How may one be saved without praying?

How may one be saved without praying? (Unless like calvinists, you believe that God alone may choose whether or not you are saved!)

This comment came in today. I have spent much time thinking my reply through, and feel that it may be of assistance to others who may be struggling with the same or similar questions. Name etc have been omitted but are held on file.

Message Body:
While I don’t agree with Calvinism, you have completely taken a lot out of context in regards to what Mr. Todd has said. He’s stated repeatedly that he doesn’t believe in works salvation. But, as the Bible states, faith is never alone. There will be fruit and a transformation. Just “saying a prayer” is not enough. Faith without works is dead. No. This does not mean works saves, but works/fruits are a BY PRODUCT of a genuine confession. We are saved and justified through grace, and Christ righteousness is imputed to us. Sanctification should be intentional and as the holy spirit makes us more into the image of Christ, we are growing. No, “the sinners prayer” is not in the Bible.

I am unsure just what I have said that you disagree with. What have I actually stated which you feel is incorrect? Please quote my words! I have repeatedly said that if anyone wishes to comment on what I have said, you must state clearly what it is that I have allegedly said. Unless, of course, you don’t really know what it is that I have said that you find out of context.

You say, “There will be fruit and a transformation. Just “saying a prayer” is not enough. Faith without works is dead.Where have I said otherwise? In fact, I do not have any disagreement with these words. In fact, I agree with much (not all!) of what you have written. You seem to have misread what I have actually said!

Friel says (“Ten reasons to not ask Jesus into your heart” – also see The Heresy of Todd Friel) So, what must one do to be saved? Repent and trust. (Heb.6:1)
Yet Hebrews 6:1 (Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,) actually teaches that we should move on from the foundation of repentance and faith toward God. That is, to grow as a Christian instead of staying a Christian baby. (See the context in Hebrews 5:12-14 in your Bible.) Apparently Friel is teaching that we must do the works of our salvation in order to be saved. But the works should be a consequence of that salvation, not the cause. At the very least Friel seems to be mightily confused here.

I have quoted Todd Friel (with my comments added) in The Heresy of Todd Friel:
In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith. [I fail to see even one justification, here or anywhere else for that matter, how asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith! This is a ridiculous grasping at straws! It might be possible to leave out faith, but nothing says the sinners’ prayer cannot involve faith! It’s the person who has or hasn’t faith, not the sinners’ prayer!]

Are my comments out of context here? The mere praying of the sinners’ prayer cannot automatically assume faith, nor the lack of faith for that matter. And if you think faith is a gift of God, check it out properly, for faith is the response of man to the character of the God who makes such great and precious promises. (Try reading Hebrews 11 carefully.) Also, the gift of God in Ephesians2:8-9 cannot grammatically be faith. The word genders are wrong! The gift of God there is your salvation by the grace of God.

I also mention the sinners’ prayer in Calvinism is incompatible with Biblical doctrine: “This calvinist lack of free will leads directly to a serious problem between calvinists and non-calvinists. Calvinists cannot accept any notion at all of free will in your salvation. If you claim to be a Christian because of any decision of your will to repent and be saved, or pray the sinners’ prayer, or ask Jesus into your life as Lord and Saviour, or anything else that relates to choosing today whom you will serve, then calvinists have to reject your testimony as invalid.

The point being made is that any decision made by one’s own free will is unacceptable to the calvinist because of that claim to have used free will to decide. I am not giving an unqualified tick of approval to every sinners’ prayer that is prayed. However, if one has free will to decide to come to Christ for salvation, then one must pray to Him at some stage. (I assume you believe that it is acceptable and maybe probable even that a person may pray at this time?)

Todd Friel says: People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. (“Ten reasons to not ask Jesus into your heart”)
Where does it say in the Bible – or even suggest it – that “people who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved? Is it a sin to ask Jesus into your heart? And where does it say that it was because they asked Jesus into their hearts that caused Jesus to reject them? Read it carefully! Also note Matthew 7:21-2321Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
It is those whom Jesus never knew (who didn’t do the will of the Father) who will be rejected. And the will of the Father is that all should call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4). There are many who profess to know Christ but never submitted to His authority.

You said, “No, “the sinners prayer” is not in the Bible.” However, as for the sinners’ prayer not being in the Bible, how else may one call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) if one cannot use prayer to do so? Calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved is the biblical requirement for salvation. Please tell me, how may someone call upon the name of the Lord to be saved without praying? And if someone calls upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then that is a prayer for salvation, that is, the sinners’ prayer. I do not claim that all who pray such a prayer will be saved, either. If a person’s life does not show the change of such a prayer, then that person’s salvation must be considered non-existent. I quote from my last post: “Many do struggle with sin for a while after they are saved; sins such as addictions do not always miraculously completely disappear immediately the person comes to Christ for salvation. However, if they do not disappear at all, ever, then that person’s salvation was probably non-existent. But it should not disqualify them from being declared Christian if they do not completely change from the start. What they often need is encouragement, not a dismissal because they failed to measure up immediately.” (Just exactly what is the calvinist gospel?)
That is, if there is no transformation ever in a person’s life after praying to be saved, then it may be assumed that the person was never truly saved. Certainly faith without works is dead. Where have I stated (or even implied) that this is not so?

In Luke 18:10-14, Jesus gave the example of a sinner who prayed to God to be merciful to him a sinner (actually “to propitiate him a sinner”). This man prayed a prayer to God, “Lord be merciful to (propitiate) me a sinner!” (And if a sinner prays to God like this, then how is it not a sinners’ prayer?) He showed no works other than extreme repentance for his sins, yet Jesus declared him justified. Now, if the sinner had then made little or no effort to put this prayer into action (that is, continuing to live as he had previously), then it is clear his prayer may well have been false and his justification non-existent. Of course, this is just a parable that demonstrates the effective use of a sinners’ prayer. Because it is not necessarily a real situation, we are not told what happened after that. It was a parable, after all.
But it is an example of a sinners’ prayer. Is it not in your Bible?

One last thing to note: the only people who deny a sinners’ prayer in any shape or form are those who believe that man has no free will to choose his salvation. Thus the calvinists teach that only God alone may choose your salvation for you, and thus a sinners’ prayer cannot be acceptable to them regardless of whether it is genuine or not! You disagree with calvinism but you also appear to disagree with a salvation that requires a person to pray to God for salvation. Some sinners’ prayers may well be a waste of time, especially if not accompanied by godly sorrow and genuine repentance.
2 Corinthians 7:10For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

However, some sinners’ prayers must be genuine. If man has free will to choose to accept or reject salvation, then in order to be saved he must pray a prayer at some stage to call upon the name of the Lord. (Unless no genuine Christians exist in the world today??)

By the way, did you make a decision to be saved at some point in time? That is, did you call upon the name of the Lord to be saved? Of course, calvinists don’t agree with this, because they don’t believe man has the free will to do so. “You don’t choose God; God chooses you!” they say. But you have said, “I don’t agree with Calvinism” which may assume you agree in the free will of man. Or do you? Free will requires a response to God, generally in the form of prayer, unless you have found another way?
You said, “No, “the sinners prayer” is not in the Bible.” Apparently the following verse may be missing from your Bible?
Romans 10:13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Just exactly what is the calvinist gospel?

Just what exactly is the calvinist gospel?

A lot of allegedly Christian religious groups have what seems to be an on-the-ball biblical gospel. But it is how the converts to that gospel are counted or recorded that defines the actual gospel being preached. No matter what you preach to the alleged lost, it’s how you assess your results that defines your gospel!

The Catholics, for instance, appear to teach a reasonable gospel. But to be seen as a good catholic you must remain a member in good standing, including regularly attending masses and confessions. If you cease being a good catholic, then it is usual to consider you as not saved. A catholic who renounces catholicism is generally pronounced anathema, that is, rejected by their God. The catholic gospel is therefore to be a good catholic.

The Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs) likewise appear to have a biblical gospel, but then assess the salvation of their members according to their adherence to the law of God. If you break God’s law without due repentance, then you may be considered to be not saved, especially if you worship on any day other than Saturday. The SDA gospel is therefore one of obedience to the law of God, especially with respect to the sabbath commandment.

The Jehovahs Witnesses (JWs) teach that only a JW may be saved. Those who belong to other religions cannot be saved. If you leave the JWs, you lose your salvation. Therefore the JW gospel is to belong to the JW religion! This is common to most cults.

In many charismatic and Pentecostal churches, the gospel may be preached faithfully, yet if a person is “slain in the Spirit” or speaks in tongues, or is apparently miraculously healed, then that person is automatically deemed to be a Christian. The reasoning is that if the person has experienced a spiritual manifestation, it must be attributed to God, because they are Christian churches and therefore spiritual activity must be of God. But satan and his demons can also cause spiritual manifestations such as these. We are told to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-3) but I have yet to see a church test the spirits behind spiritual manifestations. If the spiritual manifestation is used to define that person as Christian without qualification, then their gospel is not biblical but of spiritual manifestations.

Calvinists preach a gospel which does appear to be the same as the biblical gospel. Their doctrinal statements of belief are often seemingly very scriptural. But how do they count their converts? How do they assess whether or not a person is truly a Christian according to their doctrines? One thing is certain: they cannot assess their converts by any testimony involving free will choice in any way. If you claimed to have heard the gospel and responded in faith, repenting of your sins and choosing to trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord, then this is insufficient for calvinists to accept you as a genuine Christian. In fact, any decision that involves your free will in any way should disqualify you from being accepted by a calvinist as a genuine Christian!

So how does the calvinist assess the results of his gospel preaching? Calvinists often claim to be great evangelists, seeking the lost more vigorously than any non-calvinist! They claim that calvinist missionaries have sparked revivals, have built churches in many godless communities, all through their preaching of the gospel. Yet, the calvinist can’t count anyone whose claim to being Christian rests on free will in any way. So who can he count? Or, who does he actually count?

The answer lies in their doctrines. Without free will permitted for mankind to choose salvation, what do they actually teach? Some teach that you must repent and forsake all your sins before you can claim to be a Christian. Others preach that you must give up all your worldly sins in order to be saved. But one thing stands out: that you don’t choose God; God chooses you! If you repent, then God has made you repent.

The calvinist God has chosen from the beginning (without imposing any conditions at all) a small select group of people to be his own people, his elect. These and only these will go to heaven. In fact, they can’t go anywhere else, for God has chosen them unconditionally to go to heaven, and to heaven they will go! God will make them go!
MacArthur teaches that no-one is willing until God makes that sinner willing.
No sinner has the capacity to be willing.   …….
It is only when the power of God makes him willing that he becomes willing.
(“The doctrine of God’s effectual call”)

All the rest (the majority of mankind) have not been chosen, so there is no hope of salvation and heaven, ever. The calvinist Jesus only died for God’s chosen elect; therefore those not chosen cannot go to heaven, even if they wanted to, for their sins remain unpaid for. These non-elect sinners will never be saved because the calvinist God intends that they remain unwilling to come! 

This means that only those who have been chosen can be saved, and the rest cannot be saved. Not one may have free will to choose for himself. The calvinist therefore may only count those who have been chosen by God for salvation, not necessarily those who say they have made a personal decision to be saved. But how does the calvinist know the difference? Well, to start with, those who claim to have made a personal decision to be saved have to be counted out of the running. In fact, most calvinists do teach clearly that your free will in salvation renders your salvation imperfect and thus useless.

Paul Washer says: My friend, Jesus is Lord of your heart and if He wants to come in, He will kick the door down. ….. And ….
The greatest heresy in the American evangelical and protestant church is that if you pray and “ask Jesus Christ to come into your heart,” He will definitely come in.
Todd Freil says: People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. (“Ten reasons to not ask Jesus into your heart”)

So, to count calvinist converts to their gospel, first of all cross out all people who have a testimony of salvation through accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Note that if the calvinist actually preaches the biblical gospel, people may get saved in spite of the calvinist denial of man’s free will in salvation. But the calvinist cannot count them as converts as such because their claim to have chosen salvation by their free will has caused them to be unable to be saved by the calvinist God. Only those whom God has chosen may be counted. Of course, many calvinists try to then say that they only made a free will choice because God had first chosen them and regenerated them (caused them to be born again) before they heard the gospel and made a decision to be saved. But then, how can a person be born again with life from the Spirit before he can be saved? How can he have eternal life before he comes to Christ for eternal life? (John 5:40)

Ultimately, the calvinist gospel is one of good works. You must demonstrate your salvation in order to be considered to be saved. You must attend church, you must have forsaken all your sin, and, in general, be a better, nicer person than you were before. In other words, you must be seen to be living a pure life, free from worldly pursuits. Pure living? Read this as “puritan”! Converts to the calvinist gospel are to be puritans. In fact, this is what calvinists teach, that the puritan lifestyle is what demonstrates your salvation. It’s not the words that you say but the life that you live that determines your eternal destiny! So, if you made a free will decision to be saved, then as long as you go to church and live a good moral life, you can be counted as a puritan and thus a genuine calvinist convert.

So, who can the calvinist witness to without telling lies? After all, if he goes out into the wide world and starts witnessing to the lost in the streets, what does he say to them? That Jesus loved them so much that He died for them? No, that would be a lie, because the calvinist Jesus didn’t die for many of them at all. Do you tell them the truth, that the calvinist God has chosen a small proportion of them and if they are one of those chosen ones, then they should listen up and hear the gospel message? Of course, you should also tell them that it is most likely that God hasn’t chosen them for heaven, having instead chosen them to go to hell. (Calvinism doesn’t like to admit this fact, that by not choosing most of mankind for heaven, the calvinist God has effectively chosen to send most of mankind to hell. Note that Calvin did teach this clearly.)

Calvin taught that those whom God had chosen for salvation would firstly be drawn to the church where they would be nurtured and finally brought forth into full salvation. In fact, he said that there was no salvation, no forgiveness of sins, outside the Church. (Institutes Bk IV Ch 1, Section 4) Now we’re getting close to our answer. Many calvinist churches and reform churches teach that the gospel should only be taught to those attending church because those attending church are likely to be chosen ones who have been drawn to church by God through regeneration (= being born again). They reason that those attending church are more likely to be of the elect group, and the calvinist gospel can only be preached effectively to those who have already been regenerated (born again) by the Spirit.

Those who regularly attend church, do good works, and appear to have forsaken their sins are likely to be declared calvinist elect. They may or may not also have a testimony of asking Jesus to be their Saviour and Lord, as long as it is assumed that they were born again (regenerated) first before they were thus saved. However, it is their behaviour that will define their elect status rather than their free will salvation testimony which might be considered irrelevant by many calvinists. Those who have a testimony of calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13) yet appear to continue to struggle with sin may be rejected as God’s elect. Only those with godly behaviour may be certified as the elect of God. This describes the puritan.

And this also describes the ideal convert of the calvinist missionary and church planter. The ideal convert may be permitted to have called on the name of the Lord as long as he also demonstrates the puritan lifestyle. That is, he must attend church regularly, have given up all vices (this included alcohol but surprisingly smoking of any kind was permitted – note Spurgeon!), be faithful to his spouse, doesn’t lie, or cheat others, in fact, has become a “nicer” person. And this effectively describes the preferred attributes of the calvinist convert; in general you must be a nicer person. If you struggle with drugs or have a problem with alcohol, for example, then it is likely to define you as probably not one of God’s elect. If you cannot forsake all those obvious sins, then you aren’t likely to have been born again by God’s Spirit, because you are apparently still dead in your trespasses and sins. (Ephesians 2:1)

While a missionary outreach should produce nicer people and hopefully fill the churches, not all Christians become perfect all at once. Many do struggle with sin for a while after they are saved; sins such as addictions do not always miraculously completely disappear immediately the person comes to Christ for salvation. However, if they do not disappear at all, ever, then that person’s salvation was probably non-existent. But it should not disqualify them from being declared Christian if they do not completely change from the start. What they often need is encouragement, not a dismissal because they failed to measure up immediately.

The calvinist gospel is therefore defined as puritan (better, nicer people with better, nicer works, attending church and doing the good works expected of such people). Those with a testimony of salvation (through having called upon the name of the Lord to be saved) may be declared elect if they also demonstrate the puritan lifestyle. They may be declared non-elect if they have a testimony of salvation without the puritan lifestyle. All Christians should endeavour to live a puritan life, yet not all who live a puritan life are necessarily Christians.

Calvinists may be great evangelists and church-planters, but their gospel is puritan and their converts are likewise puritan. Church members in good standing are usually seen as God’s elect. For many calvinist outreaches, this is the measure of their effectiveness: to get people sitting on seats in church; to be “nicer” law-abiding people; to be obedient to God’s commandments; and so on. Ultimately, the calvinist gospel comes down to just one thing: either you have been chosen by God (and therefore will be saved) or you have not been chosen by God (and therefore will not be saved). And if God has chosen you, you will be a nicer, better person (that is, a puritan). This is what they have to assess in order to define your Christian status. You are either elect or non-elect, and the way you live will demonstrate this, and there’s nothing you can do about it, ever. If you are elect, then you cannot miss out on heaven. All others go to hell!

So why evangelise? Effectively, calvinist evangelism cannot ever in any way change who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell. The bottom line is that even if calvinists sat back and did nothing to seek the lost, the end result (according to their doctrines) would be exactly the same! So why bother? They might as well go out and enjoy themselves, for if they are chosen ones, they are going to heaven anyway. And if they aren’t chosen ones, then they’ll end up in hell no matter whether they are good or not. Really, this is the non-gospel of the calvinists!

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Calvinism is incompatible with Biblical doctrine

Calvinism is incompatible with biblical doctrine

Many people might wonder why I am apparently so opposed to calvinism, declaring it to be heresy. Once upon a time I was like most non-calvinist Christians, accepting calvinism as an alternative view of Christianity that I couldn’t agree with, while still regarding them as Christians. However, it was the calvinist-influenced aggressive takeover of one of our local fundamentalist churches that made me start seeing it in a totally different light altogether.

I now label calvinism (especially neo or new calvinism) a demonic heresy full of lies, for the more I study it, the more I see that it is absolutely incompatible with what I understand to be biblical Christianity. Either they are right (and therefore I am wrong) or I am right (and therefore they are wrong). Of course, we could both be wrong, but it is certain that calvinism and non-calvinism cannot both be right! The two doctrines are incompatible.

For example:

(a) Calvinists refuse to accept the free will of man, especially in matters of salvation. In all matters of choice, especially in salvation, God alone chooses. You don’t choose God; He chooses you! They teach that lost man is absolutely incapable of seeking God in any way because lost man is dead in sins and trespasses. Man in this dead state can neither hear nor respond to the gospel. You must be spiritually alive to respond to God in any way. Therefore you must be born again (calvinists call it “regenerated”) before you can hear the gospel, believe in it and be saved by Christ. You cannot do this before you are born again, only after! In calvinism, being born again is not the same as being saved. This means that while the Bible teaches that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, calvinists must teach that you have to be given life (born again by the Spirit) before you can believe in and respond to Jesus and be saved and receive eternal life. That is, you must be born again before you can believe in or have faith in Christ, according to the calvinist interpretation of John 3:3.
By denying the free will of man in salvation, calvinists have to teach another gospel, one that is incompatible with the biblical gospel.

(b) This calvinist lack of free will leads directly to a serious problem between calvinists and non-calvinists. Calvinists cannot accept any notion at all of free will in your salvation. If you claim to be a Christian because of any decision of your will to repent and be saved, or pray the sinners’ prayer, or ask Jesus into your life as Lord and Saviour, or anything else that relates to choosing today whom you will serve, then calvinists have to reject your testimony as invalid. “You do not choose God; God chooses you!” is their catchy-cry. If your claim to salvation is based in any way upon some sort of free will decision you made to be saved, then calvinists cannot accept it, telling you that your free will input is a work of yours that renders your salvation imperfect and thus you cannot really be saved.
If they are being honest, they will inform you that it is the life you live, not the words that you say, that determines your eternal destiny. Therefore, to be a Christian acceptable to calvinists, you have to demonstrate that you have forsaken all your sin, and are now living a life worthy of a good puritan. Otherwise they cannot truthfully accept you as a Christian brother or sister. It’s the puritan life that determines the saved status of the calvinist elect of God. (Do some research today to check this one out if you doubt what I say!)

(c) Another incompatibility caused by the calvinist insistence on no free will for man is that God’s will must be the only will in the universe. No other will may exist in opposition to the calvinist God’s will. Thus Calvin’s statement: But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils. (“Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God” P 179) Calvinists have no way of explaining sin and evil without making God the only cause or origin of sin and evil. For if Adam had no free will to choose concerning sin, then God must have chosen it for him. This is a huge dilemma for calvinists. And utterly incompatible with the God of the Bible who is so holy that He cannot even look upon sin, let alone decree or ordain it.

(d) Calvinists believe that Jesus died for the sins of only the few that their God selected to go to heaven. To do this they must reword verses such as 1 John 2:2 (“the whole world” means only those who believe), Hebrews 2:9 (“taste death for every man” was only for those who believe), 1 Timothy 2:4 (“who will have all men to be saved” is described as God’s will of desire but not His will of command, or else “all” means only the Christians), John 3:16 (“the world” is reworded as “the elect”), John 12:32 (“will draw all [men] unto me” becomes “will draw all believers unto me”), and so on. Calvinists refuse to accept Jesus as the Saviour of the world (inclusive of all men), teaching that Jesus did not die for the sins of any who have not been chosen by God go to heaven. Calvinists have to teach limited atonement (by Jesus on the cross) because without free will of man, only those chosen by God may go to heaven, and therefore why would the calvinist Jesus bother to die for those whom God had decided to send to hell anyway.
But Jesus died for the sins of all mankind without exception. All mankind must choose to either accept or reject this sacrifice made for them. The calvinist and non-calvinist teachings here are incompatible with each other.

(e) Calvinists make a big deal about the election or predestination of God’s elect to salvation. For example, Ephesians 1:5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will
They say that this proves the predestination of God’s elect to salvation. Well, yes, that is not disputed, anyway, is it? What is really disputed is how God chooses His elect. You see, every passage that calvinists claim to support their doctrine of unconditional election can also just as easily (and more biblically, too) support an election conditional upon God’s foreknowledge. It’s not whether there is an election, but how God chooses His elect people. Without free will, calvinists have to teach that God chose them (without any condition at all) from the beginning of the world. But, if man has free will, then God may choose His elect according to His foreknowledge of what decision they will make with that free will. That is, an election conditional upon the foreknowledge of God. In fact, this is what 1 Peter 1:2 says! Romans 8:29 also makes it clear that the predestining of Christians to conform to the image of Christ is dependent upon God’s foreknowledge.
Foreknowledge depends upon the free will decisions of man to foreknow. Therefore without free will of man, foreknowledge becomes irrelevant. What’s the point of foreknowing decisions that could never be made? For calvinism, man’s free will and the foreknowledge of God stand or fall together. Foreknowledge demands that there be decisions to be foreknown.
Once again, though, it’s that denial of the free will of man in salvation that makes calvinism again incompatible.

(f) Because calvinists cannot teach that man can believe (or have faith) in Christ unless they have firstly been born again (regenerated), they are forced to make alterations to a number of verses or else be seen as liars. These altered verses include (i) altering “opened” to “opened and caused to believe” (Acts 16:14) – That is, belief is something God gives to you (avoiding the free will explanation!), and (ii) “see” becomes “believe in” or “have faith in” (John 3:3) – In this way they attempt to “prove” that faith comes after being born again, yet still fits in with the requirement to believe before being saved. Of course, this means that, to a calvinist, “being born again” cannot be the same as “being saved”!

In all these examples and many others, calvinists desperately try to show that man cannot have free will especially unto salvation, and therefore God’s foreknowledge cannot have anything to do with God’s perfect knowledge of future free will decisions to be saved, if no such decisions exist. In all calvinist doctrine, if you add in the free will of man unto salvation and consequently God’s foreknowledge to know such free will decisions, then calvinism ceases to exist.

If calvinists could show that God’s foreknowledge is not His perfect knowledge of the future, then they could demonstrate that God could not know any future free will decisions, thus rendering free will unworkable. Calvinists therefore redefine God’s foreknowledge as the special loving relationship God places upon his elect people. But this then introduces another big problem: such foreknowledge may only apply to God’s elect people. Therefore the actions of the non-elect must be completely foreordained or else God wouldn’t be able to control them. They also claim God is totally sovereign, so therefore the calvinist God would have to write the complete script for the lives of all non-elect people from beginning to end. In fact, Calvin taught that God (from the foundations of the world) wrote the complete script of actions for all mankind from the beginning to the end.

Calvinists would like the foreknowledge of God to be redefined as the fore-ordination of God. That is, it would be very useful for calvinists if they could show that God’s foreknowledge was foreordained. That would remove foreknowledge from having to be God’s perfect knowledge of the future. That is why some calvinists make impossible claims such as the “determinate counsel” and the “foreknowledge” of God (Acts 2:23) being synonyms (having the same meaning). That is, what God foreordained became God’s foreknowledge. They misuse a little-known rule of Greek (the Granville Sharp rule) to bend the truth to their lie here.
Calvin had another angle on the problem of foreknowledge. He said that discussion of foreknowledge was irrelevant (futile) because God had already foreordained everything anyway.

Each defence of their doctrines introduces more and more twists and turns to cover up the non-biblical nature of calvinism. Ultimately, because their doctrines are incompatible with biblical doctrines, then either calvinists are lying, or the Bible is lying. And, if the Bible is truth, then there’s only one alternative remaining: that calvinists are liars. And, because all lies ultimately stem from the devil as the father of lies, and because calvinism is full of lies, therefore it is full of the devil’s doctrines. And therefore I as a biblical Christian, after testing all things calvinist, must reject it as a doctrine of devils.

Many calvinists claim that non-calvinists are either lesser Christians or not Christians at all. They reason that if a person is a Christian, then he’d believe in the calvinist election. They see a conflict in being a Christian yet not being calvinist. You should be both calvinist and Christian, or else neither calvinist nor Christian! In fact, this is how Calvin saw it. You agreed with him, or else you were lost. Those who disagreed were either thrown out of the city, thrown into prison, or executed. Calvin ruled!

The major area of incompatibility is in the proclamation of the gospel. The Bible tells man to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, while calvinism says that no-one may be saved unless and until after God first calls them to be born again. Calvinists teach that man cannot choose to accept salvation in Christ Jesus unless he has already been born again by the Spirit. The Bible teaches that God has given a gift of salvation to all men, and that man must accept it by faith to partake of it. “No free will” versus “free will” of man. One or the other. Either by your free will you choose or reject salvation in Christ, or by God’s will alone you will or will not be chosen for salvation in Christ. For one it is your responsibility to choose this day whom you will serve, and for the other God will choose and you will have absolutely no say in the matter of your eternal destiny. These two doctrines cannot exist together. Each doctrine denies the other. They cannot both be right! They are absolutely incompatible!

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Oh how the calvinists twist and pervert the Bible!

Oh how the calvinists twist and pervert the Bible!

I happened to read a post on and immediately noticed that they are far from being like the Bereans of Acts 17:11 who were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
These modern “Bereans” are giving those noble Bereans of Paul’s day a bad name! I will be quoting excerpts from unless otherwise noted.

Using Acts 16:13-14, they proceed to “prove” that God gives faith to enable sinners to believe the gospel. However, this is a blatant example of the twisted verbal gymnastics that so many calvinists go through in order to “prove” their lies, especially the lie that free will in salvation does not exist. It’s impossible for them to prove the lack of free will, so they are forced to use confused “interpretations” in order to demonstrate their lies to be truth. And this example here is no exception to that rule!

“Acts 16:13-14 (NKJV) “And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”
This is the only place in the New Testament that uses the phrase “opened heart,” and the Bible gives the whole credit for this “opening” to God’s power and not to man’s will.”

Well, you say, what’s wrong with that? Nothing so far. It is certainly true that God (and not man’s will) must take the credit for this opening of Lydia’s heart. (“opened” should be seen as causing her to understand what is being said. This is what the original Greek word means.)

“Obviously, “the things spoken” by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. ….  God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation. God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death. He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul.”

Yes, this is still exactly what the Bible has to be teaching. Paul had clearly been preaching the gospel to Lydia (and the other women as well – Acts 16:13). So far the truth is still clearly taught. But see where we get to next in this document. (It doesn’t take long before calvinists are forced to add lies to the equation or admit that they are wrong.)  The opening of Lydia’s heart now means she is made to believe!
“God must open Lydia’s heart (or give her faith) so she will be able to believe.”

Yes, God must certainly be given all credit for the opening of Lydia’s heart, but nowhere does the verse even imply that God gave her faith so that she would be able to believe. Absolutely nowhere! This is the beginning of the addition of extra non-truth information in order to ultimately present their blatant lie. They have equated the opening of Lydia’s heart with being able to believe. The Greek word translated “opened” means “to cause to understand a thing”. But they have now turned “understanding” into “believing”, a meaning not permitted by the original Greek word. This is a false (and apparently deliberate) effort to prove a lie to be the truth. It is impossible to translate opening her heart as believing in what Paul said. To attempt to state such is ridiculous!

Clearly I can understand something without committing myself to believing in it. I can have understanding yet disagree. Understanding (without extra qualification) can never imply agreement, and therefore understanding does not automatically assume belief in that which is understood. I may understand the other person’s point of view yet remain unable to agree and believe in it.

Let’s look more carefully at Acts 16:14And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

“opened” should be seen as causing her to understand what is being said, and the word translated “attended unto” means to turn her mind to or to get her attention. The gospel is preached, God uses the preaching of the gospel to give her understanding of His salvation, and consequently she heeds or pays attention to that preaching of the gospel. God uses Paul’s preaching of the gospel to get her attention to what’s being said and to understand what it means. This is the power of the gospel unto salvation as per Romans 1:6For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. also add “Notice that the Bible explicitly gives God alone the credit for Lydia’s heart being opened. It is impossible not see that in this text, unless you simply refuse to accept what God clearly says.” They now revert to the actual truth to make it look more convincing. After having already stated the lie that God also caused her to believe, they now challenge the reader to accept the truth, yet leave out the believing. This mixing of lies with truth is often done by calvinists when they have little truth to play with: present the truth but add the lie to the truth to somehow give some credibility to the lie. But, it only takes the addition of just one lie to turn the whole truth into a lie! (For example, take the truth of the election of God, and add the lie that it is unconditional. But the election is actually conditional upon God’s foreknowledge – 1 Peter 1:2.)

Then the document now quotes the lie (that man has no free will here) as the concluding truth. If you disagree with their statements here, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God. In fact, this whole document appears to be an ineffectual effort to try to demonstrate the lack of free will of man for salvation. The following accusation is based on their clam that God caused Lydia to believe, but that claim can only be valid if she had no free will to choose for herself, yet they claim that this verse somehow demonstrates the lack of free will. Think carefully: this is circular logic, using the non-existence of free will to prove the lack of free will!

“Look at the words carefully: ….whose heart the LORD OPENED… If you try to deny that the one single reason that Lydia understood and believed the gospel was because God deliberately opened her heart and enabled her to believe, you are fighting God’s Word. If you try to get man’s “free will” as the one determining factor into this text, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God.”

While it is clear that God opened Lydia’s heart to understand the gospel, where does that even imply that God deliberately enabled her to believe? Yes, the gospel is certainly the means by which God got Lydia’s attention. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and God’s power is working through Paul’s faithful preaching of His gospel. When the gospel is preached faithfully according to God’s word, things will happen, for that preaching is God’s power unto salvation for all who believe in it (Romans 1:16). That power breaks open the blindness that satan places upon man’s thinking (2 Corinthians 4:3-4), and it is that power that caused Lydia to understand and pay attention to what Paul was preaching.

It is because of this power of the gospel unto salvation, that satan blinds the minds of the world so that the light of that gospel will be hid from those who need to hear it.
2 Corinthians 4:3-43 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4In 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.
Just think on this: why does satan blind the minds of man from hearing the gospel if God’s elect are made to believe in it? Why would satan waste his time and energy if God just overruled satan in all His elect? Satan could then effectively blind the eyes of only those who could never be saved anyway! If there is no free will unto salvation, why does satan oppose the gospel so much?

But satan’s deceptions cannot prevent the access of the gospel into the minds of man. Satan cannot prevent the gospel from getting the attention of all to whom it is preached. Not all will believe the gospel, but it will certainly get their attention, whether they believe or not. Man is surely incapable of responding favourably to God unless God should intervene, to seek and to save that which is lost. And the gospel is exactly that: God’s intervention that opens the hearts (the understanding) of people and gets their attention focused upon their need for God’s salvation. Romans 10:17So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul’s preaching of the gospel to Lydia certainly got her attention, and God also gave her understanding of that gospel, but it was still up to Lydia to respond to it. God uses the gospel to override satan’s blinding, to get our attention, and He gives understanding with it. But God never forces man’s hand at any time to have to believe. It is possible for God to make the gospel so powerful that it is difficult to reject even (note Paul on the way to Damascus), but He will never force a person to accept it against his will (Paul still had to respond favourably).

MacArthur tries to teach the lie that Paul was forced to become a Christian.
He’s a good one to look at for this kind of call because 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.  He is called as an apostle. …..
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)
Yet where does the Bible actually say this? This is fanciful thinking at best, blatant lies at worst. Just another example of emotive twaddle!

So all who read this, just study the relevant passages from the Bible and decide for yourselves just what God is actually saying in His word. If the Bible doesn’t actually say it, then how can it be truth? See for yourselves that these self-proclaimed Bereans of today have used a lot more than just poetic license to twist biblical meaning so much. Read what the Bible says without all the extra added lies. Just read the clear truth that the Bible presents; let the Bible define the truth for itself, and therefore everything that is not truth (as per the Bible) has to be a lie.

And those who declare themselves to be Bereans should be more respectful of the legacy left by those Bereans of Paul’s day who searched the scriptures daily to determine the truth for themselves.
Acts 17:11These (Bereans) were were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Is choosing to be saved a work of that salvation? God says, “No!”

Is choosing to be saved a work of salvation? God says, “No!”

How many times have you had a calvinist get in your face with the claim that if you, by your own free will, accept Jesus Christ as Saviour, then that is a work of your salvation, thereby rendering your salvation imperfect. They claim that you don’t choose God; God chooses you! The truth is that this is not biblical, and that God, through His word the Bible, says otherwise.

Calvinists are guilty many times over of twisting the truth to fit in with their spurious doctrines. Whenever they are pressured to demonstrate biblically their devious doctrines, they usually resort to taking verses out of context, adding to or taking away from the words in a verse, and even saying that something is a biblical truth without giving the slightest shred of evidence from the Bible (because they can’t!). They must think that because they are so arrogant and forthright that no-one will really take them on.

But when things are really desperate, and someone does take them on where they are weakest (that is, when they try to demonstrate doctrines from the Bible), the calvinist will come out with the most inane statement of all: that if we accept salvation by our own free will, then that is a work of our salvation. They then say that this renders our salvation imperfect because it is not all of God. This is their final desperate attempt to salvage some credibility with a doctrine that is about as credible as flying elephants! They say that our decision to accept Christ is adding 1% (or 5% or 10% or 50% – the number is seemingly plucked out of the air) to our salvation and therefore we will get an imperfect salvation.

Calvinists make these bold claims without any biblical evidence at all to support them. However, this is not in the Bible anywhere in any shape or form. In fact, the Bible says they are wrong, and therefore God declares them to be liars. Firstly, God tells us that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:13). The calvinists can declare it a work with as much hot air as they can muster but it doesn’t change the truth: that to be saved we must call upon the name of the Lord.

And secondly, God has offered salvation through Christ Jesus as a free gift to all mankind who are under the penalty of death (Romans 6:23). Now that’s as clear as clear, for no-one can add to a gift in any way or else it becomes a work for the sake of that gift and no longer can be a gift, but instead wages for services rendered. And no-one can ever add to (or take away from) the value of a gift in any way by just receiving it.

So let’s look at those two issues in greater detail.

(a) Our personal decision to accept God’s salvation cannot downgrade that salvation in any way.

As mentioned above, God’s word tells us to call upon the name of the Lord, and so that’s what we must do. This must assume the free will to call upon the name of the Lord. Nothing at all denies free will in this verse or in the passage in which it is found. And, if this is what God says we must do in order to be saved, then this is what we do to be saved! Is it a work of our salvation to call upon the name of the Lord? No, but that’s not really the point, is it? It’s what God asks us to do if we desire to be saved. Who are you (calvinists) to contend with the Almighty? (See Job 40:2Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct [him]? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.) Take your argument up with Almighty God concerning what a person must do to be saved. If God says we must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then that’s what we have to do. Calvinists, listen to what God says for once!

Calvinists have a problem with free-will decisions to accept God’s salvation through Jesus Christ. They refuse to accept that man has a free will to choose salvation (despite no biblical evidence to support this). Of course, God must intervene with the preaching of the gospel before man may respond.
Romans 10:13-14; 17 – 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Just ask: why does satan work so hard at blinding men to the preaching of the gospel if it isn’t God’s intervention in the lives of mankind.
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 (satan) 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.
Why does satan fear the preaching of the gospel so much if, as the calvinists teach, a person must be born again before he can hear the gospel, respond and believe in Christ?

(b) The gift of salvation is complete and perfect when offered and cannot be added to in any way.

For something to be a gift,

(i) it must be fully paid for by the giver. That is, there must be no requirement that the receiver pay for it in work or money, for then it would be something given for such services rendered, and no longer a gift. There is nothing at all anyone can do to add to that gift in any way or else it would not be a gift! In fact, to receive this gift from God, a person is required to call upon the name of the Lord. This cannot prevent it being a gift [because God tells us to do it (Romans 10:13) and says it is His gift to us (Romans 6:23)] and therefore our response cannot be described as work or services in any way. It is impossible for the value of a gift to be increased or decreased simply by accepting it, for the value of the gift must already have been paid in full before being offered.
Of course, once a gift is offered and received, it then becomes a possession, and then may increase or decrease in value as a possession, but not while it was a gift.

(ii) it must be available as promised. That is, in order to offer a gift to someone, it must be available. If a gift were offered yet not available, then the giver has not told the whole truth. It must be available for the receiver to accept it. Otherwise it is not a gift. You cannot offer a gift when you are unable to give it.

(iii) a person must accept that gift of his own free will. That is, willingly, because something that is forced upon a person as a requirement for some duty (such as a uniform for employees) cannot be legally defined as a gift but a provision.

Therefore, if God offers eternal life as a gift (Romans 6:23), then nothing anyone can do can add to it in any way. Such a gift can only be accepted or rejected or else it is no longer a gift.

Calvinists, by teaching that free will acceptance of Christ as Saviour is a work of that salvation and therefore imperfect, you are misleading those lost souls who might be genuinely desiring to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you persuade them that making a free will response to the gospel is wrong, then you may be guilty of sending that needy sinner to eternal condemnation in hell. Every person you prevent from accepting salvation in Christ is another one you will have sent to hell because of your lies and deceptions.

You teach that a man must be born again before he can hear the gospel, believe in Christ and be saved, but it is the gospel that God uses to reach out to the lost. It’s the gospel that man responds to that enables him to be born again of the Spirit of God. If you teach that the gospel is only applicable after one is born again, then how many more will you send to hell with your lies and deceptions? How many of your “converts” to puritanism will sit there in church smugly believing your lie that they are the elect, the chosen ones of God, and never get around to calling upon the name of the Lord because you said it was an imperfect work of salvation? Calvinists, you with all your lies and deceptions have already sent countless lost souls to hell, and you continue to send great numbers to hell. You give them false hope that will evaporate away when they stand before God in judgment with their names not written in the Lamb’s book of life. Have you really honestly read the Bible? Do you know what it says? What if you are wrong? How many will greet you in hell with the accusation that you sold them out to satan?

Here is what calvinist Paul Washer says about this. He mocks the traditional evangelist who says that you have to open the door.
The question is not whether you would like to pray this prayer and ask Jesus to come into your heart — (He mocks traditional evangelists here) after all, you know, the handle to your heart is on the inside and if you do not open it Jesus cannot come in.
My friend, Jesus is Lord of your heart and if He wants to come in, He will kick the door down. ….. And ….
The greatest heresy in the American evangelical and protestant church is that if you pray and “ask Jesus Christ to come into your heart,” He will definitely come in.
And Todd Friel says People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. (“Ten reasons to not ask Jesus into your heart”)

Ignore those calvinists for once and think for yourselves! If they are wrong (and they are most definitely wrong), then both you and they will end up in eternal condemnation. Don’t listen to their lies and deceptions. Read the Bible instead. And it will tell you to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and that this salvation is a gift of God to you.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Free will Vs Free agency?

Free will Vs Free agency? What’s the difference??

I fail to understand why so many consider calvinists to be intellectual people! Over and over I come across such inane explanations from them as they try to justify their impossible biblical interpretations. Talk about claiming sola scriptura! That’s the biggest lie on the calvinist agenda, for they cannot abide defining anything biblical from the Bible alone.

And here’s yet another one! I have read many calvinists attempting to deny the free will of man, yet upholding man as a free agent. They claim that being a free agent is not the same as having free will, yet I fail to see any logical difference! But, as is my habit, I don’t just accuse; I research the subject thoroughly first to see if my criticism is justified. Many calvinists just quote their rhetoric about the free will and free agency of man, yet, also like most calvinists, give no reasoning for their statements. Of course, if they are trying to justify the unjustifiable, then avoiding clear explanations will help them, for how may one attack a shadow. (And “shadows” is the best way to describe much calvinist rhetoric.)

But I do read widely, especially calvinist literature; I can never be accused of not trying to understand what they are trying to say. And I find that much of this free will versus free agency is taught by Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination), a much-quoted (yet confused) calvinist author.
P 154 – The problem which we face here is, How can a person be a free and responsible agent if his actions have been foreordained from eternity? By a free and responsible agent we mean an intelligent person who acts with rational self-determination; and by foreordination we mean that from eternity God has made certain the actual course of events which takes place in the life of every person and in the realm of nature. It is, of course, admitted by all that a person’s acts must be without compulsion and in accordance with his own desires and inclinations, or he cannot be held responsible for them.

He admits two conflicting views: God determines all things, yet man can only be responsible for that which he chooses to do without compulsion. Of course, if man has free will to choose, then there is no problem at all, for he then will be judged one day for all his free will choices (2 Corinthians 5:10). Yet, Boettner claims, no-one will be forced to consent to God’s government, because God will influence them to make them willing to accept the gospel and delight to obey sovereign God.
Boettner says on P 155 – Heaven will be truly a kingdom, with God as the supreme Ruler; yet it will rest on the consent of the governed. It is not forced on believers against their consent. They are so influenced that they become willing, and accept the Gospel, and find it the delight of their lives to do their Sovereign’s will.

Even MacArthur is a bit confused on this issue, saying No one was ever saved against their will. yet also says No sinner has the capacity to be willing. Both are from “The doctrine of God’s effectual call”.

But Boettner insists that this certainty of God’s will is consistent with the free agency of man. He explains that a father may make his son a doctor by controlling the circumstances of his education.
P 156-157 – A father often knows how his son will act under given circumstances and by controlling these he determines beforehand the course of action which the son follows, yet the son acts freely. If he plans that the son shall be doctor, he gives him encouragement along that line, persuades him to read certain books, to attend certain schools, and so presents the outside inducements that his plan works out.
However, the only way this could be certain in real life is to force the son to do so!

And then Boettner explains that God doesn’t actually decree the event, but instead makes sure that it will happen anyway. (What great verbal gymnastics, though!)
P 157 – In the same manner and to an infinitely greater extent God controls our actions so that they are certain although we act freely. His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its occurrence certain; and the same decree which determines the certainty of the action at the same time determines the freedom of the agent in the act.

That is, God doesn’t decree what man may choose, yet makes it certain that man will choose according to God’s will. God doesn’t decree man’s actions, yet ensures that man can do nothing else than what God desires of man. For example, Boettner’s God didn’t decree that Adam should sin, yet made it impossible for Adam to be able to choose any other course of action. God told Adam to obey Him, yet left Adam with only one option: to disobey God! Free agency, according to calvinists, means that man must choose according to God’s will at all times. Thus, literally, being a free agent (according to calvinists) means only being able to choose what God has decided that you will choose. They say that the calvinist God doesn’t choose for you, yet makes it impossible to choose anything else. So how are these different from each other??

The calvinist free agency of man means to be able to choose the only pathway that God has left open for you. No other pathway is an option. So, tell me, just how is free agency free in any way at all? If free agency means being able to take the only pathway God leaves open for you, then that makes it the equivalent of a slavery imposed by the calvinist God. If God rendered it certain that Adam would sin, then where is Adam’s freedom of choice here, and why would Adam be responsible for the choice that the calvinist God has clearly made? (Of course, Boettner would say that Adam actually made the choice to sin, but what other choice did he have if God had removed all other options?)

It is said that Henry Ford once said that you could choose any colour car you wanted, as long as it was black. Of course, whether or not Ford actually said this is irrelevant; his cars were all black so there was no choice possible of any other colour. You didn’t get black because you chose black; you got black because you had no other option. And likewise, Boettner is teaching that his God has made certain that you may choose the only option which the calvinist God has left available to you. “His decree does not produce the event, but only renders its occurrence certain.

Come now, calvinists, is this the most intellectual you can get? Shame on you! Your teaching on this matter is helping to lead many people away from the God of the Bible and toward the gates of hell. But, man does indeed have a free will. Man must choose this day whom he will serve. God has reached out to mankind with the gospel of the cross of Christ, and man must choose what he will do with the Saviour. It is not God who chooses whether you go to heaven or hell! God has sent His Son to die on the cross for the sins of all mankind, and He commands people everywhere to respond to the gospel and repent of their sins and be saved.

The choice you make will determine your eternal destiny; God will not make that choice for you. When you stand before God in judgment, either your name will be written in the Lamb’s book of life, or it won’t be written in the Lamb’s book of life. When you respond to the gospel and repent, calling by faith upon the name of the Lord to be saved, then God will be faithful to His promise to save you. By His foreknowledge He will know this and will have then written your name on the list of elect (1 Peter 1:2) from the beginning of the world. He will then save you to the uttermost, all because you responded and chose by faith to trust in the promises of God.

Calvinists, stop taking this choice away from those who may end up in hell because you told them they cannot choose; that God would make the choice for them, and with fatalism they believed your lie that if they weren’t chosen by God, then they could never be saved. But, God will not make this choice for you. You must make this choice for yourself, and God will indeed honour the choice you make, whether for life, or for death.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Oh, the persistent inconsistencies of calvinists! (on John 10:24-28)

Oh, the persistent inconsistencies of calvinists! (on John 10:24-28)

Calvinists are certainly very persistent, arrogant and bossy, pushing their heresies like bullies upon others around them. However, while they are persistent, they are certainly not consistent, for the inconsistency of their teachings is extreme. They will focus upon one verse or a single passage to teach doctrines that are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. As MacArthur says on his website: “Unleashing God’s Truth, One Verse at a Time.” Well, I can tell you quite clearly that, yes, he does teach one verse at a time, but his calvinist God’s truth is full of lies which are easily exposed when you look at the overall consistency of biblical teachings. You can teach whatever you like using just one verse at a time! The truth is that MacArthur teaches a doctrine of demons, and his God is not the God of the Bible!

Calvinists love to tell us that the sheep that Jesus died for are the elect of God, unconditionally chosen by Him from the foundation of the world. That is, if you are not one of those elect, you cannot be one of His sheep, and therefore the calvinist Jesus did not die for your sins. (Of course, the Bible does teach that there is an election, a choosing by God, but according to 1 Peter 1:2 God chooses these elect according to His foreknowledge. Calvinists deny God the use of foreknowledge to do this!)

A common statement of calvinists is that Jesus died for his elect sheep only. “Calvinists believe there are lost sheep (the elect) all over the world, and it is our commission to go to them, proclaim the message to all people, so that these sheep can hear the shepherds voice, turn from their sin, and be saved. We get this idea from John 10, and it motivates us to proclaim the gospel.” (

John 10:24-2824 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

Thus calvinists are teaching that Jesus only died for those whom He had chosen for His own, His sheep, and none others! But here’s where the inconsistency comes in! When Jesus came as a man in the flesh, He came to His own (John 1:11).  Calvinists have to see these as God’s sheep, for they are His own. Only the elect of God can be His own, for whoever heard of a calvinist teaching that God claims for His own any other than those He has chosen to be His elect?  

So, just how can calvinists say that those who are elect hear God’s voice and follow, yet Jesus came to His own (His elect, obviously) and they didn’t receive Him!
John 1:11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Yet, aren’t these, “His own”, of whom it says: All we like sheep have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6)?
How is it possible that God’s own sheep could ever be able to not receive Him? Clearly these elect, when called, rejected God’s alleged “irresistible” grace in order to not receive Him! It is clear that “His own” are those who had been chosen to be His sheep but had somehow decided otherwise. Otherwise, who are “His own” here? Another family of sheep perhaps? Perhaps the black sheep of the family??

Therefore, scriptural consistency requires that those sheep who follow Him are those who have chosen to follow Him by believing in Him, not those who were unconditionally elect. John 1:11 is talking about the elect nation of God, Israel. Jesus came to His elect nation of Israel, His own, and they refused to receive Him. Clearly this refusal was by their will, or else we have to believe the impossible: that God chose His elect for His own, yet foreordained that they not be able to receive Him when He came to redeem them. Why would He come to His own if He had already foreordained that they should refuse Him. No doubt you’ve heard of the offer that cannot be refused. This, though, is the offer you cannot accept!

What it is really saying is that it was the ones who received Him to whom He gave the authority to become children of God, His sheep.
John 1:11-1211 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
If God’s unconditional elect are His sheep (according to calvinism), then who are His own (who didn’t receive Him) in John 1:11? Can they be His own, yet not of His sheep? Or maybe they were His sheep, yet refused to receive their shepherd! Do some sheep receive Him and other sheep not receive Him? (But this would require free will!) Come on, calvinists, please explain this anomaly or accept that your doctrines are inconsistent!

So who are the sheep of John 10:24-28? John 1:12 gives the answer. It was those who received Him that became God’s children, not the other way around. The receiving came first, then consequently the power to become God’s children. To all those who received Him were given the power to become the sons of God.

Note that the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14) discusses the same issues: God’s own (His elect nation, Israel) refused to receive the invitations to come, while those who did receive the invitations (the Gentile Church) became the guests in place of the elect nation Israel (who received Him not). This is a very consistent theme running through the New Testament. God sent out invitations to His own, but they received Him not. But those who did receive Him to them gave He the power to become the sons of God.

Likewise, the parable of the vineyard and the evil servants (Luke 20:9-19) who were, once again, His own elect nation Israel. God has planted His elect nation of Israel in His vineyard, and then sends servants to collect His fruit from the vineyard. But the keepers of the vineyard beat two servants, and wounded another. So God sends His own Son who comes to His workers (“His own”) in the vineyard but they did not receive Him (John 1:11). Instead they decide to kill Him so that they can have the vineyard for themselves without God’s interference. Jesus then asks the pharisees what they think the Lord of the vineyard (God) will do to them. And Jesus also gives them the answer (for the pharisees apparently were reluctant to incriminate themselves!). Luke 20:16He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others.  

That is, God will take the vineyard off His elect nation Israel and give it instead to the Gentiles who will look after it better. Once again, Jesus has come to His own, and His own received Him not! But to as many of the others who did receive Him He gave the power to become the children of God.
So who are the sheep who hear His voice here? The others to whom the vineyard was given (Vs 16).

The parable of the vineyard is consistent with what God says through Isaiah to His people. God says very clearly that He has done everything possible to His vineyard to produce good fruit, yet it produces rubbish. It would make God a liar if He had actually foreordained Israel to produce poor fruit after allegedly doing His best to produce good fruit.

Isaiah 5:1-71 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:  2And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.  3And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. 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? 5And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; [and] break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:  6And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. 7For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts [is] the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

In fact, even in Isaiah’s time, God has approached His people, His own, and they received Him not! Therefore God sent them into captivity, not because He ordained them to be rejected, but because they (by their own free wills) rejected Him first. This is the only way this passage can make sense. Take away the free will of God’s people to be able to reject Him (to receive Him not) and you end up with a God who tells His people to obey Him while secretly ordaining that it be impossible for them to do so.

Or else the calvinist God has two separate wills, a view that is taught by many calvinists including Piper. Piper apparently feels that his God may too easily be portrayed as schizophrenic, judging from his efforts to deny his God is such when looking at all the obvious discrepancies in calvinist teachings. “My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for “all persons to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God’s compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world. …..
Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least “two wills” in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass.” (
But without free will of mankind, God can have whatever He wills to have. Only free will introduces the “problems” Piper is trying to cover up. If man has no free will, God does not need two wills!

However, no amount of verbal gymnastics will ever remove the inconsistencies in calvinist doctrine. The sheep who hear Jesus’ voice in John 10:27 are not the same as “His own” in John 1:11. “His own” in John 1:11 rejected Jesus because they were not His sheep, yet they were His elect people, Israel. The Bible teaches clearly that if these elect people of God sinned against Him, then God would reject them as He did the workers in His vineyard. If calvinist doctrine is right, then it would be impossible for God’s own people to reject Him. Calvinists teach that when God calls you, you have to come; His call is irresistible. Yet Jesus’ apparent call to His people Israel in John 1:11 was not as irresistible, for they received Him not.

The Bible therefore teaches consistently that the sheep who hear and follow Jesus are those who believe by their own free will, just as the ones who didn’t believe, the pharisees, were not of the sheep of Jesus.
John 10:26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Please, please calvinists, be consistent for once! For, if you cannot be consistent with the truth, then you are being persistent with lies. Sola scriptura!

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

Evolution – hypothesis, not theory!

Evolution – hypothesis, not theory!

This comment came about while studying Genesis Ch.1 & 2. Many alleged “scientists” will spout forth the evolution party line that so many adhere to: that evolution is science and creation (by God) belongs to the myths and legends of society. But it does come down to just one question: Could God have created the universe exactly as described in the first two chapters of the Bible? Most Christians (and even those who just like to be called Christians) might probably say a guarded “Yes”, even though many of them believe in evolution instead. So, if God could create the universe, why do they deny it in favour of evolution? The answer is that they ask the wrong question. Instead of “Could God have created ….?? they instead ask “Did God create ….?” They admit that God could have created, yet say that science proves that He didn’t. But does science actually prove this to be so?

It is interesting that so-called scientists should claim that that the biblical account of creation cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. For, if the truth be really known, their beloved evolution cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny! If evolution were in any way a viable hypothesis, then there would have to be a significant amount of fossil evidence that would verify this. The hypothesis (it cannot be called a theory because it has never been proven!) of evolution requires that creatures evolve via beneficial mutations from “lower order” species into “higher order” species. (Or else it would be negative or backward evolution. Or, at best, a sideways evolution, not gaining any ground either way – effectively no difference at all!)

Most mutations are not beneficial, and those that are beneficial do not often replicate in the next generation. The evolutionists would then claim that even if a very small percentage of mutations cause development into a higher order species, then evolution is still demonstrated. However, for every beneficial mutation, there are many non-beneficial mutations.

Also, creatures do not suddenly mutate into the next species. Even evolution scientists have to admit that logically there has to be a series of beneficial mutations, each complementing the other, until a species becomes literally another species. This rapidly decreases the probability of a new species evolving. A coin can be tossed and come down heads half the time. You have a 50% chance of predicting the outcome. But a prediction of 2 heads in a row has only 25% chance of success, 3 heads in a row 12.5%, 4 heads in a row 6.25% and so on. So, the chances of having a relatively unbroken series of mutations, all beneficial, all complementing each other, has a probability approaching zero.

But, say the evolutionists, even if only one in a million series mutates into another species, then it’s still very scientific. However, this preponderance of failed mutation series is their nemesis, for it means that there should be fossil evidence for the mutation series. For every species that “evolves” into another species, there has to be the fossil evidence of the beneficial mutation series that caused the evolution. And, for every beneficial mutation series, there would also have to be the overwhelming fossil evidence of so many failed non-beneficial mutation series.

And yet, to date, not one allegedly eminent evolution “scientist” has clearly demonstrated the fossil evidence for just one single mutation series, beneficial or otherwise! To date there is not one single species where fossil evidence demonstrates the beneficial mutation series necessary for such a change. Not one!
There are hundreds of thousands of species of creatures on earth. If you include plants, algae and insects, there are around 1.7 million species on earth. There are 66,000 species of vertebrate animals on earth. Even mammals allegedly have over 5500 species in their small group. (These figures vary according to how these species are recorded.) And if all life started with one small amoeba (single-celled organism in the “primordial swamp, soup or ooze”), then we should see fossil evidence for the evolution of at least those 66,000 species of vertebrate animals, and many more if we included non-vertebrates (including insects). Therefore evolution is impossible because it requires fossil evidence for the mutation series, and those fossils just do not exist.

What a disaster for those illogical supporters of an impossible evolution! Their problem is that there is abundant fossil evidence for so many of the species on earth. It would be better if fossils could not be found for the actual species, for then they could blame the lack of inter-species fossil evidence on the lack of fossil evidence in general. But while abundant fossil evidence does exist, none of it demonstrates the evolution from one species into another. None of it! These “scientists” are unable to explain just why this should be so. They grasp at straws but the facts are so clear: there just isn’t the fossil evidence to support their false hypothesis of evolution or origin of the species. After all, that great intellect, Charles Darwin, said that the process had to be gradual and therefore spread over long periods of time. It is impossible for one species to evolve gradually into another species leaving no fossil evidence of such, especially when there is abundant fossil evidence of the actual 2 species involved.

So those “scientists” put their heads together and decided that there had to be some way out of this mess. Evolution just had to be true, for if it weren’t true, then that would mean that all species on earth happened to appear independently of each other. This would clearly support biblical creation, and this is one thing those “scientists” just cannot allow. They claim to be teaching the truth of the origin of the species, yet if that truth might actually support the fact that God exists, then that truth must be suppressed or altered somewhat until it leaves God out of the equation. The real truth of evolution is that people wanted to have a world without having to acknowledge God as creator of it. They wanted a world that conveniently ignored God, left Him out of the equation. The equation of these “scientists” is, therefore, one that is not permitted to have God in any of its workings. (This is like taking a solution and turning it into a problem!)

So “scientists” set about trying to put a patch on this disastrous problem, coming up with an idea they called punctuated equilibrium (or the plural “equilibria”). That is, there are long periods of time where no change occurs (stasis), no mutation series exist. Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record the population will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of its geological history. This state of little or no morphological change is called stasis. (Wikipedia)

These long periods of stasis are then punctuated by short-lived periods of rapid change where either the species evolves into another, or splits into 2 sub-species, one of which may then develop into a new species. This, while pure unverifiable speculation, was their way of explaining that total lack of evidence for beneficial mutational series.
In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria. ….  Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. (Wikipedia)

This effort to state a belief in what must have happened (as opposed to documented scientific evidence of what actually did happen) redefines evolution as a belief system, not truth, for if it were truth, then it would have a logical and scientific solution for the lack of intermediate fossil evidence. But the truth is that this lack of fossil evidence actually points toward an all-at-once creation without the evolution of species. That the origin of the species as recorded in the Bible is true is a fact staring them in the face, but it includes God and that is unacceptable. They will then say that long periods of time are necessary, but refuse to understand that if God could have created as recorded in Genesis, then why not? Therefore, to teach otherwise is to openly deny the very existence of God. This is their real agenda!

The Bible does say that even a belief in God’s creation is an act of faith.
Hebrews 11:3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
The evolutionist bible says: Through faith we believe that all the species in the world came about by pure chance, and amazingly developed into highly intricate creatures without the assistance of any intelligence whatsoever.

Whatever we believe about this is therefore a matter of what we want to believe.
While I was principal of the Christian school in Echuca, the government officials (the VRQA) tried to shut down my school on the basis that we taught both creation and evolution, with an emphasis on biblical creation being correct. (That does seem to be what they should expect of a Christian school, isn’t it, unless they are trying to sanitise everything Christian!) In fact, at one stage we were given just 30 days to shut the school down because our Science curriculum taught creation. (Of course, we did teach about evolution but not necessarily favourably!) However, when I reminded them that just a few months earlier I had asked the VRQA what Science curriculum they would recommend, they named one from another Christian school as acceptable, and we had already commenced the changeover to this new curriculum, and this is what rescued us from closure. When they came again soon after that to reassess us, they noted that our Science curriculum was still completely unacceptable because it continued to mention creation. I told them that we had their official recommendation to use this curriculum. They mumbled a few things, said they’d check it out, and that we’d hear from them. The next time we heard from them it was by letter to tell us that they’d decided to permit us a conditional school registration to continue. You can’t overrule God’s sovereignty.

By the way, this same government school assessment body (VRQA) also, during one visit, questioned our school doctrinal statement that said that we believed God to be the creator and ruler of the universe. They asked us to remove it because it was blatantly anti-government. (We left it there!) They even questioned the whole of our doctrinal statement of beliefs (which was on our website) and wanted it removed too, because it was not acceptable curriculum material. I said that it was our statement of beliefs, and none of their business, and therefore they would leave it alone, thank you very much!

If the Bible is correct, then Adam’s fall was about 1650 years before the flood. (Noah may have been born not long after Adam died.) The earth was created 100% fertile, 100% productive. The growth of animal (and plant) populations would have been incredibly rapid. 1650 years of such fertile conditions (and an abundance of space) would have produced huge populations in a very short time.

Add to this the biblical fact that no death existed on earth before the fall. During this time, no animal ate another animal, and the food was abundant and wholesome. We have no idea how long it was after the creation week that Adam sinned. The Bible doesn’t give any real indication of this time-span. It could have been a long time, yet according to the Bible, no animal died during that time, for death only entered the world when sin entered. But there would have been a population explosion if you factor in the super-fertile land, wide open spaces for increased numbers, and no animal killing any other until after Adam’s fall into sin.

So, when the flood came on the scene around 2350 BC, and all animals (other than those in the Ark) were drowned, there would have been colossal piles of fossil evidence left behind for us to dig up today. In fact, if a world-wide flood were entered into the equation, it would explain a lot of things that so-called educated people try to “explain” otherwise because they just cannot believe in something that requires God to be included in the equation.

This is what it’s all about: that anything that requires God to be in the equation is being systematically removed from our belief systems until soon we will be left with a world uncontaminated by “God”. The world is being effectively sanitised against a belief in God. Anything that requires belief in God has been replaced (or will be soon!) so that more and more we can believe in the world that we want to believe in without being in any way obligated to acknowledge the existence of God. This includes evolution, marriage and sexuality, worship, rules and laws, in fact, everything that requires man to acknowledge the existence of God. And even Christian schools are being ordered to not believe in God now! How long before they tell churches that believing in God is also illegal?

Romans 1:22, 28Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ….. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Please feel free to comment. However, my replies won’t be on this page. Comments and replies are recorded on the Comments page.

So why did I start this website? Part 4

So why did I start this website? Part 4

So why did I start this website? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 3

So, summarising 3 posts of explanation so far, the reason why I started this website was to have some way of warning Christians of the dangers of calvinism. When our local Living Springs church (apparently influenced by the calvinist GraceWest church) chose their current pastor, they brought a lot of trouble upon themselves. Not only did this result in Todd Friel heresy being taught, it also brought the satanic kundalini yoga and tantric sex teachings of Gary Thomas into their devotions. When my son (who was actually still officially a member of that church even for a while after he left) wrote to them with information on some of the heresies they were beginning to be taught, the church secretary told him to not contact the members again. He was told to send all correspondence to the pastor (who never replied at any stage to any of the correspondence consequently sent to him!).

Ezekiel was told by God to warn the people of Israel of their sin and its consequences.
Ezekiel 3:16-2116 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 21Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous [man], that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

If Ezekiel warned them, then the sin was their responsibility. If he didn’t warn them, then Ezekiel was failing the call of God to warn them. He was called to be a watchman for the nation of Israel. A watchman watched out for dangers and cried out when he saw danger. That was what he was required to do. Likewise, we believed that we had a calling from God to warn God’s people of the danger facing them. We gave a few warnings but were either ignored or told to leave them alone. But the danger still existed, and still exists even now, in spite of their refusal to acknowledge anything as such. Just like Israel in the days of Ezekiel, they were apparently comfortable in their ignorance, and preferred to stay that way, even when it leads to destruction.

Therefore, after finding no clear means of warning God’s people locally, we decided to broadcast our warnings to the wider community via the internet. In fact, this website came about simply because we had a warning of danger for God’s people and the local people just weren’t interested in listening. And, instead of a small number of people hearing the warning of danger, we now cry out this warning to a far larger group of people. Currently we have more people every day visiting our website than we would have had listening at the local church. In a way, it was good that we were pushed into this situation (for we probably wouldn’t have gone this pathway if the locals had listened and taken note). An internet search on the topics we write about will often find us on the first or second page of suggested sites. Our message is reaching far more people than we could ever had imagined a few years ago. At that time my emails went to a few people; now the website reaches out to far greater numbers.

Every site visitor reads an average of 1.6 pages. Or, put another way, more than half the visitors read a second page (or else some visitors read more than 2 pages). Let me explain further. If the number of visitors is the same as the number of pages visited, then all visitors are hitting a single page but not necessarily reading it through. But when the pages visited is greater than the number of visitors, then some visitors have to be hitting more than one page, and therefore have probably read through at least the first page, before going to another page to read further.

I realise that some who read are calvinists who do not agree with my writings. And, of course, some have responded less than favourably, though not really all that many, perhaps because they do not know how to respond to anything presented biblically (sola scriptura). Calvinists do seem to prefer an argument where they can defend using one or more of their calvinist writers. If you desire to stick to the Bible alone, they tend to avoid getting into an argument!

Many visitors, though, generally seem to have some agreement with what I write. People are more likely to comment when they disagree with you; people who agree tend to just peruse the information and go when they have gathered enough information for their needs. I have no problem at all with people using the information in my documents for their own information and for the purpose of warning others of the dangers as long as they do not misrepresent what I say. My writing is a calling from God and as such is not to be charged for. God’s warnings are free to all who will listen and take note.

Many also read this website information because they simply do not know what it’s all about, or did not realise the danger presented by so many wolves pretending to be God’s sheep today. In particular, many do not realise the danger presented by the aggressive calvinists of today, through so many books and DVDs (by false calvinist teachers such as Piper and MacArthur) being sold to churches and passed around the congregation for all to partake of their heresies. These false teachers sound so biblical and on-the-ball that many will refuse to acknowledge that their calvinism could be dangerous. Or they will even deny that such people are actually calvinist. Or they will say that they listen to their teachings but ignore the calvinist bits and pieces. But all of this is dangerous, for how do you separate the poison from the wholesome food in such as rat poison?

I don’t expect a lot of comments, either good or bad. Some genuine ones have come in, mostly condemning me for my sinful attitude to such “godly” people as Friel, Piper, MacArthur and such. Although, not one has actually said what it is that I have got wrong, and not one has actually used the Bible to demonstrate an incorrect doctrine of mine. I know I’m not perfect, I don’t know everything that the Bible teaches, and that I’m still learning from other Christians, but it’ll always be the proper use of the Bible that will correct me, not name-calling criticisms. And for the few who have written in appreciating this website, thank-you. I do know that many like reading my documents, and hopefully gain some helpful information that will assist them to resist the danger that calvinism is presenting to fundamentalist Christianity today.

If you see a fault or doctrinal mistake in a document, please let me know. Sometimes I make typing mistakes, sometimes I get Bible references mixed up, and sometimes I may miss out on picking up a biblical inconsistency in what I am saying (although I do try hard to check everything properly). I definitely have learned much from godly websites, teachings that make me think about the issues. I would like to think that all who read here would be likewise encouraged to check out what the Bible says and to think things through for themselves. For some that means being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel for themselves, rather than having to rely upon someone else seeing that light on their behalf.

This website not only fights against heresies (especially calvinist) but our Sunday messages have been put online for over 2½ years now. Unfortunately most of the messages for the previous nearly 3 years haven’t yet been put online. Hopefully, given time, we’ll make those available as well, but it’s a gradual process indeed.

So why did I start this website? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 3

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 why did I start this website? Part 3

So why did I start this website? Part 3

(So why did I start this website? Part 4)

(So why did I start this website? Part 2)

(So why did I start this website? Part 1)

As mentioned in the previous 2 posts, I had a strong desire to protect local churches from the ravages of calvinist heresies. But why am I so opposed to calvinism in the first place? Surely it wasn’t just because they started teaching something I didn’t agree with? After all, I don’t automatically denounce another Christian for having differing views on eternal security, baptism, or interpretation of future events as prophesied in the Bible, and so on. I accept that I do not know all things yet, and am still in the process of learning and growing.

Of course, when we commenced our home church in 2013, I was greatly dissatisfied with what I had already seen of calvinist doctrines. I could not accept their doctrine of limited atonement, and was strongly opposed to their doctrine of unconditional election. (I do not, however, have any problem with the doctrine of election based upon God’s foreknowledge, according to 1 Peter 1:2.) I also believed that Calvin was a bigoted murderer, but was merely a product of his times. Studies I did in 2013 and into 2014 still allowed that Calvin had some things right, although I wasn’t sure I could actually list anything definite.

But, the way that GraceWest had seemingly manipulated the situation in order to impose some significant influence over Living Springs appeared to be sneaky and covert. When I spoke (via phone) to the current pastor of Living Springs in early 2013, he said he was opposed to calvinism. I mentioned the calvinist beliefs of GraceWest, querying why there should be any reason for them to be involved with each other. He replied that they (GraceWest) said they were calvinist but they didn’t teach it. This seemed to be either illogical or even deceitful.

So, after commencing our home church, I did a series of studies on calvinism and its origins. I read widely from many documents, including much of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. I read Pink, Piper, MacArthur, Boettner, and many others who seemed to be directing the calvinism doctrinal traffic. And, as I dug deeper into the teachings of these and others, I discovered many inconsistencies of interpretation, and also the many lies which were apparently told in order to cover up their false doctrines. For, if you tell one lie, you need another lie to protect it, and then another lie, and so on; the only way to stop the flow of lies is to finally tell the truth!

For people who claim sola scriptura (the Bible alone), calvinists had so many biblical passages that had to be “qualified” by changing the meaning of words, or adding or removing parts of the verse. I have been accused of misrepresenting good calvinist men, yet I mostly quote verbatim exactly what they say that is wrong. I have been told to read calvinist documents more in order to understand it better, yet I have probably read more calvinist writings than most calvinists ever do. I have been told that if I understood calvinism better, I would be more supportive of it, yet the more I understand calvinism, the less supportive I am of it.

I am a very logical person; that’s why I ended up doing Maths (Pure Maths, Statistics) at university (plus Music and Psychology) and a 3-year teaching qualification on top of that (6 years in all). I have a strong tendency to assess everything according to its logic. Of course, with the Bible, much is accepted by faith; nevertheless even that which I believe by faith must still be logically consistent across the whole Bible. In order to establish a biblical doctrine, one must be able to see the consistency of that doctrine throughout the Bible. Yet, more often than not, calvinism attempts to establish a doctrine using a minimum of verses, conveniently ignoring or rewording any inconsistencies. One calvinist says he unleashes God’s truth one verse at a time; truly, many lies may be taught using one verse at a time!

Because biblical honesty was important to me, I also decided 25 years ago that I would go into full time ministry, as a teacher in Christian schools. Much of this was also as Principal of small Christian schools with up to 10 staff. We left our farm in the country and were never to return to live there. After trying to keep the farm running from a distance for 9 years, we finally sold it. We believed that this was what God desired for us, so that we could continue to serve God elsewhere.

22 years ago, we bought a house on the edge of an Australian state capital, in a migrant and working-class area. For 4 years I taught Year 6 in a large Christian school near us. Then I felt a call to go to central Australia to work with aboriginal people, so off we went for 3 years to Alice Springs in the centre of Australia. It was mostly hot and dry, and a delightful place to live. The nearest small town was over 500 km away (either north or south), with the nearest sizable town around 1200 km to the north or to the south. (There is no reasonable through-road to the east or west of Alice Springs!) We became very close to some of the aboriginal people and were made part of their family; we still keep contact with our aboriginal family today (spread out, now mostly living in Tennant Creek and Adelaide).

My last school (where I was Principal) was in the north of Victoria. I spent 3 years there, becoming quite stressed through having to fight government officials in order to keep the school open. They wanted to close the school mainly because we taught creation rather than evolution; evolution was science, they said, and our creation myths and legends belonged to our devotions time. (I hope to write soon about Genesis 1 & 2 and evolution.) During my third year there they told us we had 30 days to remain registered as a school (you are not allowed to exist without that registration). However, God kept us open because the government assessment board had actually previously recommended (the year before) that we use the Science curriculum of another certain Christian school; they had considered that school’s curriculum acceptable. But, that curriculum actually still taught creation, yet the assessment board couldn’t shut us down. They had somehow got their information confused. In the end they gave up and left us to continue.

Since then I have retired from actual paid work, having enough to live on as long as we didn’t expect any luxuries. However, after commencing our home church in 2013, I have been kept very busy preparing messages every Sunday (I generally miss only a few each year). I do not use prepared sermon outlines, for I prefer to prepare my own messages. I study the words in their original Greek and Hebrew languages, and research the same words and topics in the rest of the Bible. Consistency of meaning is very important. Any inconsistency usually points to something wrong with an interpretation. If the straight-forward meaning of a word or passage makes logical sense, and is consistent with similar passages elsewhere in the Bible, then I use it. I then look at a number of commentaries to see what others think about the passage I am doing (although in many cases, especially with prophecy, they can be quite obviously incorrect). I also research dictionaries and encyclopedias to assist with my messages.

It takes a lot of time and energy to prepare an hour-long message but I would feel I had cheated by cutting corners if I did any less. I type it all out on my computer, including most of the extra cross-reference verses and passages in full. I then make a copy for each person attending Sunday services. I want them to read what I have said, including all the relevant verses, and then make up their own minds on what they want to believe. I will not demand that they believe what I think is right; instead, I tell them that they must test everything they are told, reading my notes through later, and deciding for themselves what they believe. Of course, if they disagree, then I ask them to present their views, plus relevant scriptural support for what they believe. They are permitted to make relevant comments during the service, and I stop at regular intervals to ask if they have any comment on what I have said.

And this is something I notice that is wrong with calvinism. There is far too much emphasis on the pastor or teacher being right, with the allegedly uneducated or unqualified church members being ignored or even criticised if they dare to have an opposing opinion that doesn’t toe the party line. In the following, A W Pink (a much-quoted calvinist writer) says of Joshua 6:10And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall [any] word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout. that the rank and file of Christians are to keep quiet in all spiritual matters!

Pink: 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. Nowhere in the Epistles is there a single exhortation for the saints as such to engage in public evangelism, nor even to do “personal work” and seek to be “soul winners.” Rather are they required to “witness for Christ” by their daily conduct in business and in the home. They are to “show forth” God’s praises, rather than tell them forth. They are to let their light shine. The testimony of the life is far more effectual than glib utterances of the lips. Actions speak louder than words.
(Studies in the Scriptures, A W Pink, Page 9-10)

After much research, I finally concluded that Calvin was a bully despot who liked to control those under him. He was a dictator who would brook no opposition from even those qualified to speak! He was a cruel murderer, and is sometimes referred to as the butcher of Geneva (or even the pope of Geneva). Those “teachers” or “pastors” who follow his doctrines today generally rule with an iron rod, often unfairly. When calvinism takes over a church, the members usually lose the right to speak out in opposition to anything doctrinal, fearing that they will be persecuted or ostracised for their efforts to test for the truth. Those who break the rules may be publicly named and shamed in front of the congregation. They may be asked to repent and be restored to fellowship, or they may be encouraged to find another church.

Calvinism also relies on the upholding of many lies and biblical mistruths in order to establish its false doctrines. For example, they claim that man has no free will, especially unto salvation, yet are unable to establish this as a biblical consistency. They will state like Spurgeon, that It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. (Free Will – A Slave – A Sermon) Yet he makes no effort to actually demonstrate in the slightest just where this may be shown biblically. Where they cannot establish a doctrine by proper reasoning, calvinists will simply state that the non-calvinist belief is wrong and then propound their own belief as the only correct doctrine. Talk about sola scriptura!

They claim that John 6:44 clearly demonstrates that man has no free will in salvation, yet in order to do so they must have firstly made the assumption that man has no free will to resist God. For, if man has free will to resist God’s drawing, then he may choose to not come. Therefore, they make the assumption that there is no free will in order to prove that there is no free will! This is circular logic and unacceptable to any intelligent reasoning person!
[Also note that in John 12:32, the same word “draw” is used, where Jesus states that He will draw all to Himself when lifted up (on the cross). If all are drawn, and only some come, then free will to resist must be indicated!]

And if you disagree, they’ll quote their calvinist hero teachers, or say that you don’t understand because you aren’t spiritual enough, or tell you that it’s a mystery hid in the secret counsels of God, or they’ll ignore you because you’re a trouble-maker, or they’ll just straight-out tell you that you can’t be one of God’s elect because if you were, you’d believe in it! But, if their special proof verses don’t persuade you, then they’ll leave the Bible alone, heading instead to some of their calvinist hero teachers. Anyone who continues to use their Bible to face calvinists usually then gets ignored or even verbally abused.

So why have I written so much about the false teachings of calvinists? It is because they believe that they’re the only ones who know the answers, and if you disagree, you aren’t as good as them. They are aggressive, arrogant bullies who like to tell it as it is, but not for others to do the same to them. They are always “right”! As the saying goes: you can always tell a calvinist, but not much.

So why did I start this website? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 4

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read 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 why did I start this website? Part 2

So why did I start this website? Part 2

(So why did I start this website? Part 1)

(So why did I start this website? Part 3)

(So why did I start this website? Part 4)

So, if you read my last post, you’ll understand why I have a bit of a problem with the lies of calvinism. It’s this false teaching which is destroying the truth in our local fundamentalist biblical churches. And, therefore we are under attack! That brings the battle right up to me, for this attack has been made upon me and my family through churches we once attended. The price we have to pay for freedom is ongoing vigilance, for if we ignore this attack, then the next attack will just demand more and more of our freedom to be permitted to believe the truth of God’s word. Already the teaching of God’s truth has been eroded; already too many local Christian acquaintances have lost significant freedom to be able to test all things, taking on instead the words of calvinist bullies simply because they say them so forcefully. Too many Christians just take it all so meekly, not willing to argue, thus falling into the trap set for them. The major problem is that most genuine Christians are too “nice” to cause a serious argument with an alleged Christian brother or sister! And will generally agree to some false teaching in order to keep the peace. Compromise is better than conflict, they say.

But Christians are to be soldiers in battle for the truth of God’s word and the gospel of Christ. If we are attacked, we must defend vigorously, for it is the freedom to believe that it is God’s word of truth, not Calvin’s lies, which is the truth that we must defend here. Christians must take up the fight by firstly testing against the Bible everything they are taught. If it doesn’t sound quite right, then check it out! (Even if it sounds right, still check it out!) Don’t ever just meekly accept something just because you are afraid of offending other Christians, for if they are teaching anything other than biblical truth, then they are either ignorant fools or not Christian at all (and therefore not worth your time listening to them!). These false calvinist teachers all recommend each other; they all belong to the same club. And, they, like Calvin, are all walking the road of heresy.

It is interesting to note that, while genuine Christians seek to evangelise the lost, calvinists all too often seek to evangelise the non-calvinist Christians. Many calvinists see non-calvinists as less-spiritual Christians, or even not saved at all. This makes non-calvinist churches a target for militant calvinists who consider that their doctrines are far superior to all others. Note what Mohler, an influential new calvinist, says about new calvinism.
Al Mohler: 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. This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing that Paul said, they want to stand with the apostles, they want to stand with old dead people, and they know that they are going to have to, if they are going to preach and teach the truth.

Therefore Living Springs is a mission field for the calvinist GraceWest to seek and save from their non-calvinist “heresies”! Interestingly, GraceWest’s apparent “interest” in Living Springs appears to have started long before I applied for the pastor position at Living Springs. It seems that the current pastor of Living Springs and the GraceWest pastor may have been well-acquainted before GraceWest’s apparent interest in Living Springs. (Or maybe that’s why the GraceWest pastor became better acquainted with the Living Springs pastor.) Certainly, though, GraceWest does appear to have successfully set its sights on gaining some measure of control over the doctrinal teachings at Living Springs.

But the false teaching was not only to come from GraceWest. After the current Living Springs pastor took over in 2013, there appeared to be a strong emphasis on the works of the calvinist MacArthur, especially his “Fundamentals of the Faith” which are anything but fundamental if you study it carefully. Later on, the heresies of Todd Friel were taught in their small group studies. They used “Drive by theology” by Friel and Lawson which claims to teach the Bible properly. However, Friel also teaches the calvinist heresy that you do not choose to accept Jesus into your life; instead God chooses you. He has written a document titled “Ten reasons NOT to ask Jesus into your life”, in which he says such things as “Brace yourself for this one: with very few if any exceptions, anyone who asked Jesus into their hearts to be saved…is not. and People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. For further reading on this issue, please go to The Heresy of Todd Friel.

But this was only the beginning of heresy, it seems, for the next year Living Springs advertised on their website that they would commence (on 5th March 2017) a series of Sunday evening studies by Gary Thomas titled “Sacred Marriage”. Now Thomas’ teachings have more to do with spiritual mysticism, yoga and tantric sex than Christian doctrine. In fact, it is difficult to isolate out any serious “Christian” teaching in his writings without contamination by satan’s lies. Thomas even quotes someone who says that a healthy look at sex can provide fruitful meditation on our need and desire for God (Thomas Hart). He also quotes many times another who writes about tantric sex and kundalini yoga (Mary Oliver). Yet another quote is from Friedrich Nietzche (an extremely anti-God person, who teaches that God is dead – nihilism). I am deeply shocked to think that a Christian church would be studying such filth and evil. In another book (Sacred Pathways) Thomas teaches centering prayer using what can only be described as using demonic mantras as a means of praying to God. He writes: It is particularly difficult to describe this type of prayer in writing, as it is best taught in person. In general, however, centering prayer works like this: Choose a word (Jesus or Father, for example) as a focus for contemplative prayer. Repeat the word silently in your mind for a set amount of time (say, twenty minutes) until your heart seems to be repeating the word by itself, just as naturally and involuntarily as breathing.
For further information, please read Gary Thomas – new age teacher.

It is clear that all who are involved with the leadership at Living Springs are going to have serious problems when they stand before God in the judgment, concerning their offence to those in the flock that they are supposed to be caring for.
Matthew 18:6-76 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
False shepherds of the flock will be punished severely for their abuse of their authority over God’s children, and Living Springs (with GraceWest’s approval and support) has demonstrated a serious lack of proper pastoral care for its flock. False shepherds are wolves among the sheep! And wolves now control the sheep-fold known as Living Springs!

But, not to be outdone by such heresy of Living Springs, it seems that Open Door church also tried the pathway of false teaching when it allegedly used studies by Paul Tripp more than 2 years ago. Paul Tripp has been heavily involved with the development of the Biblical Counselling program as developed by CCEF through Westminster theological seminary in USA. (Westminster itself has probably had more to do with the development of new or neo calvinism than anything else, and Biblical Counselling is new calvinism’s main tool for putting its doctrines in place in churches.)
For further information on new calvinism or Biblical Counselling, please go to
Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today  or The gospel of new calvinism
or posts The new calvinism gospel or Biblical Counselling as an aid to control the church or New calvinism is Biblical Counselling or The Seventh Day Adventist connection to new calvinism

Paul Tripp’s doctrine is based upon an understanding that all Christians have a sickness that they need help with. “There is a plague that has infected the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s a sad disease, it’s left us weakened, and broken and discouraged, and afraid. It’s almost no sooner than you come to faith in Jesus Christ than you get infected. ….. What is it you ask? It’s identity amnesia. We have forgotten who we are. And in forgetting who we are we frantically look for identity in thousands of places where it will never be found, places where you were never meant to look for identity. You probably do it so instinctively; you probably do it so frequently, you probably do it so naturally, you don’t actually know you are doing it. You’re so used to carrying the burden that you don’t know you are carrying the burden anymore. Your spiritual back has hurt you so long you’ve forgotten you’re in pain.“(

Put simply, Tripp tries to convince all Christians (if possible) that they have a problem that can only be alleviated by special counselling (which then leads into Biblical Counselling). That is, if you desire a change, you introduce the problem that will make people desire the change. It’s called the Hegelian dialectic: introduce the problem that pushes people toward your preferred solution.

Tripp also calls the characteristics of the Lord as dangerous theology that has infected the church. He (Tripp) claims that the identity you assign to yourself dictates the course of your life. “You never escape the identity that you assign to yourself, ever.” And so come Tripp’s big questions: “Who do you think you are? Where will you look today, for identity?” Referring to the first five verses of Psalm 27, Tripp describes the characteristics of the Lord — the Lord is light; the Lord is salvation; the Lord is stronghold. Then he says, “What I’ve just given you is nasty, dangerous, bad theology — but it’s the theology, I’m convinced, that has infected the Church of Jesus Christ.” (

So, I went to his website to see what his gospel was. I could find nothing that could (even with “the imagination of an over-sensitive nature” to quote what a certain pastor said to me) be called a gospel of sorts, other than Christians having the victory in Christ. But victory over what – he doesn’t really specify! I listened through an Easter message on his site; I thought I would have to get some gospel here! But, no, nothing at all, except a mention of sin at the very beginning which had no apparent connection with the rest of the message. He focuses upon the self-worth of Christians, and would probably be in full agreement with such as Rick Warren who teaches that we should never be negative about our witnessing; we should never say something that could make people feel bad.
Tripp also believes in what can only be described as mystical meditation.

Tripp is a wishy-washy speaker who says a lot without saying anything at all. He might sound good to anyone who wants to be spoon-fed like a baby. However, my recommendation for Christians is to leave him well alone, for then and only then perhaps you might actually start growing as a Christian. His teachings are like poison and his philosophy is straight from the depths of hell. Truly he teaches a doctrine of demons. For further information, please read Paul Tripp – heretic or tare?

And now Open Door has Biblical Counselling advertised on its website. If it is affiliated with Biblical Counselling Australia, then it is likely to be used as a tool for establishing and reinforcing new calvinist doctrines among the church members.

I used to be unconcerned about calvinism apart from a refusal to believe in it, especially its doctrines of limited atonement and unconditional election. But, as I explained in my last post, after researching calvinism in recent years, I have learned that it is a dangerous and insidious heresy that takes over the thinking of Christians, rendering them more like brainwashed cult-members than rationally thinking people. A good friend of ours used to preach at our country church years ago. He was clearly calvinist, yet we thought at the time that his biblical teaching was sound. However, when he was recently challenged concerning how his calvinist views conflicted with the Bible, instead of lovingly “correcting” us (as a reasonable Christian would be expected to do), he merely said that he should have no more to discuss with us on that matter. We haven’t heard back from him since.

I am a logical and practical person, with a desire to serve God wherever He should call. That has led us to leave our little farm in the country years ago and go to other places in Australia, including working with aboriginal people in Alice Springs in central Australia. I’ll look at this aspect of my life next time.

So why did I start this website? Part 1

So why did I start this website? Part 3

So why did I start this website? Part 4

List of all my posts on this site.

If you wish to read 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.