Final reply to a calvinist who just won’t listen.
You have not addressed most of the questions I put to you, and those you have addressed, you have quoted the same old rhetoric that calvinists in general are forced to quote for fear their heresies might be revealed. I have given up hope of getting some real answers for a change. Instead you appear to be trying to convert me (without success) to that doctrine of devils commonly labelled calvinism. The one thing you have demonstrated that is abundantly clear is that the calvinist gospel is not the same as the non-calvinist gospel. They are literally incompatible. The Bible says that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved, and the calvinist gospel says the opposite.
Note what Todd Friel says about the traditional gospel: People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. (Ten reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your heart – Friel) This is dangerous ground, for what Friel is really saying is that unless God chooses to save you, you aren’t saved. Even if you ask God to save you, you cannot be saved unless God has previously decided that you should be saved.
Therefore, if the calvinist gospel is right, then the non-calvinist gospel is wrong, or, if the non-calvinist gospel is right, then the calvinist gospel is wrong. One denies the other; that’s why we have had such arguments. You have defended your calvinist gospel at the expense of the non-calvinist gospel. If you are right, then (according to Friel), I am lost in my sins. And, if my non-calvinist gospel is Biblical, then you are lost in your sins. Either one or the other of us is lost because we both cannot be right here. Whichever of us is right will label the other’s doctrines as heresy!
So I will just define why you are wrong, and leave you with that. If you choose (by your free will, no doubt) to reject my statements, then so be it. I will continue to believe what I believe and you have the option of believing what you wish to believe. However, if the Bible is right, then you are clearly wrong, for your gospel can have a person saved with eternal life before a person comes to Christ to be saved and receive eternal life (something very clearly attested to by Spurgeon).
I will not pay any attention to all the extra waffle that you have added this time as a smoke screen to the fact that you don’t have any real answers anyway. Over a year ago (January 2017) I demonstrated to you that MacArthur had misquoted the Granville Sharp rule in a futile effort to somehow demonstrate that Acts 2:23 “proved” that God’s determinate counsel and His foreknowledge mean the same thing. I gave much evidence to support this assertion. Yet, despite not being able to refute any of my document at all, you chose to believe that MacArthur couldn’t be wrong. You did, however, state a major problem for calvinists: that they are willing to interpret the Bible such that it suits the point they are trying to get across. Calvinists are very good at reinterpreting the Bible to suit the point they are trying to get across!
You said (and I quote): I’m thinking perhaps the rule itself can be interpreted in a way to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across. There is one thing I am certain of and I have no reason to think otherwise and that is that I see no evidence that Macarthur would purposely mis-interpret anything to make his point.
And why would MacArthur be right and therefore I must be wrong? You also said: the only criticism seems to come from free will believing Christians
So I am wrong simply because I do not believe in calvinism? This is illogical.
This does not seem to be a very good defence of something that is so critical to the calvinist cause: that foreknowledge must be proven to be other than God’s perfect knowledge of the future. For if MacArthur is indeed wrong (which he is without a doubt), then he has literally demonstrated by such efforts that it is necessary for him to prove this point. (Clearly MacArthur has “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“?) Thus, if he cannot prove it, then he must accept that he is wrong. Therefore, by MacArthur’s lack of proper support for his assertions, he has demonstrated a concern that foreknowledge does not mean determinate counsel.
You were unable to prove me wrong then, and have done nothing to change that state of affairs! MacArthur is wrong on this issue until someone can demonstrate that he is right. And therefore, so are all calvinists wrong who take the same method to “prove” that which cannot be proven! (Because they interpret the Bible “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across” perhaps?)
You have yet to prove that God’s foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1:2 is anything other than God’s perfect knowledge of the future. Your words indicate that you are still obsessed with MacArthur’s teachings on this matter. (Is he still trying “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“?) I have already demonstrated in other documents that God’s foreknowledge (prognosis) is His perfect knowledge of the future, but I won’t bore you with material you probably won’t read anyway, so I’d be wasting my time. You have not been able to disprove that God’s foreknowledge here is simply His perfect knowledge of the future. Your “explanation” is totally dependent upon man not having any free-will which you also haven’t been able to prove otherwise (more on this later). If man has free will, then God’s foreknowledge is to determine such future decisions (such as He has not foreordained). Much as calvinists would love the Bible to say what they teach, it must be a great disappointment to those calvinists who realise that it doesn’t say anything of the sort. Just try disproving that God’s foreknowledge is His perfect knowledge of the future! You said that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen and yet the Greek word for foreknowledge, prognosis, means exactly that, its first use being by Hippocrates in his medical treatises about 400 BC. The word prognosis was used to describe what a doctor does when he determines what your future health might be, that is, he is referring to (an) awareness of what is going to happen to you medically – please check this out.
(By the way, when a doctor gives a prognosis on your future health, what is he doing? Remember that Luke was a physician and used prognosis (Acts 2:23) as a medical man, having studied Hippocrates as a major part of his medical training.)
Romans 3 does not prove man’s inability to seek after God; it merely demonstrates his total lack of desire to seek after God. Prove me wrong using logic this time!
And you say that I don’t understand because I misunderstand the theology of the calvinists? How does this in any way determine the rightness of one side over the other? How can you be right because I allegedly don’t understand you? This is totally illogical! (Although I consider that I have more understanding of calvinism that most calvinists do. I have read much of their works, including Calvin and MacArthur etc, and have found so many inconsistencies that many calvinists refuse to believe exist, even when they are written in print! Try researching Calvin’s teaching on temporary faith which he termed an inferior operation of the Spirit!)
And what about the other questions I raised in my last document? For example, matters of free will brought up in Deuteronomy 30:19 which raises a choice that only man’s free will can answer? What about Isaiah 5:4 where a lack of man’s free will makes the calvinist God either tell lies or not know his own mind, as also in Jeremiah 32:35.
And what about some more of the questions I raised? How do you answer on my statement that John 12:32 and John 6:44 together demonstrate man’s free will because “all” means “all”? (Or else you have to prove that “all” cannot mean all mankind without exception.)
What about John 15:16 where your theology has to admit that Judas was one of the elect?
Where does the Bible state clearly that there are two callings of God, effectual and general? Or is this just another calvinist “interpretation” or point of view that should never be used to prove a doctrine?
How can Spurgeon teach that a man already has life before he comes to Jesus for life, when John 3:36 says clearly that a man cannot have life until he has the Son of God?
How can Spurgeon have the incompetent gall to make “will not” into “cannot” in John 5:40? It is by such ridiculous word-changing that calvinists are able to interpret the Bible “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“. For Spurgeon to have presented such a confused message demonstrates that his opponents must have really been getting under his skin annoying him the week before! His message is more indicative of a bad temper than logical reasoning.
You also have yet to demonstrate to me from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 cannot mean the whole world without exception. For, until you do, you are forced to accept that the whole world can, in fact, actually mean the whole world! Why do you along with so many calvinists avoid this issue? They tell us that “the whole world” only means a limited group of people, but they never prove that it cannot mean the whole world without exception.
In “A portrait of false teachers, Part 2” on 2 Peter 2:1, MacArthur tells us that there are two ways you could view this passage. His “second sense” of understanding here does not in any way demonstrate why his first option cannot be an option at all. He says it could be viewed as a universal provision for the redemption of sinners, so therefore it remains a viable option in his document unless he refutes it, which he doesn’t even try to do! Avoiding the issue does not get rid of his problem here.
“In what sense did Christ buy these false teachers? Two ways to view it. First of all, you can view it as universal provision for the redemption of sinners, even though they refuse it and are damned.
But I think there is a second sense in which we have to understand this, that they have made an earthly identification with Christ’s redemption so that they claim Him as the one who bought them and they claim Him as their Redeemer, testifying that He indeed has bought them and their word then is taken at face value.”
I have asked many questions, yet have not received any satisfactory answers for any of them. I will not bother myself to waste my time further by writing answers refuting all your other “proofs”, many of which I have already refuted online. (And will continue to write about online.) Your lack of quality in your answers is more than made up for in quantity, a smoke screen tactic that so many calvinists use. For when they cannot answer properly from the Bible, they will all too often just clog the whole system up with irrelevancies that waste the time of those trying to prove the truth to those who just won’t see the truth. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Just one final comment: You said: I can see that we also agree that even though a man calls out to God for salvation it is God who has the final say, which tells me that mans free will is non existent. No, I do not agree, for only the blind leading the blind (who both fall into the ditch) could say that man’s calling upon the name of the Lord proves man’s free will to be non-existent. For where does the Bible say that man’s free will is non-existent because God has the final say? If God has the final say, that strongly implies that this is His response (final say) to man’s response according to his free will (which is to call upon the name of the Lord). Is this merely “to suit one’s belief in whatever point one is trying to get across“?
I do not expect to continue this fruitless conversation in future. May God bless you with an understanding of the truth of the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura)!
PS. If MacArthur is so always right with all his teaching, then why did he teach that you could take the mark of the beast and yet could still be saved? The Bible says clearly otherwise. Is MacArthur actually one of the beast’s followers? The evidence does show that his spiritual harvest (as claimed by him to come from his great grandfather who was a high-level freemason) is actually that of freemasonry. Do some serious research for a change, please.
MacArthur says Now, the question is, if you’re living in the Tribulation period, and you take this mark, in other words, you identify with the beast’s empire, will you still be able to be redeemed? And I think the answer to that is yes. ……
So I don’t think the fact that someone takes that is a sentence to…to permanency anymore than you being a part of this world system once in your life means you have to be a part of the system all your life. (MacArthur, Bible Questions and Answers, Part 11, Selected Scriptures Code: 1301-I https://www.gty.org/library/Print/Sermons/1301-I)
Of course, calvinists have to believe, also, that if they were of the elect, they could only take the mark of the beast if God foreordained that they should do so! Really?
If you wish to read other posts on this website, please use this link.
If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.
If you liked this post, here is a list of posts available
Final reply to a calvinist who just won’t listen
Why don’t calvinists answer my questions? Because they avoid questions that they cannot answer scripturally. Instead, they ignore my questions and ramble on about their own proofs. They just cannot stand up to honest criticism.
Free will proves calvinist doctrine to be false
If man has a free will to choose or reject salvation (as the Bible teaches), then all calvinist doctrines fall like a house of cards.
So you think free will isn’t in the Bible?
You might think that, but where does the Bible say it? In fact, the Bible does teach free will, no matter how hard those calvinists protest otherwise!
Calvinism – the losing debating team!
Why do calvinists exhibit such poor logic and reasoning when trying to debate their doctrines?
Do calvinists ever listen to others?
Do calvinists actually read what non-calvinists write before condemning them as less spiritual?
Reply to a calvinist
A calvinist tries to persuade me that free-will is nonsense because Spurgeon said so (of course without any Biblical support for such in any way). Spurgeon also says that a man has eternal life in some sense before he comes to Christ for eternal life. I ask lots of questions which I don’t think the calvinist can answer Biblically.
Can you have eternal life before you have eternal life?
Spurgeon taught that you had eternal life before you came to Christ to receive eternal life.
Truth and logic rule! Calvinists don’t!
Very few calvinists actually attempt to defend from Biblical grounds, and not one of those (that I have seen) has ever succeeded in demonstrating logically and truthfully their point of view from the Bible.
Why do Christians treat calvinists as brothers in Christ?
Why should genuine Christians fellowship with calvinists if they persist in their satanic doctrines?
When will calvinists become Biblical?
When will calvinists use the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) to demonstrate their teachings? When will they quote the Bible rather than their calvinist heroes?
Does Everyone who Reads, Agree?
So, here’s the challenge: can any calvinist actually demonstrate to me, by the use of the Bible alone, and without referring to Calvin or any other of their “learned teachers”, any of my writings that are not Scripturally correct?
The Seventh Day Adventist Connection to New Calvinism
It is necessary to demonstrate the extent to which the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) teaching on daily justification has influenced the development of new calvinism.
New Calvinism is Biblical Counselling
Both new calvinism and Biblical Counselling were developed into what they are today from their combined beginnings in the 1970s at Westminster Theological Seminary (USA). One is not separate from the other; each one is an integral part of the other.
Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church
Like the catholic confessional before it, Biblical counselling is being used today to control the church. The church then becomes the administrator of the grace of God which can only be dispensed to those whom the church deems forgiven and restored.
The New Calvinism Gospel
New calvinism is different from traditional calvinism, and, in particular, that includes its gospel. New calvinism is becoming, or is already, the dominant viewpoint of calvinism today. But few people realise that it was founded upon a fusion of Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) and calvinist beliefs, and that a Seventh Day Adventist with calvinist leanings named Robert Brinsmead was largely responsible for kick-starting what we call new calvinism today.
Local Fundamentalist Pastor Heresy
Just because your church might claim to be fundamentalist doesn’t mean that it is. Many calvinist churches claim this and yet they are far from being fundamentalist.
Calvinism is the non-gospel
The calvinist gospel is not the gospel of the Bible. In fact, it denies the truth of the Biblical gospel.
John 6:44 – Does it really prove calvinist teachings?
Calvinists claim this verse proves lack of free will, yet to conclude so has to rest upon an assumption that there is no free will in the first place. This is unacceptable circular logic.
The False Calvinist Gospel blog
Calvinists claim that calvinism is the gospel, yet not one person will ever be won for Christ by the preaching of the calvinist gospel alone.
Is MacArthur a Freemason?
Here is compelling evidence that demonstrates the true nature of MacArthur’s claimed spiritual harvest from his freemason great grandfather.
Potential Vs Actual Salvation? What’s the Difference?
MacArthur claims that atonement for all mankind means only a potential salvation and not actual, but is “potential” ever any less than “actual”? Is a potential killer any less of a killer because he is only potential?
Spurgeon was no genuine calvinist!
Spurgeon was a man driven by the need to be reassured of his position in the largely calvinist religious society of his day. Many of his teachings border on non-calvinism, yet he claims calvinism to be the gospel.
Calvinists born again before they are saved
Why do calvinists teach that a man must be born again before he is able to believe in Christ? What happens if a person dies after being born again, yet before he hears the gospel of Christ and believes?