100% Bible Based Teaching
Provides in Depth teaching from the Word of God
Clear distinction between worldly and Christian music
Aim to fulfill the great commission as commanded by Jesus
Seeking to find answers to your faith based questions from God’s Word
How to be a good calvinist without being a Christian!
Calvinists blame others for ignorance and lack of understanding of their doctrine.
I often get told that I get calvinism wrong because I do not understand its theology. For example, from an email: “your argument there does not stack up because you have misunderstood the theology of Calvinisim (sic)”.
It is understanding, not lack of it, that proves calvinism wrong.
But such people are so wrong, because I understand calvinism very well indeed. In fact, I spent the first 19 years of my life being a good calvinist before I called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (as per Romans 10:13). I know exactly what it’s like to be an accredited elect person heading for an eternity in heaven, in spite of not actually being saved.
I grew up being told by my calvinist church that I was one of the elect.
You see, for the first 19 years of my life I thought I was saved, and everyone around me at my calvinist church declared the same. In fact, even for a while after I was saved, I still considered the calvinist Presbyterian church to be Christian.
Proper research led me to question and reject calvinism, especially its corrupt gospel.
It was only after I started to look seriously at their doctrine that I realised that their doctrine was faulty. By then I was attending churches where the doctrine was more acceptably biblical. But it was to be a long time before I was able to see that the calvinism I grew up with was not in any way compatible with biblical doctrine. It was when our reasonably biblical local churches were overtaken by calvinists that I was forced to assess whether or not calvinism was compatible with the Bible, and discovered that it was a non-Christian doctrine, especially its gospel.
I was brought up to be a good calvinist.
I was born into a good (calvinist) Presbyterian home with church-going parents who would never miss out on church attendance without very good reason. (The Presbyterian statement of faith is the very calvinist Westminster Confession.)
Many calvinist leaders were also freemasons.
My father was an elder. He was also a freemason, as were most Presbyterian elders that I have ever known. I knew that many of our local Presbyterian ministers were also freemasons, and that many of their churches exhibited freemasonry symbols carved into both wood and stone. (And if you think freemasonry is in any way Christian, then think again!)
Calvin taught that baptism purified us from all sin.
“We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life.” (Institutes Bk 4, Ch.15, Section 3) Therefore good calvinists must be baptised (christened) as early as possible to establish their elect status. Calvin was proud of his catholic baptism.
I was baptised very young as befits a good calvinist elect.
I was christened at an early age (thus adopted into the church as one of the elect). Presbyterian doctrine assured me that I was now properly cleansed for acceptance before God.
All good calvinist Presbyterians must be confirmed in their elect status.
Presbyterian teachings require this baptismal “faith” to be confirmed at their Confirmation later on, at which time they are admitted into full membership of the church. This is similar to the catholic confirmation ceremony. (Calvin never actually left the catholic church. His intention was always to reform the catholic church, not commence a new church, thus the term “the Reformation”.)
My Confirmation certificate “proves” my elect status.
In my early teen years I did a series of lessons which led to the church confirming my status as one of the elect. In this respect calvinism is little different to the catholic church which baptises its infants into the church, requiring this to be confirmed later on in order to become members of the church.
Until I was 19, as one of the elect, I was guaranteed to go to heaven.
Therefore, up until I was 19 years old, I was declared “saved”, one of God’s chosen elect, heading for heaven, and all I’d had to do was to be born into a good calvinist Presbyterian household, be baptised and confirmed, and follow the church rules. To break one of their rules without good reason was to be declared non-elect.
Calvinist Presbyterian rules existed to maintain one’s elect status.
I had to attend church regularly and to take communion at least once each 3 months. This was required to maintain my elect status. Not attending church regularly would prompt the church to require that you give good reason for your non-attendance or else be struck off the membership roll (and effectively also off the list of elect, too). In particular, non-attendance at more than two communion services in a row would also require good reason or else lose your elect status.
Keeping these rules proved one’s perseverance.
This rule-keeping demonstrated your perseverance, without which you could never endure to the end and therefore you were not one of the elect and would not go to calvinist heaven! Good calvinist Presbyterians demonstrated their perseverance by their continued attendance especially at communion services. Not attending was interpreted as a falling away, and the elect could never fall away!
If you didn’t endure to the end, you were never saved in the first place.
The Presbyterian doctrine was based upon obedience to the rules. Disobedient people could not be elect and therefore obedience became the measure of your salvation.
Therefore obedience to rules becomes your salvation itself.
The calvinist Presbyterians with their adherence to the Westminster Confession teach a salvation based upon the works that you do. In all my younger years, I heard little or nothing of biblical salvation. It was through obedience to the rules that you were declared one of the elect. You had to be baptised as a child, be confirmed in that faith when a teen, and thereafter attend all required church meetings and fulfill all church requirements. Calling upon the name of the Lord was never one of those requirements.
How do I know all this?
I know all this because I grew up learning all about how to be a good calvinist (as a Presbyterian). I experienced calvinism; I was immersed in calvinism; but I was never saved until I was finally asked if I had called upon the name of the Lord to be saved (and this didn’t happen in any Presbyterian church!). It happened after I had left my family home to get an education elsewhere, and at the age of 19 I found salvation in Jesus Christ, something that I knew nothing about all the time I was growing up in the Presbyterian church.
So how can you be a good calvinist without being a Christian?
Easy, far too easy, in fact. I managed to be a good calvinist without being a Christian for 19 years, and never in those 19 years realised that this was in any way unbiblical. It is true that many calvinists have also called upon the name of the Lord and been saved, yet never realising that calvinism is a burden, not a blessing, on their salvation. They are still saved, in spite of being calvinist, not because they are calvinist, but because they have also called upon the name of the Lord to be saved.
But there are many, many calvinists out there who don’t actually realise that they are not saved, and will only find out when they stand before the judgment throne of God. They will be told that their names are not in the Lamb’s book of life because they never called upon His name to be saved! Where do you stand today, calvinist? Please do not wait until the judgment to find out if you are right or not!
By the way, have you ever wondered just what calvinists mean when they say they believe in the Doctrines of Grace? Take this link or scroll down further to discover the real truth behind this.
************************************
If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.
********************************
Here’s something extra to think about:
On a “christianforums.com” thread, I read the following from someone who declares himself to be a Presbyterian:
“How do you respond to the common criticism of Calvinism such as God being the author of evil?
I simply remind them that Calvin never taught that God is the author of evil.”
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/convince-me-to-become-calvinist.7987248/
But Calvin did teach that God was the author of evil, in fact, all evils.
He wrote that “if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils.”
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God – John Calvin)
I just wish that calvinists could be a bit more educated, enough to be able to actually know what their doctrine really teaches!
*******************************
The real truth about the doctrines of grace
Calvinists love to declare their beliefs as the doctrines of grace. But do you know why? You see, calvinists used to believe in the doctrine of puritanism, where if you fell off your spiritual horse and couldn’t get back on again, you were declared non-elect, not having persevered to the end. This is bad news for those calvinist pastors who desire mega-salaries from their mega-churches. It’s very bad for business to offload all those who aren’t able to persevere as good puritans. Dismissing the failures as non-elect removes money from the offering plate.
Enter new calvinism, where the emphasis is no longer on being good obedient puritans, but on being restored sinners. Now it is good to fall off your spiritual horse, because if you get up and in the running again, then you are said to have been restored by God’s grace. In fact, the only way for calvinists to experience God’s grace is to sin in order to confess your sin so that you can be restored to fellowship. That is, new calvinism requires that you fall off your horse regularly so that you then have the opportunity to demonstrate God’s grace in restoring you. Hence the name: the doctrines of grace.
New calvinism now encourages its elect to confess their sins regularly to one another. If you do not confess sin regularly (particularly to your friendly church biblical counsellor), then you may be harbouring sin, and therefore not the recipient of God’s grace, and thus at risk of being judged not one of the elect. Sounds a lot like the catholic confessional, doesn’t it? Then note carefully that Calvin never actually left the catholic church; he merely tried to reform it, thus the name “The Reformation”.
New Calvinism derived from Sonship Theology which many (even calvinists) declare to be a licence to sin. For example, from Covenant Presbyterian Church: “I heard of one preacher who said that as sons, we are free to sin. …. The freeness of our Father’s grace should never be turned, even slightly, into a license to sin. ….
Sonship Theology is an attempt to elevate grace.” (7th Oct 2007)
Sonship theology teaches that there is no sin that any child of God can possibly commit that could ever prevent that elect person from entering heaven. That is, if you are one of the elect and commit a sin, then you will be the recipient of God’s grace in restoring you to fellowship. (Note that according to calvinism, God has foreordained your sin anyway!) The calvinist God will always show grace to his elect, no matter what sin they committed; to not be restored means a lack of God’s grace due to not being one of the elect. Only the elect of the calvinist God may have such a licence to sin!
So, “the doctrines of grace” can be re-worded as “a licence to sin”, as long as it translates to sufficient money in the offering plate to justify it.
Calvinists lack good debating skills.
Calvinist comments to this website are, in general, irrational and disorganised. Very few would be able to present an acceptable debate. They are either incapable of intelligent rational discussion, or pretending to be so.
Good post-writing is like a well-presented debate
You see, I do a lot of research and study before putting any of my documents and posts online. I check reference details, I assess biblical consistency, and I definitely focus on the specific point I am trying to make. All in all, it takes a lot of time and effort to write something properly. Like a good debate, I seek to present my views clearly and accurately.
Calvinists totally lack good debating skills
However, calvinists on the other hand appear to totally lack any idea of good debating skills. They rarely try to refute my views, and often try to change the topic. Their statements lack cohesion, and they rely far too much on merely quoting some alleged “expert” (verbatim) or give unexplained lists of biblical references to check out. They will even quote large amounts of scripture without any explanation, obviously assuming (quite falsely) that the Bible must always be read according to their interpretations alone. In any debate, such behaviour would score very low, if at all.
Calvinist comments disagree with me yet are so vague that defence is impossible
You only have to check the Comments page to discover that calvinists regularly disagree with me, yet never actually clearly specify exactly what it is that I have written that they disagree with. It is impossible to effectively defend against such vague statements, and they know this. In fact, they prefer this.
Calvinists do not like to commit themselves too much for fear they might be refuted
The more specific a statement is, the more easily it can be accepted or refuted. Vague statements merely suggest certain things without presenting a clear topic that can be refuted. Calvinists hide behind such vague statements because they are afraid of being shown up as incorrect. This is a sign that calvinists do not fully trust their own doctrines as being biblical. They are afraid to go out on a limb in defence of their doctrines.
Calvinists attack the person, not the belief
Most calvinist comments are focused upon the person and not the actual belief itself. This is poor debating and not worthy of refuting. It demands that their opponent defend his/her own reputation rather than their beliefs. One only has to read many comments posted on my website to see the truth of this statement.
Comments must be made according to good debating practice
Calvinists do not appear to have much understanding of good debating practice. Keep in mind that it is my website and that the comments must be based on an agreement or disagreement of what I have written. Anything else is an irrelevancy.
I will state some basic rules.
1/. The topic must be clearly understood and reinforced by those who debate.
If calvinists disagree with anything I have written, they must clearly define what I have written that they disagree with. This will usually be a reference to a specific document, even quoting what it is that I have stated that they disagree with. Without the establishment of the topic in this way, there can be no debate.
2/. A good debater must be able to refute his opponent’s claims.
If a calvinist cannot refute anything I have written, then there is no point in presenting any counter claims of his own. If he cannot destroy opposing statements, then he is effectively agreeing with them. Calvinists tend to ignore or make light of opposing claims. They may say that my opposing claims could be right but that their claims also could be right. For example, a recent comment stated “The 1 Pet 1:2 verse could mean God’s foreknowledge of a sinners repentance and faith in Salvation and Jesus as Lord”. Could mean? Could be right? Since when is a debate won on “could mean”? If they are to be right, then they must demonstrate me to be wrong! Otherwise I remain right! Debaters must be definitive, not vague!
3/. A good debater must produce proof statements directly related to the named topic.
Calvinists are far too prone to presenting topics that they feel more comfortable with rather than dealing with what I have actually written. They do tend to avoid trying to directly refute what I have written because that so often takes them out of their comfort zone (something they very much dislike). And, as well as avoiding directly refuting my statements, they attempt to divert attention to topics that keep them in their comfort zone. Therefore, instead of sticking to the named topic, they would rather select one of their “calvinist proof passages” as a substitute topic. And, if they quote a verse normally used to “prove” calvinism, and I counter with a question that undermines them, they will quickly move on to another topic again.
For example, one calvinist stated that John 15:16 demonstrated that God chose us (and not us Him). I then asked if he realised that Judas was one of those chosen here. His next correspondence totally disregarded this issue and went onto another unrelated topic. My query regarding Judas went unanswered!
4/. A good debater must express himself personally.
A good debater will use references judiciously to support his own views of the topic. He may name expert references that support his stated views, but should always concentrate on said references supporting his own views. The quoted references should not be independent views in themselves. The debate is focusing on the skills of the debater, not the skills of his references. His references should always be in support of his own views. The debater should avoid quoting long passages verbatim from some alleged “expert” reference; otherwise it would be that expert reference who is debating, and not the debater himself. Expert references should only be used as support and not as extra debaters on the team.
Too many calvinists think that presenting a list of Bible references and/or long passages quoted verbatim is sufficient in itself to prove their views. Therefore, comments may only use Bible references demonstrated to be directly supporting the debater’s views. Long Bible passages should be avoided; the debate is not a lecture or sermon.
5/. A good debate is concise.
A good debate should be limited in size. Most debating competitions have a time limit on the time each team member may speak. Many debating teams may have perhaps 3 members on each team, with each person limited to 3 or 5 minutes. (Team numbers and time limits may vary.) No-one wants to sit listening to a speaker drone on for ages; such people can quickly lose the attention of their listeners. So keep it short and sweet, and straight to the point – no waffling on.
Unfortunately, calvinists tend to be long-winded and vague; by the time they get to the end, most listeners have forgotten where they started. In particular, calvinists rarely get straight to the point. Being too specific permits opponents to home in on indefensible points, so calvinists tend to be vague on purpose, making it more difficult for others to point out specific errors.
6/. A good debater always focuses on the topic, not the opponent.
A poor debater who has little to offer in support of his topic will be tempted to make personal comments about his opponent. It is a tactic often used by lawyers: that if you are likely to lose the case, throw some dirt and some might stick. Discredit the opposing counsel and/or his witnesses.
Time after time, calvinist comments focus on me as a poor example of a Christian. (Just check the Comments page to see this!) According to them, I am a satanist (actually a good one, too!), I have pride, I am arrogant, I am not humble, I disdain and abuse other Christians, I am clueless, rude, a slanderer, non-elect, etc etc.
(Of course, they provide little to support such claims other than they have been unable to demonstrate me to be wrong doctrinally.)
7/. A good debater avoids deception in his statements.
If a debater thinks he is fighting a losing battle because the topic favours his opponents, then he may hope to get in first by taking the high ground before his opponents get a chance to speak. That is, to take a great weakness and present it as a great strength. This is deception. The idea is to make the first move and hopefully put your opponent on the defensive from the start, making your opponent defend what they should be attacking with. It is effectively using lies to cover up your weaknesses. Deception may win debates but only if the opposition fails to recognise the untruths being told.
Calvinists make use of this tactic so often that it is amazing more have not seen the pattern. For example, they will regularly claim Romans 9 to be a most definitive passage in support of calvinism. And yet, if you look at Romans 9 carefully, it is clear that it opposes calvinism. (Just look at Romans 9:1-3 to see that Paul himself could not have been a calvinist!) Every one of their claims re that chapter is actually a weakness and not a strength at all. Note that this lying tactic is not likely to work with those who have a good knowledge and understanding of the Bible.
8/. A good debater does not use the debate as his soapbox.
A good debater sticks to the selected topic and does not let himself be distracted onto personal views unrelated to the topic.
Calvinists often commence by stating a vague opposition to something I have written, only to then go onto another topic that is probably more to their liking. (That is, probably a topic more easily discussed vaguely than the one I have presented.) I have accused a few of trying to treat my website as their soapbox. If they want a place to air their own personal views, then they should start their own website!
In future all comments will have to adhere to good debating rules.
Future comments will need to be focused on the topic (as defined by one or more of my documents). They will be concise, rational and logical.
If calvinists make vague, unintelligent and irrational discussion, then they will not be published on this website. In fact, this requirement will apply to all comments. If you disagree with any statement I have written, then clearly define that statement and why you are opposed to it. (Or, in fact, why you are in agreement with it.) Do not change the topic. Keep your debate concise.
You may use Bible references where they are integrated into your debate. Please do not quote Scripture verbatim, especially long passages. Keep in mind that any Bible quoted must be public domain. Any literary references must be properly documented.
If I had used these requirements to assess Comments up until now, many who write in disagreement would not have been published.
I will be more lenient with those who agree, of course. This is not unfair; it is, after all, my website (I pay all costs without using advertising). I may choose how I assess any incoming mail. Note that all people tend to accept emails more readily from supportive people, and this is no different to that. To any who disagree with this policy, I would ask how many of you move unwanted emails to the trash or spam folders rather than dealing with them. Naturally you prefer friendly emails; so do I. Therefore, any unacceptable Comments (that do not adhere to the above listed requirements) will be moved to the trash or spam folders. Thank you.
************************************
If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments may be recorded on the Comments page. However, I may choose to reply to reasonable comments via email.
List of all my posts on this site.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
Please feel free to comment Comments and contact page
Reasonable comments and replies may be recorded on the Comments page.