Combating Calvinism Is Like Combating an Ever Mutating Virus
Just like A Virus
It is known that viruses mutate over time to become more resistant to antibiotics. So too, with Calvinism. Mutation results in various variant forms of the virus, making combating it a difficult thing. Calvinism is like a virus which is ever mutating into different forms and shades. Calvinists themselves openly admit that there are many forms of Calvinism. There is the Extreme Calvinism, Moderate Calvinism, Full Five Point Calvinist who believe in some form of free will, and the "less than five point" calvinist. There is also the calvinist who denies he is a calvinist, but who believes in the full sovereignty and grace of God, total depravity of man. I find it difficult to accurately describe the many forms of it.
We do not know which form of Calvinism we can be attacked with, or by
at any one time. And it is therefore difficult to be ready at all times
to put up a ready defence when we encounter an attack.
A Recent Mutation
John G. Reisinger , a calvinist, and a professional one I suppose, displays an example of that devious mutational ability in a web article. This writer started off by agreeing with what are apparently non-calvinst positions, i.e.,
- Point One, man must repent to be saved,
- Point Two , anyone who repents will be saved,
- Point Three: Repentance and faith are not vicarious but are the free acts of men.
Do you see the mutation that has taken place? From man being unable to repent, he has agreed that man can, and mst repent after all! . From unconditional election, it has mutated to ANYONE who repents will be saved, making it sound like unconditional election is no longer there! From NO FREE WILL, it has mutated to "Repentance and faith are
not vicarious but are FREE ACTS of men, playing on the word FREE to make it sound like there is some form of free will after all!!.
Devious, devious, devious! And when you come to Point Four, without any kaboom, he smoothly slipped back into the true Calvinist form again. By then, the unwary reader's defences has already been disarmed by the apparent admissions of free will, and no more unconditional election. And he smoothly proclaims that what he wrote was not to prove that there is free will, nor he agreed that total depravity does not mean total inability and he goes on to propose that the totally depraved man still needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate him before he can exercise the free acts to repent and show faith! Oh, really? What a quick sleight of the hand act! What a slick lawyer's play with words with the bait and switch tactic. Slick! Sly! Make it look like he agrees with you and slickly continue stating the standard calvinism after making it look like he does not agree with it with the fist three points. By the time he reached point six, hardcore calvinist identifiers are all out in the open, just like a virus which can never change its identifiers, Viruses can only mutate to disguise itself, but the markers remain. Similarly, Calvinism mutates to disguise itself, but the markers remain. Devious, even diabolical.
A further Mutation. It is " There is free will" now, but to choose evil.
As I read what Reisinger wrote, I noted a further mutation in their theoglogy. A new mutated defence had evolved in addition to the above, which is to counter the established scriptural antidote against it. You see, Calvinism had always stood firmly that man has NO free will at all. Zero! God in His sovereignty
predestined everything in and for him. But this had not stood up well at all in the face of scriptures. Scriptures reveal that man does have the ability to choose after all. In
Deut 30:19 Moses had told the people to choose, i.e. they have the free will to choose. In
Joshua 20:15, Joshua told the people to CHOOSE between God and other gods. Yes, they can choose after all. And in
1 King18:21 Elijah told the people to CHOOSE. They do have the freedom, free will if you will to decide but they chose to keep silent. Calvinists are stumped by these. Still are.
A new solution needed to evolve. Reisinger provided it. Now it is this. God's sovereignty decides everything. But man has free will ( Oooops!) But it is free will to choose evil, not choose God's side. See how devious is their new argument? That is how Reisinger has put it.
GOOD TRY. It is a trick argument. God is still sovereign in an absolute way, but man has some free will after all. See the compromise Reisinger made worded to sound like the stand is still the same? It is a trick argument. A trick argument remains just that. A trick. And a trick is used to deceive, else it is not termed a trick.
So, why do Calvinists need to resort to these slick and sly methods of defence? Is it not because they have realized that their so-called truths are hard to defend, and promote? Would you need to compromise and disguise the appearances of your truths if your truths can stand up to scrutiny? Why do you resort to such hidden dagger methods to attack? WHY?
Jesus said in John 8:32 : And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
