Is it true that only calvinists can be saved?

Is it true that only calvinists can be saved?

Well, if you were to ask a calvinist, and he were to be completely truthful, then he would have to answer, “Yes!” Of course, most calvinists reading this would immediately get upset that I should so misrepresent their revered religion, but if they could just see why I say this, they may have to think again. I may only misrepresent if I say something that is not true. I challenge all calvinists to show clearly where I have said something that is not true of their beliefs. If they can’t, then they should just accept what I say. I get accused of misrepresenting them, yet not one has actually named what it is that I have said that misrepresents them.

It’s simple, really. Calvinists believe that you must be regenerated (born again) by God’s Spirit before you are able to do anything else spiritually. They claim that until you are regenerated (born again), you are spiritually dead and, like a dead body, you are incapable of doing anything good spiritually. Unless you are born again, you cannot effectively hear the gospel, nor have faith in or believe in Christ (based upon their interpretation of John 3:3). And even then, according to calvinists, faith is a gift of God, only given to those who have already been born again. (Of course, faith is not a gift of God but instead it is the response of man’s free will to the character of God who promises such full salvation. They misunderstand – probably deliberately – the grammar of such as Ephesians 2:8-9.)

The first stage of a calvinist’s salvation is that you must be regenerated (born again). Therefore, to a calvinist, unless you have been regenerated (born again), you are incapable of hearing the truth of the gospel and responding. Even if you did hear the gospel, you couldn’t respond because you wouldn’t have the faith to believe in it, because the calvinist God only gives the gift of faith to those whom he has already regenerated. And the calvinist God will only regenerate those whom he has chosen; you do not have a say in the matter at all. If you were not chosen for salvation by the calvinist God, then you can never be saved, ever!

That is, the calvinist God only gives the gift of faith to calvinists, those of his elect that he has chosen for salvation. If you were not chosen by the calvinist God for salvation, then because you have no free will of your own, you can never be saved, even if you wanted to be saved. You will not be regenerated and therefore you will not be given the gift of faith, and therefore can never believe and be saved!

You see, calvinists believe that faith cannot be the response of the free will of man, because (according to them) non-regenerated man has no free will to respond to anything spiritual. Unless a man be born again, he cannot have faith in the kingdom of God (according to calvinists’ interpretation of John 3:3).

Let’s say you are a non-calvinist Christian, having heard the gospel, and by your own free will accepted the gift of salvation through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. That is, you called upon the name of the Lord to be saved. God offered the free gift of salvation and you gratefully accepted by faith in God’s promises. However, if calvinists are acting faithfully according to their doctrines, then they have to declare you to be yet unsaved unless God has previously regenerated you. They have to say (as many calvinist do openly state) that if you choose to receive Jesus as your Saviour, then you are not saved and are still heading for hell. They say that you do not choose God; instead, God chooses you! If you insist that you accepted the free gift of salvation, then they have to say that unless God chose to give it to you, you haven’t received anything of the sort. And their God only chooses a small proportion of mankind to save!

If calvinists teach according to their beliefs, they have to say that, unless you are firstly regenerated (born again as a calvinist), you cannot have faith to believe, you cannot be saved, you cannot be a Christian, you cannot have eternal life, and you cannot go to heaven. Calvinist doctrine has to declare any non-calvinist Christian as lost and going to hell, because they do not declare themselves to have been regenerated by God first. Therefore, if you claim to be a non-calvinist Christian, then they are required to evangelise you in order to see if God might regenerate you as one of his elect so that you might be saved. According to the calvinist, you cannot truly be saved unless you are a regenerate calvinist believer like themselves.

Some calvinists do actually tell non-calvinists that if they were truly Christians, they would know that they had been regenerated first (born again, made alive by God’s Spirit) before they understood what they had to do to be saved. And, if they do not accept calvinism as the truth, then they cannot be true Christians. Note what Al Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and avid calvinist) says about this subject: Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they going to need and where else are they going to connect.

Clearly to Mohler, calvinism is the only good option available out there! All we non-calvinist Christians are either truly lesser Christians or not Christians at all. According to calvinists, they (the calvinists) are the only true Christians. Others are either not (yet?) saved, or greatly deluded in their understanding of the truth! To the evangelical calvinist, the non-calvinist Christian is their mission field. If you claim to be Christian but are not calvinist, then their task is to preach the “true” gospel of calvinism to you in the hope that you might yet be truly saved. After all, one of the catch-cries of the calvinist is that “calvinism is the gospel”!

Christians see the lost world as their mission field; calvinists see non-calvinist “non-regenerate” “Christians” attending churches as their mission field! Christians go out into all the world to preach the gospel. Calvinists go into all the churches to preach their gospel! When I asked a calvinist why he bothered with the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20, he answered that he was commanded to do so, and could come up with no other logical reason other than he was commanded to do so! Christians believe the lost are to be found in the world; calvinists believe that the lost whom God has chosen for salvation will be found in the church.

Calvin taught that there was no salvation to be found outside the walls of the mother church; you couldn’t be saved unless God had firstly brought you to the church through his regeneration (Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Bk IV, Chap I, Part 4). The first sign to a calvinist that you have been regenerated by God is that you will be drawn to the church for salvation. They teach that the non-elect are totally unable to seek after God and thus should not be found in church. (Although Calvin did teach that God could give you a lesser, non-saving temporary faith as an inferior operation of the Spirit – Institutes, Book III, Chapter 2, Part 11. No doubt Calvin was plagued by the knowledge that there were people that he called “lost” still attending church. He was forced to declare them lost, yet given a temporary faith by God to make them look and act like the elect but only for a season. Such people with a temporary faith were never of the elect and would never go to heaven. Read more here The living-dead calvinist zombies – as taught by Calvin)

Therefore, if the calvinist is put on the spot, and forced to declare what their religion actually teaches, they are forced to admit that only the regenerated calvinist may be declared saved; and all non-regenerate Christians cannot be saved until (and if) the calvinist God declares them his elect. If a Christian denies such calvinist teachings, then he must be assumed to be lost and heading for hell. Your testimony of salvation at the cross of Jesus is of no value to the calvinist who says you should have been regenerated first before you could claim Christ’s salvation. To them you are still lost until you accept the “truth” of regeneration as necessary for salvation.

It is true that calvinism teaches that only calvinists may truly be saved. They may deny this as much as they can, but they still have to admit that unless you are regenerated (born again as a calvinist), you cannot have faith to believe in Christ and therefore can never be saved. Regeneration comes before faith; so to the calvinist, without regeneration you cannot be saved, cannot be a Christian, cannot go to heaven, cannot have eternal life. As calvinist Todd Friel says, “People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. How tragic that millions of people think they are right with God when they are not. How many people who will cry out, “Lord, Lord” on judgment day will be “Christians” who asked Jesus into their hearts?
(Ten Reasons To Not Ask Jesus Into Your Heart, by Todd Friel)

If you wish to read further, please try the following links.

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.

Final reply to a calvinist who just won’t listen.

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 calvinist 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 what I said. 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! ) Note that the false teachers of 2 Peter 2:3 use “feigned words” to get their point across. “feigned” is the Greek term plastos = carefully moulded or sculpted. Thus, “carefully sculpted words”!

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 absolutely 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. Why has he felt to need for the carefully sculpted words?

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 those that 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 referringto (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! Read more on this at The living-dead calvinist zombies – as taught by Calvin.) And, note carefully, I was brought up a good elect calvinist until I was 19 when I was saved by calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

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 chosen to bear fruit?
Matthew 22:14 says “For many are called but few are chosen.” Calvinists have to explain this by claiming that there are two callings of God, effectual and general. 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 (again with their “feigned words“) 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. And this “second sense” is no more than what MacArthur thinks, that is, his opinion, his “feigned words“!

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

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?

I should just mention though that this website was set up mainly because of the heresies that Living Springs Baptist Church of Rockbank were getting involved with. Thank you, Living Springs, for giving me the incentive to fully investigate the doctrines of calvinism!

If you wish to read further, please try the following links.

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.

Free will proves calvinist doctrine to be false!

Free will proves calvinist doctrine to be false

I am amazed at just how devious calvinists can be. And that they claim to base their doctrines on the Bible alone, yet use the Bible far less than their other documents of extra revelation, such as Calvin. I have yet to see even one single calvinist doctrine demonstrated from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) without inconsistencies having to be explained away using their excuses that man has no free will and that God’s foreknowledge is not His perfect knowledge of the future.

The Bible says clearly (so clearly, in fact, that Blind Freddie could see it) that Jesus was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Keep in mind that John wrote this epistle without the chapter and verse breaks. It is clear that 1 John 1:9-10 keeps on going through to 1 John 2:1-2; there is no real break in the narrative just because a chapter break has been added. Note also that 1 John 2:1 and 1 John 2:2 are two parts of the same sentence. In fact, Vs 1 is necessary to define the pronouns (he, our, ours) used in Vs 2.

1 John 1:9-10; 2:1-29 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

“he” in Vs 2 is “Jesus Christ the righteous” in Vs 1;
“our” in Vs 2 is defined in Vs 1 as “we” who “have an advocate with the Father”, and “we” in Vs 1 is also defined as those to whom John is writing.
“we’ also is the same group who are to confess their sins as per 1 John 1:9 & 10.

How can anyone miss the point here: that “the whole world” must include more people than just those defined by “we”, “our” and “ours”. If all Christians claim that we can confess our sins to be cleansed from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9), and that we have an advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1), then there must be more than just Christians included in “the whole world”. (and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.) Yet calvinists steadfastly assert that “the whole world” can only include those who believe!
Clearly they do not believe in Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), or else they have a different Bible with writings from another (false) god.

Thus, in order that they might not look the fools that they seem to be, they have to “invent” doctrines that appear to support the lies that they teach. If Jesus died for all mankind (which the Bible so clearly teaches), making full payment for the sins of all mankind, and if mankind is given the free will choice to accept or reject that full and complete payment (also a Biblical truth), then God’s judgment of man will be based upon man’s free will choice. God has given man free will to choose, and God will honour the choice that every person makes. The full payment has been made in any case; therefore further payment will never be required for any of mankind’s sins. All accounts for sin were settled by Christ on the cross, thus “It is finished” was the cry.
John 19:30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Those who accept this payment in full by calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved, will, by God’s faithful promise, be saved indeed to the uttermost. Those who reject this payment will remain imprisoned by their sin, not because of any payment required, for that has already been paid in full, but because they refuse to accept such a gift. This is mankind’s free will in action. And God will honour man’s free will choice in this matter. No-one will be forced to be saved, ever. Not even Paul, of whom MacArthur says:
when the call of God came on the life of the apostle Paul, it was a sovereign, divine, gracious, and irresistible summons.  He was slammed in to the dirt on the road to Damascus with nothing to do but respond. …..
Paul understood that he was just grabbed by the neck by God and awakened to the glory of Christ and saved and made an apostle. (The Doctrine of God’s Effectual Call)
I challenge anyone to find all this detail written in the Bible! If it isn’t there, then MacArthur has invented extra revelation to support his erroneous teachings.

So what teaching do calvinists invent to explain away their false teaching on limited atonement? Well, they claim that if Jesus died for the sins of all mankind and some still go to hell, then those in hell would be paying for sins that had already been paid for. MacArthur calls it “double jeopardy”. He says that if all sins have been paid for, then no-one would go to hell, and therefore all the world would be saved. He claims that full atonement would merely provide a potential salvation, not an actual one, and that if Jesus died for the whole world without exception, then no-one could really be saved. (For further information on potential vs actual salvation, please read Potential Vs Actual Salvation? What’s the difference?)

MacArthur says:
That Jesus died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the damned and died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of the glorified, that Jesus did the same thing for the occupants of hell that He did for the occupants of heaven and the only difference hinges on the sinner’s choice? That is to say the death of Jesus Christ then is not an actual atonement, it is only a potential atonement. He really did not purchase salvation for anyone in particular. He only removed some kind of barrier to make it possible for sinners to choose to be saved. ……….

Well the only answer to the question that makes any real sense is that Jesus Christ died and paid in full the penalty for the sins of all who would ever believe so that His atonement is an actual atonement and not a potential one that can be disregarded. If Jesus actually paid in full the penalty for your sins, you’re not going to go to hell, that would be double jeopardy. ……….

God did not intend to save everyone. He is God. He could have intended to save everyone. He could have saved everyone. He would have if that had been His intention. The atonement is limited.
Now we all have to accept that or be universalists. We know not everyone is going to heaven. In fact, it is a little flock, it is the few which if we were to hold on to this sort of evangelical idea means that the vast majority of people for whom Christ died and paid in full the penalty for their sins are going to go to hell. And that’s just something very difficult to believe. So we do believe in a limited atonement. It is limited to those who believe. ………..

You hear people say, “Well, you know, when you say the atonement is limited, people don’t feel very special.” Well, I’ll tell you what. I don’t feel very special if you say to me, “Christ died for you, He loves you just like He died for the millions in hell.” That doesn’t make me feel very special. That’s kind of a hard way to do evangelism. Christ died on the cross for your sins and all the people in hell, too. That’s not special. That’s anything but special. You mean to tell me He paid for my sins and I’m paying for them forever? Then I’ll tell you, whatever His payment was, it was bogus. You see, it’s not biblical to limit the atonement as to its power. It’s not biblical to limit the atonement as to its effectiveness. It’s not biblical to limit the atonement as to its accomplishment. If He paid in full the penalty for your sins, you will receive that salvation. (MacArthur, The Doctrine of Actual Atonement Part 1)

But then I read that Spurgeon makes the same false arguments in Sermon No.694 “Sin Laid on Jesus”. We hold that from the very nature of the satisfaction of Christ it could not have been made for anyone except for his elect; for Christ either did pay the debts of all men or he did not; if he did pay the debts of all men they are paid, and no man can be called to account for them. If Christ was the surety of every man living, then how in the name of common justice is Christ to be punished, and man punished too?

What! Are all these calvinists so blind that they cannot see the truth of the matter? If Christ paid the penalty in full, then no more penalty remains to be paid. Cannot they see that no person goes to hell to pay for his sins? They go to hell because they refuse to accept the gift of payment that has already been made in full for their sins. A gift may be accepted or rejected. In fact, one of the definitions of a gift is that it must be offered free of charge and also must be accepted by the donee (the one who receives a gift). If I pay for a boat cruise and give the ticket to another person, does that person have to go on the cruise? Is that person forced to go? Or has that person the right of free will to refuse to go? Likewise, by paying for everyone’s sins and offering it as a free gift to all mankind, God will not compel any to take it.
Romans 5:15But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Salvation is a gift of God and may be accepted or rejected by the person to whom it is offered. Otherwise it is not a gift but a requirement that it must be received. That is, if God were to require that certain people took His salvation, then it is no longer a gift at all! But, if I offer a prisoner a free pardon for his crimes, he must accept it before it can be his. No prisoner can ever be forced to accept a pardon for the crimes of which he has been convicted. For one thing, acceptance of a free pardon has to include the acceptance of guilt for such crimes in the first place. If a person refuses to accept responsibility for a crime, then they cannot receive a pardon for a crime they claim they never committed. The atonement was for the whole world without exception, and the penalty for all sins was paid in full for all mankind. However, only those who plead guilty may receive the effective pardon for sins. This is a requirement of the gospel, that acknowledgement of personal guilt must be a part of accepting one’s free gift of salvation. That is, if you do not consider yourself guilty of such sins, then it would be pointless to receive a gift that atoned for such sins if you hadn’t allegedly committed any!

So, if mankind has free will to choose (see So you think free will isn’t in the Bible), then those who reject the free salvation offered to them will have also rejected any right to eternal life in heaven. Therefore, those who reject God’s salvation will go to hell for eternity, not to pay for their sins, but because they refused to be rescued from such a fate. For how may a person choose to go to hell? The Bible teaches that you may go to hell by doing absolutely nothing at all. You are already condemned until you choose to do something about it!
John 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It’s a pity the calvinists have to deny the free will of man in order to present their false doctrines. No man ever goes to hell to pay for his sin. In fact, it’s impossible for anyone to pay for any sin at all in hell. The truth is that not one person will ever pay for even just one sin, even if he were to spend all eternity doing so. For, if a person could pay for just one sin, then, given enough time (and he has an abundance of that!), he could pay for all his sins. And, what would happen if a person went to hell to pay for his sins and actually managed to pay for them all? Could he then be set free from hell? Get real, calvinists! No-one in all eternity can ever pay for even one single sin in hell. No-one goes to hell to pay for their sins! Just find one verse which states this.

You go to hell because of your sin, you can die in your sins and go to hell, but you do not ever go to hell to pay for your sins. Jesus has already done that, and you will go to hell for eternity because you by your free will have rejected that free gift of salvation: payment for all your sins for all time right now. You go to hell because you refused the free gift of salvation offered by God through Jesus Christ.

I have studied many calvinist documents and statements, and have presented Biblical support in refuting their false doctrines. All doctrines stand or fall according to their support from the Bible, and the calvinist doctrines fall harder than many when lined up against the truth of the Bible.
If any calvinist wishes to refute this from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), then I invite you to do so. Not one calvinist has ever managed to use the Bible alone to refute my statements; in fact, not one has even tried to refute what I say from the Bible alone. So, here’s the challenge: if you are what you claim to be, then prove your teachings Biblically, or else admit that you cannot do so, and that your doctrines were all lies from start to finish!

If you wish to read further, please try the following links.

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.

So you think free will isn’t in the Bible?

So you think free will isn’t in the Bible?

Then think again! If God has given man no free will, yet tells man to choose between Him and other gods, or between good and evil blessing and cursing, then God, being righteous, will not break even one of His own divine laws. That is, He will not offer man a choice when there is no choice there in the first place. If He did, then He would be telling less than the whole truth, and that would be tantamount to declaring God to be a liar. So even just one single clear example of God giving man a choice between Him and other gods, or between doing good (obeying God) or doing evil (disobeying God) is sufficient to demonstrate that man has a free will to choose such. Even to acknowledge that a verse can suggest free will means that free will cannot be denied. In order to demonstrate that free will does not exist requires that there be not even a suggestion that free will exists.

Joshua told the people of Israel to choose between God or the gods they previously served in Egypt. Joshua 24:14-1614 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. 16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods;

Some might say that just because Joshua was offering them a choice does not mean that God was also offering the same choice. However, to deny this as an example of God giving man free will to choose, one would have to deny that Joshua was speaking on behalf of God, and that Joshua was either lying or was incompetent to advise such. Both of these suggestions are seen to be ridiculous when we read God’s charge to Joshua when he took up leadership of Israel.
Joshua 1:5-65 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, [so] I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. 6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.

This one example alone proves that man has free will to choose between God and false gods. But there’s another clear example, where Moses tells Israel to choose to obey God; if they do good and obey God, then He will bless them; if they do evil and disobey God, then He will curse them. They are told to choose life! Such a choice can only mean that they could also choose death, for choice always means at least two options! (The dictionary defines “choice” as an act of choosing between two or more possibilities.)
Deuteronomy 30:19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

In order for calvinists to “prove” that God has not given man free will to choose between Him and other gods, or to choose between obeying or disobeying Him, they must prove beyond all doubt that the two examples given above cannot in any way support the free will of man to choose to serve God. Of course, God must intervene in a man’s life before he may see the choices available. This intervention is through the gospel which, when preached faithfully, gives light to a man so that he can see the choices open to him: choose salvation and life, or reject salvation and life. The free will of man never negates the necessity for God to intervene with the gospel before man is able to choose. But God’s intervention through the gospel also never negates man’s responsibility to respond to that gospel.

There are occasions when God limits man’s free will; this cannot be used to “prove” that free will doesn’t exist. For example, when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, He was merely putting limits on Pharaoh’s free will. Until God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Pharaoh had used his free will to consistently oppose Moses (and therefore to oppose God). Then came the point in time when God decided that if Pharaoh was so set upon opposing Him, then Pharaoh’s free will to change his mind about letting God’s people go would be removed. Pharaoh had wanted to keep the Hebrews so much that he was continually overriding God’s desire that the Hebrews should be set free.

Note how Paul described it in Romans 9:18 when talking about Pharaoh – Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. That word “hardeneth” is translated from the Greek word skleruno which means to make hard; harden; metaphorically: to render obstinate, stubborn; to be hardened; to become obstinate or stubborn. Today we use the word “sclerosis” (derived from skleruno) as a medical term to describe the hardening of a part of the body that had up until then been flexible; for example, arterial sclerosis = the hardening of the arteries, making them more rigid, set in place, effectively their options to move have been reduced or removed.

What this means is that up until that point of being hardened, Pharaoh had free will to either obey God or to oppose God. After that point, Pharaoh no longer had free will to choose on this matter of letting the Hebrews go. Note carefully that there is also no indication at all that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart applied to anything else other than the matter of letting God’s people go. Pharaoh’s free will was limited by God such that Pharaoh had set his course, and God simply forced Pharaoh to continue on his chosen course toward destruction.

A verse or passage doesn’t have to actually say that God gives man a choice, yet still teach clearly the free will of man. For example, note the two verses John 6:44 and John 12:32. Note the use of the same word “draw” in each verse.
John 6:44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 12:32And I (Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

Calvinists love John 6:44 for, they say, it proves that only those who are drawn by God may come to Jesus. They claim that this is true because there is no free will to choose, so all who are drawn by the Father must come. This, they say, therefore “proves” that those who didn’t come were not drawn by the Father. However, John 6:44 can only be used to demonstrate this if you firstly assume that free will to choose doesn’t exist. However, if free will to choose does exist, then their arguments are false, because they are based on the false premise that free will does not exist.
The meaning of this verse is dependent upon whether or not free will to choose exists! If free-will cannot be proven nonsense, then John 6:44 can simply mean that many are called but few are chosen according to Matthew 22:14!

And further to this, in John 12:32 Jesus says that He will draw all to Himself on the cross. Note that “draw” in this verse is the same as “draw” in John 6:44. Now, unless you can prove that “all” only means those who believe, then Jesus must be drawing all mankind, and thus the Father in John 6:44 also draws all mankind. So, if not all come, then some of mankind must be resisting due to their free-will to choose. If “all” means “all” mankind, then the combination of John 12:32 and John 6:44 can only mean that some are resisting the drawing of the Father through their own free-will.

The calvinists are in a bind here, for according to their teaching, man has no free will to choose. And, if all are drawn, then all must come! They have become universalists; that is, all mankind will be saved! But, they think, “all” cannot be permitted to mean “all”. If “all” can be reinterpreted as “all those who believe”, then the day is saved, or so they think. But, John 12:32 does not allow such an interpretation. Nevertheless, the only way out of their dilemma is to teach that “all” cannot mean “all” under any circumstance, so every time the Bible teaches “all”, it must be changed to “only those who believe”. Therefore, “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 becomes “the whole world of those who believe” and “the world” in John 3:16 becomes “the world of those who believe”.

But, “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4 is a hard one to get around.
1 Timothy 2:4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
But, not really a problem at all, says calvinist Matt Slick on 26/03/1992.
The question, then, is if God predestines only some to salvation, why are there verses that say God wants all to be saved?
The answer is simple: The “all” are the Christians.
Great thinking? Logical reasoning? No, more like a slick effort to “sell” us a bad product by trying to make it seem like the best option on the market! Slick, yes! Sola Scriptura? No!

MacArthur also has a problem with Hebrews 2:9, where it says clearly that Jesus tasted death for everyone. Because MacArthur cannot bear the truth to be known, he has to write in his study Bible words such as the following: “to all who believe, that is.” For the calvinist, not one passage in the Bible teaches that “all” means “all the world” when it comes to salvation.

It is interesting that Calvin did teach (surprisingly) that Jesus gave His life a ransom for the whole human race.
Matthew 20:28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 20:28The word many (pollon) is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.

Calvin taught that Jesus shed His blood for the whole human race.
Matthew 26:28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 26:28Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race [“Non partem mundi tantum designat, sed totum humanum genus.” (“not a part of the world only, but the whole human race”)]

Yet the calvinists still obstinately try to say that because God limits free will in some passages, then there can be no such thing as free will at all. However, the only way a calvinist may prove that man does not have free will to determine his obedience to God is to demonstrate that no example of such may be found in the Bible. Even then, it may not be sufficient, for what they really need is a statement that God will under no circumstances at all give man free will to decide to serve Him or not. No calvinist anywhere has even tried to demonstrate such; they know that it is a pointless exercise for them! The Bible does demonstrate the free will of man to choose to serve or reject God, and this effectively reduces all calvinist heresies to a useless expenditure of hot air as they try to prove the unproveable. Hot air alone will never prove anything other than who can shout the loudest perhaps. Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone – is what demonstrates the truth!

If you wish to read further, please try the following links.

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.

Calvinism – the losing debating team!

Calvinism – the losing debating team!

This post is written in response to a recently-received email from a calvinist who will remain nameless other than he is a calvinist.

Calvinists do tend to come up with some ridiculous statements when trying to defend the indefensible. I so often wonder just why they are prepared to demonstrate themselves to be fools when trying to defend their non-Biblical doctrines from the Bible. But, they are determined to be seen as Christians, and, not only mere Christians, but the better, more on-the-ball Christians who serve a more sovereign God who shows more grace to fewer people. (Were you expecting another “more” there? Sorry, that’s one thing the calvinist God will not ever do: his grace will only be shown to a very small minority of people. The calvinist God just doesn’t care enough about most of the people he allegedly created; as far as he is concerned, they can all go to hell! Literally!)

God having the final say proves man has no free will?
But, don’t just take my word for it. Observe what the calvinists demonstrate themselves to be! Here’s a comment recently received in an email from this calvinist: 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. Now, what sort of logic is that? How does having the final say (or the last word on a matter) prove that it is the only say? If I have the final say on a matter of disagreement between myself and another person, it is foolishness to suppose that the other person therefore had no free will to oppose me!

In fact, God desires that all should be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4) and that if anyone calls upon the name of the Lord, he will be saved (Romans 10:13). God offers the gift of salvation to all mankind and sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). God asks man to respond to this offer of salvation, promising to save to the uttermost all who come to Him (Hebrews 7:25). When man responds, he is trusting in God’s promise to save him to the uttermost, and then God, being faithful to His promises, has the final say by accepting that person into His family as a child of God.

God’s final response is the culmination of a series of actions, but calvinism would have me believe that because His response is the final one, therefore it is the only one? Even the word “final” is defined as “coming at the end of a series”, so the final say would have to be that which comes at the end of a series of “sayings”. But, this is the logic of calvinism: that defines its logic as that which agrees with its doctrines; anything that doesn’t agree with its doctrines is therefore illogical.

Using logic to read the Bible leads to error?
But, says the calvinist, for me to use logic to determine truth is unacceptable. Clearly I am not to be permitted to use logic unless it is calvinist logic.

Let’s take another example from this calvinist email to further demonstrate this calvinist avoidance of logic: Now you refer to Rom 3:10-18 as man simply being unwilling to seek after God and this is a great example of you adding your logic to the express teaching of this verse. It matters not; even if man was willing (which he is not) he does not seek for God, can Paul be more specific about this verse, no he cannot. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS; NO ONE SEEKS FOR GOD, irregardless of mans ability to seek or not. If we were to add implications to scripture as you just did and not read it as literally as possible then its open slather for all to put their own two bobs worth in and how are we to ever come to the truth of God’s word. There are rules to follow and we must follow them. (sic)

So what is it that I said that was so logical yet so wrong? I had written: You quote Romans 3:10-18, yet not one bit of it can deny that it is merely the total unwillingness of man to seek after God; it can never be read as man not being able to seek after God. It says there is none that seeketh after God and yet where does it say that none are able to seek? Otherwise you cannot use this to prove man’s total inability to seek after God, just his total unwillingness to seek (which remains a matter of free-will!).
I simply pointed out that “not seeking after God” could not be re-written as “cannot find God”. “seeketh” or its negative “seeketh not” are acts of the will. When you look for (seek) something, you also have the option of deciding to not look for something. Unless qualified otherwise, “seeketh not” can never be re-defined as “can not”! Now that would indeed be illogical!

In similar fashion, I have been told by the same person: 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.
What the verse does say that Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But calvinists then redefine “see” to mean “believe in” or “have faith in”, and suddenly the verse says what they want it to say. And this person has then stated that a man must be born again before he can repent and believe, based on this bit of verbal gymnastics.

Note the following from another calvinist teaching on John 3:3:
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!
(P 8, Studies in the Atonement, Robert A. Morey)

However, proper Bible study must rely upon careful analysis of the context of the information, the meanings of the words in the Greek or Hebrew, the consistency of the derived meaning across the whole of the Bible, and particularly not reading into any verse information that is just not there in the first place. This may be termed a method of logical analysis. I highly recommend such a method to calvinists in order that they might seek the truth and see the error of their ways (or doctrines!). 

When God uses foreknowledge, it isn’t really foreknowledge?
So, let’s look further at this email. It says: You have misinterpreted 1 Pet 1:2a the word foreknowledge (foreknown) does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen (for God never learned anything, he already knows all things) but it clearly means a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of the Lord.
Did he actually say that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen? Does he realise that Luke, as a doctor, used a lot of medical terminology in his 2 books (Luke and Acts)? Foreknowledge is just one of those many medical terms. Foreknowledge is the Greek word prognosis which was first used as a medical term by Hippocrates as early as 400 BC.

“Prognosis (Greek πρόγνωσις “fore-knowing, foreseeing”) is a medical term for predicting the likely outcome of one’s current standing. (Wikipedia)

One of the earliest written works of medicine is the Book of Prognostics of Hippocrates, written around 400 BC. This work opens with the following statement: “It appears to me a most excellent thing for the physician to cultivate Prognosis; for by foreseeing and foretelling, in the presence of the sick, the present, the past, and the future, and explaining the omissions which patients have been guilty of, he will be the more readily believed to be acquainted with the circumstances of the sick; so that men will have confidence to intrust themselves to such a physician.”
For 19th century physicians, particularly those following the French school of medicine, the main aim of medicine was not to cure disease, but rather to give a medical diagnosis and achieve a satisfying prognosis of the patient’s chances. Only several decades later did the focus of efforts in Western medicine shift to curing disease. (Wikipedia)

Also note To trace the course of a disease through its various stages, and to be able to see what is portended by symptoms in different diseases and at different stages of those diseases, was an art upon which Hippocrates laid great stress. He called it πρόγνωσις (that is, “prognosis”), and it included at least half of the physician’s work.
(Hippocrates Collected Works I By Hippocrates Edited by: W. H. S. Jones (trans.) Cambridge Harvard University Press 1868)

And the calvinist thinks that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen? If a doctor gives you a prognosis of what your future might be like if you should continue as you are, then is that not based upon an awareness of what is going to happen according to his expert understanding? And if Luke were a doctor, then he, too, would have been very much aware of the full meaning of such a word when he penned Acts 2:23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
And it would be difficult to understand why Paul, who travelled so much with Luke, would not also have known the proper meaning of the noun form of prognosis (proginosko) when he penned For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).
And Peter, who had more contact with Paul and Luke than any other of the 12 disciples, wrote Elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).

So you will find it difficult indeed to prove that foreknowledge does not refer to awareness of what is going to happen, when the most logical and accurate translation of this medical term is, in actual fact, an awareness of what is going to happen. Of course, calvinists are forced to prove foreknowledge to be something else, because if foreknowledge is simply God’s perfect knowledge of the future, then all the other calvinist beliefs are shot down in flames!

And the calvinist writer of this email says: Now if you can find me one verse where it can be emphatically  proven that God predestined his chosen elect because He first saw that we will choose him first, I will surrender in defeat. Sir, you are a liar, for I have given you 1 Peter 1:2a and you have refused to see the proper understanding of the verse. You are so obsessed with your belief that God unconditionally chose an elect group from the beginning of the world, that they (and only they) would go to heaven, and that no man may have the free will to decide one way or the other for himself. You say that such foreknowledge cannot explain the predestination of God. You said: If you study the true meaning of predestination you will realize that by looking into the future first before predestinating anyone does not give true meaning to the word predestined so your understanding of 1 Pet 1:2a is flawed.

But how can that be so? If God should use His foreknowledge (His perfect knowledge of the future) to determine who to write in the Lamb’s book of life, written before the foundation of the world, then do you tell me He is not allowed to do that? And having chosen His elect according to His foreknowledge, can God also then predestinate those people to be saved for all eternity according to His promises to save to the uttermost? After all, if God has a list of His elect from the foundation of the world, then He will do with that list of elect what He promises to do, regardless of whether the election is unconditional or conditional upon foreknowledge. How does being conditional upon the foreknowledge of God change one iota of what God says He will do with and for those elect of His?

Whether the election is conditional or not cannot change what God does with His elect group. Calvinists say the election is unconditional; the Bible reveals that it is conditional upon God’s foreknowledge. But regardless of how the election has been determined, God will use that list to determine the salvation of everyone on it. The true meaning of predestination is that anyone on that list will be saved to the uttermost according to God’s promises. It’s actually the list of the elect that saves everyone on it, not whether the list is unconditional or not! This waffling on about my understanding of 1 Peter 1:2a being flawed because of predestination must also condemn the calvinist election as well, for predestination is according to that list, not how it was obtained. So, we’ll let the Bible have the final say on this: Elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis – which does indeed refer to an awareness of what is going to happen) of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).

So how are the calvinists going to try and win this debate? They continually avoid facing the issues I raise by trying to dismiss good argument with unacceptable excuses. Here’s their chance to demonstrate that they can actually read the Bible alone for its truth. Thy word is truthJohn 17:17.

If you want to read further, please try these links.

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.

Do calvinists ever listen to others?

Do calvinists ever listen to others?

You can always tell a calvinist, but not much!

Are calvinists so arrogant that they cannot even bear to listen to others properly before they then attempt to shove their lies down our throats? I answered a calvinist with my last post (Reply to a calvinist) but received a reply that demonstrates that he either does not read anything properly or he is incapable of reading anything properly. He did not answer most of my questions, and those he did answer were not actually answered anyway; they were more of the “please can we change the topic” variety.

He also copied out a whole lot of stuff from somewhere else (probably some calvinist self-proclaimed teacher) without any personal notes to explain what points he was really trying to make, other than I was wrong. Can’t he think for himself and produce his own thoughts as supported from the Bible, or does he have to run to his calvinist heroes to get answers every time someone offends his calvinist heresies. I wish more of these calvinists would just say what they think, rather than quoting some calvinist “hero”. Are these calvinists so immature in their Scriptural understanding that they cannot come up with what they actually think for themselves? Do they always have to let others think for them? Of course, that’s probably how they became sucked into the quagmire of calvinism in the first place. They didn’t know enough of the Bible to defend themselves from something that was targeting poor defenseless Christians with insufficient understanding to know that they were being drawn in like gullible fish on hooks of heresy!

When previously putting his case to me his arguments were so vacillating and vague that it was almost impossible to answer them clearly. He kept on putting in personal views that said nothing, yet expected me to be swayed by such. But how can I be swayed by vague and inconsistent rhetoric when I find it difficult to know just what point he is trying to make.  I refuse to accept something another says unless I can see some rational and logical way to check it out in the Bible. But if I cannot understand just what the calvinist is trying to get through to me, then I cannot test it against Scripture, and therefore I have to reject it. This is standard behaviour from any Christian who desires to test all things as per 1 Thessalonians 5:21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I like to say something straight forward; I don’t like to beat about the bush in getting to the point. I can’t see how anyone can fail to understand what I am saying, even if they disagree. If they do not understand, they should ask me to clarify it, which I will do, because they have asked me to do so. This is how Christians should treat others who are seeking answers. They must be allowed the means by which they may check what I am saying against the truth of the Bible. They might disagree with what I am saying, but at least I prefer to be logical and rational with my statements. I guess it comes from having a Maths degree; I have to see everything set out in order.

However, with this post, I wish to demonstrate the typical calvinist profile.

1/. Calvinists rarely like to stand on their own two feet. Instead, whenever they are challenged on some point of Biblical doctrine, they’ll run to one or more of their calvinist heroes such as Calvin, Boettner, Hodge, Piper, Sproule, MacArthur, etc. I can’t remember the last time I came across a calvinist person who didn’t use other calvinist references to make his point.

The calvinist has to accept that such men are great teachers and therefore cannot be wrong on matters of Biblical doctrine. They will often act as though these calvinist heroes are even superior to the Bible. (For instance, I have personally never heard any calvinist ever acknowledge that MacArthur could ever be wrong in any way. If I say one thing and MacArthur says something else, then he is always right and therefore I am always wrong.) This behaviour rarely changes. Calvinist teachers are always right when they discuss Scriptural matters with non-calvinists. Therefore, calvinists who trust and quote their calvinist teachers can never be wrong because their teachers are always right.

By the way, we are told to test all things according to the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21). But, calvinists test all things according to their calvinist teachings which apparently override Scriptural truth. A recent email comment said: He (Calvin) merely helps to magnify theology. Now, that sounds like he is claiming Calvin’s writings to be extra-Biblical revelation, like the Book of Mormon is extra-Biblical revelation to the Mormons. So we never knew what the Bible really said until Calvin came along?!!
No Christian ever has a 100% correct doctrine. We are always learning until the day we die, so anyone who can never learn from another is arrogant enough to think that he has passed the stage of having to test all things, because he now knows all things!

2/. Calvinists are often reluctant to give straight-forward answers to straight-forward questions, especially when their straight-forward answers might cause them to be less trusted as a fellow Christian. If a non-calvinist asks direct and specific questions that require an answer, the calvinist will only answer them if he can do so without compromising his already “fully-correct” doctrines. He will often avoid answering direct questions if they might involve some fancy sidestepping of facts, or verbal gymnastics (MacArthur is good at this one) or where the other person appears to have a much better grasp of the Bible than he does. At such times, vague answers are the order of the day.

3/. Calvinists do not like to go face-to-face with those who might trip them up with superior knowledge and understanding, especially when they are on their own. They do prefer to be supported by other calvinists alongside them or backing them when they are dealing with someone who knows the Bible well. They do far prefer to deal with those who are reasonably new Christians, those who might not be as sure of their doctrines as they should. They also prefer Christians who are pliable, those who can be manipulated by the more aggressive tactics of the calvinists.

In fact, the people most likely to be converted to calvinism are generally young or immature Christians with a poor understanding of the major doctrines of the Bible. Such people often do not have the skills to be able to test all things, often never having been taught this necessary skill by their churches. That is, they do not have sufficient knowledge nor understanding of the Bible to be able to readily check those things which the calvinists thrust upon them. They are often confused by calvinist aggression and tend to tentatively and meekly submit to the new beliefs unless they can see certainly that they are wrong. Often new or immature Christians don’t have the experience to determine many heresies because their churches are failing to teach them properly from the Bible. It is hard for such Christians to stand up to a more mature person who appears to be very assured about his Biblical knowledge!

4/. Calvinists rarely (if ever) announce their whole doctrine from the start. If they were to do so, more Christians might be aware of their heresies. But it is more difficult to detect false doctrines when they are progressively taught over a period of time. What they teach always seems to be on the ball; it often takes an alert and experienced Christian to notice the small discrepancies in doctrinal truth. However, a lot of small pieces of false doctrine finally build into a heresy. And, like a bushfire, heresy is always easier to stamp out in its early stages.

By far the most common practice is for the calvinist to firstly establish the lines of agreement. If the non-calvinist tends to agree with the calvinist, then he is likely to think that the calvinist is a good Christian with whom he might fellowship. If the non-calvinist is not a mature Christian, then he may look upon the calvinist as a kind of mentor. He may consider that the calvinist has an understanding that the non-calvinist might desire. The calvinist does not usually state any of the major calvinist teachings at first, but may vaguely appear to state doctrines that sound like they are in line with the Bible. If he appears to know the Bible well, then he may eventually be trusted enough to be able to commence strengthening some of his more questionable doctrines, such as limited atonement – always a hard one to “sell” to non-calvinists at first. Finally, when the calvinist feels he has enough trust of the non-calvinist, he will then lead that person into the esoteric belief system of calvinism – a belief system that only permits you the knowledge according to the level you have reached in their organisation.

Note that people never become calvinists by just reading the Bible. Every calvinist has learned calvinism from another calvinist. It is a belief system propagated by people, not the word of God. The Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) can never teach people to be calvinists!

5/. Calvinism, like many Christian cults, teaches its members by requiring them to learn calvinist interpretations of Biblical doctrine, rather than training them to study the Bible for their own understanding. Far too many churches teach facts. They fail to teach Christians how to seek truth from the Bible, but instead tell them what they should believe from the Bible. The emphasis is upon the leadership determining what the congregation should know, rather than teaching the congregation to seek truth for themselves. And, like many cults, they know a lot about what they believe, but not much about why they believe as they do. It is difficult to explain Biblical truth to such people because their knowledge overrides understanding. Like many cultists, they can only parrot off what their revered calvinist teachers have taught them. When faced with opposition to their beliefs, they will fall back upon what they have learned as their safe ground. Explaining the Bible to them often only strengthens their belief in their learned doctrines. In many ways it is like talking to a Jehovah’s Witness; you just don’t seem to get the Biblical message past their cultist teachings.

Calvinists will often demonstrate an almost unshakeable belief in their doctrines, even when you consider that you have proven them wrong ten times over. So often they just don’t seem to see the truth that is right under their noses. I define this unshakeable level of belief as cult-like in its intensity.

6/. Calvinists cannot put up with competition. They must be the ones who lead the discussions on doctrine. They are never comfortable with listening to others teach doctrines differing to their own. This is especially true if the other person is teaching from the Bible; this labels the other person as someone who may know the Bible and therefore someone to avoid if possible, unless the calvinist is doing the talking! As new calvinist Al Mohler said: Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there (

Clearly Mohler doesn’t appreciate competition. Either you are with him (as a new calvinist) or you are not a proper Christian! This is a common attitude with calvinists today.
Calvinists will often demonstrate an air of superiority because of this “better” view of Christianity. They believe their God is more sovereign, more gracious, more this, more that. You just don’t know you’re living unless you’re a calvinist!! I fail to understand, however, just how the calvinist God can be more sovereign, more gracious, than the God of the Bible! If a calvinist says that he has a higher view of God’s sovereignty, just ask him if he is worshipping the God of the Bible! Those poor non-calvinist Christians are so often the lesser beings in a church which favours calvinism!

7/. If a calvinist cannot win a debate with you (usually because you know the Bible too well and can’t be shaken), then name-calling often becomes the order of the day. The non-calvinist becomes a “problem”, or he is “non-spiritual”, or “Arminian” or “Pelagian” (either semi or full), or he is “misrepresenting the calvinist” (which is unlikely if he quotes their actual statements), or he is “misled by his views on the free-will of man”, or he is “non-elect”, or he is a “universalist”. Now, that last one is one that MacArthur levels at non-calvinists (who believe that Jesus died for all the sins of all the world without exception, which is actually what the Bible says – see 1 John 2:2). MacArthur says that all those whose sins were paid for on the cross will go to heaven; so, if you aren’t going to heaven, your sins were not paid for! As A W Pink (a calvinist “teacher”) said: Not one for whom He died can possibly miss heaven. Note that if you don’t make heaven, then Pink is saying that Jesus didn’t die for you. But, if Jesus died for all people, and if all for whom Jesus died go to heaven (as per MacArthur), then MacArthur is really teaching universalism!

8/. Calvinists see non-calvinist churches as their mission field. Calvinism does not have a viable gospel of salvation; they teach that you must be made alive (born again) by the Holy Spirit before you may hear the gospel, believe in Jesus and be saved. They cannot preach the gospel (unless you have already been born again) because it would be telling lies to most of the world (for whom the calvinist Jesus didn’t die for on the cross). They believe that you must first be drawn by God into the body of the church and made alive (regenerated or born again) before you may be considered one of the elect, and only the elect will be permitted by the calvinist God to respond to the gospel. Note that they may only hear and respond to the gospel after they have been firstly regenerated (born again).

Thus, those who are already attending churches are seen as the elect of God. Therefore non-calvinist churches are filled with likely recipients of the calvinist gospel. In particular, if you are a fundamentalist evangelical church, you may one day be targeted for takeover by a calvinist church group in your area. They may infiltrate your small study and prayer groups, even giving the impression that they are like-minded fundamentalists like you. However, if you are not careful, they may be able to “convert” some of your more impressionable members,  making it more difficult to withstand their onslaught on the whole church when it comes. They may initiate debates or discussions on issues related to calvinism without showing where they stand; such discussions may serve to introduce calvinism without appearing to threaten the non-calvinist members.

9/. Calvinists like a church that permits strong leadership, as long as they are that leadership! A W Pink, a calvinist author, teaches that the silence of the people as they marched around the walls of Jericho proved that the common or lay person was to keep quiet and leave all the teaching to the leaders. The forbidding of “the people” to open their mouths signified that the rank and file of Christians are to have no part in the oral proclamation of the truth―they are neither qualified for nor called to the ministration of the Word. (P 10, Studies in the Scriptures, A W Pink)

Calvinist churches like to declare their teachers as teaching elders, while the common workhorse servants (non-teaching leaders) of the church are often the deacons. If your church has deacons and the pastor wants elders to be appointed as well, ask if they are the teaching elders as opposed to the non-teaching deacons. This may be a sign of calvinism sneaking in the back door.

10/. New calvinism (a particularly aggressive form of calvinism today) is building a strong power base in many fundamentalist evangelical churches, such as among the Southern Baptists of USA (although this infiltration is a largely world-wide phenomenon now). They seek to take control of the Bible colleges and seminaries (have already done so in many places) such that the new generation of pastors and church leaders is sympathetic to calvinist teachings. Bible college students are quite susceptible to pressure being brought to bear by aggressive calvinist Bible teachers. With new calvinism has also come the Biblical Counselling movement; both new calvinism and Biblical Counselling were largely developed alongside each other at Westminster Theological Seminary in USA. Biblical counselling is used by many churches as a means of control of their members. Beware of signing a membership agreement that includes a discipline clause. Many churches already have such clauses and those who sign them may find that the church can and will dictate to them how they should live in order to remain acceptable to God. Biblical counsellors usually work in with the church leadership, advising them of potential threats to the stability of the church. Church members may be publicly named and shamed in church services if the church finds them guilty of sin (as the church defines it).

Be very careful and alert in your church. Your freedom to worship Biblically might be under fire from people whom you might trust, yet shouldn’t. Test all things your church teaches you; do not accept any doctrine unless you can understand it for yourself from the Bible. Watch for those who might be using small church study or prayer groups to reach out to individuals or small groups. Remember, vigilance is the cost of your freedom to worship. Calvinism is an insidious evil that should not be permitted into your church group. Calvinists are like wolves who, if admitted to your sheep fold, will rapidly spread their heresies, soon taking over the sheep-fold if not stopped in their tracks.

If you liked this post, here are some more links to try.

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.

I reply to a calvinist on the free will of man

Reply to a calvinist (who cannot see that the Bible teaches the free-will of man)

Firstly, there is no way we would agree on no free-will for man. Free-will is not proven as nonsense. Spurgeon was talking nonsense when he said this: It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. (“Free Will – A Slave” 02/12/1855) for he has given no proof whatsoever to support his unbiblical claim here. Free will exists as a consistent doctrine throughout the Bible and cannot be proven nonsense. It is acknowledged that no man may come to God unless God intervenes, yet that intervention is through the gospel of Christ. Man is totally unwilling to come to God, yet this cannot ever be translated into total inability (that is, absolutely unable to come to God even if he wanted to). Without the gospel, man cannot see what he is to do in order to be saved; therefore he will never be saved without the gospel. But the word of the gospel brings the light of understanding into a man’s life, which is why satan tries so hard to prevent it as per 2 Corinthians 4:3-43 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

It is incomprehensible that anyone who claims to be a reader of the Bible should not understand this role of the gospel. When God’s word is preached, it will achieve that purpose for which it was sent (Isaiah 55:11). In particular, when the gospel is preached, it will achieve the purpose of illuminating the soul so it understands man’s sinfulness and God’s solution through the cross of Jesus. Man is then asked to confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead, and he shall be saved (Romans 10:9). For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Even when man calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved, can he demand that God now save him? Emphatically no! For the calling upon the name of the Lord is in faith, trusting in the character of the God who promises to save such a man to the uttermost. Even though man cries out to be saved, it is still by God’s choosing that such a man will be saved. God has the final say on all cries for salvation; no-one may demand salvation merely because he followed the rules.

And the election is a Biblical fact, only it is conditional upon the foreknowledge of God to know such things from the beginning according to His perfect knowledge of the future. Thus we are Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 2:1a). The Bible so consistently teaches the foreknowledge of God as such; it is scripturally unethical, not to say blasphemous, to insinuate that God may not be permitted to do that which He says He will do!

This is why calvinists absolutely refuse, against all Scriptural teaching, to permit God to determine His elect according to His perfect knowledge of the future, that is, His foreknowledge! If God’s foreknowledge is His perfect knowledge of the future, then it is simple for Him to determine the free-will decisions of man to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. And don’t go on about such being a work of salvation. It is no more a work of salvation than is a drowning man crying out to be saved. His crying out cannot save him. His calling out cannot help him even if someone were to hear. It is entirely the work of the one who saves such a man. Even the acceptance of a gift cannot in any way improve or add anything to the value or worth of that gift. This is ridiculous side-stepping of the real issue, trying to turn the focus away from the errors of calvinism everywhere else! Prove the rest of calvinism right and perhaps you might get listened to when pleading that calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved is a work! But if God says to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then that’s what you do! Do you dare question what God requires you to do?

I challenge any calvinist to demonstrate that God does not (or can not) use such perfect knowledge of the future to determine man’s free-will decisions to call upon the name of the Lord! But they won’t because the Bible just doesn’t support them at all. You see, calvinists refuse to permit any teaching that permits the free-will of mankind because the free-will of man can destroy all calvinist heresies.

You still haven’t demonstrated from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) that the free-will of man is nonsense. And don’t call me an Arminian for I make no such claims! I only claim the true teaching of the Bible to establish my beliefs. When will you stop the irrational name-calling and get down to the facts of it all: can you demonstrate from the Bible that free-will is nonsense? And don’t quote other men, for they may only teach the commandments of man. Only the Bible has the doctrines of God. And don’t say that most people agree with you; that is called common sense, and the Bible says that such ways that seem right to man (= common sense) lead to destruction (Proverbs 14:12).

You quote Romans 3:10-18 to “prove” that free-will is nonsense, yet not one bit of it can deny that it is merely the total unwillingness of man to seek after God. It can never be read as man not being able to seek after God. It says that there is none that seeketh after God and yet where does it say that none are able to seek after God? You simply cannot use this to prove man’s total inability to seek after God, just his total unwillingness to seek (which remains a matter of free-will!).

You likewise quote Romans 9:16 in support of your calvinist no-free-will heresy, yet you fail to understand that God will only show mercy to those who come to Him by calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved. God will not show mercy to those who demand it; rather He will show it to those who cry out to Him to be saved. In the final analysis, it is still God who must will that any man be saved, but His condition is that man should firstly call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Romans 9:16 cannot demonstrate that free-will is nonsense.

Note that the word for “hardeneth” in Romans 9:18 is skleruno which means to harden in the shape that it already is in, thus we get sclerosis of such as arteries in the body. Romans 9:18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
God merely hardens a person in the condition that he has already chosen to be in.
Thus neither can Romans 9:18 demonstrate that free-will is nonsense, for God merely sets that man in his choice. That is, man has chosen and now God says that man must stay the way he has chosen. Literally, a man makes his bed, and then he has to sleep in it, as the saying goes.

By the way, Romans 9 is a chapter the calvinists should steer clear of. In Vs 3 Paul desires to be lost for the sake of his lost fellow-country-men, yet if calvinism is right, then Paul should have known that he couldn’t be lost and that those who were not elect could never be saved. How does calvinism explain this? Did Paul get it wrong?

Then Romans 9 discusses the election of the nation of Israel over the nation of Esau/Edom. The election of a nation cannot ever equate to the election of individuals, ever. Only those grasping at doctrinal straws would try to use this to “prove” the unconditional election of man! The election of a nation had to exclude all others from being elect; does this mean that only one person may be chosen and all others excluded. And if calvinism is right, without free-will Israel had to have been foreordained to rebel against God so that God could reject them as His elect nation. Can this be used to prove that God would also foreordain His unconditional elect to rebel and be condemned to hell? Please explain!

Romans 9:23 says that there are vessels of honour and dishonour which calvinists also use to “prove” that you are made a certain way, unchangeably so. Then why does Paul tell Timothy that a vessel of dishonour may be purged to become a vessel of honour (2 Timothy 2:20-21)??

And John 1:13!! If you only did some Bible study (Sola Scriptura!) you would see that the whole sentence is as follows:
John 1:12-1312 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Now try and prove that God’s will here is not in any way dependent upon the believing on the name of God in Vs 12! Note carefully that these 2 verses form one complete idea, that Vs 13 is grammatically dependent upon Vs 12. Prove to me that those who received Him could not have been using free-will to so choose. Also try proving that believing on His name can not in any way be using free-will! It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that this can in any way “prove” that free-will is nonsense!

And for those who believe that John 6:44 somehow proves that only those who are called by God will come, note that it can only be used to demonstrate this if you first of all make the assumption (assumption, mind you) that free-will is nonsense. If free-will cannot be proven nonsense, then John 6:44 can simply mean that many are called but few are chosen (as per Matthew 22:14)! Can you explain that? And don’t try that worn-out excuse that the call of God may be either effectual or otherwise! Please answer this if you can: where in the Bible does it teach that there are two calls of God, one effectual, the other not effectual? Really, you must think me somewhat limited in intelligence to have the wool pulled over my eyes this way! But, the calvinists have to come up with some explanation, no matter how tenuous the Biblical support for it, or else accept that they have doctrines that may be mocked by all those people who actually think for themselves. Talk about the commandments of man being taught as the doctrines of God! Matthew 15:9But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.

And further to this, in John 12:32 Jesus says that He will draw all to Himself on the cross. Note that “draw” in this verse is the same as “draw” in John 6:44. Now, unless you can prove that “all” can only mean those who believe, then Jesus must be drawing all mankind, and thus the Father in John 6:44 also draws all mankind, and thus, if not all come, then some of mankind must be resisting due to their free-will. If “all” means “all” mankind, then the combination of John 12:32 and John 6:44 can only mean that some are resisting the drawing of the Father through their own free-will. Can you explain that free-will is nonsense in this light??

Here’s another one for you to try to explain. How can God ask His people to choose between life and death, blessing and cursing, if they don’t have free-will? Is God then going to foreordain that they sin and rebel against Him? Then why would He go through the parody of asking them to choose when such a choice is nonsensical?
Deuteronomy 30:19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

And what about Isaiah 5:4What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
If God has ordained that Israel should produce bad fruit, then He has not done enough to ensure that they would bring forth good fruit. In fact, the only way that God can say this and remain sovereign holy God is to have given Israel a free-will to reject His truth. Can you explain this?

And also Jeremiah 32:35And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
It never came into God’s mind that they should do such a thing? That is, He never considered such a thing?  If God has foreordained their rebellion, then it has to have been in His mind that they should do such a thing, so either God is a liar, or He has forgotten what he foreordained, or else He is sovereign God who has given Israel a free-will to choose between serving Him or other gods! Can you explain this otherwise?

And how can calvinism give glory to God when calvinists such as Spurgeon teach that you have eternal life before you come to Christ for eternal life (according to that document of Spurgeon on free-will). There never was a man who came to Christ for eternal life, for legal life, for spiritual life, who had not already received it, in some sense (“Free Will – A Slave” 02/12/1855) Effectively, a calvinist then believes that he is saved for heaven even before he comes to Christ for eternal life. In this calvinist heresy, Christ has become irrelevant and thus written out of the gospel of salvation for mankind. For what need is there of Christ if a man has eternal life without Christ? How can Christ now say “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” when a sinner has come to the Father through regeneration before he may believe in Christ and be saved? And how can a person have eternal life before he comes to Christ, if he cannot see life without Christ?
John 3:36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

And where does the Bible teach beyond any doubt at all that “the whole world” (1 John 2:2) can never mean the whole world without exception? Yet the calvinist consistently assumes the lie that the whole world can only include those who believe! But, unless they prove that “the whole world” cannot mean the whole world without exception, then Jesus died for all mankind, and their limited atonement heresy is shot down in flames.
Questions, questions, questions! Can you answer any of them Scripturally??

Just a little more! You say that John 15:16 puts an end to the argument of who chose who. Obviously you are assuming that all those that Jesus chose here were the elect going to heaven? But there’s a bit of a problem for you in this one too. Firstly, Judas was one of those chosen in John 15:16. Can you explain how the choice of Judas fits into your explanation, considering that he was never bound for heaven, it seems? In fact, John 15:16 had nothing to do with election to salvation (for if it had, then Judas would not have been chosen among them). It was the custom that disciples chose their masters, yet Jesus now says that He did not follow the usual custom because He chose His disciples. Even Gill (that calvinist commentary) says his (Jesus’) choice of them was entirely free, did not arise from any character, motive, or condition in them: the allusion is to a custom of the Jews, the reverse of which Christ acted; with whom it was usual for disciples to choose their own masters, and not masters their disciples
It is a mistake to think of this as anything else than the master choosing his disciples in opposition to the custom of that day!

Also, why did Jesus say that He had chosen the 12 disciples and one of them was a devil? If this represents the unconditional election to life and heaven, then do calvinists really believe that devils go to heaven?
John 6:70-7170 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
And if Jesus should not lose one of those given to Him, how did He lose Judas in John 17:12?

If you liked this post, here are some more links to try.

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.