Why are calvinists so unbiblical, uneducated and unscholarly?

Why are calvinists so unbiblical, uneducated and unscholarly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Calvinist heresy using John 3:3

Calvinist heresy using John 3:3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

New calvinist church discipline favours criminals over victims

New calvinist church discipline favours criminals over victims

I have written before concerning the unjust discipline many new calvinist churches hand out via their Biblical Counselling program. When an interpersonal problem arises in the church, one or both sides may seek to discuss it with the one named as Biblical Counsellor. In new calvinist churches, that counsellor may well determine that if the one who commits the crime repents, he may be restored to fellowship again. If the husband is abusing the wife, or having an affair with another woman, she may be asked to explain why she isn’t being more supportive to her husband. In many cases it is the victim who is blamed for not preventing (through some sinful behaviour) the crime from being committed.

You see, in new calvinism, there is an underlying belief that those of the elect of God are not able to commit a sin that would prevent them from going to heaven. New calvinism developed from Sonship Theology which taught that, as God’s children, Christians could sin, knowing that if they were of God’s elect, their God would always provide sufficient grace to reinstall them into fellowship. That is, if they were God’s elect, then they couldn’t do anything that would lose them their assurance of salvation.
If you can never be lost, then no sin you commit can ever change that fact. If you repented of your sin, then new calvinism taught that God had given repentance to you as a gift; thus that sin could not affect your salvation. Repentance was the evidence that God was demonstrating that his grace would overcome your sin. If you repented, it demonstrated that you were one of God’s elect. It was the lack of repentance that demonstrated that you couldn’t be one of God’s elect.

Therefore, no matter who committed the crime or who was the victim, only the elect could be restored to fellowship again. Those who toed the party line with the Biblical Counsellor were generally to be deemed forgiven and recommended to the church leadership for restoration. Those who opposed the party line were deemed to be not suitable for restoration without more counselling to assist them to see the error of their ways. The wife might decide to get divorced from her husband because of child porn and paedophilia, but if the church then restores the husband to fellowship through his “repentance” via the Biblical Counsellor, the church may refuse the wife the right to get divorced. This is what happened in the following case.

Karen Hinkley and Matt Chandler’s Village Church
Karen discovered that her husband was viewing child pornography while they were together on the mission field. There were confessions of pedophile behavior as well. Karen returned home and the state of Texas allowed her an annulment of her marriage.The church put her under discipline and claimed that her ex husband was *walking in repentance* after about a month of counseling. Along with Amy Smith of Watchkeep, we broke this story which became known internationally. The actions of the church were so grievous that eventually Matt Chandler had to apologize to Karen and state that she was certainly justified in seeking a divorce from her pervert husband. The embarrassment and harassment from the church that Karen endured is well documented in our series.

And from Baptist News an article on the same situation.

Man confesses to child porn; church disciplines his wife
By Bob Allen May 29, 2015

A Dallas megachurch has apologized to a wife subjected to church discipline for leaving her husband without permission after learning he is a pedophile.

Elders of The Village Church, a multisite Southern Baptist congregation led by Acts 29 president Matt Chandler, sent a letter to members posted online by blogger Matthew Paul Turner admitting to mishandling of a disciplinary process instituted against former member Karen Hinkley.

Earlier, church leaders said Hinkley violated her membership covenant with Village Church by having her legal marriage to Jordan Root annulled without seeking reconciliation after he confessed to her that he is sexually stimulated by little children and had viewed child pornography throughout their courtship and marriage. Root was not disciplined because he repented and entered counseling, but his access to children was restricted.

Previously Village Church financially supported the couple, who served as missionaries in East Asia with Serving in Mission (SIM) USA until Jordan Root was dismissed for violating the mission organization’s child safety policy. In February Karen Root (who later returned to using her maiden name) notified church leaders she was withdrawing her membership. The elders refused to accept her resignation and put her under church discipline for spurning their attempt at pastoral care.

Hinkley went public May 20 on Watchkeep, a blog written by abuse-survivor advocate Amy Smith, in a statement criticizing the Village Church pastors for “minimization and secrecy” about Root’s offenses and urging them not to assume he has told them the whole truth. Early on church leaders were inclined not to reveal Root’s confession to a number of former employers, churches and families where over the years he had access to children, but informed the church membership after the story was reported on blogs and news sites and was under consideration by the Dallas Morning News.

The incident sparked an Internet debate over the use of church covenants, a practice prevalent among the neo-Calvinist movement popular in evangelical circles including parts of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Village Church covenant includes an agreement “to walk through the steps of marriage reconciliation at The Village Church before pursuing divorce,” ending a marriage, but does not mention annulment, a legal declaration that the marriage wasn’t valid to begin with because it was based on fraud.

The latest communique to “covenant members” at The Village Church defended the membership policy but said in this case the elders “unfortunately allowed our practice to unnecessarily lead us rather than us leading our practice with patience, gentleness and compassion.”

“In receiving more information and considering the way we’ve ministered to Karen specifically, we believe that we owe her an apology,” the letter said.  The elders will move forward with releasing her from membership and will continue their commitment to support her financially through August, the letter said.

Hinkley declined further comment in an email May 29, citing a need for “space and time to step back from the craziness and process everything that has unfolded this week.”
“It’s taken a huge toll on me,” she said.

The elder letters said Chandler will “speak generally about member care and church discipline” in his message this weekend but “will not speak directly to the situation at hand.”

Along with Acts 29, a church-planting network founded by Mark Driscoll, former pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle who resigned amid controversy in 2014, Chandler is active in the Gospel Coalition, a network of Reformed churches. The Gospel Coalition Council includes prominent Southern Baptist Convention leaders such as Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Mark Dever, senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.; Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; and Russell Moore, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

A former Gospel Coalition Council member, C.J. Mahaney, stepped down amid accusations that he knew about abuse allegations in Sovereign Grace Ministries, another Calvinist church-planting network that he co-founded. A lawsuit naming Mahaney described in media as the biggest evangelical abuse scandal to date was dismissed due to statutes of limitation.

Clearly it is more important in new calvinist churches to have people restored to the church party line than to seek justice for the victims! Those restored may continue to be declared the elect of God (because the calvinist God wouldn’t have provided repentance and restoring grace to any non-elect), and those who refuse to toe the party line may be declared to be not the elect of God (because if they had been of the calvinist God’s elect, he would have provided repentance and restoring grace to them). Thus in new calvinist churches, a person may be declared elect as long as he/she agrees to toe the party line of discipline as set out by the church (often according to the recommendations of the Biblical Counsellor. In this way so often the victim ends up being effectively declared the criminal!

This is not a group of loving Christians here; it is a picture of dictatorship control. You will do what the church rules as necessary, regardless, it seems, of whether or not real justice has been administered. And love hasn’t just been given a back seat here; it has been kicked out the door! Nor do you decide whether or not you will believe; the church decides your decision for you, and what it decides is to be considered the proper dispensation of the grace of the calvinist God. In this way the new calvinist church may dictate to you whether or not you may be accepted into heaven. Those it restores will go to heaven, while those they reject as unrepentant are to be condemned to hell as unforgiven, unrestored and therefore non-elect sinners.

For further reading follow these links

Biblical Counselling as an Aid to Control the Church

New calvinist church counselling, discipline and control

Biblical Counselling & new calvinism today

New calvinism is Biblical Counselling

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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

Typical calvinist behaviour

Typical calvinist behaviour

For about 5 weeks since the last cowardly hacks occurred on my website, I haven’t put anything new online. Logically I blamed militant calvinists for their use of abusive websites to attack my website; in particular, this includes some that I identified as scam and adult content websites. After all, who else had any incentive to attempt to crash my site? And after my last post accusing those militant calvinists of such, things went very quiet, in fact, much quieter than they have been for quite a while.

However, just 2 days ago I reviewed and re-presented my Calvinisms post of 2 months ago. You see, it was not long after it was first posted that our website was hit with hundreds of attacks spanning a week or more. They didn’t succeed and I went on to post that this could only be seen as militant calvinists who couldn’t defend their heresies any other way. As I said then, violence is the last resort (or refuge) of the incompetent. It’s obvious now that calvinists are taking out their anger on the website because they have no logical means by which they may refute its claims about their lies. And the efforts to attack have increased over 24 hours later, clear evidence of their impotent rage. Biblical people would use the Bible to make their case, but not these incompetents; the violence indeed proves these fools to be more and more incompetent as time goes by! The more they give in to their anger, the more they prove their teachings to be a lie! Even if they crash this site, it will still only prove their incompetence further; and the more encouragement to me to continue to write about their heresies. With every attack they are effectively admitting that they have lost! To God be the glory, great things He hath done!

In the past some calvinists have tried to present their case in Comments on our website, but in spite of accusing me of lack of discernment, misrepresentation, being a problem, not understanding, and so on, not one single one has ever stated exactly what it is that demonstrates my alleged lack of discernment or misrepresentation, or lack of scriptural understanding etc. And without such documentation, every one of their comments can be relegated to the bin as merely nothing more than unqualified opinions. I have, however, printed any genuine comment (including the latest confused opinions of a calvinist), even when I’ve totally disagreed with their statements. (And added my replies to each, of course – that is my right, it being my website, not theirs!)

But, some might have said that it wasn’t necessarily calvinists trying to crash the site. However, as a qualified statistician, I search for patterns in the behaviour of others around me. (It’s what statisticians do: look for patterns in an otherwise random world!) And so, 2 days before first publishing this post, I re-presented my Calvinisms post to see what would happen. The next day a comment came in telling me (unsurprisingly) that I lacked discernment and that I was misrepresenting people. (It seems to be the standard reply for calvinists who cannot otherwise work out how to oppose me!) And, as is common to calvinist opposition, no supporting evidence was presented to back up such claims, leading to me state that he was merely offering unqualified opinions and that as such I could not take him seriously. I also noted that he seemed, like other calvinists, to dislike using the Bible to support any of his claims. (This may be read on our Comments page dated 16th May 2019. I also intend writing a post on this comment soon, in order to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of calvinist defences.)

Then, after putting what I would term a cutting reply to his uneducated comment, the site was once more attacked by IP addresses that have generally been already reported many times for their abusive activity in the past. That there is a pattern to all these events has been made much clearer by the events of the past 2 days. The most logical conclusion by far is that these responses have been triggered by my opposition to calvinist heresy. After all, given the patterns observed, it has to be people who are upset by what I am writing (and that really is only calvinists!) or else those involved against this website must be raving lunatics without any logical reasoning behind anything they do. And, if calvinists are behind this, then why not argue their case using the Bible alone (remember how the calvinists love to claim “sola scriptura” – the Bible alone?). I have often challenged those who disagree with me to present a logical statement in their defence “sola scriptura” but not one has seriously attempted using the Bible as their defence. Not one! It does seem as if calvinists do not like sola scriptura!

It is interesting to note that the Calvinisms document was posted not long before each of the last 2 efforts to hack into the website. Therefore there must be something about this document that the calvinists hate. And, yes, it does expose as lies 10 of their cherished teachings, such as (a) the calvinist God has chosen from the beginning who will go to heaven; the rest will go to hell without any option to want to go to heaven, and no-one may choose which list he is on, ever, (b) calvinism teaches universalist salvation, (c) the calvinist God cannot be eternal, (d) calvinism does not teach any assurance of salvation for their elect, (e) the calvinist God is a dictator, and (f) the calvinist God is the only wilful sinner in the universe. If anyone disagrees with anything I’ve written on this post, then feel free to comment (using the Bible alone as your defence, of course).

Finally, I’ll note that, like all cults, if they cannot convince you of their heresies, then their ultimate reaction to your opposition is to give you the silent treatment. Like the Jehovah Witnesses who door-knock all the other houses in our street but don’t come to our door now because we tend to say things that their masters haven’t taught them how to answer. Instead they drop a pamphlet in our letterbox and go away as quickly as they can before we catch them. Calvinists do exactly the same. If they cannot confuse you with their mis-use of biblical terminology, or bully you because they’ve been to Bible school or are more spiritual than you, if they cannot convince you by quoting their calvinist heroes such as MacArthur, Sproul, Pink, Edwards, Piper, etc (they tend to not know much about what Calvin taught, though), if they cannot get away with declaring their inconsistencies as mysteries hid within the secret counsels of God, then they’ll give you the final treatment: they’ll not talk about it with you again. That is, they will give you the silent treatment. In actual fact, this is really because they have realised that they cannot defeat you using any of the deceptive means at their disposal.  And, like all cults, from this time on they will avoid you after that because they would be embarrassed by your knowledge and understanding if they continued any further. Their masters haven’t taught them how to answer such truths!

Calvinists will give the silent treatment to anyone whom they cannot overcome in debate of any shape or form. The silent treatment is actually their admission of defeat, a defeat that calvinists never want to have to admit. But if you demand that all their defence be from the Bible alone (sola scriptura) then this cramps their style, especially if you know the Bible well enough to debate their heresies from the Bible alone. They then fear that you might show them up in front of others so, like the cowards that all bullies are, they then just turn away and avoid having to demonstrate their lack of biblical understanding in front of others whom they might be trying to surreptitiously convert to calvinism.

So, if you have been avoided by calvinists, if they have refused to discuss serious biblical matters with you, if they have given you the silent treatment, then you may know that you have won; they have been unable to refute your statements. The silent treatment is clearly reserved for those whom they know they can never convert to their heresies. If you are given the silent treatment and you see these people trying to discuss serious matters with younger or more impressionable Christians, then join the conversation, find out what is being discussed, and give the younger Christian some moral support to stand up to these bullies. Calvinists love to work on individuals; like all bullies they do not like effective opposition, and individuals or small groups are best for such bullying. Most of all they hate interfering Christians who know their Bible well who might show the calvinists up for the deceiving liars that they are. Test all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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



(And the challenge to calvinists, as always, is to prove me wrong, or accept what I say. So far the silence from calvinists has been deafening. They will tell me I’m wrong but completely fail to properly support their debate in any way.)

1/. The calvinist gospel in a nutshell.

The calvinist gospel is very simple to explain. The calvinist God has chosen (from the beginning) a small group (his elect) for heaven and the rest (most of the world) for eternal condemnation. Where you go when you die was determined by the calvinist God from the beginning of time without any regard to anything you might do, whether good or bad. You have no choice in the matter and can do nothing to influence the calvinist God. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell. You are either going to heaven or you’re going to hell; one or the other is your destiny and you will go where the calvinist God tells you to go. And he decided who would be on each list from the beginning; you literally have no say in the matter! Like a dictator (see point 9 below), the calvinist God’s will is the only will in the universe.

The calvinist Jesus only died for the sins of the ones chosen to go to heaven. Not one of the rest can ever be forgiven even if they wanted to be, for no-one died for any of their sins. The calvinist God didn’t intend saving them. The biblical gospel is irrelevant to those heading to hell for they can never be forgiven anyway, ever. And the chosen ones of God (the elect) can only respond to the biblical gospel of faith in Christ after they have been born again (regenerated). Thus, according to calvinist teaching, the biblical gospel cannot save any of those chosen to go to hell, and can only save those chosen for heaven after they have been born again.

2/. Calvinists teach universal salvation.

Calvinists love to teach that, according to John 6:44, all whom the Father calls (draws) will come in faith and go to heaven. But John 12:32 says that Jesus drew all (all mankind) to Himself on the cross, which means that all may come if they choose to do so, yet many do not come. Therefore, either all must come in faith (which they don’t), or there must be free will to resist the calling and drawing of God. Calvinists claim that John 6:44 proves their unconditional election, saying that all whom God draws will come in faith, yet that can only be true if man has no free will to resist God’s drawing. Also, if all are drawn, then all must come if there is no free will. So, without free will, calvinists have locked themselves into a universalist salvation logic. Please think carefully on this!

3/. Calvinists teach that God’s elect have eternal life before they can come to Christ to receive eternal life.

Calvinists teach that we must be born again with life from the Holy Spirit before we may respond to God in any way. Then why is there any need to come to Christ for eternal life if they already have eternal life?
John 5:39-4039Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Why bother coming for life if you already have life before you can come?

4/. The calvinist God cannot be eternal.

Calvinists love to mock those who teach (quite correctly, of course) that God uses foreknowledge to determine His elect. (The Bible does teach clearly that God’s elect people are chosen according to His foreknowledge of future decisions as per 1 Peter 1:2aElect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Thus it is an election conditional upon God’s foreknowledge.) Calvinists picture this foreknowledge as God peering (or looking) through the corridors of time (or history) in order to see the future which they picture as being quite distant. But, if God is eternal, He has no need to peer through any corridors of time. The God of the Bible is outside time, not bound by time in any way. Any who picture God as peering through corridors of time are depicting their God to be merely temporal, bound by time, not eternal.

Because God is eternal, He can see the end at the same time as the beginning. God is the I AM, as also is Jesus; Before Abraham was, I AM. (John 8:58). God doesn’t just know what is going to happen in the future; He is already in the future, and the past, and the present, all simultaneously. In fact, in the same way that God exists at all places in the universe simultaneously, God exists at all points along the timeline from the beginning of time to the end of time, all simultaneously. This is the definition of eternalness: that one who is eternal must not be bound nor limited by time in any way or at any time. Even when Jesus came to earth and people therefore say He existed at a particular point in time, He also made it clear that this was not so, that He in fact existed before Abraham was born simultaneously with His time on earth as a man. Thus, “before Abraham was, I AM”.

Therefore God can make promises that will come to pass because he can see them come to pass at the same time that He promises them. And God, from the beginning of time, can observe all future decisions made by man throughout all time, at all times, simultaneously. Think about this carefully!

Calvin said it was futile (vain) to discuss God’s foreknowledge (or prescience) because he knew all things merely because he had already decreed everything. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience (= foreknowledge), while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment. (Institutes, Book III Chapter 23 Section 6)

And Boettner in “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” (Page 30) says: Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined. That is, unless the calvinist God predetermines future events, then he cannot know those future events until they happen. Clearly Boettner’s God isn’t eternal! It seems that calvinists deny foreknowledge because their God is unable to foreknow things unless he has already decreed that they should happen!

This is at the very least making mockery of the God of the Bible, for they make it impossible for Him to know the future except by peering through the corridors of time, or decreeing everything totally from the beginning. Such a God is not eternal but temporal; that is, bound by time.

5/. Calvinist salvation is not a gift of God.

While the Bible says clearly that salvation is a gift of God, calvinists teach that if you choose to receive this gift, then that is a work of your salvation. However, a gift is only a gift if it is willingly received (that is, an act of the will) or else it becomes a requirement or an imposition. The calvinist God requires that those whom he has chosen must receive the “gift” (they cannot refuse it) and those whom he has not chosen for salvation cannot receive the “gift”. Thus the calvinist God imposes his “gift” upon a select group of people who are not permitted to refuse it. Thus the imposed calvinist salvation cannot be defined as a gift because gifts must be willingly received, and shouldn’t be imposed upon people without any option to refuse.

6/. Calvinists teach that if we willingly receive this gift of salvation, then that makes the gift imperfect.

However, receiving a gift can never alter the intrinsic value of that gift. A gift must be fully paid for before it may be offered as a gift. Just the receiving of a gift can never define that gift to be imperfect. This is illogical. However, calvinists do illogically teach that if we decide to accept the gift of salvation offered by God, then that is a work of that salvation and thus renders the salvation imperfect. Of course, if that “gift” is really an imposition (that is, thrust upon us without any choice), then we have no say in the matter, which is really what calvinism teaches anyway. They teach that God chooses who goes to heaven, and therefore chooses who goes to hell. You have no say in the matter, ever. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell, after all. If you are chosen for heaven, the calvinist God will impose salvation upon you. If you are not chosen for heaven (that is, most of the world), then the calvinist God has not provided any salvation options for you at all.

7/. The calvinist unconditional election is really a conditional election.

If the calvinist election is truly unconditional (as they try to claim), then why are there no converts among the heathen until the missionaries get there with the gospel? An unconditional election would not rely upon the preaching of the gospel. And why is there a greater percentage of calvinists among white Caucasians than any other racial group? That is, calvinism is most likely to be found among those who are most likely to hear the gospel preached.

Calvinists will then say that it is the gospel which the calvinist God uses to draw his people to himself, yet conveniently ignore the fact that this then imposes a condition, that the gospel must be preached in order to be chosen as God’s elect. But, how may the gospel preaching draw them if they cannot respond to God (and his gospel) until after they have been drawn to God and regenerated? Of course, the calvinist gospel is whether or not you have been chosen for heaven; this is all that counts in their teaching, and the biblical gospel of faith in Christ can only happen after you have been born again.

8/. Calvinism does not teach assurance of salvation.

Calvinists can never be sure they have been chosen by their God until the day they die. Calvinists teach the perseverance of the saints (or the elect), but can only be assured of salvation if they persevere to the end. As they say, it is not the words we say but the life we live that determines our entry into heaven. If your works fall away before the end, then they teach that you were never saved in the first place. Even Calvin taught that God gave a temporary faith to some, an inferior operation of the Spirit (Institutes Bk 3, Ch 2, Section 11). Such people could think they were saved, and others around them could also think they were saved, and yet the calvinist God never chose them for heaven. So a calvinist who thinks he is heading for heaven may actually fall away before the end, and then he is to be considered unsaved, in fact, never saved in the first place.

9/. The calvinist God is a dictator

The calvinists love to claim how sovereign their God is, yet they depict a God far from sovereign. Sovereignty has more to do with right to rule, while a dictatorship has more to do with rule by might. Sovereignty generally exhibits power and authority over a nation by right of position or descent, or by common vote, or by being chosen for the task. That which uses force to demand power and authority rarely, if ever, exhibits sovereignty of rule, especially if the ruler, being fearful of opposition, considers it necessary to continue to rule by might rather than by right.

A sovereign ruler may feel comfortable with permitting basic personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, while a dictator is so afraid of an uprising against him that he quells all forms of personal freedom, effectively forbidding his subjects to demonstrate a will that is not totally in line with his own will. It is the dictatorship that forbids the free will in its subjects. In a dictatorship, only one will is permitted: the will of the ruler (which will be demanded by force if necessary). In a dictatorship, no-one has the freedom to choose whom they wish to serve. If anyone does demand freedom to choose, he is likely to quietly or otherwise “disappear”. Ask yourselves: why does the calvinist God refuse anyone the free will to choose this day whom they will serve.

But the God of the Bible is not a dictator, for He permits personal freedoms including the freedom to choose whom they will serve. Listen to Tozer’s wisdom here.
Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so. (“Knowledge of the Holy”, P 76)

And if all free will choices, both good and bad, are to be judged one day, then God’s sovereignty is total. A doctrine of no free will for man merely reduces absolutely sovereign God to a fearful dictator.

10/. The calvinist God is the only willful sinner in the universe.

This is a shocking heresy against holy God! But calvinists cannot deny that they clearly teach that their God’s will is the only will permitted in the whole universe. No other independent will may be permitted! Thus the calvinist God is the only one who can take responsibility for all sin and evil in the whole universe! Calvin said: 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”, Page 179) MacArthur wrote: Ultimately, we must concede that sin is something God meant to happen. He planned for it, ordained it – or, in the words of the Westminster Confession, He decreed it. (“The Vanishing Conscience & Hard to Believe” Page 113)

In fact, all calvinists, when forced to tell the plain truth, must confess that their God decreed (ordained, authored, created) all sin, all evil. They teach that man is unable to choose between good and evil, and therefore the calvinist God chooses for all mankind whether they will be good or evil. This is the calvinist gospel in a nutshell, after all: that the calvinist God has chosen to send a small group to heaven and therefore has chosen to send the rest to hell. Man has absolutely no say in the matter because the calvinist God has given man no free will to choose between good and evil. The calvinist God therefore chooses some to be good (and go to heaven) and the rest he has chosen to be evil (and go to hell). You get no say in the matter because the calvinist God’s will is the only will permitted in the universe.

For further information, please go to Calvinists teach that their God is the only wilful sinner in the universe!

If you have any questions or comments about this information, please feel free to say it or give advice, by using the Contact page. Genuine comments will be recorded on the Comments page.

List of all my posts on this site.

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

Sermons and Messages

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