Exposing The Truth

Hoppers Crossing Christian Church is a small home based church in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne. Over the past two to three years since inception, we have become concerned about the state of the Christian Church in western society and have therefore embarked on a mission to spread the truth about what we are seeing.

Please visit our blogg and weekly sermon pages to view some hard hitting truth about what Christianity is and what the Bible says about living as a Christian.

100% Bible Based Teaching

100% Bible Based Teaching

Provides in Depth teaching from the Word of God

Latest Sermons

Latest Blog

Why are calvinists so unbiblical, uneducated and unscholarly?

Why are calvinists so unbiblical, uneducated and unscholarly?

Calvinists make such a song and dance about how biblical, how educated, how scholarly they are, yet fail to tick any of those boxes in real life! I have openly attacked calvinist doctrines as heresies against the truth of the Bible, yet not one has been able to be sufficiently biblical, scholarly and educated in their disagreements with my comments. You’d think that they’d be able to discuss very rationally any objection they had to my writings, especially as they appear to disagree with me so much. But they appear to be incapable of using the Bible properly to refute any of my accusations, despite my having often invited them to feel free to comment (but noting that it must be sola scriptura – the Bible alone). They also appear to lack any ability to actually research what I have said and to refute it logically. And most of them appear to lack many of the rudimentary skills associated with a reasonable education.  

The following comment (typical of so many calvinists) demonstrates this in abundance. Note the lack of biblical input, lack of clarity of thought, lack of debating ability, and the number of unqualified yet confused opinions stated. I did consider not printing this comment but decided that I would continue my policy of publishing all reasonable and genuine comments, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not. I also reserve my right to reply, this being my website.

Message Body:
I’ve read several articles on your site and you seem to lack discernment, or you intentionally take people out of context. For example you say MacArthur teaches works based salvation which looking at literally the same thing you claim to be heresy it shows that he teaches the exact opposite.
Maybe instead of being a Hardline Calvinist and picking and choosing Bible verses you take it all as the Word of GOD and realize it’s not as straight forward as you might think.

Reply:
There are some comments that are intelligent, even some of those that disagree with me. I appreciate thoughtful comments even if I don’t agree.
But this comment fails to make any intelligent point at all. After allegedly reading several articles on my site, you say that I (seem to) lack discernment. This is clearly an unqualified opinion, for you give not one single example of such lack of discernment. It seems to me that you haven’t found any evidence of lack of discernment in any of those articles you allegedly read (did you actually read any of them??). Without documented evidence to support your opinion, it is just so much hot air!
And, you claim that I take people out of context. But once again, no actual example of such. Who have I taken out of context, and what have I stated out of context? But no, you have apparently failed to find examples of such for I am certain that if you had found any clear examples, you would have stated them. But you haven’t, so logically you didn’t find any evidence of such accusations!
Clearly you have plucked these words out of the air for you have given not one single example of such. There is no need for me to defend such empty accusations.

If you want me to take you seriously (I seriously do not take you seriously at this stage!) then please document any lack of discernment or taking people out of context in any of those alleged articles. You are like a person who tries to defend himself in a court of law by using his opinions alone; you present no witness statements, no supporting evidence. And if we are talking about my articles, then please be specific about what it is you disagree with. I will not waste my time being drawn into vague, senseless and trivial arguments.

Also, you say, “Maybe instead of being a Hardline Calvinist….” But, if you have read several of my articles, then you had to have noticed that I am not a Hardline Calvinist! What are you talking about? Perhaps you didn’t actually read any of my articles? Or maybe you have delusions that misinterpret what you read? I won’t comment on the rest of your statement quoted above as it makes no sense at all. Probably you might realise one day that the Bible is actually quite straightforward and is able to make complete sense without any of the doctrines of Calvin being used to interpret it. After all, no-one ever becomes a calvinist by the reading of the Bible alone.

So, if you want me to take you seriously, please be more competent and document your opinions with facts. In particular, if you talk heresy, then you must define it from the Bible alone. But you have said “you say MacArthur teaches works based salvation which looking at literally the same thing you claim to be heresy it shows that he teaches the exact opposite.” So what is the biblical doctrine that is queried here? What does the Bible say about it? So, like other calvinists, you probably claim “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone) yet totally avoid using “sola scriptura” in your comments!

Just when are calvinists going to actually discuss issues with reference to the Bible alone (remember, sola scriptura). It is my considered opinion, based upon the comments from calvinists so far, that they are apparently unable to refute my statements from the Bible alone. They don’t even try to refute me sola scriptura; is this an indication of their inability to do so? I certainly think so. If they could refute me sola scriptura, then it is certain that they would; therefore logically they are unable to do so. If calvinists do not agree with this assessment, then let them answer to this accusation with logic and scriptural support.

Of course, I do assume that the lack of effort to refute my statements is because they cannot. If they could, they would! Therefore, to remain silent is always taken as a clear admission of their incapability to refute. If calvinists cannot refute your statements by any other means (fair or foul), then they’ll resort to their ultimate defence: silence! That is, by their silence they are admitting defeat, because if they could speak out and win, they would. And I take their silence as victory, an admission that they just cannot refute what I say. To God be the glory!

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 will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Calvinist heresy using John 3:3

Calvinist heresy using John 3:3

John 3:3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Calvinists have many times informed me that John 3:3 clearly teaches that one must be born again before one may have faith in Christ (or equivalent wording). So let’s put the calvinists to the test (according to 1 Thessalonians 5:21) to see if their teachings are biblical or not. After all, they claim sola scriptura (the Bible alone). If this is true, then they should be, of all people, outstandingly biblically correct. However, if they can be shown to be deceptive or non-scriptural, then they must be deemed to be opposed to sola scriptura (the Bible alone). On this test they will stand or fall today!

Here are some comments from calvinists defining how they interpret the order of being born again and believing in Christ. (Note that Boettner changes “born again” to “saved”. Biblical Christians recognise that being saved also describes being born again, that they are equivalent terms, while most calvinists tend to separate being born again from being saved, with the order as (a) being born again, (b) then believing in Christ, then (c) being saved. Some will therefore rewrite “being saved” as “being justified” but nonetheless calvinist doctrine requires that they teach that a man must be born again before he is able to believe in or have faith in Christ.)

John 3: 3. (man must be born again first before he can repent and believe.) In this super clear verse our Lord and saviour himself tells Nicodemus that he cannot even see the kingdom of God unless he is born again first, surely that puts to rest that regeneration must take place first and foremost. (email from calvinist 18/01/17)

Further, Christ places regeneration by the Spirit as a requirement before one can “see,” i.e., believe or have faith in the Kingdom of God. He states quite emphatically that a sinner who is born of the flesh cannot believe the good news of the Kingdom until he is born by the Spirit. Thus according to the teaching of Christ, we believe because we are “born again.” We are not “born again” because we believe! (Studies in the Atonement (Robert Morey) Chapter 8)

Boettner who is often quoted by calvinists says: A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved. …… And in accordance with this, Augustine says that “The elect of God are chosen by Him to be His children, in order that they might be made to believe, not because He foresaw that they would believe.”
(The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Page 75)

So if these calvinists are biblically correct, then their teaching will be consistent throughout the Bible, not just in this isolated verse. Therefore, are there verses which clearly state their teaching without any rewording or explanations? I can think of none at all. In fact, it is clear to me that their interpretation of John 3:3 is faulty to begin with, for they have had to reword the verse before it may support their teachings. If this is so, then their interpretation will be inconsistent with the rest of biblical truth. And, with scriptural teachings, any inconsistency always shows a lie to be present somewhere. Only the truth is consistent across all verses and passages.

Let’s look at 2 Corinthians 5:7For we walk by faith, not by sight: While calvinists claim that in John 3:3 “believing or having faith in” is the equivalent of “seeing”, it does appear as if 2 Corinthians 5:7 states that they are opposing terms, that the one denies the other. If it can be shown that “faith” and “sight” in 2 Corinthians 5:7 are equivalent to “believe or have faith in” and “see”, then it would be impossible for “see” in John 3:3 to be reworded as “believe or have faith in”.

The real test is to look at the original wording in the Greek.

Except a man be born again, he cannot see (eido) the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

For we walk by faith (pistis), not by sight (eidos): (2 Corinthians 5:7)

If “see” in John 3:3 is changed to “believe or have faith in”, then we get
Except a man be born again, he cannot believe or have faith in (pisteuo) the kingdom of God.

pisteuo (believe or have faith in) is the verb form (Strongs 4100) derived from the noun pistis (faith) (Strongs 4102).

eidos (sight) is the noun form (Strongs 1491) derived from the verb eido (see) (Strongs 1492)

It can be seen clearly that pisteuo (believe or have faith in) cannot replace eido (see) because 2 Corinthians 5:7 (which uses the same terms but merely changing each from verb to noun form) actually says that the two terms are opposed to each other. We may either walk by faith or by sight; we cannot do both at the same time. Therefore it is not permissible to exchange “see” (eido) with “believe or have faith in” (pisteuo) in John 3:3. No genuine scholar of Greek could teach such nonsense.

Therefore, anyone who claims that “see” must mean “believe or have faith in” in John 3:3 is either incompetent to the nth degree, or else deliberately lying in order to deceive the very elect of God. Thus calvinists who use John 3:3 to teach that one must be born again before one may believe or have faith in Christ is in great need of someone to teach them the truth. Unfortunately, most of the calvinists who teach their heresy of belief after regeneration (= being born again) will just continue to listen to the lies of their incompetent or lying teachers, and like blind leading the blind, all will fall into the ditch!  

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 will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read other documents on the heresies of calvinism, please use this link.

Sermons and Messages

Please feel free to comment  Comments and contact page
Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

© Copyright - Hopper's Crossing Christian Church