Mark Talbot

The Man in the Mirror (Bonus: Spurgeon’s “Arminian Prayer”)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jump to the history of the phrase “preaching like and Arminian, but sleeping as a Calvinist” and a response to Spurgeon’s “Arminian prayer.”

A recent short sermon clip I listened to by a yute pastor is this one…. and I must say, it is impossible to preach like a Reformed determinist or Calvinist who agrees with TULIP.

I will critique a bit [decode] his ideas lurking behind the scenes and show a more honest interpolation of the major issues:

Guys, God’s law makes demands of you. It demands that you be something you cannot be.

But the gospel — the gospel — doesn’t demand something from you that you don’t have. The gospel gives you something you desperately need: righteousness—clean hands and a pure heart.

One man put it this way:

“Run and run, the law demands,

but gives me neither feet nor hands.

Better news the gospel brings:

it bids me fly and gives me wings.”

Amen. That’s the gospel.

The law tells you to run, and you feel that pressure: “I’ve got to work to appease God. Run and run and run.”

If you’re on that treadmill of self-righteousness today, get off it. Throw yourself at the mercy of Jesus. Collapse there, and you can be made righteous today.

Maybe you, like me, have felt ashamed and thought, “I’m not the man I’m supposed to be. I’m not the man I was meant to be. I’m not the man I should be.”

But Jesus was—and He was for you.

Okay, first, I want to deal with two issues I hear  as Josh preaches that are running around behind the scenes. Both are important. The first issue deals with “The Gospel”. While I resonate with the gospel’s message being preached, the 16th century Augustinian systematic idea of election slides into the picture.

The “Gospel of Election”
Calvary or the Cosmic Lottery of Election?

Paul declares that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, CSB). But in Reformed determinism, the decisive question is not simply whether Christ died for sinners, whether His provision is sufficient, or whether the gospel is proclaimed. The decisive question is whom God unconditionally chose to make willing to believe before the foundation of the world.

Consider the implications.

Two sinners hear the same gospel. Both are commanded to repent. Both are told that Christ is the Savior and that they must believe in Him. Yet, according to this system, one will certainly believe because God has decreed to grant him effectual grace, while the other will remain in unbelief because God has not decreed to grant him that same grace.

What made the difference? Was it the clarity of the gospel? The sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice? The gracious invitation to repent and believe? No—not ultimately. The decisive difference was God’s prior, unconditional decree to bring one sinner to faith while withholding the effectual grace that, according to this system, would certainly bring the other to faith.

Election becomes the ultimate arbiter of who will be saved, while the gospel serves as the predetermined instrument through which the elect are brought to their predetermined response.

This is the heart of the problem: the gospel is proclaimed to both, but only one has been unconditionally chosen to receive the inward work that guarantees belief. The same message is preached; the same Savior is announced; the same command to repent and believe is issued. Yet the decisive difference was settled before either sinner heard a word.

What, then, is the ultimate explanation for the difference between them? The gospel they heard—or the decree that determined which one would certainly respond to it?

Jonah Preached, but Had Election Already Decided?

Consider Jonah and Nineveh. Jonah preached, and the Ninevites repented. Scripture presents a remarkable example of a divine warning followed by a genuine human response. God sent His messenger, the people heard the warning, and they turned from their wickedness.

Yet under Reformed determinism, their repentance was not ultimately what distinguished them from those who would remain unrepentant. God had already unconditionally determined whom He would effectually bring to repentance. Jonah’s message was the ordained means, but the decisive distinction had been settled before anyone heard him preach.

The question is not whether God ordained Jonah’s mission. He plainly did. The question is whether the proclamation itself was God’s gracious call to which the Ninevites responded, or whether the decisive explanation for their response must be found in an earlier, selective decree that guaranteed the repentance of some while withholding the same effectual grace from others.

In this framework, the preacher announces the warning, but the prior decree determines who will certainly respond. The message is indispensable as the ordained means, yet it is not the ultimate explanation for why one person repents and another does not.

That is why the image of a “cosmic lottery” presses the issue—not because Calvinists would describe their doctrine in those terms, but because the decisive distinction between the saved and the lost is assigned to an unconditional choice made before either person believes, repents, or hears the gospel.

What Does It Mean to Tell Someone, “Christ Died for You”?

The same problem becomes intensely personal when we consider the gospel invitation.

Suppose a preacher tells an unbeliever, “Christ died for you. His death is sufficient to save you. Repent and believe in Him, and you will be forgiven.”

Under a universal-provision understanding of the atonement, this is a straightforward announcement of good news: Christ provided salvation for humanity, and the sinner is called to receive that provision through faith.

But under a strict particular-redemption framework, the preacher cannot affirm that Christ bore that person’s sins in the same saving sense unless that person belongs to the elect. The preacher does not know whether the person is elect. The individual may hear the invitation, remain unconvinced, and die in unbelief—and, according to the system, Christ may never have died for that individual in the particular, saving sense being discussed.

What, then, can the preacher confidently promise that Christ has done for this specific person?

The invitation can still be sincerely offered within the Calvinistic system. Calvinists argue that the gospel command is genuine, that everyone who comes to Christ will be received, and that the preacher need not know the secret decree. But the Provisionist challenge remains:

How can the universal invitation be grounded in Christ’s provision for every person if the atonement itself is restricted to the elect?

Consider the difference between these two announcements:

  1. “Christ died for you, and He calls you to receive the salvation He has provided.”
  2. “Christ may have died for you—but whether He did depends on whether you were among the elect chosen before the foundation of the world.”

The second statement is not how Calvinists ordinarily frame their gospel invitations, and it would be unfair to suggest that every Calvinist preacher speaks that way. Nevertheless, it exposes the theological tension the Provisionist critique is addressing:

the preacher proclaims a universal command, while the scope of Christ’s particular saving work is understood to be limited to those already chosen.

The gospel invitation is heard in time. The decree, in this system, determines the outcome before time.

The Qualified-Buyer Problem

Imagine a car dealership advertising, “Good news! Qualified buyers can receive zero-percent financing.”

That offer may be perfectly honest. But notice the qualification: the offer is not available to everyone. Whether you receive the benefit depends on whether you meet the requirements.

Now apply the analogy to the question of atonement. If the announcement is, “Christ died for the elect,” the decisive question becomes:

HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU QUALIFY?

In Calvinism, the answer is not that you independently meet a condition that causes God to elect you. Rather, election is unconditional, and effectual grace brings the elect to faith. Faith reveals the saving work of God; it does not determine whom God chose.

But that is precisely the issue. If you believe, it is because you were elected and effectually brought to faith. If you remain in unbelief, you were not granted that decisive grace. The difference is not ultimately found in the atoning provision offered to both, nor in a response that God graciously enables both to make. It is found in God’s selective decree.

The question is no longer simply, “Will you trust the Savior?” It is, “Has God chosen to make you willing to trust Him?”

The Calvinist will answer that those who come to Christ do so willingly because God has renewed their hearts. The Provisionist objection is that this does not remove the problem; it identifies where the problem lies. Why does God effectually renew one person’s heart but not another’s?

If that selective renewal is the decisive difference, then election—not the sinner’s response to the proclaimed gospel—is the ultimate explanation for why one person believes and another does not.

Does Election Become the Fountain, and Christ the Means?

This concern is not merely a criticism imposed from outside Reformed theology. The Canons of Dort, a foundational Reformed confession, describe election as the “fountain of every saving good,” from which faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation proceed, ultimately leading to eternal life.

That language makes the issue especially clear. In the Reformed account, election is not merely God’s recognition of those who will believe. It is the unconditional decree from which saving faith and the other saving benefits flow.

The second video places this claim alongside John MacArthur’s defense of sovereign election throughout redemptive history. MacArthur points to God’s choice of Israel, Jacob, and the covenant people. Such passages certainly establish that God elects and chooses according to His purposes. But the further question is whether God’s election of a people for a historical and covenantal role automatically establishes the Calvinistic claim that God unconditionally selects particular individuals for salvation and effectually determines their response to the gospel.

Those are related questions, but they are not identical. God’s choice of Israel as a people does not, by itself, settle every question about individual election, the scope of the atonement, or the nature of saving faith.

The Provisionist challenge is that the Calvinistic system takes the reality of divine election and makes unconditional individual election the fountain from which every saving response flows. The result is a theological order in which the decree explains who will believe, while Christ’s work provides the necessary basis for the salvation of those already chosen.

Here the question becomes unavoidable:

  • If election is the fountain of every saving good, what does that make the cross in the explanation of why one sinner is saved and another is lost?

Christ’s death remains necessary in the Calvinistic account. But the cross, considered by itself, does not explain why one sinner receives its saving benefits while another does not. Both need Christ. Both need forgiveness. Both need grace. Yet only one receives the effectual grace that guarantees faith.

Election supplies the decisive distinction.

Does Election Overshadow the One Who Is “The Way, the Truth, and the Life”?

Jesus declares, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, CSB).

Calvinists affirm this verse. They insist that no one is saved apart from Christ, His atoning death, and His resurrection. It would be inaccurate to claim that they consciously replace Jesus with election or believe that the cross is unnecessary.

But the question is one of explanatory priority.

If the ultimate reason a person believes in Christ is that God unconditionally elected that person and effectually renewed the person’s heart, while another person remains in unbelief because that same effectual grace was not granted, then election determines who will certainly come to the One who is the way, the truth, and the life.

Christ is indispensable to salvation. Yet election is the decisive explanation for why one sinner receives Christ’s saving benefits and another does not.

The Provisionist objection is not that Christ has become literally unnecessary in Calvinist theology. It is that the system makes the selective decree the decisive differentiator of salvation, even though the New Testament presents Christ and the gospel as the focus of God’s saving provision and proclamation.

Calvary provides the ground of salvation. The gospel proclaims Christ. But in this deterministic framework, election decides who will certainly believe the proclamation and receive its saving benefits.

Calvary or the Cosmic Lottery?

Return to the two sinners who hear the same gospel.

One believes. The other does not.

The Calvinist says the believer comes willingly because God effectually renews the heart; the unbeliever remains responsible because he acts according to his own desires. Yet both the believer’s renewed desires and the unbeliever’s continued resistance occur within God’s sovereign decree. The decisive question remains: Why does God grant the heart-changing grace to one and not the other?

The answer cannot ultimately be that one was more receptive, more spiritually perceptive, or more willing to respond to the gospel. In the Calvinistic account under consideration, the elect person’s willingness is itself the result of God’s effectual work. The decisive difference lies in God’s unconditional choice.

That is the issue. Not whether Calvinists believe in the cross or preach the gospel, but whether the decisive explanation for the difference between the saved and the lost is the gospel’s gracious call to faith—or God’s prior, selective decree.

Paul says the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, CSB). He also writes that faith comes from hearing the message about Christ (Romans 10:17). The Provisionist challenge is this:

  • Why make an unconditional decree of selective regeneration the ultimate explanation for who can and will believe, rather than understand the gospel as God’s gracious call through which sinners may respond to His provision in Christ?

The question is not whether God saves by grace. The question is whether His grace is proclaimed in Christ as a genuine provision and invitation for all, or whether the decisive saving difference has already been settled by an unconditional decree that effectually brings some to faith while leaving others without that same grace.

Calvary provides the saving provision. The gospel announces the good news. But if election alone determines who will certainly believe, then election—not the proclamation of Christ—is the ultimate explanation for who receives salvation.

And that is the question every honest discussion of election and the gospel must confront:

  • Is the good news centered on what God has done for sinners in Christ and graciously calls them to receive—or does the ultimate answer to who will be saved lie in a selective decree that determines who will ever be willing to believe?

Okay, in this second section, some ideas need to be put in place BEFORE dealing with “looking at the man in the mirror.” I have more quotes here but I have chosen a select few to make the point:

Some Quotes Before Section Two

JOHN CALVIN:

  • “Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” — Institutes 1.16.8.
  • “Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction.” — Institutes 1.18.1.
  • “The hand of God rules the interior affections no less than it superintends external actions; nor would God have effected by the hand of man what he decreed, unless he worked in their hearts to make them will before they acted.” — Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid, p. 175f.
  • “… how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. … It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. … Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.” — The Eternal Predestination of God 10:11.
  • “From these statements of the inspired word … it is, I think, sufficiently clear that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts; His own judgment being sometimes manifest, sometimes secret, but always righteous.” — Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.
  • “Does God control even the evil wills of evil men? Calvin’s answer, in accord with Scripture, was ‘yes.’ Just as God controlled the rebellion of Pharaoh (Ex. 9:12), the cursing of Shimei (2 Sam. 16:10), and the rage of the Jerusalem crowds (Acts 2:23), so He controls even the will of all wicked men.” — The Secret Providence of God, ed. Paul Helm, trans. Keith Goad (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 79–80. (Note: The last block is Helm/Goad framing Calvin, not a continuous Calvin paragraph.)

ALL men’s acts are decreed and happen by the will and purpose of God. All.

JOHN PIPER:

QUESTION: Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe, such as dust particles in the air? And then I should add here, including all our besetting sins.

PIPER RESPONDS: Yes, which means yes…

— John Piper (Video)

God determines every single thing even dust but you have to make the decision about the cross… What?

“Is God less glorious because he ordained that evil be? … no, just the opposite. God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil. The effort to absolve him by denying his foreknowledge of sin … or by denying his control of sin … is fatal.”

John Piper, “Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained That Evil Be?” (1998).

“God so disposes all things … so that in accordance with moral necessity all men make only those choices ordained by God from all eternity.” […] “In this way He ultimately determines all acts of volition (though not all in the same way) and yet holds man accountable only for those acts which they want most to do.”

John Piper, Desiring God, A Response to J.I. Packer on the So-Called Antinomy Between the Sovereignty of God and Human Responsibility.

Mark Talbot/John Piper:

Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…

Mark Talbot, in John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.

God can cause, actively, men to rape, torture, kill, and conduct horrendous scientific experiments on people just because they are Jewish

Theodore Zachariades:

God works all things after the Council of His will. Even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so! And when He wants to, he orders those to commit adultery when he wants to!

— Dr. Theodore Zachariades (Video)

Pastor Zachariades says that God wills [causes, not just permits] a man to be unfaithful to his wife in his comment on becoming a Calvinist via Ephesians 1.

Gordon H. Clark:

“I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so. … In Ephesians 1:11, Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of his own will.”

Religion, Reason and Revelation (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1961), 221.

Excessive alcoholism? Murdering your family? All God’s fault.

End Of Quotes

The Man in the Mirror
The Man God Decreed You to Be

The preacher asks you to look in the mirror and admit, “I’m not the man I’m supposed to be. I’m not the man I was meant to be. I’m not the man I should be.”

But under theological determinism, that confession raises a deeper question: Who decreed the man staring back at you?

Who decreed his desires, his circumstances, his struggles, his failures, and the decisions that shaped his life?

John Calvin wrote that people act under God’s secret direction and that God works in human hearts to bring about His purposes. John Piper likewise affirms that God determines all things, even the smallest details of the universe, including human choices and sin. If these claims are taken seriously, then the man in the mirror is not merely a man whose choices fall within God’s foreknowledge. He is a man whose desires, decisions, and circumstances all fall within God’s exhaustive decree.

Yet the preacher still tells him to change.

  • “I need to quit drinking.”
  • “I need to stop hurting people.”
  • “I need to control my anger.”
  • “I need to become a different man.”

But here is the tension:

under theological determinism, the man cannot ultimately determine whether he will become that different man.

He must repent, yet his repentance will occur only if God has decreed to bring it about. He must believe, yet saving faith will occur only if God grants the effectual grace that ensures it.

And that raises the central question:

If God determines the desires and decisions that make one man who he is, and selectively grants the grace that transforms one man but not another, why does one change while the other remains unchanged?

The Calvinist response is that people act willingly according to their desires and are therefore responsible for their actions. But the Provisionist objection goes deeper than whether a person acts willingly. It asks where those desires ultimately came from and why the decisive, heart-changing grace is granted to one person but not another.

If God determines the circumstances and desires that shape a man, and if only God’s selective effectual grace can ensure that he will believe and be transformed, then the difference between the man who changes and the man who does not ultimately rests on God’s decree.

The law commands the man to become better. The gospel points him to Christ. Yet, in this deterministic framework, the man cannot finally be the one who determines whether he will respond to that call. The decisive difference is whether God has decreed to bring about the response in him.

IT’S GETS EVEN WORSE:

If the man in the mirror cries out to God for help in overcoming his sin, another question arises:

  • Under theological determinism, is he asking God to help him fight against desires and actions that God Himself decreed?

If God determines both the sinful desires he struggles with and the grace by which those desires are overcome, is the man essentially asking God to help him fight a battle whose opposing forces God has ultimately ordained?

So returning to the mirror. The man sees what is wrong and recognizes what needs to change. But if God decreed the very desires and decisions that made him the man he is, and also decreed whether he would receive the grace that ensures his transformation, the question cannot be avoided:

What exactly is the man being condemned for failing to become—and why was the decisive grace withheld from him?

So, that is my critique when I here these Calvinist – Reformed – TULIP types preach. They are preaching like and Arminian, but sleeping as a Calvinist. [As the saying goes.]

To Wit….

(GROK) The core observation—that Arminians (or those who emphasize free will/human responsibility) often sound different when preaching or talking slowly versus when praying (where dependence on God comes out more strongly)—is most famously and early associated with Charles H. Spurgeon. In his sermon “Free Will—A Slave” (preached December 2, 1855, on John 5:40), he said:

“You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it.”

He then imagines a satirical “Arminian prayer” that no real Christian would actually pray, arguing that true prayer reveals a deeper dependence on God’s sovereign grace.

Here is that prayer:

“Fancy him praying, ‘Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved.

“Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.’”

Spurgeon then delivers his punchline:

“That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that.”

This is the earliest clear, well-documented statement of the idea that people (especially Arminians) “pray like Calvinists.”

Related later variants and attributions

  • J.C. Ryle (in Expository Thoughts on the Gospels on John 6:44, published around 1869) made a similar point: “Many people are very low Arminians in print or in the pulpit, but excellent Calvinists on their knees.”
  • A.W. Tozer is sometimes quoted as saying something like “I preach like an Arminian but I pray like a Calvinist.” When asked about his own views, he reportedly quoted the Scottish Baptist preacher W. Graham Scroggie (1877–1958): “I am a Calvinist when I pray and an Arminian when I preach.”
  • Common modern sayings include “Work like an Arminian, sleep like a Calvinist,” “Pray/evangelize like an Arminian, but sleep like a Calvinist,” and “Be a Calvinist on your knees and an Arminian in the pulpit.” These appear frequently in 20th–21st-century Reformed discussions (e.g., critiques by John Piper and others) as popular or longstanding counsel, but they are often criticized as misleading or inconsistent with either system.

The idea has circulated as a rhetorical observation or piece of practical advice in Calvinist-leaning evangelical and Reformed circles for well over a century and a half. Spurgeon’s 1855 formulation is the earliest prominent, dated use of the core “pray like a Calvinist / Arminian on his knees” point. The exact phrasing you mentioned (“preaching or pray like an Arminian, but sleeping as a Calvinist”) is a later popular variant of that older theme rather than a phrase with one clear inventor.

A CALVINIST PRAYER

RPT: Source One | Source Two

A longer CALVINIST PRAYER using Theistic Determinisms systematic, bringing it to it’s logical conclusion:

An adaptation of the themes in Spurgeon’s “Free Will—A Slave”

O Sovereign God, I thank You that before the foundation of the world You unchangeably decreed whatsoever comes to pass. Nothing occurs outside Your eternal counsel—not a thought, not a desire, not a decision, not a word spoken in anger, not a crime committed in secret, and not a molecule that moves beyond Your meticulous determination.

I thank You that my life unfolded exactly as You ordained. You determined the circumstances of my birth, the family that raised me, the influences that shaped me, the thoughts that entered my mind, the desires that stirred within my heart, and the decisions that followed. I could not ultimately have become anyone other than the person You decreed I would be.

I thank You that even my prayer this morning was ordained before the foundation of the world. I could not have prayed it differently, for to do so would have required a different decree. I praise You for determining the words I speak, the thoughts I entertain, and the conclusions I reach concerning Your sovereignty.

Lord, I thank You that everything happens according to Your decree—even the things You command me not to do.

I thank You that when I am tempted, the temptation itself falls within Your eternal plan. When lust arises, when anger burns, when pride swells, when envy takes hold, and when hatred forms in my heart, none of these desires surprises You. You have ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore these events cannot fall outside Your determination.

When I sin, I know that I act according to my own desires. I do what I want to do, and I am accountable for my actions. Yet those desires, the circumstances surrounding them, and the decision that follows all fall within Your exhaustive decree. I could not finally have desired otherwise, for the desires I possess are the desires You determined would govern my actions.

I thank You that I am responsible for doing what I could not ultimately have done otherwise.

O Lord, I thank You that You have ordained both the command and the transgression of the command, both the prohibition and the act prohibited. You command me to resist temptation, yet the temptation and my response to it are included in Your decree. You command me to repent, yet my repentance will occur only if You have decreed to bring it about.

I thank You that when I fall into sin, I have disobeyed Your revealed command, even though my disobedience has not fallen outside Your eternal decree. I thank You that You judge me for the desires and actions that You have determined would characterize my life, while I remain accountable because I acted willingly according to those desires.

Lord, I confess that I cannot resolve every question this raises. I shall therefore affirm that You ordain all things, that human beings remain responsible, and that Your decree is righteous, even when I struggle to understand how these claims fit together.

I thank You for the cross of Christ, without which there is no salvation. I thank You that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary to redeem sinners and that His blood provides the ground of forgiveness. Yet I also thank You that the benefits of His sacrifice are applied only to those whom You have unconditionally elected and effectually called to faith.

I thank You that before the foundation of the world You determined not only the provision of salvation but also which sinners would certainly believe and receive it. You ordained the preaching of the gospel, the hearing of the message, the conviction of sin, and the effectual work of grace by which Your elect are brought to faith.

When two sinners hear the same gospel, I thank You that one believes and the other remains in unbelief because You have determined to grant effectual grace to one and not the other. The believer did not ultimately supply the decisive difference, and the unbeliever cannot produce the faith that would change his condition apart from the grace You have decreed to grant.

I thank You that I cannot boast in my faith, because You determined that I would believe. But I must ask:

Why did You decree to bring me to faith while leaving another sinner without the effectual grace that would certainly bring him to faith?

I know that Your election is gracious and not based on foreseen merit. I know that You owe salvation to no one. Yet I ask why Your grace takes the form of a selective decree that guarantees the faith of some while leaving others in unbelief.

I thank You that You command all people to repent and believe, while in this system only those whom You effectually call will certainly do so. I thank You that the gospel is proclaimed to people whose ultimate response has already been settled by Your eternal counsel.

When I preach to the lost, help me proclaim Christ sincerely. Let me call sinners to repentance, urge them to believe, and tell them that everyone who comes to Christ will be received. Yet I cannot know which hearers You have elected, nor can I grant the effectual grace that will ensure their response.

So I pray for the lost: Lord, save them. Grant them the grace that brings them to faith. And when I ask You to save someone who remains unbelieving, I acknowledge that the decisive difference is not something I can produce through better preaching or more earnest prayer. It rests in Your sovereign determination.

But if I ask You to grant that person the grace You have decreed not to grant, I must also ask whether my prayer itself has been ordained to change the outcome or merely to accomplish the means by which Your already-determined outcome will occur.

O Lord, I thank You for ordaining all things, including the horrors of human history. I thank You

Evanescent or Temporal Grace | Deity of Deception

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gavin Ortlund Defends Calvinist Assurance—Does It Work?

  • This is a clip from a longer youtube reaction video to ‪@TruthUnites‬‘ defense of Calvinism. For the full reaction click here:     In this video Tim and Josh (with guest Phil) discuss Gavin Ortlund’s defense of the Calvinist position on assurance and how… some things just don’t add up.

Here is the Calvinist doctrine Temporal Grace, as taught by John Calvin:

temporal faith

“Let no one think that those [who] fall away…were of the predestined, called according to the purpose and truly sons of the promise. For those who appear to live piously may be called sons of God; but since they will eventually live impiously and die in that impiety, God does not call them sons in His foreknowledge. There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or temporal grace, are called so by us, but are not so to God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.66, emphasis mine)

And,

“Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption …. there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith …. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent …. there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes, emphasis mine)

Calvin adds: 

“Yet sometimes He also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then He justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8, emphasis mine)

Therefore, by “some arrogated or temporal grace,” God “illumines only for a time” the alleged non-elect in order to overcome his Total Inability and thus temporarily think that he was “of the predestined.” Realize that Calvin taught the doctrine of Temporal Grace because he needed to plug a hole in his theology, such as how to explain passages such as Matthew 7:21-23, where the perishing, that is, those who are being condemned to Hell, had performed miraculous things that spiritually dead people are not supposed to be able to do, according to the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Inability. Calvin’s answer for such instances was a temporary grace. 

John Calvin again:

“Whoever has sinned, I shall delete him from the book of life. … But the meaning is simple: those are deleted from the book of life who, considered for a time to be children of God, afterwards depart to their own place, as Peter truly says about Judas (Acts 1:16). But John testifies that these never were of us (1 Jn 2:19), for if they had been, they would not have gone out from us. What John expresses briefly is set forth in more detail by Ezekiel (13:9): They will not be in the secret of My people, nor written in the catalogue of Israel. The same solution applies to Moses and Paul, desiring to be deleted from the book of life (Ex 32:32; Rom 9:3): carried away with the vehemence of their grief, they prefer to perish, if possible, rather than that the Church of God, numerous as it then was, should perish. When Christ bids His disciples rejoice because their names are written in heaven (Lk 10:20), He signifies a perpetual blessing of which they will never be deprived. In a word, Christ clearly and briefly reconciles both meanings, when He says: Every tree which My Father has not planted will be rooted up (Mt 15:13). For even the reprobate take root in appearance, and yet they are not planted by the hand of God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.151-152, emphasis mine) 

John Calvin comments on Hebrews 6:4-6: 

“…God certainly bestows His Spirit of regeneration only on the elect, and that they are distinguished from the reprobate in the fact that they are re-made in His image, and they receive the earnest of the Spirit in the hope of an inheritance to come, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I do not see that this is any reason why He should not touch the reprobate with a taste of His grace, or illumine their minds with some glimmerings of His light, or affect them with some sense of His goodness, or to some extent engrave His Word in their hearts. Otherwise where would be that passing faith which Marks mentions (4.17)? Therefore there is some knowledge in the reprobate, which later vanishes away either because it drives its roots less deep than it ought to, or because it is choked and withers away.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Hebrews and I and II Peter, p.76, emphasis mine) 

Calvinist, Mark Talbot: 

“Now of course, nothing, that I, nor anyone else, can say can guarantee that anyone will continue to believe. Faith is a gift of God that we cannot produce.”  (Sin and Suffering in Calvin’s World, emphasis mine)

In other words, the fact that you believe today is no guarantee that you will still believe tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after. You can only hope for the best, that your ordained fate is better than others, and that your grace is not a temporary grace, here today and gone tomorrow. Mark Talbot explicitly offers no illusion for your hope of tomorrow. There is nothing that you can do, but hope for the best. It’s completely out of your hands and completely in God’s hands. If you should find yourself an unbeliever tomorrow, your gift has run out.

One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians: 

“The Calvinist’s assurance is obliterated by the fact that God ordains the illusory salvation of the seemingly-saved folks. This makes them a special sub-set of the damned. In Calvinism, God glorifies Himself by damning the ‘eternally reprobate.’ But the seemingly-saved folks have the unique privilege of ‘glorifying’ God in their earthly lives, by appearing to be saved on their way to Hell. Because God has pre-ordained this, there is nothing any apparently saved person can do. God has ordained the illusion! Of course, this brings up another question: Why is the God (who is Himself truth) ordaining such an illusion? How can God be truthful if He unconditionally pre-ordains illusions? And what kind of God could or would ordain such an illusion for the sake of His glory?” (SEA, emphasis mine)

One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians: 

“For every person who has ever followed Jesus and then forsaken his name, we have to conclude that God ordained that said person would be eternally damned, but on their way to being damned, God ordains the illusion of redemption in Christ, in that they would come to know Jesus, exhibit kingdom fruit, and then apostatize, all for the sake of divine glory.” (emphasis mine)

​QUESTION: If there is a Temporal Grace, then how do Calvinists know whether this will some day apply to them?

ANSWER: If they stop persevering, then that is how they know, according to Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer. 

Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer: 

“Historic Calvinism stresses the ‘perseverance of the saints,’ namely that true believers never fall away, and if they do, it is not for long. If a person fails to continue in the faith, he is giving proof that he was never saved.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.231, emphasis mine)

Arminian, Robert Shank: 

“In other words, the only real evidence of election is perseverance, and our only assurance of the certainty of persevering is—to persevere!” (Elect in the Son, p.214, emphasis mine)

Dave Hunt: 

“It is Calvinism that in effect offers salvation by works because it looks to works for assurance of salvation. Biblically, assurance comes by faith in the promise of eternal life in Christ made by ‘God, who cannot lie…before the world began’ (Titus 1:2).” (Debating Calvinism, p.416, emphasis mine)

QUESTION: How do Calvinists know if they are of the Calvinistically elect?

ANSWER: They presume it. …..

Read the rest at:

What is Evanescent Grace? 

| and |

Calvinist Complaints: Arminianism teaches “Conditional Security”)

The Puritan’s Died Fearful

This is why the Puritan’s never slept well in the security of their salvation. Pastor Andy Woods notes this in a truncated presentation:

Although there can be some abuse from Free Grace types, I thought this quick post illuminates Pastor Woods comments:

… You may remember that the Puritans were English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who believed the English Reformation hadn’t gone far enough. They objected to Roman Catholic influences in the Church of England and wanted a purer church with purer doctrine (hence the name “Puritan”). Thus, they separated to form independent or dissenting congregations, with many fleeing to Holland and then to New England looking for religious freedom (at least for themselves, if not for others).

As Grenz explains, the Puritans were concerned with “the quest for certainty of personal election” (Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, p. 23). They wanted to be sure that they were saved. Why was that? Why did that become an area of particular doubt for them?

Simply put, it was due to the doubts created by their Calvinism:

“This movement developed a new kind of piety in response to anxieties produced by the Calvinist doctrine of election, which in Puritanism made the problem of assurance of salvation existentially central. In contrast to medieval paradigms, Calvinism couched the question of personal salvation in terms of God’s mysterious election. While this theology protected divine sovereignty, it offered no clear criteria whereby a believer could be assured of elect status” (Revisioning, p. 39).

As Grenz explains, many tried to ground their certainty of being elect in outward behavior, which had the opposite effect:

“As helpful as they may be, in the end no sincerity of profession of faith, no degree of faithful attendance at the sacraments, no accumulation of outward evidences of sanctified living could suffice as marks of election” (Grenz, Revisioning, p. 39).

Since looking at outward behavior didn’t give them the assurance they sought, the Puritans looked for inward evidence. Grenz continues:

“the Puritans did devise one definitive mark of election: the inward experience of God’s saving grace. The attendant emphasis on conversion that this move engendered led eventually—at least in devotional literature—to an emphasis on a subjective mark of salvation, the inner, conscious experience of the new birth. Assurance of elect status, therefore, became the product of a believer’s ability to narrate a testimony to a personal conversion experience” (Grenz, Revisioning, p. 39).

This emphasis on having a “new birth” conversion experience became one of the central features of preaching during the Great Awakenings in America. Men like John Wesley (representing Arminians) and George Whitfield (representing Calvinists) emphasized the necessity of conversion and having “the New Birth.” People who had that experience during the revival meetings began to distinguish themselves from people who hadn’t, leading to the question, “Are you really saved?” ….

How Did Assurance Become a Debate?

In discussing this with Grok and Chat-GPT, I got a hybrid breakdown of two sources:

The “P” of TULIP

Calvinism’s doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints does not ultimately provide the confident assurance of salvation that many assume it does. While Calvinism teaches that all of God’s elect will persevere to the end, assurance is often grounded not merely in faith in Christ but in the believer’s ability to demonstrate a lifetime of continuing faith, obedience, and holiness. Since only those who endure to the end are proven to be truly elect, the believer is left asking not simply, “Do I believe in Christ?” but also, “Will my faith ultimately prove genuine?”

According to these critics, this creates a built-in tension within the Calvinist system. If those who fall away are explained as never having been truly saved, then every professing Christian must consider whether his own faith might eventually prove to be temporary or spurious. Rather than resting entirely upon Christ’s finished work and His promises, assurance becomes linked to future perseverance that has not yet occurred.

The concern is reflected in several recurring themes:

  • Assurance is tied to visible perseverance, holiness, and good works rather than resting solely on God’s promises to believers.
  • Numerous Calvinist theologians, including John Calvin, John Murray, A.W. Pink, and others, stress that present faith is not sufficient unless one continues faithfully to the end.
  • Calvin’s doctrine of “temporary faith” or “evanescent grace” introduces the possibility that someone may appear converted for years and still not be among the elect.
  • Apostasy is interpreted as evidence that a person was never truly saved, causing believers to question whether their own faith is genuine.
  • Personal testimonies such as R.C. Sproul’s famous struggle with the question, “What if you are not one of the redeemed?” are cited as examples of the doubt this system can produce.
  • Biblical examples such as David, Peter, Solomon, and the carnal Corinthians are presented as evidence that true believers can fail seriously without proving themselves lost.

For these reasons, critics argue that Calvinism’s doctrine of perseverance functions less as a doctrine of assurance and more as a doctrine of ongoing self-examination. The believer’s focus can shift from Christ’s completed work to the search for evidences of election within his own life. In their view, the result is a form of assurance mixed with uncertainty, because the final proof of genuine salvation is not known until life’s race has been completed.

Thus, both sources conclude that Calvinism’s “P” in TULIP, though intended to safeguard eternal security, ultimately undermines it. Instead of offering believers settled confidence in Christ’s promise of eternal life, it replaces assurance with an ongoing test of endurance, leaving many to wonder whether they possess saving faith at all. True assurance, they contend, is found not in examining whether one has persevered enough, but in trusting Christ’s promise that all who believe in Him have eternal life here and now.

Dr. Leighton Flowers walks through a recent sermon entitled, “The Most Hated Christian Doctrine” by Dr. John MacArthur.

Faith Alone Thru Christ Alone

  • Flowers agrees with MacArthur that humanity is sinful and in need of grace, but argues that Calvinism wrongly transforms human rebellion into God-decreed inability, thereby undermining genuine responsibility, the universal offer of the gospel, and the biblical teaching that people receive life by believing rather than believe because they have already been given life.

The below video is Dr. Leighton Flowers’ response to John MacArthur’s sermon “The Most Hated Christian Doctrine.” While Flowers agrees with MacArthur that humanity is deeply sinful and incapable of saving itself, he argues that MacArthur goes beyond biblical depravity and imports the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Inability—the belief that people are born unable to respond positively to God’s revelation unless first regenerated by irresistible grace. Throughout the discussion, Flowers repeatedly distinguishes between people being unwilling because of rebellion and people being unable because of an innate condition decreed by God. He contends that passages such as John 5, John 6, John 8, Acts 28, and John 12 are addressing hardened, rebellious Israelites who became calloused through persistent rejection of God’s revelation, not describing the universal condition of every person from birth. According to Flowers, Calvinists mistakenly turn judicial hardening passages into proof texts for a doctrine of universal moral inability.

The larger theme of the video is the defense of human responsibility and the sufficiency of God’s revelation. Flowers argues that Calvinism ultimately makes unbelief trace back to God’s decree rather than to the sinner’s own rejection of truth. He repeatedly challenges MacArthur’s claim that unbelievers “cannot believe” by asking whether such inability is self-inflicted through rebellion or divinely determined from birth. Flowers maintains that God’s grace genuinely enables all people to respond to the gospel, that faith is not a meritorious work but a response to God’s gracious initiative, and that salvation remains entirely by grace even though individuals are responsible for whether they trust Christ. The video therefore centers on a fundamental disagreement: Calvinism teaches that people need new life in order to come to Christ, whereas Flowers argues that Scripture consistently presents people as coming to Christ in order to receive life.

Ultimately, as I see it, God is a deceiver in Calvinistic theology.

God the Cause

To bolster my point and not just make blanket statements, Dr. Theodore Zachariades shows that God wills [causes, not just permits] a man to be unfaithful to his wife.

  • God works all things after the Council of His will. Even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so! And when He wants to, he orders those to commit adultery when he wants to! (Video)

He gets that from John Calvin:

… how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission. . . . It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them. . . . Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.

John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11

John Piper:

Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).

John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42. (FULLER QUOTE VIA THIS PDF)

More at my: Is God the “devil” Behind Satan? | Sovereign Puppeteer | and | Is Divine Determinism a Different Gospel?

MEMEVANGELIST (Facebook) just posted this doozy of a meme that I want to unpack here. I will post the original and then my updated version with some explanation.

Here is the original.

And here is some explanation for those not picking up what was shared.

The meme is trying to compress several Calvinist debates into one short point, so it’s pretty difficult to follow unless you know the background.

Here’s what it is getting at.

The First Issue: Unconditional Election vs. Assurance

Calvinism teaches:

  • God chose the elect before creation.
  • The elect will certainly be saved.
  • The non-elect will certainly be lost.
  • Election is unconditional (not based on foreseen faith).

The immediate question becomes:

“How do I know I’m one of the elect?”

That question has haunted Calvinism from Calvin onward.

The Second Issue: Evanescent Grace

The meme references “Evanescent Grace.”

This is a concept Calvin discussed. Calvin observed that some people:

  • appear converted,
  • appear faithful,
  • appear regenerated,
  • appear to persevere,

… and yet ultimately fall away.

So Calvin argued that some people experience something that resembles saving grace but is not actually saving grace.

In the Institutes he describes temporary believers who receive impressions of grace that later vanish.

Hence: Evanescent Grace

“Temporary grace.”

“Vanishing grace.”

“A faith that looks real but isn’t.”

The Problem Created

If Calvin is correct, then:

  • strong faith is not proof you’re elect,
  • assurance is not proof you’re elect,
  • perseverance today is not proof you’re elect,

because a person under “evanescent grace” can appear identical to a true believer for years.

So the question becomes:

How can anyone know they are elect before the end?

What the Meme Is Really Asking

The meme’s logic is:

  1. Election is unconditional.
  2. The elect are certainly saved.
  3. Some non-elect people may temporarily look saved.
  4. Therefore certainty of salvation cannot prove election.
  5. Therefore how do I know I am elect?

That is the “question that drives us, Neo.”

Here is my remake:

Again,

  • “If temporary believers can look exactly like true believers, then how is anyone supposed to know they are elect before they die?” — The Assurance Problem in Calvinism 

That’s really what the meme is trying to highlight: not election itself, but the tension between unconditional election and assurance of salvation when Calvin’s doctrine of evanescent grace is taken seriously.

CALVARY DISAPPEARS INTO A COSMIC LOTTERY OF ELECTION.

CS Lewis: Our White Being God’s Black

Published by Papa Giorgio

I wanted to separate out two CS Lewis chapters I quote from in my first (May 2025) dealing with the topic at hand. I wanted to let Lewis’ insights burn in the mind of the believer. I will add stuff after the Lewis excerpts, one being a quote from a book recommended from the “lectern” by a pastor at a church I am in the process of leaving… and I wonder what Lewis would have thought if he had read this — more than he already intimates below. [But read the Lewis excerpts before even reading the quote, Lewis stands on his own. I will add the short quote AFTER the focus of one of the 20th century’s apologetic giants thoughts.] I include the full audio chapter at the end of each partial “print” excerpt.

CS LEWIS had a huge influence on my apologetic life. The quotes are from his The Problem of Pain, chapters 3 and 4:

“Divine Goodness”

Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threat­ens us with the following dilemma.

On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judge­ment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.

On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity— when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing— may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.

The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of infe­rior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and gradually learns to accept their standards—a process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly with­out a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint dis­taste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reach—of chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as ‘white’ what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but ‘as lords that are certainly expected’. You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into soci­ety that one is unfit for. It is in the light of such experi­ences that we must consider the goodness of God. Beyond all doubt, His idea of ‘goodness’ differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact, be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call ‘better’. The Divine ‘goodness’ differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child’s first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning.

This doctrine is presupposed in Scripture. Christ calls men to repent—a call which would be meaningless if God’s standards were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to practise. He appeals to our existing moral judgement—‘Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (Luke 12:57) God in the Old Testament expostulates with men on the basis of their own concep­tions of gratitude, fidelity, and fair play: and puts Himself, as it were, at the bar before His own creatures—‘What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?’ (Jeremiah 2:5.) …

CS Lewis | The Problem of Pain (Chapter 3)

“Human Wickedness”

…A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry. Most of us have at times felt a secret sympathy with the dying farmer who replied to the Vicar’s dissertation on repentance by asking ‘What harm have I ever done Him?’ There is the real rub. The worst we have done to God is to leave Him alone—why can’t He return the compliment? Why not live and let live? What call has He, of all beings, to be ‘angry’? It’s easy for Him to be good!

Now at the moment when a man feels real guilt— moments too rare in our lives—all these blasphemies vanish away. Much, we may feel, can be excused to human infirmities: but not this—this incredibly mean and ugly action which none of our friends would have done, which even such a thorough-going little rotter as X would have been ashamed of, which we would not for the world allow to be published. At such a moment we really do know that our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a God—it is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abol­ished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath hap­pens to stink.

When we merely say that we are bad, the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God’s goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more and more of its complex disguises, is therefore indis­pensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith. This is not, of course, a new doctrine. I am attempting nothing very splendid in this chapter. I am merely trying to get my reader (and, still more, myself) over a pons asi-norum—to take the first step out of fools’ paradise and utter illusion. But the illusion has grown, in modern times, so strong, that I must add a few considerations tending to make the reality less incredible.

  1. We are deceived by looking on the outside of things. We suppose ourselves to be roughly not much worse than Y, whom all acknowledge for a decent sort of person, and certainly (though we should not claim it out loud) better than the abominable X. Even on the superficial level we are probably deceived about this. Don’t be too sure that your friends think you as good as Y. The very fact that you selected him for the comparison is suspicious: he is prob­ably head and shoulders above you and your circle. But let us suppose that Y and yourself both appear ‘not bad’. How far Y’s appearance is deceptive, is between Y and God. His may not be deceptive: you know that yours is.

Does this seem to you a mere trick, because I could say the same to Y and so to every man in turn? But that is just the point. Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men: he knows there is that within him which falls far below even his most careless public behaviour, even his loosest talk. In an instant of time—while your friend hesitates for a word—what things pass through your mind? We have never told the whole truth. We may confess ugly facts— the meanest cowardice or the shabbiest and most prosaic impurity—but the tone is false. The very act of confess-ing—an infinitesimally hypocritical glance—a dash of humour—all this contrives to dissociate the facts from your very self. No one could guess how familiar and, in a sense, congenial to your soul these things were, how much of a piece with all the rest: down there, in the dreaming inner warmth, they struck no such discordant note, were not nearly so odd and detachable from the rest of you, as they seem when they are turned into words. We imply, and often believe, that habitual vices are excep­tional single acts, and make the opposite mistake about our virtues—like the bad tennis player who calls his nor­mal form his ‘bad days’ and mistakes his rare successes for his normal. I do not think it is our fault that we cannot tell the real truth about ourselves; the persistent, life-long, inner murmur of spite, jealousy, prurience, greed and self-complacence, simply will not go into words. But the  important thing is that we should not mistake our inevitably limited utterances for a full account of the worst that is inside.

  1. A reaction—in itself wholesome—is now going on against purely private or domestic conceptions of moral­ity, a reawakening of the social We feel our­selves to be involved in an iniquitous social system and to share a corporate guilt. This is very true: but the enemy can exploit even truths to our deception. Beware lest you are making use of the idea of corporate guilt to distract your attention from those humdrum, old-fashioned guilts of your own which have nothing to do with ‘the system’ and which can be dealt with without waiting for the mil­lennium. For corporate guilt perhaps cannot be, and cer­tainly is not, felt with the same force as personal guilt. For most of us, as we now are, this conception is a mere excuse for evading the real issue. When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we can go on to think of the corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much. But we must learn to walk before we run.
  2. We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. I have heard others, and I have heard myself, recounting cruelties and falsehoods committed in boyhood as if they were no concern of the present speaker’s, and even with laughter. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin. The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ: if we have repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of a sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it fur­nished to God’s compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eter­nal moment St Peter—he will forgive me if I am wrong— forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, ‘an acquired taste’—and certain ways of life may render the taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public Of course I do not know that this is true; but I think the possibility is worth keeping in mind.
  3. We must guard against the feeling that there is ‘safety in numbers’. It is natural to feel that if all men are as bad as the Christians say, then badness must be very excus­able. If all the boys plough in the examination, surely the papers must have been too hard? And so the masters at that school feel till they learn that there are other schools where ninety per cent of the boys passed on the same papers. Then they begin to suspect that the fault did not lie with the examiners. Again, many of us have had the experience of living in some local pocket of human soci-ety—some particular school, college, regiment or profes­sion where the tone was bad. And inside that pocket certain actions were regarded as merely normal (‘Every­one does it’) and certain others as impracticably virtuous and Quixotic. But when we emerged from that bad soci­ety we made the horrible discovery that in the outer world our ‘normal’ was the kind of thing that no decent person ever dreamed of doing, and our ‘Quixotic’ was taken for granted as the minimum standard of decency. What had seemed to us morbid and fantastic scruples so long as we were in the ‘pocket’ now turned out to be the only moments of sanity we there enjoyed. It is wise to face the possibility that the whole human race (being a small thing in the universe) is, in fact, just such a local pocket of evil—an isolated bad school or regiment inside which minimum decency passes for heroic virtue and utter corruption for pardonable imperfection. But is there any evidence—except Christian doctrine itself—that this is so? I am afraid there is. In the first place, there are those odd people among us who do not accept the local stan­dard, who demonstrate the alarming truth that a quite dif­ferent behaviour is, in fact, possible. Worse still, there is the fact that these people, even when separated widely in space and time, have a suspicious knack of agreeing with one another in the main—almost as if they were in touch with some larger public opinion outside the pocket. What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gautama, Christ1 and Marcus Aurelius, is something pretty sub­stantial. Thirdly, we find in ourselves even now a theoret­ical approval of this behaviour which no one practises. Even inside the pocket we do not say that justice, mercy, fortitude, and temperance are of no value, but only that the local custom is as just, brave, temperate and merciful as can reasonably be expected. It begins to look as if the neglected school rules even inside this bad school were connected with some larger world—and that when the term ends we might find ourselves facing the public opin­ion of that larger world. But the worst of all is this: we cannot help seeing that only the degree of virtue which we now regard as impracticable can possibly save our race from disaster even on this planet. The standard which seems to have come into the ‘pocket’ from outside, turns out to be terribly relevant to conditions inside the pocket—so relevant that a consistent practice of virtue by the human race even for ten years would fill the earth from pole to pole with peace, plenty, health, merriment, and heartsease, and that nothing else will. It may be the custom, down here, to treat the regimental rules as a dead letter or a counsel of perfection: but even now, everyone who stops to think can see that when we meet the enemy this neglect is going to cost every man of us his life. It is then that we shall envy the ‘morbid’ person, the ‘pedant’ or ‘enthusiast’ who really has taught his company to shoot and dig in and spare their water bottles.

[….]

This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Nor am I recommending universal gloom. The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads. I think that insight should be permanent in each man’s mind: but whether the painful emotions that attend it should also be encouraged, is a technical problem of spiritual direction on which, as a layman, I have little call to speak. My own idea, for what it is worth, is that all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad; and I think we all sin by needlessly disobeying the apostolic injunction to ‘rejoice’ as much as by anything else. Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his ‘faith in human nature’, who is really sad. I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional, effect: I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. No, depend upon it; when the saints say that they—even they—are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy.

CS Lewis | The Problem of Pain (Chapter 4)

THE STONE IN THE SHOE:

This was a book recommended in a men’s group, and this comes from my copy… it is repeated below as well in the excerpt from SOTERIOLOGY 101:

Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).

Mark Talbot, in John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.

This entire article is well worth the read… and I understand Calvinists do not even allow free will even in secondary cause (see short video embedded in my introduction to a letter which includes John Hendryx and John MacArthur)

Here is the short excerpt from the longer article, keep in mind “that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’,”

I recently came upon this question in my twitter feed.  In case it isn’t obvious, my answer to this shocking question is unapologetically, “HELL NO!”  And I mean that quite literally. Hell, the place were creatures go who “BRING ABOUT” such atrocities, screams what should be the obvious answer: NO! Our perfectly HOLY God does not bring about the sins for which people suffer for in Hell!

However, as obvious as the answer to this question may seem, John Piper, and other notable Calvinistic scholars, teach a highly controversial perspective:

“God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…” 

(Video Link) — Mark R. Talbot, “’All the Good That Is Ours in Christ’: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us,” in John Piper and Justin Taylor (eds.), Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 31-77 (quote from p. 42).

So, look at the two different beliefs side by side:

  • Traditionalism affirms that God works to redeem man’s morally evil choices and bring about good from the heinous consequences of those autonomous choices. God is seen as most glorious because of His redemptive grace in overcoming evil.
  • Calvinism, according to Piper, affirms that God “isn’t just managing to turn the evil aspects of our world to good; it is rather that He Himself brings about these evil aspects for His glory.” God, according to this perspective, is seen as most glorious for His power and control of the evil itself.

So, is God bringing about the very moral evil that He works to redeem? 

[….]

I’ll allow John MacArthur, another notable Calvinistic pastor, bring some much needed balance to this approach:

If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?

No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

Occasionally someone will quote Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) and claim it proves God made evil as a part of His creation: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

But the New American Standard Bible gives the sense of Isaiah 45:6-7 more clearly: “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God devises calamity as a judgment for the wicked. But in no sense is He the author of evil. …

[See my post in responding to an atheist on Isaiah 45]

Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin. Death, pain, disease, stress, exhaustion, calamity, and all the bad things that happen came as a result of the entrance of sin into the universe (see Genesis 3:14-24). All those evil effects of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is.

First Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. And James 1:13 tells us that God will not tempt us with evil.

God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28). – John MacArthur

Please re-read that last paragraph that I emboldened. He says, “He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends,” while Piper’s article says the opposite, “God isn’t just managing to turn the evil aspects of our world to good; it is rather that He Himself brings about these evil aspects for His glory.”  So, which is it? Is God bringing about evil or simply permitting it?

In another must read article, and why I consider myself a Baptist, but not in the Al Mohler sense, is this one which — again — should be read in full. Here is the short clip via BAPTIST NEWS:

… “This is excruciatingly troubling to me,” the user commented.

So to the Calvinists
Pamela Butler
10 years old
Rollerblading
Kidnapped by Keith Nelson
Taken to a wooded area
Tortured for hours including electrocution
Raped
Strangled to death
Please tell me how this is NOT a tragedy.

Then along came R.C. Sproul Jr. in an attempt to do just that.

Without offering a single word of empathy or lament, Sproul Jr. started in: “The closest the world has ever come to a tragedy is when a man, who had never sinned, was tortured to death. Do you believe God ordained that event?”

When the X poster asked how the Crucifixion of Jesus “remotely compares to the event I described,” Sproul Jr. added: “No, it does not remotely compare. Because in one instance a little girl received the judgment from God she had earned. In the other a perfect man received the judgment I earn. So you are OK with saying God ordained the torment of Jesus but not a sinner?”

From there, Sproul Jr. boasted of being “an orthodox theologian who affirms the doctrine of original sin,” attacked the original poster for using “an emotional appeal that denies what the Bible clearly teaches about our sin,” and demanded that the person “submit to what the Bible plainly teaches.”

He concluded, “If the girl is not a believer, she received justice from God.”

While Sproul Jr.’s words are horrifyingly shocking to anyone who has even a hint of human decency about them, they are indeed the logical outflow of the power- and violence-obsessed gospel prevalent among conservative evangelical Calvinists today. There’s a link between the pop-Calvinist’s obsession with power over women and their indifference to violence against women. And when we begin to probe, we’ll discover the connection in their gospel.

[….]

‘Meaningful rape’

Lest we think this intellectualized indifference toward the rape and murder of 10-year-old girls is a unique manifestation of the internal rot of the Sprouls, it’s actually one of the skeletons in the closet of the conservative evangelical Calvinist world that has come to dominate much of the conservative Reformed Baptist and Pentecostal worlds today.

In a debate on The Bible Answer Man, the Calvinist apologist James White was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible? And did he decree that rape?”

White answered, “If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.” And when pressed further, he doubled down, asserting, “Yes. Because if not, then it’s meaningless and purposeless.”

While talking with a woman about people who have been gang raped, Jeff Durbin said, “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil he plans. … He actually decrees all things.”

In Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, which was edited by John Piper, Mark Talbot argued: “It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects. … This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child.”

Vincent Cheung wrote: “Scripture teaches that God’s will determines everything. Nothing exists or happens without God, not merely permitting, but actively willing it to exist or happen.”

John Piper tried to make sense of it by saying: “God disapproves of some of what he ordains to happen. That is, he forbids some of the things he brings about.”

In other words, Sproul Jr.’s indifference toward rape and murder isn’t simply the rantings of a drunk driver who goes on websites designed to facilitate adultery. It’s part of what mainstream conservative evangelical Calvinist leaders across the board celebrate today as good news.

I have a collection of quotes related to this here.

How To Pray Like An Honest Calvinist | IDOL KILLER (+RPT)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The 2nd video is Idol Killer’s original, the first is my reimagining it:

Praying Like A Consistent Calvinist | Adapted from Idol Killer >>> I rejiggered it into a better order [IMHO], added some graphics/quotes, and uploaded it a second time finding an edit error on my part.

Not for the faint of heart!

Somewhere outside the city of Geneva, on Earth 1689, it happened that a Calvinist Theologian was praying, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Pastor, teach us to pray, just as John also taught his disciples.” and he said to them:

“Oh Sovereign God, whom from all eternity, freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass, I thank you… I know you bring about all things in accordance with your will,… I know the evils of this world have NOT arisen by your mere permission, (or as a result of your patient call to repentance), but that YOU yourself bring about all evils for your glory and good pleasure,…

I thank you for bringing evil into the world. I thank you for the brutality at Birkenau and at Auschwitz.

I thank you for the terrible killings of Dennis Rader.

I thank you for the brutality of war, and the countless widows and orphans it creates. I thank you for the perverse abuse of young children. I know these evil men were perfectly obeying your Sovereign will.

I thank you. I see your gracious hand in the hurts others do to me, (like the Ford Focus that cut me off at the light this afternoon).

I thank you. I thank you for my wife, and the abuse she inflicts upon our children while I’m away from the home. I know you did this to build mine and my children’s character. I thank you that its only been bruises and bloody noses. I know you saw fit to have my boss fire me from my job, during the holiday season, just as I know it was your Sovereign will that he hire Stephanie this past Spring and that we have an affair.

I thank you for giving me an irresistible desire for red heads. Above all, I know it was your Sovereign hand keeping my wife ignorant of our illicit love making, (during our lunch break at the motel six).

I thank you. I know that it was your perfect will that my neighbor got drunk and took his own life this morning, just as it was your perfect will that I was distracted on my cell phone and backed the car over his son last week.

I thank you. I know you’ve regenerated me and elected me unto salvation, and while I’m unsure about my wife and children’s eternal destiny, I thank you. Please bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies and bless the hands that prepared it, or don’t. Whatever your Sovereign will is. Thank you, and amen!”