Calvinists Hogwash #2 (the elect)
More comments from Calvinists (bold emphasis added):
Only for the elect:
Calvinists - by playing word-games and redefining "all, the world, grace, love," etc. - will try to make it sound like they really believe that God truly loves all people, that Jesus truly died for all people, and so anyone can be saved. But all they really mean is that anyone could be one of the elect, that anyone could've won the salvation lottery, but we just don't know who they are yet. (And of course, everyone whose name wasn't drawn in the salvation lottery is out of luck.)
They'll deceptively say "everyone who wants to be saved will be saved" or "God will never turn away anyone who wants to come to Him"... but all they mean is "only the elect can and will want to come to Him and be saved; the non-elect can never and will never want to be saved, by God's decree."
They've got ways of spinning it, of making it sound like they agree with us that God truly loves all, that Jesus truly died for all, and that all people truly can be saved, but they mean it in a completely different way.
Always remember this tidbit: When there's no problem with what a Calvinist says, it's because the problem is with what they're not saying, what they're hiding. Always dig for the deeper, hidden layer they're covering up.
[Note: I think 4-point Calvinists who say that Jesus really did die for all people but that God still predestines people to hell are just fooling themselves. (And Calvinists who think God doesn't "predestine" people to hell but merely "passes over them" are fooling themselves too.) If God prevents Jesus's death from being of any benefit for the so-called "non-elect," then it makes no difference if He did technically die for them. It changes nothing. It'd be like someone buying dinner for all the starving people in a restaurant while stapling shut the mouths of most of them and putting their food behind bars so that they can't reach it. But "Hey, at least he paid for a meal for everyone, right?" It's nonsense and hogwash. (And in fact, you could say it makes God more cruel than just not dying for them at all, because it's more deceptive, more mocking.) And it's really just Calvinists trying to make themselves feel better - deceiving themselves and us, trying to sound more biblical - by saying "Oh, I believe Jesus really did die for all people."]
John Piper ("Does God Predestine People to Hell?"): “My answer is yes. God does determine from eternity who will be saved. But he does it in ways that are mysterious to us so that on that day no one will find any legitimate fault with God.” [How convenient to basically tell people "Just accept what we teach you now - even if it's contradictory and makes God seem like an unjust, untrustworthy monster - and then wait until you're dead for it all to make sense." They do this a lot with the most disturbing and contradictory aspects of Calvinism. And it should be very concerning to us - a cult-like tactic to gaslight people, to make us shut off our critical-thinking skills and red-flag radar.]
The 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... All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ."
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." [No, it's Calvinists saying that God must be that way in order to be God. Big difference.]
John MacArthur (“Does God so love the world?”): “God's love for the elect is an infinite, eternal, saving love. We know from Scripture that this great love was the very cause of our election. Such love clearly is not directed toward all of mankind indiscriminately, but is bestowed uniquely and individually on those whom God chose in eternity past.”
My ex-pastor (see this post): "The Bible says God loves people. He loves peoples. [Code for "people groups, all kinds of people from all nations, not all individual people."] But the Bible is clear that God does not love all people and He doesn't love everyone equally. He elected some sinners to salvation, and He predestined some for eternal damnation."
And just in case we couldn't tell he's a Calvinist, my ex-pastor also said this in a Sept. 2015 sermon: “God says in Genesis ‘I’m gonna make worshippers of every nation. I have my elect among every people group.’”
... and in a Feb. 2014 sermon: "Salvation is a God-project from beginning to end, from all the way back in time when God predestines and elects His own…"
... and in a Christmas 2016 sermon: “No one seeks God. There is nobody who seeks God. The only person who will repent and believe is the one God has sought out Himself.”
... and in an Aug. 2015 sermon: "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 is one phrase: Because of God’s sovereign predestination, His sovereign election... He delights in summoning a remnant to Himself, forgiving and bestowing mercy and grace on them…" [Notice the manipulation, that if we disagree with his view of election, we are disagreeing with Paul and the Holy Spirit.]
Tim Keller (in a podcast critiqued in the Soteriology 101 video “Tim Keller on Election”): “Both the Old Testament and the New Testament say, I believe, that if you believe, you believe because God has chosen you.” [Or is it that God has chosen you because you believe? That when you believe - after you believe (and anyone can believe) - God chooses to include you in His eternal family? At least that's what the Bible says: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12)]
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."
R.C. Sproul (in Chosen by God): “The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation)….” [So not all individual people, just the elect from all over the world.]
A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election): "... 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..." [Chapter and verse, please?]
And "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..." [So the gospel is only for the elect, in Calvinism.]
John MacArthur (Answering Big Questions About the Sovereignty of God): "Since we don’t know who [the elect] are, we are called to fulfill the Great Commission and to proclaim the gospel to every creature." [Once again, the gospel is only really for the elect.]
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. 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.' [Read: "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 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.]
John MacArthur (Answering Big Questions About the Sovereignty of God): "we say, 'Okay, look, not everybody is going to be saved.' And then the question has to be asked, 'By whose determination is that true?' The only possible answer is God. If not everybody is going to be saved, then God planned not everybody to be saved, right? [False inference: "Because not everyone's saved, it means God never planned to save everyone." This is only true if you deny free-will and the God-given ability to reject the gospel.]... He is God, He can do whatever He pleases. So if not everybody is going to be saved, then it was in the purpose of God that not everybody was going to be saved. [False inference: "If something happens, it means God planned it that way," stemming from their utterly unbiblical view of sovereignty.]...
Robert Morey, from the "What is Calvinism part 1" video (There are some people you just have to see to believe. I don't know if he's creepy, mentally-disturbed, bizarre, or comical. Or maybe it's a mixture of all.): “Calvinism is nothing more than a New Testament form of Judaism which believed in the concept of the chosen people… hello, earth to mars! Some of yous clicking now... chosen people... and the whole concept of the elect of God.” [Yes, but elect/chosen for what? Not for salvation, but for a job, a role, certain blessings and responsibilities, such as the Israelites being chosen to be the bloodline that brings Jesus into the world and brings the gospel to the nations. (Which they failed at - bringing the gospel to the world - and so God turned His attention to the Gentiles. See “When Calvinists say ‘But Romans 9!’”)]
A.W. Pink ("Foreknowledge of God," quoted in "Why did God elect the ones He did?"): "God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe... No; God's choice proceeds not from anything in us, or anything from us, but solely from His own sovereign pleasure... It thus appears that it is highly important for us to have clear and scriptural views of the 'foreknowledge' of God... God not only knew the end from the beginning, but He planned, fixes, predestinated everything from the beginning."
A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election): "... [faith] cannot be the cause of our election... it is not God's foreview of these things in men which moved Him to choose them. God's foreknowledge of the future is founded upon the determination of His will concerning it. The divine decree, the divine foreknowledge, and the divine predestination is the order set forth in the Scriptures... God foreknows everything that will be, because He has ordained everything that shall be... In conclusion let it be said that the end of God in His decree of election is the manifestation of His own glory..."
John Piper ("Does God love the non-elect?"): "there’s a real sense in which God has extended great kindness and goodness and patience and invitation to the whole unbelieving world of mankind. [An "invitation" to what? Calvinists very deceptively talk like they believe God gives a "real" salvation invitation to everyone, even though the non-elect have no ability to accept it.]...
Now, the problem arises when folks go beyond Scripture and infer from those statements that God, because of his love for all people, cannot and does not elect some to everlasting life, but all. [Strawman and false dichotomy. In Calvinism, the only two options are that God predestines only some to eternal life or that God predestines everyone to eternal life - because they wrongly think predestination is about God choosing who gets saved. And then when we disagree about God predestining elect people to salvation, they accuse us of Universalism, of saying that God must save all people, which clearly doesn't happen because not everyone is saved. But this whole mess stems from their wrong definition of predestination.]
In other words, they infer that since he loves all, he must love all in the same way [Umm, we don't "infer" it; we take it right from Scripture which clearly and plainly says that God loves the world and wants all men saved and wants no one to perish, that He desires that wicked men would turn from their wicked ways and live, and that He demonstrates His love for sinners by sending Jesus to die for the sins of all.] — that he cannot choose to love some in a more focused, electing, redeeming, adopting, eternal way... He does have a different love — an electing love, a saving love — for some and not all. [So after claiming God gives everyone an "invitation" to salvation, now he says God's saving love is only for some. Deceptive.]...
God’s love for the non-elect consists in genuine acts of kindness and generosity and patience and invitation. [God Himself says in Romans 5:8 that He demonstrates His love for sinners by sending Christ to die for our sins. And last I checked, we're all sinners. Furthermore, He says in Romans 2:4 that His kindness is meant to lead stubborn, unrepentant people to repentance, not merely to show the non-elect a little "love" before sending them to their predestined eternal torment.]
Just think about it. When we’re talking to an unbeliever, we are able to point out to unbelievers evidences of God’s kindness to them, not the least of which is that we and they should at this moment be suffering in hell, and we’re not." [What a stupid thing to say - telling people who could be one of the so-called "non-elect" (and odds are, they are) that although they might be destined for hell with no chance to be saved, at least God was "so kind" as to give them a miniscule reprieve for the tiny time they're alive. "Oh, and by the way, you might be predestined to burn in hell, but I'm not." So stupid! It's like a free person telling a kidnapped person that's about to be killed by their kidnappers, "But it sure was kind of the kidnappers to give you some crackers and one last night of sleep, wasn't it." Except Calvinism is worse because it's about eternal torment, not temporary. Totally tone-deaf, Piper!]
[I know I said I'd keep my comments to a minimum. Sorry. I'm trying. I really am.]
A Calvinist called Rhutchin (see here) made these deceptive and contradictory comments: "Absent God giving a person faith, a person cannot be saved...The proclamation of the gospel to all people is a valid offer even though God knows that no one can make a positive response without also being given faith..." [He calls the offer of salvation "a valid offer" to all people, even though the only ones who can accept it are the ones God gives faith to first, according to Calvinism. This is not salvation through faith in Jesus or through the gospel; it's salvation by election and then you'll be given faith to believe the gospel. Very different. Very backwards.]
Jarvis Williams (Desiring God, "For Whom Did Christ Die?"): "When you hear the question, 'For whom did Jesus die?' what do you think?
The answer may seem obvious: for the world... Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world... God so loved the world...
... 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 [notice the deception of calling it a "bona fide offer" to all, as if Calvinists truly believe all people can accept it] but to actually purchase and effect the final salvation of his elect. [No! He bought salvation for all, but people can - and do - reject it.]...
Yes, it is true that everyone who wants to be saved can be [but only the elect can want to be saved, in Calvinism]. And it is equally true that everyone for whom Jesus died [the elect only, in Calvinism!] will be saved...
The verbal proclamation of the gospel makes known to the elect the salvation accomplished by Christ for them ["The gospel is only for the elect!"]..."
John Piper ("Saying what you believe in clearer than saying 'Calvinist'"): "I believe Christ died as a substitute for sinners to provide a bona fide offer of salvation to all people, and that he had an invincible design in his death to obtain his chosen bride, namely, the assembly of all believers, whose names were eternally written in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain." [So first he calls it a "bona fide offer to all people," but then he says that Jesus died for a "chosen" bride (elect people only).]
James White (in “Does John 3:16 Debunk Calvinism?”, find the quote here): “He gave His only begotten Son, and here’s the purpose why He gave: The Son is given by the Father so that every believing one, notice not everyone, it’s every believing one, there is a limitation here, there is a particularity here, the Father did not give the Son for any other reason than for those, in regard to those who believe. That’s why the Son is given.”
[First off, White is dividing the verse wrong. It's not "God gave His Son for the believing ones"... it's "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." The "whoever believes" part is in the second half of the verse, connected to the "will not perish" part, not to the "God sent His Son" part. But White connects "whoever believes" with the part about Jesus being given, in order to make it seem like Jesus was only given for whoever believes. But no, it's that only those who believe will get eternal life, even though the Son was given for all people (and so all people have the ability to believe, it's just that many will choose not to.)
And second, White apparently doesn’t understand parts of speech. In John 3:16, in the Greek, the word “believes” (whosoever believes) is a verb. It's what we do. But to make it fit Calvinism, White made it an adjective/noun ("believing one"), as if it's who we are, as if God created us that way. Calvinists also turn it into the noun "believer" to make it say that Jesus only died for believers, “the elect,” in Calvinism. They make little changes like this all over the place., such as the ESV changing many verbs to nouns/adjectives, changing belief from what we do to who we are. See "... Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible?", #37, #45-53, and #83-85. Also see #4, #5, #10, #11, and #38. And yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses destroyed the gospel with just one little change, adding one little letter: “The Word was a God.” How much more damage Calvinists do with their many small changes!]
Erik Raymond (Gospel Coalition, "Did Jesus die for everyone?"): "I believe Jesus died on the cross for the elect. He did exactly what he intended to do and accomplished redemption for all who would believe, and not every person who ever lived... As a Calvinist, I limit the extent of the atonement. But by doing so, I am not limiting the value of the atonement; it is infinite. [Well, how humble of you!] There is no way to improve upon the work of Christ—it is infinite and perfect. To be clear, when Calvinists speak of limited atonement, we are not speaking in terms of its value but rather the extent of it... [And his reinterpretation of John 3:16:] 'God loves the world in this particular way, that he gave his only Son that the believing ones will not perish but have eternal life.'..." [Yes, of course, no believer will perish. Duh! But the problem is that Calvinists think that God causes people to believe and that the "unbelieving" ones never had the chance or ability to believe. And once again, see how they switch it from the verb "believes" - an action we do - to an adjective/noun, as if that's who God made us to be.]
A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election), explaining the good that comes from the doctrine of election: "Election allows some to go to hell, to show that all deserved to perish. But grace comes in like a dragnet and draws out from a ruined humanity a little flock, to be throughout eternity the monument of God's sovereign mercy. It exhibits His omnipotency. Election makes known the fact that God is all powerful, ruling and reigning over the earth, and declares that none can successfully resist His will or thwart His secret purposes." [But at what cost? Sure, Calvinism makes Him an all-powerful, controlling-everything God... but, Oh!, the damage it does to His Word and character!]
Clayton Kraby (The Five Points of Calvinism - Defining the Doctrines of Grace): "Remember, Scripture teaches that we are spiritually dead. Because of this we cannot and will not turn towards God on our own. [Bad analogy! Calvinists wrongly equate spiritual death with physical death, so they say that just like a dead body cannot do anything, we cannot do anything - not want God, seek God, or believe in God - unless and until He makes us do it. But that's not what spiritual death is. What it means is that we are separated from God by sin, not that we are incapable of thinking or wanting or believing on our own. The Fall made us lose our standing with God, not our ability to think or decide.]
Instead, it is God who elects believers to salvation.... based solely on His grace... Believers were chosen by God 'before the foundation of the world' [That's a mistranslation, see here.]...
The Bible teaches that those who place their faith in Christ are those whom He has elected unto salvation. [Calvinists often say "the Bible teaches..." because they know the Bible doesn't outright say those things - but if they cobble together enough out-of-context verses and redefine words and add secondary layers, then they can make the Bible appear to "teach" it.]...
The Bible is clear that it is God who saves and that He does so according to His grace, not on the condition of our works or foreseen response to this grace. It is in this sense that election is unconditional… Calvinism is distinctive in that it teaches Jesus’ death on the cross did not merely make salvation possible for those who choose to receive it, but that it made salvation definite for those who have been elected by God... For this reason, many prefer to refer to this doctrine as Definite Atonement, as there is nothing limited about the power or effectiveness of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. His sacrifice is completely sufficient to save sinners, but it is made definite only for those who God has chosen."
[Notice at the start of the quote that it's their wrong idea about "total depravity/spiritual death" that leads to their wrong ideas about election/regeneration. They start with their wrong ideas about one thing then philosophize and reason their way to the next thing, compounding error upon error.
And they admit that one idea is built on the next:
R.C. Sproul (Total Depravity part 1): "I say this because there’s a sense in which, if a person really embraces the doctrine of total depravity, the other four points in this five-point system more or less fall in line. They become corollaries of this first point."
John MacArthur (Doctrine of Election, part 1), about the problem with the non-Calvinist definition of "foreknowledge," that God foreknows which people will choose Him but doesn't fore-plan it: "But this is like foresight, about what people will do. Now the problem with this is how are these dead sinners going to resurrect themselves to do this unaided by God? You answer that question? How are those who are totally depraved, totally blind, total dead going to come to the place where they make the decision for salvation? How they going to do that?" {Non-Calvinists don't believe we "resurrect ourselves" either. We first put our faith in Jesus... and then the Holy Spirit, in response to our faith, resurrects us. We do the believing part; He does the "new birth" part. In that order!}
Got Questions (What are the Doctrines of Grace?): "Because man is dead in sin, he is unable (and stubbornly unwilling) to initiate a saving response to God. In light of this, God, from eternity past, mercifully elected a particular people unto salvation." {Non-Calvinists don't believe we "initiate" it either. God does, by revealing Himself to people and calling all people to believe. We just choose how we will respond to Him.}
John Piper ("Total Depravity - Unconditional Election"): "Here’s the conclusion for total depravity. Total depravity means that apart from any enabling grace from God, our hardness and rebellion against God is total. Everything we do is in rebellion against him in sin. Our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment. It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad. If we think of ourselves as basically good, or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the other four points... Let’s turn now to the doctrine of unconditional election. This is a hope-filled doctrine for those who feel totally depraved and utterly without hope and help..."
See. They start with their bad definition of total depravity/spiritually dead (making it "total inability"), and then it leads to a bad definition of election/regeneration, leading to errors all down the line.
John Piper ("Unconditional Election") shakes up the order a little, but same bad chain of reasoning: "So that’s why I’m starting...at irresistible grace. To see that grace is sovereign implies that depravity is total — that is, that we are totally unable to respond. That’s what the implication is of saying that my resistance has to be overcome. Left to myself, I won’t and I can’t believe. That’s the meaning of total depravity."
The petals of Calvinism's TULIP all rise and fall together, so if you disprove one, you disprove them all. And they know it:
Steven Lawson ("TULIP and the Doctrines of Grace"): "In reality, these five doctrines of grace form one comprehensive body of truth concerning salvation. They are inseparably connected and therefore stand or fall together. To embrace any one of the five necessitates embracing all five. To deny one is to deny the others..."
Grover Gunn (A Short Explanation and Defense of the Doctrines of Grace): "... the five points are logically related such that any one of them implies the other four..."
Herman Hanko ("The Five Points of Calvinism"): "It is apparent that all the five points of Calvinism... are important. Indeed, if any one of the five points of Calvinism is denied, the Reformed heritage is completely lost."
Lorraine Boettner ("The Five Points of Calvinism"): "These are technically known as 'The Five Points of Calvinism,' and they are the main pillars upon which the superstructure rests... Furthermore, these are not isolated and independent doctrines but are so inter-related that they form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won the admiration of thinking men of all creeds. [And has deceived many into thinking it's "sound doctrine."] Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned. They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other."
Heidelberg Theological Seminary ("The Doctrine of Unconditional Election: Based on Total Depravity"): "As we progress with this study it will be easy to see that one of these doctrines cannot be left out without destroying them all. They are dependent on each other and are welded together as the links of one chain because they have their unifying basis in the Bible. Those who claim to hold to only some of these doctrines will eventually have to admit that they hold to none of them as we have explained them here."
Nick Batzig (Ligonier Ministries, "What is Unconditional Election?"): "The first doctrine represented in the acronym TULIP sets the logical course for this subsequent doctrine of unconditional election. The doctrine of total depravity (perhaps better termed pervasive depravity) necessitates unconditional election."
Do you know what those big Calvinist Systematic Theology books are for? To lead you systematically from one point to the next, to educate you into Calvinism, into accepting terrible things you never dreamed you'd accept when you were a "simple-minded" Christian just reading the Bible in a commonsense way and taking it as face-value. (See "Is Calvinism's TULIP biblical?")]
Wayne Grudem (Election and Reprobation in Systematic Theology): “Election is not based on God’s foreknowledge of our faith… For if God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ, and that person B will not come to faith in Christ, then those facts are already fixed, they are already determined… There is no way that their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore, it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are these destinies determined?..."
Grudem's answer, of course, is that God determines it, because if He didn't then it has to mean it's determined by "some impersonal force, some kind of fate, operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But what kind of benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation.”
[Grudem first reinterprets foreknowledge as fore-determining, and then once he’s got you hooked into predetermination (predestination), he sets up a false dichotomy: it’s either predetermined by God according to His sovereign choice (Calvinism), or by fate. He forces you to agree with Calvinism. And then he further manipulates you into it by essentially saying that if you believe anything other than that, you’re giving God’s credit to someone or something else. So many problems!
But the simple fix is this: Define foreknowledge correctly - as knowing something beforehand, that God foreknew what we would choose because we chose it, not because He first planned it - and then understand that since we had the real ability to choose among options, if we had made a different choice then God would have foreknown we'd make a different choice and would have worked that into His plans somehow. God's foreknowledge didn't determine our choice; our choice determined what He foreknew. This IS real freedom. Only in Calvinism is it not, because they redefine foreknowing as fore-determining.]
Wayne Grudem (Election and Reprobation in Systematic Theology), in response to the non-Calvinist's objection that being predestined to be saved means we don’t have a real choice: “In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willing decisions in accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. [See! So they shamelessly use the words "voluntary" and "willing" and "choice" even though they don't actually mean them the way we all know they are actually defined. They don't mean that we actually have the ability to choose among options, just that we do what we "want" to do, according to the desires of our nature. And because it's what we "want" to do, they think they can rightly use the words "voluntary" and "willing" and "choice," even though we had no other options or ability to choose something else.]
This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free, because…God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees that our choices come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. [Translation: "So because we say that God calls it's a 'real' choice, then you have to believe it's a real choice, even if it doesn't make sense."]
In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily [you can but you shouldn't]...
Someone might object that if a choice is caused by God...it is nonetheless not a genuine or real choice, because it is not absolutely free. Once again we must respond by challenging the assumption that a choice must be absolutely free in order to be genuine or valid. If God makes us in a certain way and then tells us that our voluntary choices are real and genuine choices ["If we Calvinists tell you that these are voluntary, real, genuine choices, even when they're clearly not..."], then we must agree that they are. God is the definition of what is real and genuine in the universe."
[Gaslighting! Grudem is essentially telling us that we need to simply accept Calvinism’s illogical, contradictory nonsense that forced, predestined choices are really free, real, voluntary choices because (paraphrased) “God said so, and God doesn’t have to make sense. God can be illogical and contradictory because He gets to decide what’s real.” Grudem pushes Calvinism’s nonsense onto God, and then tells us that we have to accept it because “God is God.” So much manipulation. Cult-like manipulation.]
John MacArthur (Grace to You, "For Whom Did Christ Die?", minor edits made for clarity): " 'For whom did Christ die?' This is a very, very important question. [Now listen to the flattery of his congregation here, which to me just sounds like "Well done, my good and faithful servants, you 'research' on your own and come to the same conclusions I feed you. You're so smart, you biblical geniuses."]... Now, I know you people very well and you are noble Bereans. You search the scriptures to see if these things that I say are so. And I also know that if I don’t cover every verse that weighs on this subject, you will line up afterwards to ask me about that verse. So in dealing with a subject like this... I need to cover the ground extensively so I can put your mind at rest because you are so incurably biblical. That, in case you didn’t know, is a great commendation. I expect that, I rejoice in that...
Most people in the church believed that on the cross, Jesus paid the debt for the sins of everyone because He loves everyone unconditionally and wants everyone to be saved. That is not what the church has historically believed, but that is what the present version of the superficial church believes - that [all] sinners have had all their sins atoned for - potentially, and that’s the key word - if they will acknowledge Christ and accept the gift. So we have, then [according to that view], only to convince sinners to receive the salvation that has already been fully purchased for them at the cross. Since Christ died for everyone, everyone can believe and should believe and must believe if they’ll only will to believe...
Now, if that sounds strange to you, it is - it is... This view would say Christ died to make salvation possible, not actual... The sinner, then, makes the choice... The message that this would send to sinners goes like this: 'God loves you so much that Christ died for you. Won’t you let Him save you? The final decision is up to you. In fact, God loves you so much that He gave His Son and hopefully when you see the sacrifice that Christ made, you will be moved emotionally to love Him back by accepting Him.'....
[But] I do believe in a limited atonement and so do you... Who limits it?... God limits it to those who believe, and nobody can believe unless He gives them faith...
What does “world” mean? What does “all” mean?... But to be sure, when it talks about Him being the Savior of the world and taking away the sin of the world, we know one thing: It does not mean every person who ever lived or there would be no hell. [He assumes from the beginning that people can't end up in hell because of a God-given ability to reject His offer of salvation.]... The 'all men' that God desires to be saved [1 Tim. 2:4-6] are the 'all men' that God determined to save. He determined to save whom He desired to save...
This idea of [an unlimited atonement, that Jesus died for all sins of all people but sinners choose to accept or reject it] has the initial appearance of being very generous, but the more closely we look at it, the less we are impressed. Does it guarantee the salvation of anybody? No. Does it guarantee that those for whom Christ died will have an opportunity to hear of Him and respond to Him? No. Does it in any way remove or even lessen the sufferings of the lost? No...
So in summary, as we think about this, the death of Christ was a real, true, actual satisfaction of divine justice so that the sinner for whom Christ died is really, not potentially, provided an atonement into which that sinner will enter by the sovereign power of God at the moment when God regenerates that sinner and gives him faith...
[Closing in prayer:] Father, we have had a wonderful evening tonight, thinking about some of these things... I just pray that perhaps there’s a freshness to the way that we look at the cross, seeing it not as a point of frustration where you gave your Son to pay the penalty in some strange way for the whole human race and most of them would never receive the benefit of that, but rather to look at the cross as something very specific, very particular, actual, a real atonement paid for in full for all who would believe..."
John MacArthur (in Understanding Election, find the quote here, among others): “I’m a Christian today, because before the foundation of the world from all eternity past, God chose to set His love on John MacArthur and to give him the faith, to believe at the moment that God wanted him to believe. He chose us.”
And yet, here's a snippet of MacArthur's testimony about how he got saved (see "John MacArthur's Life Testimony", about a fifth of the way down):
PHIL: How old were you when you first recall sensing your need for need for Christ?
JOHN: Well, I always believed the gospel... I don’t ever remember a time when I didn’t believe the gospel... I never rebelled against it. I always knew I needed Jesus to be my Savior.
But there was an incident when I was about, I think, nine or ten. I’d gotten involved in some vandalism... and I felt terrible and frightened by it. I sat down on the steps with my dad as a result of it. I don’t remember the exact time sequence, but I said, “You know, I think I’m not a good boy, and I need the Lord to forgive me.” And that was sort of an initial prompting. And I remember my dad praying with me on the steps that the Lord would save me [Did the dad request that God would save John, or did John himself pray to be saved?]... And as to whether I was actually converted at that time I don’t know. Again, in the years following, I never rebelled...
PHIL: Hmm. So, you’re saying – are you saying it would be difficult for you to put your finger on when your conversion took place?
JOHN: Yeah. I’ve never been able to do that. And it doesn’t bother me. I think I’m one of those kids – I was one of those kids that never rebelled and always believed. And so, when God did his saving work in my heart, it was not discernible to me. I went away to high school, and for all I knew I loved Christ ["for all I knew"... what a weird way to say it]... I was certainly immature, but at some point along the line I really do believe there was a transformation in my heart. But I think it may have been, to some degree, imperceptible to me because I didn’t ever have a rebellious time; I didn’t ever revolt against, you know, the gospel or not believe. And I guess that’s – in some ways that’s a grace act on God’s part..."
MacArthur is basically saying that he always knew he was saved (one of the elect), that he never rebelled. [So apparently, he wasn't born a totally depraved, God-hating, truth-resisting "viper-in-a-diaper" like the rest of us. Kinda makes me think of cult-leaders who claim some sort of unique, supernatural birth or standing, elevating themselves above the rest of humanity from the beginning as sign of divine favor and anointing.]
And he's basically saying that he never actually made a conscious decision to put his faith in Jesus but just always knew he was a believer - and so when the moment of saving faith came, he didn't even notice it because God worked it in his heart without his awareness. Sounds a little suspicious to me. Especially since the one "work" we're supposed to do to be saved - our responsibility - is to believe in Jesus, to put our faith in Him: Acts 16:30-31: " 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' ... 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved ...'" and John 6:28-29: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the work God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'"
Believe in Jesus - put our faith in Jesus - is the one thing we must do. And it also happens to be the one thing Calvinists say we can't do, that God has to do it to us. And so MacArthur is convinced that God put faith in him at an unknown time - so early in his life that he "always believed, never rebelled" - and so he never actually had to make a decision about it for himself (unless you count the perfunctory, going-through-the-motions prayer that his dad prayed with him... or for him). Hmm? Interesting.
Do you realize that in Calvinism, no change actually happens in the elect. They were always elect, always saved, they just never knew it until they wake up one day and go, "Hey, I'm one of the elect. God saved me a long time ago and just now He gave me faith." Or as one Calvinist put it about how to be saved: "Just show up." That's their only part in being saved: "Just show up." (And I say "What!?!")
Does this sound like the gospel, like true faith, like the way to be saved according to the Bible? Or does it sound like a very cleverly-deceptive way to make the gospel and faith in Jesus inconsequential, secondary, of no real effect - tricking people into thinking they don't have to do (and can't do) the one thing God said we need to do to be saved?
John MacArthur (The Doctrine of Actual Atonement, Part 1): "For whom did Christ die? Did He die a death that is a potential salvation for everyone, and therefore on the largest part it was useless? Or did He die a death that is an actual atonement, not a potential one? For those who would believe because God calls them and God grants them repentance and faith, because God in eternity past chose them?
Well, the only answer to the question that makes any real sense is that Jesus Christ died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe [the elect, in Calvinism], so that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one that can be disregarded. If Jesus actually paid in full the penalty for your sins, you’re not going to go to hell, that would be double jeopardy. [So Jesus never died for the sins of those who end up in hell, according to Calvinism.]...
That proves that the atonement is limited. It does not apply universally. God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited.
Now we all have to accept that or be universalists. [False Dichotomy: Either you believe God saves just the few prechosen elect or you believe He must save everyone. And it's built on the false premise that if Jesus died for you, then you will be - must be - saved because it's not possible (in Calvinism) to reject the offer of salvation.]...
Now by whom is it limited? God does limit the atonement… You have to believe that.
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. [Yet he can bring himself to believe that God deliberately created them for hell, that He commanded them to believe but prevents them from believing and then punishes them for not believing. Strange!]
… 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. That’s kind of a hard way to do evangelism. Christ died on the cross for your sins, and all the people in hell, too. That’s not special. That’s anything but special... [Oh boo-hoo! And that's truly sick that he needs to believe that Jesus didn't die for everyone so that he can feel better about himself. And besides, wouldn't it be harder to do evangelism by saying (if Calvinists were fully honest when they evangelized) "God might hate you and Jesus might never have died for you, and so you might have no chance or ability to be saved, but good luck" than it would be to say "God loves everyone and Jesus died for everyone and so anyone can be saved, which means you too"? But I guess it would be harder to say Jesus died for all if you're more concerned with feeling "special" than with the souls of those supposedly predestined to hell. But that's really sick.]
... I didn’t invent this. This doctrine goes way back, back to the Reformation, back to John Owen, and even back to Charles Spurgeon." [This is telling because notice that he didn't say it goes all the way back to the Bible or the disciples or Jesus Himself.]
And finally... a snippet from Chosen By God where R.C. Sproul makes a rather wise but self-condemning statement: "If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels." [Bingo! He said it himself, and his own words will testify against him in the end.]
