The Gospel Project: Calvinist or not?
Disclaimer: I have never gone through The Gospel Project for myself, and so this post is based on articles I've read about it and - mostly - on my knowledge of Calvinism and how it operates. And this post doesn't even have to do just with The Gospel Project, but with anything Calvinists write or teach, especially if they claim that they're not trying to teach Calvinism.
I had a question come in the other day on my "comment corral" blog from a reader called MPenny:
"The Gospel Project: Do you or anyone here have specific wordage or examples of non-biblical or calvinist material within this Bible study. I know it was written by mostly calvinists so I would never do this study myself...but would like to warn others with more practical data....and save reading the entire thing myself...has anyone else read through the curriculum and have any thoughts. Or know of any critical articles on the subject. Also, THANK YOU HEATHER for making a blog right out of what my heart and mind have been saying ever since I found out what Calvinist was when unfortunately my teens started going to a youth group. My daughter knew something wasn't right when they would say things that weren't biblical. Long story. But your Blog says it ALL."
I'll share my reply at the end of this post, but if any other reader out there knows of specific examples to share, feel free to share it in the comment section of that blog.
The Calvinist View of Calvinism
In a post once, I cautioned people to be wary of the Gospel Project - because practically every person who developed it is a Calvinist. And while the developers insist that The Gospel Project doesn't have any Calvinist-bias, I simply don't see how Calvinists can convince themselves that they can write theological things free of Calvinist-bias when they think that Calvinism is the gospel, Christianity, "the truth," and worth dying for. (I'm not talking specifically about those at The Gospel Project, but Calvinists in general.)
Charles Spurgeon (in a sermon): "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
PJ Tibayan ("Preach the Bible, not Calvinism") "... preach the Bible, not Calvinism. Of course, if Calvinism is true, then as you preach the Bible you will preach Calvinism."
Dr. Burk Parsons, "Is Calvinism Biblical?": "And so, while many people use that terminology ['Calvinism'], I've always hesitated to use it because, in fact, the doctrines that we're speaking of when we speak of Calvinism or when we speak of Reformed theology or Reformed soteriology, which is the doctrine of salvation, we are speaking of course of biblical doctrines."
Al Mohler (from The Wartburg Watch's "Church Takeover Success Using Strategies from the Calvinista Playbook"): "If you're a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you're committed to the Gospel... your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism... [pastors] are gonna have to [side with Calvinism] if they're gonna preach and teach the truth."
From the introduction to a Founders Ministry "church reform" plan: "In reality, Calvinism is nothing more than biblical Christianity... These [Calvinist] doctrines are foundational to a God-centered theology. They are the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity... What doctrines are we talking about? The doctrines that are worth dying for are foundational, biblical doctrines, not secondary ones."
Hmm, I wonder: If Calvinists believe that Calvinism is the gospel, would they really be able to write things about the gospel that have no Calvinist-bias?
What Calvinists really think of Non-/Anti-Calvinists
And the fact that Calvinists see Calvinism as the gospel, as Christianity, as foundational truth, explains why Calvinists view those of us who don't agree with Calvinism this way:
PJ Tibayan (in his 9Marks article) says that Calvinist pastors are "burdened by [the] biblical and theological illiteracy" of those who don't believe in Calvinism.
This Calvinist article calls non-Calvinists "unsuspecting and uneducated" and says that we are the kind of people who "rely on the supermarket tabloids as your reliable source of news."
This 9Marks article says that anti-Calvinists are anti-Calvinists only because when we researched Calvinism online, we put our trust in ourselves and in strangers online ["internet hotheads"].
From the Calvinist article "Should we talk about Predestination?": "...when you talk and preach about predestination, you must always keep in mind those with whom you are speaking.... Are you talking to a congregation of professing believers? If so, some may be strong in faith and able to plumb the depths and scale the heights of such a doctrine, while others may be weak in faith and the very mention of predestination will cause them doubts and worries."
Al Mohler (Christianity Today, "The Reformer") says that non-Calvinist conservatives "are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared."
R.C. Sproul, in "God's Sovereignty", accused his seminary students who didn't accept the Calvinist definition of God's sovereignty of being "atheists."
My ex-pastor, in July 2018, also basically says that those who resist Calvinism are not really Christians at all and that they are just following their emotions and dishonoring God: "This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election... The first question when it comes to Bible study is not 'Do I like this?'... The first question is "WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?"... If this is not your first question, your first burden, there is concern if you really know Christ as Lord and if you honor Him. If all you accept is the stuff you like and what is convenient for you and emotionally comfortable for you, then there is a real question whether you know Christ, if His Spirit lives in you."
From "Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism": "they [who reject Calvinism] hate the idea that they are not in control... Simply put, they want to think that they are fully in control of their own eternal destiny."
John Calvin (Institutes, book 1, ch. 18, sec. 3): "... what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God [He's putting his Calvinist doctrines on the same level as "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."
John MacArthur (The Most Hated Christian Doctrine) says this about those who reject Calvinism's "doctrine of total depravity": "
A.W. Pink (in Doctrine of Election) calls those who disagree with Calvinism "merit-mongers [who] will not allow the supremacy of the divine will" because "the heart is loath to receive such an humbling and flesh-withering truth [the Calvinist doctrine of election]. How earnestly we need to pray for God to subdue our enmity against Him and our prejudice against His truth... By such devilish efforts do the enemies of God seek to distort and destroy this blessed doctrine... [and] when those who profess to be His friends and followers join in denouncing this truth, it only serves to demonstrate the cunning of that old serpent the devil, who is never more pleased than when he can persuade nominal Christians to do his vile work for him. Then let not the reader be moved by such opposition. The vast majority of these opposers have little or no real understanding of that which they set themselves against. They are largely ignorant of what the Scriptures teach thereon, and are too indolent to make any serious study of the subject. Whatever attention they do pay to it is mostly neutralized by the veil of prejudice which obstructs their vision... They take a one-sided view of this truth: they view it through distorted lenses: they contemplate it from the wrong angle."
And so because Calvinists think that Calvinism is the gospel/Christianity and because they have such low views of non-/anti-Calvinists, Calvinists believe that it's their spiritual duty to reform the Church, to replace all other theological beliefs with Calvinism.
The author of "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey" says this: "As I was soon to discover, reshaping a church from its man-centered assumptions to a God-centered Gospel is rarely done without opposition and pain."
According to him, becoming a Calvinist/Reformed church is becoming a "God-centered" church.
And likewise, that Founders Ministry "church reform" plan says that "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."
And remember that the introduction to that plan calls Calvinism "biblical Christianity... foundational to a God-centered theology... the heart of historical, orthodox Christianity... worth dying for... foundational, biblical doctrines, not secondary ones."
And so once again, would you really trust a Calvinist pastor or theologian who says he's not pushing Calvinism?
The thing is, Calvinists know that people will be disturbed by and push back against unvarnished, forthright Calvinism. They know that if they reveal their brand of theology or true beliefs too much or too soon, we might get alarmed and push back against them - or worse yet, we might research it for ourselves and become educated anti-Calvinists.
And so in order to shut us up, gain our trust, not trigger alarm bells, and not invite resistance/opposition, they need to take a "backdoor" approach, hiding the fact that they're Calvinists pushing Calvinism so that we can't research it for ourselves or catch on too quickly to their true beliefs and terrible doctrines. This buys them time to slowly, subtly, and covertly modify our views over months and years, until our views match theirs.
Their strategic use of biblical language instead of Calvinist language makes us think that we're all on the same page, lulling us into trusting them, letting our guards down, shutting off our "spiritual discernment" radar, and willingly ingesting what the spoon-feed us. After all, they claim that they're just teaching "biblical truth, right from Scripture," right? And so we trust them, never double-checking their theology for ourselves. And before we know it, they've strategically Pied Piper-ed us into Calvi-land. Step-by-step, idea-by-idea, person-by-person.
Calvinists know that if we're going to be reformed, it's up to them to do it. Because despite their constant claims that Calvinism is "clearly and explicitly" taught in the Bible, even they know that we can't find Calvinism in the Bible or become reformed without their strategic help.
Calvinist A.W. Pink says in Doctrine of Election that "Unless we are privileged to sit under the ministry of some Spirit-taught servant of God, who presents [the doctrine of election] to us systematically, great pains and diligence are called for in the searching of the Scriptures, so that we may collect and tabulate their scattered statements on this subject. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us one complete and orderly setting forth of the doctrine of election, but instead 'here a little, there a little—... No novice is competent to present this subject in its scriptural perspective and proportions."
Pink is admitting that the Calvinist doctrine of election is not clearly or 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 common Christian cannot understand them or even find them in the Bible on their own. [Suspicious!]
So Calvinists know that in order for Calvinism to thrive and spread, it's their duty to reform churches and people by teaching other Christians to read the Bible in a Calvinist way... and they need to do it stealthily, on the sly, hiding the fact that they are Calvinists teaching Calvinism as long as possible, until we're indoctrinated enough to not resist it.
And examples of this are abundant. Here's just a fraction of them:
1. Calvinist Rob Jansons shares a whole sermon series he wrote, literally called "Covert Calvinism"😲, where he strategically preaches through TULIP without calling it Calvinism. The descriptions to the sermons include: "[this is] a prelude sermon to a covert series on Calvinism... This is the 'Total Depravity' sermon without using the stock theological labels. It is the first sermon in the series and it's covert because too many of our [listeners] will shut down their receptors when they hear the words 'Calvinism.'... [This sermon] focuses on God the Father choosing us to be his children. It uses biblical, not theological, language to teach about election."
And it isn't until the last sermon in the series that he reveals what he's been teaching all along: "This is the summary sermon where I finally reveal that this series covers the same material that is often called the '5 Points of Calvinism.'"
2. Here's the Founder's Ministries article "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey", where one pastor shares his strategy in reforming his church after he became a Calvinist: "We took it slow at first. I avoided the 'C' word, knowing people wouldn’t understand it. We didn’t start with classes on systematic theology (though they would come later)... I kept the focus on God’s Sovereignty and man’s depravity... along with a focus on a biblical [he means "Calvinist"!] understanding of conversion and the new birth..."
3. John Piper in "Saying what you believe is clearer than saying Calvinist": "But that label ['Calvinist'] is not nearly as useful as telling people what you actually believe! So forget the label... If they say, 'Are you a Calvinist?' say, 'You decide. Here is what I believe...'" [And of course, in this article, he only shares half the story - the good stuff, from the elect's perspective, while hiding the terrible stuff that relates to all the non-elect.]
And here's Piper again in "How to teach and preach 'Calvinism'": "Avoid theological jargon that is not in the text. The word 'Calvinism' is probably not helpful."
So in an article on how to teach Calvinism, he recommends not using the word Calvinism. Interesting. Deceptive.
4. Thomas Schreiner says in this YouTube clip that Calvinists should call themselves "biblical" instead of Calvinist and that he "never uses the term Calvinist from the pulpit," despite the fact that Calvinism is what he preaches.
5. The Founders Ministries' church-reform plan called "Walking without Slipping" advises Calvinist pastors to "Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them."
And tellingly, this Founders Ministries' plan is from a resource called "A Quiet Revolution."
Quiet. Under the radar. Under our noses. They know what they're doing!
6. In this Faith on Fire video (start at the 3:10 mark), Brian shows a clip of John Piper praising John MacArthur for being a "closet Calvinist," a stealthy 5-point Calvinist pastor for years. And what's MacArthur's reason (excuse?) for his stealthiness? "I felt like I had an obligation to bring people who have been given a [non-Calvinist] system that was superimposed on Scripture, to bring them out of that, and I thought that labels too soon would short-circuit that." (What could he possibly short-circuit if Calvi-god predestines, causes, controls everything anyway?)
If you read between the lines, MacArthur is saying it was his spiritual duty to be furtive, deceptive, to hide his Calvinism, that it was for the good of the people, the gospel, the Church.
Our hero! Leading us stupid, biblically-illiterate sheep home to Calvi-land!
7. John Piper ("TULIP: Introduction") admits to also being a closet Calvinist, saying that he taught Calvinism stealthily for five years at his church before admitting it (no wonder he was so impressed that MacArthur did it too): "Up until that point in the life of our church — I had been there for five years — we had not made any issue at all about 'so called' Calvinism. ["So-called"... as if it's not really what it is!😕] We hadn’t made any issue at all of this controversial thing. I had just tried to be faithful to Biblical texts because I think that’s what wins the confidence of God’s people. They don’t want to hear a system mainly, they want to hear Bible mainly, which is what they ought to mainly hear. I tried to just win their trust to say, 'I’m a Bible man. I’m not a system man, mainly.' [The "mainly" is telling.] But after five years, it seemed like the time was right to talk about those verses."
So he admits that Calvinism is controversial, and yet he doesn't respect the people's right to research it and decide for themselves. Instead, he thinks it was his duty to decide for them, to indoctrinate them into his position on the sly. And he knew he needed to do it that way - the dishonest, covert way - to win their confidence and trust. (😕😒😠)
Is this making you angry yet? Because it should.
8. My favorite example of Stealth Calvinism (which I wrote about in "Saint" PJ's deceptions and manipulations") is PJ Tibayan who was being considered for a pastoral position and was asked by the interim pastor "Are you a Calvinist? If you are, this thing is dead in the water right here."
And in his article, Tibayan says, "I was taken aback. From my study and meditation on Scripture individually and in community I have deep convictions as a seven-point Calvinist. I wasn't sure how to answer. So I asked a question instead. 'What do you mean by 'Calvinist?'"
So a self-professed 7-point, deep-convictions Calvinist "wasn't sure" how to answer the question "Are you a Calvinist?" (I bet he's got a bridge to sell us too.)
No, he knew exactly how to answer it: deceptively. Instead of honestly answering the question, he plays dumb about the definition of Calvinism and takes advantage of naive, poorly-worded questions - repeatedly telling the interim pastor "No, I'm not a Calvinist" - and he gets himself hired at a church that outright said it didn't want a Calvinist pastor.
Brilliant!
9. Likewise, listen to how the pastor in that "Reformed by the Word..." article also strategically evades the question when he began facing opposition to his Calvinist theology: "By January of 1999, questions began to be raised by some in our congregation. In a deacon’s meeting, one of our deacons asked if I was a 'Calvinist.' When I asked what he meant, he really didn’t know. He just knew it was something bad. So, I asked specifically what I had taught that concerned him. Again, he didn’t know of anything. He’d just heard this word used about me. Clearly there was 'talk' going around. I decided the best way to answer his question would be to lead the deacons through a study."
So instead of just answering the question "Are you a Calvinist?," he turns the question back on the person. And then, still not answering the question, he decides to lead the deacons through Calvinist indoctrination classes. To reform their thinking. To brainwash them.
Once again, brilliant! Bravo! It perfectly demonstrates these observations:
From "Why I'm Wary of Calvinists": "in my experience Calvinist pastors have minimized their Calvinist beliefs with search committees in order to gain a pulpit... [they] obfuscate, finesse, dart and weave... Laypeople must be savvy enough to understand the vocabulary."
And from "Covert Calvinists" (with minor punctuation changes for better clarity): "Many [Calvinists] have worked their way into local churches as covert Calvinists. They seem to operate on a 'no ask, no tell' basis. If representatives of a local church don't know what a Calvinist believes and how to ask questions, subversion often occurs."
And guess what? It works. In the end, the church chose to keep him as pastor, but it split the church and almost half the people left. And he celebrates this because with the opposition gone "we were able to begin the process, unhindered, of revising our constitution to bring it in line with Scripture [he means "in line with Calvinism"]... The process of basic reformation took another three years, and really it’s still going on. Like shaping your soul, the work of shaping a church takes years of persistence. You can’t do it in a five-year pastorate."
Stealth Calvinist pastors know how to play the long game, the long con. And so while you think they're just "teaching Scripture" all these years, they're really strategically reforming you and the church, turning you all into Calvinists, without your awareness.
10. The 9Marks' article "Church Reform when you're not (necessarily) the pastor" shares these strategic tips for the long con, for how to slowly, systematically, and stealthily turn a church Calvinist over years: "Reforming a church can take years, and it is never something that happens easily. So settle in for the long haul... Church reform does not happen in business meetings. If church reform goes like you want it to, business meetings are just the moment of formalizing a congregational decision that has already been made... All the actual work of reform happened before the meeting—in conversations. That’s how church reform works. You change people’s minds and shape people’s views in private–over coffee, a good book, and a Bible... So make it a point to try to meet with as many people as your schedule will allow, and do it regularly. Read through [Calvinist] books with people and talk about them. [Notice the reliance on books other than the Bible!] Mark’s [Mark Dever, a big Calvinist!] Nine Marks of a Healthy Church would be a good place to start.
... You’re also going to have to be strategic in deciding who to try to meet with. Unless you’re in a really small church, you’re just not going to be able to meet with everyone. So try to figure out to some degree who the church’s opinion leaders are, who are the people most likely to spread enthusiasm for reform among other members, and who would really cause a congregational sigh of relief if it turned out that they agreed with the reform. Then meet with those people, over and over and over. Be a friend to them, care for them, and at the right time, start asking questions and teaching about the nature of a Christian church. [So Calvinists are strategically making friends with you not for the sake of being your friend, but with an agenda to reform you so that they can use you to reform others.] In time, you may find that you have more allies in reform than you thought—or, perhaps even better, you may find that you’ve created some.
... Reforming a church is a long process that requires a whole lot of conversations, a whole lot of persuasion... Once you’ve been recognized as a leader in your church, the next step is to work on discipling other men who could also be recognized as leaders, and who, eventually, could join you in forming a majority of the leadership that wants to press for reform..."
11. And for more from 9Marks on how to strategically use people to hijack a church for Calvinism (from their "Roadmap to Reform" plan): "Get some help. You can't do a reform alone... Look for men you'd nominate as elders if you could. They need to be not just big voices, but peacemakers and persuaders... get to know the gatekeepers. Every church has pressure points of authority, people who are in key positions of leadership, whether formal or informal... In order to reform a church, then, get to know those people. Spend time with them before you offend them, and find out what they value, how they communicate, and how they can be persuaded. It’s helpful to know which of those people can influence others of them, and where those people are going to be helpful to you at different points in the reform."
If Calvinism is "so clearly biblical," as Calvinists always claim, then why the need for this much deceptive strategy and persuasion to get us to see it? It's either not so clearly biblical... or else we average non-Calvinist Christians are just that stupid, way too stupid to see it.
And I know which one Calvinists would pick... because remember how Calvinists view us non-Calvinists: "biblical and theological illiteracy ... unsuspecting and uneducated ... rely on the supermarket tabloids as your reliable source of news ... atheists ... weak in faith ... not aware of the basic structures of thought that are necessary to protect the gospel ... not entitled to be regarded as Christians ... merit-mongers... devilish efforts ... enemies of God... nominal Christians doing Satan's vile work for him ... little or no real understanding/largely ignorant of what the Scriptures teach ... too indolent to make any serious study of the subject ... view it through distorted lenses and contemplate it from the wrong angle ... etc."
No wonder they must stealthily force it on us in any manipulative and deceptive way they can! It's for our own good. And it's the only way to protect the gospel and save the Church. Once again, our heroes!
12. In "4 Reasons Not to be a 'Calvinist'", a Calvinist pastor who wants to remain anonymous (that's telling!) goes even further than merely advising pastors to hide their Calvinism. He actually claims that it's "unhealthy and even unbiblical" to identify yourself as a Calvinist to your church, because "there are some who seek to stir up trouble with scare tactics... I have felt the strangest hostility from those who are most vocal about their worries concerning 'Calvinists'... [And] most people don't know what Calvinism actually is... If someone does not know what a label means, then the label itself only obstructs any hope for lucid dialogue."
So if we don't know what Calvinism is or if we might oppose it, then Calvinist pastors have no choice but to hide it and teach it on the sly!?! So it's our fault that they simply must be deceptive and covert!?!😕
It's a new level of alarming and disturbing when a Calvinist pastor considers it "unbiblical" to be honest and upfront about their theology - because this means that in their minds, covert deception is "biblical."
13. Tom Ascol (Founders Ministries, "Dishonest Calvinists (?) and the call for integrity") also defends Calvinist pastors hiding their Calvinism. And he says that it's not stealth Calvinism that's causing the problem in churches, but it's all the godless people who resent the Bible's teachings:
"... in the great majority of cases that I know about where Calvinistic pastors have encountered turmoil in their efforts to preach and teach God’s Word, it was not because of Calvinism. It was because of biblical Christianity. Calvinism tends to be the tail on which the donkey of controversy is pinned, but the real culprit is the erosion of real biblical Christianity that has occurred over the last generation or more in many of our churches... [And so therefore] if a man tries to introduce a biblical ministry into such a situation, does it not stand to reason that there might indeed be some controversy along the way? When the Word of God begins to be taught and followed, those who have no appetite for it–and who have been not only allowed but encouraged to live happily in the church without it–will inevitably feel threatened, deceived and even 'lied to' by the preacher. The reason is not Calvinism, but because of the strong reaction of godlessness to biblical Christianity..." [So if we reject Calvinism, we're rejecting biblical Christianity because we're godless. Oh, okay, Ascol, whatever you say!]
And finally, he goes on to say that pushing Calvinism is really just teaching Christianity, trying to justify why a Calvinist pastor can and should hide their Calvinism (their "theological system"): "Should not that fact, coupled with the wisdom that recognizes that the proper goal of a genuinely Reformed ministry is not to 'Calvinize' a church but to 'Christianize' it more and more, lead a man who candidates for a church to emphasize his commitment to biblical Christianity more than to a theological system? This is not dishonesty. It is wisdom. [Po-TAY-toe, po-TAH-toe.]
... I am not at all suggesting that a pastoral candidate refuse to speak plainly with a search committee or church regarding theological commitments. [Umm, yes, you are. We're not stupid.] But the reality is that most churches–including their search committees–are not very equipped to have that kind of conversation. [So once again, the problem is us, not them. We're too stupid, uneducated, biblically-illiterate, and undiscerning, and so they simply must be deceptive.] Should the details of Calvinism...be spelled out anyway, even though there is no understanding of the language, categories or constructs? [So he starts with (paraphrased) "I'm not saying don't be upfront about your theological views with search committees," but then he immediately goes into reasons why Calvinist pastors should not be upfront about their Calvinism with search committees. Liar, liar, pants on fire!]
Or would it be wiser to stick with biblical categories, language and constructs? [Translation: "Don't admit that you're a Calvinist teaching Calvinism. Just teach your Calvinism covertly, using the Bible's words and language so that no one will catch on to your Calvinism and push back against you."] When a man does the latter [hides his Calvinism in biblical language] for the purpose of communicating as clearly as he can [but not clearly enough to honestly admit that he's a Calvinist teaching Calvinism!], I find it disheartening to hear Southern Baptist leaders criticize him as being dishonest." [Yeah, shocking.]
14. This 9Marks article criticizes Christians who research against Calvinism on the internet - but with a sigh of relief, it celebrates that it "doesn’t mean the internet has ruined the 'subversive' operations of Calvinist pastors sneaking into non-Calvinist churches."
In conclusion:
So are the Calvinists who created The Gospel Project being totally honest when they say that there is no Calvinist-bias in The Gospel Project, that they're not pushing Calvinism on people and churches?
Maybe.
But probably not. My guess is that, most likely, in their thinking Calvinism is simply "Christianity/the gospel" - and so there's no need to call it "Calvinism."
But the thing is, Calvinism cannot be compartmentalized or filtered out, as if it's only one small part of someone's theology, life, or beliefs. Because to them, it is Christianity itself. It is comprehensive. It affects everything. And so it underlies every belief a person has about God and faith and the gospel, every teaching they have on every topic in the Bible.
As J.I. Packer says (in A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life): "Calvinism is a whole worldview... a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God's own word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible - the God-centered outlook which sees the Creator as the sources, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence upon God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form. And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God's world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of his great preordained plan for his creatures and his church. The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that he is sovereign everywhere."
And about Calvinism related to the gospel, Matt Smethurst (The Gospel Coalition, "The Consequences of Calvinism") says: "How should we think about Calvinism in relation to the gospel? We love the doctrines of grace because they serve as the foundation on which the gospel itself is built. Behind the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a God who has already determined the end from the beginning, including the destination of every living soul... a God who sends his Son to die for those he has predestined... a God who sends his Spirit to effectually call and monergistically regenerate those he has elected and for whom he has sent his Son to die... It is this big God we can rest assured will triumph in the end... he can guarantee that his gospel will go forth to the nations, actually having the power to accomplish his saving purpose. His gospel will not fail to save those for whom it is intended."
This is the gospel in Calvinism: A gospel that's built on Calvinism, a gospel that is Calvinism.
And so, once again, is it really possible for the Calvinists who wrote The Gospel Project to keep Calvinism out of their teachings on the gospel?
And one other critical thing to keep in mind is that Calvinism's gospel is only for "the elect". And so when a Calvinist talks about the gospel or says something about the gospel that sounds good, hopeful, and life-giving, it's because he's speaking only to and about "the elect," those "predestined for heaven."
But he's hiding/failing to mention that the gospel means nothing to the non-elect, that it was never intended for them and has no power to save them. All that the gospel means for the non-elect is their eternal damnation - for Calvi-god's glory and pleasure - for being born the unbelievers Calvi-god predestined them to be.
So anytime Calvinists talk about the gospel, remember that it's for the elect only and from the perspective of the elect only! And that's why it sounds good!
But because Calvinists don't reveal that they're speaking only to and about "the elect," and because they're hiding the terrible stuff that relates to the non-elect, and because they're sugarcoating, obscuring, or hiding all their controversial and horrible-sounding doctrines until we're in too deep to get out, Calvinism is spreading quickly among many good, well-meaning Christians who are taking what Calvinists say at face-value, naively trusting that they mean what they say and say what they mean and that they're telling the whole truth of what they believe and are accurately interpreting Scripture.
As the article "The Subtle Secrets of the Gospel Project" warns: "[Calvinists] are prolific writers who are masters in propagating their doctrine without using recognizable Calvinist terms. Try asking one of these guys if they’re a Calvinist and you will probably get a 15-page essay about God’s sovereignty.... You most certainly will not get a direct answer to your question though and that is because they realize how unpopular it is to answer 'yes.' They’re banking on one thing: Given enough time and enough trust, they can sprinkle in the right amount of Calvinism to infect your brain and make you comfortable with their terms. Then it’s simply a matter of putting all the pieces together in their deranged puzzle... So don’t be surprised when you look around and discover a generation whose faith is built on the TULIP but they got there without ever hearing the label 'Calvinism.' We know what they’re doing. The evidence is undeniable."
Given all that we've read in this post - the things Calvinist themselves admit about their views on Calvinism and the gospel, on non-/anti-Calvinists, on the necessity to strategically reform the Church even with deceptive means - I would say that the real question is not "Is a Calvinist pushing Calvinism?"
But the real question is "Is a Calvinist pushing Calvinism overtly... or covertly?"
So be discerning.
And never take what a Calvinist says at face-value, especially their claims that they're "not teaching Calvinism." Examine it. Put it to the test. Know their strategic tactics and learn their language. Know what they're really saying underneath the biblical surface-layer - their Calvinist teachings which they've cloaked in more acceptable-sounding, less-alarming language - so that you can recognize Calvinism when you hear it.
Because what they say is often not what they really mean. It's just what they want you to think they really mean until you're too indoctrinated to be alarmed or escape.
Okay now, my response to MPenny:
Hello MPenny, No, I haven't researched the Gospel Project myself either. Maybe that's a project for the future. :) But here's a post from someone else about all the Calvinists who run the Gospel Project: https://sapulpamessenger.com/subtle-secrets-gospel-project/. Maybe there will be more info on that site. (I know nothing else about that website than that post, so be discerning.)
And thank you so much for the kind words and for taking the time to leave a comment. But I am sorry that you know how all this feels. It's sad to know that Calvinism has hurt so many other people and churches, too.
But I'm glad your daughter knew right away that something wasn't right. That shows great discernment... and great strength, to be able to stand up against the majority, against the leadership that's pushing it on her and insisting that it's biblical theology. I hope and pray that God has used that experience for good for your family and those around you, even though it's a hard thing to go through.
Also, here's one article worth noting: https://www.challies.com/sponsored/7-things-you-should-know-about-the-gospel-project/.
In this article, the Brand Manager of The Gospel Project says this:
"How do we know we can trust the content of The Gospel Project?
This is an important question, and it really comes down to two things: our doctrine and our people. First, our doctrine: We have a very robust set of doctrinal guidelines that serve as our plumb line if you will. Our editors are diligent about keeping all of our contributors in alignment with these at all times."
And if you click on the link in their article to their doctrinal guidelines (Lifeway's guidelines - so be wary of all resources from them), you can discern that their theology lines up with Reformed/Calvinist theology.
In particular, these two parts:
1. "Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.... Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour."
Unless I'm reading this wrong (because it is obviously very carefully worded), this is regeneration by the Holy Spirit BEFORE faith and repentance, regeneration leading to and resulting in faith and repentance. It's the Holy Spirit changing someone's heart and causing them to be born again first, so that they can then repent and believe in Jesus. A clear Calvinist/Reformed concept. [And embedded in this teaching is that only those whom the Holy Spirit chooses to regenerate can have faith and be saved. Those who aren't chosen to be regenerated can never have faith, so they can never be saved.]
But biblically, it's reverse: The Holy Spirit regenerates those who first repent and turn to Christ. People choose to put their faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and then the Holy Spirit indwells them, makes them born again, and regenerates them into a new creation.
I agree with Calvinists that, yes, the Holy Spirit's job is to convict people of sin and make people born again. That's His job, something only He can do. But our job - the one thing God requires us to do to be saved - is to respond to that conviction of sin and believe in Jesus as our Lord and Savior ... and then the Spirit regenerates us and makes us born again. But Calvinism reverses that, saying that first the Spirit regenerates us/makes us born again and then we believe. That's a whole different way of being saved. But it's a subtle deception that escapes many people's attention because it uses the same words and ideas, just in a reverse order.
The Spirit doesn't take selected sinners and regenerate them into believers, but He takes believers and regenerates them into new creations.
2. And the Lifeway guidelines also say: "Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility."
I would interpret this as saying that God controls the ends as well as the means, that God controls (predestines) who gets saved as well as how they get saved. This is a Calvinist/Reformed concept.
And Lifeway is defining election as related to salvation, the salvation of individual people. This is not what election is, biblically. Election is about God choosing how to use people in His plans, about choosing people/people groups for certain roles, responsibilities, blessings. It's not about choosing who gets saved. (I highly recommend Tony Evan's Bible Commentary. He covers this so well!) So anyone who defines election as related to individual salvation is Reformed/Calvinist, in my mind.
[And it's the same with "predestination." Biblically, predestination is not about God preplanning who believes, but it's about what God has preplanned for those who choose to believe in Jesus. And anyone can. So anyone who defines predestination as related to individual salvation - to who gets saved and how they get saved - is most likely a Calvinist. Either that, or they just don't realize that Calvinism's definition of predestination has infiltrated their thinking and affected their theology, even though they don't consider themselves a Calvinist.]
Also, Calvinist/Reformed theology always ties election to God's sovereignty to "It excludes boasting and promotes humility." They believe that God only gets all the glory for saving us if He does it all for us - predestining who gets saved and how they get saved, and regenerating "the elect" to make them have faith.
Calvinists wrongly think that "making a free-will choice to believe in Jesus, to accept an offer of salvation" means that the person "saved themselves," and so that person will boast. This is because they incorrectly define "accepting the offer of salvation" as "working for salvation." And so therefore, in Calvinism, we cannot have a real free-will ability to choose to accept (or reject) the offer of salvation, but God must do it for us - or else we "worked for our salvation" and can boast about "saving ourselves." [Hogwash!]
So while all this might be subtle, and many people might miss it, I think that the Brand Manager himself confirms that The Gospel Project was written to adhere to Calvinist/Reformed theology.
And even if a project doesn't use distinct Calvinist terms or obviously and honestly share their terrible doctrines, a Calvinist's fundamental theological views of God, how He works, what Jesus accomplished on the cross, who He died for, how people get saved, who can be saved, who's truly responsible for all sin and evil, and whether we make our own real choices or if God pre-made them for us, etc., will invade and infect every area of their theology, every issue they address, and everything they teach, even if it's covert enough that most people miss it.
That being said, I think that Calvinism/Reformed theology has a biblical surface-layer that they often present to people first, while they hide/obscure/sugarcoat the deeper "clearly Calvinist" layer. And therefore, many people could still get a lot of good Bible truth out of it, out of the biblical surface-layer... because they're completely aware of what Calvinists are really teaching, unaware that there are deeper, hidden Calvinist layers that contradict, qualify, negate, or alter the biblical surface-layer.
But I would warn that even if there is a good biblical surface-layer and if people can't quickly sense the underlying Calvinism, people who continue to listen to Calvinist teachings will slowly have their thinking modified and molded in all sorts of theological areas to be conformed to Calvinism. And before they know it, they'll be a Calvinist, not knowing how or when they got there.
While it's a slower process, a subtle and stealthy "backdoor" approach is much more effective in molding people's thinking than boldly storming in the front door. I'm saying this in general about Calvinism/Reformed theology, not specifically about The Gospel Project. But I still say it's something to be wary of and to be discerning about. Because it's the subtle that gets us, not the obvious.
[For examples of the strategic, deceptive wording of Calvinists, see "The Calvinist's Big Ugly 'But'" and "A Not-So-Imaginary Conversation with a Calvinist".]
God bless! And thanks again for your comment. Sorry I couldn't be more help with specifics. :)
[Once again, if anyone else out there has examples of clear Calvinist bias in The Gospel Project, feel free to leave a comment about it at The Comment Corral.]
Update:
Here's something from Lifeway about (from?) The Gospel Project, answering the question "How do human actions and God's plans work together?":
"... God is in complete control over all things. This is what Christians mean when they call God 'sovereign.'... the Lord’s plans go forward through the choices of human beings as moral agents, including our freely chosen sinful actions! Everything we do is what we want to do, while also being a part of God’s plan. They are what we want and what God wants."
To me, this is Calvinism. It's a little veiled, but it's Calvinism. It's saying that all our actions, even our "freely chosen" sins, were wanted, preplanned, caused, controlled by God.
You see, in Calvinism, "freely chosen" doesn't mean that we have the ability to choose what we want to do among various real options that are truly available to us, or that we can change our minds.
It simply means that God has built into our natures the desires He wants us to have that will cause us to "freely choose" to do what He predestined us to do, even sin and evil. We will follow - must follow, can only follow - the desires He built into our natures/wills (because we have no other desires than what He gave us), and so God doesn't have to physically "force" us to do it. We "freely choose" to sin because we "want" to sin, according to the desires He determined for us. We cannot pick our desires, change our desires, or resist our desires, and so we will definitely do the things God predestined us to do because that's the only things we have the ability to "want" to do.
It's like me giving you a magic potion that gives you the irresistible desire to kick every puppy you see. Because of that potion, you "want" to kick all those puppies... and you must follow the desire to kick all those puppies... and so you will "freely choose" to kick all those puppies (I don't have to physically pick up your foot or hold a gun to your head to "force" you to do it)... and so you can be held accountable for kicking all those puppies because you did what you "wanted" to do, even though it's exactly what I predetermined to happen and you had no ability to want to do or choose to do anything else.
This is what "freely choosing" means in Calvinism - that we "freely choose" to do what our God-determined desires tell us to do, and we couldn't do anything else. But because we "wanted" to do it, God didn't have to physically "force" us to do it, and so we are "responsible" for doing it. [It's hogwash!]
And here's the Lifeway/Gospel Project post called "What is the mystery of election?", which is completely Calvinist. (Defining election as related to personal, individual salvation - instead of God choosing how to use people in His plans - is totally Calvinist.)
And it ends by sharing the goal of evangelism: "we are called to share the gospel with everyone, calling them to believe in Jesus, doing so confidently because some of them will believe."
Translation: "Evangelism/the gospel is not to save everyone, but it's to only save some people, the prechosen 'elect.'" [And likewise, here's a podcast from them about "Salvation and God's ability to make choices." Totally Calvinist!]
And here's one on "Regeneration" that, once again, says that regeneration/being born again by the Spirit comes before faith: "[Regeneration is] a heart change to which we respond in repentance and faith."
This is just a few things I found related specifically to The Gospel Project, which I think shows the Calvinism that underlies it all.
