The Absurdity of Calvinism Keeps Rolling

The last post that I did concerning Calvinism dealt with the absurdity of its adhere’s (primarily the words of John MacArthur) inviting someone to come to Jesus because at the end of the day (according to Calvinism) it has already been decided whether or not they’re going to listen or stay right where they are regardless of humanity’s interaction, involvement, intervention or whatever you want to call it. Because as the old Calvinistic saying goes, if you don’t have it you can’t get it, if you get it you can’t lose it and if you lose it you never had it – which leaves a person asking why would they even invite someone to come to Jesus if that person can’t accept or reject the invitation for his or her self to begin with?

Well that post caught the attention of a person who decided to make a reply that fell three words short of 2,200 words (by comparison, this post is 20+ words shy of 1,000). The reply didn’t get approved, and it wasn’t because it made some point that I was “afraid of” or because “I couldn’t handle” what they presented. I didn’t approve the reply because there was nothing new to it or in it, and it added nothing significant to the conversation at all despite the vast number of words it used. It was more of the “your blog is nothing but opinion that tries to hide the truth of God’s word” along with a few other little “compliments” mixed in here and there. But again, that’s nothing new either; but all of that aside, there were a couple of other very closely related reasons why I didn’t approve the comment; namely because the comment and the commentator only revealed more of the absurdity that I referred to with the original post that attracted the comment to begin with. It revealed the fact that the majority of Calvinists don’t really believe what they preach!

For one, this person used 2,200 words to try to do something that they, according to their own teaching, couldn’t do – that’s make someone “see the truth.” Because according to them, and I quote in the caps that they used, “SALVATION IS A DIVINE WORK OF GOD APART FROM THE COOPERATION OF MAN.” To that my question in return is, in the caps that I’m going to use, “WHEN IT COMES TO THE GOSPEL WHY EVEN BOTHER TO TELL SOMEONE THAT THEY’RE WRONG IF YOU CAN’T HAVE AN EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SEE THEIR ERROR???” That’s absurdity! If, as they said, “The will to come to Christ is the outcome of God’s unconditional, free and Sovereign election” is true, and they really believe that, then why even try to convince someone of something to which they cannot be convinced of through the given effort?!

And as far as the whole salvation issue goes, how does this person indeed know that they are correct in their belief that God’s grace has forgiven them if they have NO PART TO PLAY IN THEIR SALVATION? Don’t dare suggest it’s because of something that they’ve done because then that would be absurd to them if they’re willing to remain consistent with their belief! Remember, they have nothing to do with whether or not they’re saved.

The second reason I didn’t approve the dissertation of denial concerning Calvinism’s absurd invitation to come to Christ is because of the commentator’s inconsistency concerning their stance on the issue of salvation and God’s love towards others. On this particular commentator’s blog they presented a book to their readers called “Jesus Loves The Little Children” wherein the Calvinist author presents “the Gospel without words” so children can learn about sin and Jesus. Besides the fact that it sounds like they’re trying to do “the Spirit’s work” for him again, the title is in fact true but the title is in fact incongruous with what they believe, for if a child is not a part of “God’s unconditionally elect” then there is no love for that child! Because according to their own belief every child that is born is born already saved or already damned to Hell despite what Jesus did upon the cross. Now this is how they said it in their reply: Unregenerated man is dead in his sins, blind to the gospel, in enmity (having a deep hatred) with God, not subject to God’s will and never can be. But my description only says what they teach with a little more frankness and honesty concerning children that few Calvinists will share. So to be genuine with this commentator’s doctrine and self-purported beliefs the title of the book should be changed to, “Jesus Loves The Little Unconditionally Elect Children And Only Them” no matter how it may sound to others…because after all, that’s the “truth” of the “gospel” according to Calvinism!

This is the whole reason why I called Calvinism’s invitation to come to Christ absurd to begin with, and it’s also the reason why I’m not going to deal with the absurd inconsistencies of its commentators who try to defend it.

There are few things more absurd than trying to talk with people who refuse to remain consistent with the plants that their doctrinal seeds lead to – namely, in this case, the poor and pitiful salvation blinding TULIP that Calvinism presents as the supposed truth. The absurdity may keep rolling but I’m not rolling with it.

Then the disciples came to him and said, “Do you know that when the Pharisees heard this saying they were offended?” And he replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. Leave them! They are blind guides. If someone who is blind leads another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.” (Mt. 15:12-14 – NET)

Related Article:

#calvinism, #comments, #error, #false-doctine