Does everyone who reads, agree?
It is interesting (at least to me it is) to note that I have received not one challenge to my many criticisms of calvinist doctrines, especially noting the extreme teachings of new calvinism. I have accused calvinism of being a false gospel (The False Calvinist Gospel; The False Calvinist Gospel blog), of containing lies (The Big Lie of the Calvinists – Limited Atonement) of being a counterfeit Christian cult (Calvinism is a Counterfeit Christian Cult) and of having serious limitations in Biblical interpretation (Calvinism and Biblical Interpretation).
I have accused the calvinist God of creating the vast majority of mankind for the single purpose of creating most of mankind evil, then condemning them to hell for their sin which they were created to do (The Calvinist God created most of Mankind for torment in Hell), and that in spite of the calvinists claiming that their God is more sovereign (than what??), their God will only take responsibility for the small number he chooses for heaven (Calvinists deny God His Full Sovereignty).
I have demonstrated that the calvinist God ordained that mankind (through Adam) would sin, yet condemned mankind for that sin which the calvinist God ordered him to commit. In fact, I have shown that calvinists even teach that God decreed sin (Calvin, White), ordained sin (MacArthur, Piper), willed sin (Pink), authored sin (Cheung), ordered sin (Westminster Confession), and that in no way could man ever have made the decision himself that sin should enter this world (The Heresy of Calvinism Refuted Part 2).
And as if this isn’t already more than enough to demonstrate extreme heresy, I have shown that the calvinist God randomly selects a group of people to go to heaven, that it is the luck of this heavenly lotto that permits a small group of mankind to go to heaven, and that the calvinist Jesus didn’t bother dying for even one of the sins of any of the others who didn’t win a prize in the heavenly lotto. I have shown that the calvinist God (according to such as MacArthur) only uses foreknowledge to demonstrate love to the ones he has chosen, and thus the calvinist God’s foreknowledge cannot apply to most of the world – he either doesn’t want to know about them, or even cannot know anything about them by using foreknowledge! (The Heresy of Calvinism Refuted Part 1)
All of these comments so far clearly show that most calvinist beliefs are oxymoronic in that they teach one thing and mean something totally different! For instance, the calvinist God created sin and then blamed Adam for it. The calvinist God also taught that we are saved by the gospel of salvation through Christ, yet requires that we have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before we can believe in Jesus Christ! (The Oxymorons of Calvinist Doctrine)
A further oxymoron is that calvinists claim that calvinism is the gospel, yet cannot effectively preach the Biblical gospel to the lost until after they have been born again (they prefer the term “regenerated”). (Calvinism is the non-gospel; Calvinists born again before they are saved)
The calvinist God only loves his chosen ones with agape love, not those who are going to hell, yet commands Christians to love their enemies! It seems that Christians can be more loving than the calvinist God! And in spite of Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), the calvinists teach that the whole world actually means only the Christians in the world! (The Big Lie of the Calvinists).
Over and over I have demonstrated, in many documents on our website, that calvinism makes so many claims that just cannot be supported from the Bible; that, in fact, calvinism cannot be considered a Christian belief. Many calvinist “teachers” attempt to teach heresies as truth, while twisting facts and using verbal gymnastics to side-step any obvious issues. For example, MacArthur misuses the Granville Sharp rule (of Greek) to try to make foreknowledge the same as the foreordaining of God (MacArthur is Wrong) and misuses Hebrew Parallelism to teach that when the same word is used twice in a verse, then they have to have different meanings (MacArthur is Wrong – Again!). Like all calvinists, MacArthur teaches that no works can save a person, yet also teaches that the calvinist Jesus died for God’s chosen people because they were special enough; of course, the rest were not chosen for heaven because they were not special enough (MacArthur teaches Works Salvation)! As well as this, MacArthur teaches that if Jesus died for all mankind, then all He could offer would be a “potential” salvation, not an “actual” salvation. He says that a potential salvation is only a half-way salvation, not an actual salvation. Does that mean that a savage tiger, a potential man-eater, is only able to half-kill you, but not actually fully kill you? Is “potential” really any less potent than “actual”? Is a potential bullet from a gun any less deadly because it is not yet actual? (Potential Vs Actual Salvation? What’s the Difference?)
By the way, MacArthur, while condemning freemasonry as evil, incongruously also praises the spiritual harvest of his freemason grand master great grandfather (Is MacArthur a freemason?).
So far, in perhaps 12 months of placing such documents online, not one person has been able to make a reasonable comment on why anything that I have written is not true. Currently this website is attracting a good number of genuine hits every day, yet seemingly not one person has been able to refute any of my statements. People are reading my documents, and apparently are either in agreement with the information, or, at least, have no significant dispute with my comments (judging from the total lack of disagreement!). However, I am certain that some of those reading would call themselves genuine calvinists (or new calvinists) yet not one has considered it reasonable or necessary to actually comment.
I realise that when calvinists are confronted with truths that they cannot refute, they are very likely to just ignore them, giving them the silent treatment! I’ve had this reaction from calvinists a few times already: that when they cannot effectively and truthfully answer what is said, they will turn away from you, and go back to their lies. Like Winston Churchill once said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened.” That is, they will turn away and pretend that it (the truth) never happened in the first place.
But the Bible is truth! If the calvinists stuck to what the Bible said, they wouldn’t be calvinists, though. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their Watchtower Society, the Seventh Day Adventists have their writings of Ellen White, the Mormons have their book of Mormon, and the calvinists have Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Without their extra writings of enlightenment they would probably have to believe in the Bible alone. But they cannot worship their Gods without these extra revelations, and they correspondingly condemn others who don’t believe (as they do) of being somehow not spiritual, or unsaved, or unenlightened, etc.
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? Remember that the Bible has to be consistent throughout; any inconsistency therefore has to have a lie somewhere. And, if they wish to prove that their interpretation is the only one, they will have to absolutely disprove any alternative teaching that gets in the way of their “truth”! No-one has taken up the challenge yet, probably because it’s not easy to disprove a Biblical truth! But, I’m listening!