all people and wants all people to be saved and that Jesus died for all people and that all people have the chance to be saved, like it’s our choice, but he’s really predestined most people to hell with no chance to be saved and no ability to choose. Etc. This is what we have a problem with - not that he doesn’t force all people to be saved, but that he prevents most from being saved after making it sound like he loves us all and wants us all saved. What bothers us most is the fact that Calvinism destroys the Gospel, God’s character, God’s Word, Jesus’s sacrifice, and people’s hope for salvation!]
R.C. Sproul (in Chosen by God: God’s Sovereignty) says that a problem with believing in free-will (that God offers salvation to all, gives everyone the ability to believe, and lets them choose) is this: “However, there are millions and millions and millions of people who never hear the gospel and who, in fact, don’t have the opportunity… [In the non-Calvinist view,] only some have the opportunity to be saved [because only some hear the gospel]… God has not made sure that everybody in the world hears the gospel. Could God make sure that everybody in the world hears the gospel? Could God print it in the clouds if He wanted to? Yes, but He doesn’t. So [in a strike against believing in free-will] we are left with the problem that God does not do everything He conceivably could do within the bounds of His own righteousness. He does not do everything conceivable to ensure the salvation of the world.”
[Therefore, according to Sproul, Calvinism is better because, in Calvinism, God is more gracious for making certain that at least some will be saved.
However, Sproul forgets some critical verses (because Calvinists read everything wrong):
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse,” Romans 1:20.
God did indeed write His truth in the clouds. And in the trees and the mountains and the stars.
Psalm 19:1-4: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
This is why all people have a chance, why all people can find Him. And this is why there is no excuse for not.
Not only that, but God wrote His truth on the hearts of men (Ecc. 3:11 and Romans 2:15).
He did all He could, at the most basic level, to point the way to Him, to show people that He’s real, “so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each of us," Acts 17:27.
Everyone can find Him in His creation, in the truth imprinted on their hearts, even without access to a Bible. And God will hold us responsible for how we respond to the revelation He gave us, whether we have a Bible or just evidence of Him in nature.
No one is destined to hell. No one is beyond hope, beyond grace, beyond forgiveness, beyond God’s reach. We can all reach out and find Him, because He is near to us all and wants to be found.
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men...", 1 Tim. 2:3-5.
"He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance," 2 Peter 3:9b.
“For God so loved the world…”, John 3:16.]
Almost done:
Calvinist David Mathis, in a Desiring God article "Does God 'Author' Sin?", looks at some sermons by John Piper. And in one of those sermons, Piper said, “God is sovereign over Satan, and therefore Satan’s will does not move without God’s permission. And therefore every move of Satan is part of God’s overall purpose and plan.”
[It's one thing to say that God is sovereign over Satan, when you use the real definition of sovereign, because that would mean that God is in authority over Satan, that Satan can't do anything unless God allows it. This is biblical. But Calvinists mis-define sovereign to mean that God preplans, controls, causes everything, even evil and sin. This is unbiblical. (Unless they can find a verse that clearly teaches it!)
Piper goes even further than the idea that God is sovereign over Satan. Piper makes God sovereign (a Calvinist's "sovereign") over "Satan's will." Did you catch that little bait-and-switch, how he started with "Satan" but switched it to "Satan's will"? Because it teaches something very different.
This means not just that God is in authority over Satan, but that God decides what Satan wills to do, wants to do, plans to do, and ultimately does. It's not just God allowing what Satan does; it's God preplanning and causing what Satan does. Satan can't want to do any evil unless God caused him to want to do it in the first place. Therefore, every evil intention, thought, action of Satan originates with God.
(And yet, they claim "We don't say that God is the author or cause of evil!" And they're right: they don't "say" it. They hide it. They obscure it. They deceptively cover it up. But they sure do teach it and believe it, even if they trick themselves into thinking they don't.)
Despite the fact that Calvinists often try to sound like they teach that people/Satan have some sort of choice about their actions, they never mean that. They always mean that God controls even our thoughts and desires. (The ESV - Calvinist Bible! - even alters verses to teach the idea that we are at the mercy of our wills, which they believe are under the control of God. See #4, 66, and 91 in this list.)
According to Calvinism, God gives us the wills He wants us to have, with the built-in desires He wants us to carry out, and we have to obey those urges. But because we "wanted" to do it, Calvinists say that we are responsible for it - as if we really are - even though that's all we could want to do and choose to do because God made sure we had no choice or ability or desire to do anything differently. And yet, Calvinists call that "voluntary choice; freely and willingly choosing" - not because it really is a "voluntary, free choice," but because there's something very wrong with their thinking, their definitions of things, and their understanding of the Bible!]
If you read the rest of the article, you see that Calvinists know to be very strategic about hiding the word "authors" - as in "God authors sin" - because they know it makes God the cause of sin: "Do we want to say that God is the “cause” of evil? That language is certainly problematic, since we usually associate cause with blame.... [I]t seems that if God causes sin and evil, he must be to blame for it... Therefore, there has been much discussion among theologians as to what verb should best describes God’s agency in regard to evil."
[There's "much discussion" about it because they know that, in Calvinism, it is most definitely "authors" and that "authors" means God preplans/causes sin, making God responsible for sin, and so they have to debate a lot to try to find a better-sounding word to hide it. If Calvinism really didn't teach the idea that God causes sin, they wouldn't need to spend so much time discussing it, trying to find a better word.]
"God does bring about sinful human actions... Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless... God does bring sins about, but always for his own good purposes. So in bringing sin to pass he does not himself commit sin. If that argument is sound, then a Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God does not imply that God is the author of sin."
[You know, it's one thing for God to allow us to choose to sin and then to work our sins into His plans, or even to put us in circumstances that force us to choose between sin and obedience - which He does sometimes to bring out the sin that's in our hearts so that He can deal with it. This is how God can "bring about sin" without being responsible for it. He puts us in circumstances and allows us to choose.
But it's a much different thing for Him to preplan, cause, control everything we think and do (a Calvinist's definition of "sovereign"), to put the sin in our hearts to begin with, to give us no other option but to sin, and to prevent us from obeying Him. This is what Calvinism does, and it does indeed make God the author of sin, regardless of which word Calvinists use to cover it up.]
R.C. Sproul (in "The Reformed View of Predestination"): "Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some and gives justice to those passed over in election."
[Is it really "justice" to predestine the damnation of the non-elect and then to command the non-elect to believe, and then to prevent them from believing, and then to punish them for not believing? Besides, we already saw earlier what God did to display His justice, and it wasn't creating non-elect people for hell - it was punishing Jesus in our place, for our sins. At least, that's what God says. But apparently, Calvinists know better!]
"That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all—in fact, He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any..."
[Sproul - Calvinists - seem to think that being shown mercy equals being saved, that if God shows you mercy, you must be saved, therefore if you are not saved then it's because God didn't offer you mercy. And he then alludes to the false dichotomy that either all people must be saved (shown mercy) or only some people, the elect. And clearly, since all people are not saved, then it must mean only the elect are shown mercy. Calvinists simply cannot understand that God would offer grace, mercy, salvation to all people but allow people to reject it.
Romans 11:32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
1 Timothy 2:4: "[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Acts 17:27: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
Hebrews 12:25: "See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?"
Zechariah 7:11-12: "But they refused to pay attention; they stubbornly turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or the words that the Lord Almighty sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry."
Romans 1:18-21,24: "The wrath of God is bring revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal nature and divine wrath - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened... Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts..."
At least, that's what God says. But apparently, Calvinists know better!]
And for the record, here's something else Sproul said (in a snippet from Chosen By God): "If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels." [As soon as my husband and I heard that Sproul died in 2017, we looked at each other and said "Now he knows." Now he now knows if he was right or wrong. Now he sees the consequences of the theology he spread to others. Now he sees if he was fighting for God or against God. For Truth or against Truth. And now he has to answer to God for it, for what he did to God's Word, to the Gospel, to Jesus's sacrifice, to people's souls. His own words here will testify against him. And if you click on and read the whole snippet, notice how Sproul became a Calvinist: He was talked into it, educated into it, "manipulated" into it by other Calvinists. That's very telling. And it's just like how it always goes!]
(For more quotes, see this article from someone else. And here's the rest of the letter to the pastors at the new church we attend...)
Trust me when I say that this stuff is not rare, but it’s seeping into churches everywhere, especially evangelical ones. We heard versions of almost all of this from our ex-church just a few years ago, just a mile away from you. I’m telling you this not to be critical, but because I care. And I respect you enough to warn you about it. We, as the Church, rise and fall together. And if we don’t take care to protect the Gospel and God’s Word, truth, and character, then we will most certainly fall. Be careful where you get your theology from. Compare it all to the plain, clear, easily-understood, commonsense meaning of the Bible. God means what He says and says what He means (but not in Calvinism).
And at the end of the day, ask yourself which one truly upholds God’s Word as it was plainly, clearly written? Which one preserves God’s good, righteous, just, loving, holy, faithful, trustworthy character?
A) The belief that God truly loves all people enough to want them to be saved, that Jesus died for all sins of all men, and that God has given all people the ability/chance to believe in Him, but that He lets us decide to accept or reject Him and His gift of salvation, and He will give us what we chose in the end (eternal life with Him or eternal life without Him)…
Or B) Calvinism, which, despite the plain, clear, commonsense understanding of God’s Word, teaches that God only loved the elect enough to save them, Jesus only died for the elect, and God predestined only the elect to heaven and will cause them to believe in Jesus, but He causes the non-elect to sin and reject Him, calling them to believe in Him but preventing them from doing so, and in the end He will punish them for what they had no control over.
Which one reflects the commonsense understanding of God’s Word, and which one twists God’s Word and adds multiple (contradictory) layers to make it fit their theology? Which one preserves God’s character, and which one destroys it? Which one is truly Good News for all, and which is damnation for most? Which one spreads hope and God’s love to reach people, and which one relies on manipulation to trap people? Which one offers life to all, and which one assures death for most?
Which one will you side with? Please, be careful who you get your theology from. Calvinism is a subtle, insidious, slippery theology, sliding in right under people’s noses, and usually through their desire to be humble and to honor God and bring Him glory. That’s what makes it so effective, so sinister.
Guard yourself. Take it all before the Lord. And be a noble Berean.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and for your wonderful, heart-felt preaching. God bless!
------------- end of my letter to the pastors -------------
This ended up being a 21-page letter I sent to them. I'm sure this new church of ours is so glad to have me in their congregation.
The pastors:
