(Oops, I thought I already posted this one here, which I referred to in the last post, but I guess I didn't. So I'm going to slip this one in before the posts containing my comments on the "But predestination" sermons.)
I think God's sovereignty is what ensnares many people into Calvinism. It's the first worm on the hook (*see note at bottom). I think they mean well, intending to honor God as God... but, sadly and without realizing it, Calvinists have fallen for a bad definition of "sovereignty," a very unbiblical one that screws up their whole theology from the very beginning (and possibly even eventually their faith and trust in God).
And since they've been taught that accepting Calvinism equals humbly submitting to God's sovereignty (His authority), they think that rejecting Calvinism is tantamount to rejecting God's sovereignty, elevating man over God.
But contrary to the accusations from Calvinists, non-Calvinists do not reject God's sovereignty. We reject Calvinism's terribly incorrect definition of God's sovereignty, a definition which does enormous damage to God's character and truth, turning Him into something He's not and the gospel into something it's not.
"Sovereign" is really about the position of authority God has over all, that He is the highest authority there is and is answerable to no one. But Calvinists have decided that "sovereign" has to mean that God must preplan, cause, control everything, even sin and evil and unbelief ... or else He's not God.
Same with "in control" and "all-powerful." Both are really about His position of authority over all, about Him having power over all, holding all things in His hands, deciding what to allow or not allow, what the consequences are, how to work things together for His plans, etc. But Calvinists have made it about how He has to use His power, that He must use His power all the time to actively control everything that happens, even sin and evil and unbelief, or else He can't be an all-powerful, in-control God. They claim that if there's one thing He doesn't actively control - one speck of dust He doesn't actively micromanage - then He's not God.
Essentially, Calvinists tell God how God must act in order to be God.
He must operate according to their (wrong) definition of "sovereign" (preplanning, controlling, causing all things, even sin and evil and unbelief) ... or else He's not God. Calvinists have made themselves the authority on what an authority is and on how an authority must act in order to be considered an authority.
Who's sovereign now? Who's in authority over whom now?
Without realizing it or meaning to, they elevate their misunderstanding of authority over God's authority. And so despite their insistence to the contrary, they are not actually humbly honoring nor submitting to God's sovereignty, not when they're so busy telling God how He must act in order to be a sovereign God.
[Did you know that despite the fact that Calvinists build their whole theological framework around their (mis)understanding of "sovereign," that word is nowhere to be found in the KJV? And in the NIV - although it's there almost 300 times - it's almost always in the title "Sovereign Lord"? That's about the position of authority the Lord is in, not about how He must behave in His position of authority.]
Calvinists - while calling Him "sovereign" and "all-powerful" - actually limit God by deciding what He can and cannot do as God. They do not believe that a sovereign, all-powerful God can choose to voluntarily limit His use of power and control in order to give people the ability to make real free-will decisions or do things He doesn't want.
And yet Scripture clearly shows that He can and does in verses such as these:
Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over [all the animals and earth]."
Acts 14:16: "In the past, [God] let nations go their own way."
Hosea 8:4: "They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval."
Isaiah 30:1: "'Woe to the obstinate children,' declares the Lord, 'to those who carry out plans that are not mine...'"
1 Kings 20:42: "He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.''"
Jeremiah 19:5: "They have built the high places to Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."
Ezekiel 13:22 (CSB): "Because you have disheartened the righteous person with lies (when I intended no distress)..."
Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem … how often I have longed to gather your children together … but you were not willing.”
Ezekiel 33:11: "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live..."
Zechariah 7:11-13: "But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they 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 Lord]. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. 'When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,' says the Lord Almighty."
Calvinists have no answers for these, nor do they factor them into their systematic theology.
[But they sure do factor in various Proverbs or Psalms that can be used to support their views, even though Proverbs is really just wise advice and Psalms are poetic songs of praise or cries of broken hearts. See "Piper's Problematic Perspective of Proverbs".]
In His sovereign right to decide how He wants things to be, God has clearly allowed people to make real choices, even choices He didn't want and didn't plan (He foreknew but didn't foreplan), voluntarily restraining His ability to control everything so that He could allow people to have the free-will to make real choices.
This is clearly what the Bible shows in verse after verse. And if this is the way He decided things should be, it's because it's the way He wants it to be. He wants people to be able to make real choices to love Him, follow Him, worship Him, and obey Him - because it's far more meaningful, honoring, and glorifying to Him than forcing people to. But of course, giving people the right to willingly choose to love Him and obey Him necessarily includes giving people the right to reject Him and disobey Him, which is why sin and evil exist.
God, in the Bible, has chosen to not always use His power to control everything. He has more than enough power, but He has chosen to voluntarily restrain His use of it in order to allow mankind to make real decisions. Why? Because He doesn't want a bunch of robots forced to love Him. He is a relational Being who wants to be loved and obeyed voluntarily, willingly. He wants real relationships with people who want to be with Him, not who are forced to. Forced love is no love at all. And so He lets us decide.
And then, in His amazing, complex wisdom and foreknowledge, He figures out a way to work all things - even our sins and disobedience - into His plans, to use it for good. This is how He can be sovereign over all yet not be responsible for sin. We choose our actions (making us responsible for our sins), but He chooses how to work it all together into His plans. He is big enough and wise enough to give people free-will and then to work all things together to get His plans accomplished.
But in Calvinism, in order for God's plans to work out, He must preplan, cause, and control everything, even all our sins. Because if there was any factor - any speck of dust - that He didn't preplan, cause, and control, then He'd lose all His power and all of His plans would come undone.
But a God who can be thwarted and dethroned by one rogue speck of dust is no God at all.
Calvinism's misunderstanding of sovereignty is a huge fundamental flaw, affecting every other part of their theology and, in the process, doing incredible damage to God's character, truth, Jesus's sacrifice, people's faith, the way to salvation, etc. And it leads to some of the worst heretical teachings - because if God's sovereignty means that He preplans, causes, and controls everything, then He IS the cause of all evil and all sin, despite the Calvinist's cry of "We're not saying that!"
In fact, I think most of Calvinism's long-winded theological writing is really just their convoluted attempts to deny that Calvinism really does make God the cause of sin, evil, and unbelief. They use many words, create many roundabout arguments, and spend most of their time verbally running in circles - all in their desperate efforts to convince us and themselves that they're not saying what they really are.
Calvinism - despite their denial and all their efforts to try to explain it away or cover it up - does indeed make God the ultimate cause of all the things He commands us not to do (rape, abuse, murder, abortion, rebellion, unbelief, etc.). How can a God like this be good and righteous?
And if that's not enough, He then turns around and punishes people for what He created them to do, things they had no choice over, as if that's really "justice." How can a God like that be trusted?
"But," the Calvinist says, "God is sovereign and can do whatever He wants for His pleasure and glory, even ordaining sin and predestining people to hell. And since everything He does is for His pleasure and glory, it's okay."
This is how a top Calvinist theologian like R.C. Sproul can be okay saying "Don't you know that when you're in heaven, you'll be so sanctified that you'll be able to see your own mother in hell and rejoice in that, knowing that God's perfect justice is being carried out." (Check out the 4:45-minute mark in this Idol Killer video: "James White Responds - Infant Salvation?")
It's how Calvinist Gordon H. Clark (from Religion, Reason, and Revelation) can say “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God... this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything…”
It's how - when asked (listen here) if God is responsible for child rape - Calvinist James White can answer “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless.”
And how Mark Talbot/John Piper (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God) can say “It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as … the sexual abuse of a young child.”
And how John Piper (from his article “Has God Predetermined Every Tiny Detail in the Universe, Including Sin?”) can say “Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe, such as dust particles in the air and all of our besetting sins? ... Yes, every horrible thing and every sinful thing is ultimately governed by God… He controls everything, and he does it for his glory and our good.”
And how Vincent Cheung (from The Author of Sin) can say “All that God does is intrinsically good and righteous, so it is also good and righteous for him to create the reprobates.”
Want more?
How about Cheung from “The Problem of Evil”: "God controls everything that is and everything that happens... Since this is true, it follows that God has decreed the existence of evil, he has not merely permitted it... God decreed evil ultimately for his own glory... One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of [non-elect] people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity... 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.”
And Cheung from “Infant Salvation”: “The popular position that all infants are saved is wishful thinking, and continues as a groundless religious tradition... Thus the invention [of the idea of infant salvation] deceives the masses and offers them hope based on mere fantasy... If someone [even an infant or mentally-handicapped person] dies without hearing the gospel, it just means that God has decreed his damnation beforehand... [because] 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… 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 ... As for the embryos, if they perish, they will go where God decides – if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell…”
And my Calvinist pastor who said (paraphrased) "God ordained all the tragedies in your life... including childhood abuse... It was His Plan A for your life, and He ordained it for His glory, for your good, and to keep you humble because He knew what it would take to humble you. And you just have to trust Him."
It's interesting actually. Calvinists first redefine God's sovereignty to fit their unbiblical views, horribly damaging His character and Truth in the process... and then they use "God is sovereign and can do what He wants" to manipulate us into humbly accepting their heretical views and the damage it does to His character and Truth without resistance or pushback.
Freakin' brilliant! Satanically brilliant!
(Can you not see the cult-like manipulation in this, the brilliant strategy of tricking people into thinking that ungodliness is godly, that unrighteousness is righteous, that injustice is justice, that evil is good? Who do you think is the one who wants to get people to think this way? Because it's sure not God.)
Here's a great comment (lightly edited for clarity) from a commenter (Graceadict) on the Soteriology 101 post "5 Reasons Why I Stayed Out of Calvinism", zeroing in on how Calvinists use "sovereignty" to excuse some of their worst heresies and distortions of God's character:
"... [Calvinism] is such a disgraceful distortion of who God is… Just think of God’s moral attributes of TRUTHFULNESS, HOLINESS, LOVE, MERCY, JUSTICE, KINDNESS, GOODNESS, LONGSUFFERING, SHOWS NO PARTIALITY. It (Calvinism's god) is nothing like the God of the Bible...
Under the Calvinist paradigm they forget that God is truly a moral being, and a morally GOOD being. They think their definition of Sovereignty can trump any moral attribute that God has. So the Calvi-god can author evil, can be unloving, unmerciful, unjust, untruthful, as long as you say: 'WELL GOD IS SOVEREIGN – HE CAN DO ANYTHING, WE MUST SIMPLY ACCEPT IT AND CALL IT HOLY AND GOOD' even though it contradicts the Scriptures’ own definitions of what is Holy, Good, and Loving.
It is not our own standard of Holy, Good, and Loving that is being contradicted. It is the very SCRIPTURE’S definitions of these terms that is being contradicted.
They think that the term 'SOVEREIGN' means He can be as evil and distorted as they want to make Him out to be and that the Word 'Sovereign' takes care of all of those distortions.
'A Sovereign God can do anything. Who are you, O man, to question God?'
BTW – We are not questioning God. We are questioning the Calvinist's profaning of His Holy name and questioning their thinking that tacking on 'Sovereign' makes their blasphemy go away. It does NOT.
Just like Calvinists use the words 'Mystery, Paradox, and Tension' to cover over all kinds of Calvinist contradictions to the Bible (which they assert are true) ... SO ALSO when they use the word 'SOVEREIGN.' It is often a tactic to cover over the fact that their Calvi-god is... demonstrably unloving, unmerciful, unjust, untruthful, unholy, evil. They think that if they just apply the word Sovereign and say 'Sovereign God can do whatever HE wants,' it excuses all the Profaning of God’s Holy name and the BLASPHEMY that they have just engaged in.
'Sovereign' is NOT a word that can be employed to cover over the profaning of God’s Holy name, as it's used in Calvinism.
Take note how they use the word Sovereign to do just that. It does NOT Glorify God… it is truly profaning His Holy name."
To be fair, I think most Calvinists are trying to be humble when they view "sovereignty" as "God controls and causes everything." They are trying to lift God up as high as they can and to lower humans as low as they can. But their view of "sovereignty" and of how God acts goes outside of what Scripture says, contradicting His Word and turning Him into a monster.
In fact, most of their theological ideas fall outside the bounds of Scripture. They take a theological concept and - in their efforts to be super-elite super-intellectuals - they stretch it to extremes, going beyond what Scripture plainly says.
But if they refuse to correct this error - if they refuse to consider that they might be wrong, choosing instead to double-down in their philosophical ideas about God and to continue filtering everything through the teachings of mere men despite how it contradicts clear passages of Scripture and destroys God's character - then how humble are they really?
They don't realize it, but they are humbly submitting to man's ideas, not to God. They are elevating man-made "deeper, hidden, mysterious secondary layers" of God's Word over the plain teachings of Scripture. They view and interpret clear verses through unclear ones that have been twisted to teach Calvinism.
And I think it all starts with their misunderstanding of "sovereignty." They start with an unbiblical definition of sovereignty and then build their whole theological framework on that. They force Scripture to fit their bad definition of sovereignty instead of correcting their definition of sovereignty to fit Scripture.
Pastor Dr. Tony Evans (whom I think is one of the most biblically-accurate pastors out there) presents a view of God's sovereignty that is biblical, that keeps God's character intact. Dr. Evans regularly says that there are things God causes (but never sin), but then there are other things God allows. This is how He is in "in control" over things.
And contrary to Calvinism's idea that God has two opposing, contradictory Wills (such as when He has a spoken Will of "Don't sin" and "I want all people to be saved," while simultaneously having an unspoken Will that causes people to sin and go to hell), Dr. Evans views it this way: God has an unconditional Will for some things and a conditional Will for other things. (See the first ten minutes of this sermon:
How to get your prayers answered.)
There are things God's planned and decided to do regardless of us, unconditionally, such as create the world, send Jesus to die for our sins, offer salvation to sinners, renew creation in the end, etc. He does these things regardless of what we do or don't do.
But then there are things He's planned to do on the condition that we do our part. And this is where we get the "if you ... then ..." verses from. "If you obey, then I will bless you. If you disobey, then you'll face bad consequences. If you believe in Jesus, then I will give you eternal life. Etc." (These kinds of verses only make sense if God gave us a real right to decide. And He did. Which is why the Bible makes sense.)
This isn't like Calvinism where God has two opposing, contradictory Wills about the same issue (sin, salvation, etc.), where He says He wants one thing (obedience and belief) but then causes the opposite (disobedience and unbelief). This would make Him duplicitous, divided, self-opposing, unjust, unrighteous, etc.
But it's about God having two different kinds of Wills for different situations. In some situations, He decides to do something on His own... but in others, He decides to let us make decisions and then He responds accordingly. And this is where free-will comes in. God told us what He wants us to do in His Word, but He lets us decide if we want to do it or not. And whatever we choose, He will work it into His plans somehow.
God is truly sovereign over all. But in His sovereignty, He has decided to give people free-will, the right to make real decisions that have real consequences. And so if people go to hell, it's not because He caused it based on some secondary, secret, unspoken Will of His that contradicts His "I want all people to be saved" Will. It's because He has decided to give us the right to decide if we want Him or not. He has chosen to make salvation conditional on our belief, on our choice. He offers salvation to all and makes it available to all, but we only get it on the condition that we accept it, that we believe. It is truly our choice. And because it is our choice, the consequences are just (unlike in Calvinism).
*Note: Many often get suckered into Calvinism because of a Calvinist's strategic use of false dichotomies, often starting with "Is God sovereign, or are you?" We are given two options: a ridiculous one that no good Christian would pick and the one that is designed to lead us deeper into Calvinism. And it's a very effective method for a simple reason: We never question their definition of "sovereign." We go "Oh, well, of course God is sovereign," and then we let the Calvinist implant their definition of sovereign into our minds, their idea of how a sovereign God must act... and before we know it, we're viewing the Bible through that lens.
There are also other false dichotomies like "Is God all-powerful, or are you? Does God control everything, or do you? Did God save you, or did you save yourself? Either God controls everything, or God controls nothing. Either God deliberately saves some people, or everyone goes to hell. Either God preplans, causes, and controls everything that happens, or else He has no idea what's going on and is at the mercy of humans, helplessly waiting on us and anxiously wringing His hands while wondering what we'll choose, and then scrambling to figure out how to work it into His plans. Etc."
They have a whole long string of these to slowly reel us into Calvinism. And once again, it works because we do not challenge the options they gave us or their definitions. We answer their questions the way they ask them, which gives them the upper-hand and control over the direction of the conversation, leading us deeper and deeper into Calvinism.
A tip for when you're discussing theology with a Calvinist: Do not answer their questions the way they ask them. Do not let them be the question-asker while you're forced to be the question-answerer. This will only give them control over the conversation and the definitions, and it will trap you in their web.
Instead, find the problem in their question and expose it, forcing them to explain it or answer for it. Expose and challenge the inherent error in the question, the false dichotomy, the bad definition, the bad illustration, the bad logic, the misuse of Scripture, the shaming and manipulation, the deceptive tactic, etc.
Do not let them trap you with carefully-crafted questions meant to slowly and gently trick you into Calvinism. Do not take what they say at face-value or blindly accept their definitions. There is always an error in their questions, in their definitions, in their use of Scripture, in the thinking/theology behind their questions. Find it. Expose it. Make them answer for it. Make them define their terms clearly. Make them answer probing questions about what they really mean, forcing them to admit the deeper beliefs they're hiding or sugar-coating, the ones that contradict the things they say on the surface.
The more you force them to explain themselves, the more obvious their errors, contradictions, bad definitions, bad use of Scripture, deceptive and manipulative tactics, etc., will be.
So when they say something like "Is God sovereign, or are you?", ask them to define sovereign and to show you the verses that support their definition... and then explain how they are taking those verses out on context and show them verses that show the opposite (like those above).
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Never let a Calvinist define the terms. Never answer a Calvinist according to the parameters they set around the questions. Always challenge and expose and ask them to explain more. Because there's always a problem behind their thinking, their questions. And the more they talk, the more you (and, hopefully, they) will see it.
