When Calvinists say "But predestination!" (shorter, basic version)
[Finally, the much-shorter version - I said shorter, not short😉 - of my "But predestination!" series. The longer version - full of many more Calvinist comments, my Calvinist ex-pastor's sermons, and my replies to them - can be found by starting here. But in this simplified version, I'm simply sharing the basics. And I'll do a tiny version soon too, cutting out almost all quotes and memes. But, oh, they add so much that it's hard to cut them out.]
At the heart of Calvinism is predestination and God's sovereignty (among other things, like "total depravity"), which according to Calvinism essentially amounts to: "God preplans and controls everything, even sin and evil and all our decisions, and so He pre-picks who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. He causes the 'elect' to believe in Him and be saved, but He made sure the 'non-elect' have no chance or ability to believe and be saved because He predetermined they'd go to hell (and so Jesus never died for them anyway), all for His glory."
From the Calvinist's beloved Westminster Confession of Faith: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death."
John Piper ("Does God Predestine People to Hell?"): “My answer is yes. God does determine from eternity who will be saved.”
And if we push back against this - if we say Jesus died for all people and God offers salvation to all people and that He lets us decide to accept it or reject it - Calvinists go "But God is sovereign, and predestination is in the Bible, and so you have to believe it!"
But the problem is not that we misunderstand the Bible or can't accept biblical truth. It's that Calvinists mis-define both sovereignty and predestination (among other things).
[I already have a "When Calvinists say 'But sovereignty!'" post, but I'll cover it here too because it's so closely tied to predestination.]
Firstly, Calvinism's "sovereignty":
Calvinism's definition of God's sovereignty undergirds their whole theological system, especially their concept of "election/predestination."
As Calvinist Marshall Beretta says ("Why doesn't God allow a window period of repentance from Hades?"): "Only the elect can be saved.... Both [the elect and non-elect] are obviously part of God's decree. Since God is Omnipotent and sovereign, the elect cannot possibly 'choose' to not be saved; neither can the Non-elect choose to be saved..."
Jonathan Edwards ("Man Naturally God's Enemies", Chapter 8: Mercy, justly withheld): "This doctrine affords a strong argument for the absolute sovereignty of God, with respect to the salvation of sinners.... [God] will have his liberty to choose the objects of his mercy; to show mercy to what enemy he pleases, and to punish and destroy which of his haters he pleases. And certainly this is a fit and reasonable thing. It is fit that God should distribute saving blessings in this way, and in no other, viz. in a sovereign and arbitrary way."
John MacArthur (Doctrine of Election, part 1): "In Revelation 19 we are told the Lord God reigns... What does it mean? It means he makes every decision that’s ever been made, essentially, about everything.... He is the decider and determiner of every person’s destiny, and the controller of every detail of every individual’s life. Which is only another way of saying God is God."
Only in Calvinism can God not be sovereign unless He predestines the salvation and damnation of people. In Calvinism, God's God-ness - His omnipotence and sovereignty - requires that He predestine some people to heaven and the rest to hell, along with controlling everything everyone does, including our sins and evil and everything Satan does:
John MacArthur (Divine Providence: The Supreme Comfort of a Sovereign God): "Well of course; He controls everything.... The devil is God’s devil; he’s totally controlled by God. The world is controlled by God. Every single movement, as R.C. said, of every molecule is controlled by God, and a whole lot of it is evil."
But their definition of sovereignty is not supported by Scripture. It has to be read into Scripture, inferred from Scripture, especially through their cherry-picking of various verses taken out of context - especially Proverbs or Psalms, neither of which is necessarily meant to be taken as hard-core bottom-line theology, or verses where God incorporates someone's wickedness into His plans, which Calvinists interpret as God preplanning/ordaining/causing them to be wicked and to choose to do wicked things, with no chance of choosing anything else.
[For God to allow someone to make bad free-will choices - and then for Him to work it into His plans - is nowhere near the same thing as Calvinism, where God preplans/orchestrates/causes all evil decisions, and we had no ability to do anything else. In the first one, sin and evil is truly our decision/responsibility, for we could have chosen otherwise. But in Calvinism, all sin and evil is truly God's decision/responsibility, for we could only do what He predestined and caused us to do. And yes, Calvinists do mean "causes," even though they try to hide that word under less alarming, less clear words as much as possible. See "But Calvinists don't say God causes sin and evil!"]
[Sidenote: Another error Calvinists make is that they take verses where God causes something like a natural disaster or physical malady and say, "See, so it means God causes all sin and evil too," as if causing moral evil is in the same boat as causing a natural or physical condition. But it's not! For God to cause a storm or an illness doesn't violate any of His commands, but to cause someone to sin does. So these are like comparing apples to orangutans. It can't, shouldn't, be done. Causing a storm doesn't destroy His character, but causing people to sin and disobey His commands (and then punishing them for it) does destroy His character, His trustworthiness, His goodness, His justness, etc.]
The thing is, Calvinists and non-Calvinists will use the same words, such as "sovereign" and "predestination" and "choice" and "free-will" and "faith" and "all people" and "offer of salvation," etc., but we don't realize that they have very different definitions. And I believe Calvinists want it this way, because it works to their advantage. They hook us and reel us in because we think they're using words the same way we are, that they're on the same page as us. And we don't realize that they aren't until it's too late, until they've smooth-talked us onto their page.
As I've said in different posts, remember that whoever controls the language also controls the conversation and destination. Calvinists - through their strategic, deceptive use of language - will slowly modify our thinking and our perspectives on God and His Word, causing us to see everything through the lens of Calvinism - until our minds have been wiped clean of the ability to read the Bible in a clear, plain, commonsense way anymore.
In Chapter 2 (Scaling the Language Barrier) of Walter Martin's book "The Kingdom of the Cults" (The Revised, Updated, and Expanded Anniversary Edition, October 1997), we read this about religious cults (this is my paraphrased summary):
Terminology and definitions matter. When words are allowed to be redefined incorrectly - and those incorrect definitions are allowed to spread to people and throughout generations (because of our apathy or ignorance) - it can become a powerful weapon to enslave the masses. Cult leaders know this and use it to their advantage, hijacking language with their own definitions to slowly, hypnotically lead people in the path they want them to go.
Cultists are experts at taking texts out of their proper context, with no concern for the laws of language, logic, or proper biblical interpretation.
Religious cult leaders use the Bible's terminology and concepts, but in a very different way than how it was originally intended and how it's commonly, historically understood. They use the Bible's terms, but they secretly redefine them to fit their own theological framework.
This is why the cultist will often appear to be - and claim to be - in full agreement with you, because they are using the same words, same concepts, same verses. You just don't realize that they've got very different definitions and interpretations.
At first glance, a cult's redefinitions will appear to be in harmony with the historic teachings of the Christian faith. But this harmony is superficial at best - because it cannot hold up under serious biblical scrutiny when Scripture is read properly and in context and when words are correctly defined.
Cults take advantage of the fact that the average Christian is almost totally unaware of the "subtle art" of redefining terms. And much time is wasted debating about Scripture with cultists - talking in circles - when spending just a few minutes at first defining the terms would have disarmed them of one of their most powerful tools: theological term-switching.
The cultist's redefining and juggling of terms puts the cultist at an advantage because it frustrates the average Christian who can sense that something is wrong and that they're both not really saying the same thing, but the Christian can't quite put his finger on what's wrong. And so therefore, not realizing the words games the cultist is playing, he often falls silent for fear of ridicule or of continuing to talk in circles.
So when talking to Calvinists - unless you want to talk round and round in circles with them, talking past each other - it might be best to start by asking them how they define "sovereignty."
And because they'll often try to hide/obscure what they really mean - the bad parts - keep asking more clarifying and probing questions until they admit that they think "sovereignty" means that God ultimately preplans, controls, orchestrates everything that happens, including sin, evil, and unbelief, and that we could never choose to do anything different than what God predetermined.
[And listen for the false dichotomies, bad analogies, shaming tactics, gaslighting, manipulation, and out-of-context verses that they'll use to try to buffalo you at first, to get you to shut off your alarm bells, to get you to accept their views without resistance. Point these out to them. Don't fall for it or let them get away with it. (See "Don't answer Calvinist questions. Dismantle them.")
And fyi: I just found this out, but another word Calvinists define differently is "author." When Calvinists say "God is not the author of sin," they are being deceptive because they're not using the commonly-used definition of "author," which is basically "the one who writes the story." But they are using some older, archaic definition of "author" that nobody nowadays would think to use, which (and I can't remember where I found this, maybe in Grudem's Systematic Theology) calls the person who does the action the "author." This allows Calvinists to say that the person who does the sin - and not God - is "the author of sin," even though we can only do what Calvi-god prewrote for us to do. So be wary of any and every word Calvinists use! It often doesn't mean what you think it means. (See "Calvinism 101: 'Free-Will Choice" is not really 'Free-will' or 'Choice'")]
And I don't mean just allusions to "sovereignty" that they find in verses that are taken out-of-context or that can be read in non-Calvinist ways too, but the actual word "sovereignty" defined in the Bible. If they are going to use their version of "sovereignty" as the basis for their theological views of God and how He acts, they should be able to find that word clearly defined in the Bible, not just defined as people tell them to define it.
But here's the thing: The word "sovereign" is not in the KJV anywhere. And when it's used in other translations like the NIV, it's usually in the title "Sovereign Lord," which is like saying "King Jesus."
And a king doesn't have to control every little thing his subjects do - every sin, every thought, every hiccup - in order to be king. He is king not because he preplans, causes, directs, orchestrates, controls everything the people do, but because he is the highest authority there is in that land.
In fact, the very definition of "sovereign" is about "a supreme ruler, especially a monarch; possessing supreme or ultimate power." It's about the position of leadership someone is in, but it says nothing about how the sovereign leader must behave or use his power while in that position.
God is sovereign because He is the highest authority/power there is, has the final say over all, and is answerable to no one. That's what makes Him sovereign.
But Calvinists have redefined "sovereignty" for themselves (which no translation supports), deciding that if God is truly a "sovereign," all-powerful, in-control God then He must use His power all the time to preplan, orchestrate, direct, control everything, even sin, evil, and unbelief... "or else He's not God," they say.
Essentially, they are telling God how God must behave in order to be a sovereign God. Very stupid! (And it's a total contradiction of their belief that God is the One who's sovereign over us!)
As the sovereign God - the highest authority and greatest power there is - He gets to decide for Himself how to use His power and control, which means that, if He wants to, He can decide to voluntarily restrain His use of power and control in order to give people true free-will, the right to make real decisions on their own. And Scripture shows us time and time again that this is how He made things, how He wanted things. He wanted mankind to have free-will, even though He has the power and ability to control all our choices if He wanted to.
[And why did He want to give people free-will? Because He wants real relationships with people. He wants to be with people who voluntarily choose to love Him and worship Him, not with robots created to love and worship Him. There is no real joy or glory in programming a robot to love you. And if it's something we wouldn't want or put up with for ourselves, why do Calvinists think God would?]
And this - true free-will, the ability to make our own real decisions among real options, instead of God preplanning and causing our decisions for us - is the only way to adequately explain verses like these without nonsensical contradictions that destroy God's character:
“All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations – people who continually provoke me to my very face …” (Isaiah 65:2-3)
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)
"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." (Zechariah 7:11-13)
"They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval." (Hosea 8:4)
"'Woe to the obstinate children,' declares the Lord, 'to those who carry out plans that are not mine...'" (Isaiah 30:1)
"He said to the king, 'This is what the Lord says: 'You have set free a man I had determined should die.''" (1 Kings 20:42)
"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." (Jeremiah 19:5)
"Because you have disheartened the righteous person with lies (when I intended no distress)..." (Ezekiel 13:22, CSB)
"In the past, [God] let nations go their own way." (Acts 14:16)
"When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country. For God said 'If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt." (Exodus 13:17)
"Again David asked, 'Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?' And the Lord said, 'They will.' So David and his men...left Keilah and kept moving from place to place." (1 Samuel 23:12-13. In this case, God knew what would happen if David made a particular decision, and so David made the opposite decision. But how is this possible - and what do these verses mean - if Calvinists define "sovereignty" and "God's foreknowledge" as "God predetermines and then causes everything that happens exactly as it happens, and nothing different could have happened"?)
Along the same lines: "'You acted foolishly,' Samuel said. 'You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time." (1 Samuel 13:13. If Calvinism is true that God preplans/causes all that happens, then He preplanned/caused that Saul would disobey and lose the kingdom - because that's what happened - and so it would be a lie to say that something different could have, would have, happened, that there was an alternative path that hinged on Saul's choice. So was Samuel and God lying? Or is Calvinism not true?)
"If you [Cain] do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:7. If Calvinism's version of sovereignty is true, then it's a total lie that Cain could have chosen any differently.)
For some reason, Calvinists think a sovereign, all-powerful God cannot give people true free-will and yet still work His plans out. But they think He must preplan and orchestrate everything, including all sins, or else He proves He's not God and can't work His plans out. In Calvinism, if there was even one speck of dust that God didn't actively control, He'd cease to be a sovereign, all-powerful God.
R.C. Sproul (Does God Control Everything?): “If God is not sovereign, God is not God. If there is even one maverick molecule in the universe – one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination – we cannot have the slightest confidence that any promise God has ever made about the future will come to pass.”
I would agree that if there was one molecule God couldn't control, then yes, we couldn't have full confidence in Him.
But Calvinists mean "If there's even one molecule God doesn't actively, meticulously control every movement of, then we can't trust Him. He must preplan and cause everything - every thought, every sneeze, every sin - in order to be a trustworthy God. And so if there's even one piece of dust He doesn't control, then He's not really God, and we can't trust Him to be able to fulfill any of His promises. God must preplan and cause all evil, murder, abortions, abuse, etc., or else we can't trust Him."(😕)
Jeff Durbin (see clips in The Madness of Calvinism or the full video in Jeff Durbin Answering 'The Problem of Evil') talking to a woman about evils like gang rape: “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil He plans… nothing happens in the universe apart from His will… So let’s say this evil happens. How do [people try to] get God off the hook?... By saying 'He didn’t want that to happen, or He’ll fix it, or He wouldn’t mess with your free will'… [But] the truth is that all those answers make God unworthy of worship… He actually decrees all things." [So, in Calvinism, God is only worthy of worship if He deliberately wants, plans, and decrees evils like gang-rape!?! What kind of a monster god is that!?!]
John MacArthur ("Why does God allow so much suffering?"): "[God] controls everything... He is governing history in every minute detail. There's not one molecule in the universe that's out of line with His purposes.... So, while liberal theology and assorted other so-called evangelicals [hear the insult, discrediting those who don't see it his way] feel desperately the need to rescue God from [being the cause of evil and suffering], God is quite content to make it clear that He is, in fact, unhesitatingly sovereign over everything that exists, without a hint of reluctance. He's not asking to be rescued from bad press that's fallen upon Him because He's been blamed for all the bad things that are in the world... He's content to leave the responsibility for evil's existence and even its action, with Himself... God wills evil to exist.... Again, and again, God takes full responsibility for the existence of evil unfolding in this world.... The panic hits [non-Calvinists] because they just can't let God be held responsible for evil..... Let God be God and worship Him for the sovereign that he is [as defined by Calvinists], unfolding the glory of his own nature through wrath and mercy, which necessitates evil. This is our God... You either believe in the God who is in complete control of evil, or you believe evil is in control of God [First of all, he means that God controls evil, not just is "in control" of evil. And second of all, it's a false dichotomy to say that God must control evil or else evil would control Him, as if those are the only two possible options.]..."
James White (in answer to the question “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?”, listen here): "If He didn't then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose... Yes, [He decreed it] because if not, then it's meaningless and purposeless... [But if He decreed it], it has meaning, it has purpose, all suffering has purpose, everything in the world has purpose, so there's no basis for despair [other than the fact that a god like that - Calvi-god - is evil! (The true God of the Bible is not.)]... But if we believe that God created knowing all this was going to happen but with no decree - He just created and all this evil is out there and there's no purpose - then every rape, every situation like that, is nothing but purposeless evil and God is responsible for the creation of despair...."
Hmm, I wonder: If one randomly roaming piece of dust or one truly free-will decision from one person could dethrone God and thwart all His plans, then can He really be as sovereign and all-powerful as Calvinists think?
Calvinist "sovereignty" vs. Non-Calvinist "sovereignty"
Calvinists say that God's sovereignty/providence means that He controls everything and causes it to work out just like He preplanned, even sin, evil, and unbelief.
Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology book (chapter 16), says that the "doctrine of providence" teaches that the events of creation are determined by God. As he says: "We may define God's providence as... [God] cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do... [He] directs them to fulfill his purposes... [Reformed/Calvinist theologians] affirm that God causes all things that happen [See, "causes!" Calvi-god causes evil!] but that he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible choices that have real and eternal results for which we are held accountable."
So in Calvinism, God preplans and directs and causes everything that happens, even all evil.
And notice that Grudem doesn't call our choices "free" or "voluntary." He's careful to call them "willing and responsible" - which, in Calvinism, simply means that God gave us the nature He wanted us to have that came with certain built-in desires He wanted us to have... and we can only desire and be willing to carry out those God-determined impulses, even if they're sinful ones... but He will still hold us accountable/responsible for it. We "willingly" do what our God-determined impulses tell us to do, just like a hypnotized person "willingly" does what the hypnotist caused them to want to do.
Calvinists will deceptively affirm the idea of "free-will," saying that "everyone agrees that we are free in our will and our choices. Even prominent theologians in the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition concur." (Grudem)
But they're not saying that we make truly free and voluntary choices among real options that we could've chosen between. They're not saying that we got to choose what we desire to do or that we can change our desires and choose something else.
They're simply saying that we make the decisions we "wanted" to make, that we were "willing" to make, based on the desires God gave us which we had to obey. And we had no ability to make any other decision because God wouldn't let us desire to do anything other than what He predetermined us to do. And yet, God will still hold us responsible for our sins and unbelief because we "wanted" to do it.
A very deceptive use of "free-will" and "responsible"!
But this is how Calvinism meshes mankind's "free-will" and God's "sovereignty".
But personally, and contrarily, I like the way I've heard Tony Evans describe God's sovereignty. He says that in His sovereignty, God sometimes just allows things (I would say like our decisions, natural phenomena and effects, demonic activity)... and He sometimes causes things (but never sin, evil, or unbelief, although He can put us in situations that force us to make our choice between obedience and disobedience, and then He can work our self-chosen decisions into His plans).
And because Dr. Evans means true "allows" (not the Calvinist kind where God "allows" what He first preplans and orchestrates), it means that God gives us the ability to choose among real options that are really available to us. He lets us decide what we want to do, whether we sin or obey Him, whether we reject Him or believe in Him. And because it's our real decision, we can be held accountable for it.
This is non-Calvinism's view of mankind's free-will and God's sovereignty.
And it's very different from Calvinism's view!
Here's how Dr. Evans, whose theological views I trust, defines "sovereignty" and "providence" (read carefully!) in The Tony Evans Bible Commentary (pg 22): "The sovereignty of God means that he exercises his prerogative to do whatever he pleases with his creation. His providence is the outworking of God's eternal plan for mankind and all of his creation. Providence is the invisible and mysterious hand of God at work in the details of history to bring to pass his sovereign will. God's providence includes every part of creation, from the inanimate world to individuals to entire nations. In his righteous, wise, and loving providence, God is bringing to pass his eternal purposes for his glory and our eternity."
He's saying that God does what He pleases, not (as Calvinism says) that everything happens because God was pleased to do it. He's saying that God has plans, not (as Calvinism says) that God planned everything. He's saying that God has things He wills to happen and that He will work everything toward that end, not (as Calvinism says) that He wills everything that happens. He's saying that God accomplishes His overarching plans by working in and through all parts of His creation over history, weaving it all together to lead it in the direction He wants it to go, not (as Calvinism says) that God preplans and controls everything and everyone.
Sorry, Calvinists, but just because all monkeys are animals, it does not mean that all animals are monkeys.
God has plans and is in control over all and causes all things to work together to accomplish what He planned, but that doesn't mean that He planned and controls and causes everything that happens. It just means that He can work all things into His plans, that He can use even the things He didn't want/plan/cause - our sinful free-will choices - to accomplish what He does want, the overarching plans He has.
[If God meticulously controls everything, every movement of every part of nature, then why in the world did He create boundaries and limits, such as in Job 38:10-11 and Proverbs 8:29 where He sets a boundary for the waters so that it will not overstep His command? There's no reason for boundaries unless there is freedom to move within those boundaries. There's no worry about it overstepping His command if He alone controls every wave and molecule.]
God is in control over all, but that doesn't mean He controls all. Yes, He does control/cause some things (not sin or unbelief), when He chooses to. But for the most part (because He set this world up with free-will humans and natural processes that He allows to function as they will, within boundaries), He is "in control" over all things not by controlling/causing all things, but by deciding what to allow or not allow, when and how to intervene, what the consequences should be, how to work things into His plans, etc.
But He gives us free-will and an awful lot of room to make real decisions that affect things. Because He wanted real relationships with real people who voluntarily choose to love and obey Him, not fake relationships with robots forced to love and obey Him.
God does not preplan our decisions and actions, but He gives us the ability to choose among real options that are possible for us. And He knows how to work whatever we do into His plans, whether we obey or disobey. And so if we sin, it is truly our choice. We didn't have to choose it, but He will still work it into His plans. And if we had chosen the opposite - to not sin - then He would have worked that into His plans instead. He "causes all things to work together for good," not "causes all things." He's just that big of a God, a God who can allow free-will and still work His plans out!
To show the contrast between Calvinism's and non-Calvinism's view of sovereignty, I'd like to quote a conversation between Warren McGrew (Idol Killer) and a Calvinist woman (he shared this story in his video "You don't understand Calvinism - Considering the Reformation", starting at about the 24-minute mark.):
Warren says that he was hanging out with family, and a woman walked in and said "I've been watching your videos on YouTube. I want you to know I disagree with you. I believe God is sovereign."
Warren said that he also believes God is sovereign, and he explains it this way: "When I say 'sovereign,' I mean God is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and He is the highest authority to which we can appeal. He's the ultimate Judge, our Redeemer, our Savior, our Lord. When I say 'sovereign', that's what I mean... [But when you say 'sovereign'] you mean 'meticulous effectual determinism,' that God decreed all the evil in the world, all the good, and brought everything to come to pass. You're thinking 'fatalism.' And so we're gonna disagree on how we define 'sovereign' - because I think it's a great blasphemy to accuse God of sexual abuse or decreeing and bringing about all adultery and all evil and all sin and suffering. I think that is the result of man's rebellion against God, not God's ultimate Will and that He wanted this. I think this is contrary to His Will. Ultimately, He'll redeem and restore it, but we're contrary to it." [Well said, Warren!]
Then she responded, "I want you to know something, Warren. My husband committed adultery on me... I know God did that for my good and for my husband's good - because he repented, he got more devout with the Lord and our marriage improved as a result. So I know God's the one who led him into temptation, that led him into that adulterous affair, and that God effectually decreed it for our good."
And Warren responded, "Ma'am, God can redeem without being the devil to bring that about. Just let God be the fireman, He doesn't need to be the arsonist. Just let Him be the fireman, let Him be the hero and put [the fire] out. Let's own our own evil. Don't blame God for your husband's infidelity. That's not real repentance. Don't blame God for your husband's lust. Don't blame God for your husband's abuse. Put that squarely on that man's shoulders, and he needs to take that to the cross in repentance... Don't blame God for your husband's evil."
Warren goes on to say in his video that "She just could not let go of the idea that because somehow this great sin was turned into good that ultimately that meant that God was the one who caused it. So when we talk about 'sovereignty' in the Calvinist system, we're operating under a completely different definitional set."
Once again, well said, Warren!
[And I liked when Warren responded to "You don't understand Calvinism" with "It's not that we don't understand Calvinism; it's that Calvinists are being inconsistent" (paraphrase). So true!]
And how sad is it that good, well-meaning, humble Christian have convinced themselves that God Himself is the one who preplanned and caused the terrible evils other people did to them - all because Calvinists have convinced them that that's what a "sovereign" God does and that He should be trusted and praised for it anyway.
It's truly sickening! (And eventually heart-crushing and faith-destroying.)
*********************************************
Calvinism and Counseling (I've shared these quotes before, so skip this section if you want to.)
I mean, seriously, how is a Calvinist pastor supposed to counsel hurting people when he believes God ordained/caused all the evil, sin, tragedy, and suffering that we go through (such as that husband's affair), for our good and for His glory?
Can Calvinist pastors truly help and encourage hurting people who've been betrayed, violated, or damaged by the wicked sins of other people when Calvinists believe things like this:
Theodore Zachariades (as seen in this clip from Soteriology 101): "God works all things after the counsel of His will, even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so... and when He wants to, He orders those to commit adultery when HE WANTS TO!"
Gordon H. Clark (Religion, Reason, and Revelation): “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it… Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything…”
From my ex-pastor's June 2022 sermon about Joseph and forgiveness: "Any time we're physically abused, verbally abused, emotionally abused, lied about, oppressed, taken advantage of, wrongly blamed... it was God who brought these circumstances into our lives in the first place, painful as they may be."
From my ex-pastor's March 2014 sermon about finding hope in hard times: “We’ve had people betray, lie, steal, vilify, slander, and do unspeakable things to us. Some of us have undergone horrific abuse at the hands of parents or aunts or uncles or brothers. God is sovereign over those who seek to harm us... That means, friends, that there is no such thing as random evil or random acts of tragedy.... John Flavel in The Mystery of God’s Providence says '… In all the sad and afflictive providences that befall you, eye God as the author. Set before you the sovereignty of God…' Amen!?!” (No! Not Amen! Not with the way Calvinists define sovereignty.)
From my ex-pastor's August 2022 sermon on suffering and God's love: "God's providence means His sovereign, wise leading and active directing of all things for His glory, and of all events, everything, the good, the bad, and the ugly."
From my ex-pastor's October 2019 sermon on forgiveness: "How you handle and respond to mistreatment, when someone has hurt you, wounded you, lied about you, betrayed you, abused you...directly reflects what [you] really believe about God deep down inside... The Bible teaches that God sometimes strategically uses sinful people in our lives to refine us and humble us, to do His good work in our lives. ("Using" evil is one thing, but "preplanning, controlling, orchestrating, directing, causing" evil is another, which is what Calvi-god does.)... ON PURPOSE to humble us and teach us dependence on Him.... for His purpose, His glory, and for our good." (Translation: "God deliberately caused the abuse, betrayals, and tragedies in your life for His glory and your good, to humble you and make you dependent on Him.")
From my ex-pastor's December 8, 2024 sermon about evil leaders: "[The early church believers] knew [God] was in control... even when they saw evil leaders doing evil things... They knew He was in control of even over the choices of evil leaders. He was guiding them to do His Will.... you might wonder 'How can these people be guilty when it says right here that all the evil things they did, it was God's plan.' [Martin] Luther says 'God is good and cannot do evil, but He uses evil men who cannot escape the impulse and movement of His power. [And yet Calvinists cry "But we don't say people are robots controlled by God!" Hogwash!] And yet when they do the very evil they're planning after being moved by God, it's they're fault, not His.'" [But biblically, God didn't plan to make them be evil or do evil. He just foreknew they would be evil people who wanted to do evil things, and so He planned to put it to good use, incorporating their self-chosen evil into His plans.]
A Calvinist grandfather-to-be (who said that God might not love his unborn grandchild and might have created it for damnation or to be a murderer, see "The total depravity of certain Calvinists" and my post about it) also said this about God decreeing rape: “God must then direct the rapist not just who to rape but how to perform the rape and how long… Amen, but I would go even farther than that, God originated every detail in His mind from all eternity and decreed it to be so.”
Mark Talbot/John Piper (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, page 42-44, 70-77): "God brings about all things in accordance with his will. It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child... God speaks and then brings his word to pass; he purposes and then does what he has planned. Nothing that exists falls outside of God's ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed. God's foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil.
... In summary, this means that we should affirm the age-old Christian doctrine of God’s complete providence over all. God has sovereignly ordained, from before the world began, everything that happens in our world... It should be beyond all doubt that no one suffers anything at anyone else’s hand without God having ordained that suffering.
During his first hour or so in Birkenau, Elie Wiesel saw the notorious Joseph Mengele...casually directing [people] either to his left, so that they went immediately to the gas chambers, or to his right to the forced-labor camp. In seeing Mengele, Wiesel was seeing a very evil man whom, nevertheless, God was actively sustaining and governing, nanosecond by nanosecond, through his evil existence. And we can be sure that, from before time began, God had ordained that at that place those moments would be filled with just those persons, doing and suffering exactly as they did... that he actually brought the whole situation about, guiding and governing and carrying it by his all-powerful and ever-effectual word to where it would accomplish exactly what he wanted it to do.
[Footnote: Mengele was a medical doctor who was nicknamed 'The Angel of Death.' He carried out unspeakable experiments on some of his prisoners, including injecting chemicals into childrens’ eyes in an attempt to change their eye color from brown to the preferred Aryan blue. He would visit the children, acting kindly and bringing them candy and clothing in order to keep them calm and happy, and then transport them in what looked like a Red Cross truck or in his personal vehicle to his laboratory beside the crematoria where he would perform his horrible experiments and then burn their bodies. He specialized in experiments involving identical twins. He was intrigued to see if he could make them differ genetically by, among other horrors, performing sex-change operations on one of them or removing one twin’s limbs or organs in macabre surgical procedures that were performed without the use of anesthesia and that had no scientific basis or value.]
... Even though he ordains all of our free sinful choices, those sinful choices still 'count' and we are held responsible for them.... In ordaining the evil works of others, he himself does no wrong, 'upright and just is he.'... We can be sure, as Scripture confirms, that God has made everything for its purpose, even evil persons like Joseph Mengele or Dennis Rader. We can be sure that God has made our lives’ most evil moments as well as their best....
... I myself find it very difficult to understand how [God can ordain evil for our good] with some of the worst things that human beings do, like sexually abusing young children or raping or torturing someone mercilessly.
And, of course, something much less horrible than these sorts of things can happen to us and still leave us wondering how God could be ordaining it for our good. I have seen marriages break apart after thirty-five years and felt to some degree the grief and utter discombobulation of the abandoned spouse. I have watched tragedies unfold that seem to remove all chance for any more earthly happiness.... Many of us have tasted such grief....Yet these griefs have been God’s gifts.... [And in the end, when we see Jesus face-to-face] we will see that God has indeed done all that he pleased and has done it all perfectly, both for his glory and our good..."
But don't worry, because as my ex-pastor said in his September 13, 2020 sermon on God being in control: "[The doctrine of God's providence] is a huge source of comfort to the people of God because it is a regular reminder that whatever's going on in our lives, even if it's painful, it is being directed by an all-knowing, good and loving and wise heavenly Father, who does everything for His children out of His love."
"It is a true pastoral story, summarized here:
The crying couple is in the Reformed (Calvinist) pastor’s office. She is weeping that the husband has been cheating with her sister for years. The husband confesses. The pastor says it is not good.
The husband tells the pastor that he (the pastor) has been teaching for years on the (Calvinistic) 'sovereign will of God.' God decrees/ordains/wills all things that happen.
The reformed pastor tries, in the midst of the sobbing, to explained that it was not God’s 'will of command,' even though, it must have been, hmmm, curiously enough, God’s 'ordained decree' (a bumpy few sessions, as you can imagine, with the husband reminding the pastor of previous messages).
For a Calvinist, all that has happened and will happen is directly ordained and decreed by God. As long as one holds to that position, then ultimately all sin and misery are directly the responsibility of God. Of course for 'His glory' and 'your own good' (what a thoughtful husband to do all that for his wife’s ultimate good!)."
Only go to a Calvinist pastor for counseling and comfort about your traumas if you want to come out the other end as a Christian who distrusts or hates God or an atheist who wants nothing to do with God.
*********************************************
God's Will:
Once again, in Calvinism, God's sovereignty and providence means that He preplans, controls, determines, causes everything, even our decisions, evils, sins, and unbelief. In Calvinism, everything that happens is God's Will, including abuse and affairs and violence. As R.C. Sproul Jr. says (Almighty Over All): “God wills all things that come to pass..."
But along with misunderstanding sovereignty and providence, Calvinists misunderstand the concept of "God's Will." They think that, just like sovereignty and providence, it's about God wanting, preplanning, causing everything that happens. They assume that God's Will always happens, that He always gets what He wants, and so, therefore, everything that happens is "His Will," what He wanted and planned and caused.
But they are wrong. According to Strong's Concordance/HELPS Word-studies, "God's Will" - especially in verses talking about what He wants for us and from us - is about His “desire/preferred Will; His 'best offer' to people which can be accepted or rejected; the result hoped for with the particular desire/wish.”
So when it comes to our lives, it's not about a pre-set plan that must happen. It's not that whatever happens in our lives - abuse, affairs, disease, divorce, etc. - is "His Will."
No. God tells us in His Word what His Will is for us - how He wants us to live, what He desires for us and from us, the path He prefers we take - but He lets us decide to obey Him or not, to follow Him in His Will or not. And because we can disobey and resist His preference (and because demons and natural processes, or a breakdown in natural processes, can affect things too), His Will doesn't always get done, and not everything that happens is His Will.
And yet, whatever happens and whatever we choose, He can still find ways to weave it into His plans or to get something good out of it. He doesn't have to meticulously predetermine/cause every step, every microscopic detail, in order to work His overarching plans out. He is big enough and wise enough and powerful enough to allow people to make real choices - even choices He doesn't want, choices that disobey His Will - and yet still work it together for good, for His purposes.
Unlike Calvi-god who must preplan/control/cause every tiny detail... or else he would fall apart. The only way Calvi-god's plans can work out is if he himself meticulously controls it all, allowing for no other factors but himself to influence or affect anything. But it's a tiny, unsovereign, unpowerful god who can be undone by one rogue piece of dust!
Non-Calvinism's "God causes all things to work together, even things He didn't plan or cause, to accomplish His overarching plans" is far different than Calvinism's "God preplans, causes, and controls all things."
Can you hear the difference?
A Calvinist once asked this question on a post at Soteriology 101 (can't remember which post): “If God destines something to an end or permits it and sustains it to the same end, what is the difference?” What he's asking is "What's the difference between God causing something or God simply letting it happen?" But Calvinists don't ask this because they really want to know the difference. They ask it rhetorically, as in "There is no difference because it doesn't change what happened."
What’s the difference between a God who genuinely offers salvation to all people, but who lets us make our own choice about if we want Him in our lives or not, and allows us to face the consequences of our choice … and a God who predestines our eternities and choices, who causes unbelievers to be unbelievers, who never gives unbelievers a chance to seek/find Him or to find salvation, and who then punishes unbelievers in hell for being the unbelievers He caused them to be?
If you can’t see a difference, what does that say about your view of God and the Gospel? Either that, or you’re just not thinking about it carefully enough."
As I've said before: If you can't see the damage Calvinism does to the gospel, God's truth, and God's character, then you either don't really understand Calvinism or you don't really understand the Bible.
I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to say it.
[I'm interrupting this post to share this brilliant 4-minute video: Hitler and Calvinism. Awesome!]
And secondly, Calvinism's "predestination":
Because Calvinists define sovereignty the way they do, they believe that God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, that He makes our decision for us. Calvi-god predestines the elect to heaven and the non-elect to hell. Calvi-god gives the elect the faith to believe in him, but he makes sure that the reprobates can never believe in him because he predetermined that they'd go to hell for his glory, and so Calvi-Jesus never died for them anyway.
In Calvinism, God's love, the gospel, salvation, and Jesus's death are only for the elect, for those chosen for heaven by God before time began!
In their own words (Skip these quotes if you don't need it proven to you, especially since I've already shared them in other posts. If you want, skip right to "The Bible's Teaching on Predestination" after the quotes. But seriously, they're so incredible that they're worth reading again... and again... and again... until you vomit.):
John MacArthur (Doctrine of Election, part 1): "And I have often said, if you believe the Bible, you believe in predestination. If you believe the Bible, you believe in God choosing who would be saved.... Don’t you dare question God. God’s the potter, you’re the clay. The clay is so far beneath the potter. It is inanimate dirt. It has no right to even entertain the idea of speaking to the potter.... [God] makes every decision that’s ever been made, essentially, about everything.... He is the decider and determiner of every person’s destiny, and the controller of every detail of every individual’s life... It was set in his predetermined plan and foreknowledge. That is to predetermine, to foreknow, is not simply to have information about what’s going to happen, but to predetermine it. So we understand, then, that the Bible is very clear on the doctrine of election." [Uhh, yeah, it's so "very clear" that Calvinist theologians have to write hundreds and hundreds of pages to explain it in their quasi-sufficient superficially-biblical way, and the average Calvinist has to spend months and months studying the massive, convoluted Calvinist literature to try to understand it. And even then, when their bad theology paints them into a corner, they always have to fall back on "It's a mystery" and "Who are you, O man, to question God?" As if those are real answers to the contradictions Calvinism creates.😕]
A.W. Pink ("The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation"): "[God] decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved--to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire! ... From [the human race] God purposed to save a few as the monuments of His sovereign grace; the others He determined to destroy as the exemplification of His justice and severity..."
J.I. Packer ("Predestination: God has a purpose"): "... predestination means specifically God’s decision, made in eternity before the world and its inhabitants existed, regarding the final destiny of individual sinners... God’s choice of particular sinners for salvation and eternal life... [and] an advance decision [of God's] about those who finally are not saved...
John Calvin (Institutes, book 3, chapter 23): "Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children... individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.... The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he so ordained by his decree."
My ex-pastor in June 2015: "God, in His love and compassion, sent [Jesus to die on the cross]...out of love for His sheep." ["His sheep" is Calvinist-lingo for "the elect." Therefore, "Jesus died only for the elect."]
My ex-pastor on December 8, 2024: "There is hope because once the believer places his trust in Christ [Hmm? So they're "believers" before they trust in Christ? So only "believers" can trust in Christ? Yes, in Calvinism, that would be "the elect, those already saved before the beginning of time."], Christ's perfect moral record is charged to, credited to, imputed to my account. That is why Christ first lived for the believer, and then died for the believer, and was resurrected for the believer!" [I bet most people who aren't aware of his brand of theology will miss the fact that he means "for only the believer (the elect)!" He said it exactly as he meant it, that Jesus is only for the elect believers!]
My ex-pastor on October 12, 2014: "The Bible is very clear. God loves mankind. God loves people. God loves peoples. But He doesn't love all people and He doesn't love all people alike. He puts His affections on some and not others... Before we leave the topic of election*, of predestination, the Bible says not only does it apply to peoples, to ethnic groups, but it also applies to people, individuals. God loves people, but He does not love all people alike. The Bible is very clear. Some sinners are elect unto salvation, some are not."
[*FYI, Dr. Tony Evans defines "election" not as "God predetermines who goes to heaven or hell" (as Calvinists do), but as this way, in his commentary on page 15: "The sovereign prerogative of God to choose individuals, families, groups, and nations to serve his kingdom purposes as he so wills. Election is specifically related to service, usefulness, and blessings - not individual salvation. Jesus died for all human beings without exception and desires for all to be saved." I couldn't agree more!]
R.C. Sproul (Limited Atonement): "Did God simply send Christ to the cross to make salvation possible, or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which, according to the riches of His grace and His eternal election, He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people?... God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect. And even though Christ’s death is valuable enough to meet the needs of everybody, there was a special and unique sense in which He died for His sheep. He laid down His life for those whom the Father had given Him." [Translation: "Even though Jesus's death was valuable enough to cover everyone's sins, He died only for the elect, to save only the elect."]
John Piper (What we believe about the five points of Calvinism): "The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all humans and effective for those who trust him. It is not limited in its worth or sufficiency to save all who believe. But the full, saving effectiveness of the atonement that Jesus accomplished is limited to those for whom that saving effect was prepared." [Translation: "Even though Jesus's death was valuable enough to cover everyone's sins, He died only for the elect, to save only the elect."]
A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election): "It is to call the elect that the Scriptures are given, that ministers are sent, that the gospel is preached, and the Holy Spirit is here... the preaching of the gospel is the appointed instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit whereby the elect are brought to Christ... The gospel, then, is God's great winnowing fan, separating the wheat from the chaff. ["The gospel is only for the elect."] ... it is unmistakably evident that the 'all men' God wills to be saved and for whom Christ died are all men without regard to national distinctions." ["Jesus died only for the elect from all nations."]
Jarvis Williams (Desiring God, "For Whom Did Christ Die?"): "... many interpreters assert that Jesus died for the entire world, and not for a predestined number of people... But what does the term 'world' mean when used in association with Jesus’s death? Does it refer to everyone without distinction or to everyone without exception? There is a difference. Everyone without distinction would mean that Jesus died for all kinds of people from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. Everyone without exception would mean that he died for every single individual person without any exception.... I believe the Scripture teaches that Jesus died for all people in the world without distinction — meaning, Jesus died for all kinds of people from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. And he died not only to give a bona fide offer of salvation to all but to actually purchase and effect the final salvation of his elect. [So Calvi-Jesus bought salvation only for the elect, but it's still a "bona fide offer" to all people? Hogwash! Deceptive nonsense and hogwash!]... The verbal proclamation of the gospel makes known to the elect the salvation accomplished by Christ for them ["The gospel, Jesus's death, and salvation are only for the elect!"]..."
From a Heidelberg Theological Seminary article called "The Doctrine of Limited Atonement..." (quoting Rev. Paul Trieck's book Faith of our Fathers, Living Still: Study of the Five Points of Calvinism): "While the messenger of Christ may never say to all men indiscriminately, 'Smile, God loves you' or 'Christ died for you,' yet he must say that Christ died for the sins of His people and all men are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus Christ... It is precisely through this preaching of the gospel that God has determined to save His elect for whom Christ died.... God will also use the preaching of the gospel to condemn those who reject it and continue in their unbelief ["by His decree"].... The decree of election determines for whom Christ would lay down his life... It may sound like a nice way to approach all men and say 'Christ died for you, now you must choose Him,' but it is not true, and does grave injustice to the intent of Christ on the cross.... It should be remembered the purpose of preaching the gospel is two-fold. It is a message of salvation to all who believe, and a message of condemnation to all who reject it. But all men need to hear it..."
So the purpose of the Calvinist gospel is partly to condemn the non-elect (because God wants them in hell for His glory)!?!
[And yet John 3:17 says "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
And John 12:47 says "... For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it."
And John 20:31 says “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
And Ezekiel 33:11 says: "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..."
And 2 Peter 3:9 says: "... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
As Dr. Evans says in his commentary on John 12:32-33: "The cross drew all judgment for all people to Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world (1 John 2:2). The death of Christ saved all humankind from the consequences of original sin (Romans 5:18) and made all people savable for their personal sin when they place personal faith in him. This is why we are to share the gospel with everyone in the world."
Calvinism and non-Calvinism have totally different purposes for the gospel. Totally different gospels. Totally different Gods.
{FYI: Calvinists think that faith is something God must inject into a person - the elect - so that they can believe. They think faith (salvation, being born again) comes before - and results in - belief in Jesus. (Hmm, faith before belief in Jesus? Faith without belief in Jesus. Faith without Jesus.😲) And so since only the Calvinist elect can and will believe in Jesus, only the Calvinist elect can and will get faith. This is why they say "How can we believe in Jesus if we don't have faith? We need faith to believe in Jesus." Well, I think that faith is our belief in Jesus, that we have faith when we choose to put our trust in Him as our Lord and Savior. And anyone can.}]
Well, the only answer to the question that makes any real sense [so he uses his own reasoning to get these conclusions, not Scripture!] is that Jesus Christ died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe, so that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one that can be disregarded... the atonement is limited. And by 'atonement' I mean the sacrifice of Christ, by which He paid the penalty for sin. The atonement is limited... I don’t mind believing God can limit the atonement. God does limit the atonement... I don’t have any problem at all saying the atonement is limited.
It’s limited to those who believe. And I have no problem saying and those who believe are those whom God grants faith. And therefore, the atonement is limited because God limited it. I’m much more comfortable with that than that sinners can limit the atonement that Christ has provided, or that the atonement that Christ has provided is wasted on the vast majority of people. [Just say it, Johnny: "Jesus died only for the elect. And that's fine by me."]... I just can’t bring myself to believe that hell is full of millions of people whose sins were paid for in full by Christ on the cross... Well, I’ll tell you what. I don’t feel very special if you say to me, 'Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell.' That doesn’t make me feel very special."
[It's very revealing in this article when MacArthur says, "I didn’t invent this. This doctrine [of limited atonement] goes way back, back to the Reformation, back to John Owen, and even back to Charles Spurgeon." Notice that MacArthur didn't say "back to the Bible." But he said to Charles Spurgeon! From the 1800's!?! (And what's that phrase again that Calvinists love to use to describe their theology: "Sola Scriptura"? Scripture alone? Bogus.)]
John MacArthur (2010 Shepherd's conference, see in the first video here, starting at the 8:20-minute mark), about why Calvinists should evangelize if God's already elected who would be saved: "I will not resolve the problem of the lost other than to do what the Scripture tells me to do... and that is that the Bible affirms to me that God loves the world, the specific people in the world, the specific human beings. ["Only the elect."] I don't know who they are. Spurgeon said 'if you'll pull up their shirts and show me an 'E" stamped on their back and I know the elect, then I'll limit my work to them.' ["The gospel is only for the elect."] But since there is no such stamp, I am committed to obey the command to preach the gospel to every creature... But I don't think ["But in my opinion, according to me, I don't think..."] it's a good solution to diminish the nature of the atonement and have Jesus dying for everybody..."
[Methinks someone thinks too highly of his own opinions!]
Paul Washer (from the second video here, from Discerning the World): "You know that wonderful statement that goes something like this: 'God loves the sinner and hates the sin'?... That's not [what Scripture] teaches, sorry... It does not say here that God's hatred is manifested towards the wicked deed. It says that God's hatred is manifested towards the one who commits the deed... [So] how can anyone be saved? Here's our answer: the cross of Jesus Christ... [Christ] died the death of His people..." ["His people" is Calvinist-lingo for "the elect." So Jesus died only for the elect, and God hates everyone else. In Calvinism.]
Steven Lawson ("Salvation is of the Lord"): "As a sin-bearing sacrifice, Jesus died a substitutionary death in the place of God’s elect. On the cross, He propitiated the righteous anger of God toward the elect.... Jesus’ death did not merely make all mankind potentially savable. Nor did His death simply achieve a hypothetical benefit that may or may not be accepted. Neither did His death merely make all mankind redeemable. Instead, Jesus actually redeemed a specific people through His death, securing and guaranteeing their salvation. Not a drop of Jesus’ blood was shed in vain. He truly saved all for whom He died... With oneness of purpose, the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world to apply this salvation to those chosen and redeemed." ["Jesus and the gospel are only for the elect."]
Arthur Pink (The Sovereignty of God): "Faith is God's gift, and 'all men have not faith' (2 Thess. 3:2); therefore, we see that God does not bestow this gift upon all. [See this post to learn how faith is not the gift, but eternal life is, a gift that can be accepted or rejected.] Upon whom then does He bestow this saving favor? And we answer, upon His own elect- … Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating grace… When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody…" [Translation: "God does not love the non-elect but only the elect."]
Rev. Angus Stewart, Covenant Protestant Reformed Church ("Does God really desire to save the reprobate?"): "Election, briefly stated, is God’s eternal, unconditional choice of some fallen sinners unto eternal life in Jesus Christ. Reprobation is God’s eternal rejection of others. God chose not to save them but to punish them in the way of their sins. This too is an unconditional choice of God before He formed the world.... It was pleasing and good to God that some people would have the gospel hidden from them, even though they heard it preached...
So then, does God love everybody, including the reprobate, those whom He has chosen not to save? Does God desire to save everybody? Does God have a wonderful plan for everybody’s life?
God does love all His elect people... God does desire to save the elect... God does have a wonderful plan for the lives of all of His elect people...
If these questions, though, are applied to the reprobate, the answer to all of them is 'No.' God does not love them... All who are reprobated, God hates. God does not desire to save them... They are cursed in their unbelief and rebellion both in this world and in the world to come. They perish forever and ever in hell. This is not a wonderful plan for them. In God’s purpose it brings glory to Him. It magnifies His justice. But for them it is not a wonderful plan. He does not have a wonderful plan for the reprobate...
God judged that it was good not to save these people but to punish them for their sins... It was a sovereign choice of His, and it pleased Him. To say it pleased God means that God desired to do it; that is what He willed and wished and wanted to do."
Vincent Cheung ("The Problem of Evil"): "One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity... Christians should have no trouble affirming [that God creates people for hell for His glory], 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.” [Translation: "If you don't agree with me about predestination, you're probably not even a Christian." And don't fall for words like "explicitly." It's only "explicit" when you let Calvinists train you to see Calvinism in the Bible. And for the record, it's God who thought highly of humanity, more than we could ever deserve - highly enough that Jesus would give His life for us. And since an object is only worth the price someone will pay for it, when Calvinists lower the value of humans, they lower the value of Jesus's life, death, and sacrifice, which lowers God's glory.]
Robert Morey from the "Does God love everyone?" video: “There are those whom God loves and there are those whom God hates. Obviously, hello!... I submit to what the Bible teaches, and the Bible teaches Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, there are two classes of people and that’s the way it is. [Jacob and Esau isn't even about God choosing which individuals to save, but about God choosing Israel for a special role, to bring Jesus and the gospel to the world.] If you’re not happy with biblical teaching… fine… go out and find your own religion. Leave the Christian church and go into the Unitarian of the new age. Stop cluttering up the pews. We who remain will be in revival the moment you hit the door - because the greatest hinderance to revival and reformation are the deadbeat unregenerate humanists who clutter up the church, shouldn’t be here because you don’t submit to the Scripture. Shouldn’t be here.” [Seriously one creepy dude! You could make a Halloween mask of him, and it would sell big.]
Rejoice in hell (you can skip these too, if you want):
Some Calvinists will even go so far as to tell us that we should delight in the "reprobation" of people, in the fact that God predestines people to hell. And I'm not making this up. In their own words:
Matthew McMahon (The Two Wills of God, pg 349): "The saints should delight in the reprobation of the wicked... We come to understand and praise God concerning the damnation of other people. We understand that we could have been what they are. We contemplate their eternal destiny, and bow before the throne to praise the Creator and the Father we have. How awesome is that grace which He bestowed upon us in His Son!"
Paul Washer (“The Gospel is only Good News to a needy man”): “If you reject Christ, then the moment when you take your first step through the gates of hell, the only thing you will hear is all of creation standing to its feet and applauding and praising God because God has rid the earth of you. That’s how not good you are."
[And yet Luke 15:10 says that angels rejoice when even one person is saved. And Ez. 18:23 says that God Himself does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that He'd rather they turn from their evil ways and be saved. But apparently Calvinists think that everything and everyone should - and will - take pleasure in the death and destruction of the non-elect. That's sick.]
Greg Morse ("What does hell say about God?", Desiring God): "Hell, like all of creation, tells of the glory of God... The Almighty is not embarrassed by it... He shows his wrath and makes known his power. Why? In order to communicate the full riches of his glory to his children. [Lucky us!]... Heaven will not be heaven, in God's perfect plan, without the reminder of God's righteous condemnation [uhh, sure, if you can call it "righteous" for Calvi-god to condemn people whom he created to be wicked unbelievers with no ability to change!?!]... We will be sobered. We will be amazed. We will be thankful for God's mercy to us. ["We will be horrified into praising Him, terrified of what He might do to us if we don't, seeing as how he treated the non-elect."]"
Robert Murray M'cheyne, Monergism, "Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" [from a sermon preached in 1843, talking up the "good" reasons for the damnation of the non-elect]: "All will not be saved... Some of you, I think, are going to hell, and some, I trust, are going to heaven; and doubtless it is best it should be so, though I cannot explain the reason of it... Every one of you will be to the glory of God. You will be made to glorify him in one way or another... either a beacon of wrath or a monument of mercy... the chief end of God in the world to manifest his glory... self-manifestation... This seems to be the reason why there are vessels of wrath as well as of mercy - that they might be mirrors to reflect his attributes... Last of all, the destruction of the vessels of wrath will be no grief to the vessels of mercy. I once spoke to you of this before; but I would again remind you of it. The redeemed will have no tears to shed; and here is the reason - the very destruction of the wicked makes known the riches of divine grace..."
[For the record, Calvinists misunderstand the "vessels of destruction" verse, Romans 9:22: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” (The Calvinist ESV)
Hang in there, almost done...
Vincent Cheung (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.” [So instead of thinking "Hmm, a good, just, righteous God couldn’t predestine/cause unbelief and sin, so I should probably reevaluate my theological views to see if I'm misunderstanding Scripture and God's character," Calvinists unconsciously think "Well, since I believe a sovereign God must preplan/cause everything and since God is good, then it must mean that it’s good for Him to preplan/cause sin and unbelief." And then they shame us for disagreeing with them, as if we are calling God not good and not sovereign. But Calvinism's god and the God of the Bible are very different beings!]
Jim Hamilton, 9Marks ("How does hell glorify God?"): "Hell glorifies God. Do you object to this?... You are a creature in the Creator’s work of art. Accept it. He is the Creator, not you."
David Mathis, 9Marks ("Hallelujah over hell? How God's people rejoice while their enemies perish"): "Yet [in the end]... we will rejoice in his power on display in the destruction of the wicked [who were wicked by Calvi-god's decree]. Even now, we can shape our hearts to rejoice appropriately in those truths... Some Christians today may reluctantly think about hell, Well, God said it. I’ll believe it, but I don’t like it... While we might admirably profess to hold to God’s Word, our 'not liking it' is no evidence of maturity. In fact, it’s an expression of moral immaturity, if not error or sin. [What!?! So we're sinning and spiritually immature if we don't like the idea of hell!?! So good Calvinists take pleasure in the idea of hell? Well, I guess that makes sense that they'd see it this way because they are made in the image of their Calvi-god,*]... We want to mature in this by meditating on the happiness of God’s people not despite but because of God’s destruction of the wicked ["whom He predestined to be wicked"]... Divine judgments against the wicked are for you."
The Bible's teaching on predestination:
Just like "sovereign," Calvinists have a very different view of predestination (and of God's character and heart), far different than what the Bible teaches. And so when talking with a Calvinist - just like with "sovereign" - ask them to clearly, fully define "predestination," and then ask them to find that word defined that way in the Bible.
Predestination is definitely a biblical concept, but here's the thing: The word "predestination" only shows up 4 times in the King James, and it's never defined as God predetermining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
[If you pay attention, you'll see that Calvinist pastors first tell you how to define predestination - implanting their definition in your head - and then they lead you to verses that have the word "predestined" in it and go, "See! I'm right. The Bible teaches predestination, so you have to believe it." Always question Calvinist definitions and double-check verses they share with you (that anyone shares with you), to see what it says in context, especially when they're trying to get you to believe something you know sounds wrong.]
And according to the concordance, in the Greek "predestined" simply means that something is determined beforehand. But it doesn't say what was determined beforehand or how it was determined beforehand, nor is there any indication in the definition that it's talking about salvation or choosing people.
And so it is a huge error/deception (dare I say "a lie") to say, as my Calvinist pastor did, things like this:
"We in the West tend to have a problem with the idea that God can choose who to save and who not to save. We don't like it. But the Bible clearly teaches it. The Bible calls it 'the doctrine of election, the doctrine of predestination'." (This one is paraphrased, the rest are exact quotes.)
"Predestination comes up in a number of books [in the Bible]."
"Why is it that some believe and some don’t? This is not the first time Paul brought up the doctrine of election, sometimes called predestination."
"Predestination in the Greek pretty much means what it does in English. It means 'prechosen, preselected, elect ahead of time.'... It is an act of God in which - before time began, before creation - He chooses to have mercy on some sinners and not others. In other words, God is not an equal opportunity convicter."
"The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... Why is it that some sinners soften and repent and seek God, and others harden and rebel and have no interest in God?... Because God chooses to give some sinners saving faith and soften them, and God chooses to not give other sinners saving faith and to harden them... This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election."
"Before we leave the topic of election, of predestination, the Bible says not only does it apply to peoples, to ethnic groups, but it also applies to people, individuals. God loves people, but He does not love all people alike. The Bible is very clear. Some sinners are elect unto salvation, some are not."
"And here's where the doctrine of sovereign election comes in... God chooses to have mercy on some, and God chooses not to have mercy on others. He chooses to soften some and not others... [God] says 'I don't have mercy on all, I have mercy on some but not others.' Friends, the doctrine of election, of predestination, is designed to drive us to thanksgiving and worship. It's not designed to divide churches or be controversial. It's not controversial in many parts of the world. It is in the West where choice is everything. But in more traditional cultures, in tribal cultures, where decision-making is not an individual thing but a corporate thing, it's not nearly as offensive." [Well, hooray for the mob-mentality!]
“To be alive is often to be on a brand-new journey, for good or bad, difficult or not. The question is ‘Do we really believe our theology, that God is sovereign, that He controls every detail of the universe, that He knows the good from the bad, that He has ordained it in our lives.'… God is all-powerful. He knows exactly what He is doing. He’s sovereign and in control of every detail of the universe, including our destinies.”
"Elect" Israel
And furthermore, often the word "elect" has to do with Israel as a nation, His "elect" people, chosen to be the bloodline Jesus came from and to be the first to receive the gospel and to get the task, the honor, of spreading the gospel.
And so it's totally wrong for Calvinists to hijack those verses and apply them to specific sinners being "elected" for salvation, using them as "proof" that their doctrine of election/predestination is taught "all throughout the Bible, from beginning to end."
Israel was elected by God to be the bloodline that brings the Messiah and the gospel to the world. But they rejected Jesus and the gospel, and so God set them aside for a time and shifted His focus to the Gentiles instead, because they were willing to receive Jesus and the gospel.
This is what Romans 9 is all about! [See "When Calvinist say 'But Romans 9!'" for more on this.]
As Tony Evans' commentary says in the section on Romans 9:10-13: "God's election is not for personal, eternal salvation, but for blessing, service, and usefulness. Abraham was called not so that God would save him, but because God would use him to bless all the families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3). That line of blessing skipped over Isaac's older son Esau, even though he had not been born yet, passing to the younger, Jacob. Why? Not because they had 'done anything good or bad, but that God's purpose according to election might stand' (9:11). By withholding the blessing from Esau, God effectively 'hated Esau' (9:13) - not out of preference or from an emotional motivation, but in order to display his sovereignty in going against the cultural norms so that 'the older [would] serve the younger' (9:12). Paul clearly states that this election was about service, not eternal salvation. Jacob - not Esau - was chosen to be the Messiah's ancestor even though both were Abraham's descendants.... The concepts of love and hate refer to God's decision to bestow inheritance, blessings, and kingdom responsibility on Jacob's descendants rather than Esau's... God has the sovereign right to choose whom he will use to accomplish his kingdom purposes."
Romans 9 - election, Jacob and Esau - is not about personal salvation or damnation at all. It's about God's right to use different people for different purposes to further His kingdom plans.
And, of course, God had to pick one brother over the other - either Jacob or Esau - to be the bloodline for the Messiah because...
Predestination is about what God's promises for people after they believe (and anyone can believe), not about who becomes a believer and how. And election is about God choosing who to use in His plans for His purposes (which roles, responsibilities, blessings to give them), not about God choosing certain sinners to be saved.
Like with Romans 9:13-15 (Jacob vs. Esau, "there's no injustice," and "God has mercy on whom He wants"), Calvinists will also use Romans 9:18-22 to support Calvinist predestination and to shut up any opposition, to "prove" that God has the right to create some people for heaven and some for hell, and that it's okay for Him to do it:
"Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God. "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction?"
[I am so sick of hearing this taken out of context and used to manipulatively-shame people into Calvinism!* And all Calvinists do it because they misinterpret Romans 9. But once again, Romans 9 is not about Calvinist predestination. Romans 9 is about how God chooses to use people (specifically relating to the Jews vs. the Gentiles), not to save people. You must get Romans 9 correct or else you will become a Calvinist! Once again, see "When Calvinist say 'But Romans 9!'".]
Calvinists read Romans 9:18-22 and say "See, God hardens whom He wants to harden, His objects of wrath He prepares for destruction. God decides who goes to hell."
But as Tony Evan's commentary says about Romans 9:17-18: "Pharoah's actions prove a perfect picture of God's sovereign plan at work. God told Pharaoh 'I raised you up for this reason so that I may display my power...and so that my name may be proclaimed' (9:17). God, then, was the one raising up Pharoah. But he was also the one hardening Pharaoh's heart (9:18). Importantly, God does not harden the hearts of people until they reject him. It was only after Pharaoh hardened his own heart (see Exod. 7:22, 8:15,32) that God hardened it further (Exod. 9:12)... This hardening is not predestination to damnation; it's an expression of God's prerogative to choose whom he will use to serve his purposes and how he will use them (see Jer. 18:1-13). God punishes the wicked by using their wickedness to accomplish his purposes. God uses obedience and disobedience to accomplish his kingdom agenda while holding people responsible for their own decisions."
And about Romans 9:19-24: "All this 'hardening' talk isn't helping Paul's case. After all, if God is doing the hardening [my note: but remember that it's only in response to Pharaoh hardening his own heart first], 'Why then does he still find fault (9:19)?'... Paul's second response reminds us that our behavior still matters. The example of Pharoah is still fresh in his mind when Paul mentions 'objects of wrath' (9:22) and 'objects of mercy' (9:23). 'Wrath' refers to the present consequences of sin (as we've seen earlier in the writing of Paul), not to eternal destiny. And that wrath is tied to rejection or acceptance of the will of God. But whether God is acting in wrath or in mercy, he is accomplishing his plan. The big difference is in how we experience that plan - as willing sons and daughters, or as unwilling slaves."
What he's saying is that the "wrath" in this passage isn't even about our eternal destinies, about hell, but it's about whether or not people experience the wrathful consequences of sin on this earth, based on whether or not they obey God.
So although Calvinists use these verses - especially the "hardens" and "prepared for destruction" parts - to support their doctrine of election/predestination, those verses aren't about God predestining eternal salvation at all. They're about how we reap what we sow, how we influence the way God chooses to use us in His plans, based on how we choose to live.
In fact, Strong's concordance with Vine's Expository Dictionary says that "hardens" is a "retributive" hardening, that it's a punishment for first hardening our own hearts and for resisting God even though He's been patient and longsuffering with us.
And as I pointed out earlier, "prepared for destruction" is really "fitted for destruction," and the Greek word for “fitted” in this verse is about the people's destiny being tied to their character. And it's in the middle voice, meaning that the people fitted themselves to destruction by how they chose to be.
Paul is telling the Jews that they fit themselves for destruction by choosing to reject God's truth about Jesus and the gospel. It has nothing to do with God choosing who gets saved or not.
And not only that, but there are at least two other places in the Bible that talk about the potter and the clay or about vessels for noble or ignoble use - and neither have to do with God predestining people's eternal destinations. In fact, both show that God relates to us and uses us based on how we choose to be.
Jeremiah 18: God shows Jeremiah a potter who was shaping a pot, but the clay was marred (notice that the potter didn't mar the clay) and so he shaped it into a different pot that would better fit the clay's condition. Likewise, God says that He can plan something for people, but then He can change His plans for people based on what they do or don't do. It's about what kind of service we are fit for, about how God will use us, based on our self-chosen condition.
2 Timothy 2:20-21: Like Romans 9:21, this also talks about some vessels in a house being for noble purposes and some being for ignoble purposes. And it says "If a man cleanses himself from [being ignoble], he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy..." This shows that our decision about what type of person we are determines how God uses us. And if we want to be used for noble purposes, we must cleanse ourselves so that God can use us for great things. God doesn't determine what kind of person we are or what decisions we make, but He does determine how to use us and what roles/responsibilities to give us, based on how we choose to be.
This backs up the Bible's whole message that election is about service, about how we decide what kind of people we are and what decisions we make, and about how God chooses to use us in His plans according to our decisions. It's not about personal salvation or Calvinist predestination.
*"Who are you to talk back to God?"
When Calvinists get painted into a corner, usually by their own contradictions, they will always, always, always resort to some form of "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? He is sovereign, we are not. He is the Potter, and we are the clay. His ways are mysterious, and we can't figure Him out. We just have to live with the tension of not knowing, not understanding. What right do we have to question our sovereign God and His ways?"
My ex-pastor does it (from his August 16, 2015 sermon on predestination): “Why do some sinners believe and some don’t?... This is going to make people in Western culture where choice is supreme, it’s going to make us uneasy. Why do some rebellious, enslaved-to-sin sinners repent and others stay hardened? The answer from the Apostle Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit [Translation: "So if you disagree with me, you disagree with Paul, the Holy Spirit, the Bible."] is one phrase: Because of God’s sovereign predestination, His sovereign election.... God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. That’s a difficult verse in American culture. [It's only "difficult" because they misinterpret it. And this is manipulation, shaming, and gaslighting.]
... [But some people object and say] 'Doesn’t election make God look bad?' Honestly, a lot of our visceral reactions to this stuff are emotional reactions, based of family and friends who aren’t saved. [So the problem is our emotions, not his theology, right?]… But on the contrary, election does not make God look bad; it makes God look good. [Gaslighting: "Don't trust your assessment that predestining people to hell reflects badly on God."] In fact, election and even its opposite - hardening - both glorify God. God is equally glorified in the salvation of sinners as He is in the damnation of sinners. [Which should scare the crap out of Calvinists, not elicit their praise. And of course, he's implying that if we deny Calvinism's "doctrine of election," we're denying God His glory.]
... [About the “mystery” of God saying He wants all to be saved while simultaneously predestining people to hell] God is infinitely complex, and if God doesn’t give you a headache at times, you’re worshipping the wrong God. If you think you’ve got Him all figured out, you’re worshipping a God of your own imagination. [Translation: "So if you're struggling with and confused by what I'm teaching you - if it's making you doubt, dislike, or feel bad about God - then it's a sign that I'm teaching you truth." Wow! Tactics don't get much more cult-like than that!]… Election is designed not for theological debate. It is designed to drive God’s people to their knees in humble thanksgiving and praise to their Maker.
… So why does God still blame us if He elects some and not others? The answer from Paul is ‘Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?’… When we see God in His glory in election and predestination, it’s actually a God-entrenched theology that exalts who God is and makes God the center of the universe and not us.... One of the best books to recommend to you about this is Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul." [Of course! As always, ending with a recommendation of a Calvinist book!]
Context kills Calvinism!
Neither predestination nor election (nor Romans 9!) - when read in context - support Calvinism.
But as I've said before: Calvinism and context cannot coexist!
God doesn't decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but He does decide what happens to anyone who believes (and He lets us decide whether or not to believe). And He does decide how to use people's decisions in His plans, which roles or jobs or positions He gives them, based on what they do or don't do, on their decision to be obedient or disobedient. And whether we are obedient or disobedient determines whether we bring wrath or blessings on ourselves.
From February 2015: "The Bible's teaching on our human condition especially outside of Christ [is that we are] hopelessly blinded and in slavery to sin unless God graciously opens human sinful eyes and summons them to Himself as Lord... That's the gospel: That there is a God who seeks hardened sinners, pursues them, turns them around, drags them to Himself, blesses them, pardons them, and justifies them."
As Charles Spurgeon so boldly put it: "Calvinism is the gospel." "And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace...nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people..." [Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. I (Baker Books, reprinted 2007), 88-89.]
Silly me, but I thought the gospel was "good news" for all people. I thought the gospel was "For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son (to die on the cross for our sins and then rise again), that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."
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,".
Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 3:23-24: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ."
Romans 10:9,13: "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... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
John 3:16: "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."
But not in Calvinism where "Calvinism is the gospel," where their doctrine of election/predestination is the gospel (and where people are saved by election, not by faith in Jesus)!
[If someone can't even get the simple gospel right then they have no business being a pastor. And I don't care whatever else they do get right. If they get the gospel (and God's character) wrong - the most important part of Christianity - then it doesn't really matter that they get some minor, secondary things right. Like Paul said, "of first importance." If Calvinists cannot understand the "first important" message, then they should be disqualified from teaching God's Word.]
Calvinism's "gospel" is only good news for the elect. But the Bible's gospel is good news for all people: God loves all people and Christ died for all our sins so that anyone can believe in Him and be saved.
Luke 2:10: "But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people."
Romans 11:32: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
2 Peter 3:9: "... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
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..."
This is telling! He's basically saying that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly and obviously taught in any place in Scripture, that it has to be scraped together in bits and pieces, and that we would have a hard time finding it without the help of a Calvinist teacher systematically leading us through the Bible. So Calvinists confirm that it takes a highly educated "expert" to teach these things, because the average common Christian cannot understand them or learn them or even find them in the Bible on their own.
Calvinism is not clearly, explicitly, or easily found in the Bible anywhere, and so we have to be educated into it by Calvinists. And they know it, which is why they don't want us reading the Bible without their input, their guidance.
As my ex-pastor once wrote in a blog post (paraphrase) "It's dangerous to read the Bible on your own, without the help of theologians helping you interpret Scripture."
And as a "church reform" article from Founders Ministry says: "The third principle of reforming a local church involves both the demolition of misguided theological notions and the laying of a biblical foundation anchored by the doctrines of grace."
Translation: "Replace all other theological views with Calvinism," which the the introduction to the plan calls "biblical Christianity...foundational to a God-centered theology... the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity." [Never trust a Calvinist pastor who says that Calvinism is a secondary, back-burner issue. That's just to shut you up and gain your trust so that they can stealthily spread their Calvinism without resistance or alarm.]
The 9Marks' article Build Fences Around Your Flock even emphasizes the importance of indoctrinating prospective members into Calvinism before letting them join: "One of the first questions we ask each prospective member is: 'What is the gospel?' We want to make sure every member understands the gospel. If it becomes clear they don't understand it, we immediately pause the interview and move the candidate into a class called 'Christianity Explained'."
And that class - surprise, surprise - uses a book by Calvinist Mark Dever, head of 9Marks, to teach the Calvinist version of Christianity and the gospel. Because, as the article warns, "our sheep aren't safe if we've allowed false teachers [those who don't hold to Calvinism] to slip in among them."
Shouldn't it alarm us that, according to Calvinists, none of us can really understand the Bible or the gospel until we've gone through months of study with them and their Calvinist literature? And isn't it rather revealing that Calvinists themselves don't think we can easily find Calvinism in the Bible on our own?
Is God's Word, the gospel, meant to be so unclear, so painfully difficult to read and understand that we couldn't figure it out until Augustine and John Calvin came along? (Or is it only that way because of the damage Calvinism does to it?)
And yet what does God's Word say? 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."
Not "But these are written so that Calvinists can take you through months of studying it alongside big, complicated Calvinist books so that you can figure out what God really meant to say, so that you may believe - if you are one of the elect."
Much different!
