Saturday, 27 February 2016

Why Calvinism is Safe

I came across this webpage through this twitter account that informs us all that the god whom Calvinists worship is no less than Satan. Ouch!  According to the search engine on this website, the only reference to Spurgeon tells us that his sermon on election contains "a lot of Calvinist vomit" so if you want to go back to my home page and read somewhere else, I fully understand. Here the writer -  I assume the same Paul Davis of the twitter account - takes on the dread Calvinists with a series of questions, centred round the encoutner which the Lord Jesus had with the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19:16-21. I accept that there are better, more gracious and (to be blunt) more sane opponents of Calvinism out there than this man, but I  have included his opposition here to show the mentality of some opponents of Calvinism. His article isn't really that long and answering it shouldn't eat too much into my time. His words are in black. My answers prefaced with the words "MY RESPONSE"are in red. Here goes: 


A Question for Calvinists

 In the Scripture the following account is given of an interaction between the Lord Jesus Christ and a young man:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matthew 19:16-21)

In light of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, please answer the following questions:

1) If Calvinism is true, why did the Lord Jesus Christ lie to the young man? 

MY RESPONSE: A great example of a loaded question. Since Calvinism is true and Christ did not lie to this young man, then the "why" is obviously redundant. Not a great start, is it? It does serve, however, to give us an insight to the mentality of the man.
2) Why did he not tell him that he was not ordained to eternal life, and there was no point in trying?

MY RESPONSE: Eh? On what basis can our interrogator categorically state that this young man was not ordained to eternal life? Is it on the basis of an one off meeting with Christ whereby he went away sorrowful without professing faith? If that puts you without the pale, then the number of the elect can only be made up of those who profess faith on the first occasion they hear the gospel. This is ludicrous! My apologies to any non Calvinist readers who are cringing at this point. Warning: it gets worse.

 3)   Surely Jesus knew the young man would not believe. Why did he string him along with a promise he had no intention of fulfilling?
 MY RESPONSE: Again - on what Scriptural basis can we "surely"  say that this young man did not get saved later? The Scripture is silent either way and while there is little to encourage the hope that he did later flee to Christ for refuge, yet the interrogator seems to have insight here into things that are not revealed to us in Scripture.

 4) In fact, what he told the young man couldn’t be fulfilled as the man was obviously not ordained to life. Why did Jesus do this?

 MY RESPONSE: Obvious to who? I put to you that it is obvious to the interrogator and no one else. Certainly to no reader of the Scriptures. 

Why did the Calvinist Jesus deceive the man (and everyone else who has knowledge of this incident) and lie to him? How is this righteous?
MY RESPONSE: A rehash of the first question, only ratcheted up now to include the words "the Calvinist Jesus".

Here’s the short answer: It isn’t. 

MY RESPONSE: Having created a scenario out of his own imagination, I suppose he has the right to pass judgement upon it. We can only stand back and watch with wonder.

Moreover, no amount of logic twisting and distorting the words of Scripture are going to make it so. 

MY RESPONSE: Just in case we think that we can take him on and win, he closes up all the bolt holes. But, it is interesting to see the interrogator prowl his cage here, And it gets better or worse, depending whether you are here for entertainment purposes or as a serious student of God's word.

 How can it be acceptable for the Lord Jesus to not tell the man the truth of his predicament? After all, in Matthew 23, he told the Pharisees the truth of their predicament? What would be the difference here? If you tell one, you have to tell the other. That is the only righteous way to deal with both situations. That is the only way that is equal. Don’t be like the Catholics and tell me “It’s a mystery.” That is a cop out and a dodge. Besides, it is obvious that there can only be one answer under Calvinist doctrine: This ‘Jesus’ committed iniquity.And, since the Calvinist Jesus committed iniquity, how does he pay for the sins of anyone else? How is he that “perfect sacrifice” which is necessary for the payment of the sins of those he ‘saves?’

MY RESPONSE: We don't need to run  to the Romanists at all. The somewhat excitable interrogator here sinks his own boat.  Apparently the Lord Jesus was obligated to tell everyone whom He met of their ultimate predicament. Having told the Pharisees in Matthew 23 that they were children of wrath, then He is compelled on the grounds of righteous equality to tell this young man that his predicament is the same. And because He didn't, then He committed iniquity and so (because we are gaining great speed going up this runway and it is time to hit the air) how could He save any one. etc. 

Are we to assume then that because the Lord Jesus never told (at least there is record of it) Herod or Pontius Pilate or the Roman soldiers who assaulted him that they were among the reprobates, that His dealing with them was sinfully unequal?  Good grief!

I would like an honest answer. Unfortunately, based upon all my interaction with those holding Calvinist/Reformed doctrine, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it. I have yet to meet one that is intellectually honest. Still, it would be good to see the explanation.

MY RESPONSE:  I suppose by right I should surprise our interrogator friend that an honest (and Biblical) answer awaits him on this blog. OTOH, he seems happy to live in his little world of doom, and so I will leave it to a kind providence to alert him.

Thanks for bearing with me on this one. Again, my apologies to my non Calvinist friends. I don't put you all in the same boat as this man. It just gives you a chance to meet some of the characters Calvinists come up against from time to time.



  1. One does scratch one's head! they do seem to paint themselves into a corner when they try to go too deep. Some people, claiming to be wise, think they are smarter than God. They won't let God be God and bow the knee to His supremacy. If they cannot reason it out in their own feeble, finite brains, then it isn't true! Never mind that God said that His thoughts are higher than ours and His ways are not ours. Isaiah 55:9

    1. at the same time you are saying that God hasn't spoke to us and given us a Biblical System of Doctrine.

  2. The man I answer here somewhat is OTT, as acknowledged in my opening paragraph above.


All are welcome to comment here provided that the usual principles of Christian comment e.g. politeness etc. are observed.