John Calvin: Master Manipulator
This is point #5 from "Problems in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion":
Calvin manipulates people into agreeing with him in subtle ways: reminding us of how small our minds are, how incapable we are of comprehending God and how God works (after, of course, teaching us all about his own grand, inspired ideas of who God is and how God works), and telling us that if we resist believing what he says, it's because we are rebellious or small-minded.
Calvinists do this same kind of thing today. They get you to agree with them (or at least to shut up if you disagree) by convincing you that you simply don't - can't - understand what the Bible really says and so you just have to trust them, that you are questioning God if you question them, that you are being proud and unhumble if you disagree with them, etc. (See "Predestination Manipulation" and "What's The Best Way To Make People Agree With Your Calvinist Views" and "Why Is It So Hard For Calvinists To Get Free From Calvinism?")
When you read Calvin's writing, pay attention to the ways he manipulates people into agreeing with him (by making them feel smart and humble if they do) and into not disagreeing with him (by making them feel unhumble and unintelligent if they disagree).
Notice words and phrases such as (the red words are his words, but I paraphrased his points to make them more understandable) ...
1. Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 1: "For although all do not reason so accurately..." Calvin is saying that not everyone is as accurate as he is, that he is accurate when he assumes that "God created the heavens" means that God controls all details, even people. Calvin says that the writer of Psalm 33 (he says it's David) had "good reason" and "admirable order" to make the connection that "God created the heavens" also means "God controls all men." (Yet the Psalm doesn't imply what Calvin says it does!) He goes on to say that there are those who fail to "reach the height" of David, by failing to see the connection between "creating" and "controlling," that they are "far from having a serious apprehension of the grace which [David] commends."
Basically, Calvin makes us feel like if we agree with him, then we are thinking accurately, have good reason, and are admirable ... and if we don't agree, then we are not as intelligent as he is and cannot understand grace like Calvin and David do.
It shames you and manipulates you into seeing things the way Calvin does because ... who wants to sound unintelligent and like we just don't get it?
If Calvin's theology was accurate then, yes, we would be wise to accept it. It would be humble of us to submit to it. But Calvin's theology is more about his assumptions, about twisting the Bible to support his assumptions. And, therefore, his attempts to convince us that "humble, intelligent people will agree with him" simply come across as manipulative, trying to force us to accept a view that isn't supported by the Bible.
2. Chapter 16, Section 2: If we have "learned from the mouth of Christ" then we will conclude, like Calvin, that all events are governed by the secret counsel of God (predetermined/caused/controlled by God).
Who's going to say they don't believe that God controls all events if Calvin makes it sound like only those who believe it have "learned from the mouth of Christ"? We all want to sound like we "learned from the mouth of Christ," and so we will be shamed into agreeing with him.
If we don't know any better about what Scripture really teaches, then we will agree with Calvin just so we can look like we learned from Christ too.
Calvinists today do this with "Calvinism is what the Bible teaches. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it ... or else you'll be disagreeing with God." They paint anyone who disagrees with them as unhumble Christians who are opposing God's Word. And so who is ever going to oppose them and risk looking like they are fighting against God? We are shamed into agreeing with them. Or at least into keeping quiet so that we don't look like we are disagreeing with God.
3. Chapter 16, Section 3: It is "insipid" to say that God is just the originator of all things, and not the controller of all things. It's "childish cavil" (a childish, petty objection) to simply believe that God started everything in motion but isn't tightly controlling/causing all details. We "defraud God of His glory" if we do not think God causes all thing.
Well, of course we are going to believe what Calvin says ... if disagreeing with him makes us look "insipid and childish and like we are robbing God of glory"!
People are so easily manipulated into submission if you just paint a very unflattering picture of those who oppose you!
Calvinists do this today with "God deserves all the glory, right! Everything He does is for His glory, right! So whatever He causes - all the tragedies, all the sins, all the unbelievers He puts in hell - is for His glory, right!"
Once again I ask, who is going to argue with God's right to get glory? So if they tell us that God causes everything for His glory, then we will simply nod our heads in agreement so we don't look like we oppose God's right to get glory.
But ... what if they are wrongly representing God and how God acts and who is actually responsible for what happens, for our sins and our unbelief and for tragedies?
But we don't stop to question them because they've already painted those who disagree as unhumble, resistant, unintelligent Christians who are not being true to Scripture or bringing God glory!
Calvinism is all about the manipulation! It has to be ... because it doesn't hold up against the truth of Scripture. If you study Scripture alone, apart from Calvinist theologians telling you what to think, Calvinism falls apart. So they have to keep you from looking at it all too closely.
It's like a cult or a false religion that shames you into submission, that manipulates your desire to honor God to get you to agree with them, that keeps you from looking at it all too closely by telling you that you can't understand Scriptural Truth without their interpretations and their understanding of God's "secret wisdom."
IT'S HOGWASH!
(When you hear "Calvinism" from now on, I want you to think of one word: Hogwash! And if you're feeling a bit spicy, you can add the "frickin'" if you want to. It's frickin' hogwash!)
4. Chapter 18, Section 3: "As I have hirtherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously stated in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God... Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine."
Okay, first of all, I am a bit confused about the "hesitate not to stigmatise" part, but from what I gather from the rest of this ... Calvin is saying that those who disagree with his view of God's all-controlling micromanaging are going against
Yep ... who is going to disagree with him when this is how he paints those who disagree with him?
Way to ensure that no one will disagree with you, Calvin! Way to discredit anyone who does!
For the record, I have no problem with God's authority. I am not speaking against God's authority. But I do have a problem with Calvinism's view of God's authority. And there's a big difference!
[And regarding Calvin's question of "what greater arrogance can be imagined" ...
... hmm, let me imagine for a moment ...
I imagine that a "greater arrogance" would be acting like you have the right to alter God's character and the truth about Jesus's sacrifice and God's saving grace and His love for all men, to decide for yourself that God doesn't love all men enough to die for them, that He predestines people to hell for His glory and pleasure, that He causes evil and sin and unbelief but then punishes us for it, and that He doesn't give people a choice about Him ... when SCRIPTURE CLEARLY TEACHES THE OPPOSITE! And then to go out and spread your heresy among men, convincing them that your Calvinism is the Gospel, manipulating them into spreading your heresy as truth.
I would think that would be a much "greater arrogance" than saying that God doesn't cause/control everything that happens because He has chosen not to, that He has decided to give men a certain degree of free-will and influence and responsibility in this world, and that He is righteous and just when He holds us accountable for our choices - a view that is supported by Scripture and upholds God's revealed character.
But I'm just thinking out loud here. But I guess we'll find out for sure later when we stand before God and have to explain how we handled His Truth, what we said about Him, what we taught others about Him and His love and His grace and His sacrifice.]
5. Chapter 17, Section 1: "Such is the proneness of the human mind to indulge in vain subtleties ..." Basically, he is saying that we foolishly get caught up in "vain subtleties" (pridefully entertaining nonsense and insignificant ideas) if we contemplate the doubts we have about "God causes/controls/ordains all things," if we explore the inconsistencies of it and the unreasonableness of it.
But if we have "sedate and quiet minds" (like a humble, good, obedient Calvinist) then we would understand it.
In section 2, he basically says that we commit blasphemy if we "refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God" (that God controls/causes everything).
Yes, we need to believe that God is over all things, that He holds all things in His hands, that nothing happens without His knowledge and permission. But this is far different from Calvin's belief that God causes all things.
And which is more blasphemous: To say that God has decided to allow people to make choices ... or to say that God causes evil and sin and yet punishes people for it? To say that God allows us to either choose Him or reject Him, so that if we end up in hell it's by our own decision to reject Him ... or to say that God Himself predestines who goes to hell, that Jesus didn't die for the unelect, and that there's nothing they can do about it?
In section 4, Calvin says that Solomon "derides the stupidity of those who presume to undertake anything without God, as if they were not ruled by his hand..." He's saying that Solomon calls us stupid if we believe that we make any decisions on our own, that we are not fully controlled by God.
Once again, who is going to disagree with Calvin when he calls it "blasphemy" and "stupidity"?
Also in section 2: "Therefore, since God claims for himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things..."
Basically, God rules all, controls all, causes all ... and we would be modest and sober (humble and wise) to accept that!
Calvinists do this today with "You don't have to understand it; you just have to accept it. Humble people have no trouble accepting that God predestines and causes everything, even sin and unbelief. We don't have to like it or understand it; we just have to accept it. Because it's what God says." They stop you from looking too closely at Calvinism and from questioning its illogical issues and contradictions by telling you to just accept it, like a good humble Christian.
Shaming! Manipulation! Hogwash!
(Again, I remind you that God gave Adam and Eve a certain amount of control and dominion over His creation. He voluntarily limited Himself and His use of power. And now, He often works in conjunction with and in response to men. But when Adam and Eve fell, they gave Satan some of that power and authority, which is why Jesus calls him the prince - the ruler - of the earth (John 14:30).
So ... No, Calvin ... God alone is not the cause of all things because God Himself decided to not be the cause of all things, the controller of all things. He chose to give some power and control and authority to men, and we gave it to Satan. So, biblically, there are other factors at work. Although, as I've said, it all operates under the sovereign and watchful eye of God, and He will work it all into His plans and into something good.)
When I first started reading Calvin's Institutes, I thought maybe I'd learn that today's Calvinists are nothing like him, like maybe he taught something completely different from what they believe today, that I was being unfair to pin Calvin's blunders on today's Calvinists.
But the more I read, the more I realize that they are just like him, in beliefs, in prideful smug attitude, in manipulative tactics, etc. (I am talking more about the dogmatic Calvinists. But there are many good, humble Calvinists out there, ones who are just trying to live their faith as best they know how, to honor God. But I think their problem is that they let dogmatic Calvinists tell them what to think and how to read Scripture, and they haven't looked closely enough at Calvinism and Scripture for themselves to see the irreconcilable differences.)
I could find many more examples, but I just can't stomach it anymore! Read it for yourself, and you might be surprised about how much of his theology is based on his own assumptions and on shaming and manipulating people into agreeing with his assumptions! It doesn't take a genius to see it. And it doesn't take a genius to see how different his theology is from what the Bible says. It just takes a willingness to question Calvin's beliefs and to read the Bible on its own, without Calvinist glasses on.
Here are all the shorter posts so far that are taken from "Problems in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion":
