Calvinists and their familiars

I’m going to comment on a recent post at SEA:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/calvinism/

Keep in mind that this isn’t just the eccentric opinion of an individual Arminian commentator. Rather, SEA is treating this as a representative statement of the Arminian outlook.

    A humble and hungry disciple is a wonderful thing in God’s kingdom…But these same qualities can also make them a target for demonic deception. Satan is a master manipulator, and as natural children are easy to manipulate in their innocence and ignorance, so are spiritual children. Zeal can make them hasty, and humility can make them naïve.

Chapman just leveled a very dangerous accusation. You see, the familiar spirits (e.g. Screwtape, Wormwood, Alichino, Barbariccia, Cagnazzo, Calcabrina, Ciriatto, Draghignazzo, Farfarello, Graffiacane, Libicocco, Malacoda, Rubicante, Scarmiglione) who bedevil Calvinists generally like to stay off the grid. It’s easier for them to deceive unsuspecting converts like me if they conceal their tentacles. 

 

Once Rosemary gives birth the Devil Incarnate, and the Calvinist Antichrist assumes the throne of one-world government, it will be safe for all the familiar spirits who delude Calvinists to come out into the open, but until that time, they prefer to operate under cover.

That’s why my own familiar spirit got so mad when he read Chapman’s exposé. He bitterly resents the fact that Chapman blew his cover. As a result, my familiar spirit forced me to pronounce a horrible hex on Chapman. If freak accidents begin happening to Chapman, that’s the source. 

The hungry disciple believes that God loves everyone and wants all people to come to repentance.

Notice how Chapman presumes to impute Arminianism to “hungry disciples,” as if that’s the default belief of all converts.

So a teaching that says God does not want everyone to be saved makes no sense to them.

Really? Chapman has it backwards. The Bible treats God’s grace as something surprising, unexpected, even counterintuitive:

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life (Rom 5:6-10.

Back to Chapman:

They have hope for people and sincerely believe that if they labor and pray for souls to come into the kingdom, they will. So the doctrine that says God has already determined how many will be saved and absolutely nothing can change that number, seems unbelievable to them.

Actually, it’s because God predestined the elect to be saved through faith in the Gospel that Calvinists have confidence that their evangelistic labors and prayers for the lost will result in sinners passing from kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

But sooner or later they read a passage in the Bible that shocks and confuses them. They read something like, “Before the twins were born, God loved Jacob and hated Esau” (Rom. 9:13). Then their heads begin to spin. They can’t make heads or tails of it.

What’s shocking or confusing about that statement?

 At this point they usually ask their mentor what it means and accept whatever explanation that is given, whether it makes sense or not.

I didn’t have a mentor when I became a Christian, and I didn’t have a mentor when I became a Calvinist.

One of the common defenses of Calvinism’s converts goes something like this, “I didn’t accept Calvinist theology because I wanted to. In fact, I hoped that it wasn’t true. I only accepted it because I couldn’t ignore what the Bible plainly teaches.”

That may well be true in many cases. On the other hand, faith leads to understanding. The first step in learning to appreciate God’s wisdom is to accept what he teaches.

This confession carries with it a subtle accusation, whether the Calvinist brother is aware of it or not. It says, “You don’t follow the Bible, but your desires. You want the Bible to teach that God loves everyone equally, so you refuse to submit to the truth of God’s word.” This accusation often has its intended affect on the sensitive conscience of the humble follower of Christ.

This accusation brings the disciple into self-doubt and prepares his heart for the errors of Calvinism. By accepting the subtle accusation that his Spirit renewed conscience is actually just human reasoning, he is stepping into dangerous territory.

It’s dangerous to believe in predestination. Scary stuff. Like a horror film.  

He hastily accepts the apparent meaning of certain verses, not because it is confirmed by the rest of scripture, but because it is the quickest means of proving his devotion to God’s word and silencing the accusations assailing his heart.

How many converts to Calvinism has Chapman interviewed? What makes him think the average convert to Calvinism is trying to prove his devotion to God by affirming predestination? Or is this just a prejudicial exercise in armchair psychology?

 He is afraid to allow his conscience to influence him. He forgets that when he repented of his sins and became a Christian his conscience had been molded by the testimony of the Gospel message.

Well, appealing to “conscience” and the Holy Spirit is a popular rationalization rejecting various “offensive” teachings in Scripture.

The Calvinist’s confession also carries with it a strange assumption, again, usually without his awareness. The assumption is, “If something is hard to accept, accepting it must prove a sincere devotion to God.” This reasoning is similar to that of the Catholic monks of the middle ages who believed fasting almost continually, taking vows of poverty and even beating themselves with whips, somehow revealed the depth of their devotion to God’s glory. Calvinism’s convert makes a similar error. By submitting to a view of God that is distasteful to his understanding of justice and mercy he feels reassured that he is devoted to God’s word.

Chapman keeps imputing that motive to Calvinists. Once again, does he have any polling data to indicate if what he imputes to Calvinists is, in fact, representative of what motivates Calvinists?

Speaking for myself, I don’t espouse Calvinism to prove my devotion to God.

Moreover, the ascription is ambiguous. Does he mean proving something to God, or proving something to ourselves? I’ve never tried to prove myself to God. God knows everything about me. He can see right through me. He knows me far better than I know myself. Attempting to prove my bona fides to God would be silly.

As for proving something to myself, well, Scripture does admonish Christians to engage in self-examination. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

The disciple is now eager to prove his devotion to God’s truth. In this state of mind he turns to Romans 9:20 and reads, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”

Well, as a matter of fact, Paul does say that in response to those who impugn God’s redemptive discretion. So there’s nothing wrong with citing that passage.

    The Calvinist’s testimony, whether he knows it or not, has been used to accuse and manipulate his brother in Christ…With this sincere commitment his fate is sealed. The error of Calvinism has taken hold of his conscience, and it will not easily loosen its grip.

That’s very disappointing. Here I was, right on the verge of becoming an ardent Arminian, but now Chapman tells me that my fate is sealed. I’m doomed to be a Calvinist. Seems a bit odd that an Arminian would take such a fatalistic attitude, but who am I to take issue with his grasp of Arminian theology?

    Calvinism comes to deceive and manipulate the sincere devotion of the spiritual children in God’s kingdom.

That’s very instructive. Not only are Calvinists demonically deceived, but we’re demonic deceivers! Two for the price of one! I never knew that about myself until I read Chapman’s exposé. I was like a Cylon sleep agent. 

 

The demon of Calvinism kept me in the dark regarding my true identity. Crafty devil! (pardon the pun).

Calvinism is like a manipulative elder brother influencing his little brother into a sinful action. The elder brother doesn’t have to say, “Steal that CD or I will hit you.” He has a more foolproof way of getting his little brother to do his dirty work. Instead of direct intimidation he uses simple psychology. He says, “You are too little to be here with us big boys. Go home!” To this the younger brother predictably replies, “I am big!” “Ok,” the elder brother continues, “then steal that CD to prove it. But I know you will not do it. You’re a chicken! You’re too small to do it!” It is not hard to guess what happens next. The little brother promptly steals the CD…This is the strategy of Calvinism’s irresistible error.

So not only is Calvinism erroneous, but an “irresistible” error. Yet if that’s the case, then I’m less than clear on what Chapman hopes to accomplish. I can’t help myself. I’m irresistibly sucked into the vortex of Calvinism.

Calvinism boasts that it has a monopoly on devotion, just as the monks of the Middle Ages did.

I’m not aware of any Reformed creeds or major Reformed theologians who say Calvinism has a monopoly on devotion.

It is the hardest philosophy to swallow, so it must be the most God-glorifying theology on the market. After all, it says that God is everything and that Man is nothing?

Is that what it says? How can God save nothing? There is nothing to save.

 God is the only participant in salvation and mankind does nothing to “help” God save him.

Does Chapman think sinners have to lend God a helping hand?