[This series is "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult" split up into smaller, individual posts.]
6. Fear and Coercion
None of us wants to be an unhumble, divisive, God-dishonoring, glory-stealing Christian, do we? These are fears of any good Christian.
Calvinist pastors know this and use it their advantage (even if it's not totally deliberate).
In that "10 things to know..." article I linked to above, the author points out this mark of a cult: "Cults maintain their power by promoting an 'us vs. them' mentality."
Calvinists will use flattery and shaming (forms of manipulation) to do just this: to create an "us vs. them" dichotomy, to coerce people into Calvinism. They will talk in such a way that makes those who agree with them feel like good Christians and those who disagree feel like bad Christians.
Our Calvinist pastor started with this kind of manipulation right from the beginning, before even revealing his Calvinism. He'd preach sermons that portrayed his theology as the only "right" one, the "biblical, God-centered" one. He'd say things along the lines of "Only unhumble Christians who don't like the idea of God being in control fight against these 'truths'. People in other countries don't have trouble submitting to authority. It's just us prideful, independent Americans who do, because we don't like anyone being in authority over us."
He was preconditioning us from the beginning to side with him, to be afraid of opposing him.
Us vs them. "Us good, humble, God-glorifying Christians" vs "them bad, unhumble, God-fighting Christians."
[As a licensed counselor, it's one of the first things I noticed, the first red flags. And it made me sit up and listen more closely. Because anyone who needed to consistently use that kind of manipulative-shaming was doing it for a reason, trying to break us down to get us to buy what he was selling. See Predestination Manipulation.]
In that "Reformed by the Word: One Church's Journey" article, the pastor shares what happened after he tried reforming the church, how the church began pushing back. I want you to hear this - to really hear this - to see how Calvinists view those who reject Calvinism. [My comments are in brackets and italics and blue.]
"I couldn’t wait to tell my people because I knew they were going to love [Calvinism] too. Many, however, did not. 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. [Translation: If you disagree with Calvinism, you're putting man over God.]... Things seemed to go well at first. I believed our congregation would see the truth of God’s sovereign grace from Scripture and embrace it with the same joy I had. I think I under-estimated how deep depravity runs within the human heart. [Translation: If you disagree with Calvinism, you're depraved.]... [Paul warns] that 'the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching...[but will] wander off into myths.' Principle among those myths is that of human autonomy. 'They will not endure sound teaching,' he says. They won’t put up with it because it grates against their autonomy and dethrones their sinful pride. [Translation: If you disagree with Calvinism, you're prideful, sinful, and don't want God having authority over you.]... The God-centered Gospel of grace [Calvinism!]...doesn’t leave any room for human pride of accomplishment. [Translation: If you say we choose to believe in Jesus, you're claiming you saved yourself.]"
Keep in mind that this is coming from the pastor. And so you can imagine the kinds of things he'd say during sermons.
Another great example of manipulative-shaming is from A.W. Pink (Doctrine of Election) who calls those who disagree with Calvinism "merit-mongers [who] will not allow the supremacy of the divine will." (Ha ha ha, that's so ironic because, in Calvinism, if we don't allow the "supremacy of the divine will," it's because the divine will willed it! That's a self-defeating, divided God.] And he goes on to say that those who oppose Calvinism seek to destroy it by misrepresenting it:
"The doctrine of election is so grand and glorious that to bear any opposition at all it must be perverted. Those who hate it can neither look upon nor speak of it as it really deserves... False inferences are drawn, grotesque parodies exhibited, and unscrupulous tactics are employed to create prejudice. 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."
Umm, okay, let me see: "merit-mongers... devilish efforts... enemies of God... demonstrates the cunning of that old serpent the devil... nominal Christians... vile work... little or no real understanding... largely ignorant... too indolent... veil of prejudice... one-sided view... distorted lenses... wrong angle." Yeah, I don't think Calvinists like it much when we disagree with them. (And yet how often they claim that Calvinism is a "minor issue" that we "shouldn't divide over." Ha!)
And for some even juicier manipulative-shaming, here's a section from John MacArthur's article God's Absolute Sovereignty (underlining to show what I mean): "No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is absolutely sovereign. Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything. The carnal mind, burning with enmity against God, abhors the biblical teaching that nothing comes to pass except according to His eternal decrees. Most of all, the flesh hates the notion that salvation is entirely God’s work. If God chose who would be saved, and if His choice was settled before the foundation of the world, then believers deserve no credit for their salvation."
(I don't think he's getting his point across strongly enough. Maybe he should stress it a little more.)
Do you think anyone in his church would dare to disagree with him after hearing stuff like this?
[And I'd like to point out this bit of doublespeak and manipulation from him:
"Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything... God is not the author of sin, but He certainly allowed it... God controls all things, right down to choosing who will be saved.... People are responsible for what they do with the gospel—or with whatever light they have, so that punishment is just if they reject the light. And those who reject do so voluntarily... Above all, we must not conclude that God is unjust because He chooses to bestow grace on some but not to everyone. God is never to be measured by what seems fair to human judgment. Are we so foolish as to assume that we who are fallen, sinful creatures have a higher standard of what is right than an unfallen and infinitely, eternally holy God? What kind of pride is that?..."
MacArthur goes from God controls everything... to God just allows sin... to God controls all things, even who gets saved... to people are responsible and voluntarily reject God... to God chooses whom to give saving grace to.
R.C. Sproul (in God's Sovereignty) took a different approach and accused the seminary students in his class who didn't accept the Calvinist definition of God's sovereignty of being "atheists." And he did this in front of everyone. (And it's ironic because when he asks them if anyone is an atheist, he says that no one will shame them if they admit they are. But apparently, there's major shame for being a Christian who doesn't accept the Calvinist definition of "sovereignty"!)
And which side do you think most of those students would join: "us good Christians" or "them bad atheists"? It would take a very strong person indeed to stand up against that kind of shaming from a professor in front of all your peers who are now staring at you and judging what kind of Christian you are.
Sproul ought to be ashamed of himself!
[Sproul also creates a false dichotomy in his "harangue" against the students (his word, not mine) when he says: "Don’t you see that if there is anything that happens in this world outside the foreordination of God, that if there’s no sense in which God is ordaining whatsoever comes to pass..." And the false dichotomy is this: Either God foreordains everything that happens, or else He has no part at all in what comes to pass, no influence over what happens. (And remember that, in Calvinism, "foreordains" doesn't just mean He knew it would happen and allowed it to happen. It means He preplanned and ultimately caused it.)
He also says: "I like to explain it this way: if there is one molecule in the universe running loose, outside of the control of God’s sovereignty, what I like to call 'one maverick molecule,' then the practical implication for us as Christians is that we have no guarantee whatsoever that any future promise God has made to His people will come to pass." This is a total fallacy: "If God doesn't control every molecule, then He has no control over anything and so He cannot keep His promises."
With Calvinism, it's all or nothing. And it leads to a very flat, wooden, 2-dimensional God.
(And Calvinists teach that God is so mysterious that we puny humans can't figure Him out at all - and yet apparently they think they have figured Him out, that they've figured out what He can and cannot do as God. Insane!)]
In the article "Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism", the Calvinist author says that those who strongly oppose Calvinism do so because "they 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."
An article from a reformed (Calvinist) seminary - "3 Reasons People Reject Total Depravity" - says that people who reject Calvinism's idea of "total depravity" (which is rejecting Calvinism itself) do so because "It presents a low view of man. Human nature loves to be coddled. Men and women love to be told of their self-worth, self-importance, and innate goodness. Total depravity destroys all that... Total depravity is rejected by man because it presents a low view of man. God is not gushing over us like a high school crush but 'has bent and readied his bow' because 'If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword.'" (Wow!)
Pink (in Doctrine of Man's Total Depravity) says that people often consider the Calvinist doctrine of election "a most unpalatable doctrine." And why don't we like it? Because "the unregenerate love to hear of the greatness, the dignity, the nobility of man. The natural man thinks highly of himself and appreciates only that which is flattering. Nothing pleases him more than to listen to that which extols human nature and lauds the state of mankind.... Nevertheless, the duty of God's servants is to stain the pride of all that man glories in, to strip him of his stolen plumes, to lay him low in the dust before God. However repugnant such teaching is, God's emissary must faithfully discharge his duty..."
And so if we oppose Calvinism, it's because of pride and self-love... but the Calvinist preachers - "God's emissaries" that they are - bravely carry on anyway in the face of such opposition, faithfully declaring the difficult, disgusting "truths" of Calvinism, no matter how bad it sounds. Oh, the poor things! What martyrs for the cause! (And am I to assume, then, that if we oppose Calvinism, Calvinists consider us one of the "unregenerates"?)
And according to his Doctrine of Election: "when the mind perceives what the Scriptures reveal thereon [about the doctrine of election], the heart is loath to receive such an humbling and flesh-withering truth. How earnestly we need to pray for God to subdue our enmity against Him and our prejudice against His truth."
Manipulation! "When we horrible, sinful humans learn about these 'truths,' we rebel against them because we hate God and His Word, and so we diligently need to subdue our prideful, God-hating ways in order to believe this doctrine."
What nonsense! Not to mention that if we rebel, it's because God ordained it, in Calvinism. So how could we do otherwise?
I guess Papa John Calvin taught them well: "As I have hirtherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously stated in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God... Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapter 18, Section 3)
An article from The Gospel Coalition - "What I learned when I preached the doctrine of election" - adds in the idea that the Calvinist idea of predestination/election is a comfort: "The doctrine of election is a great comfort because it lifts the burden of anxiety we bear for salvation and heaps it on God. We resist the God of election in part because we are not convinced He can be trusted to make the right decision."
(It's like watching a train-wreck in slow motion, just keeps getting worse.)
So according to this Calvinist, we reject the idea that God predestined who gets saved and who goes to hell because we can't trust that He'll make the right decision.
But how in the world could a God who predestines people to hell and then commands them to believe and then causes them to reject Him and then punishes them for it... ever be considered trustworthy to begin with!?!
Calvi-god is not a good God, no matter how many times Calvinists say he is. So the problem is not with us not being able to trust God; it's that Calvinism's god is not a trustworthy god. He is not the God of the Bible!
The article goes on to suggest that if we're offended by the "doctrine of election," it's because we're offended by the gospel (not by their bad theology, of course): "If we offend people, then we should be concerned. But if the gospel offends people, we should be comforted. Why? Because the gospel has always offended people. If we preach the doctrine of election with clarity, biblical faithfulness and compassion, we ought to rest in the knowledge that we have honoured God and done the very best by our congregation."
It's tragic they see it that way.
Pink does it too in Doctrine of Election when he says that nothing compares to the ability of Calvinism's doctrine of election to "impart comfort and courage, strength and security... To be assured that I am one of the high favorites of Heaven imparts the confidence that God most certainly will supply my every need and make all things work together for my good." [Yet, considering evanescent grace, how can any Calvinist ever be assured that they're elect?]
Ands later on, he says it's a "superlative honor of being chosen by God... that the great God, the blessed and only potentate, should choose such poor, contemptible, worthless, and vile creatures as we are, passeth knowledge... They are the elect: the ones which God hath chosen, and doth not high worth, honor, excellency, necessarily follow from this?... [We need to] mark the fulness of such high privilege... The blessedness of election appears again in the comparative fewness of the elect. The paucity of men enjoying any privilege magnifies it the more..."
So because God chooses such few people, the elect can feel even more privileged, delighted, special, and honored. (Never mind what happens to the non-elect or the price they paid so that Calvinists could feel so special!)
And remind me again how "humble" Calvinists are, those "high favorites of Heaven... superlatively honored... high worth, excellency, privilege"? Because I'm having a hard time seeing it through all the man-flattery and man-exaltation.
If these are the kinds of things preached by a Calvinist pastor, what effect do you think it will have on us?
Most people will side with him. And those of us that don't will probably keep quiet because we don't want to cause trouble or be seen as one of "them bad Christians." And as a result - because no one is sounding the alarm - Calvinism will look more accepted and more correct than it is, which will further alienate those of us who have concerns, making us feel more afraid to question it, more alone, and more hopeless because there's no one to turn to for help.
And before we know it, we're wondering what's wrong with us: "No one else has a problem with what's being taught, so why do I? Why can't I seem to understand or accept what everyone else does? Why do I see it differently? What's wrong with me? What's wrong with my faith?"
And so on top of being afraid of being an unhumble, divisive, God-dishonoring, glory-stealing Christian (or at least being seen as one), we now fear that there's something wrong with our faith and our ability to understand Scripture.
Even if we've been a Christian for a long time and never had doubts before, we might start to feel the ground crumbling under our faith, the legs being knocked out from under us. (My husband and I felt it. We know.) We'll begin to distrust our discernment, our ability to recognize truth (we'll examine gaslighting later), and we'll wonder how we could've possibly misunderstood everything for so long.
And so we'll either flounder in distress, not knowing whom to turn to anymore and not trusting anyone anymore... or else we'll turn to the Calvinist pastor for help, trusting his discernment and his ability to understand Scripture, letting him coerce us into Calvinism.
But sadly, it gets worse. There are even bigger fears and risks than all that: the fear (and risk) of losing our friends, our reputation, our church.
Standing up against Calvinism in a church that is (or has become) Calvinist takes a lot of guts and has a lot of potential losses. You not only risk looking like a bad Christian, but you also might have to stand against the leadership (one fear), maybe even against your friends (another fear), and you might have to do it alone (even another fear).
And in the end, it might not work. You might end up on one side with everyone else on the other. And this might make you feel like retreating from everything and everyone, maybe even resigning from the church (or the church might force you to).
And so after nearly losing your faith and sanity in the whole process, you might also lose your friends, your reputation, your positions at church, your social circle, and your church home altogether.
These are huge losses, huge risks. And the fear of them is enough to make many people ignore the red flags and convince themselves that everything is okay. It's easier just to fall in line with everyone else.
[But that will only work for so long. Because once you start to have concerns and notice red flags, it'll only get worse until you speak up, no matter how much you try to stuff it down. And the earlier you start speaking up, the better, even if you aren't sure yet what exactly is wrong. Because the longer you keep quiet, the more time there is for the church to get entrenched in Calvinism and the harder it will be to speak up later. We've seen it happen. Learn from our mistakes. Also see "When Calvinism Infiltrates Your Church" and "Why is it so hard for Calvinists to get free from Calvinism?".]
One other point that relates to fear from the "10 things to know about the psychology of cults" article is this: "Cults are attractive because they promote an illusion of comfort."
Calvinists promise us that in Calvinism we'll find ultimate freedom from all our fears. They constantly try to convince us that their view of God's sovereignty (that He preplans, causes, controls everything) will bring us the most comfort in the hard times and that we'll have nothing to worry about anymore. Calvinism is, according to them, a "Big God" theology with a God who fully controls everything - even evil, sin, and wickedness - and so we can rest safely and confidently in His hands.
The Calvinist Gospel Coalition says it this way in the article "Predestination is Biblical, Beautiful, and Practical": "[Predestination] it is a cherished word that describes a beloved doctrine, one that bestows comfort and unshakable confidence that not one maverick molecule, not one rebel subatomic particle exists outside of God’s loving providential control—even in the matter of salvation."
Sure, this may sound good on the surface, until we dig deeper into Calvinism and realize that Calvi-god is also responsible for that evil, that he preplans, causes, controls all the evil he commands us not to do... and then he holds us accountable for it. If Calvinists find comfort in a god like that, then that's their problem. (And it's just a matter of time before it corrodes their faith.)
PHIL: Yeah, you touch on one of my questions there I wanted to ask about evil. Is God equally in control over evil things as He is over everything else?
JOHN: Well of course; He controls everything. He’s in complete control of evil. The devil is God’s devil; he’s totally controlled by God. [Calvinists think that to be "in control," God must "control everything." But it's one thing to say that God is in control over (in authority over) Satan and that Satan can't do anything unless God allows it; but it's a completely different thing to say that God controls Satan. One is biblical, the other is not.]
The world is controlled by God. Every single movement, as R.C. said, of every molecule is controlled by God, and a whole lot of it is evil. But if He didn’t control that, then it wouldn’t do any good to control only the good part because you’d be overwhelmed by the evil. [So if God didn't control all evil then it would overwhelm us!?! How does that make sense? Is God not powerful enough, in the Calvinist's eyes, to hold back evil (evil He doesn't cause), to stand in its way or turn it back on itself or use it for good? This is actually a "tiny God" view: the idea that God has to cause/control all evil, or else evil would be too powerful for Him; that He'd be helpless in the face of evil if He didn't fully control/cause it. To quote the esteemed Mr. Bill S. Preston Esquire: "Bogus! Heinous! Most non-triumphant!"]
PHIL: Right. That’s what I always say to people who are troubled by this idea, is that if you don’t believe God is in control over evil, it’s outside His control, that’s a frightening thought to me. [False dichotomy: "Either God controls all evil, or else it's totally out of His control." And is it a more frightening thought than, say, believing that God causes people to commit sins He commands us not to commit, that He causes abuse and murder and unbelief (but punishes us for it)? It's like my Calvinist pastor's sermon where he said that all our tragedies, including childhood abuse, were ordained by God, for His glory, for our good, and to keep us humble. It's like the Calvinist grandfather who accepts that God might not love his unborn grandchild and might even cause the child to grow up to become a murderer, because "God can do whatever He chooses to do with His creation." It's like Calvinist James White saying that child-rape has to be decreed by God or else it would be a meaningless, purposeless evil (listen here). (So "meaningful" child-rape is so much better, huh!?!) At least if man controls his evil actions, then man is the one against us, the one who can't be trusted. But if God controls all evil actions, then God is the one against us, the one who can't be trusted. Which one's more frightening to you?]
On the other hand, to say He is in control over it, that’s a problem for theologians. [Yes, but only because Calvinists wrongly define "in control" as "preplanning and actively controlling everything, even all sin, evil, and unbelief."]
How do you exonerate God’s righteousness and at the same time say He is in control over evil? [You don't. But Calvinists still try, with lots of word-games, circular reasoning, doubletalk, etc., which only adds to their errors and contradictions. (And remember that they interpret "in control over evil" as "controlling evil," but there's a big difference between the two.) I'm convinced that their theology books are so huge, complicated, and convoluted because they're trying to adequately answer that very question: "How do we say God isn't guilty of sin and evil while, at the same time, saying that He controls all sin and evil?" But they can't do it. They can't adequately answer it. Every answer they give creates a new problem or contradiction that they then have to try to solve, and on and on and on. But if they had just spent some time correcting their unbiblical foundational beliefs and bad definitions, everything would fall into place.]
JOHN: I think God, in putting Himself on display for His own glory, necessarily had to allow for evil, or a whole aspect of His nature would never have been manifest. It would never have been known, and He would never have been praised for it... It’s only when you have sin, it’s only when you have fallen people that God can show His wrath—which is an essential part of His nature for which we give Him glory... [Calvinists believe that God needed sinners to punish in order to show off His justice. But what does the Bible say about how God demonstrates His justice? “God presented [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished- he did it [sent Jesus to the cross for our sins] to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26, emphasis added). God doesn't punish sinners to show off His justice; He sent Jesus to the cross to show off His justice. And it's right there in the Bible!]
So basically, MacArthur is saying that we can take comfort in the idea that God causes/controls all things, even evil, and that evil is essentially good because God is glorified when He exercises His wrath against it (against the evil He preplanned and caused).
But Calvinism can only be comforting to the elect (there is no good news in it for the non-elect), and only as long as they don't think about God being the preplanner, causer, controller of all the sinful evils that we seek His comfort from.
The thing is, we can only be truly comforted by God if He is a fully good and trustworthy God, which Calvi-god is not. How can you call a God who preplans and causes evil "good"? (And then shouldn't people who preplan and cause evil also be considered "good"?) And how can you trust a God who commands us to do things He prevents us from doing and who commands us not to do things He causes us to do? That is the very opposite of trustworthy! And yet Calvinists trick themselves into trusting Calvinism's god, convincing themselves that he's good and worthy of worship in spite of all the evil he causes and deception he speaks.
(And people wonder why I'm so harsh towards Calvinism!)
